Talk:Anti-Armenian sentiment in Azerbaijan/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Destruction of cultural heritage

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.

On page 209 of Time of Change, Roy Medvedev criticizes the Soviet courts for classifying Sumgait as "single episodes and not as a programmatic act of genocide", so it does indeed call it genocide.

Hyperallergic isn't a "blog" and I don't see why the Guardian source was removed.

Added a source calling the cathedral shelling anti-Armenian: [1]. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 08:08, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

1. 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.
2. A Regime Conceals Its Erasure of Indigenous Armenian Culture (hyperallergic.com) this is NEWSBLOG. Did you read the definition of the NEWSBLOS??
3. The source you added is again WP:NEWSBLOG, with high concerns on its neutrality. Not sufficient.

Zani, this all are good faith and well justified edits, please do not make it hard. And I urge you again, please do not though information on me without answering to the concerns and questions I raised. Abrvagl (talk) 16:02, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Who is calling it genocide if not Roy Medvedev? Are we reading the same thing? Maybe there is a misunderstanding of English language on your part, but this 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.

WP:NEWSBLOG is for sources described as blogs. Do you have a source for Hyperallergic being called a blog? Even if you do, the writers are professionals (university researchers), which NEWSBLOG allows. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 22:22, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

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)

Abrvagl I'll say this once and I'm not planning to repeat myself. First, don't post comments like this on my talk page, because you clearly don't understand when it's appropriate to post it. I did 2 reverts restoring stable edit and you're posting about the 3 revert rule on my talk? That's just abuse of warnings.

Second, I'm not here to explain basic English. 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.

Third, and I have to repeat once again, WP:NEWSBLOG is for sources described as blogs. Do you have a source for Hyperallergic being called a blog? Even if you do, the writers are professionals (university researchers), which NEWSBLOG allows. We can ask in WP:RSN if Hyperallergic is "NewsBlog" or not. We can ask about my added source as well, and it does call the shelling Armenophobia. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 08:52, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

ZaniGiovanni,

" 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)

On the second one, this means, in his view, it should be described as a genocide, simple as that by this comment you actually once more prove, that is is WP:OR. Abrvagl (talk) 09:18, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Dear ZaniGiovanni do you mean this statement from the article “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)

Ok. I checked it then, I double checked it after and I checked it now. The additional source you provide does not says that that shelling of Ghazanchetsots Cathedral and Tigranakert were act of Anti-Armenian sentiment, and even if it would - this propaganda article does not fit into the Wikipedia. Abrvagl (talk) 06:59, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi ZaniGiovanni, I read your reply to my question to the TransporterMan. The RSN, which I raised was about the reliability, but you still did not answer to my question. Where does the source you provided claim that the bombardment of Ghazanchetsots Cathedral and Tigranakert were acts of anti-Armenian sentiment? I double-checked it and still couldn't find where it states that. Thanks. Abrvagl (talk) 10:41, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Pretty sure if you read it carefully, that's what the article implies to the reader and also talks more broadly about Armenian cultural heritage destruction. It opens up with "The Holy Savior Ghazanchetsots Cathedral in Shushi in 2015, before it was attacked twice by Azerbaijani forces" and literally has the picture of Ghazanchetsots Cathedral as the main photo of the article, it then follows with;

• "On March 10, the European Parliament adopted a resolution that “strongly condemns” Azerbaijan’s intentional destruction of Armenian cultural heritage in Nagorno-Karabakh (or Artsakh in Armenian).
• The resolution was adopted with 635 votes to two, with 42 abstentions, and with sponsorship by six of the seven groups of the European Parliament, except for the Identity and Democracy Party, a nationalist far-right group that ironically purports to “protect Christian heritage.” It read:
• “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.”'"

Also this isn't a reply to you. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 10:55, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

We can't develop an encyclopedia based on what article implies, Zani. It is no my idea, that is what rules say: do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. I'm looking for facts, and as far as I concerned, no source claims that the shelling of Ghazanchetsots Cathedral and the alleged shelling of Tigranakert during the war were actions of anti-Armenian sentiment.

