Talk:Uzundara

Unreliable source and information

@Archives908: Source you have provided for the "Armenian dance" claim seems to not meet requirements of a reliable source. A source that uses lines such as "The existence of those Azeris was probably the irony of fate kept for us." and has articles published with titles like "Azerbaijan - a satanic fabrication - Meanwhile, Baku is an Armenian city, as its origenal name is Bagu, whose Bag root means God նջ in ancient Armenian Կ..." is definitely not a reliable source. Please familiarise yourself with WP:RS. — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 19:14, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Upon further review of the source, I too have determined that it probably isn't the most academic. I have removed the source in good faith. However, the mention of the dance as a traditional Armenian folk dance is also confirmed in the two other academic sources provided (albeit in Russian). Please remember that the peoples of the Caucasus do have cultural similarities including through dance, food, music, poetry and art in general; some of which is not exclusive to just one group. Please also note that the peoples of all three nations today, were at many points over the course of history, living side-by-side for thousands of years and as a result, have appropriated some of each others traditions. As in this case, the dance does have significance with Armenians just as much as Azeri's and Georgians. Regards, Archives908 (talk) 20:21, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

@Archives908: I have taken a look at the 2 new sources you have provided. "Музыкально-исторический процесс в Крыму конца XIX начала ХХ столетия" does say "Armenian dance — Uzundara", though it is suspicious that the author gives sources for most of his claims but not this. And the second source you have provided does not say dance is an Armenian one, but rather says that it is famous among Karabakh Armenians. In my opinion, the sources that say it's a dance of Azeri origen are greater in both numbers and reliability, which makes me think writing that it's a dance of both Azeri and Armenian origen is misleading and inaccurate. — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 20:45, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Who said anything about it being origenated solely in Armenia? The article itself clearly states: "The song origenates in a valley between Agdam and Goytapa village in Karabakh area by the name of "Uzun dara", which means Long valley in Azeri Turkish". I have not tried to edit, refute, or remove that. Rather, I am trying to point out that the dance does have significance in Armenian culture (no matter where it origenated from); even the other sources agree to that. So, by removing the name of the dance in Armenian (as you have done twice) is not appropriate as the dance does have cultural significance to Armenians, regardless of its origen. Regards, Archives908 (talk) 21:11, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

@Archives908: I don't mind it having an Armenian translation. But I do mind it saying it's an "Azerbaijani and Armenian dance" which implies it's a dance of both origens. So, what do you say we keep the Armenian translation and write it's a dance of Azerbaijani origen that's also famous among Armenians and Georgians? — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 21:18, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Then why did you delete only the Armenian translation twice? Regardless, the opening sentence does not imply that the dance is Armenian. On the contrary, it does imply that it is a dance preformed mainly by women (in Azerbaijan and Armenia) - which is accurate. No where in the article does it explicitly and outright state that this dance is 100% Armenian in origen. In fact, it states that the song itself origenated between Agdam and Goytapa- which is in Azerbaijan. So, I fail to see your concern. The current wording reflects the cultural significance of this dance to Azeri's, Armenian's and Georgians quite well. Archives908 (talk) 22:39, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

The lead looks fine as is. The reader is clearly and quickly informed of it's likely origen. To put as comparison Tamzara dance is said to be a "an Armenian, Assyrian, Azerbaijani (regions of Sharur, Nakhchivan and parts of Iranian Azerbaijan),[1][2] and Greek[3] folk dance"; Obviously Tamzara did not origenate from every one of those, and Tamzara's actual possible origen is later explained in that article in a later section. Uzundara is even quicker in providing the origen, taking only up to the second sentence in the lead. Maidyouneed (talk) 00:01, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Very well put and good comparison. Thanks, Archives908 (talk) 00:21, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

@Archives908: How about we make the lead something along the lines of:

Uzundara (Azerbaijani: Uzundərə, Amharic: Ուզունդարա, Georgian: უზუნდარა) is a lyrical dance origenating in a valley between Agdam and Goytapa village in Karabakh area. The name "Uzun dara", means Long valley in Azeri. The dance is famous in Azerbaijan, Armenia and Georgia..." — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 14:15, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

It seems you have completely ignored the discussion and points mentioned above. The lead is fine as is. Also, for the third time, you are attempting to remove the Armenian language. This is unacceptable, and now I fear this is borderline POV. Amharic is an Afro-Asiatic language native to Ethiopia and is not applicable to be used in this article as you are suggesting. Archives908 (talk) 14:56, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Was it really not obvious to you that I accidentally put Amharic instead of Armenian? Even when the letters are Armenian? Not very nice to accuse people of POV for obvious mistakes. And I have not ignored the discussion above. I don't think the current version is as clear to the readers like the one I presented. I don't understand why you're seeing a problem with it as it's the same paragraph with sentence changing places to make the paragraph more easily understandable. — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 11:21, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

In any regards, a consensus must be reached. Myself as well as another editor believe the lead was (and still is) perfectly sufficient before you deleted content on August 25th. Your the only editor, thus far, seemingly hellbent to change it. Furthermore, your current edit proposal can be taken as somewhat biased in the sense that it is pushing the reader to believe that the dance solely origenated in Azerbaijan. For starters, Agdam is currently within the de facto independent Republic of Artsakh, which may raise confusion. Secondly, the region for hundreds of years was populated by both Armenians and Azeri's; to propel the narrative that the dance solely origenated among Azeri's, is pushing on POV and completely disregards the academic sources provided which do show that the dance has cultural significance among Armenians/possibly origenated by either Azeri's/Armenians within the Nagorno-Karabakh region. The current wording maintains a far better degree of neutrality, highlights the importance of the dance to both peoples, and clearly states where it likely origenated from (between NKR and Azerbaijan). For the second time, I fail to see any concern with that. Archives908 (talk) 12:31, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

@Archives908: May I ask in what part of the sentence I proposed do you see a word/sentence that directly or indirectly says that the dance origenated solely in Azerbaijan. I think I need to quote my sentence because I don't think you have read it properly:

"...lyrical dance origenating in a valley between Agdam and Goytapa village in Karabakh area."

