Talk:2020 Ghazanchetsots Cathedral shelling

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Armenian wedding in damaged Ghazanchetsots Cathedral in Artsakh, Shushi.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:11, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Damaged Ghazanchetsots Cathedral in Shushi 2.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:28, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

POV

The article gives WP:UNDUEWEIGHT to Armenian statements as can be seen in the third paragraph and almost no place for Azerbaijani positions other than the fact that it was denied by them. The article needs expansion to remain unbiased (e.g. put Aliyev's statements to France24, CNN about the hit). Until that's done, there'll be a POV tag. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 07:31, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

I would also note that any statement made by Azerbaijan were given in quotes. "Azerbaijani authorities issued a statement saying the cathedral was under reconstruction to "restore" its “original” form, without specifying what they intended by the "original" style". This looks like excessive quotations to me, especially considering the fact that "" in lone morphemes is usually used as a scare quote quite commonly to imply irony. "states", "claims" etc. would be much better than using 2 quotes in every sentence. When I'm reading the article I immediately thought that the paragraph was implying "so-called"ness. --89.245.131.94 (talk) 15:46, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• Damaged Ghazanchetsots Cathedral in Shushi 3.png
• Damaged Ghazanchetsots Cathedral in Shushi 4.png
• Damaged Ghazanchetsots Cathedral in Shushi 5.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:27, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Saadat Kadyrova

I removing the following statement: On Russia 1 TV show Evening with Vladimir Solovyov Azerbaijani journalist and political analyst, Saadat Kadyrova, justified the bombing of the church, arguing that in the fight against "terrorists" all means are justified, while comparing the church with a toilet, and the residents of Nagorno-Kharabakh - with terrorists.

The above statement is not something said by official Azerbaijan. Saadat Kadyrova is a citizen of Russia, and she is a Russian journalist/political scientist. Abrvagl (talk) 07:19, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

ZaniGiovanni, FYI above. Saadat is citizen of Russia and she is Russian journalist with Azerbaijani nationality and she was born in Turkmanistan.[1]; [2]; [3]. Her nationality does not change the fact that she is Russian journalist and anything she says is not official position of the Azerbaijan, thus we can not state that what she said is response of Azerbaijan. Now please be kind and return my edit back. --Abrvagl (talk) 18:24, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Az government source calls her Azerbaijani journalist [4]. In any case, I don't see why you want to remove the whole information since if her country is the problem, it can be easily solved by moving to 2020_Ghazanchetsots_Cathedral_shelling#International section of the article. Neither way the info should be removed from the article. But sources are conflicting on her country, some call her Russian some Azeri journalist, so I think the info should remain in its original section, but definitely not removed like you did. Again, there is an easy solution to this country issue if needed, but I don't see a good enough reason to implement it as of yet. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 08:46, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Saadat is a RUSSIAN reporter with Azerbaijani nationality and Russian citizenship, and she was not even born in Azerbaijan and she if Head of Department of TASS. It is clear even from the source you linked [5], and here is one more source from the same site [6]: Саадат Кадырова Россия политолог, журналист. What she said has no relation to the reaction of Azerbaijan's repose. Saying that someone's talk at TV show is the response of Azerbaijan because of Azerbaijani nationality is ridiculous. Do you have a source stating that her words are the response of Azerbaijan? If not, then please be kind and restore my edit.

International response? Seriously??? The tit-talk of some not notable journalists at the cheap Russian propaganda TV show is not an international response. What she said was not any country's reaction, and it was just her OWN opinion. Moreover, Saadat never compared the church to the toilet. That information is WP:HEADLINES and not supported by the body of the article. Saadat also did not compare residents of Nagorno-Karabakh to the terrorists; there is nothing about that in the article. As article states Согласно ее словам, в религиозном сооружении в тот момент времени молились бойцы армянских вооруженных сил she justified with idea that Armenian combatants were at that moment in the church.

Saadat is a living person and as per WP:BLP all materials about living person must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Russian propaganda site discovery24.ru is not reliable in general. So, again, please be kind and restore my edit, and reach the consensus if you want to add tit-talk low-quality information about the the living person into the international response section of the article. Abrvagl (talk) 12:09, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

International response? Seriously???

No hyperbolic comments, please. I'm really not here to entertain them. Yes, if she isn't Azeri and is Russian like you say, then it's more than fitting to move her statement to the International section of the article, with other statements from International entities. Are you saying that Russia isn't part of this world? Or are you saying that Sunday Evening with Vladimir Solovyov, one of the most popular shows in Russia on one of the most popular channels in Russia, Russia-1, isn't worthy of inclusion?

And this isn't show's source or something, it's what was said during the show, big difference. And if what was said during the show has reliable coverage, then I don't see a single problem with its inclusion, certainly it's not you who decides what is a "notable journalist".

