Talk:Azerbaijani Americans/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Ethnic Azerbaijani or citizens of Azerbaijan ?

Is this article related with Azerbaijani people (ethnic Azerbaijani, Azeri Turks) ? Or related with the citizens of the Republic of Azerbaijan ? With this edit, a user used the flag of the Republic of Azerbaijan. In this situation, we must exclude those who have been outside of the Republic of Azerbaijan. Takabeg (talk) 15:02, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

the flag was there long before me, I did not touch it. --Saygi1 (talk) 15:09, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Misclassifications and undercounts in the US Census

I don't think all or even any of this research should be displayed on the main article page, unless all other such articles do the same. Nevertheless, per discussion, I present several government and otherwise influential studies that show that all US Census have undercounted and misclassified minorities, as well as children and low-income individuals (which are often immigrants in their first years of life). The studies show that this phenomena affects many minorities, from Blacks and Hispanics, to Native Americans, Alaska natives, and immigrants from the European continent.

Consider this statement from the US Census: "In 1988, the Bureau of the Census reported to the Minority Advisory Committee: "The national origin groups listed in the race question caused confusion among respondents, and some racial groups protested that they were not specifically identified in the question. For example, some European and Black ethnic groups misinterpreted the race question; they also marked off the "Other" race category and wrote in their ethnic identification. That was not the question's intent, and the misreporting required a very expensive corrective operation both in the field and in the data processing offices." (Minutes and Report of the Minority Advisory Committee Recommendations, April 21-22, 1988) The effectiveness of the question for other groups should be of concern in a decision about the listing of Asian or Pacific Islander groups in the decennial census. An additional consideration, as before the 1990 census, is space. Although the format of the census instrument has changed from a grid to a booklet, space remains at a premium. This makes it difficult to add additional categories (such as persons from the countries of the former Soviet Union..." [1]

There are of course many more sources: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9] --Saygi1 (talk) 23:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

famous Azeri

People who else, will you please put pictures of famous Azerbaijanis living in the United States. --5aul (talk) 12:03, 26 august 2011 (UTC)

we definitely should do that and all help is appreciated, but please don't place some fringe theories about 1 million Azerbaijani-Americans. That number is not grounded in any research or logic. --Saygi1 (talk) 21:47, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

how does this article merit "disputed" and "refimprove" tags?

How does this article merit "Disputed" or "Refimprove" tags that were placed by Alborz Fallah today?[10] The refimprove tag states "additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed". What "additional citations"? This article already has more citations than equivalent articles, such as Iranian American. And there is no unsourced materials - everything has citations, all citations are reliable and verifiable. Likewise, the "disputed" tag states that "factual accuracy is disputed. Please help to ensure that disputed facts are reliably sourced". Well, everything is reliably sourced, there are actually multiple citations of the same fact over and over and over again - more so than for any other equivalent article for "hyphenated Americans". These tags have no place on this article at this time, they were merited before when the article was in a pitiful state and 1/3 the length, but today, every statement and number has a verifiable and reliable reference. These tags should be removed, they are without merit at this stage of the article. --Saygi1 (talk) 23:01, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. I cannot find any concrete reasons in this page. But I think we'de better solve ambiguousness among the "Azerbaijani Americans" from the Republic of Azerbaijan, of Iran, of Turkey etc...-- Takabeg (talk) 23:21, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Previous discussions about citation errors did not received proper attention . Why in citing sources , the members of this foundation or Azerbaijani representatives in US are cited as research done by U.S. government, private and independent academic, media and nonprofit organizations ? Is it right to say when VOA have a discussion with Mrs x , all of the published article is opinion of VOA ? or US government ? --Alborz Fallah (talk) 08:49, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

dear Alborz Fallah - what "citation errors" do you refer to? There were none on my part, at least. I also gave extended and extensive attention, proper attention, to all questions, suggestions and comments. I am glad that you do not object to Takabeg's removal of one of the tags, specifically, the Refimprove tag. That's a good start. I believe we should remove the other tag as well, as there is nothing "disputed" since everything is cited and follows the rules.

Meanwhile, per your questions about citing sources, you refer to this sentence: "According to research done by U.S. government, private and independent academic, media and nonprofit organizations, including the Voice of America (VOA)[10], Arlington County of Virginia,[11] Eurasianet[12], Washington University in St. Louis School of Law[13], University of California Los Angeles[14], the U.S. Census Bureau partner organizations, Azerbaijani-American Council[14][15] and the U.S. Azeris Network[16], as well as numerous articles in the U.S. press[17][18] and independent researchers[19], the number of Azerbaijani Americans living in the United States is at least 400,000 in 2004, with the population estimates ranging from 300,000[20] to up to 500,000.[21]"

This sentence is not set in stone - we can modify and re-word it, please suggest a better wording. From my part, the justification I use, is that: 1) VOA is a U.S. Government official news agency, 2) Arlington County of Virginia is part of U.S. state government, 3) U.S. Census Bureau is U.S. Government, and it has approved and recognized the US Azeris Network and other organizations such as Azerbaijani American Council and US Turkic Network as its official partners for the 2010 Census. So why would you object to classifying this as "research done by U.S. government"?

Same applies to private and independent academic, media and nonprofit organizations - the above mentioned organizations are officially registered and recognized by the IRS as U.S. nonprofit organizations. Meanwhile, UCLA and WU in St Louis School of Law are U.S. government (state) and private academic (educational) organizations. Same goes with all other newspapers cited in bibliography, plus Eurasianet and VOA which are all U.S. media organizations. Thus, technically, all is correct and justifiable, but again, it can be changed to make everyone comfortable and OK. Please suggest. --Saygi1 (talk) 21:57, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Sevgili Saygi1. I think you understand Turkish language. I give you a sample in Turkish wikipedia. We must avoid such ethnocentric approach. A user tried to remove Iranian American and to replace with Azerbaijani American in the article Lotfi A. Zadeh. Takabeg (talk) 14:02, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, that was a correct edit - Lutfi Asker Zadeh is Azerbaijani in origin, not Iranian. It is not "ethnocentric" to state the reality and truth. Why is stating "Azerbaijani" suddenly "ethnocentric" whilst stating "Iranian" is not ethnocentric (on top of being incorrect)? --Saygi1 (talk) 21:20, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

