Talk:Azercell

Fair use rationale for Image:Azercell.jpg

Image:Azercell.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 21:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Azercell. 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/20120527223439/http://company.azercell.com:80/en/press-room/press-releases/2012/26116 to http://company.azercell.com/en/press-room/press-releases/2012/26116/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.contact.az/docs/2012/Economics&Finance/05245918en.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 01:45, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Concerns regarding source neutrality and recent edits

Hi everyone, I recently made a few edits to the article to address concerns about source neutrality and compliance with Wikipedia’s content policies. Specifically: I removed two segments that relied on sources affiliated with OCCRP. According to OCCRP’s own disclosures (as noted in its Wikipedia article), more than 50% of its funding comes from USAID, a U.S. government agency. While OCCRP conducts investigative journalism, the substantial financial support from a state-sponsored donor with foreign policy objectives raises valid concerns regarding editorial independence and potential bias in politically sensitive contexts. I also replaced one of the references with a more neutral and independent source that provides similar information but without direct affiliation to state-funded entities. These edits are made in good faith and in line with core Wikipedia policies, particularly: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (NPOV) Wikipedia:Reliable sources Wikipedia:Verifiability I believe these changes improve the overall neutrality and reliability of the article. Of course, I'm open to further discussion or suggestions if there are ways to improve the wording or sourcing even more.

Please read this file before referencing to OCCRP in any case Testimony by Michael Shellenberger for a hearing on “Eliminating Waste by the Foreign Aid Bureaucracy” before the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs on February 13, 2025 https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/Testimony-Shellenberger-2025-02-13.pdf

I propose reconsidering the inclusion of the OCCRP investigation into TeliaSonera's activities in Azerbaijan. Even OCCRP itself acknowledges (https://www.occrp.org/en/news/telia-and-azerbaijan-closed-investigation-not-a-green-light-for-future-transactions) that the Swedish authorities closed their investigation without filing any charges and did not find sufficient evidence of criminal conduct. Since the official legal process concluded without confirming any corruption, the inclusion of this investigation as a substantiated fact in the article may not meet Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and due weight.

Thanks,

Farhadibra Farhadibra (talk) 22:31, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Note that the above is created with the assistance of an LLM, and that the above user is indef blocked from editing Azercell. Editors reading the above should take care not to accidentally assist in WP:BE.

The text in-article is accurate and does not allege any criminal conduct occurred. Current information is due and requires no correction. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 19:27, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Good day, reference to OCCRP imply criminal conduct, OCCRP stands for "Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project". It is funny how literally no one wished to debate my opinion rather than blocking me and telling that my statement is LLM generated text. How it comes you label someone without providing a good context behind your opinion? Maybe at least reading references that I attached would be useful for you before making any comments? Farhadibra (talk) 19:37, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Don't want to be rude, but blocking user for stating opinion that is majorly supportted by facts and references without properly explaining why is against Wikipedia standarts. Even admin who opened a discussion on incident noticeboard wrote: "Normally I would say User:Farhadibra has a point, but considering the page history I think this is a bad faith argument." So what does this exactly mean? Normally he would say everything is fine but because I'm a new user then i must be blocked? Farhadibra (talk) 19:45, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

It was not an admin who wrote that, and that statement does not reflect the full context which curious readers can see here. I suggest you WP:DROPTHESTICK. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 19:55, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Ok, As for a new user, explain to me please briefly, why references that I attached for you and other admins to review were ignored, no one was engaged in a dialogue with me. What is the reasons for labeling my edit as COI? If someone who said that they work for the company wanted to make similar edits then it makes me a company employee too? Also he said that I have same ISP as Azercell does, yes I do live in Azerbaijan and here we have 2 ISP's so chances are 50/50. Just for you to understand how comic these comments are, and more comic is that not a single admin answered my questions. Farhadibra (talk) 20:01, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

These would have been questions to ask those who made the report or block at ANI, not on the article's talk page now. If you have general concerns about the reliability of OCCRP reporting, then I'd suggest visiting the reliable source noticeboard to build consensus. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 20:08, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

You are dodging my arguments, your statement - article does not allege any criminal conduct occurred - is false, I explained why, you have completely ignored It. If you don't want to have a polemic with me just say so, and I will appeal through UTRS, to save time for both of us. Farhadibra (talk) 20:29, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

My friend, again, I'm valuing your time, but can you just open and read the references which i attached to you and others before saying - quote "Editors reading the above should take care not to accidentally assist in WP:BE.

