This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Atabəy (talk | contribs) at 21:16, 13 June 2007 (→UnPOV). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 21:16, 13 June 2007 by Atabəy (talk | contribs) (→UnPOV)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | Iran Start‑class Low‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
I moved the page per title suggested by Alex Bakharev , which is more appropriate. Thanks. Atabek 16:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- The title is not neutral. It was ONE cartoon, not "cartoons" and it was perceived as being anti-Azerbaijani, its POV to say that it actually was.Hajji Piruz 16:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- I think the suggestion made by Alex Bakharev should be followed. Yes, the cartoons were anti-Azerbaijani, that's why the center of protests were Azerbaijani-populated towns. I think it's important to identify these ones, because there were also other Cartoon protests in Iran over unrelated issues. Atabek 16:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- I removed the unsourced POV about involvement of Republic of Azerbaijan or Turkey (this is even more ridiculous claim) in these protests. Atabek 16:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- It was one cartoon, so why is the title plural? Also, its POV and non neutral to say that the cartoon were actually anti-Azerbaijani, as the cartoon was drawn by an Azeri.Hajji Piruz 16:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- It does not matter who drew it. The nature was insulting to Azeri ethnicity, as protests revealed. There is nothing anti-Iranian here, just gotta speak the truth. Atabek 16:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- Dacy, thanks for addition of sources. I think there is a duplication of text in the article, so we need to resolve that. Thanks. Atabek 16:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- yes, please I tried to regroup it. Go ahead. Important to prreserve all neccessary citations.--Dacy69 16:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- Dacy, thanks for addition of sources. I think there is a duplication of text in the article, so we need to resolve that. Thanks. Atabek 16:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
The title still needs to be changed to make the article NPOV. I also took out unrelated portions of the AI quote, which is talking about other incidents that are unrelated to this. The AI report is the annual report, talking about several different events. The cartoonist was also an Azeri, I dont see why Atabek inserted "allegedly".Hajji Piruz 17:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- I'll also add more information later.Hajji Piruz 17:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, I see no problem with current edit. Then we can add other events (which out of tthis article scope) on page Iranian Azerbaijan and mention cartoon issue very briefly there.--Dacy69 18:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- No, now that this subject has its own article, its not to be spammed anywhere else, thats the point of giving events their own articles. All other mentions have to be removed and redirected here.Hajji Piruz 18:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- Not removed, but linked to this page, sort of like with Musavat being pan-Turkist claims being inserted on every Azerbaijan-related page. We should also make a more comprehensive page on linguistic rights of Azerbaijanis in Iran, where other details, including events around Bazz castle shall be mentioned.Atabek 19:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Piruz, you are not establishing rules in Misplaced Pages. It has own and standards. Moreover, I mentioned someone changes the name of the article without discussion. That's it!!! It needs intervention of admins.--Dacy69 20:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- Dacy69, you changed the name of the article without discussing it either. LOL. By the way, my proposal for changing the name is this: "Iran (newspaper) Azeri cartoon controversy", that way it matches this title "Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy"Hajji Piruz 20:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- I have not changed any names. I just edited page which was opened by third party mediator.--Dacy69 20:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- It was not an "Azeri cartoon", it was an anti-Azeri cartoon, that's why there were protests all over South Azerbaijan. Grandmaster 05:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
This is the only neutral title: Iran (newspaper) cockroach cartoon controversy
It also matches the title of a similar article: Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy.