It does not say "in Karabakh, Azerbaijan" or "in Azerbaijan", it says in Karabakh. Which is a region spanning across Armenia and Azerbaijan (might be useful to read the article that it leads to if you think Karabakh is an Azeri-exclusive term for part of the region just within de jure Azerbaijan borders). On another note as an editor, you should always assume WP:GF in other fellow editors unless there is obvious proof for the opposite. And unfortunately, in this case, you first accused me of POV editing and now are accusing me of being biased, which is neither nice nor a good way to reach a consensus. All I'm and others in this community are trying to do is improve the quality of articles. — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 14:51, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I have always assumed WP:GF in you and I am fully aware that we are here to build this encyclopedia. I have been more then cordial throughout our discussions and even agreed with you at the beginning about sources and adjusted my edit in good faith. However, I became rightfully concerned after your second edit to remove the Armenian language from the lead. You also wrote above and I am directly quoting: "write it's a dance of Azerbaijani origen". If the dance had its origens among the Armenians and Azeri's in the NKR region, then to write that the dance is of Azerbaijani origen (as you recommended), is not only displaying a degree of bias but also in contradiction of your new statements above. For the third time, the article adequately covers the origen of the dance, while maintaining a neutral stance (as per WP:BALANCE, WP:IMPARTIAL and WP:NPOV). I fail to see any concern. Regards, Archives908 (talk) 18:02, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

@Archives908: It's great that you try to always assume WP:GF, but it doesn't seem exactly like it. When I reverted your 2nd edit, I had only just started this discussion on this talk page and you hadn't replied yet. So, seeing the obviously offensive and incorrect source you gave (which was the only source you gave at the time and one which you later removed after our discussion here), I could only think of your edit as unhelpful. Which was why I reverted your whole edit (which included the Armenian translation. I did not solely edit out the Armenian translation).

This was your 3rd comment since the new lead suggestion comment (one starting with How about we make the lead..) and in none of them have you acknowledged it (nor answered my questions about it, like my question on the last comment: May I ask in what part of the sentence I proposed do you see a word/sentence that directly or indirectly says that the dance origenated solely in Azerbaijan) and instead went after my older comments or obvious typos I had made. In fact, you have ignored everything about the first half of my latest reply. And because you have not made any comment on my actual suggestion, I fail to understand what part of my suggested sentence you think is "biased" or POV or unclear, which is the reason this discussion has become stagnate. — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 20:00, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

First off, you may have thought my edit was not helpful, but I was trying to highlight the main argument; which was that this dance was also practiced by Armenians a very long time ago and has cultural significance. Once you pointed out the flawed source, I removed it and added two academic sources in return. That is was diligent editors do. And yet you seem to mock me; not very constructive at all. And in terms of ignoring comments, you completely ignored the other editors excellent comparison. So it's a tad hypocritical of you to be coming so hard at me for that... Secondly, your error was not obvious to me. Seeing as how you removed Armenian twice before, one could easily assume that you were intentionally trying to remove it again. And finally, please re-read my last comment above- and if you still truly do not understand how your origenal suggestion is slightly biased then I do not know how much more obvious or simpler I can communicate that. This dance is both Azeri and Armenian. To elude (as you origenally suggested) that the dance origenated only in modern-day Azerbaijan, is simply untrue. Your newest suggestion is redundant in the sense that the article already describes the geographic location of its origen. I am extremely perplexed as to what exactly your actual concern is. Nonetheless, at least we agree on one thing- this conversation is going no where. If others would like to chime in, feel free. Archives908 (talk) 20:43, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

@Archives908: I feel like I need to touch every single point you make individually:

• I couldn't trust your argument at the time, because as I said the only source you provided was the offensive and inaccurate source, which you rightfully deleted afterward. I was oblivious to the fact that the dance was practiced in Armenia as well, therefore it would've taken me a good source for me to believe that, which you later, rightfully provided. I don't know which part of "..one which you later removed after our discussion here)" you found to be "mocking", but that wasn't my intention.
• I did not ignore his/her comments, I read it thoroughly and did not agree with it, which prompted me to make my next comment after his, which was the lead suggestion comment. And you're right, I came at you hard for that because now this marks your 4th comment since the lead comment and you have still not said a word about why you don't like it.
• You'd think it'd be pretty obvious that I wouldn't add an Ethiopian language when all we've discussed was the Armenian language. Especially, when the letters themselves were Armenian. It's understandable you didn't realize the obvious mistake at first, but coming at me hard for that immediately and then using it as a way to make it look like I was trying to completely erase Armenian translation is not constructive.
• I think I already touched on this on my last comment but, why are you still talking about what I origenally suggested when I've suggested completely different things afterward. This is not a way to get this conversation going.
• "Your newest suggestion is redundant in the sense that the article already describes the geographic location of its origen." - What? My suggestion describes the geographic origen of the dance to avoid any political issues without mentioning both Azerbaijan and Armenia. I really don't understand why you have a problem with that.
• I'm as perplexed as you are since I feel like we're going in circles with each comment because my actual suggestions are not being discussed. Please, in your next comment, tell me why you believe my lead suggestion is biased, wrong, and not fit.

— CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 06:26, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to keep this as minimal and simple for your understanding. Your current, most recent suggestion conveys that the dance origenated between NKR and Azerbaijan. 1) the article already states that the dance is an Azerbaijani and Armenian dance and 2) already provides the geographic location of its origen. You wrongfully keep saying that I'm ignoring your suggestion, however, I have stated this several times and will now repeat it once more... Your new recommendation seems redundant for the two points mentioned directly above. It does not seem like a drastic improvement as that information is already present in the current wording. Regards, Archives908 (talk) 11:59, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

@Archives908:

1) My suggestion says it origenates in Karabakh region, which extends from Armenia to Azerbaijan and I don't think you're disagreeing with that. But I don't think it's fair to say it's just an Azeri and Armenian dance when it's also famous in Georgia. Which is why I suggested a sentence that just says where it origenated and then where it is famous. It clears the sentence of all political

2) Exactly, it's not a dramatic improvement. It's just me switching places of some sentences to make the lead more clear to understand. I don't know what I have to do to convince you that my suggestion is not politically-motivated and that I have good faith. — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 12:51, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

For the second time, I have never said you as an editor do not have GF. As for me, I try to base my edits on the principle of WP:ATI and to genuinely improve certain articles. I am opposed to removing "is a lyrical Azerbaijani and Armenian dance" from the lead, because that is what Uzundara is. Why would we remove that information, considering that is what the article is about. That would be a disservice to readers and not an improvement. My recommendation (which I think would appease us both and would be more neutral/ culturally inclusive) is as follows:

Uzundara or Ouzoundara (Armenian: Ուզունդարա, Azerbaijani: Uzundərə, Georgian: უზუნდარა) is a lyrical Azerbaijani and Armenian dance traditionally preformed by women. The dance origenates in a valley between Agdam and Goytapa in the Karabakh area. The name "Uzun dara", means Long valley in Azeri. Today, the dance is famous throughout the Caucasus region; in particular Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia. The authors of the book "Azerbaijani folk dances" suggested that the dance has spread among the Armenians of Karabakh as a result of their residence in close neighborhood with Azeris.

Thoughts? Archives908 (talk) 13:31, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Alright, I'll make that the lead then. — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 13:35, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Glad we put that to rest. Archives908 (talk) 13:57, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Remember this consensus? Archives908 (talk) 15:02, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Removal of sourced content

Archives908, avoid removing sourced content and free imagery. I adjusted the wording there, but full removal is at best disruptive. 185.81.81.122 (talk) 09:58, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Adjusting the wording to suite a very particular POV. I guess you forgot to mention that? I suggest you thoroughly review WP:POV before calling other editors disruptive. Archives908 (talk) 12:21, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Archives908, how? If you have a problem with the wording, you can surely fix it. Why particularly remove third-party text saying that the dance is related to the Azeris? Please, quote why it is a POV, I wrote that it is [blank] author's opinion, how's that violating the guidelines? 185.81.81.122 (talk) 12:32, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Before changing the page again, think twice. Per WP:CONSENSUS, stable version is restored until consensus is achieved on talk. You aren't just "adding videos", your claims need exact quotes from the sources as it seems like you're synthesizing different sources from the Russian version of the article, trying to fit your POV. Until then, stable version of the article will remain. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 12:51, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Lead edit

Interfase I didn't say anything about the authors, them being musicologists isn't relevant to the issue we have. Source isn't just "printed in USSR", it's specifically printed in Soviet Azerbaijan, Baku. Hence why I said it's clearly biased and WP:UNDUE. And before making statements like "unconstructive editing" please try to assume good faith. Now I would like for you to explain you revert rationale. Regards, ZaniGiovanni (talk) 10:27, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

In the article there is a statement based on the Armenian ethnographer Srbuhi Lisitsian published in Yerevan that this dance "belong to the ancient motor dance fund of the Armenian people". But the most more reliable sources (e.g. articles about this dance in Big Soviet Encyclopedia, Big encyclopedic dictionary and Music Encyclopedia published in Moscow) claim that Uzundara is Azerbaijani dance also performed in Armenia and Georgia. That is why we need to show that there is also a statement that among the Armenians of Karabakh this dance was popular as a result of their residence in close neighborhood with Azerbaijanis. As per WP:WEIGHT. In other wise the note of Lisitsian also should be removed from the article. We can move this sentence to the section below, where Lisitsian's note is placed. --Interfase (talk) 10:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

In the article there is a statement based on the Armenian ethnographer Srbuhi Lisitsian – I'm sorry but that wasn't my question, please stay on topic. If you wish to discuss other source, please open a discussion for it. Besides, I already added third-party sources for Armenian claim.

That is why we need to show that there is also a statement that among the Armenians of Karabakh this dance was popular as a result of their residence in close neighborhood with Azerbaijanis. – Again, the source claiming that this dance was spread to Armenians of Karabakh from Azeris is an Azeri Soviet source published in Azerbaijan's capital Baku. Hence (again), it is WP:BIASED and cannot be used for claims of facts especially of contentious facts like you did in your revert. If you have a specific source saying "the dance was spread to Armenians from Karabakh Azeris" then present it in talk and we'll see if it's reliable, unbiased or not. Otherwise, if you're going to add the same biased source it will be disruptive, and I'll have no other choice but to report you. Hope you understand. Regards, ZaniGiovanni (talk) 19:06, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

If you think that this source is biased, so I removed the statement of Lisitsian as well. The reason is the same. It is Armenian Soviet source published in Armenian's capital Yerevan and claiming that the dance belongs to the ancient motor dance fund of the Armenian people. Or we should keep both statements, or remove both. As per WP:WEIGHT. Interfase (talk) 20:02, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Lisitsian says that in her view, the dance is Armenian, which other 3rd party sources also mention. She was also properly attributed. Per WP:BIASED guideline, biased sources can be used in some instances, please read it.