Now to the part of reliability and BLP. "discovery24.ru" isn't the only source, there were numerous Russian and Armenian media outlets reporting this. But I won't bother linking all and would just add a reliable book instead by Evgeny Yanovich, where it's pretty clear what she said, and we don't need your or anyone else's description of events:

On October 8 of the same year, she, speaking on the TV program of Vladimir Solovyov, justified the shelling of a Christian church in Shusha, during which three Russian journalists were wounded, having badly insulted Konstantin Zatulin along the way.

With professional solidarity, she is doing well. With respect to the elders and much more deserving than she herself will ever become, people too. With an understanding of Russian politics... Well, if for her the shelling of a church during the conflict in Karabakh is justified by the fact that Putin once mentioned the need to "wet terrorists in the toilet", and she obviously considers Russian journalists to be exactly like that... However, the comparison of the church with the toilet, too, inspired few people. No, of course, the church is Armenian: they were demolished in Turkey and Azerbaijan a lot. already used to it. but still! [7]

Btw, "мочить" auto translates to "wet", this is pretty funny considering how much of a vulgar profanity word this is that has no direct English translation, and the contexts that it can be used are each uglier than the other. As you can see from the book, it's very critical of this journo Kadyrova. This book certainly should be added as a source. Anything else? ZaniGiovanni (talk) 15:54, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

then it's more than fitting to move her statement to the International section - No it is not. Part of conversation cut from the Tit-talk discussion on the Russian propaganda TV-show is not a response. You cant cut part of someones discussion and sell it as response. It is not for encyclopedia. Especially if we talking about the TV show led by the Vladimir Solovyov, who well know running fake-propoganda TV shows[8][9]. Also,the source you referencing does not call it most popular, but source states: “Evenings with Vladimir Solovyov,” hosted by Solovyov, one of the Kremlin’s most loyal propagandists.

And this isn't show's source or something, it's what was said during the show, big difference. - Well for me Saadat never compared church to the toilet and neither Saadat compared residents of Karabakh region of Azerbaijan with terrorists. She that hitting armed forces(terrorirst) everywhere is justified and compared that to quote of Putin where he said the similar thing. That is the point here, Wikipedia is not a place for someone to write his own interpretations of what someone said at TV show.

Now coming to the book which you say is reliable. It is not reliable, it is highly WP:QUESTIONABLE. This book is full of nonsense and propoganda. First of all is written by the Evgeny Yanovich. Evgeniy owns propaganda Telegram channel "Армагеддоныч"[10] and works for Vladimir Solovyov: ведущий программы...стрима «Занимательная политология» на YouTube канале СоловьёвLive и автор телеграм-канала «Армагеддоныч»[11]. Comparing Egeniys book and his telegram channel, it is obvious that his "book" is just straight copy-paste of the posts from his telegram channel. For example you can compare this post from his telegram channel with the quotes from the book you brought.

Evgeniys telegram channel currently collects finance to "support the fighters of the people's militia of the LPR and the armed forces of the DPR". Some other brilliant example from his telegram channel: And the stupid ukrogoboron doesn’t understand that it’s not because they don’t get so many rocket launchers that they feel sorry for them and the toad strangles sponsors (although it strangles, of course, not without it), but simply in Washington, although in modern times people are not the smartest, but and not the most heroic and definitely not prone to quick and inevitable suicide..

I'm not going to quote much from his telegram channel and from the book version of his telegram channel, because it is full of bullshit. The "Book" which harass Saadat by saying that shenot very smart and extremely expressive native of Ashgabat, and threatening her with deportation The main thing is not to delay, as soon as possible. Back to Turkmenistan, to Azerbaijan and other stuff, is not acceptable as reliable source for BPL. Evgeniy's book cannot be considered as reliable in general, it does not follow WP:BLPSTYLE and it is basically just copy-paste of Evgeniy's self-published telegram channel.

Anything else? Yes, as I numerous times asked you above, please restore my edit. Information you restored into article violates WP:BLP and as I proved above has no relation to official Azerbaijan. If you want to add this information to the article International response - reach the consensus first. Abrvagl (talk) 09:09, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Evgeny Yanovich is a Russian orientalist and an expert in Near and Middle East politics [12], [13], his book is reliable. I hope you don't think that showing a telegram message will change this. Do you have a WP:RS criticizing his book? I'm sorry, but I'm not obliged to take anything you say at face value, instead I'll ask you provide a reliable source to back up your claims about this book.

Kadyrova is to blame herself why she's being criticized, and it's not just this book. The original source [14], which I don't even know why you declared "not reliable", as well as other sources [15] reported this. If your issue is with the sources, take this to WP:RSN. That interview was literally live, and she justified her words by bringing up a supposed Putin quote about some terrorists, it's all pretty clear in the article and even has a live video of the debate [16]. And again for the last time, it's not you who decides what should be on the article or not, it's not you who decides if one of the most popular Russian shows on Russia's second most popular TV channel can be mentioned or not, even if it's a "propaganda show". We even have plenty of propaganda articles like Zangezur corridor, and I already told you we aren't using the show as a source, what was said during the show has WP:RS coverage, so it merits its inclusion, are you having a hard time understating this? Stop this WP:SEALIONING. your constant repetition isn't helping and doesn't make sense.