It's very clear that approach is ethnocentric. Lofti Zadeh can categorized as Iranian American by nationality, as ethnic Azerbaijani American by ethnicity. But we must not remove both Iranian and Azerbaijani. Some extremers want to erase his nationality or ethnicity. This is one of the reasons to create Category:Iranian people of Azerbaijani descent. Anyway, we have to clarify difference between "National Azerbaijani" and "Ethnic Azerbaijani" in this article. I think we mustn't give bait, fuel to extremers and/or blind reverters. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 01:12, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Saygi, the name of organization is listed without the state of establishment, that's how it is in registration records, including the US Census Bureau website. If the organization name was to be listed by establishment location, then the text should say "US Azeris Network" of DC/Virginia, Azerbaijan Society of America of New Jersey, etc. Atabəy (talk) 22:15, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Atabəy, it's very simple - the Daily Bruin article you cited next to AACC [11] states the name with "California" in it: "The conference was put on by the Azerbaijani American Council of California". Meanwhile, the US Census Bureau point probably does not apply here - did AACC state 400,000 estimate publicly since it became recognized by Census Bureau? I only found US Azeris Network's multiple such statements and that's why that point was made for readers and other editors to understand the context better. --Saygi1 (talk) 22:50, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Saygi, the official name of organization is Azerbaijani-American Council, that is how it appears in the public registration records here, and that is how it was incorporated five years ago. Any organization can have representations in any state, in which case, it could be referred to as "of California", "of Texas", "of New York", etc. What is more relevant is a formal name under which an organization, with federal membership and registration, goes. Similarly, US Azeris Network, which exists in a virtual domain, could be equally called belonging to any state. Not to mention that that AAC partnership with the US Census Bureau was announced also by AAC Texas representation here, which actually invalidates the claim that the organization is "of California" only.

The 400,000 estimate was used by Azerbaijani community organizations since 1990s, and actually before that by a booklet published by the Embassy of Azerbaijan in the U.S. or the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Hence, the US Azeris Network, which appeared after all of the above mentioned structures, cannot lay claim to ownership of the 400,000 figure. Atabəy (talk) 00:55, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Atabəy, once again, let me repeat it for you - the source you've used as a reference, the Daily Bruin, next to the name of AACC to justify its inclusion, clearly states the name of the organization with the word California in it. So it appears it was the legal name at the time - and instead of faulting me or anyone here, you should then appeal to The Daily Bruin to have that "corrected", if you believe it was wrong. So please take your tone and attacks somewhere else.

Meanwhile, something about Wikipedia - it goes by rules and citation of reliable and verifiable sources, it's not enough to just say that these and those said something somewhere. If you have references to early estimates by the Azerbaijani MFA or its embassy in US, please cite them and add them to the article. And in general, add as many reliable and verifiable references to that estimate as possible, the article would only benefit from it.

Also, you are again misunderstanding the US Census Bureau reference in the text - it was and is written in the context of US Azeris Network, which has expressed the 400,000 estimate publicly many times (including after being recognized by the US Census Bureau in 2009) in a verifiable fashion, and due to its being the first-ever Azerbaijani and Turkic organization to gain recognition from the US Census Bureau, it makes the estimate more reliable and authoritative (which was one of the points of contention here - user Alborz Fallah and others said that estimates from any Azerbaijani-American organizations cannot be deemed reliable and authoritative enough for Wikipedia article - thus through showing the recognition of the US Census Bureau, we put that contention to rest). The AACC does not appear to have any verifiable reference to the 400,000 done after it followed suit and also gained recognition from the US Census Bureau, hence it appears in that sentence to be out of context. In other words, reference to AACC does not belong there, much like there is no reference to other US Census Bureau organizations, like the US Turkic Network.

Finally, your contention about "ownership" makes no sense. Re-read everything carefully, without anger. --Saygi1 (talk) 21:40, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Saygi, first of all, all there is discussed are two organizations being cited in the article in reference to a particular figure. There is no personalized content or attacks(?!) in anything written, so please, let's be more careful in avoiding personal comments.

Once again, Daily Bruin is a university newspaper not an Internal Revenue Service responsible for an official name listing of registered organizations. It's not Daily Bruin which determines the name of organization, it's the board of organization choosing to do so upon registration. Nevertheless, organization mentioned by Daily Bruin and Azerbaijani-American Council registered in California are the same group for the purpose of reference using the figures. And I don't see why UCLA Daily Bruin citing AAC officer with figure 400,000 in 2006 is somehow less reliable reference than US Azeri Network claiming it elsewhere after 2008.

The figure of 400,000 was used by Azerbaijani community, scholars and state for many years before the US Azeri Network was ever heard of. Here is another reference besides the UCLA Daily Bruin/AAC, example from BakuToday newspaper publication in October 2006, by Fariz Ismailzade of the Voice of Azeri Diaspora newsletter. US Azeri Network did not officially claim any existence until January 2008, and the author who used the figure above has nothing to do with it either.Atabəy (talk) 01:24, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

user Atabəy, it appears you are misreading what I write and do not do proper research. For starters, once again, the official name of the California diaspora organization was "Azerbaijani-American Council of California (AACC)" - here are multiple references from AACC itself from 2006 and 2007 that prove this fact: Azerbaijan International in Autumn 2006 [12], AACC itself via AmerikaliTurk publication in 2006 [13] and also here [14], Azerbaijani Consulate in LA on October 27, 2006 [15], a June 2006 press release by AACC [16] and here [17], another announcement by AACC's two officers and with an old link to AACC's website that clearly state AACC [18], and an article from February 27, 2007 that clearly states AACC [19]. There are more references if needed. Are they all wrong?

Please also see the official logo of AACC, which incidentally had the contours of the state of California on it: [20] and clearly inscribed "Azerbaijani American Council of California".

So it is not The Daily Bruin or UCLA that are speculating about the name, but AACC itself stating its full and legal name. They changed it obviously only in/after February 2007, the last month we have an article from them under that name. The article from Daily Bruin, which I cited and included in this article, is from 2006 and also cites AACC - so that's the name we should use per Wikipedia rules (e.g., Azerbaijan SSR vs. ADR vs. Republic of Azerbaijan, Armenian SSR vs. Republic of Armenia vs. Democratic Republic of Armenia, Imperial Russia vs. RSFSR vs. Russian Federation; Safavid Iran, Qajar Iran, IRI, etc). This is basic and standard procedure, what are you fussing about? So please, let's stop this senseless opposition from you of very clear facts just for the same of debating.

Also, it is not the IRS that is the primary registrar of any organization in US - it is the Secretary of State of the state in which the organization incorporates (in this case California). Look at it this way: not only is state registration primary and IRS (federal) secondary, but state registration is required, whilst federal is not. So your argument about IRS is invalid.

Finally, on the 400,000 estimate - you are once more misreading what was written. I personally don't know and don't care who first calculated that estimate - I've myself proven through inclusion of sources that it was done so before 2008, e.g., I included the VOA article from 2006. So what are you talking about? I've included most of the quality information in this article and expanded it dramatically, and if you can do the same, it would be good. --Saygi1 (talk) 18:06, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Merza Ali Akbar

According to this source, Merza Ali Akbar was a Russian Jew. How we can consider him Azerbaijani ? As long as I understand, he was neither an ethnic Azeri nor a citizen of the Republic of Azerbaijan.

The earliest identified Azerbaijani immigrant to the United States was Merza Ali Akbar, a Russian Jew resident of Baku who arrived at Ellis Island on the RMS Mauretania in June 1912.

