Talk:Samvel Karapetyan (author)

Untitled

prod was removed with the "explanation" of there are external links below. What is this supposed to mean? Does Cyclopia (talk · contribs) intend to work on this article to establish it passes WP:BIO, or will the article just sit here, tagged for notability, indefinitely? If the latter is the case, it will have to be sent to AfD, as no case whatsoever was made to address the concerns raised. --dab (𒁳) 16:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

It is supposed to mean that, if there are external links, it is not technically unreferenced, and since this was the PROD rationale, I deprodded. Now links have been removed -because currently 404's- so it is indeed unreferenced, but I don't see why the fuss. Sending it to AfD at least will establish a community discussion.--Cyclopia^talk 12:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Eternal links are not references, they are just added as a useful extra.

As it happened, of the EL you mention, two were random youtube videos, one was dead, and one just mentioned Karapetyan in passing. If that was anywhere near sufficient, I don't doubt we could also carry BLP articles on me and you. --dab (𒁳) 12:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Fine, thanks for pointing me to the distinction, and I for sure should have checked the links. However I would have removed the PROD tag the same:In such cases, one should have to do its own WP:BEFORE and for example, there are lots of Gbooks hits, which I haven't sorted for relevance but at least should be analyzed before. Now: is this enough for notability? My answer is: I don't know. Since I don't know, I would like a proper discussion, possibly backed up by Armenian-speaking editors which can help understand better some of the sources, instead of just leave the article being thrown in the bitbucket. Finally, I don't understand why this drama -if you feel that the article should be deleted, go at AfD. That's what is usually done with contested PRODs. All what I want is a proper discussion of the community. --Cyclopia^talk 14:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Quotes for citations

These are contextual quotes from the news articles cited in the article. These quotes are not full articles. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 17:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Quote

— Article, Source

The fist steps to demolish the cemetery were registered in 1998 when a member of the representative office of the organization Armenian Architecture in Iran, Arpiayr Petrosyan, saw and filmed bulldozers destroying this historical monument. With the aim of preventing the destruction of the monument, a meeting on 4 December last year decided to appeal to international organizations. However, a member of the organization Armenian Architecture, Samvel Karapetyan, said that the cemetery was completely destroyed on 25 November 2002.

In response to statements by Armenian officials, Azerbaijani Foreign Minister Vilayat Quliyev stated that the Dzhugai cemetery was a monument "not of Armenian, but of Albanian culture". A doctor of architecture, Varazdat Arutyunyan, believes that such a statement testifies to the ignorance of the Azerbaijani minister. In turn, Samvel Karapetyan cited arguments which prove that this monument belonged to the Armenian people. He pointed out that such a statement might have been caused by numerous publications by Azerbaijani scientists.

— Armenian intellectuals blast "barbaric" destruction of Nakhichevan monuments, BBC Monitoring Trans Caucasus Unit

The general destruction of Armenian historical architectural monuments is going on in three of the four countries which are Armenia's neighbours (with the exception of Iran). Samvel Karapetyan, the head of the Yerevan office of the organization for the study of Armenian architecture stated this in conversation with a Noyan Tapan correspondent. In particular, Turkey, according to Karapetyan, "is destroying as much as it is able to do".

— Armenia accuses Turkey, Georgia, Azerbaijan of destroying historical monuments, Noyan Tapan news agency

The Coordinator of the Yerevan Office of the Research on Armenian Architecture NGO (RAA), Samvel Karapetyan told ArmInfo correspondent that the US Office of the RAA distributed copies of the documentary "Jugha" among congressmen. The film presents facts of demolition of over 2 thousand monuments in 2005 by Azerbaijani military men.

— US Congressmen presented facts of demolition of ancient Armenian khachkars in Old Jugha by Azeri troops, ARMINFO News Agency

European Court for Human Rights has noted a claim for recognizing Azerbaijan guilty in desecration of khachkars in Old Jugha. National Council of Armenians of Western Armenia submitted the claim, Samvel Karapetyan, Coordinator of RAA (Research of Armenian Architecture) Office in Yerevan, said at a press conference Wednesday.

— European Court for Human Rights notes a claim for recognizing Azerbaijan guilty in desecration of khachkars in Old Jugha, ARMINFO News Agency

The coordinator of RAA Yerevan Office Samvel Karapetyan has got the prize in Humanitarian Sciences nomination for his books "Armenians in Kakhetia," "Javakhq" and "Armenian Collection of the Caucasian Museum." Ruben Hovsepyan has won the Literature nomination for his novel "Under Apricot Trees."

