Talk:Artur Aleksanyan

Accusations of politicization

There was a reaction from Azerbaijani officials evaluating the Armenian wrestler’s action (appearing at the awarding ceremony with a t-shirt printed out the portrait of Armenian sergeant killed during the April fights) as country’s attempt to overuse of winner and bring politics to sports-ground. So, I am going to return this information that is based on source[1] and was removed without any explanation. --Interfase (talk) 11:49, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I added sources and quotes of him discussing what his intentions were. It wasn't a political statement. --130.126.255.64 (talk) 00:03, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Only his quotes without reaction from Azerbaijani side is not follow WP:NPV. We should add also official statement from Azerbaijani side because Aleksanyan appeared with the photo of a millitarist serviceman who died in the battle with Azerbaijan in the internationally recognised territory of Azerbaijan. It may be not a political statement, but also it may be a political statement. Wikipedia doesn't make such decisions. Wikipedia provides all points of view according to WP:NPV. --Interfase (talk) 21:14, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

The statement is the opposite of NPV and contributes nothing to the article. As it is the article just states simply what happened and doesn't take sides. Abajyan is not a "millitarist" and you show you are the one with a political agenda by your language. --130.126.255.64 (talk) 04:39, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

The statement of Aleksanyan and the description of his action without the reaction of Azerbaijani side is the opposite of NPV. And saying "millitarist" I wanted to say serviceman. Replaced. I still think that this information is relevant for the article. If you not agree let's ask third opinion. --Interfase (talk) 05:44, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

If no reaction here, so I will return this information following NPV. --Interfase (talk) 19:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

You were already told by an admin that the statement is removable. It contributes nothing to the article. --Calrugem (talk) 06:54, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Which admin told this? Show the diff please. The official statement is about the act of Aleksanyan. It contributes to the article of course. --Interfase (talk) 06:58, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Here. --Calrugem (talk) 07:40, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Wrong interpretation of admin's words. There is nothing about "the statement is removable" or "it contributes nothing to the article". --Interfase (talk) 08:35, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Rfc

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the last sentence "Azerbaijan's Ministry of Youth and Sports evaluated the Armenian wrestler’s action as country’s attempt to overuse of winner and bring politics to sports-ground" be removed? --Calrugem (talk) 15:59, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Survey

• Remove as nominator. --Calrugem (talk) 15:59, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
• Keep as per arguments below. --Interfase (talk) 05:00, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
• Remove Per discussion below. Neither the fact that the statement may have what seems to be a polemical slant to some of us, nor the fact that it is not consistent with Aleksanyan's perspective are in themselves cause to excise this content; Wikipedia routinely includes government statements (including outraged statements of condemnation) surrounding these kinds of controversies. We wouldn't be endorsing the opinion of the Azerbaijani ministry, provided the statement was properly attributed; we'd simply be noting the claim was made in connection with the controversy.

All of that said, I still have to oppose inclusion in this instance. The statement, as written in English, is so thoroughly garbled that it is not suitable for providing insight in an encyclopedic context. The syntax is so bad that, although we might feel that we can determine the general gist of the statement from context, it's just not reliable enough for the sake of informing our readers without great potential for misrepresentation. Further, any attempt to "correct" the syntax by placing a variant of the statement that we feel "must be what was meant here" would clearly dip far too deeply into WP:original research. On the balance of these factors, I do not think this statement is suitable for inclusion. Snow ^{let's rap} 21:21, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

• Remove -- I was directed here by a bot's message on my talk-page (so uninvolved). Having read through everything I completely agree with everything Snow has said both above and below, and therefore believe the statement should be removed. -- Shudde ^talk 15:58, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• Remove Starting from the presumption that content which can be fixed should be, this is still content that has very doubtful need for inclusion. Even though it can probably be fixed (granted, with some judgment and interpretation) to something that follows normal English syntax and grammar there is a big WP:NPOV problem with it. The proposed content is also about a one-time event making it further doubtful under WP:WEIGHT. As it is, we only have a perfunctory statement and considerations of balance and lasting importance would argue against including any mention of the "controversy". Were Aleksanyan to start making a point of continued political statements in the wrestling ring, then both his actions and the replies of Azerbaijani officials would be worth a section. In that case then there wold be a different, but even more difficult situation. Namely, one requiring complying carefully with WP:ARBAA2. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:37, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• This gibberish (as called by an admin) bias statement ruins what is otherwise a completely neutral article and violates NPOV. The only source that called this politicizing is an Azeri government news site, no other media shared this sentiment. The statement serves no purpose than to itself spread a political agenda. --Calrugem (talk) 15:59, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
• First of all, if the sentence seems as "gibberish" for someone, it doesn't mean that we should remove it. We can change it, but not remove. The information is about the official reaction to the act of Aleksanyan. Secondly, who said that azvision.az is "government news site"? I don't think that. And even if it is, of course the Azeri government news site is pretty enough to confirm that information. Government site may be more reliable. Thirdly, the official statement from Azerbaijani side is understandable, because Aleksanyan appeared with the photo of a serviceman who died in the battle with Azerbaijan in Nagorno Karabakh zone, which is the internationally recognized territory of Azerbaijan. We should mention it as per WP:NPV and because this information directly relates to the Aleksanyan's act. --Interfase (talk) 05:07, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
• Perhaps you two gentlemen would be so kind as to provide a little more context here for what the statement is meant to say? I agree that it is absolute gibberish as written; I can generally derive the gist of what is being said even in statements that have very poorly translated syntax, but this is so garbled as to be completely meaningless. I gather from the discussion above and reviewing the relevant section of the article that this sentence was meant to say something along the lines that the ministry made a statement to the effect that it viewed the action as politically provocative (and/or that it suspected Armenian government involvement in the act, to the debasement of the sport?). If that's the gist of the proposed statement, then that seems like an acceptable addition to the article, provided that it is properly attributed so that it reflects the fact that this was the statement of a third party, not an empirical statement about what Aleksanyan actually intended; the statements by Aleksanyan clearly go counter to this suggestion.

