Talk:Hadrut Province

Artsakh Low‑importance

	Hadrut Province is within the scope of WikiProject Artsakh, an attempt to improve and better organize information in articles related or pertaining to Artsakh and Artsakhians. If you would like to contribute or collaborate, you could edit the article attached to this page or visit the project page for further information.ArtsakhWikipedia:WikiProject ArtsakhTemplate:WikiProject ArtsakhArtsakh articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Azerbaijan Low‑importance

	Azerbaijan portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Azerbaijan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Azerbaijan-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AzerbaijanWikipedia:WikiProject AzerbaijanTemplate:WikiProject AzerbaijanAzerbaijan articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Copyright

This information is largely copied from the Armeniapedia. The copyright holder has agreed to allow it for use on Wikipedia. - FrancisTyers 05:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted POV project tag per [1]. Atabek (talk) 07:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Liberation

I think using words like "liberated itself" violates WP:NPOV especially when referring to the Armenian source. I think the wording must be changed. --Quantum666 (talk) 13:01, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I actually agree with you; however, I disagreed with the IP's replacement. The existing line is taken from the source (which yes, is very likely biased) but certainly what he put in there wasn't justified by the source he left behind, and that was the primary reason I reverted. If you can find a better source explaining who burned what and how many times, I'd be happy with that. --Golbez (talk) 13:12, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not object to your revert. The IP's edit seems to be vandalism. --Quantum666 (talk) 13:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hadrut Region. 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/20110531152833/http://archive.hetq.am/eng/society/0610-hadrut.html to http://archive.hetq.am/eng/society/0610-hadrut.html

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) 05:17, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Moving to Hadrut Province

Please allow time for a proper move from Hadrut Region to Hadrut Province to be executed. The move cannot be done until the redirects are removed, and the incorrectly moved Hadrut Province has been deleted. I have removed the redirects, and tagged Hadrut Province for speedy delete. Once it is deleted I will be able to execute a proper move including this talk page. Thank you. ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:55, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War

A large area, overlapping all of the Hadrut province, is no longer under Armenian De Facto control, as a result of the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War.

This means that the whole Nagorno-Karabakh province of Hadrut is under full De Facto and De Jure control of Azerbaijan. Therefore, it is no longer an existing province or entity.

Stating it IS a province of Artsakh Republic is incorrect. Okanmnkc (talk) 10:25, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I support above, the whole area is under Azerbaijan control and falss under constitution of Azerbaijan, unless Azerbaijan reinstates Nagorno Karabakh Oblast Hadrut should be moved under Khojavend as to according to Azerbaijan territorial administration. Agulani (talk) 05:24, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New citation for the lede

Hello Archives908, according to you, throwing new sources into the WP:LEAD is not an improvement. However, it is clearly that the sentence de jure part of the Republic of Azerbaijan needs a citation. There is this ^{[citation needed]} template there. What I did is not a part of what you perceived as my disruptive edit. And in Indonesian Wikipedia, I also involved in changing that template with an actual citation.

I know I was very rude to you. However you seem hold a grudge against me as well, clearly from your statement I have seen on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. But still, it is unfair to perceive one's edit as not an improvement, when it clearly is. Please explain and talk here, why a source or sources can't be use to remove ^{[citation needed]} template? Isn't the purpose of adding that template to add the citation, because materials without citation can be removed from Wikipedia? Mfikriansori (talk) 02:02, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an improvement if it adds nothing new. Furthermore, your added quote is especially one-sided and POV. Understand now? And don't assume, I hold zero grudges. Just trying to diligently uphold Wikipedia's ethos- something you have little regard for based on your disruptive editing and rude remarks towards others. Archives908 (talk) 02:08, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How can it be one-sided, when it's generally recognised so? If you regard them as one-sided and POV, why bother have this particular sentence "de jure part of the Republic of Azerbaijan"? Of course it will be one-sided because there is a dispute ongoing between Artsakh and Azerbaijan.