— Annual awarding of Presidential Prize took place in Yerevan today, ARMINFO News Agency

Libelous claims

For a criticism section reading like a hit-piece, there would need to be numerous high-quality sources that the subject was heavily criticized, which doesn't apply to Karapetyan. I tried researching who Bondo Arveladze is and if he is a notable expert, and the only thing I could really find was an Azeri news page where he says "where there is an Armenian Diaspora; there is a threat to local population". It seems he is fringe and unreliable. We also don't need undue language like "he argued that Turkey has a policy of intentional neglect and planned destruction" when there is a whole article confirming this. As for De Waal, he is a figure far more deserving of a Criticism section, as his Black Garden book has, so this source is not enough weight on its own. --Dallavid (talk) 19:36, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Bondo Arveladze is a Georgian Armenologist active since at least the 1980s. Google Books shows his multiple articles in Russian about various Armenian matters. As for De Waal, his article also includes critical information about him. Many noted experts receive some peer criticism, there's nothing unusual about it. It's a part of scholar career and that doesn't mean they can't criticize others. Alternatively, the criticism section could be incorporated into the existing Research work section. Would that be ok? Brandmeister^talk 20:34, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

The claims of Arveladze seem to just be his word against Karapetyan's, so there's no evidence hat they are notable enough to include. Arveladze's claim on the Norashen Church seems to be undue because it is even contradicted by other Georgian sources, further proving that he is not a credible source. De Waal appears to just be recalling a conversation he had with Karapetyan, of which no one else has access to or can verify and we can only trust De Waal's word for (and he is much criticized himself). This is WP:PRIMARY and not noteworthy, especially for a biography of someone else. --Dallavid (talk) 23:38, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

De Waal is WP:SECONDARY here rather than primary: A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources (in this case Karapetyan's concepts). The primary source here is Karapetyan's own publications. Brandmeister^talk 09:30, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

De Waal is only recalling a conversation he had with Karapetian, even detailing how his office looked. That's a primary source. The book is more journalism than research. --Dallavid (talk) 23:55, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

That doesn't make him primary source. He assesses Karapetian in a relevant, topic-specific book that was well-received by various authors and per Wikipedia definition that's enough. If you think Black Garden is not reliable, feel free to bring this to WP:RSN. Brandmeister^talk 11:54, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Even if we consider it a credible secondary source, De Waal on his own is not enough due weight to merit a criticism section. --Dallavid (talk) 20:37, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

It could be included into the existing Research work section or elsewhere. Brandmeister^talk 21:25, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

It's still undue and libelous. Black Garden has much criticism itself. --Dallavid (talk) 20:11, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Here from NPOV/N. Information about the most prominent criticisms is generally due, and calling its inclusion "libelous" is inaccurate. I'm against a full criticism section, however, and I'm skepitcal of criticism sections in general. I would also ask Dallavid to read this essay on nationalist editing and keep it in mind. Even if you're not engaging in nationalist behavior, just the appearance of nationalist editing can make it difficult to gain support in discussions. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:15, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, the suggestion is ok for me. Brandmeister^talk 16:47, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Except it's not a prominent criticism, there are no other sources making the same criticism, and De Waal isn't criticizing Karapetyan's work, he's recalling a meeting he had with Karapetyan in a format where Karapetyan has no means to give his side of the story. How is suggesting that a respected researcher's article shouldn't be 50% criticism from one person, who has been heavily criticized themselves, nationalist editing? --Dallavid (talk) 19:37, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

A third opinion has been provided here. I think it's time to drop the stick and move on. Brandmeister^talk 11:11, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Polling is not a substitute for discussion. Thomas de Waal is a journalist who studied Russian literature. He is not qualified to be critical of Karapetyan at all. --Dallavid (talk) 22:12, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

As Thebiguglyalien wrote above, this has been raised at the NPOV noticeboard, which is one of the instruments listed at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Hope this helps. Brandmeister^talk 11:47, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Please do not misrepresent the purpose of WP:3O; it's not a vote. --Dallavid (talk) 19:38, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I some kind agree about the Bondo Arveladze, but do not agree about the De Waal. De Waal's book Black Garden is not primary source neither information from it violates BLP, it is reliable book, which actually won the Outstanding Academic Title 2003 award from Choice Reviews. A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 17:49, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

The addition "de Waal disagreed with Karapetian's claims about the town of Kalbajar" does not actually explain what "Karapetian's claims" are and the reader is left to only guess based on what De Waal wrote in his travel diary. This is terrible writing. Then there is the problem that De Waal isn't disputing that the population was Armenian from antiquity to the 1730s, as Karapetyan wrote. This has nothing to do with Karapetyan's research work and isn't notable enough to take up half of the text in the article. --Dallavid (talk) 22:32, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

De Waal's explanation is already there: "In what sense can Kelbajar be called 'Armenian'", meaning that in Karapetian's view it's Armenian. As for "take up half of the text in the article" - this may sound big, but it's actually only three sentences. You may wish to expand the article rather than removing what is already there. Brandmeister^talk 17:45, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

The passage in De Waal's travel diary is from a personal conversation he had with Karapetyan, in which only De Waal's narrative is given and he writes about Karapetyan antagonistically. It has nothing to do with Karapetyan's research work and doesn't belong in such a section, and a criticism section was deemed inappropriate. --Dallavid (talk) 20:14, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

At this point I don't have an appetite to argue further as I believe everything has been explained in that regard. If you're not satisfied with Thebiguglyalien's opinion, you may go for any other instrument of dispute resolution. Brandmeister^talk 21:06, 20 January 2023 (UTC)