So all I see we have the original source, which you haven't demonstrated why is "not reliable", you just claimed it and expect me to agree with you? We have other news websites reporting this [17], and most important, we have the book of expert Evgeny Yanovich. And this has been on the article for a long time, if you want to move it to International section then we can do it. It's not me who started this discussion of entirely removing the information. If I see another WP:WALLOFTEXT, I'm not going to engage you just a heads-up, keep your comments concise. I don't have all the time in this world to waste on your 4000+ byte personal essays. If you still have a problem with sources, take it to appropriate noticeboards like WP:RSN. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 10:08, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

I am not sure why you spamming me with unrelated and low quality sources like that [18]. Evgeniy is a propagandist working for Vladimir Solovyov and his "book" is just copy-paste of his self-published telegram channel where he collecting money for DNR/LNR combatants. No-name online publications calling him an expert does not change anything. You want to say that reliable book would say that: Unclear? Explaining for idiots. The current united Europe is exactly what Hitler was building. Only under the States, which always, at all times, the Nazis were patronized and after the war they were saved from us as best they could. Such kind of bullshit never will be RS for Wikipedia, if you wish - you can take it to RSN. But actually this does matter for our case.

The point is that If you do not have a time, may be then you should not revert my edit where I removed information which not does not belongs to this article and violating WP:BLP. First you tried to convince me that what she said is response of Azerbaijan because of her nationality, now you want to add this information to the international response section of this article. Part of conversation of not notable journalist cut from the Tit-talk discussion on the Russian propaganda TV-show is not a response and not something that fits to the article. So if you want to add contentious material about living person to the international response section of this article, then BURDEN to reach the consensus on that is on YOU, whether you like it or not. So I once more kindly asking you to restore my edit. Abrvagl (talk) 11:44, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

You still haven't addressed how these aren't reliable [19], [20]. Regarding Evgeniy, could you finally provide source(s) that criticizes him other than actually doing self-research? And I showed you sources that describe him as an expert in Near/Middle East politics, one of which you say is "low quality" without elaboration. Even if we discount his book (which you still haven't provided a source for that criticizes, if it's SO BAD then surely you can prove it with SOMETHING), we have many articles written about this incident that happened on Russia's 2nd most popular TV channel. And the two Russian sources I provided look reliable to me [21], [22], covering a LIVE event's segment that happened in Russia on Russia's 2nd most popular TV channel.

And I suggested moving to International section as a compromise to you. I also requested a WP:THIRD on this. The material was already on the article, the burden to demonstrate how sources aren't reliable is on you. If you want the compromise I suggested after listening to your initial concerns, we can move to the International section. It's so funny how this was first a "she isn't Azeri" issue, and when I suggested moving it to the International section (logically), it now became a " sources aren't reliable" issue. Good fucking grief... ZaniGiovanni (talk) 12:15, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Well, my point never was if sources are reliable or not. I was just commenting on the sources that you were spamming me with. My points are:

1. What Saadat says is not the response of Azerbaijan. I proved that to you.

2. The statement(as it is written currently) is not reflecting what is written in the source and is not what Saadat said. Thus statement violates WP:BLP. Needs to be rephrased and supported with proper RS soruce if the decision will be to keep it in the article. This one I also proved.

3. If part of conversation of not notable journalist cut from the Tit-talk discussion on the Russian propaganda TV-show is an international response and something that fits to the article or not? As I concerned it is not a response, but a discussion/commentary at the propaganda TV show. This is what third party commentator should comment at. Abrvagl (talk) 12:29, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Do you understand what "spamming" means? If part of conversation of not notable journalist cut from the Tit-talk discussion on the Russian propaganda TV-show is an international response and something that fits to the article or not? - It was something notable enough to be on Russia's 2nd most popular TV channel on a popular talk show and if it has source coverage, which you haven't demonstrated is unreliable, then it can be included in the article. This shouldn't be hard to understand, it's literally why we have notability guidelines.

1. What Saadat says is not the response of Azerbaijan. I proved that to you.

She represents Azeri viewpoint, that undeniable. She's described in the sources citing her statements as Azerbaijani. Even if she holds Russian citizenship, she's still an Azeri diaspora member (also born in Azerbaijan). When I think about it now, a subsection like "Azerbaijani diaspora" under Azerbaijan section would probably be better and more suiting than moving her to International:

Saadat Kadyrova, a political scientist from Azerbaijan

Azerbaijani political scientist Saadat Kadyrova

Azerbaijani journalist Saadat Kadyrova

Also, can you expand on what part of the current wording you think needs rephrasing and why? ZaniGiovanni (talk) 12:50, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

This is what we will do:

1. First we stopping baseless tries to sell Saadat's personal opinion as response of official Azerbaijan because of her nationality. This will never happen if you do not agree - you can take it wherever you want drn, rfc, etc. Saadat was born in Ashgabat, Turkmenistan. Currently she is citizen of Russia and living in the Moscow.[23][24] and she is working for Russian state-owned news agency TASS[25]. Her personal opinion has no relation to official Azerbaijan response. Then You restoring my edit and removing it from Azerbaijan section, as it is unrelated to Azerbaijan's response.

