Jump to content

Talk:SOCAR: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Neftchi (talk | contribs)
32 edits
Neftchi (talk | contribs)
32 edits
Line 68: Line 68:
:I agree that none of these edits were improvements, for substantially the same reasons as Snoogans notes above. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality]]<sup>[[User talk:Neutrality|talk]]</sup> 20:43, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
:I agree that none of these edits were improvements, for substantially the same reasons as Snoogans notes above. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality]]<sup>[[User talk:Neutrality|talk]]</sup> 20:43, 11 November 2021 (UTC)


: 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 on this Wikipedia article, which are critical of Azerbaijan as a nation, and a reference to an Armenian media outlet as well, it may looks suspicious. For example, in the case of cancelling partnership with UEFA, SOCAR has indeed make 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.
: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 on this Wikipedia article, which are critical of Azerbaijan as a nation, and a reference to an Armenian media outlet as well, it may looks suspicious. For example, in the case of cancelling partnership with UEFA, SOCAR has indeed make 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.
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.

Revision as of 11:09, 12 November 2021

Requested move

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.

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]

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

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 on this Wikipedia article, which are critical of Azerbaijan as a nation, and a reference to an Armenian media outlet as well, it may looks suspicious. For example, in the case of cancelling partnership with UEFA, SOCAR has indeed make 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]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:SOCAR&oldid=1054842163"