Talk:Dashalty

Addition of POV

Mr. Raffi Kojian, Instead of self-promoting yourself or your books, you should focus on studying Wikipedia policies and acquiring abilities to present your arguments in scholarly manner. Let me point out your mistakes in reference to POV addition:

1. Your addition of the town name is incorrect. The official name of the town above Dashalty village is Shusha, not Shushi, as Armenians call it;
2. There are no neutral sources supporting your sentence "...was the last Azeri stronghold to be captured by Armenians in the Karabakh war, this village saw a great deal of destruction during that war" and relies only on your biased source Rediscovering Armenia: Guide, Matit Publishing, 2005;
3. Same concerns for the rest of the text you added, i.e. "church", "zontik", etc
4. Your guidebook source Rediscovering Armenia: Guide, Matit Publishing, 2005 you try to use so aggressively is actually, a POV source, written by a biased unscholarly writer, Raffi Kojian. Does a name Raffi Kojian ring a bell? No? Let me help out with biography source created by Raffi for self-promotion: Raffi Kojian. As you can see, you're not only engaging in baseless edit warring (mind WP:Editwarring, but you're also violating WP:Self published source and WP:Self-promotion. Therefore, I kindly ask you to stop personal threats on my talk page and rediscover Wikipedia rules. Neftchi (talk) 21:40, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Neftchi, There was no focus on the book at all when I posted the text. You are the one who originally said the text was unreferenced, so I put in the inline references like you requested. The book is not biased POV, the village in fact sustained damage and loss of life during the war. There are two authors and a publisher. There is a church, and it was renovated by Land and Culture, and there is a plaque there stating as much. There is a zontik waterfall, and if you don't believe it you can see it on Google Earth's photos, or in many other places on the web. If you have issues with text being added, you are supposed to discuss the text and edit it, not simply delete and delete and delete. If you know the wikipedia process, you know this well, and you have done it again. This is not acceptable. I don't know why it is you so badly want to hide the fact that there is a church and a waterfall, or why you don't want people to know that this place sustained war damage, but it is all true. Armenians call the town above Shushi, it is true. There is an official Azeri name and whether you like it or not, an official Armenian name. To use the Armenian name is not "incorrect", it is simply the use of the Armenian name. If you have specific issues with the text you need to work with it, as I have been willing to do. Not delete it and try to hide behind an anonymous IP address. Meanwhile I have completely replaced the Rediscovering references with different references, so now I'm curious as to whether you'll continue to just delete the entire text without discussion. --RaffiKojian (talk) 02:35, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

AND btw, my saying that I will report a violation of policy is not a "personal threat". See the WP policy on this which appears to define your accusation itself as a personal attack. --RaffiKojian (talk) 05:07, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Only source 1 is a neutral source, all the others are Armenian based websites. On this kind of controversial topic we need neutral sources not Armenain POV based. Therefore I adjusted the text accordingly. Neftchi (talk) 14:18, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Can you please explain what about the paragraph is so POV that you have to fight every reference and word so vehemently? What is the POV here? The part about the 22 deaths? Because really the fact that there is an Armenian church there and that it was restored by the Land and Culture Organization I can't begin to imagine as being POV. Neither is the fact that there is a waterfall. I don't understand what it is you are trying to hide. Nobody else is writing about Karintak except Armenians. Nobody else lives there. No Azeris used to live there. There are no other sources. So this is what we have, these are facts, they are not making Azeris out to look bad, this is simply what it is, and the references are quite good. The AGBU is a massive Armenian aid organization that has a budget of tens of millions of dollars (if not hundreds of millions) a year. The two founders and still editors of ArmeniaNow are two Americans who are NOT Armenian in any way. And Land and Culture Organization is a decades old international volunteer program that really did in fact send volunteers to this village and they really did rebuild the old village church. So please, explain your genuine issues with this text here, and if we need a neutral editor to come look at it, let's do that. I can't believe it's such a big deal to add this information. --RaffiKojian (talk) 12:07, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Couple issues with the addition of your text, Raffi. First off, the unbiased source just below the article, clearly indicates the official name of the village and what country it legally belongs to. Secondly, the source from the AGBU is unreliable. I don't dispute the notion that the village may have seen destruction during the war (although there is no proof or report attesting to that. For example, we know there were reports on destruction of Khankendi), but a neutral unbiased source calling the city above the village with its proper legitimate name would fit the article. Same goes for "land and culture" source. ArmeniaNow news piece can be retained, in my opinion. Tuscumbia (talk) 13:08, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we know the de jure country name, and we know the de facto, and it is important that the article reflect both. It would be a rather large omission not to mention that you can't drive to this village from Baku, no? That it's part of a de facto independent entity? I still don't understand what is biased about the Land and Culture work on a plain old village church from the 1800s. --RaffiKojian (talk) 14:27, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

First of all in all article de jure is placed above de facto and this article is no exception to that. Second what on earth is the relevance of the information you added? This article is not about Karabakh war and it shouldnt go into such detail. I think its very amateur writing. Neftchi (talk) 18:57, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Marshall unconstructive [1], undid what I said above. He did not bother to give his feedback in this discussion yet he feels like he in entitled to change the entire article to his liking. As I stated above all the NK related cities have de-jure mention above de-facto mention in the infobox. This is the agreed formation, so why start to differ here? There needs to be consistency in all infoboxes. Neftchi (talk) 10:16, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I actually tried to come up with a compromise edit. The order of which name to put first - de jure or de facto - really boils down to something that has been troubling the Wikipedia community; but we all know that it is not applied uniformly or else we would not have an article named Stepanakert now would we? In any case, recently there has been a move to rename many of these articles to what they're called nowadays (e.g., Shusha -> Shushi) and thus reflect reality but I digress. But I find it amusing that you call my edit "unconstructive" when what you engaged in was a blanket revert and even undid my spelling and grammar corrections. Even the sources I formatted correctly (the article by Harutyunyan, Cheterian) were rolled back for no apparent reason. Everything statement was attributed and even a source published by Columbia University Press was removed. So let's not talk about me changing an article that fits my liking when your single revert speaks well enough for itself.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 23:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)