Talk:Hoçaz
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
St. Stepanos Church
[edit]@CuriousGolden: @Rosguill: Regarding the recent removal [1] of the mention of the 17th-century St. Stepanos Church from this article, with the rationalization that Artsakh Press is a "highly unreliable and primary" source, I wanted to check - is there a relevant discussion or decision that can be pointed to with regard to this? Arguing that the existence or the historical nature of the church in the village would be in doubt simply because an Artsakh (or Armenian) source [2] is used as a source for the statement is pretty problematic in my view. There is also visual documentation of the church on the article utilized. From a quick Google search [3], I can see that several other (mainly Armenian) sources mention the church as well. AntonSamuel (talk) 20:02, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
- Not sure why Rosguill was pinged, but you can add it back with a better Armenian source. Artsakhpress wasn't removed because it's Armenian, it was removed because it's a primary and one of the least unbiased/reliable Armenian sources. This would work for example, as it doesn't claim things it hasn't proved (e.g. existence of khachkars which ArtsakhPress claims with no proof). — CuriousGolden (T·C) 20:06, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
- I pinged Rosguill as I thought admin input would be positive with regard to this issue. It wouldn't really cross my mind to remove the mention of an Azerbaijani historical, cultural or religious site altogether simply because I considered the source to be problematic. Unless there was considerable doubt over a claim, I would place a "better source needed"-tag on the statement or a similar limited action - removing mentions of cultural heritage in Karabakh is very clearly a potentially controversial action. AntonSamuel (talk) 20:14, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
- Usually, it'd be better to work out the problem with the user and then ping an admin if you can't, but ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. I'm not doubting the existence of the church, which is shown by photos, but the existence of khachkars, which is claimed quite often with no proof. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 20:18, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
- I thought it would save time and effort to ping an admin right away. While I'm eager and willing to contribute to the Karabakh-related articles and their improvement, it seems a lot of problematic edits, such as this one, are often overlooked, and so I think it would be good to have more editors and admins engaged in these issues. AntonSamuel (talk) 20:28, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is a community project. If you think someone did a mistake, ping them and ask them about it and they probably, as I did, give a proper explanation and help you improve it (as I did by providing a better source). Though, it's your choice after all. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 20:31, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
- I thought it would save time and effort to ping an admin right away. While I'm eager and willing to contribute to the Karabakh-related articles and their improvement, it seems a lot of problematic edits, such as this one, are often overlooked, and so I think it would be good to have more editors and admins engaged in these issues. AntonSamuel (talk) 20:28, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
- Usually, it'd be better to work out the problem with the user and then ping an admin if you can't, but ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. I'm not doubting the existence of the church, which is shown by photos, but the existence of khachkars, which is claimed quite often with no proof. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 20:18, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
- I pinged Rosguill as I thought admin input would be positive with regard to this issue. It wouldn't really cross my mind to remove the mention of an Azerbaijani historical, cultural or religious site altogether simply because I considered the source to be problematic. Unless there was considerable doubt over a claim, I would place a "better source needed"-tag on the statement or a similar limited action - removing mentions of cultural heritage in Karabakh is very clearly a potentially controversial action. AntonSamuel (talk) 20:14, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
@CuriousGolden: If you can see and acknowledge the problematic nature of your previous removal of the mention of the church - that's all fine. I hope Rosguill can give some input on the use of ArtsakhPress or other Artsakh sources for empiric statements such as the existence of a church - and if there are any discussions, decisions or RfC's that may be relevant with regard to this. AntonSamuel (talk) 20:57, 17 March 2021 (UTC)