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 main page.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
The statement of a Russian ethnographer Natalia Volkova about the Azerbaijani origin of the dance was removed from the article. The user who removed this information claims that this source is WP:SPS published source and the statement is exceptional claim. I am not agree with that point. First, this is not WP:SPS source, because it was not published by Volkova or affilated organisation. It is a collection of multiple articles on the ethnographic journal published by Encyclopedia publisher with its own editor. Natalia Volkova is a famous Russian ethnographer specialized on the ethnography of the Caucasus. And even if we consider this publication as WP:SPS, this rule says that "self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications". Volkova is a subject-matter expert, were published in academic publications, worked at the Institute of Anthropology and Ethnography. This statement is not exceptional claim because this is not surprising or apparently important claim and doesn't contradicts by the prevailing view. On the other hand we have multiple reliable sources focused on the topic of Uzundara (Big Soviet Encyclopedia, Musical Encyclopedia, article about this dance in Tkachenko's book, Big Encyclopaedical Dictionary) that determines the dance only as an Azerbaijani dance that makes the statement of Volkova more logical. My point is to add this statement of Volkova back to the article to show that not only Azerbaijani scholars say that the dance have an Azerbaijani origin. At least she is more reliable than authors who claim that the dance was brought from Ottoman empire.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Act as a mediator, review the sources provided and try to resolve the dispute. Unfortunalely last time the dispute was not resolved due to Arbitration Enforcement case and it was noted there that after the Arbitration Enforcement case is closed, if any surviving editors are interested in assistance, a new thread can be filed here[1]. I am still interested in assistance.
Summary of dispute by ZaniGiovanni
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Over the course of a very lengthy talk page discussion, several editors have tried to explain to Interfase why explicitly classifying this dance as "Azeri in origin" is WP:TEND editing. For starters, there is already an established consensus regarding the lead which was agreed upon back in September 2020. Recently, Interfase has been hellbent on strictly classifying this dance, as a dance of "Azeri origin". However, the user has time and time again failed to provide a single credible source which outright states that this historic Caucasian dance is undeniably Azeri- with no other possibility of it originating elsewhere. The user has flip flopped their own arguments, first stating that the dance may have possibly originated among Armenian's, then proceeding to deny any connection of the dance to the Armenian people/culture. Several users have provided 3rd party WP:RS highlighting the role of the dance in ancient Armenian culture/tradition and its likely origin. Another editor added a source stating that the dance could have been brought to the Caucasus by Armenians fleeing the Ottoman Empire, Interfase was quick to remove that. Interfase has ignored the validity of these sources completely. I raised concern in the talk page that the user is discrediting all other sources while favoring their single source (which itself states the dance originated in the loosely defined Nagorno-Karabakh region, not Azerbaijan proper). I pleaded with the user to slow down and take time and read all the sources- perhaps to no avail. Which brings me to my final point, Nagorno-Karabakh is neither Armenian or Azeri. The territory has "transferred hands"/been invaded and ruled over by many peoples over hundreds of years. Most of the academic sources confirm that this dance originated somewhere in Nagorno-Karabakh and the article already clearly makes note of that. However, Interfase (almost obsessively) seeks to alter the place of origin to Azerbaijan proper. The current lead states the importance of the dance to the entire region and the peoples of the Caucasus (Armenians, Azeris, and Georgians). Its neutral, fair, and balanced. I believe, Interfase has been displaying favoritism towards their source, while disregarding all other credible sources. Altering the lead/article to suite a specific WP:POV, while favoring a single source to attain WP:UNDUE is unacceptable. I believe the status quo of the article should be maintained in its current form. I trust the fair judgment of the Admins in this matter. Regards, Archives908 (talk) 15:54, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Maidyouneed
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Uzundara discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
As I know user is automatically notified when you link its username on the page. I have linked all involved users on this page. --Interfase (talk) 11:05, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