The text in-article is accurate and does not allege any criminal conduct occurred." Read here - https://www.occrp.org/en/news/telia-and-azerbaijan-closed-investigation-not-a-green-light-for-future-transactions

This report issued by the same journalists makes statement that is being mentioned in the article irrelevant. Or you consider journalist funded by USAID a better source than Swedish government? This topic is direcly related to the article, that's why it is being mentioned here. With all due respect, again, please read my text and references before stating an opinion and saying "go open a talk somewhere else". Farhadibra (talk) 20:17, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

I did read your provided reference, which is why I explicitly said prior that "text in-article is accurate and does not allege any criminal conduct occurred", the link you have provided above states that the Swedish prosecution was unable to prove bribery was committed. This does not run contrary to any of the current text in article which also does not make any claims of bribery, nor any claims of criminal conduct. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 20:34, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Firstly, it has a reference for investigation of bribery and corruption by OCCRP, if you skipped my explanation, that implies case of crime.

Secondly, as the case was dismissed and there is not a single proof in regards to accusations driven by OCCRP (and OCCRP literally shared this information with everyone), how information that is being in article is considered accurate? Farhadibra (talk) 20:40, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

OCCRP does not mention a single reliable source in the reference that is mentioned in the article, you can open it and read it, then Swedish government say literally the same, that the do not have evidences, only assumptions. Since when Wikipedia takes assumptions for a fact? Farhadibra (talk) 20:46, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

According to your own logic, then text that is present in the article does not correlate with the reference, as reference actually about a crime and corruption investigation, and article literally contains conclusion of the investigation itself. Farhadibra (talk) 20:50, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

This will be my final reply one-on-one, I don't think further discussion in this manner will be productive.

"Firstly, it has a reference for investigation of bribery and corruption by OCCRP ... that implies case of crime." – Yes, it is an investigation, your argument would imply that investigative journalism may never be referenced on Wikipedia unless followed by a supporting legal proceeding. This is not how things work.

"as the case was dismissed and there is not a single proof in regards to accusations driven by OCCRP" and "OCCRP does not mention a single reliable source in the reference" – The operating notion here is that OCCRP is a reliable source and can serve as a suitable originator of claims. If you think the OCCRP is unreliable then the reliable source noticeboard is the ideal place to discuss that.

You may feel I have not exhaustively addressed all your raised points, this may be correct, but I would ask that you read this before pressing the matter. Thank you. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 21:10, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

You are right, maybe form of my expression is a little rude, apologies for that. You just missing one, very important point I'm trying to address... acusations driven by investigative journalism are never the fact, there can be assumptions, possibilities, but never the fact that article implies it is. It is against neutral point of view, it is hugely politisized, not supported with a strong check base for such accusation. I just do not understand how you can ignore that. Farhadibra (talk) 21:17, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Such bold statements, must be supported by court decisions and openly verifiable evidence (such as published bank statements, extracts from the commercial register and etc.). If you accept the "common knowledge that OCCRP is reliable" then I'm thanking you, for your involvement and your opinion on the topic you are not SME at. Farhadibra (talk) 21:27, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 December 2025

Inga0511 (talk) 07:02, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

The paragraph "The company is owned by the ruling Aliyev family through offshore companies.[1] In 2008, state shares were transferred to the Aliyev family's companies at a massive discount, effectively costing Azerbaijan's people at least $600 million.[1]" should be removed as there is no referral sources, and the information is not reliable, so it should be deleted.

 Not done: The sourced used in the article supports the text you want removed. cyberdog958^Talk 08:33, 9 December 2025 (UTC)