Talk:Azerbaijan in the Eurovision Song Contest 2009

Same mistake about the monument in Iran !

Usage of images of a monument in Iran , Maqbaratoshoara , in the promotional clip for Azerbaijan , is some how alike the using the image of monument in the Azerbaijani region of Nagorno-Karabakh. But anyway , Iranians does not consider Azerbaijanis as foreigner and I don't think that is important at all . --Alborz Fallah (talk) 13:24, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

yes I agree. Although I think it was a deliberate provocation by the organizers, Iranians do not consider the republic of Azerbaijan as a foreign country and supported it during the contest by televoting. Turks voted for their own country of course. So did Russians.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 13:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no reason to state that this was a "provocative illustration" that "caused controversy." Arash is Iranian; it makes sense for the image to be included in the reel. Parishan (talk) 20:08, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry it was indeed provocative. The reel was about the republic of azerbaijan and not about Iran. there was no reason for the republic of Azerbaijan to claims neighbors'territory.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 21:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Then for Mira Awad , being ethnically Arab , Bulgarian and Israeli , that would be a difficult task to choose an illustration !! Besides , if Arash is of Tehran , then why did the Russians choose Maqbaratoshoara of Tabriz , and not the Azadi Tower of Tehran ?
But anyway , I think that is not something important at all and I think the Parishan edit was right (for IP ) , because the situation between Armenia and Azerbaijan Republic is different with the Iran and Azerbaijan , and overall that mistake can't do any harm .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 20:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I still haven't been presented with any proof that this event was actually a controversy. Sure the monument was shown, but there doesn't seem to be any response to it besides a few people here saying it's similar to the Armenia thing. We do not self-identify controversies, we report them. Unless a source says that Iranians were upset over it or there were protests, then its nothing notable. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 21:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Mira Awad was born in Israel and is an Israeli citizen. Arash was born in Iran and considers himself an Iranian singer. There is no reason to blow whistles using big words like "provocative" and "controversy" just to prove a point. Parishan (talk) 22:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Iranians do not blame the authorities from the republic of Azerbaijan. But someone has done this. The whol nature of it is controversial. iran has earlier on protested such controversies, (Tabriz, persian gulf etc...() Iran had even boycotted national geographic and they even offered their appology. The contest was not broadcasted in Iran and certainly the Iranian authorities were not amused that the Iranian Arash participated in that. Wait and you will see dozens, maybe hundreds of reports about it from the Iranian media. It was just yesterday.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 21:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

We will wait. In the meantime, please remove it from the article until it is confirmed as a controversy. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 21:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

"the Iranian authorities were not amused that the Iranian Arash participated in that" - first of all, please refrain from projecting your personal perceptions of anything related to Azerbaijan on the Iranian authorities. Second of all, the authorities of any country have nothing to do with this musical contest. This is not a political competition. Parishan (talk) 22:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Parishan, I think it is fair to just mention it in a neutral way. And it is true that Iranian authorities do not like this contest. It has nothing to do with the Republic of Azerbaijan. They wouldnt broadcast it even when Arash had sung for Iceland, Andorra, Malta etc...--Babakexorramdin (talk) 00:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

You don't seem to get that you need proof! Currently there is no source that says there was any controversy, just your word. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 01:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

you don't seem to be listening and please do not yell at me. What I said is that it should be reported without calling it a controversy IN A NEUTRAL WAY. THAT IT WAS BROADCASTED IS A FACT and verifiable by the source given. One more time. I did not say to call it a controversy or any thing, just mention it!--Babakexorramdin (talk) 01:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The point is that without it being controversial, there is nothing special about it. You might as well describe all of the other monuments in the video real. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 01:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

1-that was something unusal. 2- provocative in the context of regional politics. Certain irredentist Azerbaijani groups indeed claim Iranian territory. --Babakexorramdin (talk) 01:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

