Talk:Azari or the Ancient Language of Azerbaijan

	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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Books

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Linguistics

	Linguistics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics 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.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Iran

	Iran portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iran, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Iran on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project where you can contribute to the discussions and help with our open tasks.IranWikipedia:WikiProject IranTemplate:WikiProject IranIran articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by Narutolovehinata5 (talk) 09:02, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No response from nominator despite multiple pings and activity elsewhere.

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that Ahmad Kasravi in his book Azari or the Ancient Language of Azerbaijan, proved that the Azeri language has Iranian roots? Source: KASRAVI, AḤMAD i. LIFE AND WORK He shows that the word āẕari found in most books of medieval history, especially those from the first centuries of Islam, is the name of the old language of Azerbaijan that was related to the Iranian languages and was a descendant of the language of the Medes with no relationship to Turkish

5x expanded by Amir Ghandi (talk). Self-nominated at 08:55, 8 January 2021 (UTC).[reply]

The article was created on Dec 24th not January 1st, but it was nominated here within ~7-8 days. Probably ok (ping User:BlueMoonset)? QPQ not found but not required. Size, refs, neutrality, copyvio spotcheck, GTG, but I am not happy with the hook that states the book has "proven" something, that's a rather strong claim and I am not convinced the article is comprehensive enough to warrant such a claim (are there no dissenting views?). I, therefore, propose ALT1 below which is more neutral. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:10, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ALT1: ... that Ahmad Kasravi in his book Azari or the Ancient Language of Azerbaijan argued that the Azeri language has Iranian roots?

I want to approve ALT1, but I have two issues with the article. There is a long quote in the article and I can't tell if it's one quote or if it is combined with another quote. It looks like just one quote at first, but within that quote at the end is "It is for these reasons that European scientists have considered my writings as why and why and all have accepted them." So if it's one quote, why would there be quotation marks within the quoted content? I can't access that source. Another issue is that the 14th reference seems to be an unreliable source. Otherwise - the hook is directly cited, the article is long enough, the article is new enough, and a QPQ is not needed. SL93 (talk) 01:04, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marking for closure. SL93 (talk) 05:41, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LouisAragon, could you quickly check the long quote? CMD (talk) 06:17, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I’m also curious about how the 14th reference is reliable. SL93 (talk) 06:30, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My thought was it could just be deleted, but looking closer it appears to be an accessible copy of this journal article. An old article, but perhaps reliable enough. CMD (talk) 07:11, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is this nomination still active? It was marked for closure weeks ago but no action has been done since the last comments here on the 7th. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:33, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've simply removed the two parts SL93 has an issue with, although I still think cite 14 is fine. Article remains long enough, and I find it quite interesting. CMD (talk) 01:55, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Approving ALT1. SL93 (talk) 03:42, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if the long blockquotes are necessary. They could potentially raise copyvio concerns per WP:NFCCP and WP:NFC#Text. Could this info be paraphrased, or is there something significant about the quotations that would be lost? Edge3 (talk) 17:34, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator last edited yesterday so I have lost interest. Maybe someone else can decide. SL93 (talk) 22:25, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amir Ghandi, were you aware there were questions to deal with at this nomination? —valereee (talk) 16:02, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marking for closure again. Why waste time on this? The nominator fixed the issues with their other nominations after they were notified and they last edited yesterday. SL93 (talk) 02:46, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]