The attention of the editors is called to the ground rules. Please read and comply. Failure to comply with the rules will not be excused. Be civil and concise. Overly long statements often do not convey useful information. I am not an expert on the subject matter (Eurasian dance), and I expect that the editors will provide me with the knowledge to facilitate resolving the dispute. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion except in the space provided for the purpose. Each editor is asked for a one-paragraph statement on what they either want changed in the article and why, or what they want left unchanged and why. Comment on content, not contributors. One additional paragraph may be for any other discussion or questions about this dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:28, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
First statements on Uzundara by editors
The current version of the article should remain as is. Simply put, the dance likely originated in the region of Nagorno-Karabakh and is culturally significant to most ethnic groups in the region today (Armenians, Azeri's, Georgians). The current wording used is neutral and inclusive of that fact. Nagorno-Karabakh is neither Armenian or Azeri, as the region has come under the rule/influence of Armenians, Russians, Turks, Romans, Persians, etc. Hence, to classify this dance solely as "Azeri", based on one non-academic source, is WP:TEND. Regards, Archives908 (talk) 15:45, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
You did not understand my point. I did not request to "classify this dance solely as "Azeri"", however most focused on topic of Uzundara reliable sources classify this dance solely as "Azerbaijani dance". I requested to add the statement of famous Russian ethnographer Natalia Volkova about the origin of the dance. That's it. --Interfase (talk) 07:36, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Statement by ZaniGiovanni
I have nothing else to add. This DRN was opened to discuss and possibly add an unreliable publication source. I stand by what I said in my opening summary. No reliable source states "Azerbaijani origin", which was the discussion we had in the talk and which Interfase linked in their DRN report. When it comes to "Armenian/Azerbaijani dance" (which I was told multiple times is different from origin, as origin can be one, but dance can be shared by multiple cultures/people), we have sources for both and the article currently represents them neutrally. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 12:39, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Statement by Interfase
My position is simple. I think that we should add the statement of Natalia Volkova about the origin of the dance. Currently it is stated that the Azeri origination of the dance is claimed by Azerbaijanis. Volkova is not Azerbaijani scholar and she states that the dance has an Azerbaijani origin. She is famous Russian ethnographer specialised on the ethnography of Caucasus. She is reliable subject-matter expert published in reliable ethnographic journal. As per Wikipedia guidelines we can use this source in article. There is also the statement of less reliable authors from Viltis magazine that the dance was brought from Ottoman empire by Armenians. As per WP:WEIGHT the statement of more reliable Volkova also should be added. Interfase (talk) 17:45, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Second statement on Uzundara by moderator
There appears to be a rough consensus against including the statement by Natalia Volkova. The filing editor can accept that they are in the minority and leave the article as is, or they can propose a compromise, or they can request a Request for Comments. If they propose a compromise, the other editors may say that the existing text is already neutral and that compromise is not needed, but they have the right to propose a compromise. If they request a Request for Comments, which is also their right, it is likely to leave the article as is. The next step is up to the filing editor. If there is no next step proposed within 24 hours, this case will be closed as consensus against the filing editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:44, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Who says Volkova is a "subject-matter expert", what RS classifies her as such? All I see is her being published by non RS client serving Global Vision Publishing House publication, we cannot possibly use such source for serious claims like origination of something, especially in contentious areas. That would be the definition of WP:UNDUE. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 18:58, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Who says Volkova is a "subject-matter expert" - e. g. article about Volkova at the Etnograficheskoe Obozrenie. It says that Volkova, I am quoting, is one of the largest researchers of the culture and life of the peoples of the Caucasus, the author of outstanding works that have already become classics of historical and ethnographic Caucasian studies.