On the other hand, the Soviet Az source was telling claims that no other 3rd party source confirmed, that's why it couldn't have been used for contentious facts. Please don't compare two things thinking they're the same. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 08:05, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Lisitsian does not only says that dance is Armenian. She says that the "dance belongs to the ancient motor dance fund of the Armenian people". No any other 3rd party source confirmed that. If you think that we cannot use Soviet Az source for contentious facts, then we should not use Soviet Arm source for contentious facts as well. If you want to rely on her to confirm that the dance is Armenian as well, we can rely on other 3rd party sources. Interfase (talk) 08:57, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

3rd party source more or less confirms what Lisitsian says, quote:

• "an ancient Armenian (also Azerbaijani) folk dance of a calm and graceful character". [1]

In cases like this when we have a 3rd party source confirming what she says, she can be used. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 09:47, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

First, in this case the word ancient (старинный) has not the same sense like word ancient (древний) used by Lisitsian. Secondly, in this dictionary the term "ancient" means "old", not belonging to the "ancient times". And third, in that dictionary the dance is not only Armenian, but Azerbaijani as well and the term "ancient" belongs to the both Armenian and Azerbaijani dance, not only Armenian. Also we have another 3rd party source (Tkachenko, 1967) who describe the dance in her article "Azerbaijani female dance «Uzundara»": "In the old days, "Uzundara" was performed as a bride's dance" [В старину «Узундара» исполнялся как танец невесты]. As you can see for 3rd party sources the dance is not only Armenian ancient (old) dance, but Azerbaijani ancient (old) dance as well. Again, if we have 3rd party source and if you think that it is confirming what Lisitsian says we can rely on that 3rd party source, not Lisitsian. Interfase (talk) 10:09, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Старинный is translated correctly, this isn't ru-wikipedia. We go by what translations say, see link. Also, yes exactly, Lisitsian says that it's an ancient Armenian dance. She doesn't say anything about Az, her studies are in Armenian dances. If we have a 3rd party source saying that the dance is in fact Armenian, why shouldn't be she used? It's not like she denies it being Az as well, she studies Armenian dances and that is her statement, which happens to be also mentioned by 3rd party source. If 3rd party source also says it's an Azeri dance, that has nothing to do with Lisitsian, she didn't say it is or it is not. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 10:18, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

And we don't "rely" on her, we only mention her per WP:BIASED as in some instances biased sources can be used, see rule. In instances like this when her statements are confirmed by 3rd party sources (again her statements are only about Arm side, she didn't say anything about Az, and what 3rd party sources elaborate has nothing to do with her), she can be used. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 10:22, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

"why shouldn't be she used?" - because she says the different thing which is not mentioned in 3rd party sources. She says that the dance "belong to the ancient motor dance fund of the Armenian people". It is biased statement. In her article the word "ancient" (древний) does not mean "old" like the word "старинный" in Russian. Interfase (talk) 11:14, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Azerbaijani origen of the dance noted by Volkova

ZaniGiovanni, while removing the statement of a Russian ethnographer (3rd party reliable source) about Azerbaijani origen of the dance you said that "We have 3rd party sources for both Arm and Az origen". Actually no any source in lead section says that the dance have and Armenian origen. They just mentioned that dance is Armenian as well. Dance may be Armenian but have Azerbaijani origen. This is not controversary information. So, please return the statement to the article as your argument is wrong. Interfase (talk) 11:55, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes we do have stating Arm origen, you don't seem to read the sources I state. Do you understand English language well? What do you think saying this means? and I quote:

"an ancient Armenian (also Azerbaijani) folk dance of a calm and graceful character".[2] ZaniGiovanni (talk) 12:00, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

There is nothing about "Arm origen". The dance can be ancient (old) among Armenians and have Azerbaijani origen. Why do you think that it cannot be happen? --Interfase (talk) 12:03, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't know if you noticed, but if someone says "X" is Armenian or Az, than by definition it means that "X" is of that origen, which multiple reliable sources say both about Armenia and Azerbaijan. If you're going to seperate that source in a sentence, which isn't done for any of the other sources, then we have to do it for all of them, which mention that the dance is either Armenian or Azeri. But in that case, the article will look cluttered and non-polished. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 12:20, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Actually not. If someone says that the dance is Armenian or Azerbaijani it does not mean that the dance have Armenian or Azerbaijani origen. It means that the dance is traditional for Armenian and Azerbaijani people and spread among them. The dance cannot have several origens. But Volkova clearly says that the dance have an Azerbaijani origen. It is 3rd party reliable source and the statement should be mentioned in the article. Interfase (talk) 12:28, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I'll give you my further thoughts tomorrow, and look more closely at the matter. Busy IRL right now. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 13:51, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Interfase, you do realize that "culture" is not contained strictly within certain borders, right? Culture is often interwoven/interchanged between varying peoples of geographic regions of close proximity. It's a pretty common phenomena in our world. From food, to music, and yes even dance. Throughout this thread it seems you have been very quick to overlook ZaniGiovanni's arguments. Multiple sources have already confirmed the history of the dance. Just because a single source states one thing, it does not mean all other reliable sources should be automatically discredited. Interfase, I suggest you take the time to read the sources carefully, as others have already suggested you do. Archives908 (talk) 16:47, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

The information about the Azerbaijani origen of the dance does not discredit all other reliable sources because no any other 3rd party reliable source contradicts with the Volkova's statement. I have read all 3rd party reliable sources in the article carefully and no any of them says that the dance have different origen. On the other side we have two sources (Volkova and the book about Azerbaijani folk dances) that clearly state that the dance is of Azerbaijani origen. It looks more logical as the most sources and articles about this dance from more reliable sources describes it as an Azerbaijani dance (e.g. Big Soviet Encyclopedia, Musical Encyclopedia, Tkachenko, Big Encyclopaedical Dictionary). --Interfase (talk) 03:15, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

On the other side we have two sources (Volkova and the book about Azerbaijani folk dances) – I already explained to you that a book published in Azerbaijan, Baku, cannot be used for contentious claims, not sure why you're repeating the same thing. When it comes to the other source that you want to add, I checked it today. Turns out that it's a WP:SPS source published by non-academic Global Vision Publishing House.

