Talk:Julfa, Azerbaijan (city)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Azerbaijan, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Azerbaijan-related topics. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of objectives.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

	Armenia Portal Julfa, Azerbaijan (city) is within the scope of WikiProject Armenia, an attempt to better improve and organize information in articles related or pertaining to Armenia and Armenians. If you would like to contribute or collaborate, you could edit the article attached to this page or visit the project page for further information.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.

Archives
Archive (20:43, 5 February 2006 - 22:38, 7 October 2006)

[edit] Nakhijevan Book of Monuments

Is "Nakhijevan Book of Monuments" this book: OCLC 26842386 Nakhijevan : girkʻ hushardzanatsʻ John Vandenberg 21:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Yup. --MarshallBagramyan 22:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The book title is "Nakhijevan Book of Monuments". It is called that (in English) on page 2 of the book. The title "Nakhijevan : girkʻ hushardzanatsʻ" appears on page 3. Meowy 02:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I rolled the article back to neutral version. We should present views of both sides and third parties in a neutral form, as per rules. Taking sides is not allowed. See WP:NPOV. Grandmaster 05:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Destruction of the Graveyard

Some editors seem to have the mistaken view that the destruction has not been conclusively proven. This is not the case, it has been fully documented, and the evidence has been accepted by both ICOMOS and by the European Parliament. UNESCO has not officially said anything. However, this is not because UNESCO does not accept the evidence, but because it is on record as stating that it has a policy of not making any comment until a site is viewed by its own staff (something that UNESCO, to date, has made no effort to do - but that is another issue). Meowy 10:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

We should present all the existing views on the subject and not assume positions. This is what we did on other articles on the subject, and it has consensus of both Azerbaijani and Armenian editors. Moreover, we did the same on such articles like Khojaly massacre, despite the fact being well documented by international organizations, we avoided assuming any position and provided all the existing views, properly attributing them. That helps avoid unnecessary disputes and is in line with WP:NPOV. Grandmaster 10:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

With that reasoning you allow the possiblility of all sort of bizarre beliefs and assertions to be entered as if they were true. Also, your "Armenia has accused" statement seems to me to be a biased POV statement that goes beyond simply presenting views. It implies that nobody else has accused - when in fact plenty have, including, as I have stated, the EU and ICOMOS. They have both accused and passed their verdict. It is also worth recognising that Azerbaijan does not simply continue to deny it destroyed the cemetery, it denies that the cemetery and its associated medieval Armenian settlement ever existed! Shall we have a disclaimer at the top of the page stating that, according to Azerbaijan, medieval Julfa did not actually exist? Meowy 15:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Opinion of EU and ICOMOS is just an opinion and not a fact. We should present all the views and not assert positions. Azerbaijan does not deny existence of the cemetery, it is again just an opinion of 1 person. You still don't understand WP:NPOV. Quote:

The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions.

Grandmaster 05:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

You have not addressed any of my points. For example, the use of the phrase "Armenia has accused". ICOMOS is not "Armenia", The EU parliament is not "Armenia". The use of that phrase clearly shows bias. The "conflicting views" you speak of are between Azerbaijan and the rest of the World. If the whole World says one thing, and one country says another, it is not a conflicting view, it is a denial of the truth by a single party. The entry should certainly include the assertions by Azeri sources (from their president downwards) that it has destroyed nothing, and that there never was an Armenian settlement there. However, the weight of the article should not be distorted by an over emphasis of those sources at the expense of the 90% of sources that say the exact opposite. While the current version of the text is by no means ideal, it is better than the version you have been rv'ing to (and I think that the information within it is also ordered better). Meowy 19:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

EP and ICOMOS are not the rest of the world. And Armenia did accuse, and so did a few entities or persons. But that’s not the whole world. We should report all the opinions without taking sides. I only suggest sticking to the rules when covering such controversial topics. Grandmaster 06:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Only Azerbaijan has been doing the denying. Everyone else has accepted the facts as proven by the ample visual evidence and the numerous eyewitness. It is not a controversial topic at all. Meowy 16:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Not "everyone else". One or two entities is not "everyone else". I don't know what in your opinion a controversial topic is, but in my view this one is pretty much controversial. Why is it a problem to present all the existing views and let the reader judge? That's what the rules require, after all. Grandmaster 19:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that a controversial topic is one in which there are two (or more) contrasting viewpoints that can each be lucidly argued either for or against. No situation like that exists here. The destruction of the graveyard has been accepted as fact by everyone except Azerbaijan. That is "everyone else" in this context. The entry, though not perfect, does present "all the existing views". Presenting the existing views is not the same as presenting sources in the form of official statements from Azerbaijan as if they were equal in both credibility and number to all the varous sources that entirely contradict Azerbaijan's statements.Meowy 16:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, it was not accepted by everyone and no independent investigation has been carried out. I mean, has it been accepted by UNO, PACE, UNESCO, etc, etc? Two organizations are not everyone, it is just 2 organizations. We should let the reader judge the credibility of sources presented, we cannot include our own judgment in the article. There’s a controversy, and according to NPOV rules we should provide all significant opinions and let the reader judge who is right and who is not. Please check again the NPOV rule, it is one of the main rules of Wikipedia, and we should all adhere to it. Grandmaster 04:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Judging the crediblity of the sources is only possible when a full range of sources are mentioned. If you are just having an equal number of "Armenia said" and "Azerbaijan said" sources, the reader is not given an truthful representation of the extent of the sources because it implies that there are an equal number of sources saying that the cemetery is destroyed as those saying it has not been destroyed. Actually, as I had tried to explain, every source except those deriving from Azerbaijan suggests the destruction has happened. There is also misrepresentation of one of the sources in the version you reverted to. The statement that Azerbaijan "would only accept a delegation if it visited Armenian-controlled territory as well" is false: there is no such information given in the cited Independent article. Meowy 20:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

You are free to add any reliable source to the article. As for the quote you mentioned, it is not from Independent, it is from IWPR. I don't know how it got confused, but if you check IWPR report, you'll find it. Grandmaster 04:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Photograph

I think a normal person would assume that a city known most widely for its khachkar cemetary, irregardless of what has happened to it or why, would expect to see a decent picture of one (or two) of the khachkars on an article about this town. Of course, someone will quietly remove this photo yet again someday, and it will slip under the radar, but for now, I am adding it and hope that this note will help give the subject a little more visibility and ensure a longer life here. --RaffiKojian (talk) 21:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)