Talk:Culture of Nagorno-Karabakh

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Untitled[edit]

3 issues: 1. replacing Shushi, Gandzak and Artsakh with Shusha, Ganja and Nagorno-Karabakh. 2. removing quotation request 3. removing POV tag. The disputed edit is [1]. --Quantum666 (talk) 09:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Licensing[edit]

{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-2.5|author=NKR Office in the USA 1140 19th Street, NW, Suite 600 Washington, DC 20036 phone: (202) 223-4330 e-mail: info@nkrusa.org www.nkrusa.org NKROfficeUS}

Hello, this permission is not sufficient. You must email permission-en@wikimedia.org, mentioning that you wish to release this page under those licenses. Please do this soon. John Vandenberg (chat) 09:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. --John Vandenberg (chat) 09:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
We have filed a petition from info@nkrusa.org and received a response from Wikipedia staff at permissions-en@wikimedia.org (note in this e-mail address "permissions" is in plural). Currently Wikipedia has established a ticket number for our request, and we are waiting to be advised as to how best to document and display our authorization to use our materials. Please note that we grant our permission retroactively as well, i.e. to all previous usage of our materials on all Wikimedia outfits. Please feel free to contact us at info@nkrusa.org for any clarifications. NKROfficeUS (talk) 17:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Got it. Stifle (talk) 21:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Overcoverage tag[edit]

An "overcoverage" tag has recently been added to the article, an addition which has resulted in a spate of edit warring with the tag being repeatedly removed and reinserted. The tag has not been inserted with any justification given on this talk page. For example, there is no reasoning given to back up the claim that the article has "extensive bias or disproportional coverage towards Armenia". Unless such reasoning is forthcoming, and unless it is valid reasoning, I will remove the tag - and I hope it will not be reinserted again without the requested justification. Meowy 22:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Some of the disgruntled editors appear to be upset that there are no mention of all the temples, monasteries and "khachdashes" the Caucasian Albanians and the Urartian Turks erected in this region during the Iron Age period. I too am wondering why no mention is made of them.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 04:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Agree with Marshal, that huge article extensively discusses only Armenian heritage. Currently I'm lazy to work there, so the tag should stay until a willing editor comes. Brand[t] 10:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
For the uninformed who might drop by, MB is talking ironically. Brand - being "lazy" is not an excuse for you not giving a justification for placing the tag, and is not a reason for the tag to remain. Meowy 16:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Indeed. If tags are going to be whacked on willy-nilly, a practice I abhor anyway, at the least they should be accompanied by a clear and coherent rationale on the talkpage, with a few concrete improvements suggested to fix the problem. Common courtesy requires no less. Moreschi (talk) 19:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

NPOV[edit]

The article is written from the Armenian POV. Nothing is written about muslim and Azeri culture in the region. Non-neutral sources are widely used to undermine Azeri presence in Nagorno-Karabakh. Very stupid and biased statements are present in the article. For example:

  • After the entry of Turko-Islamic nomads to Artsakh's highlands, in the 1750s, the city became divided into two parts: Armenian and Muslim. (but we know that Shusha was founded in 1750-1752 (according to other sources, 1756–1757) by Panah-Ali khan Javanshir (r. 1748-1763), the founder and the first ruler of the independent Karabakh khanate (1748–1822))

The article must be improved, I would say even rewritten. --Quantum666 (talk) 07:11, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Please abstain from making sweeping changes to well-established articles simply because you find them "very stupid." Ishxanaberd (talk) 21:23, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
There are no "sweeping changes". The changes I made are all explained and are made according to the rules of WP. So I don't understand your revert. Could you please explain each change in your revert? --Quantum666 (talk) 05:30, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
You have unwisely (but honestly) admitted that you were making the changes because they look "stupid" to you. This is not good faith editing (and thus POV), and I recommend that you leave this article alone. Ishxanaberd (talk) 20:29, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Users in Wikipedia are free to choose the articles they want to edit. Please read the summaries of my edits and explain what's wrong with them. Thanks. --Quantum666 (talk) 08:28, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

To make easier to unerstand I will write them again for you:

  1. I replaced Shushi with Shusha according to WP:PLACE
  2. I replaced Gandzak with Ganja according to WP:PLACE
  3. I replaced Artsakh with Nagorno Karabakh according to WP:PLACE
  4. I put the POV tag. The reasons are explained here. Also see WP:NPOVD
  5. I also requested sources according to WP:SOURCE. Also see please WP:BURDEN. --Quantum666 (talk) 08:59, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Sorry but you are trolling. Ishxanaberd (talk) 17:18, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Quantum666 is engaged in disruptive editing and edit warring for this and many other articles. He unreasonably questions all sources in a stable article like this, and finds its content "stupid." Quantum666 was banned two times temporarily, I suggest to make the ban permanent. Ishxanaberd (talk) 20:13, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