We need secondary sources about him.

Takabeg (talk) 02:07, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

He had a clearly Muslim, Azerbaijani name. It definitely needs more sources to show his ethnicity. What's not doubted is that he was from Baku, Azerbaijan. When immigrating to U.S., many immigrants indicated themselves being Jewish, even if partially. They did not have to prove it, just indicate it to get more aid from the local Jewish organizations upon arrival and be more accepted into the Judeo-Christian society. This happened back then and happened again in the 1980s-1990s. In any case, Azerbaijani American is same as Iranian American, Russian American, Chinese American, Indian American, Armenian American or Arab American - it's based on a land (geography) as well as nationality, not just on ethnicity, or land (geography), or citizenship. That's why we included Armenian American into the article Azerbaijani American (in fact, you might have been the one who included it and I supported it), as Azerbaijani American whilst in 90% of the cases consisting of ethnic Azerbaijanis, at the same time includes others who were born in Azerbaijan (whether Republic of Azerbaijan or in Iran), or chose to identify as such. --Saygi1 (talk) 00:29, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Just a side comment (I am not going to edit the article here). I think thereis no consisency in many of these articles and once must reflect google books/scholar.. I am not for or against (Takabeg or Saygi1 or for or against tags) here, but I do think the opinion of news sources should be differentiated from the people being quoted (UCLA for example or VOA or etc). Thats a fundamental wikipedia policy.. it simply is not honest to quote someone in a UCLA newspaper or VOA and then mention it as the opinion of UCLA and VOA. If someone clicks a link and sees a general consular or some lobbyist or something, they will think the article is wrong. Thats my opinion, and although I do think the 400,000 is inaccurate (for whatever reason, the number of Azeri-Iranians from our Iranian club of close to 100 people back in the 90s in the university was about 8% (I know because I was friends with everyone in the club and visited houses an etc..) (and actually I do not recall any non-Muslims in the club) and majority of Iranian-Americans that immigrated to America are heavily either religious minorities or people from Tehran), I do think it is worth to wait for the 2011 census. If the figure 400,000 is radically different from the 2011 census (by more than factor of 3x), then the 400,000 is probably wrong. I am not going to comment more here on this issue as I do notwant to waste my time. Thanks. --108.18.222.120 (talk) 01:32, 24 September 2011 (UTC) (not interested in involvement here).

Removing tags without discussion can be disruptive

There is no consensus in citing sources which are the members of Azerbaijani American group . There is still confusion in counting Iranian Azerbaijanis as "Azerbaijani American" versus Iranian Americans . Then removing the disputed tag is not helpful and can be disruptive . By using the tags , we are asking the other editors to help us improve the article . --Alborz Fallah (talk) 06:28, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

On the other hand, having tags in the article is often used as a pretext to undermine most of its material, which is verifiable and well sourced. I would say, given the fact that most of the time, contributors who insert dispute tags in this article never bother to sufficiently discuss the topic on the talk page, it's better to keep the tag out and focus on improving the article.

As far as Iranian Azerbaijanis being counter as Iranian Americans vs. Azerbaijani Americans, I guess, this is a matter of individual choice, and there are many Iranian Azerbaijanis who identified themselves as Azerbaijanis in America. The definition Azerbaijani is ethnic, while Iranian is not ethnic but national/civic definition. So, a person of ethnic Azerbaijani background would be counted as Azerbaijani-American in US, Azerbaijani-Iranian in Iran, Azerbaijani-Canadian in Canada, etc. Atabəy (talk) 17:33, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

The tags that were unilaterally placed into the article were not deserved - that's why one tag was removed by an Armenian user, and the other tag was removed by me, after discussing it on this page as well as with admins and others. This article is far better sourced than analogous articles, such as Iranian-American. And the progress of the article, which has been radically expanded and improved almost singlehandedly by your truly, would have been even greater if all users added valuable sourced and reliable information from verifiable sources. Unfortunately, that is not so, for years, this article was neglected, and instead of expanding it, editors just let it stay undeveloped. --Saygi1 (talk) 00:20, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

The real problem of the article is wrong referencing . You know , when a newspaper or TV have an interview with a person , the article does not gives the official point of view of the media company . Then when VOA or other media have an interview with a member of an organization , the article does not reflect the opinion of VOA . I did edit the problems , but my edits has been reverted : [21]. Anyway , there are some editors that think the article has some weak points and should be improved . Deleting their call for rewriting the article , does diminish the value of article as a reference . Are we going to write articles that are advertisement about a group ?! --Alborz Fallah (talk) 07:48, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Everything that appears in VOA represents the viewpoint of the U.S. government, just like everything in Iranian government newspapers represents the official view of Iranian government (whether entire government or a fraction of it - is another matter). In any case, the sheer volume and verifiability of sources showing that Azerbaijani-Americans are reliably estimated at 400,000 is beyond any reproach. --Saygi1 (talk) 00:20, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Again , I think any regular Wikipedia editor can clearly see that this sentence is not a standard Encyclopedic sentence : "According to various U.S. government and independent, private and public academic and non-profit organizations, including the Voice of America, the Brooklyn Borough of New York, the Lieutenant Governor of Missouri, the Arlington County of Virginia, the Eurasianet, Washington University in St. Louis School of Law, University of California Los Angeles, the U.S. Census Bureau partners, Azerbaijani-American Council and the U.S. Azeris Network, articles in the U.S. press and scholars, the number of Azerbaijani Americans living in the United States was at least 400,000 in 2004, with estimates ranging from 300,000 to up to 500,000." --Alborz Fallah (talk) 07:48, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, it is quite encyclopedic to state the fact and show sources. And if VOA or other media sources chose to publish the author(s) in question, they did lend credence to the view of the author. Adding more facts to the article may be useful, if you have them. But I don't think disputing facts that are already there, are verifiable and well-sourced, would contribute to improvement of the article. The facts are pretty clear, there are official Census figures and unofficial figures, both are substantiated using sources. This provides reader with opportunity to judge for him/herself as to what is the demographic picture and representation of Azerbaijanis in the U.S. Can you, please, elaborate as to what specifically is the concern with presented facts? Atabəy (talk) 18:47, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

• In "various U.S. government and independent, private and public academic and non-profit organizations" ;

1-"various" is a PEACOCK WORD . Does editor gives a research among US media about their opinion of Azeri population in America ? Where is the source of above sentence ? Does he judge about the number of the media ?(Original Research?)