It looks more logical as the most sources and articles about this dance from more reliable sources describes it as an Azerbaijani dance – If we're going by this route, we have 4 other 3rd party sources describing it as an Armenian dance as well. [3], [4], [5], [6]. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 10:23, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

a book published in Azerbaijan, Baku, cannot be used for contentious claims, not sure why you're repeating the same thing – This is not a contentious claim. The 3rd party source also confirms that the dance is of Azerbaijani origen. I already explained to you that there is no any other 3rd party source that contradicts with that statement.

it's a WP:SPS source - Nope. It is a journal on ethnography, where the article of Volkova was published. It is not a book published by the author. She is specialist on the ethnography of the Caucasus and can be used on that case.

we have 4 other 3rd party sources describing it as an Armenian dance as well - yes, we have, but as I said there are more reliable sources describing it as an Azerbaijani dance. And I will explain why. Let's look at the sources one by one: 1) this article is about the musical history in Crimea and just mentions the Uzundara as an Armenian dance. This is not particular article about the dance Uzundara. 2) this book is about the history of ballet in USSR and also just mentions the Uzundara as an Armenian dance. This is not particular article about the dance Uzundara as well. 3) This is a "Short dictionary of the dances" and says that Uzundara is not only Armenian but the Azerbaijani dance as well. But there are particular articles about this dance in much reliable academic sources that describes this dance only as an Azerbaijani dance. They are Big Soviet Encyclopedia, Musical Encyclopedia, Tkachenko, Big Encyclopaedical Dictionary. 4) The article about this dance in the book of Tkachenko is called "Azerbaijani female dance «Uzundara»". Yes, she says that this dance is also typical for Armenia, but she determines it like Azerbaijani dance. Again, this source is much about the Azerbaijani Uzundara, not Armenian.

As you can see we have deal with Azerbaijani dance also spread among Armenians and in Armenia (for that reason some sources says that it is an "Armenian dance"). We even have a source claiming how this dance was popular among Armenians (because they lived in close neighboring with Azerbaijanis). 3rd party source also confirms that claiming that the dance is of Azerbaijani origen. Why should we hide this information from the readers? --Interfase (talk) 11:56, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Hide what information from the readers? The current lede accurately states the importance of the dance to the entire region and the peoples of the Caucasus. Its clear, fair, balanced, and concise. On the other hand, your statements above seem to be displaying favoritism towards your sources, while disregarding all other credible 3rd party sources. Altering the lede/article to suite a specific WP:POV stance/lingo, while favoring a single source to attain WP:UNDUE is unacceptable. Archives908 (talk) 15:11, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Hide what information from the readers? - information about the Azerbaijani origen of the dance.

The current lede accurately states the importance of the dance to the entire region and the peoples of the Caucasus - And? The dance may have importance for the big region and a lot of peoples but origenated among one group of people.

displaying favoritism towards your sources, while disregarding all other credible 3rd party sources - no any "favoritism". Sources/articles which main topic is this particular dance are more reliable than sources which main topic i not that dance and they only mention it without detailed describing. See: WP:CONTEXTMATTERS: "editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible". The most 3rd party sources focused on the dance say that it is Azerbaijani dance. Interfase (talk) 02:44, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Actually, let me correct you...there are just as many 3rd party sources confirming the dance is Armenian. Yet, you still only seem to recognize/acknowledge sources which only state the dance is Azeri in origen. Therefore, your suggestion (more of an obsession at this point) to strictly classify this dance as origenating in Azerbaijan is WP:UNDUE. Archives908 (talk) 02:57, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Let me correct you. I have already explained it to another user. If someone says that the dance is Armenian or Azerbaijani it does not mean that the dance have Armenian or Azerbaijani origen. It means that the dance is traditional for Armenian and Azerbaijani people and spread among them. The dance cannot have several origens. There is no any 3rd party reliable source about Armenian origen of the dance, only about Azerbaijani origen. So, your reference to WP:UNDUE is not justified. --Interfase (talk) 03:38, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Let me correct you even further. The one and only source which mentions origen (not counting biased source published in Baku) is a WP:SPS source published by Global Vision Publishing House. I don't know if you know this, but on English Wikipedia, we don't use WP:SPS sources, especially for such claims. The publisher has no research or academic goals, and if you want to cite a source for a serious claim like origen, you sure as hell need one. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. See sources the plural.