Would you agree with me or you believe that we should use dispute resolution methods? Abrvagl (talk) 11:16, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

We can't develop an encyclopedia based on what article implies

This is part of analyzing a source, I hope you understand that. It's obvious that what the source implies is of upmost importance when citing it anywhere on Wikipedia, this goes without saying and I'm not sure how you can disagree with this. I won't object you raising this in DRN if you want to. The Tigranakert source is this btw. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 11:23, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Zani. I'd want to remind you that I will submit this case to DNR as promised. I'll do it tomorrow or the day after tomorrow. Abrvagl (talk) 14:12, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi once more, I think that 3O will be sufficient for this one. It is really one or another, and nothing left to discuss about it on DNR. I raised 3O for this one. Abrvagl (talk) 16:22, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

If you are going to expect 3rd-party contributors, I think you need to summarise the disagreement. For the text in green at the top of this thread, and your comments, plenty of Wikipedia content consists of quotes by named individuals taken from comments made in cited articles. It is just a matter of wording it correctly. And there are multiple sources that contain wording similar to the "The devastation included 89 medieval churches, 5,840 intricate cross-stones, and 22,000 tombstones" bit. However, ZaniGiovanni's support for the Tigranakert content is LOL. It shows how propaganda-riddled this article is. There is no indication the site was specifically targeted. I know people who went to Tigranakert on the days immediately before the transfer, and there was no war-inflicted damage. There is however plenty of genuine, sourced, "anti-Armenian sentiment" Tigranakert-related content that could be added. But I doubt any of the current crop of editors on this article have knowledge about it, or who really want to properly edit the article, and Wikipedia hates editors who actually have the required specialist knowledge. 92.1.144.176 (talk) 02:24, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks. Comment on article content, not on contributors. Besides, Wikipedia articles are based on published sources, not on an editor's personal knowledge or experience. — kashmīrī ^TALK 09:35, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi, as you joined discussion. Can you please share your view?

I say that this article [2] does not state that the bombardment of Ghazanchetsots Cathedral and alleged shelling of Tigranakert were acts of anti-Armenian sentiment and we can't develop an encyclopedia based on what editors believe that article implies. Therefore shelling of Ghazanchetsots Cathedral and Tigranakert were not acts of anti-Armenian sentiment, as there is no RS supporting that.

ZaniGiovanni says that even if source does not state that the bombardment of Ghazanchetsots Cathedral and Tigranakert were acts of anti-Armenian sentiment, it is obvious that source implies that. Therefore shelling Ghazanchetsots Cathedral and alleged shelling of Tigranakert were acts of anti-Armenian sentiment. Abrvagl (talk) 19:58, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

I have to remind you again that the cathedral source is this, while the Tigranakert source is this. My stance hasn't changed, I do believe they're appropriate being cited in the section of this article, Anti-Armenian_sentiment_in_Azerbaijan#Destruction_of_cultural_heritage. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 20:48, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Neither of them claim that shelling was act of Anti-Armenian sentiment. The Tigranakert source even states that "Neither Armenia nor Azerbaijan have released information about the site." There is even no evidence or RS claiming that Tigranakert was shelled, only allegations of the Hamlet Petrosyan. Abrvagl (talk) 21:00, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

I already said what I had to say Abrvagl, we're just repeating ourselves at this point and this discussion is becoming circular. Hyperallregic article makes the reader to arrive to that conclusion and strongly implies that, and Tigranakert isn't just "allegation" of Hamlet Petrosyan, read the full article not just snippets;

• Following the recent escalation of hostilities, a group of prominent intellectuals and scholars including Noam Chomsky, Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, Tariq Ali, Viken Berberian, Judith Herman and the philosophers Cornel West and Seyla Benhabib published an open letter in the Los Angeles Review of Books on 16 October calling for a ceasefire “to end the bloodshed and human and cultural carnage” in Nagorno-Karabakh. “We remind you that the site of the bombing includes archaeological sites such as the ancient Armenian city of Tigranakert,” they wrote.