This title is NPOV, describes the situation, and works for everyone. Again, it also matches the title of another similar article (the Mohammad cartoons).Hajji Piruz 05:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- No, it does not describe the nature of the controversy, i.e. anti-Azerbaijani character of the cartoon. It was not just a controversy over an Iranian newspaper, it was controversy over anti-Azerbaijani cartoon, which the title should reflect. Grandmaster 05:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- Its an NPOV title which matches the title of an almost identical other article. Saying that the cartoon was anti-Azerbaijani in the title suggests that the cartoon was meant to be anti-Azerbaijani. Thats highly POV. The current title is very appropriate. The controversy was over a cockcroach cartoon published in the newspaper "Iran", the article title currently presents all of this in a neutral fashion.Hajji Piruz 05:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- It is a matter of fact that the cartoon was anti-Azerbaijani, that’s why Azerbaijani people protested it. The title proposed by you covers up the nature of the controversy, and thus is not acceptable. Grandmaster 05:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Again, I will refer you to the title "Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy". Grandmaster, the title is supposed to be NPOV. Its the content of the article that matters, and no one can say that anything is being hidden in the article.Hajji Piruz 05:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- I don't see why article on Muhammad cartoons controversy, contains the subject of issue "Muhammad", while Azeri cartoon controversy, somehow omitted the word "Azeri". So included that and moved the article to properly reflect the subject matter. I don't understand why there is an attempt to misrepresent the issue by omitting the word Azeri and thus pretty much contradict the Amnesty International report. Atabek 08:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- Because the cartoon was about Mohammad. As per the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, the current title is not appropriate.Hajji Piruz 14:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- It was some abstract cartoon it would have not caused anything. It was related to Azerbaijanis and made them angry and caused unrest. So, title reflects the problem. And I agree fully with third party proposal. At least it neutral.--Dacy69 15:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- Because the cartoon was about Mohammad. As per the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, the current title is not appropriate.Hajji Piruz 14:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
The title needs to be neutral. I already gave you an example of a similar article title. Your POV cant impede Misplaced Pages's rules.Hajji Piruz 16:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- The new (current) title reflects the NPOV, because: 1) the events around the publication and the following protests pertained directly to Azeris; 2) the cartoon was published in newspaper "Iran"; 3) the title is in line with the proposition made by the third party, Alex Bakharev. Atabek 17:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
UnPOV
No POV should be used in this sensitive article, especially unsourced and unauthored charges using the word "indeed" are completely unacceptable to encyclopedic article. Atabek 08:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
hajji Piruz used unrelated image with POv statement which I removed.--Dacy69 19:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- Unrelated images? I clearly showed the pan Turkic Grey Wolves symbol being used. This symbol is used by the Grey Wolves of Turkey and the Azerbaijan Republic. Its perfectly legitimate for the picture to be included. The use of that symbol is a clear indication that pan Turks, either from Turkey or the Republic of Azerbaijan or recruits in Iran, were involved in the situation. Its pictorial evidence which shows pan Turkic influence in the protests.Hajji Piruz 19:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- No, you are stretching the point. Here we need pictures related to the event. You youself advocated this apporach. You can use pan-turkist pictures on relevant pages.I can put pictures of Iranian chauvinist, etc. Should we put picture of Putin or Bush on any related with Russian or American administration. Further, Turkic influence is Iranian government presumption - they blame everyone From israel UK, US etc. Besides, you are putting POV comment in the image.--Dacy69 19:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- The picture on the left was from a protest Tabriz. LOL Dacy, I have brought pictorial proof of pan Turkist involvment in the protests. The Iranian governments suspicions are not unfounded, there are literally dozens of pictures taken by pan Turkists and posted on pan Turkist websites boasting about the pan Turkish supporters in the protests.
- The funny thing is that pan Turkists acknowledge this. Again, they were the ones that took and posted the pictures on their pan Turkic websites. How are you going to deny the pan Turkic involvement? I have brought pictorial evidence.Hajji Piruz 19:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, if we gonna use that kind of pictures from as you told pan-turkic site - first: we should not put any our comments, second: I have the right to put other pictures from demonstration, beated people, etc. If this is what we agree - then it is balanced, and you can go ahead, I will put mine.--Dacy69 19:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Are you threatening me with some sort of Wiki retaliation? Thats pictorial evidence of pan Turkic influence. You can use your POV all you want, but that wont change the facts.
Your telling me that I cant put in a picture that shows pan Turks in the protests but if I do, there also has to be a picture about the police beating people? LOL, WOW.Hajji Piruz 19:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
No, I am not threatening. I am simply trying to put some standards. For me, current outlay is ok with picture of cartoon itself. It is you who is making POV on pan-turkist involvement and put your own comments in image. So, either we keep it as it is or we gonna use other pictures. In the second case, I believe, we should first of all, use pictures of demonstrations. It is primarily related to the article. Make a choice.--Dacy69 19:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- I have evidence, pictures. Yes, you did threaten. Your POV means nothing here. The picture itself is proof. That symbol is used by the Grey Wolves and its party, the MHP. There is no denying that there was Grey Wolf involvment, the picture is on the web for everyone to see, and it should be in this article.
- Dont threaten anyone, it wont get you anywhere.Hajji Piruz 19:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- The picture added is a fake collage, not even professionally made, but assembled of two separate photos in Photoshop. This is not an encyclopedic material. Atabek 21:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Can somebody translate what the child is saying
I have put the cartoon. Can somebody translate what the child is saying. Is it a poem or what? What language it is? Is it important that the child and the roach talk using Latin letters rather than Arabic/Persian script? Alex Bakharev 08:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- Soosk means cockroach, and the cockroach is saying "What?" in Azeri.Hajji Piruz 14:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- Just a quick note, soosk means cockroach in Farsi, not Azeri. The "what" part is in Azeri. Atabek 17:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)