You need to show something that says its inclusion was a "claim to Iranian territory", that is the overall problem that you face, not just that it was there, we all saw the show. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 01:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

if we all saw the show, then why are there so many details about it? I did not say that it was meant as a claim on the Iranian terriotory. Just name it a mistake or something.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 01:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Dear Babak; you can include it to article only if a newspaper or other authority reports it .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 05:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I removed links to Iranian blogs and forums. They are not reliable third party published sources, as required by the rules. Self-published sources are not considered to be reliable. Please avoid inclusion of such sources in the future. What's left are 2 Armenian sources, but they can hardly be considered neutral. Plus, they are both one and the same source, PanARMENIAN.Net. Grandmaster 11:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I do not see a point in keeping even what is left in the "controversy" section. Who said that it was a controversy? Parishan (talk) 16:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Granmaster, those Iranian sources that you removed, showed the pictures, in which you could see it had happened. And they contained discussions in which Panturkists showed their real face and got in fight with Iranians.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 09:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Not a Soapbox or place for comments

Wikipedia is a place for sources and not comments. Except for Shahriyar all the other poets of Maqbara al-Shora'a wrote in Persian or are from when Tabriz had an Iranic speaking population (up to 15th century). The oldest poet is Asadi Tusi from Tus and there are poets from all over the Iranian world. The issue is gone and no need to make an issue out of it. Lets not get into the details of Marbara al-Shora'ra here. Any comments should be sourced or else deleted.--Nepaheshgar (talk) 19:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Goldorack changes

This user insists to insert his POV in this text .[Tabriz, being] a historic capital of the entire Azerbaijan... What's the source of such a claim? Capital , tends to be seat of the government of a state . I don't think such state has ever existed that only include the south parts and north Azeri language parts of Iran.In Iran , it has been almost 1000 years that Iranian kings were Turkic language in their court , but there was never a separation between Azeri and non Azeri parts of Iran . In brief , such capital of Azerbaijan is imaginary : If it's not , please name the historical entity !. --Alborz Fallah (talk) 19:28, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, since wikipedia is based on strong/reliable sources, it is not a place for personal opinions or WP:Forum. But I wanted to make a historical point here, since the sentence cameup. These areas were mainly called Arran/Sherwan (North Caucasus) and Sherwan was controlled by the Sherwanshahs till the 15/16th century, so I am not sure what period is the user mentioning, when Tabriz was capital of "entire Azerbaijan", since Sherwan was independent of Arran and Azerbaijan until at least during the era of Shah Tahmasp (where capital was not Tabriz anymore). About the poets. Many (probably more than half) of the poets are from all over Iran and Central Asia, not Azerbaijan. The rest lived in an era where Tabriz spoke old Azari language language (Homam Tabrizi, Qatran Tabrizi..etc). For example Homam Tabrizi has poems in Old Azari language and many of the poets are from all over Iran, like Asadi Tusi, Shapur Neyshapur, Mani Shirazi and etc are from all over Iran. Only Shahryar is the only Azeri-Turkic poet (the only one that wrote in Azeri and can be verifiable considered someone who's mother tongue was Turkish. None of the poets buried there from 500 years ago till Asadi Tusi have written anything but Persian or Old Azari language. And ethnicity in my opinion is based on native language/culture (not anything else in modern Iran since virtually every Iranian has mixed ancestry like virtually most Middle Easterns and Caucasian Muslims and Anatolians and etc., else even Shahriyar's fatherline would be Arab because he is Seyyed.) that is buried there.--Nepaheshgar (talk) 19:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Well this historical talk aside, the most important thing is the assault on the Iranian territorial integrity.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 22:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Tabriz was the (regional) capital of Azerbaijan not just in Qajar times, when the Governor General such as Prince Abbas Mirza Qajar, was seated there and considered, at least from Qajar perspective, to be in charge of all historic Azerbaijan, which he was tasked with "defending" from Russians or Ottomans, but also in Shah Ismail times, when Ismail declared himself shah of Azerbaijan in 1501 in Tabriz (he already had control over lands north of Araxes, albeit not all), and of course Tabriz was capital of Iranian empire, and during the Qara Qoyunlu empire, and in 12 century during the Seljuk times, when Tabriz was part (albeit not necessarily capital) of the Azerbaijan atabek state, which included lands both north and south of Araxes. Tabriz was at the centerstage for many years, many decades, many centuries throughout the past millenia. So there is no contradiction, nor is there any violation of territorial integrity - usually many people from Iran like to talk about Tabriz's significance as Azerbaijan's capital and most important city in the region.

