Requests for comment/"Anais" article with abusive content in Azerbaijani Wikipedia

The following request for comments is closed. Old discussion from 3 years ago with no recent comments. PiRSquared17 (talk) 18:25, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anais article with its abusive content that was deleted a day before was recovered proving that what is wrong in Azerbaijani Wikipedia is not my fantasy. I understand it as the sign that Azerbaijani Wikipedia entered in edit war and other provocative activities against me. There is the explanation about the reasons for its deletion in the Forum here, and at the discussion page of the article. I ask the community to explain me, why the principle rules of Wikipedia do not act in the language divisions. Why Wikipedia may be used for calling names to all the representatives of one nation by the other nation? Is it a common practice for Wikipedia? Zara-arush (talk) 11:23, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I looked again at the page of discussion of the article, history of the article and discussion of the admin-bureaucrat, who deleted the article a day ago. They go on with their profanation, pretending they work on the content. There are no two points of view on the goddess of fertility. Any goddess of fertility may be named a goddess of prostitution with the link to the article on the prostitution in today's reality. The opinion of a prison MD and psychiatrist of the beging of the 20th century may not be presented in Wikipedia as the second point of view to preserve the neutrality in a WP article. To listen it from the persons who have diplomas in art (according to their profiles) and a bureaucrat, who declared himself a fan of Dali, Markes, Fellini and fine arts, is more than strange. It may be the only anti-Armenian article there that has no politic content, just name-calling of 2,000 year-old Armenian goddess of fertility. Their offer to enter into debates with them is just a means to prompt me to incorrect actions for my block. Moreover I grounded why it is wrong to apply the definition they use about Anahit in the community portal discussion page that was placed at the discussion page of the article. The, after all the author of the article added phrazes about Armenian terrorists atacking his personal pages that has nothing to do with the editing of the named article, Zara-arush (talk) 17:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On reading several articles in English Wikipedia, I consider them as a reliable example on what shall be the content of the article relating to a deity of fertility, irrespective of its "ethnic" origin. There are no academic sources in historical sicence that name any fertility deity as a deity of prostitution, so if the mainstream historic science does not name the fertility deities as deities of prostitution, the content may not be placed in Wikipedia though it is free, but it is an encyclopedia and may contain only reliable data. Also I got familiar with the sources that appeared as of this moment in the article.

The number one remained psychiatrist Chesare Lambroso accompanied with Strabo, the last never used "prostitution goddess", he wrote about the ancient rituals named by modern historical science as sacred prostitution. And article of Russian historian Izmailova with her article "The image of the goddess in Armenian miniature of XI century, where she names Anahit as a deity of fertility and maternity. Some new sources were added. The book of Lee Alexander Stone and Frederick Starr, who wrote about sacred prostitution, but there are not "prostitution deities" in the book. Another new author is Dr. Edmond Dupouy, and his book, named "Prostitution in Antiquity and sexually transmitted diseases", Cincinnati, 1895, who also writes about sacred prostitution. The remaining are several well-illustrated personal blogs and sites: (the data about the author at He is a graduate of Leningrad Electrotechnical Institute and is an author of short-storeys and poems). - a personal site - the same as above.

To the attention of the parties interested I would offer to read once more a great article in English Wikipedia on Persian goddess Anahita, the initial sentenses of that are the following: «Anahita is the Old Persian form of the name of an Iranian goddess and appears in complete and earlier form as Aredvi Sura Anahita (Arədvī Sūrā Anāhitā); the Avestan language name of an Armeno-Aryan cosmological figure venerated as the divinity of 'the Waters' (Aban) and hence associated with fertility, healing and wisdom. Aredvi Sura Anahita is Ardwisur Anahid or Nahid in Middle- and Modern Persian, Anahit in Armenian.» (the statement is written based on Boyce, Mary (1968), having several academic research works in historic science).
While the Azerbaijani editors were working on the content, I read the named articles in English division of Wikipedia, I am really surprised of the choice of the creators of this content that is abusive enough, because as I have shown above, the creators did not follow the Wikipedia:No original research, en:Wikipedia:Verifiability, en:Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, chosing the epithet for a fertility deity that is not used by the mainstream historic science not only towards an ancient Armenian deity of fertility , but towards any deity of fertility in the world. Thanks to all, who read this page and was helpful, Zara-arush (talk) 01:59, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestions edit

Though I did my best to avoid any political issues, the Azerbaijani users did their best to equalize the name-calling in article on Anahit and the political matter, relating to the independance of Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. It confirms that on the opinion of the admins and users of Azerbaijani division these two matters are of uqual importance, and their name-calling of a prehistoric Armenian deity is a political action. So, owing to such attitude we may better understand, why Nagorno-Karabakh Republic population does not want to remain in the composition of the Republic of Azerbaijan and why it claims for the independence. And we may better imagine what the name-calling and linking of the prehistoric deity with the modern prostitution means in the scope of the political propaganda and education of their youngsters, taking into consideration that Azerbaijan is a Muslim country. I must emphasize that I am against using Chesare Lombroso as an expert in historic and religious matters. But I'll dare to use his theory to make one more attempt to explain, why he may not be used. The Azerbaijani division's article on Anahit is helpful to those, who want to understand, what is under the surface, if we apply the theory (on the heridity of criminal inclinations) of Chesare Lombrozo, a 19th c. psychiatrist, so much beloved by the Azerbaijani users and admins, to this very piece of political propaganda. The matter, relating to prehistoric mythology and 2000-year old heathen goddess, owing to Azerbaijani users is turned into the political action. From the discussion on the impossibility of placing abusive content in Wikipedia owing to the same division admins the matter changed into political propaganda matter.

I am not going to critisize anybody: not the Azerbaijani admins and nor the Meta staff. I offer all the parties involved to solve the problems step-by-step, starting from those that the answers may be found easily, based on the modern expert's academic works. We all should get more mature and learn the art of discussion, before we start to discuss more complicated matters. We should start from the matters, relating to neutral themes, where there are ready solutions. I am sure this problem shall be solved inside Wikipedia, and I am sure the presenting the questions that I asked here for being analysed by out-of-Wikipedia experts or organizations or communities, etc. will have negative influence to Wikipedia, a project that I rendered so much time and so many efforts within the last year. It is not the matter of one unique article, but with the growth of Wikipedia, the similar questions and matters will arise for sure. Permitting this article existance in Wikipedia will produce other similar articles and the number of them will multiply in a short time. The "ostrich's behavior" policy will not help. So, it is time to create the corresponding mechanism and apply the existing rules that were worked out within the years and that really work in the most of Wikipedia language divisions. The definite content shall be studied and analyzed, and we shall begin with the articles relating to culture, arts, science, history, etc. The outdated or abusive content in this spheres shall be deleted and replaced as rapidly, as possible. I will be thankful to all, who will agree with me that this process is the must for the furhter successful development of Wikipedia, Zara-arush (talk) 12:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]