Why is "various" viewed as such? These sources are truly various - from government to academic, from media to noprofits, from federal to state. That's a variety. --Saygi1 (talk) 00:20, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

2-"independent, private and public academic and non-profit organizations" : That is advertisement for the sources to make the reader believe the sources are important , numerous and independent ; but that is not right ! As an example , Azerbaijani-American Council , U.S. Azeris Network and articles in the U.S. press are only titles to empress the reader and make him believe that the organization is important [and the organization deserves to get it payment from the Azerbaijan government! ]

"Advertisement"? How so? The sources are indeed important, numerous and independent. Do you have any evidence of otherwise? How are 3 different proclamations from 3 different state authorities in US not independent, not numerous, not important? Or an article in Soros-funded Eurasia.net? Or U.S. Census Bureau? Or Voice of America (VOA)? And could you please expand on the "payment" thingy - although what I fail to see is how is this relevant to the 400,000, and what does anyone have to gain from having such an estimate? --Saygi1 (talk) 00:20, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

3-Kaeter, Margaret is not scholars !! She is only one writer and not many to be used as "s" in scholars . She has no scientific degree in Geopolitical matters and all of her books is about cooking Mexican dishes !! More than that in that -tourist written - book , she herself says (in page 73 ) that she is talking about emotionally - and not technically -Azerbaijanis ! Only great God knows how can some one judge about the emotion of 50 million peoples without asking them ! For example I am an Iranian Azerbaijani and no one asked about my emotion , then at least she should write 49,999,999 instead of 50 million !

4-Lieutenant Governor of Missouri , is not declaring a Census result , but he is only publishing a congratulation note for Azerbaijani national day : that is not an official or governmental statement . It should not be used in this article .

His and 2 other proclamations are official government statements. Otherwise, the seal of the state and the signature of a Lt-Governor, or a Governor, or a Commissioner, etc., would not appear on those fancy and very much official documents.

5- Washington University in St. Louis School of Law , means that an student in a class room has been of Azerbaijan republic , and he has written a presentation about his country and used it in the class : Is it wright to present it as a source published by the Washington University ?! (in the text it is mentioned as Washington University in St. Louis School of Law) --Alborz Fallah (talk) 08:02, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

So that was removed, no problem. Although another user here, Khodabendeh, (sp ?) used the MIT group as reference, and in general, student groups and publications are often used on Iranian-related articles and pages, to which you do not object. BTW, I will use that MIT source in the article in the future edits, it's a great source. --Saygi1 (talk) 00:20, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

The word various is used in the same context as several, multiple, diverse, etc. and it's not listed in WP:PEACOCK. It's just an intro to the rest of the sentence, enumerating various sources. The proclamation by the Lt Governor of Missouri here does use the figure 400,000 Azerbaijanis living in the United States. You may want to review the text of it. Margaret Kaeter is a scholarly source, if you want to replace the word scholars with her name, that is not a problem either.

I agree on WUSTL link, however, this reference is not so crucial as there are already dozen other references used for the unofficial figure of 400,000 Azerbaijanis in the U.S..

Also, I would suggest leaving your personal "nowiki" comments about Azerbaijani organizations allegedly getting payment from Azerbaijani government outside of the scope of discussion. Such comments are not helpful, are unsubstantiated and constitute a WP:FORUM. Thanks. Atabəy (talk) 22:42, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Alborz. I'm restoring the dispute tag, removing it again without a clear consensus tha goes beyond a circle of certain editors of certain background, will be treated as vandalism and reported accordingly. The various policy-related issues with this article, have not been addressed yet. The tags should not be removed until there is a clear consensus on the definition of the term, usuage of questionable material etc. Kurdo777 (talk) 06:00, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

The tags are totally improper and unjustified. You can't insert them and then threaten anyone. You have to justify their inclusion. This article is better quality than many other such articles. Please list reasons based on Wikipedia rules that you think would justify these improper tags. --Saygi1 (talk) 17:14, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I decided to do what Kurdo777 said, and report these tags to the admin noticeboard [22] Placing these tags without any justification and then using threats is very unreasonable and bad faith editing. --Saygi1 (talk) 17:38, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I think if the writers of the article want it to be a readable and reliable text , they may lesson to other voices that are not inside their mind set . In the sentence "various U.S. government and independent, private and public academic and non-profit organizations" , the word "various" is a PEACOCK WORD . The word "various" is a word making unprovable proclamation about the subject's importance, and does not use facts and attribution to demonstrate that importance . I mean user Saygi thinks amount A is an important number of sources , but user Kurdo thinks that amount is not big enough ; so then what's the criteria to know who is right and who is wrong ?!

"Javid Huseynov" , General director of the Azerbaijani-American Council , in an interview claims that There are 400,000 Azeris in the United States , and then in this Wikipedia article , his point of view is presented as University of California Los Angeles. I am asking isn't against the WP:USERG ? --Alborz Fallah (talk) 08:50, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Various word is not listed as WP:PEACOCK, if it is, please, provide the direct link. As to the interview in Daily Bruin, the author is not the publisher of UCLA Daily Bruin. So your claim that this reference somehow violates WP:USERG lacks foundation, as it's not a self-published material, but that chosen by the publisher (Daily Bruin) for publishing. Moreover, the figure of 400,000 is confirmed by many independent sources, including scholars. And Kurdo777's dispute tag insertion is not substantiated.Atabəy (talk) 14:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

• The word does not needs to be listed . As you can see in WP:PEACOCK , it is written "Words such as these" , and the mentioned words in the list are only examples . The determining element of being a PEACOCK word is "...used without attribution to promote the subject of an article, while neither imparting nor plainly summarizing verifiable information."" plus "Instead of making unprovable proclamations about a subject's importance, use facts and attribution to demonstrate that importance."

• The way that the word various has been used in the sentence "various U.S. government and independent, private and public academic and non-profit organizations" , it is making unprovable proclamation about a the number's importance and accuracy . If you think the cited sources are showing the official or at least dominant opinion of US media or US government , you have to give other sources , not the statement of Az.Republic ambassador or Javid Huseynov in an interview . That needs a research or at least a number in an official census . --Alborz Fallah (talk) 09:18, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Why is the term "various" viewed as such? The sources cited in the article are truly various - from government to academic, from media to noprofits, from federal to state. That's a variety. The sources are indeed important, numerous and independent. Do you have any evidence of otherwise? How are 3 different proclamations from 3 different state authorities in US not independent, not numerous, not important? Or the U.S. Census Bureau recognizing Azerbaijani-American organizations which also cite the same number? Or Voice of America (VOA), where everything that appears in VOA represents the viewpoint of the U.S. government, just like everything in Iranian government newspapers represents the official view of Iranian government (whether entire government or a fraction of it - is another matter). In any case, the sheer volume and verifiability of sources showing that Azerbaijani-Americans are reliably estimated at 400,000 is beyond any reproach. You cannot show that the word "various" is a WP:PEACOCK word, not just because it's not listed there, but because it is fully substantiated by the sheer diversity and mix of reliable and verifiable sources used, that are published over the years, in U.S., in English, by government, NGO, media, universities, etc. Also, a statement from an Azerbaijani Ambassador, or rather, Consul General, is an authoritative, reliable and verifiable statement, especially in this context. A Consul General handles visa, passport and other "people-issues" on a daily basis, I think he/she is far more equipped and professional than all of us here combined on this issue and if he says there are 400,000 Azerbaijani-Americans, that means something. The fact that U.S. State Department has recognized him and accredited him on U.S. soil, and another U.S. government agency, the Voice of America, has reported this, means a lot. So honestly, there is simply no case, these sources and the number are reliable and verifiable, and they represent the majority of sources. There are simply no grounds for the "dispute" tag as there is no real dispute here, there is no clash between scholars and researchers, there is no denial from any U.S. government entity, there is no academic study showing otherwise. --Saygi1 (talk) 22:21, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Again I'm saying , when there is no criteria to define the word "various" ,in the way you want to use it , that is a PEACOCK word. It represents an unprovable proclamation about a the number's importance and accuracy in that sentence . If that conclusion is not mentioned in any text , does any editor is allowed to find it out himself (Original Research )?--Alborz Fallah (talk) 12:01, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