However, Interfase, there is a much deeper issue here; if you really do not see why the statement, as written, is entirely unacceptable as content on the English Wikipedia, I suspect there is a basic competency issue with your command of English that is probably severe enough to make it impracticable for you to contribute here with your current level of facility--a concern reinforced by your contributions to the discussion above and especially worrisome in light of being coupled with a gung-ho attitude with regard to keeping your content in. Snow ^{let's rap} 07:10, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Snow Rise I thought of just wording it better, but if you look at the actual source there is no substance, it's just poorly worded propaganda. There's only one line on the "statement":

She evaluated the Armenian wrestler’s action as country’s attempt to overuse of winner and bring politics to sports-ground: `Armenia which tries to show itself as violated in the world showed its bad intention and proved its irrationality`.

Interfase indeed doesn't have good enough English to edit here, but in this case he just copyrighted an already poorly worded sentence. All they said was it's an Armenian political conspiracy; which is a lie, there are already sources of Aleksanyan saying why he wore the shirt, and neutrally so. What do you take away from this line? It's garbage and should be removed. --Calrugem (talk) 01:25, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Well I do see now that the English translation is in fact original to the source, which does complicate things considerably, if only because it's difficult to know with any certainty what it means; we can easily derive the general tone for context, but as written, it's no use as encyclopedic content, and trying to interpret it would be WP:OR. In light of that, I oppose the statement's inclusion. But I want to be clear as to why, because some of your other arguments don't carry water for me. It's not really for us to say what government pronouncement is "propaganda" and which is a genuine or acceptable expression of grievance. Ideally, we'd have secondary sources that could categorize the response (of the Ministry itself, not the general interpretation of Aleksanyan, which I feel you've conflated a little above). However, primary sources are acceptable, under many circumstances; the standard is that source must be used to "make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." and indeed the statement in question seems to qualify under the other requirements of the relevant policy (WP:PRIMARY)--or rather, it would, if not for the issue that arises from the non-intelligible nature of the text itself. If what they had said had been more cogent, I'd probably be arguing that Interfase has it right and that an official statement from a national ministry is both a valid source and a valid bit of encyclopedic info, no matter how polemic it may sound to you or I.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say "he just copyrighted" the sentence, but a short direct quote from a national ministry through official public channels is not really in conflict with WP:COPYVIO, insofar as I can see--and I'd need a good argument to distinguish why this one should not be used, where we regularly include government statements in many articles. As it happens, we get that argument in the fact the statement is virtually incomprehensible as encyclopedic content (and is certainly at the least unreliable) because of the poor translation. But if not for that fact, it would not suffice for me to say "Well, its stupid and contemptful." Or "small-minded" or "polemic" or "paranoid" or any such evaluation, without the benefit of a reliable secondary source--because that would also be WP:OR in this context.

And last, you seem to be making a kind of WP:WEIGHT argument against including the Ministry's statement because it runs counter to what Aleksanyan has repeatedly said about the whole affair, but that's a false dilemma because we couldn't possibly be presenting that information in Wikipedia's voice--the statement is clearly attributed to the Ministry of Youth and Sports of Azerbaijan; it's kind of exactly the point of the sentence. So long as it's clearly a direct quote, and not the encyclopedia's voice, that's allowable, and adds valuable information. Even if it "clearly" sounds like propaganda (by which I assume you mean polemical propaganda, not just the general sense of the word), you note that "Huh, the Ministry of Youth and Sports of Azerbaijan is prone to some polemics in its propaganda." And it adds to your understanding of the "controversy", such as it is. And if another reader doesn't read it in quite the same way, well that's alright too, because we are allowed to interpret the content and tone of a statement differently--and indeed, it's guaranteed that some people will do so, provided we do our job right and do not endorse any one view, directly or tacitly.

But that's all academic here; as is, the statement is far too garbled to serve as useful encyclopedic content. Forgive the lengthy divergence if it seemed I was going out of my way to disagree with you--I just wanted to be clear on my policy positions in this instance! Snow ^{let's rap} 06:22, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate the time you took to look into this :) --Calrugem (talk) 21:23, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Artur Aleksanyan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160815053503/https://www.rio2016.com/en/athlete/artur-aleksanyan to https://www.rio2016.com/en/athlete/artur-aleksanyan

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:13, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Artur Aleksanyan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130402094313/http://www.london2012.com/athlete/aleksanyan-artur-1031850/ to http://www.london2012.com/athlete/aleksanyan-artur-1031850/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:17, 21 January 2018 (UTC)