2. Second, you following the Wikipedia WP:BLP rules "whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. and restoring my edit back. Then we taking this to BLP board. As far as I concerned referenced sources are not reliable to support contentious material about living person, especially in the way how it is written in the article.

3. After BLP board, where we agree if resources are reliable enough and how it should be worded, we will discuss whether personal opinion of not notable journalist cut from Russian propaganda TV show can be considered as International Response. Abrvagl (talk) 08:21, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

You're the one who tried to remove long-standing content as "she's not Azeri official", now since there is an easy solution to that, it's a "BLP issue" according to you, but you can't even explain why the sources aren't reliable. Whether you like it or not, sources describe her as Azerbaijani [26], [27], [28]. The Russian sources are perfectly fine for something that literally happened LIVE on Russian's 2nd most watched channel, and I also found an English source as well (see 3rd). So either you get consensus if you want any changes, or stop with this WP:CRUSH. Also, the show being "propaganda" is literally irrelevant to Saadat's statement about this bombing, she doesn't work for this show she's an invited journalist like others, with her own views. If the show has notability (being one of the most popular in Russia, and this segment specifically being reported by multiple sources) it can be present on Wikipedia, that's how Wikipedia works. How many times this needs to be repeated? The show or its website isn't the source, and that segment was reported by multiple Russian sources and even an English source, so there's 0 policy prohibiting this being on Wikipedia, unless you can finally show how the sources I provided are unreliable, especially considering the context (Russian source reports what was said on a Russian TV channel during a popular show, perfectly fucking fine).

This also seems to be a good solution since you're so concerned that she's not "official Azerbaijan". Similarly, I suggested creating a subsection like "Azerbaijani diaspora", seems like you didn't read my comment since you're still talking about moving to "International". ZaniGiovanni (talk) 10:58, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

It is hard to read the long chunks of the text above, apologies if there are intricate details I missed. In a nutshell, I think the attempts of removing the notable paragraph featuring Saadat Kadirova (it seems the editor contesting it just don't like it) do not have reasonable justification. What strikes me is that zero attention is paid to the inclusion of Belgian-Armenian cellist who is also not an Armenian official, or Bishop Pargev who is not an official of Republic of Armenia, either, but a Artsakh-based clergyman. This, I am afraid, raises questions regarding Abrvagl's ability to edit this sensitive topic neutrally. The last revision of the section by myself ("Armenian" instead of "Armenia" and "Azerbaijani" instead of "Azerbaijan)" is more inclusive, addressing the core argument; I see little point in further perpetuation of this discussion. We could also move the response from Artsakh into a separate subsection section, and separate the responses from AA countries and diasporas, but the amount of material for further sub-subsectioning is borderline. Best wishes, --Armatura (talk) 12:28, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

What strikes me is that zero attention is paid to the inclusion of Belgian-Armenian cellist who is also not an Armenian official, or Bishop Pargev who is not an official of Republic of Armenia, either, but a Artsakh-based clergyman. - if it strikes you, then you are more than welcome to edit the article instead of writing it here in order to tell me that I am not neutral.

ability to edit this sensitive topic neutrally. do not talk to me about neutrality here after you ignored the elephant in the room - Personal opinion of the Saadat is not a Azerbaijan's response, and her nationality does not relate her personal opinion to Azerbaijan's response.

Do not have reasonable justification. - There is the solid justification. Personal opinion of Russian journalist does not have any relation to Azerbaijan's response. More there are some BLP issues. 1st no reliable source provided to support her statement and second,

Regarding "Armenian" instead of "Armenia" and "Azerbaijani" instead of "Azerbaijan" - i reverted this edit. It does not make any sense and too nationalistic. What you will do? Remove international section and list all nationalities in the article? Russian, Turkis, Iranian, Indian and etc?

