Talk:Azerbaijan (Iran)

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2

last edit - POV pushing

Last edit is clearly POV pushing, and at least contradict references which in this sentence. A lot of discussion held here. Any new edit should be discussed thoroughly before edit made.--Dacy69 19:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC) Now it reflects both points of view, I hope with reference # 1,2 for one sdie and reference # 3,4 for another.--Dacy69 19:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

history

I updated some info on recent history--Dacy69 16:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

it was not updating, it was blatant pushing by a handpicked of obscure sources, I revert until you at least show consensus for it. --Pejman47 17:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

It is reliable sources and well-known facts. what you are doing is blatant vandalism.--Dacy69 17:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Dacy, stop spamming articles, this issue has been addressed already in its proper article.Hajji Piruz 17:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

There have been three references removed from the article. Can you please, provide:

1. detailed reason for reverting

2. detailed reason for claiming "obscure sources"

3. reference to the "proper article" in Wikipedia, where "this issue has been addressed already".

Thanks. Atabek 17:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• please see the Talk:Iran-Azerbaijan relations( ---> POV section) about the cartoon . --Alborz Fallah 17:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Claim on that page was that information is irrelevant to foreign relations. here it is about domestic policy. It perfectly suits. That's it. Indeed, sources which I used on this page was used on that page - Iran-Azerbaijan relations and stiill on that page. So, you just in tandem try to remove sourced information. Multiple sources which introduced here will be approved by any third party mediator.--Dacy69 19:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I am adding Amnesty International source - Its reliability is not under question.--Dacy69 19:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Pejman, you are blindly reverting wothout any reasonable discussion--Dacy69 20:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

you said you are going to only insert the amnesty international sources and mentioned it in your edit summery, but then you just reinserted your obscure sources. I ask you to think about your edits. --Pejman47 20:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

you said that it is obscure sources. I added Amnesty International to support it. You blindly deleted it. Now I am opening request for comments case. Next - I will have to draw attention of admins to your actions if you were persistent in deleleting multiple sourced information.--Dacy69 20:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comments

The dispute regarding update on the recent history of Iranian Azerbaijan - events of May 2006 and others involving riots supressed by police caused by cartoons published in an Iranian newspaper insulting Azerbaijani identity. Edit [1] was supported by multiple and reputable sources, including Amnesty International. Editors user:Pejman47 and --User:Alborz Fallah without reasanoble arguments blindly delete edits.--Dacy69 20:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

With regard to comments below "A - The first two sources and Cristian Science Monitor are not international sources" (???) What it means? Pls. see Wikipedia guidance on sources. We need NPOV sources and non-obscure one which is the case with CSM and other references. As far Amnesty International - I introduced it because Pejman47 questioned sources on its notability. Amnesty International confirms which other sources reports.--Dacy69 02:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Comments of Editors Involved

A - The first two source of information , [2] and The Christian Science Monitor are not international sources.

B- The Amnesty International USA 's Annual Report , is not related to "History" section of Iranian Azerbaijan as we don't see such a report Amnesty on Azerbaijan on history section of Azerbaijan or any other country in Wikipedia:Israel , USAand etc--Alborz Fallah 22:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Comments of Third Party

Dacy69 is trying to spam several articles with the same information. This information is already mentioned in the proper articles. It has nothing to do with the Iranian region of Azerbaijan or its history. This isnt the proper place for the information Dacy69 wants to insert. Again, this information has already been inserted in the proper articles already and has absolutely nothing to do with Iranian Azerbaijan or the history of Iranian Azerbaijan.Hajji Piruz 22:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

You should have some decency. You are involved in many dispute on similar topic and still commenting as third party. You are making comments on editor rather than on subject matter. I'll take note. Ok. Now about the subject. Then you have not explained where this information is covered and why the description of important recent historical event should not be in the article.--Dacy69 01:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why Amnesty International info was removed. Please provide a good reason for deletion of sourced info. Grandmaster 06:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Alborz, this is an article about a geographical region, don't insert irrelevant and poorly sourced "Human Rights reports" into the article. Otherwise, there would be no end to it, and next we would have a section with "Human Rights reports" about the conditions of Talysh, Tatars and Kurds on Azerbaijan Republic article. Wikipedia is not a forum or a soapbox. AlexanderPar 08:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