Wow, I appreciate this, "Just trying to diligently uphold Wikipedia's ethos- something you have little regard for based on your disruptive editing and rude remarks towards others.". Have a good day. Well, maybe from now on everytime I see ^{[citation needed]}, instead of adding citation as requested, I just ignore it. Mfikriansori (talk) 02:22, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am still waiting for you further comment/response here. I got this "Wikipedia articles require reliable, published sources that directly support the information presented in the article. Now you know how to add sources to an article, but which sources should you use?" from [[Help:Introduction to referencing with Wiki Markup/4]]. The source further elaborate reliable source as "those with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. They tend to have an editorial process with multiple people scrutinizing work before it is published. Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources. Other reliable sources include university textbooks, books published by respected publishing houses, magazines, journals, and news coverage (not opinions) from mainstream newspapers."

As far as I am concerned, these work ^[1]^[2] meet the criteria of reliable sources mentioned above. Mfikriansori (talk) 10:20, 22 April 2022 (UTC) Mfikriansori (talk) 10:20, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You still have not grasped why adding such a reference is not particularly necessary, nor an overall improvement to the lead. I urge you to read MOS:CITELEAD very carefully. You said you wanted to learn how to be a better editor so here's some policy for your reference, "Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source". Archives908 (talk) 15:23, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is this sentence "the presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article" on the page of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. As you said then, "less likely to require a source", then why bother to have this {{citation needed}} template in the lede of Hadrut Province article? We can remove it as it is less likely to have a source. I tried once to remove it [2], but deemed as POV posting. Mfikriansori (talk) 17:16, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you and just removed the cn tag. Archives908 (talk) 19:20, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, much appreciated. Mfikriansori (talk) 20:03, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Cornell, Svante E. (2017). The International Politics of the Armenian-Azerbaijani Conflict: The Original “Frozen Conflict” and European Security. New York: Palgrave MacMillan. p. 29. ISBN 9781137600066. As noted above, from 1921, the region was declared as a de jure part of Soviet Azerbaijan and remained so throughout the Soviet Era. Indeed, on December 1, 1989, the Supreme Soviet of Armenia attempted to formally anneex the region through proclaiming Nagorno-Karabakh a part of Armenia. Its subsequent occupation of internationally recognized Azerbaijani territory further speaks against the existence of defined borders in the region
^ Patrick Johansson (2019). "Displaced Persons as Symbols of Grievance:Collective Identity, Individual Rights, and Durable Solutions". In Bradley, Megan; Milner, James; Peruniak, Blair (eds.). Refugees' Roles in Resolving Displacement and Building Peace Beyond Beneficiaries. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press. p. 138. ISBN 9781626166752. So far the international community considers Nagorno-Karabakh and the surrounding districts as de jure Azerbaijani territory, and no state including Armenia has recognized the NKR

[1] Cornell, Svante E. (2017). The International Politics of the Armenian-Azerbaijani Conflict: The Original “Frozen Conflict” and European Security. New York: Palgrave MacMillan. p. 29. ISBN 9781137600066. As noted above, from 1921, the region was declared as a de jure part of Soviet Azerbaijan and remained so throughout the Soviet Era. Indeed, on December 1, 1989, the Supreme Soviet of Armenia attempted to formally anneex the region through proclaiming Nagorno-Karabakh a part of Armenia. Its subsequent occupation of internationally recognized Azerbaijani territory further speaks against the existence of defined borders in the region

[2] Patrick Johansson (2019). "Displaced Persons as Symbols of Grievance:Collective Identity, Individual Rights, and Durable Solutions". In Bradley, Megan; Milner, James; Peruniak, Blair (eds.). Refugees' Roles in Resolving Displacement and Building Peace Beyond Beneficiaries. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press. p. 138. ISBN 9781626166752. So far the international community considers Nagorno-Karabakh and the surrounding districts as de jure Azerbaijani territory, and no state including Armenia has recognized the NKR

[1]

[2]