Zanigiovanni you do not get simple staff here, do you? I already proved that statement of Saadat has no relation to the Azerbaijan and it shall be removed from the Azerbaijan response section. Moreover I raised some concerns regarding compliance with WP:BLP. I personally do not see that her statement fits to the article at all. It is YOU who want to add this statement to the different section of the article, not me and it is on YOU to reach the consensus as per WP:BRD, not me. Just follow the Wikipedia rules and do not make it complicated. Here[29] I even wrote down what we should do, not sure why you ignoring this simple staff. Abrvagl (talk) 13:28, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Abrvagl I suggest you take a more gentle approach to your fellow editors if you want others to listen to what you’re saying. Your revert of my edit with a comment on my “nationalistic approach” falls below any standard of courtesy (casting WP:ASPERSIONS of nationalism out of blue) and doesn’t follow the WP:BRD rule either. You do not have WP:OWNERSHIP rights to this article. Reserving to reverting if you WP:JDLI something or when you don’t find a WP:CONS is the last thing to do on Wikipedia. You have been warned to stay away from edit warring just 3 days ago, may I remind you that continuing to do so may lead to sanctions? Best wishes, --Armatura (talk) 13:39, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

I totally agree with gentle approach, that is why it would be better if you did not blame me in being not neutral just based on your assumptions. I never warned to stay from editing on emotional grounds because I never edited on emotional ground. Lets stick to the subject of the discussions, your thoughts about me is not for this page, if you wish you can write them on my talk page please.

I did not reverted your edit because I did not like it. In fact I explained you the reason. What if Azerbaijani journalist with Russian nationality will respond? how you will record him? As Russian reaction or Azerbaijani reaction? You joined to the conversation with your edit which you believed will help, but it is not. If you insist to keep your edit then WP:BOLD is here for you. Abrvagl (talk) 13:52, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

I asked you 100 times to show how the sources are provided are unreliable [30], [31], [32]; you just claim they are and claim BLP without elaboration. In response, you half-quoted BLP and didn't include the most crucial part; Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.. Why are the sources I provided "poor" please explain finally, since you're so enthusiastic about half-quoting "BLP"? They're perfectly fine, 2 are Russian sources reporting and quoting something said during a popular live show on Russian TV channel, the second source even calls her comments xenophobic, which they are. I also provided an English source. All the sources are third-party (non Azeri or Armenian) and perfectly appropriate for this.

Also what's "nationalistic" about this, do you understand what that word means? Don't use phrases like that so lightly, and read WP:NPA. It was a simple solution to the problem at core that concerned you enough to open this discussion. I also suggested creating a subsection "Azerbaijani diaspora" (I'm repeating this for the 3rd time now), but you just ignore my comment and repeat your one-liners. You'll soon find that nobody will be willing to engage in your discussions with such an attitude. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 14:25, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Abrvagl, assuming WP:AGF, I want to believe that some of what you wrote (like calling my edit "nationalistic approach") stem from limited English, due to mechanistic translation of something else you perhaps wanted to say in your mother tongue, but please take into account that you are editing English wikipedia, and refrain from anything that may be perceived as personal insult. You also have to listen when a feedback is given to your actions, instead of throwing something like "you blame me in being not neutral just based on your assumptions" - look, I based it on the observation of you not paying attention to anything else in the relevant section of the article, other than the sentence you are desperate to remove. Now, as to the content, two editors supported constructive solution No1, yet you did not hesitate to revert it, returning the article to the point where there is no solution (you do not care that the cellist and bishop are not Armenian officials)... so you could revert it further back to what you want it to look like (without the widely frowned upon remark by Kadirova) .... Wikipedia does not work like that, I am afraid, see the WP:OWNERSHIP rule above. There was even a constructive solution No2 suggested - separating Artsakh response and dividing diaspora from officials (again, two editors supporting it), it did not suit your taste either... Don't you see a problem here? Who is causing trouble now? There are many articles in Wikipedia needing attention, why don't you WP:DROPTHESTICK, cool down, and focus on editing something else this week, instead of the situation escalating to a drama board? --Armatura (talk) 14:39, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

By "nationalistic approach" I meant approach where we focus on nationalities rather than countries. Not interested on other information unrelated to the subject of the discussion. I think, I quite simple and understandable explained why changing "Armenian" to "Armenians" wont work.

There is not much of a drama, it is actually very simple. You gents just need to stop mixing up my edit with your proposals. Let me narrow down to two steps:

1. I identified issue that Saadat's personal opinion is not response of Azerbaijan. Do we agree on that? Yes. Is my edit justified? Yes. So please restore my edit and then move to your proposal.

2. You want to add Saadat statement to the International response or to newly created diaspora response section or etc, but I do not agree with that. I say that Saadat's personal opinion is not an international response and does not fits to the article WP:WEIGHT. Obligation to reach the consensus(I would take it to RfC) here on those who proposed edit not on me.

I can not see how my edit is related to your proposals gents. If you want to return the statement back to the other places of the article, then you are more than welcome to reach the consensus and do it. How it is related to the my edit? I justified my edit that Saadats words is not response of Azerbaijan and that is it, I am did mt WP:BRD. Do not expect me to reach the consensus for your proposals instead of you. Abrvagl (talk) 15:49, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

1) You're the one who started this by removing long-standing content. So it's on you to reach whatever consensus will be, since there isn't anything wrong with the sources I showed. Bottom line: this was in the article, consensus can determine where to place it. I and Armatura agreed that the simple change to Armenian and Azerbaijani was another good solution, you did not. You also still didn't comment what's wrong with another solution, creating new subsection "Azerbaijani diaspora". Both of these solutions currently have consensus, you're the only one opposing. Btw stable edit remains until consensus is reached. If you want to launch an RfC that's fine, but the stable edit will remain until RfC is completed. Also, make sure you keep the RfC neutral if you're going to launch it, please don't make this another thing to go over.