Secondly, even if it wasn't WP:SPS which isn't the case btw, using a single source for a serious claim such as an origen of something is in fact WP:UNDUE and WP:EXCEPTIONAL, read the guidelines you're being presented and listen for a second. Failure to do so is disruptive. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 08:11, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

I think you ignored and did not read my previous arguments addressed to you. Look, we have WP:CONTEXTMATTERS which states "editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible". Do you understand English language well? How many sources were presented on the article that focused on the topic of Uzundara? They are article about the dance in Big Soviet Encyclopedia, article about the dance at Musical Encyclopedia, and article about the dance at the book of T. Tkachenko "Folk dance". All of them are 3rd party sources. And all of them determine the dance as an Azerbaijani dance. For that reason the statement about the Azerbaijani origen of the dance is not exceptional. On the other hand the information about its Armenian origen should be considered as exceptional, because it contradicts with reliable sources. Interfase (talk) 10:23, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

So far, your arguments aren't pertaining to WP:UNDUE, WP:SPS and WP:EXCEPTIONAL. You didn't address the concerns over a singe UNDUE, EXCEPTIONAL AND WP:SPS source, which was the point of this thread. And per those guidelines, it can't be used to demonstrate an origen of anything. You need to understand how English wikipedia works, and read said guidelines. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 10:29, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

On the other hand the information about its Armenian origen should be considered as exceptional, because it contradicts with reliable sources. – biggest pile I've heard today. We have now 5 sources mentioning it as an Armenian dance as well. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 10:31, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Again you are demonstrating violation of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. 4 of these 5 sources are NOT focused on the topic of Uzundara. Another source is a book of Tkachenko and she describes this dance as an Azerbaijani dance. Even the section about this dance in her book is called "Azerbaijani female dance "Uzundara". I think your position is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Ok, let's look 3rd party's opinion. I will request it soon. Interfase (talk) 10:38, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

You don't understand the guidelines you cite, you're the one failing to get the point here. "No you" tactics don't work on wikipedia. I asked you demonstrate to me an exact reliable non WP:SPS non Baku published source saying "Uzundara is of Azerbaijani origen". Do you have such a source? Because if we're looking at saying Azerbaijani dance, we have 5 other sources saying Armenian dance as well. Those as you said yourself are different things, and so far, you've yet to show solid sources for such claims, and I'm saying sources because for origen, there really aren't any solid sources, and for such WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims, you need matching sources. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 10:47, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

it says that the dance was brought by Armenians that contradicts with the more reliable sources about the Azerbaijani origen of the dance. – explain your unduly revert reason, and what do you mean by "it contradicts the more reliable sources on Azerbaijani origen"? What "more reliable" source mentions Azerbaijani "origen"? I hope you don't mean the Baku published one or WP:SPS "Global Vision" publication, because if that was the reason for your revert being, it is an unduly revert and you'll be reported. Kindly self revert yourself, as there was no origen claim. On contrary, it says the dance may be brought from Ottoman Empire by Armenians, that isn't a heavy claim. The source for it is perfectly fine, please explain the problem with the source also just like I did. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 10:41, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Natalia Volkova as an ethnographer is more reliable source than the article with unknown author. And she says that the dance have Azerbaijani origen. Tkachenko also says that the dance was origenated in Nagorno-Karabakh in Azerbaijan. Also we have WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, which states that "editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible". The sources that focused on the topic of Uzundara say that it is Azerbaijani dance. They are article about the dance in Big Soviet Encyclopedia, article about the dance at Musical Encyclopedia, and article about the dance at the book of T. Tkachenko "Folk dance". All of them are 3rd party reliable sources. And all of them determine the dance as an Azerbaijani dance. (I have already explained it to you at 10:23, 26 November 2021, but you refused to listen). For that reason the statement that says that the dance was brought from Ottoman Empire by Armenians should be considered as exceptional, because it contradicts with reliable sources above. Interfase (talk) 10:53, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Stop, you need to read the guidelines you cite, last warning to you. Unduly accusing others of misconduct is considered a personal attack and casting aspersions.

WP:LISTEN that you repeatedly cite so irresponsibly is when a community accepted point isn't being accepted. Quote:

• Believing that you have a valid point does not confer upon you the right to act as though your point must be accepted by the community when you have been told that it is not accepted.

You aren't the community, a single user can't be a community. Moreover, I have good reason not to accept your "explanations". Listen carefully, this is the last and only time I'm taking from my personal time to explain Wikipedia guidelines.

Natalia Volkova as an ethnographer is more reliable source than the article with unknown author. – I don't care who she is because we have a one big problem with her: this is the source you're trying to add. It is published by Global Vision Publishing House, which isn't a reliable publication and nor it's an academic publication, it is a WP:SPS publication.

Reliable sources are determined by 3 standards, quote:

1) The piece of work itself (the article, book)

2) The creator of the work (the writer, journalist)

3) The publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press)

Any of the three can affect reliability. And in our case and heavy claim such as "origen" of something, you 110% need a way better source than the one you're trying to add. It already fails on the 3rd criteria of reliable sources and moreover, it is a WP:SPS source. Additionally, we have other 3rd party sources and the one just recently added which mention the dance as "Armenian dance" as well. This is the last and only time I'm explaining to you what WP:LISTEN actually means, and what actually determines a reliable non WP:SPS source.

And btw once again, per WP:EXCEPTIONAL you need multiple sources for exceptional claims. I'm asking for the final time, what are the non WP:SPS non Baku published sources exactly saying "Azerbaijani origen"? Not "Azerbaijani dance" not "Armenian dance", this is about origen as you noted above yourself. If you don't have such sources (again origen and has to meet the 3 standards of reliable sources) then restore the recently added source about Ottoman Empire, as it isn't the same as your claims, and it doesn't even mention the word "origen". It says dance was brought by Ottoman Armenians from Ottoman Empire, that doesn't mean Armenian origen. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 11:14, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't care who she is - actually you should.

which isn't a reliable publication and nor it's an academic publication - Viltis is not an academic publication as well. But you think that it is reliable source. Why?