To remove the disputed tag

Let us do so, when will the new official census was held in the U.S. in 2010, and it will be released later this year, we put a source with perepisyu.A until I advise you to leave these non-official sources for this article and remove this tag controversial from this page.5aul (talk) 14:03, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

This article is "disputed". The situation is similar to List of Turkish people, Turkish diaspora etc. Some users confuse Azerbaijani people with Ethnic Azerbaijani people. Takabeg (talk) 12:20, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

what does that even mean? What does all this have to do with Azerbaijani-American? If Azerbaijani-American is disputed, then so are Iranian-American and Armenian-American, and many others. --Saygi1 (talk) 17:12, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Takabeg, for the purposes of diaspora community, Category:Azerbaijani people and Category:Ethnic Azerbaijani people are inclusive. And there are also separate Category:Armenian people and Category:Ethnic Armenian people as well. Can you, please, elaborate as to what exactly you are disputing? Atabəy (talk) 18:02, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't have info on Armenians. If you want, you can use Talk:Armenian American. I recommend you become independent of Armenia - :)) We must not confuse Category:Azerbaijani people (citizens of the Republic of Azerbaijan) with Category:Ethnic Azerbaijani people (ethnic Azeri Turks). If we write this article by nationality, we can include ethnic minorities (Lezgin, Russian, Talysh, Meskhetian Turks etc.) in the Republic of Azerbaijan, but we must exclude ethnic Azeri Turks who immigrated from other countries (Iran, Russia, Turkey etc.). If we write this article by ethnicity, we can include ethnic Azeri Turks who immigrated from other countries (Iran, Russia, Turkey etc.), but we must exclude ethnic minorities in the Republic of Azerbaijan. Takabeg (talk) 18:32, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

The article is clear in what it includes and does not include. The sources are also clear on what they consider Azerbaijani-American and what they don't. So we have to go by reliable and verifiable sources, not by our wishes. If you can find reliable and verifiable references about Talysh-Americans, we can include that in pages about Azerbaijani-Americans and Iranian-Americans. If you can find about Kurdish-Americans, we can include that in the Armenian-American, Turkish-American, Iranian-American, Azerbaijani-American, Arab-American, Syrian-American, Georgian-American, Russian-American, etc. Likewise with Lezgin-Americans can be included in Russian-Americans, Azerbaijnai-Americans. As Atabəy correctly states, we should review all other such articles about hyphenated Americans, such as Armenians, Iranians (and a separate article is needed for Persian-Americans), for example, to do the same things you propose: if we re-write that article by nationality, we can include ethnic minorities in the Republic of Armenia, but we must exclude ethnic Armenians who immigrated from other countries (Iran, Russia, Turkey etc.). If we re-write this article by ethnicity, we can include ethnic Armenians who immigrated from other countries (Iran, Russia, Turkey etc.), but we must exclude ethnic minorities in the Republic of Armenia. Because all these articles must abide by a single standard. --Saygi1 (talk) 18:43, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Takabeg, please, WP:AGF before making recommendations for me "to become independent", etc. I concur with Saygi that if you have references about the population of ethnic minorities from Azerbaijan in the U.S., who demonstrably identify themselves other than Azerbaijani-American, please, kindly provide them for discussion. Otherwise, as already mentioned, for the purpose of Azerbaijanis living in emigration, both categories are the same and the approach seems to reflect on examples of other ethnic groups that I already mentioned. Atabəy (talk) 00:59, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

You always compare with Armenia and Armenians. So I simply recommended you become independent of them. Takabeg (talk) 01:51, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I think that we'd better write this article on the basis of ethnicity (ethnic Azerbaijani people) to solve the dispute. We have to avoid using info on the basis of the birth place such as "Table FBP-1. Profile of Selected Demographic and Social Characteristics"

Takabeg (talk) 02:00, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

And Saygi1 has once again tried to remove the dispute tag without a consensus. [23]. This is becoming very disruptive, it's time for an administrator to step in and deal with this user. Kurdo777 (talk) 01:25, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Kurdo777, can you provide comments reasoning the insertion of a dispute tag in the article? The lack of your comments specifically substantiating a dispute tag makes your repeated tag insertion disruptive. Thanks. Atabəy (talk) 01:30, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The article is disputed, it's simple as that. Any uninvolved editor can see that there are various unresolved issues with this article, the dozens of sub-sections about various errors, inaccuracies and misrepresentation are testimony to that. The insistence of you and the other Azerbaijani editors here to remove the tag, is both disruptive and nonconstructive to due Wikipedia process, as you guys are essentially preventing third-party independent editors from noticing the problems with this article, and getting involved here. The whole purpose of the tag is to notify the uninvolved editors that there is dispute here, so that they can refer to the talk page, study the contested issues, and get involved to improve the article. Kurdo777 (talk) 01:35, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

@ Saygi, could you see: Talk:Turkish diaspora#POV ? An user proposed relatively constructive solution. Takabeg (talk) 15:00, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Back to the citing errors

Again , I'm going to continue showing the citing errors in giving the sources:

1. Open Society Institute publishes an internet magazine , Eurasianet and in a report [24], Eurasianet says ...."estimated number (some 400,000, according to USAN)..." ; then in this article it has been written that Open Society Institute gives the number !!USAN is an abbreviation for US Azeri net work . Neither Open Society Institute is a polling organization , nor it said the number ! It is only reporting the claim of USAN . If a broadcasting company reports an opinion of a group , that does not means that is the opinion or report of that company. In any article , the writer provides the opinions of both sides : it is not reporting the number .
2. Being a partner of the U.S. Census Bureau , does not means the partner has any official position or it's point of view have any connection to the U.S. Census Bureau .What is the reason to include the partnership of "Azerbaijani-American Council and the U.S. Azeris Network" to the U.S. Census Bureau in the sentence ? Is it intended to misinform the reader ?