2) Do you like repeating things that were already replied to you? I already showed you that there are better ways to solve this issue than moving to International section, why are you repeating this over and over? You don't agree with statement inclusion? Ok? Currently you don't have consensus to remove it and your argument for disagreement doesn't make sense either since WP:WEIGHT has nothing to do here, it's sufficiently sourced and doesn't have any RS disputing it for "weight" to even be relevant here. Please don't cite guidelines and guidelines one after another without understanding what context they may be used. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 16:23, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

1. Abrvagl You should be interested in other parts of the discussion, if you want others to be interested in what you write, there is nothing irrelevant in what I wrote. You should understand that something that may make sense to you may fail to make sense to others, especially when there is a language barrier. You are saying "please restore my edit", who are you addressing? You yourself restored the previous version of the article (the version that even you do not agree with, the one that contains the Kadirova paragraph you wanted removed, knowing I would disagree, thus violating WP:BRD rule). Kadirova is not an Azerbaijan's government official, neither are the cellist or the bishop Armenia's government officials, who is contesting that? I wanted to make it clear by changing from Armenia to Azerbaijan to wider "Armenian" and "Azerbaijani" (which would allow not only officials), yet you (with your name still on a drama board for slow reverting) reverted me because you did not like it.

2. You have tried hard to make the Kadirova statement to look small / cheap / irrelevant / unrelated to Azerbaijan, yet it is not like that, all these people are notable members of the relevant diasporas who gave notable response, worth including in the response section of the article about the church shelling while making it clear they are not government officials, the notability WP:N was demonstrated and WP:RELIABLE links were provided above, you may choose to see them or keep a closed eye on them, but continuing beating the dead horse has neven led anybody to anywhere nice. When you do not agree with something and find yourself in minority, ask a question to yourself - maybe you are wrong?? You are saying "Saadat's personal opinion is not an international response and does not fit to the article WP:WEIGHT", yet you are unable to convincingly show it others. There are other responses from various people in that article and you surprisingly seem to be fine with them, if this is not double standards then what is it?

3. You are saying "obligation to reach the consensus here is on those who proposed edit not on me" yet you are the one who made the edit that generated this long discussion, do not shy away from responsibility now, the onus is on you to find that consensus. You are welcome to take this to RfC or whatever you else want, but please undo your revert first and beware that RfCs do not work well in such niche subjects and they are frequently plagued by invited "voters" unfortunately. If you do have an apetitie for an RfC, make sure you include the two options suggested by me and Zanni. --Armatura (talk) 16:46, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

I made an edit and justified my edit, despite of the fact that Zani tried to sell Saadat's statements as response of Azerbaijan because of nationality. Now if you want to add sentence back to the article - just do it. I am not getting what you expect me to do here? I did not agree with Armenia to Armenian and I explained why. I also do not see any value in creating "Azerbaijani diaspora" section. Then if you want to add it to the International response section - then go ahead and do it. Are you expecting me to do that or what? Abrvagl (talk) 17:03, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

There are no people "selling" anything on Wikipedia, Abrvagl, be respectful to your fellow editors, please, and you will see how other people are gentle to you. What I expect you to do is:

1. Self-revert your last edit back to my version, please (I do not want to revert you myself, out of courtesy)

2. Create the RfC you wanted by listing 1) your option (no Kadirova statement anywhere in the article), the versions me and Zani support: 2) Armenia->Armenian, Azerbaijan-> Azerbaijani sections without subsections 3) Separating Artsakhi response as a section with bishop Pargev's response and having a. Official and b. Diaspora subsections under >Armenian and Azerbaijani sections 4) leaving only government response to Armenia and Azerbaijan and moving the reactions of whoever is not a government official to International section. 5) leave it open to others to come up with suggestions. Hope this makes sense. Best wishes, --Armatura (talk) 17:36, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Self-revert your last edit back to my version, please (I do not want to revert you myself, out of courtesy) - I am not doing that. Your proposal is not an improvement and I already explained you WHY. I proved that Saadat's statement is not response of Azerbaijan. I agree with Zani here, the best option is to move the statement to the international response section. If you don't mind - I will do that or if you want - you can do it yourself. Abrvagl (talk) 17:42, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

I made it clear in my latest comments that I support either changing to inclusive Armenian/Azerbaijani (probably the most simple way to fix this), or creating an "Azerbaijan diaspora" subsection. I think the former is the better of the two. But for some reason, you still repeat the same "International" thing which I admitted long ago isn't the best approach. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 17:48, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