Shirvan was not independent until at least the era of shah Tahmasp - perhaps de facto to some limited degree, but de jure it was part of Safavi empire since Ismail, who defeated Shirvanshah. Also, Shirvanshah's were subdued by Seljuks, Atabeks, Mongols, etc. - so their period of total independence was more limited than what Nepaheshgar says. Also, it doesn't matter what language some spoke or wrote in - Qatran and others are considered and renowned as Azeri, as are many other Azeris who wrote/spoke in German, French, English, Arabic, Russian, Spanish, etc.

Lastly, I don't mind rephrasing and rewriting any of the lines, please suggest better alternatives. What I do mind is making this non-issue fanned by Armenian media look less trivial and more important than it is. --Goldorack (talk) 18:17, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes , Tabriz has been the regional capital of Azarbaijan province , but that does not means that has been a separate entity inside Iran : just as the Karabagh that is capital of a province inside the Az.Republic and showing it's monuments as a representative for Armenia should be considered offensive . But about the Shah Ismail or Atabaks or any other Iranian kings , I'm still asking "did you have any source that shows they have ever called themselves "kings of Azerbaijan " and not kings of entire Iran ? Was Shah Ismail shah of Iran or shah of Azerbaijan ? Do you think it's right to name Heydar Aliyev as Nakhchivan president who also ruled over Azerbaijan republic?
I think if you want to avoid fanning this issue , you may not use irritating language , as I was doing the same thing in conversation with Babak, but all of a sudden such a sentence popped out! --Alborz Fallah (talk) 11:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

We cannot phrase or rephase statements from users. I believe the rational is that Azerbaijan also sees that as part of its cultural symbol, so they showed it. If that is the reason, okay, but lets find the source. Else it is WP:OR and WP:synthesis. Now the issue of actual poets, except for Shahryar (who would be paternally descendant of Prophet Muhammand and hence Arab if we take the definition of ethnicity as paternal origin! which I do not), there is no other poet who is an Azeri poet that is buried there. The reason is that the monument was pretty much forgotten after the Safavids, and before that Tabriz was not Azeri speaking city. For example Fahlaviyyat from native Tabrizis like Hafez Karbalai, Mama Esmat Tabrizi and etc. shows this. So to call poets such as Asadi Tusi (from Tus) or even Homam/Qatran (who lived before Turkification of the area) as "Azeri poets" implies either they wrote in Azeri-Turkic (which they did not and actually wrote in Old Azari language) or they were related to Oghuz tribes or had their native language as Azeri-Turkic. Now with the exception of Shahriyar, everyone else buried there is a Persian poet and contributed to Persian literature. Shahryar contributed to both, approximately 30,000 lines of Persian and 3000 lines of Azeri. But he is considered Azeri not due to paternal origin, or etc., but simply his native language. Else 99% of our paternal origin is not known and has changed. As per the term "renowned Azeri", no the term "Azeri" for an ethnicity was not used up to the 19th/20th century. But if you mean by Azeri as in Turkic, no Qatran, Homam and etc. were not Turkic. So these guys lived way before formation of "Azeri" as an ethonym. As per Azerbaijani Turkic, that ethnicity was formed between 14th-16th century, and Tabriz was not Turkified in speech even in the 15th century, again before the period of all the poets buried there except Shahriyar.

Shah Ismail (and if we define ethnicity as paternal origin rather than native language which I do not, but he would be Kurdish if that is the case) called himself Shahanshah of Iran. He conquered Azerbaijan first but then he brought all of Iran under his control, so Tabriz would be the capital of all of Iran. If we are taking one year period when he just controlled Azerbaijan, fine (but even then there is no direct book that he calls himself Shah of Azerbaijan and some authors simply meant he declared himself Shah in Tabriz and had Azerbaijan then under his rule), but there is no poet buried in the Maqbara Sho'ara during that one year. In the Qajar era too, there seems to be no poets or well know ones. But Safavid empire is called Iran by its own rulers and Tabriz was just a short-time capital (of all of Iran and not united Azerbaijan which the term did not have an ethnic connotation then).

But in general more than half the poets buried there are from outside the region of Azerbaijan, the oldest poet being Asadi Tusi.