--Alborz Fallah (talk) 09:50, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Alborz Fallah, you seem to be missing the point - the OSI/Eurasianet.org, which are very respected and prominent NGO and media organizations, and are cited widely throughout Wikipedia, do not need to be a "polling organization". The only "polling organization" per se in U.S. is the U.S. Census Bureau. Even Gallup, Zogby, Ipsos, etc., do not qualify, as OSI/Eurasianet.org can easily do a poll on its website, just like the Iranian Student Association of MIT did, and thus do a "poll" and become a "polling organization". OSI/Eurasianet.org are very clearly referenced as media organizations. Secondly, media organizations never come up with their own numbers, statistics, data - they do media research, interviews, investigations, and report this, do what all journalists do. If you object to a reference to Eurasianet.org in this article referring to 400,000 Azerbaijani-Americans (even though we've shown that this figure has been widely cited by many different sources going well beyond OSI/Eurasianet.org), then you need to object to each and every instance of references/citations in all Wikipedia pages such as "According to the New York Times..." or "Los Angeles Times claims..." or "Miami Herald reported that...".

But again, the only reason I even included this in the first place because you and your friend objected to 400,000, so I've shown you that this figure is widely cited, is verifiable and reliable. Thus, I don't mind removing all references to OSI/Eurasianet.org if this will stop this senseless debate and will stop you from adding any unneeded, unfair and undeserved dispute tags, as there appears to be no dispute about the major issues or even about the numbers, but only about the wording of some information.

The inclusion of U.S. Census Bureau's recognition of AAC and USAN among other organizations as its official partner is a key information and is very important in this article. After all, this article is heavily about demographics and population, and obviously, the U.S. Census Bureau plays a very important role in that question, in that research. If the U.S. Census Bureau - which is an inherent part a the U.S. Government - decided to choose these organizations, after a careful and thorough review process, as its official partners, that means a lot for several reasons: 1) it shows the trust US Census Bureau places on these Azerbaijani-American organizations, choosing them over others. 2) It shows that US Census Bureau recognizes the fact that it needs to involve Azerbaijani-American organizations in order to better know about the Azerbaijani-American community. --Saygi1 (talk) 22:10, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

The manipulation of sources

Saygi1 is manipulating sources and putting in jeopardy the integrity of Wikipedia as a result. He has written in the article that " According to various U.S. government and independent, private and public academic and non-profit organizations, including the Voice of America,[25]....the number of Azerbaijani Americans living in the United States was at least 400,000 in 2004..". Now when you open this source to verify this statement, you can clearly see that the figure attributed to Voice of America , is actually a quote in the said article, from an Azerbaijani official in US. So the statement in question is not a statement of fact reported by Voice of America, as it is implied in the statement. This is a clear manipulation and falsification of sources. The article is full of similar wild/fringe claims from Azerbaijani officials and lobbyists in the US, falsely attributed to "various U.S. government and independent, private and public academic and non-profit organizations". Kurdo777 (talk) 01:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Kurdo, it was actually not Saygi1 but myself who added the wording "various US Government and independent....", so clearly you are not following the edits made in the article. The English word "various" here is intended to introduce multiple sources listed in the same sentence, and it is perfectly acceptable. All sources for verifying the statements are provided in the reference section, and they are not made by a single person, let alone "Azerbaijani official in US". Is Margaret Kaeter Azerbaijani official? Or maybe Brooklyn Borough President is? If you have specific proofs to the contrary, instead of making claims about "Azerbaijani officials and lobbyists in the U.S.", please, bring and discuss them before reinserting tags in the article, and mind WP:FORUM. If you would like to seek opinion of third parties, welcome to do so. But for now, dispute tag is not justified by your comments above. Atabəy (talk) 18:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The entire paragraph was speculative, I removed it per WP:CRYSTAL. When the Census results came out, they will show what they will show and we will include them in the article, but until then talking about what they're going to show (or what we hope they're goong to show, which is more the case here) is unencyclopedic and not allowed by policy. Such a paragraph can be referenced until the cows come home, but unless the reference is a pre-announcement from the Census Bureau, it ain't going to be a reliable source. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:36, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

BMK, removing a large paragraph with some 18 (!) reliable and verifiable sources cruicial to the article about an ethno-national group of people in U.S., by just saying "was speculative" is an overkill, don't you think? Talk about a tendency to remove sourced information! :)

For starters, you can simply re-phrase any sentence you feel "speculated", instead of just reverting. That's what I just did. Secondly, there is no attempt to predict or hope what the Census will say as you say - all the article said was: "The 2010 U.S. Census results, to be released by the end of 2011, are expected to reflect a more current official estimate on the number of Azerbaijanis in the U.S." How's that a "prediction"? Naturally, a 2010 Census would give figures up till 2010 - more current than 2000 figures. How's that an attempt to predict? Although, Census results can only show an increase as is clear from the cited facts, such as annual statistics of naturalizations between 2000 and 2010 (the years of Census) and the fact of natural growth (more births over deaths) typicaly for this community. Again, you could have simply re-phrased just one sentence to make a good-faith edit instead of removing a huge block of sourced material like you did. --Saygi1 (talk) 23:12, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

"Are expected to show" is speculation, pure and simple. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:29, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

There was no such sentence in the version you've last reverted [25]. Even if there would have been, you could have easily just re-phrased it or removed an offending word. You blanked out a whole large paragraph with 18 sources - that's a fact, pure and simple. I suggest you look at WP:REVENGE, WP:RUSH and WP:BATHWATER, whilst also recognizing WP:LACK --Saygi1 (talk) 00:40, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

There is no way to bring a paragraph about what will happen in the future, into compliance with policy with a few superficial edits. Please wait for the Census results to be released, and then add the information to the article at that time. Until then, speculation is in violation of WP:CRYSTAL, a policy you should read instead of quoting random essays at me. There is no rush to "finish" Wikipedia, but material which is outside of policy should be removed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:16, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

that's the point, you have violated the rules by making a bad-faith revert, blanking sourced information and try to improperly substantiate it with CRYSTAL that doesn't apply here, as there was no speculation in the text. I've addressed this at length. --Saygi1 (talk) 01:31, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Interested editors are invited to take a look at this thread on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, in particular Nuujinn's analysis of the reliability of the sources used to support the speculation concerning future Census results. Nuujin concludes by saying:

Throwing lots of weak or non-reliable sources doesn't help in terms of referencing. I haven't looked at all of the sources, but what disturbs me is that no source presented attributes a number backed up other than by a raw assertion by some individual or group. Where are these number actually coming from? Is there a study, a survey? Or it is just the case that numbers were plucked from thin air and shopped around?

