Jump to content

Talk:SOCAR

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move; the claim that English sources refer to the subject as SOCAR is uncontested. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 05:01, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

State Oil Company of Azerbaijan Republic → SOCAR — Although the official name is the State Oil Company of Azerbaijan Republic, in English sources it is more commonly referred by its acronym SOCAR. Beagel (talk) 22:25, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on SOCAR. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:20, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on SOCAR. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:10, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let's discuss the edits first

[edit]

If you would like to undo any of my edits, please specify, what exactly, you disagree with, instead of just erasing everything. I'm adding a lot of updates and undoubted fact, supported by open and reliable sources. If you disagree with anything, just specify and let's talk. I'm sure, we'll come to a consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neftchi (talk • contribs) 11:44, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are numerous problems with your series of edits:
  1. Your edit changes content sourced to high-quality academic sources to alter the meaning of the sources, most prominently the second paragraph of the lead.
  2. You add egregious, poorly sourced puffery about the organization, both to the lead and the body. This poorly sourced nonsense conflicts with what actual reliable sources say about the organization.
  3. Your series of edits also included updated numbers. I don't particularly have a problem with that part of your edit, but your noncontroversial changes were so intermingled with the bad changes that it was impossible to easily keep the noncontroversial parts.
Finally, do you have a conflict of interest with SOCAR (which includes paid or compensated editing)? I ask because the push to remove reliably sourced content and insert poorly sourced puffery is what a WP:COI account would do. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:14, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that none of these edits were improvements, for substantially the same reasons as Snoogans notes above. Neutralitytalk 20:43, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clarification. Well, as always is the case, there are different claims about a certain subject. There are voices, who criticize SOCAR, maybe for a reason. Then there are contradicting opinions and the official statements of the company, which should be also taken into account. There is an ongoing political conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia, which prompts lobbyists on both sides to influence media and experts in various countries. When there are several media quotes under some points here in this Wikipedia article, which are critical of Azerbaijan as a nation, and a reference to an Armenian media outlet as well, it may look suspicious. For example, in the case of cancelling partnership with UEFA, SOCAR has indeed made a statement that it was SOCAR, who ended the partnership, not UEFA. No contrary official statement was made on any behalf. But some foreign media outlets, who were criticizing Azerbaijan during the recent Armenia-Azerbaijan war, rushed to claim that SOCAR was kicked out of the partnership. This kind of unfounded reports don't look unbiased, when there are official statements, supported by all parties, claiming the opposite.
Maybe I was emotionally tempted to some excessive whitewashing by what I perceived in some parts of this article as bias, coming from hostile countries. And thank you once again for pointing out that mistake. I have corrected the edits in the second paragraph of the lead, so that those sentences now reflect the critical tone. On the other hand, I believe it would be a more balanced approach to keep official statements of the company, when it says that it has been improving those drawbacks. I've added additional official sources for this claims as well. Maybe it would be a better idea to take the controversial second paragraph out of the lead and place it below in the article. Normally, the controversial claims and criticism should be placed somewhere lower in the body, as long as it's not the main characteristic of the subject - in this case, an energy company. And no, I'm not getting paid for editing this article. I'm not so impudent to claim to be absolutely neutral and unbiased, as nobody is unbiased, strictly speaking. But I'm going to strive for objectivity, hopefully, with your support. Neftchi (talk) 11:09, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What you insinuate to be Armenian propaganda is peer-reviewed research published by recognized experts in recognized academic presses. Your newest change attributes this scholarship as a POV with unacceptable WP:CLAIM language[1] while devoting nearly the entire lead to self-serving content sourced to the organization itself that flatly contradicts the peer-reviewed research on the topic. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:06, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
When I'm talking about apparent Armenian propaganda I mean references to such sources as "Gesellschaft Schweiz Armenien" - a lobbying diaspora organization of Armenians in Switzerland, which was previously among the sources, cited in the article. As for the authors like Audrey Altstadt, I respect her scholarly achievements and I've studied her other works. But it would have been quite a claim to consider her book "Frustrated Democracy in Azerbaijan" as an undisputable source of truth due to the reviews, especially if it has been reviewed by politically engaged persons, like Kauzlarich, the former US ambassador and prominent critic of Azerbaijan. If you compare it to the previous works by Altstadt, you would find them probably less critical than the recent ones. Unsurprisingly, the same goes for the change in political attitude of the US State Department towards Azerbaijan. It has been probably more than a decade of US losing gradually its geopolitical influence in the South Caucasus, particularly in Azerbaijan, but also in Georgia and now in Armenia. One can assume that both the changing paradigm of scientific research, based in the US, and the worsening attitude of US politicians are just logical consequences of worsening democracy in Azerbaijan, Georgia etc. Hence the frustration. One could also argument that scholars are possibly being influenced by the changing politics of their state. The neutrality of scientific research is a disputed matter in its essence. In such cases, I believe, the best way would be to allow readers judge themselves. They should read various opinions, if the references to the sources are exact and correct. The official self-description of an organization, which is being depicted in the article, should be taken into consideration too, along with other opinions. That's normal practice.
As I said, I have tried to improve my edits, according to your suggestions. If there are any additional particular points, which you would suggest to improve, I will be cooperative. Neftchi (talk) 19:43, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment is part WP:NOTFORUM rant and part WP:FALSEBALANCE. Nothing that you've said is connected to Wikipedia guidelines. We absolutely do not have to "allow readers judge themselves". Wikipedia sticks to what reliable sources say. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:39, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Once again you've reverted ALL edits, bringing back the OUTDATED information (2017), instead of 2020 data, based on SAME SOURCE! You've brought back the reference to a lobbyist organization of an open adversary of Azerbaijan (thus politically biased) as a source, here it is: "The European football union no longer tolerates SOCAR's war propaganda and human rights violations". Gesellschaft Schweiz Armenien. Retrieved 1 October 2021.
You are obviously misinterpreting the points of Wikipedia regulations, which you cite here. Because it says "it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic". Yes, it excludes minority or extraordinary claims. But official statements of the company, which is being described, is not a minority claim. They are essential to understand the subject and I can bring tons of examples from Wikipedia articles about renowned companies, where references were made to official statements of those companies, including the parts of text, which discuss critical issues.
It is absolutely impudent to delete all edits repeatedly, just because you disagree with some parts of those edits, while I'm repeatedly suggesting to discuss and improve those concrete parts, which you disagree with. I'm looking forward to take your opinion into consideration and, in fact, I've re edited it based on you suggestions several times. And I told, if there is anything else, which you would suggest to improve, just let me know! But you're just keeping undoing EVERYTHING. What kind of conduct is this? And while, you've accused me of bias, I just hope you are not politically motivated yourself against SOCAR/Azerbaijan... Neftchi (talk) 06:21, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I have nothing against removing sourcing that is not reliable or adding updated figures. It's your responsibility to do those edits without intermingling them with controversial edits. I'm not going to spend hours carefully removing all your brazen propaganda for the company, removing all the non-reliable sources you keep adding, and restoring the multiple peer-reviewed publications that you scrubbed from the article while also making sure that a couple of figures get updated and one non-reliable source gets removed. I'm reverting it all and placing the responsibility on you to edit properly. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:09, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have restored the references to publications, which you asked me to. To my best knowledge, my edits are supported now by reliable sources. As I said, if there is anything else, please specify. Since I'm not arrogant, I'm always open to discuss every particular suggestion. Neftchi (talk) 06:21, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:37, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:SOCAR&oldid=1207810361"