And the same information on human rights of Azeris in Iran is already available on Azerbaijani people, Iranian Azeris and Human rights in Iran. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, you can not spam Wikipedia articles with the same information on four different articles. The article Azerbaijan (Iran) is a geographical article, not an ethnic one. AlexanderPar 11:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Text inserted is not about human rights per se. It is about recent historical events. Secondly, it is based on multiple sources, Amnesty Inetrnational is one of them. But editors, like pejman and Alborz, remove all of them.--Dacy69 13:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

If the same event pops up in a number of articles it shows that we need a separate article about the event. Controversy over Anti-Azerbaijani cartoons or something. Then all the articles could use only a short phrase linking to the controversy article or even the link in the See also section. Any takers? Alex Bakharev 14:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

This is already covered in two or three articles already.Hajji Piruz 14:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I liked this idea. Issue might be covered exactly in many articles. Invasion in Iraq is mentioned thousand times. Still, my edit was not only about cartoon issue but other events in 2007. For now, I will work on the article on cartoons and then we can make proper edit here.--Dacy69 14:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Alex Bakharev, I think this article is absolute necessity to reflect the historical events. Since events did happen in past, they're quite relevant to history section, and withholding of them, especially provided sourced information does not make sense at all.

Regarding AlexanderPar's comment, I welcome him to refer to the State Department as well as CoE and PACE reports on conditions of minorities in Azerbaijan. For comparison, those conditions aren't nearly as abysmal as they're in Iran. Thanks. Atabek 14:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I created the article: Iran Cartoon Controversy.Hajji Piruz 15:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

You have created article with name which distort the nature event and plus you filled it with unsourced POV information. therefore, I think now we should resolve this whole issue here.--Dacy69 16:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Summary

As per advise of third party a new article created Azeri Cartoon Controversy in "Iran" Newspaper. Further it was advised to use only a short phrase linking to the controversy article.--Dacy69 16:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

you are not entitled to "summarize" the debate which you were part of it on your behalf!, let other non-involved do it and see if there will be any consensus or not. --Pejman47 18:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

News-type stuff should go to Wikinews, not Wikipedia. The cartoon controversy does not have enough lasting importance and significance to be included in the history section.AlexanderPar 18:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

You both acting as meatpuppets. You have not even participated in discussion and making reverts. Summary is fine. It reflects third party opinion. I quote it again "If the same event pops up in a number of articles it shows that we need a separate article about the event. Controversy over Anti-Azerbaijani cartoons or something. Then all the articles could use only a short phrase linking to the controversy article or even the link in the See also section."--Dacy69 19:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

If you are not agree with that we can resort to Arbitration since I see no further point in mediation. You keep reverting.--Dacy69 19:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

you have a very very strong POV in this issue and even don't try to hide it at all. I will not accept "you" summarizing this RfC, ask an admin like Alex or Khoikhoi to do that, I will be OK with that. --Pejman47 19:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Dacy69, stop threatening people with Wiki retaliation, Pejman, he also threatened retaliation if I insisted on having a picture in the cartoon article.Hajji Piruz 19:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't mislead people. You are inserting unrelated picture with your own POV comment. I offer to insert picture of demonstration which is of prime improtance. This is called 'balance'. And pls. use relevant talkpage, don't spread it here.--Dacy69 19:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Dacy69, please refrain from making baseless accusations, my views are mine, and mine alone. History section is for historical events, not every strike or demonstration that has taken place in a region. AlexanderPar 19:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I haven't seen you around during the discussion. You just quickly came after edit and Pejman revert. History section should reflect important events. I see we can't agree on its importance. But third party mediator clearly stated his view - I quoted it above. So, you don't agree with that either. So, I propose Arbitration, and for some reason Hajji Piruz call it retaliation. ?...--Dacy69 19:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear Dacy, do you think the history page of Azerbaijan republic needs a new section about the human right reports about Talesh and/or Kurds or about the Nardaran clashes?! I can't understand what's the reason to place all of these recent events on this history page? More than that , your idea about doubting "degree of integration of Azerbaijanis in Iranian society" is not a part of your source (Karl Rahder's) text- Although that source itself is a personal view! -and adding your personal point of view to the text is out of editorial ethics! Please keep your false idea of comparing Iranian Azeri relations to other Iranians to Azeri-Russian relations for yourself! We (Iranian Azeri's) don't think alike you.YULDASH: MONI KI YAZDON TARXDAN HESH DAXLI VAR?--Alborz Fallah 14:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)