The "Atabekan-e-Azerbaijan" also controlled differents part of Iran, but not Sherwan and in general it is a later term used to denote Eldiguzids. They were very short lived. And of course Azerbaijan in the 12th century did not have an ethnic meaning, and its urban population would not be speaking Azeri-Turkic then. It took such a meaning in the 19th/20th century. It is a title, as the rulers were Kypchaks who were Persianized culturally. There is not a single verse of Turkic from their era from any writer or poet, as the bulk of the urban population at the time were not Turkified. They are no different than Seljuqs who controlled all of Iran including cities such as Tehran, Isfahan, Yazd, Shiraz, Hamadan and etc. But these does not make anyone born under Seljuqs as Azeri-Turkic.

On the issue, the opinion of Armenian media if it is attributed to Armenian media is worth quoting although I rather even just deleted this whole episode. But any statement that is user's opinion is not allowed. Specially it violates WP:synthesis. The fact is, there is a good deal of information on the most famous poets buried there, they cannot be called "Azeri poets" except Shahriyar who wrote in Azeri. The term Azeri as an ethnicity would be from the 19th/20th century, but the poets buried there were actually living at a time when the Iranic language of Tabriz was prevalent, as clear by Safina Tabriz. If some are of Turkic origin, then that can be used but since the Maqbara al-Sho'ara was forgotten after Safavids times (when Tabriz gradually adopted Azeri Turkish, specially after large number of Turkomen tribes came from Anatolia/Syria and slowly the local people adopted that language), that is why only Shahriyar is the only Azeri poet there. Except for him, all other poets are Persian/wrote in Persian and contributed to Persian literature and culturate. It is fine if Azerbaijan the country considers it as part of their cultural heritage as they do Zarathustra. Even, taking the hypothetical, if all the poets there wrote in Azeri, still there is WP:synthes/[{WP:OR]] element here because users are inserting their own opinion.--Nepaheshgar (talk) 04:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

dear nepaheshgar, the issue of language or ethncity or religion or whatever is irrelevant. The fact is that it is in the Iranian territory and in the Eurovision contest it was depicted as a monument of the republic of Azerbaijan. It could be done by the republic of azerbaijan itself, or by the Russian organizers. whomever did it is suggested vilation of Iranian territorial integrity. --Babakexorramdin (talk) 22:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Dear Babak. I think we should minimize intersections with these issues (republic of Azerbaijan/Armenia and modern political stuff) and Iranian articles as much as possible and cover it one article like Iran-Azerbaijan relationships. That is keep the bitterness generator to one article. Put anything politically related to modern Iran/Azerbaijan including that section into that article, rather than multiply it. This will at least minimize the problem. We can cover some of the extremist Elchibey type elements seeking to take part of Iran's territory in "Iran-Azerbaijan relationships" also. But eurovision is not important. If it was up to me, I would even erase that whole section and move it to Iran-Azerbaijan relationships. Other than that, we need to follow wiki policy and not insert opinions. What is important is that if someone wants to go beyond mere fashion show, pictures, statues and the stalinistic type nation building and actually understand what these poets said, they need to understand Persian and Persian literature. Else there is no connection to these poets if one does not read them or understand them. The rest is wind and no one cares about someone's paternal origin, 50th ancestor, eurovision, Aysel, Arash and etc. These are not lasting cultural elements. It is exactly the works of such poets that will last, not some eurovision contest or a 2nd rate song (that is my general view on pop). So if it was up to me, I would erase that section and put it in Iran-Azerbaijan relationship. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 02:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Dear nepaheshgar, I do not think that their bitterness is about the Armenian sources. Even if the Zimbabweam sources told the same they were reacting this way. Also it is not very interesting what language these poets wrote in and from what part of Iran they were. The monument is located in Tabriz and that is Iran. They have depicted it as a mnument in the republic of Azerbaijan and this should be mentioned.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 06:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikiproject Iran

Why does this page have the WikiProject Iran banner and why would it ever be a "top" priority article when its not even top for Azerbaijan? Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 20:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you will get the best answer to that if you check the edit records of some nationalistic editors from the republic of Azerbaijan.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 22:11, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Well according to the history, you added the project because of Arash. I guess that is fine. I reduced the priority to mid for both country projects to be realistic. Out of all the things that go on in these countries, I don't think participation in a song contest is that important. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 03:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

It is not the song but the Assault on the Iranian territorial integrity or its latent support by either the Republic of Azerbaijan or (and) Russia. I am sure USA had made a big deal out of it if it had happened to USA, for example if white house was depicted as a Cuban monument. So did the republic of Azerbaijan protested the depicten of a monument in Karabakh as in Armenia. What happened is a very bad thing in the international relation. It is aan implicte violation of sovereignty and territorial integrity of a neighbor.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 07:30, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

