Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Azerbaijan

Azerbaijan

The filing party (the editor who opened this request) will add the basic details for this dispute below.

Editors involved in this dispute

1. Interfase (talk · contribs) – filing party
2. Divot (talk · contribs)
3. Hablabar (talk · contribs)
4. Roses&guns (talk · contribs)

Articles affected by this dispute

1. Azerbaijan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Other attempts at resolving this dispute that you have attempted

• Talk:Azerbaijan#Map for the section Name of Azerbaijan
• Talk:Azerbaijan#New Section Name Azerbaijan
• Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Azerbaijan

Issues to be mediated

What is this dispute about? What sections, sentences, or issues in the article(s) can you not agree on? If you are the editor who opened this request, list these issues to be mediated under "Primary issues". If you did not open this request, you can add additional issues to be mediated under "Additional issues". The issues to be mediated would be properly agreed upon later, if this request for mediation is accepted.

Primary issues (added by the filing party)

I created the "Name of Azerbaijan" section in the article Azerbaijan, where the usage of the term "Azerbaijan" was described. Here we could see a lot of sources claiming that the term "Azerbaijan" was used also for the lands on the north side of Aras river. In the map "Russia at the Caucasus" we can see it very well. I think in this section we can use this map which illustrates this fact very well.

But user Divot claims that the map is wrong. I don't agree with him, because there are no any sources saying that "the map is wrong".

Hablabar and Roses&guns don't want to see this section in the article. They see there some WP:CHERRY and some propaganda. But I don't see here any cherry and propaganda. In my opinion the section is about the usage of the term "Azerbaijan" in the region in the different periods of history and is based on several reliable sources (e.g. Iranica). --Interfase (talk) 05:39, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Additional issues (added by other parties)

• The map is wrong, Details on TP. Moreover, I asked a well-known historian Bournoutian, his answer: "The map is wrong. The word Azerbijan is written in another font and script--compare it to Georgia. It is impossible to put Erevan and Lake Sevan in the so-called Azerbijan in 1847-- since it was until 1840 the Armenian Province and after that the Erevan Guberniia." Divot (talk) 21:23, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
• Additional issue 2

Parties' agreement to mediation

If you are a named party, please sign below and indicate whether you agree or refuse to participate in mediation. Remember that all editors are obliged to resolve disputes about content through discussion, mediation, or other similar means. If you do not wish to participate in mediation, you must arrange another form of dispute resolution. Comments and questions should be made underneath the numbered list below, to avoid confusion.

1. Agree. Interfase (talk) 05:39, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
2. Agree. Divot (talk) 20:24, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
3. Interfase is not allowed to participate in any discussion within AA2 area because of his recent ban. His non-compliance will be reported. Hablabar (talk) 20:12, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

This is not so. According to HJ Mitchell topic ban was a little over the top and he vacated this topic ban. I recommend not to use such arguments to freeze the discussion on this issue. --Interfase (talk) 08:19, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

According to clarifications the topic ban doesn't cover Azerbaijan topics in general—just topics related to the conflict with Armenia and similar geopolitical/ethnic disputes. --Interfase (talk) 15:18, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

• Topic bans are not necessarily a reason to exclude someone from mediation. Exceptions to bans include engaging in legitimate and necessary dispute resolution. In vacating the ban, HJ Mitchell said that a sweeping topic ban would be disproportional to the offence. Having considered the discussion regarding the ban and the comments above, I would be willing to accept this mediation provided that a sufficient number of parties agree to mediate in good faith. Sunray (talk) 21:08, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

@Hablabar and Roses&guns: Please signify your agreement, or not, to this mediation. Sunray (talk) 02:13, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Decision of the Mediation Committee

This section should only be edited by a mediator. The Mediation Committee's representative will indicate in due course whether the request is accepted (meaning a mediator will be assigned) or rejected (meaning you will have to try a different type of dispute resolution). If the mediator asks you a question in this section, you may edit here.

• Reject. Not enough disputants agreed to mediation. For the Mediation Committee Sunray (talk) 06:48, 18 March 2014 (UTC)