ZaniGiovanni, Cut long story short. I proved that Saadat's response is not response of Azerbaijan. I would agree if you add it back to international response section. I do not agree with proposal to change Armenia to Armenians, or add new diaspora sections (explained earlier). If you want those(new diaspora sections or nationalities instead of countries) take it to RfC yourself gents. Abrvagl (talk) 17:52, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Yet it seems like Azerbaijani/Armenian is the most preferred one in this discussion, and would easily solve the issue of ...not response of Azerbaijan. If you don't accept this solution, you're free to launch an RfC to get wider community feedback. This is how it works, Abrvagl. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 17:59, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Sorry to hear you won't self-revert, Abrvagl, that was a chance to reflect on your recent mistakes and fix some of them. I do mind what you are suggesting about moving Saadat to International, in my opinion she perfectly fits under Azerbaijani section, either under its Diaspora subsection or without it, does not matter. As the cellist fits under Armenian section. So you do not have a consensus at least with me. Zani stated what he prefers (agreeing with me basically), supporting renaming the sections Armenian and Azerbaijani and keeping Ms Kadirova under Azerbaijani section. You suggested to take this to RfC, I agreed to that, so please keep your word, go ahead and create an RfC, with all the suggestions listed. We can't play the ball all day, can we? --Armatura (talk) 18:03, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

, that was a chance to reflect on your recent mistakes - first, I did not do any mistake. What mistakes you talking about? If you concerned about your edit, where you joined dispute and proposed an edit without reaching consensus, then I already explained you in details WHY that is not an improvement. Simple WP:BRD. Second, I already asked you to skip personal comments. they are not for the article page, however you are welcome to use my talk page.

I proved that Saadats response is not related to official Azerbaijan and I said that I personally believe that this statement can not be considered even as a response, however if you insist then I would not mind if you add it to international response section. However, looks like you are not happy with this also. As I understood, you guys want rename the sections to Armenian and Azerbaijani or create new diaspora response section. This is a big change on which YOU guys need to reach the consensus.

Never-mind, looks like we are beating the dead horse here. To stop that I will do the favor and raise RfC. However, I need your help for here. I propose following wording (any objections?):

RfC: How Response section of the 2020 Ghazanchetsots Cathedral shelling article shall be structured:

1. New diaspora sections should be added..i.e: Armenian diaspora response; Azerbaijani Diaspora response; Any other nationality diaspora response

2. Countries response should be replaced with Nationalities response..i.e: Armenia to Armenian; Azerbaijan to Azerbaijani

3. Keep as it is. Abrvagl (talk) 20:04, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Abrvagl I'd skip the pageant bit and move straight to RfC suggestions:

1) Rename subsections in 3. Response section: 3.1 Armenia -> Armenian, and 3.2 Azerbaijan to Azerbaijani, nothing else

2) Rename subsections in 3. Response section: 3.1 Armenia -> Armenian, and 3.2 Azerbaijan to Azerbaijani, and a add a subsubsection to each` 3.1.1, 3.2.1 Official [government officials] and 3.1.2, 3.2.2: Society and diaspora [Saadat, cellist, bishop]

3) Move the bishops statement to a new 3.1 Artsakhi subsection and rename subsections in 3. Response section: 3.2 Armenia -> Armenian, and 3.3 Azerbaijan to Azerbaijani, and a add a subsubsection to each` 3.2.1, 3.3.1 Official [government officials] and 3.2.2, 3.3.2: Society and diaspora: cellist and Saadat respectively

4) Move Saadat's paragraph to International subsection, nothing else

5) Remove Saadat's paragraph altogether, nothing else

I think these are all the options entertained in this long discussion, correct me guys if I am missing anything. By the way, in reactions to NK war 2020 the reactions, on par with countries, are grouped by nationalities as well - "Armenians", "Azerbaijanis and Turks", "minorities abroad" etc, hence my "nationalistic" proposal is not something extravagant at all. Best wishes, --Armatura (talk) 21:04, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Looks good to me. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 22:33, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi guys Armatura, just want to inform you that I had emergency surgery and therefore there will be some delays. I will raise RfC as soon as I will get healthier. Abrvagl (talk) 19:31, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I am very sorry to hear that, Abrvagl. Don't worry about RfC, there is not rush, your recovery is what matters now, so have a quick one! Best wishes, --Armatura (talk) 19:37, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

, hi, I am getting better. In few days will follow up on the RfC. Meanwhile, ZaniGiovanni, I request you to reinstate my edit(which you reverted) as I proved to you that I was right(Saadat is not representative of official Azerbaijan). I will help you with other staff that you proposed by raising RfC (then Saadaat can be added back depending on the outcome of the RfC). Thanks. Abrvagl (talk) 14:05, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Stable edit will remain until RfC is over, per policies. After the RfC, it'll be decided per outcome what will be done with her and her statments. This was discussed already don't make me repeat myself so many times. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 14:11, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi Armatura, hope you are doing well. RfC wording you proposed is good, but we shall not mix Kadyrova with the your proposal because it will be messy and these are two completely different things. That is why I did not include her in RfC version I proposed. I say that Kadyrova's response is not related to the Azerbaijan's response and I proved that. What I say is valid for the current version of the article and there is no policy or argument based reasons against my edit. On the other hand, Zani's proposal is to change structure of the article, where all current responses will be affected. Your proposal is not interconnected with my edit or with Kadyrova, and one is not a stopper for another. After discussion with Rosguill[33] I come up with 2 ways forward:

1. I raising RfC to ask how Kadyrova should be included into the article. This RfC will not consider proposed change from Armenia to Armenian.

