This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Issues identified with the "In 2019, Azerbaijan's destruction of Armenian cultural heritage was described as "the worst cultural genocide of the 21st century" in Hyperallergic, exceeding the destruction of cultural heritage by ISIL. The devastation included 89 medieval churches, 5,840 intricate cross-stones, and 22,000 tombstones." statement. Articles from Hyperallergic and The Guardian did not describe events in a such way. Articles just quotes different people opinions:
1. the worst cultural genocide of the 21st century
is the headlines of the Guardian. The body of the article does not give such a description, it only says that Maghakyan,
ANCA-WR community development coordinator, labels it “the greatest cultural genocide of the 21st century”. So it is how Maghakyan describes it, not the Guardian and Guardian does not provides sources support that.
2. exceeding the destruction of cultural heritage by ISIL
again, no such a description given by The Guardian or by Hyperallergic, however there are similar mentions from the articles:
"Oil-rich Azerbaijan’s annihilation of Nakhichevan’s Armenian past make it worse than ISIS"
Hypoallergic article claims that such was said by the scholar Argam Ayvazyan. Nor it is described as such by the Hypoallergic, neither Hypoallergic provides sources to confirm that Argam Ayvazyan said that.
"not even ISIS could commit such an epic crime against humanity."
Hypoallergic article claims that such was said by Russian journalist Shura Burtin. Hyperallergic does not describe it like that, and just claims that Agulis, Burtin recently told that to Hyperallergic, but provides no sources to prove that.
3.The devastation included 89 medieval churches, 5,840 intricate cross-stones, and 22,000 tombstones.
The Guardian just refers to some report from the Local researcher Argam Ayvazyan who "photographed 89 Armenian churches, 5,840 khachkars, and 22,000 tombstones between 1964 and 1987 – which the report states have all disappeared.". It is better to refer to report itself, as currently it is unknown what report we talking about.
So what we have here is not properly attributed statements from the WP:NEWSBLOG, number of WP:BLP issues, plus I doubt neutrality of the article author Simon Maghakyan.
To the other editors: I removing this material from the article due to above describer reasons. Please do not reinstate it back as it was. Lets discuss first here.
Roy Medvedev criticizes the Soviet courts for classifying Sumgait as "single episodes and not as a programmatic act of genocide"- you can not refer to this sentence to say that "Medvedev described it as genocide", cuz it will be clear WP:OR . He did not described, he just questions soviet court, it is not "describing". I can not see what is your reason of denying the obvious fact.
Roy Medvedev criticizes the Soviet courts for classifying Sumgait as "single episodes and not as a programmatic act of genocide"basically means he says it should be called a genocide.
ZaniGiovanni,
1. basically means he says it should be called a genocide.
- WP:OR. this is your conclusion, questioning is not describing.
2. I have to have source to prove that NEWSBLOG is a NEWSBLOG???
Hyperallergic is a forum for serious, playful, and radical thinking about art in the world today.
3. The
source you added does not state that shelling of Ghazanchetsots Cathedral and Tigranakert were act of Anti-Armenian sentiment. + it is article from the newsblog written by the personal contributor.
Zani, YOU reverted 1, 2, 3 and 4 of my justified edits twice without solid justification or reason, although I mentioned that there are BLP issues removed in the some of the edits. Please stop that.-- Abrvagl ( talk) 04:59, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Roy Medvedev criticizes the Soviet courts for classifying Sumgait as "single episodes and not as a programmatic act of genocide"– this means, in his view, it should be described as a genocide, simple as that. Go to DRN, WP:THIRD you'll get the same answer.
