Talk:Fuzuli District

Discussion

I removed POV and OR added from armeniapedia.org and armeniahouse.org. Fizuli is occupied raion of Azerbaijan outside of Nagorno-Karabakh. The article is supposed to reflect sourced encyclopedic and neutral material. Please, discuss further changes on talk page. Atabek 00:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Atabek, your source asks nothing about "Fizuli is a raion of Azerbaijan, partially under the military control of Armenian forces". it only asks "Karabakh Armenian forces take Agdam, then push south toward the Iranian border, occupying the Qubatli, Jebrayli, and Fizuli districts" [1]. "Karabakh Armenian" not "Armenian", "Fizuli district" not "raion" (of Karabakh, of Azerbaijan?), nothing about "partially military control". its an original research! Andranikpasha 10:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Fizuli is not a district of Nagorno-Karabakh, it is a rayon of Azerbaijan. It is not claimed as a part of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. District, in this case, should be considered synonymous with rayon. --Golbez 10:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, its not a district of Nagorno-Karabakh, its a district of Lowland Karabakh (ther're two Karabakhs- Mountainous (Nagorno) and Lowland)! and what about "Karabakh Armenian" and "Armenian", "partially military control" etc? In all the cases the cited source doesnt asks such things! Atabek asked other users for sources, but he also need to represent sources to prove his edit which is not an obvious fact (its a conflict territory)!Andranikpasha 10:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

"lowland Karabakh" is not a political unit and therefore cannot have districts. In this case, it certainly means the Fizuli rayon of Azerbaijan. I wasn't aware any source disagreed that Armenians (of either type) occupied most of Fizuli. --Golbez 10:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the geographic region surely can have districts! I must repeat myself: the cited source asks "Karabakh Armenian" not "Armenian" (do you think it is the same term?), doesnt ask "partially military control": if Atabek and you ask that Fizuli is under partially military control, you should represent a source proving that (surely its not a obvious fact). You see its a very hard topic for the involved sides and only thing we need- proved description, not a "source" with different text and the "certainly", "should be considered" unsourced words. I dont think if there is anything related to that region which can be considered as a fact and doesnt need a source (if it is a well-known fact it must have thousands of sources proving that).Andranikpasha 10:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Fizuli Box

Hello! Sorry if I'm talking to the wrong person, but I believe that you removed one of the fact boxes that I'd added to the Fizuli page. There was some sort of explanation but I'm afraid I don't really understand it. It seems that for some reason the style of the fact box wasn't right - I'm more than happy to have such boxes right, and simply cut and pasted that style from another part of wikipedia precisely as I thought it should look the same as other similar pages (and I'm not clever enough to make up my own!). However, simply getting rid of the fact box seems too severe as that means that the figures get lost too. Anyway, best wishes.Malikbek (talk) 12:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Malikbek! I have nothing against the Fizuli box Im welcoming it! But what is unacceptable that the accusations are so much biased there (f.e. we're affraiding to use the words like occupation etc.) and will be reverted to more neutral version. And an another problem with your first edit was the undiscussed changes at description which was discussed earlier. Andranikpasha (talk) 15:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fuzuli District. 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/20140222054150/http://www.demoscope.ru/weekly/ssp/sng89_reg1.php to http://demoscope.ru/weekly/ssp/sng89_reg1.php

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) 13:55, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fuzuli District. 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/20091114093402/http://www.azstat.org/statinfo/demoqraphic/en/2_1.shtml to http://www.azstat.org/statinfo/demoqraphic/en/2_1.shtml

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) 04:44, 9 October 2017 (UTC)