Anyway, I'd want to hear established outside opinion on this. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 21:11, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

I waited over a month, and we are not getting reply, and you said that you want to hear outside opinion. I suggest to ping Morbidthoughts or Dennis Brown or Red-tailed hawk. What do you think? A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 06:54, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Since you're unable to drop this, I'm fine with pinging above-mentioned third party editors; @Morbidthoughts @Dennis Brown, @Red-tailed hawk if any of you is willing, could you please provide outside input regarding this dispute?

Summary: Abrvagl wants to remove the below information, arguing sources don't classify it as Armenophobia or anti-Armenian sentiment. I argue otherwise saying it suits in the article section, Anti-Armenian_sentiment_in_Azerbaijan#Destruction_of_cultural_heritage per sources. Here are the exact sentences and sources:

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. The 2,000-year-old Hellenistic Armenian city of Tigranakert was also struck by Azerbaijani artillery during this conflict.

ZaniGiovanni (talk) 10:51, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

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)

@Dennis Brown it's not just implication, here's the source and quote from it:

• On March 10, the European Parliament adopted a resolution that “strongly condemns” Azerbaijan’s intentional destruction of Armenian cultural heritage in Nagorno-Karabakh (or Artsakh in Armenian).
• “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.”

ZaniGiovanni (talk) 11:29, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

It is indeed a personal believe. An article does state that. Article does not even mention neither of the churches. Part you quoted also does not mention them. The Ghazanchetsots Cathedral was hit during the war and shelling of Tigranaker is not confirmed allegation, which also allegedly occurred during the war. Do you have any source claiming article implies that shelling of Ghazanchetsots is anti-armenian sentiment? I dont think that you ever will find such a source. With same success we can claim that shelling of Ganja is Anti-Azerbaijani sentiment, which also would be a nonsense claim. A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 12:09, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

The source is literally about the destruction of Armenian heritage in Nagorno-Karabakh/Artsakh, including about the Ghazanchetsots Cathedral shelling, what are you talking about? And the source does quote EU resolution stating the destruction to be part of a wider pattern of a systematic, state-level policy of Armenophobia, historical revisionism and hatred towards Armenians promoted by the Azerbaijani authorities. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 12:26, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Zani, I am saying that:

1. the source literally doesn’t state that shelling of Ghazanchetos during the war was act of anti-armenian sentiment. The resolution doesn’t mention church either.

2. Same for the Tigranakert, alleged shelling of which is not even confirmed.

The personal opinion of the editor of article implies something that is not stated in the article is not the right way to build the quality encyclopedia. I would agree with claim if it was about the destruction/modification after the war (that is what resolution and article is about), but claim that shelling during the war was act of anti-armenian sentiment based on believe of what article implies is nonsensical claim. Are opinions of 1 IP user and 1 outside user that encyclopedia should not build on what editors believe article implies enough? A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 14:50, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

1) It states per EU passed resolution that Armenian heritage destruction during the war to be part of a wider pattern of a systematic, state-level policy of Armenophobia, historical revisionism and hatred towards Armenians promoted by the Azerbaijani authorities, which Ghazanchetsots shelling was part of and is directly mentioned in the article, about you know, cultural heritage destruction being systematic state-level policy of Armenophobia?

2) Tigranakert was shelled during the war, do you have a source stating it was "allegation"? From the 2nd source:

• Following the recent escalation of hostilities, a group of prominent intellectuals and scholars including Noam Chomsky, Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, Tariq Ali, Viken Berberian, Judith Herman and the philosophers Cornel West and Seyla Benhabib published an open letter in the Los Angeles Review of Books on 16 October calling for a ceasefire “to end the bloodshed and human and cultural carnage” in Nagorno-Karabakh. “We remind you that the site of the bombing includes archaeological sites such as the ancient Armenian city of Tigranakert,” they wrote.

Regarding your last statement, no, I don't take the opinion of a random IP who personally attacked me seriously (and was warned for it by actual third party established editor). And I replied to Dennis Brown already, so far, you're the one replying to me instead of them. If Dennis has anything else to say, they're more than welcome to voice it here.