2. Or, to safe everyone's time we agree that we either remove Kadyrova's statement or rephrase it as per WP:BLP and put it into the International Section and this dispute is closed then.

With regards to your proposal. I do not think that it is an improvement and as per Wikipedia policies obligation to reach consensus is on the editor who proposed the change. In our case that person is you. Abrvagl (talk) 08:27, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Abrvagl, after 1) you kept changing your suggestions back and worth, after 2) you finally agreed to the RfC me and Zani agreed to, after 3) I wrote a text for that RfC for you to copy paste, and after 4) everyone is patiently waiting till you recover and finally paste that RfC you change, you are coming back with yet another RfC suggestion and now try remove the sentence you do not like on BLP Noticeboard? Have you paid attention to the three options the admin you asked advised? Yet now you are raising the question on third platform - BLP noticeboard?? Please beware of raising essentially the same issue on multiple noticeboards and talk pages, or to multiple administrators or reviewers, or any one of these repetitively it is unhelpful to finding and achieving consensus and there is a negative term for that - WP:FORUMSHOP. I have also posted this to BLP Noticeboard, to make the admins aware of the larger picture. --Armatura (talk) 01:34, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Armatura, I replied to you on your talk page. Because article talk-pages are not a forum WP:NOTFORUM and the user talk page is better place for the interpersonal discussions WP:USERPAGE. Thanks. Abrvagl (talk) 03:59, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

• I removed it. There's not reason to include sensationalist talkshow commentary on Rossiya-1. --StellarNerd (talk) 18:18, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Synth

Morbidthoughts Can you please clarify what's the WP:SYNTH part? I'll help to fix the issue to my capacity. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 13:00, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Editors can not combine sources that are not about the Ghazanchetsots shelling to describe Kadyrova. They can only use descriptions of Kadyrova from reliable sources that discuss the shelling. Also, writing about Kadyrova from the ombudsmen joint public report without a secondary reliable source violates WP:BLPPRIMARY. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:01, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Morbidthoughts Thanks for providing explanation. I can take the bit about WP:BLPPRIMARY, I'll see whether there is a secondary source. Not sure how SYNTH applies here, though. The link https://1news.az/news/20201021104629961-Predstaviteli-azerbaidzhanskoi-intelligentsii-prizvali-ostanovit-travlyu-Saadat-Kadyrovoi directly mentions that on Solovyov's talk-shows Kadyrova was criticised for "calling for church-bombing" ("обвинив её в призывах бомбить храмы"). She was only criticised for disrespectful comments about bombing this particular church, there are no other churches she was involved with and there are no Solovyov's talk-shows where she participated with comments about church-bombing. The link clearly refers to this incident WP:OBV, and the intelligenzia response to the consequences of her comments serves to show how notable her comments were. Without explaining why her comments were important, the paragraph of her comments looks isolated. Best wishes, --Armatura (talk) 22:10, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

The SYNTH comment was directed more at combining her description from [34]. I don't understand the value of including the intelligence letter but acknowledging criticism of her comments can be included if there is consensus. I disagree that the paragraph looks isolated. Making excuses or justifying the shelling of a church is self-explanatory since she is pro-AZ. That pro-Armenians react badly to that would also be obvious. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:38, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for agreeing to including acknowledging criticism of her comments. For someone with some knowledge of Caucasus some things may be more obvious than for others - average readers who have no clue who is pro-what. Stating what she said, without the response it generated, makes little sense to me, as she is not as notable as the response she got - both criticising and defending her, hence those need to be included, with appropriate weight. And it was not pro-Armenians vs pro-Azeris case (that's a point of view Azerbaijani media is promoting, actually), e.g. all "expert" guests of that talk show (including the ones who were praising (I am quoting here) "Azerbaijan's wise president Illham Geydarovich" criticised her comments harshly. --Armatura (talk) 23:17, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

StellarNerd Please don't start a chain of reverts without consensus, this was the latest agreed version with mediation from a BLPN 3rd party editor. The latest discussion is here btw. How is Rossiya 1 "undue"? It's the 2nd largest TV channel in Russia, just because it isn't Western doesn't mean it's undue. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 18:36, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

And the information has nothing to do with Russian politics, this was a segment regarding the 2020 Karabakh War with invited journalists/experts who work for different agencies like Kadyrova from TASS herself. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 18:40, 30 June 2022 (UTC)