White House has absolutely no link or attachment to Cuba - or vise versa, so the comparison is not appropriate. --Goldorack (talk) 18:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

So has maqbaratoshoara no attachment or link to the republic of Azerbaijan.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 22:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)--Babakexorramdin (talk) 06:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

It has for Arash. Azerbaijan was represented by 2 singers, one of which was from Iran. If Iran does not object to this, why is this a problem? Grandmaster 07:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

So "we are our mountains has linkages to Armenians. If that is the logic. Why not Ali Qapu or Azadi towr for Arash? Iran was not particpitaing at all. Iran has not protested because all the media and press are busy with presidential elections and by the way Iran does not want to promote Eurovision. Moreover because Iran feels secure of its position, so as I said it is not a big deal for Iran. Iran reacts differently different than simiilar issues between Armenia and the Republic of Azerbaijan, but it needs to be mentioned.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 08:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The fact is mentioned. But there's no controversy, since no one officially objected. Grandmaster 09:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Its Ok, be cause we are not making politics here. It is up to Politicians to to do that. we will mention if there are any portest, if there are no protests we won't.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 11:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Maqbaratoshoara

Please don`t remove the part about Maqbaratoshoara from the clip controversies sub-section. I have provided a link to a critical item from a government-sponsored Iranian news agency , so the issue is indeed controversial. --Kurdo777 (talk) 08:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Did Iran officially complain? If not, then why is it a controversy? Report in a newspaper does not mean that there was some sort of an international controversy. Grandmaster 10:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

First of all it is better to have the sources keeped. And if I'm right, we already have 2 significant sources from two countries about this controversy. I'm sure this info is reprinted in other important media too. So what's not controversy here? You're deleting another relevant sourced info without any real reason. This article is about Song Contest, not an inter-diplomatic affairs between Azerbaijan and Iran! Gazifikator (talk) 11:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Please do not suppress and censor sourced information. This is a notable issue and should remain in the article, The Iranian government does not need to protest something , to make it controversial. We have no such parameter in Wikipedia; that a government needs to protest something, to make it a controversy. The fact that the issue in question has been covered by the national media, in a critical manner, makes it a controversy. If you disagree, then we could request WP:third opinion on what constitutes a controversy, and weather or not it needs a government complaint --Kurdo777 (talk) 11:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Info is not removed. It just is not a controversy, and thus is placed in the appropriate section. Please ask for a third opinion whether it is a controversy or not. If nobody officially objects to inclusion of the image, why is it a controversy? Grandmaster 11:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The national media have objected to inclusion of the images (according to the Iranian media, another Iranian monument called Segonbad was also used in the reel), that`s why it is a controversy. --Kurdo777 (talk) 12:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Media writes lots of different things. However Iran as a state never objected. Grandmaster 12:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

You wrote:

While Eurovision forbid the showing of the Armenian monument because it was located in Azerbaijan`s Karabakh region, it allowed the showing of the Iranian monuments even though they are located in Iran.

You know why Eurovision prohibited the image in Azerbaijan to be shown in the Armenian reel? Because Azerbaijan formally objected. Iran never did, so there was no controversy with Iranian image in Azerbaijani reel. After all, Arash is of Iranian origin, so it is Ok that the reel showed an image from Iran. Grandmaster 12:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I did not write that, I simply restored the original wording. If you wish to create a separate section for the Iranian issue, I have no problem with that. That does not, however, change the fact that the Iranian media have criticized the inclusion of of the images, and that makes this issue a controversy. I`ll add a clarification that the media have raised those questions. --Kurdo777 (talk) 12:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Saying that the Iranian government has not objected, implies that they knew about this and did not object. The source says nothing of sort, so you can not add that, it`s original research. I have, however, mentioned that the Armenian media have made the comparison with the Armenian issue. --Kurdo777 (talk) 12:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The Armenian media makes a lot of comparisons to justify their position in the picture scandal. However it is highly doubtful that the Iranian government was unaware of the issue, and is not aware of it now. Still they say nothing. Grandmaster 12:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