Bottom line is: You tried to imply Hpyerallergic was an "unreliable newsblog" in RSN discussion, and it failed. Now you claim Ghazanchetsots shelling is not stated as Armenophobia, when the article literally talks about Armenian cultural heritage destruction during the war being systematic act of Armenophobia and that a specific EU resolution was adopted just for it, article even mentions 2020 Ghazanchetsots Cathedral shelling specifically;

• The resolution did, however, call out Azerbaijan as the aggressor. That is a notable departure from numerous false equivalencies and “bothsidesism” rhetoric from other governmental and intergovernmental players, whose statements would have one think that the Holy Savior Ghazanchetsots Cathedral in Shushi (a city recently ethnically cleansed of Armenians for the second time in a century) somehow bombed itself. Twice.

Pinged third party editors are more than welcome to participate in the discussion. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 15:32, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

the letter you quoted about Tiqranakert is allegation. Do you have source factually confirming that it was shelled? Ok, Lets wait others. 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. A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 15:40, 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

Dennis Brown I'm not sure if this user will listen to me, could you please ask them to strike the above comment? Me saying you implied/claimed Hyperallergic (the source as a whole, not a specific article) was an "unreliable newsblog" isn't a "conspiracy", it's a fact from the RSN discussion you opened in May. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 15:51, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I checked. Yes, you are right it was about the source as a whole, but this doesn’t change the fact that you bringing up unrelated staff to the discussion. Did I ever question reliability of the source in this discussion (about shelling)? No. So please stop bringing up unrelated staff and specifically highlighting that it is “failed” (I do not consider that as failure. Editing is not about failure or success. ) this wont make your arguments solid or my arguments weaker.. A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 16:16, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Did I ever question reliability of the source in this discussion (about shelling)?

Yes you did actually, multiple times (copy and search):

• it is article from the newsblog written by the personal contributor.
• The source you added is again WP:NEWSBLOG, with high concerns on its neutrality. Not sufficient.

My point being, it took me dozens of time to explain to you that Hyperallergic was not a newsblog, and even after that, you brought it up in RSN and received the same answer. Now you come to this discussion again, and again claim the source doesn't state shelling is Armenophobia, when cultural heritage destruction during the war is all the article talks about including mentioning the cathedral shelling, and it literally cites a whole EU resolution adopted just for the Armenian cultural heritage destruction during the war being state-level policy of Armenophobia, historical revisionism and hatred towards Armenians promoted by the Azerbaijani authorities. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 16:37, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

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)

Thanks Dennis, I consider your view and I will stick with your advise. Let is be. A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 20:42, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

References

Summary for the Wikipedia:Third opinion:

• Abrvagl said that provided sources do not classify shelling of the Ghazanchetsots Cathedral and alleged shelling of Tigranakert, which both happened during the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war, as act of Armenophobia.

• ZaniGiovanni opposed by providing new sources and saying that this source implies that shelling of Ghazanchetsots Cathedral is act of Armenophobia, and this source implies that shelling of Tigranakert are acts of Armenophobia.

• Abrvagl opposed to ZaniGiovanni, stating that neither of the sources he provided state that those were acts of Armenophobia, and that we can not build Wikipedia based on how Wikipedians interpret material for themselves.--Abrvagl (talk) 08:58, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Your request to re-list this dispute for a Third Opinion has been removed (i.e. denied). Third opinions were given on July 15-16 by Kashmiri and an IP editor (or there are now more than 2 editors involved in the dispute, which disqualifies this for a 3O, take your pick). If dispute resolution is still required, consider using Dispute Resolution Noticeboard or filing a Request for Comments after, in each case, carefully reading and following the instructions on those pages. — TransporterMan (TALK) 15:37, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, my bad. I did not notice the reply of two users between the wall of the text. Abrvagl (talk) 15:51, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

@ZaniGiovanni Zani, although my this edit was not directly related to the our discussion, I reverted myself and thought to get in touch with you first, for sake of the positive atmosphere. Please reply if you have any objections or not, but please don't take it long. A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 08:13, 15 September 2022 (UTC)