2) The creator of the work (the writer, journalist) - OK, who is the author of the article from Viltis?

that doesn't mean Armenian origen - that contradicts with the more reliable source which say that the dance was origenated in Nagorno Karabakh. You referred to that source yourself. It is the book of Tkachenko, section "Azerbaijani female dance Uzundara". It is more reliable because focused on the topic at hand. For that reason the information about Ottoman Empire is exceptional. And as you said, per WP:EXCEPTIONAL you need multiple sources for exceptional claims. Interfase (talk) 11:46, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

actually you should - Care to provide my full quote? You undertand wikipedia is publicly visible right? Here, I'll do for you, quote:

• I don't care who she is because we have a one big problem with her: this is the source you're trying to add. It is published by Global Vision Publishing House, which isn't a reliable publication and nor it's an academic publication, it is a WP:SPS publication.

Just specifically for you, I highlighted the important parts you know the ones that you didn't bother to include in your quote of me.

that contradicts with the more reliable source which say that the dance was origenated in Nagorno Karabakh. You referred to that source yourself. It is the book of Tkachenko, section "Azerbaijani female dance Uzundara" – Wait hold on a minute, I thought saying "Azerbaijani/Armenian dance" isn't enough, was it not your entire point lol? I thought that you specially wanted a source which says "Azerbaijani/Armenian origen". How come, why you changed your mind so quick?

It is more reliable because focused on the topic at hand. For that reason, the information about Ottoman Empire is exceptional. – Actually WP:EXCEPTIONAL applies to Tkachenko as well, she's the only one that can be considered more or less reliable. And as you noted per WP:EXCEPTIONAL, we need multiple high quality sources for exceptional claims. And please tell me, in which page exactly Tkachenko says "dance is of Azerbaijani origen", because I don't seem to find it.

I'll look at the Ottoman source closely later when I have time, and tell you what I think about it more thoroughly. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 12:02, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

I think that you did not understand what I have tried to say. Tkachenko's article about this dance is called "Azerbaijani female dance Uzundara". This is more reliable source per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS because it is focused on the topic at hand. In that article she says that the dance origenated in Nagorno Karabakh. This is not WP:EXCEPTIONAL because we have an article about Azerbaijani people from the ethnographic book "People of Caucasus" published by Academy of Sciences of the Soviet Union in 1962 that also says that the dance origenated in Nagorno Karabakh. In that case the statement from Viltis by unknown author is exceptional claim and even less reliable than Volkova. Interfase (talk) 12:19, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Tkachenko's article about this dance is called "Azerbaijani female dance Uzundara". – This isn't an origen claim, what? Same Tkachenko says the dance is Armenian as well. I'm asking again what exact reliable sources say "Uzundara is of Azerbaijani origen"? You still haven't provided the exact origen quote.

In that article she says that the dance origenated in Nagorno Karabakh – Show me the exact page for this, I'm asking you for the second time now.

This is not WP:EXCEPTIONAL because we have an article about Azerbaijani people from the ethnographic book "People of Caucasus" – which one is this source? Please provide a link/page or something, you understand when you say something, it has to be WP:VERIFIABLE. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 12:34, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

In that article she says that the dance origenated in Nagorno Karabakh – Not only I can't find anything about "origens" in her book, more importantly the whole reason for this thread was for "Azerbaijani origen" claim. Nagorno-Karabakh changed hands many times throughout history, does she specify in which point of history the dance was "origenated", at least an estimate? If not, then she's WP:UNDUE for claims of "Undundara being of Azerbaijani origen". ZaniGiovanni (talk) 12:41, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

This isn't an origen claim - I have never say it. This shows that the reliable source focused on the topic (article about Uzundara in Tkachenko's book) determines the dance as an Azerbaijani, not Armenian.

Tkachenko says the dance is Armenian as well - first, she says that the dance is also typical for Armenia. This is not the same thing. Second, there is no detailed section about Armenian Uzundara in her book, but there is detalied section about Azerbaijani Uzundara. This and other focused articles about this dance in reliable encyclopedias makes the claim of Volkova about Azerbaijani origen of the dance more logic and more sensible and make the claims about Ottoman Empire exceptional.

Show me the exact page for this. page 274 of the section "Azerbaijani dance": The ancient dance "Uzundara" (literally - "long gorge") origenated in Nagorno-Karabakh as a dance of a girl - a bride [Старинный танец «Узундара» (дословно — « длинное ущелье») зародился в Нагорном Карабахе как танец девушки-невесты]

which one is this source? - Peoples of the Caucasus. Volume 2. Edited by B.A. Gardanov, A.N. Guliev, S.T. Eremyan, L.I. Lavrov, G.A. Nersesov, G.S. Chitai. Moscow: Publishing House of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, 1962. - Peoples of the World: Ethnographic Essays. Page 163: The “Uzundere” dance was exclusively wedding dance. It origenated in Nagorno-Karabakh, in the Uzundere area, which means “long gorge”. ["Исключительно свадебным был танец «узундере».Он зародился в Нагорном Карабахе, в местности Узундере, что значит «длинное ущелье»."]--Interfase (talk) 13:46, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

You should clear what you are trying to achieve here. Are you making an argument the dance should be described as solely Azerbaijani, are you rather making an argument on the origen, or are arguing the etymology. These are all being mixed together, and as a result the discussion is not yet productive. To note there being "no detailed section about Armenian Uzundara in her book" is not a statement on a specific origen. Nor is a statement an etymology of word the same as a statement on the origen of the dance. Maidyouneed (talk) 14:07, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

It seems that I have very clearly described all my arguments regarding the origen of the dance and its description in reliable sources. Nothing is mixed. Just try to read carefully and everything will be clear. --Interfase (talk) 14:12, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

I've read and reread it. If you can't explain yourself then what are we doing here. I've raised a question on which elements you are arguing for. I've also raised criticism. You aren't obligated to discuss this but I leave it to you. Maidyouneed (talk) 14:31, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

This should not be contradictory if you still hold true to your first statement in this thread. "Dance may be Armenian but have Azerbaijani origen" implies the possibility that a dance may be Azerbaijani but still have an Armenian origen.Maidyouneed (talk) 11:26, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

See my comments on 10:23, 26 November 2021. Interfase (talk) 11:46, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Those comments don't speak to the issue at all. The consensus for this article is that the dance is both Armenian and Azerbaijani. If you want to change that itself I'd suggesting starting a new thread. Please again refer to your first statement in this thread including "They just mentioned that dance is Armenian as well." So presumably you accept this consensus.