" it does call the shelling Armenophobia"I did not find such statement in the article. Can you point exactly where article says that? Abrvagl ( talk) 09:06, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
this means, in his view, it should be described as a genocide, simple as thatby this comment you actually once more prove, that is is WP:OR. Abrvagl ( talk) 09:18, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
“The erasure of Armenian cultural heritage is part of a wider pattern of a systematic, state-level policy of Armenophobia, historical revisionism and hatred towards Armenians promoted by the Azerbaijani authorities, including dehumanisation, the glorification of violence and territorial claims against the Republic of Armenia which threaten peace and security in the South Caucasus.”? If not, then which one? Abrvagl ( talk) 15:38, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
We can't develop an encyclopedia based on what article implies
ZaniGiovanni ( talk) 10:51, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Azerbaijani forces shelled the historical 19th century Ghazanchetsots Cathedral in Shusha during the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war. The cathedral was completed in 1887 and is the seat of the Diocese of Artsakh of the Armenian Apostolic Church. [1] The 2,000-year-old Hellenistic Armenian city of Tigranakert was also struck by Azerbaijani artillery during this conflict. [2]
Wow, this is way out of my field of expertise, so I'm probably not the best person to give detailed analysis of what you are covering. I will say one thing that struck me when reading this discussion, the word "implied" as it pertains to sources. When we use sources, we use what they implicitly say, sometimes even quoting them. What they "imply" is a slippery slope. Sometimes we can use what they imply, usually if it is math based, ie: "A=B, and B=C" so we can imply that A=C, but this isn't that kind of situation. Reading between the lines when it comes to contentious situations and events is best avoided. Otherwise we get very subjective in our analysis, which is what WP:SYNTH is about. When it comes to sources speaking about events, we do better to stick to what the sources say directly, using the same adjectives they use (or clear synonyms for them). If one source is merely implying something, you probably need better sourcing to maintain the statement.
To be clear, this doesn't mean the conclusion/text is wrong, it just means it probably isn't sufficiently cited to make the claim if it is contentious, and it obviously is contentious because we are here. Our goal isn't to be "right", it's to present facts that have been clearly documented by secondary reliable sources. An "implied" conclusion is a weak citation, as we can't see inside the mind of the author, we can only read their words. If other sources are clearly stating what one source is "implying", you would normally not use the weaker source at all. And again, I have not read over every bit of the article, and by no means am I an expert on the subject matter. I can only speak to how we use sources. My opinion isn't binding, of course, it's just a general statement of my experience. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:15, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
P.S. RSN was not about this article, and I am sick about conspiracy theories you continuously telling about me. Please stick to the discussion
Did I ever question reliability of the source in this discussion (about shelling)?
Sorry if I missed that point, it was the "implied" part that stuck out. If it clearly states it, and saying "implied" was just a bad choice of words, then I don't see the problem. Again, there is zero chance I will read through every detail, it would serve no purpose as I don't have enough background to take a firm stand either way. Now that his source is cleared up, I do tend to think Zani is making a good point, and maybe Abrvagl would do good to just cede that point and move on. Otherwise, an RFC is the choice, but Abrvagl forcing an RFC on something that should be obvious doesn't look good for them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:18, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
References
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Issues identified with the "In 2019, Azerbaijan's destruction of Armenian cultural heritage was described as "the worst cultural genocide of the 21st century" in Hyperallergic, exceeding the destruction of cultural heritage by ISIL. The devastation included 89 medieval churches, 5,840 intricate cross-stones, and 22,000 tombstones." statement. Articles from Hyperallergic and The Guardian did not describe events in a such way. Articles just quotes different people opinions:
1. the worst cultural genocide of the 21st century
is the headlines of the Guardian. The body of the article does not give such a description, it only says that Maghakyan,
ANCA-WR community development coordinator, labels it “the greatest cultural genocide of the 21st century”. So it is how Maghakyan describes it, not the Guardian and Guardian does not provides sources support that.
2. exceeding the destruction of cultural heritage by ISIL
again, no such a description given by The Guardian or by Hyperallergic, however there are similar mentions from the articles:
"Oil-rich Azerbaijan’s annihilation of Nakhichevan’s Armenian past make it worse than ISIS"
Hypoallergic article claims that such was said by the scholar Argam Ayvazyan. Nor it is described as such by the Hypoallergic, neither Hypoallergic provides sources to confirm that Argam Ayvazyan said that.
"not even ISIS could commit such an epic crime against humanity."
Hypoallergic article claims that such was said by Russian journalist Shura Burtin. Hyperallergic does not describe it like that, and just claims that Agulis, Burtin recently told that to Hyperallergic, but provides no sources to prove that.
3.The devastation included 89 medieval churches, 5,840 intricate cross-stones, and 22,000 tombstones.
The Guardian just refers to some report from the Local researcher Argam Ayvazyan who "photographed 89 Armenian churches, 5,840 khachkars, and 22,000 tombstones between 1964 and 1987 – which the report states have all disappeared.". It is better to refer to report itself, as currently it is unknown what report we talking about.
So what we have here is not properly attributed statements from the WP:NEWSBLOG, number of WP:BLP issues, plus I doubt neutrality of the article author Simon Maghakyan.
To the other editors: I removing this material from the article due to above describer reasons. Please do not reinstate it back as it was. Lets discuss first here.