This is, indeed, the nub of the matter. No number of unreliable references can turn an unsupported synthesis into hard, factual information, just as no amount of superficial editing can turn speculation into fact. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:03, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, I understand that you are disputing information from various sources listed in demographics section, but until there is a conclusion made, you should not be making an edit removing massive amount of information like this. Come to consensus and then remove it. I restored the information and moved the dispute tag to the appropriate section instead of disputing entire article. Atabəy (talk) 14:40, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

There is a consensus at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard that the sources provided for the paragraph are not reliable for the purpose of predicting what the current population of Azerbaijan-Americans is, having failed WP:SYNTHESIS, and speculation about what the Census will show fails WP:CRYSTAL, as the consensus of editors in several discussions indicated. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:27, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Since POV-pushing pro-Azerbaijani editors continue to restore the policy-violating speculative material, I have brought this matter to WP:AN/I, [here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:17, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, there is no POV pushing here, and all of the provided information is based on well referenced sources. If you want to dispute them, you may, using RFC. But your disagreement with one sentence does not justify a wholesale removal of referenced information. Furthermore, please, provide proofs that Margaret Kaeter or all US agencies that issued proclamations affirming 400,000 figure are pro-Azerbaijani or any way connected to Azerbaijan. Also, the figure is unofficial, thus citing it from the listed media and scholarly sources is absolutely reliable because it is a claim.

I also provided extra references to other parts of the article, which were removed in a recent revert by Bwilkins. They will have to be reincorporated in the article when the article restriction is lifted, per his recommendation. Atabəy (talk) 23:12, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

BMK, where did you see a "prediction" of Azerbaijani-Americans in the Census 2010 - please cite it, using the my last version? Where? And please then kindly show which rule supposedly applies and prohibits it - because WP:CRYSTAL does not, as there is no prediction. --Saygi1 (talk) 23:19, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Bad faith and constant attacks by user Kurdo777

User Kurdo777 has been engaged in endless attacks and bad faith edits on this article. He is constantly making wild and unsubstantiated accusations about any and all edits he doesn't like. All while never contributing to the article and never caring to expand it. To think of it, it might appear that he simply doesn't want this article to be in good shape - but I hope that's not the case. The Voice of America (VOA), a US government official news source, like any other attribution in this article, is a reference to the source that published the article. It is normal and standard practice to refer to the publication, instead of, for example, the journalist who actually wrote it. That's because the journalist works for that publication, and that publication makes a call whether or not to include any info.

For Kurdo777: dear editor, media organizations almost never come up with their own numbers, statistics, data - they do research, interviews, investigations, and only then report this, do what all journalists do. If you object to a reference to VOA in this article referring to 400,000 Azerbaijani-Americans (even though we've shown that this figure has been widely cited by many different sources going well beyond VOA), then you need to object to each and every instance of references/citations in all Wikipedia pages such as "According to the New York Times..." or "Los Angeles Times claims..." or "Miami Herald reported that...". Because it's almost never the newspapers or news sources themselves that do it, but they interview, do what journalists do, and then decide whom and which numbers to give preference, to cite, to refer to, to report. But again, the only reason I even included this in the first place because you and your friend objected to 400,000 estimate, so I've shown you that this figure is widely cited, is verifiable and reliable. That's all that's needed by Wikipedia rules. What is certainly unwelcome are constant bad faith edits and endless complaints with false accusations like "manipulation of sources" in titles. Let's learn to respect rules and respect each other. As I've said before, I can remove all sources I've placed to substantiate the 400,000 figure if you and your friend (or anyone else who decides to suddenly pop up to play a bad cop, a meat or a straw man) stop your bad faith edits and stop removing that info while unilaterally placing an unsubstantiated so-called "dispute" tag. --Saygi1 (talk) 21:07, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Dispute tag means some of the editors are talking in talk page . Why are you so inflamed ? And again when a newspaper reports a claim , that does not means it supports that claim and more than that when a company owns a newspaper , and the newspaper reports a person's points of view , we can't write in Wikipedia that parent company's ( newspaper owner ) opinion is the same as the interviewed person .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 12:58, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Alborz Fallah, the dispute claimed by yourself applies only to a certain section of the article, so I moved it to that section now. When a newspaper reports and publishes information, usual English wording used in quoting is "according to XYZ newspaper". Thanks. Atabəy (talk) 15:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Alborz Fallah, the "dispute" tag was for a some time on the article, you never once moved to improve the article. You had it there long before I ever even read that article and you (or others who are so quick to claim it should be there) never tried anything to improve it, to edit the article. It shows your intentions best. And once again, for a genuine dispute to be, one has to articulate what he is "disputing" with facts and references, not just throwing a bunch of accusations and bring in his "friends" to revert and basically edit war. --Saygi1 (talk) 23:17, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

In Wikipedia we are not supposed to judge about the other editor's intentions , but for your information , I did tried to improve the article . For example , please check this edit out . In retrospective glance , don't you think my edit was good indeed ? --Alborz Fallah (talk) 08:07, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit to this fully-protected article requested

WP:SYNTHESIS states:

Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research.[8] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article.

The Demographics section of this article contains the following paragraphs:

According to the 2000 U.S. census, there were an estimated 14,205 Americans born in the Republic of Azerbaijan,[1] out of which 5,530 were naturalized U.S. Citizens[1] and 5,553 identified themselves as Azerbaijani in a primary or a secondary ancestry.[20] Census 2000 did not count Azerbaijani-Americans born in countries other than the Republic of Azerbaijan.

According to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), in 2001-2010, a total of 9,391 people from the Republic of Azerbaijan were naturalized as U.S. citizens. The table below presents the distribution for each year between 2001 and 2010:

These statistics do not include the legal permanent residents (green card holders) who numbered 781 in 2010,[21] refugees, legal non-immigrant aliens (temporary visitors) who numbered 4,938 in 2009, as well as a very large number of ethnic Azerbaijanis born in other countries, such as Iran, Russia, and Turkey. Thus, based only on Census 2000 and DHS data, the official estimate of the U.S. citizens born in the Republic of Azerbaijan is approximately 14,944, and the number of U.S. residents born in Azerbaijan is approximately 24,377, minus the natural decline.

The last paragraph of these is a classic case of synthesis, since none of the sources cites actually gives the numbers 14,944 or 24,337. These numbers were obtained by join[ing] A and B together to imply a conclusion C which is not mentioned by [the original] sources, which is explicitly forbidden by WP:SYNTHESIS as original research. Therefore, I request that the final paragraph of the three quoted be deleted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:40, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

The source is one - U.S. government. The number is clearly delineated as in: 1) according to Census, this is the number; 2) according to DHS data, this is the number, and 3) according to media, academics, NGO and other government sources, it's this number. A WP:SYNTHESIS would require all the numbers to be lumped together and presented as one, under some guise - and that's just not the case. All these numbers are clearly listed on the article, and the reason knows exactly what number is from the Census, what number is from the DHS, and what number is from other sources. --Saygi1 (talk) 00:47, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

There is no requirement that the synthesis be attempted to be hidden. In fact, most often it is not, and the editor is unaware that their work is synthetic. Of course, when it is pointed out to them, good editors remove the material. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:38, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Not done for now: I am not going to wade through Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Azerbaijani-American at this time, but I am going to leave this request for a little while to get other editor's opinions. (By the way, it would be helpful in future to link to any relevant discussions on this issue when requesting an edit.) Please reactivate when there is a clear consensus. Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:46, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I will do that in the future. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:04, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Below is the discussion from AN/I, which I've copied over:

Adding up some numbers to reach a total is not, it seems to me, the sort of synthesis that the policy warns against. Although your concern that the 400,000 estimate may be speculative or exaggerated is a reasonable issue to raise for discussion, the figures you quote here do not seem to be reasonably subject to dispute by anyone, and hence your invocation of the policy here strikes me as hypertechnical and as detracting from the force of your earlier arguments.