All I see is her being published by non RS client - you can see a large number of her academic publications here[2]. Even WP:SPS says that "self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications". It was already mentioned that Volkova is such established subject-matter expert.
for serious claims like origination of something - claim about the Azerbaijani origin of the dance is not a "serious claim" because all focused on topic sources classify the dance only as Azerbaijani. On the other hand the claim about the Ottoman empire origin is serious claim, but is is used at the article. As per WP:UNDUE we shall add the statement of Volkova as well. --Interfase (talk) 19:58, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Who mentioned WP:SPS here? I'm specifically saying that Volkova isn't published by a reliable publication. Global Vision Publishing House isn't an RS publication, and you need one per criteria of WP:SOURCEDEF, especially for serious claims such as origin of something.
all focused on topic sources classify the dance only as Azerbaijani. – No they do not. Remember dance and origin are completely different things, you were the one telling me that relentlessly [3]. Sources are present for the dance being both Arm and Az, and Viltis (magazine) which is a third party publication and actually is focused on dances and music, see also its founder, Vytautas Beliajus, states that the dance may be brought from Ottoman Empire Armenians to the region. That isn't a serious claim, that isn't an origin claim, saying something can be brought from another Empire doesn't mean stating its origin. It's also properly attributed like the Azeri scholar claims. And please stay on topic, this whole discussion was about Volkova and why you want to add her despite her being published by random non RS publication, whose only goal seems to be serving its clients. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 20:11, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Who mentioned WP:SPS here - you mentioned WP:SPS at a talk page.
Volkova isn't published by a reliable publication - Actually she published by a reliable publication. "Encyclopaedic Ethnography of Middle-East and Central Asia" journal is focused on ethnography of Middle-East and Central Asia. And Volkova is more reliable than the authors from Viltis. Who are they btw?
No they do not - Yes, they do. The articles focused particullary on this dance at Big Soviet Encyclopedia, Musical Encyclopedia, in Tkachenko's book, Big Encyclopaedical Dictionary are focused on topic sources and they classify the dance only as Azerbaijani. For that reason the claim about its Azerbaijani origin should not be considered as a "serious" claim. Interfase (talk) 20:22, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
I said who mentioned SPS here? You're replying to imaginary text. I'm specifically saying Global Vision Publishing House publication isn't RS, what is your argument? Please stop engaging in whataboutisms and justify the inclusion of Volkova. She isn't published by RS publisher, random "pay to publish" client serving publications can't be used for serious claims. And Yes, origin is a serious claim, as the sources you mention and others classify the dance both Azeri and Armenian, but dance as you said yourself "can be shared between cultures", while origin "can only be one". If you want to add Az origin claim, overwriting the neutrally present Karabakh one which is supported by sources including ones in your list, then present a good quality source which you still failed to do. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 20:32, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Who said that I want overwrite "the neutrally present Karabakh"? I just want to add the statement of established subject-matter expert Natalia Volkova about the origin of the dance. Having another statement about the Ottoman empire by less reliable authors we need to add the statement of Volkova as well from focused on ethnography source. There is no any whataboutism, just adherence to WP:WEIGHT. And yes the claim about the Azerbaijani origin is not a serious claim. I have already explained why. If she said that the dance has an American or French origin this would be a serious claim. Interfase (talk) 20:54, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
I agree with ZaniGiovanni. This conversation has gone on long enough and editors keep repeating the same concerns, which Interfase continues to bypass. The source is not academic, not reliable. The user has failed to provide any other WP:RS to back up the claim. The current version of the article is fair, balanced, and well sourced. The dance likely originated in the region of Nagorno-Karabakh, well before the modern day borders of Azerbaijan proper had been defined/recognized. The article places the likely origin within the correct region already, that being Nagorno-Karabakh (a culturally pluralistic and distinct region). May I remind everyone, that the region itself has been under the influence/control of various cultures/peoples over time. That is why the dance is culturally significant to so many groups in the region today, not just Azeri's. The proposal brought forth is unsubstantiated and in my opinion, is reckless to say the least. Regards, Archives908 (talk) 13:33, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Surface gravity
Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Closed as not correctly discussed. There has been no discussion on the article talk page. While discussion on a user talk page is useful, it is not always a substitute for discussion on the article talk page. There are various reasons why discussion should be on the article talk page. One is because third editors may be watching. Another is so that, if the discussion is archived, a reader knows what archive to look in for the discussion. Discuss at the article talk page, Talk:Surface gravity. And algebra is not a primary school subject. If discussion at the article talk page is inconclusive and lengthy, after at least a few days, a new case can be filed. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:26, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