Roy Medvedev criticizes the Soviet courts for classifying Sumgait as "single episodes and not as a programmatic act of genocide"- you can not refer to this sentence to say that "Medvedev described it as genocide", cuz it will be clear WP:OR . He did not described, he just questions soviet court, it is not "describing". I can not see what is your reason of denying the obvious fact.
Roy Medvedev criticizes the Soviet courts for classifying Sumgait as "single episodes and not as a programmatic act of genocide"basically means he says it should be called a genocide.
ZaniGiovanni,
1. basically means he says it should be called a genocide.
- WP:OR. this is your conclusion, questioning is not describing.
2. I have to have source to prove that NEWSBLOG is a NEWSBLOG???
Hyperallergic is a forum for serious, playful, and radical thinking about art in the world today.
3. The
source you added does not state that shelling of Ghazanchetsots Cathedral and Tigranakert were act of Anti-Armenian sentiment. + it is article from the newsblog written by the personal contributor.
Zani, YOU reverted 1, 2, 3 and 4 of my justified edits twice without solid justification or reason, although I mentioned that there are BLP issues removed in the some of the edits. Please stop that.-- Abrvagl ( talk) 04:59, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Roy Medvedev criticizes the Soviet courts for classifying Sumgait as "single episodes and not as a programmatic act of genocide"– this means, in his view, it should be described as a genocide, simple as that. Go to DRN, WP:THIRD you'll get the same answer.
" it does call the shelling Armenophobia"I did not find such statement in the article. Can you point exactly where article says that? Abrvagl ( talk) 09:06, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
this means, in his view, it should be described as a genocide, simple as thatby this comment you actually once more prove, that is is WP:OR. Abrvagl ( talk) 09:18, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
“The erasure of Armenian cultural heritage is part of a wider pattern of a systematic, state-level policy of Armenophobia, historical revisionism and hatred towards Armenians promoted by the Azerbaijani authorities, including dehumanisation, the glorification of violence and territorial claims against the Republic of Armenia which threaten peace and security in the South Caucasus.”? If not, then which one? Abrvagl ( talk) 15:38, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
We can't develop an encyclopedia based on what article implies
ZaniGiovanni ( talk) 10:51, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Azerbaijani forces shelled the historical 19th century Ghazanchetsots Cathedral in Shusha during the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war. The cathedral was completed in 1887 and is the seat of the Diocese of Artsakh of the Armenian Apostolic Church. [1] The 2,000-year-old Hellenistic Armenian city of Tigranakert was also struck by Azerbaijani artillery during this conflict. [2]
Wow, this is way out of my field of expertise, so I'm probably not the best person to give detailed analysis of what you are covering. I will say one thing that struck me when reading this discussion, the word "implied" as it pertains to sources. When we use sources, we use what they implicitly say, sometimes even quoting them. What they "imply" is a slippery slope. Sometimes we can use what they imply, usually if it is math based, ie: "A=B, and B=C" so we can imply that A=C, but this isn't that kind of situation. Reading between the lines when it comes to contentious situations and events is best avoided. Otherwise we get very subjective in our analysis, which is what WP:SYNTH is about. When it comes to sources speaking about events, we do better to stick to what the sources say directly, using the same adjectives they use (or clear synonyms for them). If one source is merely implying something, you probably need better sourcing to maintain the statement.
To be clear, this doesn't mean the conclusion/text is wrong, it just means it probably isn't sufficiently cited to make the claim if it is contentious, and it obviously is contentious because we are here. Our goal isn't to be "right", it's to present facts that have been clearly documented by secondary reliable sources. An "implied" conclusion is a weak citation, as we can't see inside the mind of the author, we can only read their words. If other sources are clearly stating what one source is "implying", you would normally not use the weaker source at all. And again, I have not read over every bit of the article, and by no means am I an expert on the subject matter. I can only speak to how we use sources. My opinion isn't binding, of course, it's just a general statement of my experience. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:15, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
P.S. RSN was not about this article, and I am sick about conspiracy theories you continuously telling about me. Please stick to the discussion
Did I ever question reliability of the source in this discussion (about shelling)?
Sorry if I missed that point, it was the "implied" part that stuck out. If it clearly states it, and saying "implied" was just a bad choice of words, then I don't see the problem. Again, there is zero chance I will read through every detail, it would serve no purpose as I don't have enough background to take a firm stand either way. Now that his source is cleared up, I do tend to think Zani is making a good point, and maybe Abrvagl would do good to just cede that point and move on. Otherwise, an RFC is the choice, but Abrvagl forcing an RFC on something that should be obvious doesn't look good for them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:18, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
References