1. Shushi is used according to WP:PLACE; please read more carefulyly 2. Gandzak is used according to WP:PLACE; please read more carefully 3. Artsakh is used according to WP:PLACE 4. no need for POV tag. POV tag needs for your edits 5. the article uses dozens of references. your refderence to WP:SOURCE is redundant stop edit warring. Ishxanaberd (talk) 19:47, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

What exactly are you basing your position on? The city is called Shusha, not Shushi. It is refered to as Shushi only by Armenians. Gandzak is the same problem. It is called Ganja. There is also no such a thing as Artsakh nowadays. It was a historical region in Caucasian Albania and Armenian Kingdom. The area was an autonomous republic called Nagorno Karabakh. So, your position is unclear. Please explain.  Anastasia Bukhantseva  04:42, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Anastasia, as I mentioned, many Western reliable sources use Shushi Gandzak forms especially in cultural and Historical contexts. Shushi is also the modern official name used by town's authorities. Andranikpasha (talk) 12:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Generally speaking, Wikipedia articles should try to use the names that are used by the most reputable western news organizations, such as the BBC and New York Times. It ought to be possible to resolve the issue on that basis. Looie496 (talk) 17:02, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
I see that in most cases this article uses geographic names according to relevant time periods, which is entirely compliant with Wiki rules. When a double name was used, alternative names are provided as well. As to POV editors from Azerbaijan, they apparently push the Azerbaijani nationalist doctrine enshrined in speeches of their corrupt oil dictator Ilham Aliyev. They want to overwrite historical names and replace them with toponyms of Soviet Azerbaijan or modern Azerbaijani Republic (which were ruled by Ilham's father Heydar Aliyev). This, in order to create the impression that "Azerbaijan" existed continuously through history . Ishxanaberd (talk) 20:26, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
For instance, Quantum666 inserted (Azerbaijani: Gəncəsər monastırı) in the article about the Gandzasar Monastery. There is no Azerbaijani term for the Armenian Gandzasar Monastery, and there are no sources that ever provided an "Azerbaijani" Muslim name for this masterpiece of Armenian Christian architecture. It is the same as if someone would use an Azerbaijani name for Rome's Colosseum. How ludicrous. But for Quantum666 historical sources and verifiability are unimportant because is is here in Wikipedia to wage nationalist wars. He should be banned. Ishxanaberd (talk) 20:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:PLACE: The contents (this applies to all articles using the name in question): The same name as in the title should be used consistently throughout the article, unless there is a widely accepted historic English name for a specific historical context. The titles are Shusha, Ganja and Nagorno-Karabakh. --Quantum666 (talk) 18:49, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I looked through the western media websites such as BBC and CNN. They use Shusha, Ganja and Nagorno-Karabakh so I corrected the article according to the third opinion. I left historical names when they are used in historical context. I also changed the description of the carpet from Susha according to the source providing the image (see description of the file). And please do not remove quotation requests. --Quantum666 (talk) 12:06, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