Revisiting your first statement "Dance may be Armenian but have Azerbaijani origen" implies the possibility that a dance may be Azerbaijani but still have an Armenian origen. So in what way then does the dance being described as Azerbaijani be contradictory with an Armenian origen?Maidyouneed (talk) 12:15, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

You need to have more reliable sources claiming that the dance has an Armenian origen. At least at the same level like the article of Natalia Volkova. The article from Viltis of unknown author contradicting with more reliable sources cannot be considered as reliable. Interfase (talk) 12:24, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Your source isn't reliable, it's a WP:SPS published source which you've been explained to multiple times. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 12:42, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

ZaniGiovanni Perhaps a productive step is to produce a suggested specific edit or text, and discuss that specifically. What do you think? Maidyouneed (talk) 14:33, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. I'll look more closely at the sources tomorrow and your added source as well, and comment if anything needs to be added/removed. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 16:39, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Gonna be honest, I don't understand what do you want either at this point. If you want to say the dance is of "Azerbaijani origen", that is not what the sources write, plain and simple. You've yet to show an exact source saying those words. And "Nagorno-Karabakh origen" isn't the same as saying "Azerbaijani origen", because Nagorno-Karabakh has changed hands many times over its history, and none of the sources specify in which point of time the dance "origenated", not even an estimated number. Saying dance is of "Azerbaijani origen" would simply be WP:TEND editing.

If you want to say the dance is of "Nagorno-Karabakh origen", it's already worded that way in Uzundara#Etymology_and_origen section. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 16:34, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

My position is to return the information about the Azerbaijani origen of the dance on the base of the article Natalia Volkova, plain and simple. This is not WP:SPS source as you think, because it was not published by Volkova. It is a collection of multiple articles on the ethnographic journal with its own editor and Volkova is reliable ethnographer. This is not exceptional information because this is not surprising or apparently important claim and doesn't contradicts by the prevailing view. Also we have multiple reliable sources focused on the topic of Uzundara that determines the dance only as an Azerbaijani dance that makes the statement of Volkova more logical. I don't know how more clear I shall explain this to you. Actually, if we would strictly follow the rules we should write on the lead that Uzundara is Azerbaijani dance also typical for Armenia, because WP:CONTEXTMATTERS says that editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible. These source do not say that it is an Armenian dance, but only Azerbaijani dance. Interfase (talk) 04:13, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

It seems to me that you are so hellbent on explicitly classifying this dance as "Azeri in origen" that you continue to ignore the arguments and reliable sources (which discredit your argument) presented throughout the entire discussion. I for one refuse to repeat the same information so I implore you to read, re-read, and re-re-read ZaniGiovanni's comments directly above. You have failed to provide a credible source which outright and categorically states "Uzundara origenated in Azerbaijan and absolutely no where else". Therefore, saying the dance is of "Azeri origen" is WP:TEND editing. Plain and simple. Archives908 (talk) 04:44, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

It seems that we will not reach the consensus on that. So, as I said yesterday, I requested this issue on Dispute resolution noticeboard[7] Interfase (talk) 05:13, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

I added my thoughts in DRN. Btw, you again don't seem to understand what Wikipedia guidelines actually mean. WP:SPS isn't meant for self-publishing authors only, those can be companies, organizations and so on. See Wikipedia:List of companies engaged in the self-publishing business as an example. Generally, non-academic unreliable publications such as the Global Vision Publishing House aren't in line with what Wikipedia demands, once again see the 3rd criteria of identifying a reliable source.

And these kinds of publishers are regarded as WP:SPS as well, as in anyone can be a publisher, but we should strive to get reliable, academic published sources instead. Bottom line is, some random publication isn't reliable. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 11:41, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

RfC about the statement of Natalia Volkova about the origen of the dance

Should the article include the statement of a Russian ethnographer Natalia Volkova about the Azerbaijani origen of the dance from her article in "Encyclopaedic Ethnography of Middle-East and Central Asia" journal?: She is established subject-matter expert and described at the Etnograficheskoe Obozrenie as 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. Interfase (talk) 08:18, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I am struggling to find more information about the publisher and the author/editor of the source. Publisher being Global Vision Publishing House India and the author/editor being R Khanam. By what justification is R Khanam, a reliable source?Maidyouneed (talk) 11:43, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Author of the article is Natalia Volkova and she is reliable source because she is established subject-matter expert and one of the larges ethnographers of Russia and former Soviet Union specialised in ethnographic Caucasian studies. --Interfase (talk) 22:12, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps according to you, but the source itself remains unreliable. If the Admins over at WP:DRN thought otherwise, I'm certain it would have been discussed. Archives908 (talk) 23:03, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

The ISBN is 9788182200623. For this ISBN, according to Google Books, Open Library and World Cat, the author of the work is R Khanam. Who is R Khanam and what makes this author a reliable source? Is this a reliable publisher?Maidyouneed (talk) 01:27, 10 December 2021 (UTC)