In accordance with WP:OR, we stick with that the sources say, there is no room for speculations and personal interpretations here. --Kurdo777 (talk) 12:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, if there's a source that Iranian government protested, please provide it. Grandmaster 12:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I never mentioned the Iranian government, you have brought up that issue, so you need a source that the Iranian government has or has not done X or Y. Otherwise, you can not add anything to that effect to the article, it would be original research. --Kurdo777 (talk) 12:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, what's up with changing Iranian Azerbaijan to North-Western Iran? Is any mention of Iranian Azerbaijan prohibited in Wikipedia? Grandmaster 12:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no official province in Iran called Iranian Azerbaijan. If you wish, we could say the capitals of East and West Azerbaijan provinces of Iran. --Kurdo777 (talk) 12:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I see what you mean though, so I changed it to the Azerbaijan region of Iran --Kurdo777 (talk) 12:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry It's a little late to join this discussion. I beleive the Kurdo's version is fine and it is worth to talk about this controversy in the article--St. Hubert (talk) 17:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

And who decided it was a controversy? We still haven't proved that it was. So far it was just an occurrence. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 20:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The Armenian and Iranian media see it as a controversy, the citations are the proof. --Kurdo777 (talk) 21:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Do they specifically call it a controversy or are they just providing a description of the event? Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 02:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The Armenian media does not say that it was a controversy. They just mention the fact that Azerbaijani reel depicted an object in Iran and claimed that Armenia also could include an object in other country's territory. The fact remains that no one officially complained about the Maqbaratoshoara picture in Azerbaijani reel. Thus, there was no controversy, unlike the picture in Armenian reel, which caused a diplomatic scandal. Grandmaster 04:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I cannot read the farsi language sources provided by Kurdo777, so I have no idea what they say. Grandmaster 04:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Well. I have read the Iranian reports and they are all very critical. I have seen very harsh criticisms and objections. Isn't by definition a controversy? Anyhow, we could change it to clip-related controversies and criticisms.--St. Hubert (talk) 13:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Criticism in one or 2 newspapers does not mean there was a controversy. Iranian state did not object, they are Ok with it. The criticism in Iranian newspapers cannot be qualified as a controversy, as there are no sources describing it as such. And I doubt that this criticism is notable enough to take much space in the article. Currently almost half of the article to one of the winners of the contest is dedicated to "controversies" that did not receive any coverage in international mass media. Notability of this criticism is highly dubious. Grandmaster 04:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you really believe that a country's participation in the Eurovision 2009 itself is so much notable to be condemned or criticized not only by international media, but also by diplomats and ambassadors? This article is about entertainment and pop music, not about official view of Iran or Belarus. Gazifikator (talk) 04:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT. Any criticism must be given appropriate weight, and should not be labeled a controversy. Grandmaster 04:48, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a source that says it was ok to use Maqbaratoshoara picture? If no, then we have 100% of criticism! And the cited media is notable I think even more than a country's participation in the Eurovision 2009. Gazifikator (talk) 04:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Please be aware Kurdo777 is banned as a sock of the banned user. --Grandmaster 15:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry [1]? Gazifikator (talk) 04:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Dealing with criticism and controversy

Please go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision#Dealing with criticism and controversy for some discussion about this issue. Camaron · Christopher · talk 09:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Azerbaijan in the Eurovision Song Contest 2009. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090901064107/http://www.rte.ie:80/arts/2009/0516/eurovision.html to http://www.rte.ie/arts/2009/0516/eurovision.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.oikotimes.com/v2/index.php?file=articles&id=58272009
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091215032933/http://www.escradio.com/awards2009/results.asp?id=4 to http://www.escradio.com/awards2009/results.asp?id=4
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://mirtv.ru/content/view/10208/12/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090523050556/http://www.euroradio.fm:80/ru/854/reports/32828/ to http://euroradio.fm/ru/854/reports/32828/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140407224628/http://www.ayandenews.com/fa/pages/?cid=8224 to http://www.ayandenews.com/fa/pages/?cid=8224
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100211121559/http://mosnews.com/society/2009/05/18/armenianazericontestconflict/ to http://www.mosnews.com/society/2009/05/18/armenianazericontestconflict/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 01:10, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Azerbaijan in the Eurovision Song Contest 2009. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090119090611/http://esctoday.com/news/read/12937 to http://www.esctoday.com/news/read/12937

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) 01:52, 5 June 2017 (UTC)