The article is really full of POV. Needs to be re-written. Tuscumbia (talk) 15:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
As before, tags are abused in this case to discredit the article with bogus claims. Tag warring is a punishable offense. Xebulon (talk) 02:40, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
The article is in need of a major re-write. There is no single line about Azerbaijani heritage and the article is based on complete POV. Tuscumbia (talk) 14:27, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I reverted [2] an edit by a single-edit ip that made mass changes to place names and the like as discussed above. I'm still trying to figure out the dispute, and have no opinion at this time on which names should be used. I simply figured that it would be best to restore to a version where the lede tag was back in place as it had not been addressed and no edit summary was given to explain how the other tagged concerns were addressed, if at all. --Ronz (talk) 05:06, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Ronz, thank you for your input. The dispute is over the POV content of the article. In many instances, like the IP did, users tried to change the official name of Shusha to Shushi. Shusha is located in Nagorno-Karabakh region of Azerbaijan, which was captured by Armenian military and established an unrecognized state called Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. The de-facto authorities claim the name of the city is Shushi, but the internationally recognized name remains Shusha. Same applies to the name Artsakh which was part of Caucasian Albania, but is now the same Karabakh region, which Armenians sometimes call Artsakh Republic. So, wherever the text refers to the historical name Artsakh (when it was called Artsakh), it should stay as Artsakh, in the rest of the article the reference to Karabakh should stay as Karabakh. Aside from these two terms, the article by itself is a complete POV. Karabakh is a de-jure part of Azerbaijan Republic and has historically been part of Azerbaijani Turkic Karabakh Khanate, Ak Koyunlu, Kara Koyunlu and Caucasian Albania but that information has been suppressed in this article, as if the region had no Azerbaijani, Turkic and Muslim heritage. The article needs to be re-written with removal of POV and addition of relevant data on its Azerbaijani heritage. Hence the tags. Tuscumbia (talk) 14:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Caucasian Albania was an Azerbaijani Turkic state??? Where in the article on Caucasian Albania did you see that it was a Azerbaijani Turkic state? Ak Koyunlu, Kara Koyunlu were Azerbaijani Turkic states? Where in the articles on Ak Koyunlu and Kara Koyunlu did you see that those were in any way Azerbaijani??? User Tuscumbia is the same nationalist hyper-propagandist as his friend Quantum. They don't merely push POV, they are user determined to engage in vandalism. Now, when Tuscumbia finally revealed his POV bias, he must be banned from the involvement in this article. Xebulon (talk) 15:18, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Clearly you misunderstood. I didn't claim Caucasian Albania was Turkic. In my statement, it follows the line of Turkic states 'and Caucasian Albania, although many academicians claim it has been Turkic as well. And, yes, the other states were Azerbaijani Turkic. Tuscumbia (talk) 15:30, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Dispute resolution[edit]

In case editors here aren't familiar with dispute resolution approaches, a few recommendations:

  1. Focus on content, rather than on contributors. If an editor's behavior fails Wikipedia's policies/guidelines to the point of disrupting the editing and consensus-building of this article, then discuss these problems on the editor's talk page, at WP:WQA, or at WP:ANI, as appropriate.
  2. Look for and identify common ground with other editors, especially those taking a side different from your own.
  3. You don't have to solve everything at once. Solve the problems where there is the most common ground first.
  4. There are multiple ways to get others' perspective on the dispute. Has anyone looked for relevant WikiProjects?
  5. The relevant noticeboard to get help is WP:NPOVN.
  6. An WP:RfC focusing on the interpretation and application of WP:PLACE might be more helpful than NPOVN.

--Ronz (talk) 16:50, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Ronz: tags are a lazy way of disagreeing with others. I can go and place such tags on every single Azerbaijani-related article, all of them are controversial since Azerbaijanis are a new nation that like many other similar cases try to make their history look older. Tags wars are not the way. Disagreements should be solved through a dialogue on talk pages. I encourage you to remove ALL tags. Xebulon (talk) 16:52, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Xebulon, your account, as much as the account Oliveriki and the account Vandorenfm are clearly sock or meat accounts of banned users, since your sole contributions have been messing up specific articles and since you don't seem to have really made any substantial contributions to Wikipedia. A CU would be in order. Tuscumbia (talk) 15:30, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
I see that Tuscumbia went from nonsensical claims on the subject of this article to equally nonsensical personal attacks against contributors. The tags sponsored by those mocking the letter and spirit of Wikipedia regulations cannot stay. Tuscumbia and the other character Quantum will be banned from editing this article. They are socks of banned users and should leave Wikipedia. Xebulon (talk) 16:14, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
The tag was placed by banned users, who were engaged in tag wars and other misconduct. The the nature of cosmetic changes in the article show that tag was likely placed for the only purpose of discrediting the article and demeaning its content. Please do not place it back without a thorough discussion on the talk pages that would result in a consensus on the tags. Gorzaim (talk) 03:56, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
There are all kinds of users on the talk page, some topic banned, some blocked. Apparently one that is blocked and is recognized as sockmaster (Xebulon) is whose version continuously revert to. Read the discussion above thoroughly. One more blind revert and you will be reported. Neftchi (talk) 14:15, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

This article is prepared in a very well manner with tens of scientific citations. You can add your contributions related to Azerbaijani heritage (if any) with the same way. Nobody is preventing you. Just because you think the shape of the world is rectangle does not mean an article related to the shape of the world which suggest it is sphere is an unbalanced article. Ali55te (talk) 20:24, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

to Neftchi: please note that I did not revert the changes made in the article, just removed the expired tag that was wrongfully placed in bad faith. Gorzaim (talk) 06:03, 17 June 2011 (UTC)