A more serious concern about the paragraph you challenge is whether the emphasis on the exact numbers gives an impression of greater accuracy, to the last person, than is possible given the sizes of the numbers involved. But that probably is a nuance better suited for discussion on the article talkpage than on ANI. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:49, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Brad, I'm totally stunned by your comment that this is "hypertechnical". The paragraph I cited is a black and white example of the policy cited. Numbers from different sources (using the same? different? antithetical? methodologies) are added together to come up with figures which are mentioned in none of the sources. How can that not be a violation of WP:SYN, when it's precisely what the policy says not to do?

Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.

I really don't understand your take on this -- how can a policy not mean what it says? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:26, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

The 2000 number and the 2001-10 numbers are both actual counts from official government statistics. It amounts (in round numbers) to "there were 15,000 Azerbaijan-born people living in the US in 2000, and another 10,000 more arrived since then, so there are about 25,000 now." The fact that the paragraph adds 15,000 and 10,000 and gets to 25,000 strikes me as not especially problematic, though of course others may disagree. As I said above, I think there are more serious issues with the paragraph, including whether there is an excess of misleadingly exact detail. Let's see what others have to say. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:35, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

To flesh out my thoughts a bit more, I would think that the policy against original research through synthesis is violated, in a fashion that should concern us, when an editor adds material to an article embodying an inference that is not present in those terms in the original sources and the accuracy of the inference could reasonably be questioned. Do you think the latter is the case here? (Not a rhetorical question—I'd like to know the specific reason you are concerned about the figures, which seem quite reasonable, as opposed to the figure you were questioning yesterday, which I had questions about too.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:39, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Brad: That the figures are the same order of magnitude as the official Census figure certainly lends them a certain believability, but that's really neither here nor there. My feelings about the numbers are pretty irrelevant -- there are many things I know as fact from personal experience, but I cannot add them to articles without a citation from a reliable source, because that what policy requires, so I go out and find a reliable source to back it up. I see no reason here that policy shouldn't be followed as well.

I believe one problem may be that you seem to be approaching these figures as pure numbers which can be manipulated in any way reasonable – in another time and place, I have indeed argued, and continue to believe, that adding up numbers is, in and of itself, not "original research" – when, in fact, they are statistics, arrived at by a complex process. As I implied in my parenthetical remark above, we have no way of knowing if the numbers that came from these various sources were produced using the same methodologies or methodologies that are antithetical, if the database the stats came from are compatible or not, etc. etc. These are significant issues when manipulating statistics, which have been completely ignored here. This, it seems to me, is an extremely good reason for the sythesis policy to apply here: we're not just adding up numbers, we're combining results from different sources as if everything else is equal about them, and we just don't know that. If someone were to do a proper meta-analysis, manipulating the figures appropirately so that they can be combined, that would certainly be usable, but having editors do it themselves, that's not good. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:06, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

• Sorry to butt in here, but a) isn't this a content dispute more suitable for another noticeboard and b) isn't this a case of WP:CALC? --John (talk) 05:43, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

• John: Thanks, I was unaware of WP:CALC, which does seem applicable, as there is not the required consensus. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:57, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

End of discussion copied from AN/I

Where the number of Azerbaijanis living

Sorry, I understand that this is a stupid question. but you would not be able to tell me where most of Azerbaijanis living in the United States? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5aul (talk • contribs) 13:30, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Census 2010

Colleagues, you can find the source of the U.S. Census for 2010 which states how many participated in the census of Azerbaijanis. Here is my mail <redacted> thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5aul (talk • contribs) 15:55, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Azerbaijan location

According to existing WP articles and category structure, the Caucasus watershed boundary is considered the dividing point of West Asia and Eastern Europe. The article Greater Caucasus states "... while Azerbaijan in its northeastern corner has five districts north of the watershed (Davachi, Khachmaz, Quba, Qusar, Siazan)." These 5 districts are thus in Eastern Europe. This is also stated in List of transcontinental countries. These two articles are the basis of the entire WP category structure that puts each of these countries into two continents, whichever they may be. One editor who has not read any of these articles is objecting to this. Hmains (talk) 03:22, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, thanks for finally specifying what "geography article" you were referring to. The watershed divide of the Caucasus Mountains may be a commonly used boundary for Europe, but it's not the only one, and I could point you to scholarly works which argue that any western boundary for Europe is in some way arbitrary. Still I can see value in using a consistent definition through Wikipedia's category structure.

However, if only 5 districts of Azerbaijan are in Europe, what percentage of the country is that? According to Administrative divisions of Azerbaijan there are 59 districts, 11 cities and 1 autonomous republic with 7 districts and 1 city. Looking at the area figures for the five districts, I get a total of 6,955 sq. km. Compared to Azerbaijan's total area of 88,600 sq. km., that a mere 7.85% of the country's area. Looking at the population figures for the districts, I get a total population of 502,400 - compared to the country's population of 9,165,000 that's a mere 5.48% of the population.

In short, even accepting the definition for the boundary of Europe you used, the very small part of the country -- less than 8% of the area and less than 6% of the population, is not sufficient to label all Azerbaijani Americans as "European Americans". This category should be utilized only when we know the region that the subject came from. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:14, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Categories don't work that way. The country is part European; all the cateogries for the country show it is in both European and Asia. The people categories are handled the same way for this and every other bicontinental country. If you want a change, you will have to get that change discussed and approved at appropriate locations by other interested parties. I see no reason to have European elmiminated. Something you don't like about people being European? Or admitting that people from this country are European? Hmains (talk) 05:07, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, categories can indeed work that way, and please keep your assumptions about my opinions (and your lack of AGF) to yourself, because you're only making yourself look foolish.

Look, Hawaii is part of the United States. It's got a very small percentage of the area and population of the country, not nearly enough to justify putting the article Americans in the category "Pacific Islanders". It just doesn't make sense, because the country as a whole overwhelms the small part it is true about. The same is the case here. Only a very samll part of Azerbaijan is in Europe, not nearly a large enough part to justify Azerbaijani Americans being classified as "European Americans". If the percentage was close to half, or even a third, possibly even a quarter, that might be arguably justifiable, but less than 10%? No, not at all. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:56, 23 January 2013 (UTC)