Talk:Goghtn

Tag

This article cites no reliable sources whatsoever. Two Armenian nationalistic websites, plus two primary sources cannot be considered reliable. Grandmaster 21:48, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would not count as original research. The other tag is more understandable. I suggest we remove the original research tag, and can look for 3rd party sources to make the article better fit wiki standards.--Moosh88 (talk) 01:11, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No reliable sources = original research. Grandmaster 13:59, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Still no reliable third party sources. All the sources used are published in Armenia, and none from outside of the region. Grandmaster 07:57, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have not established that the source is not reliable. The nationality of the source is not enough to claim it is unreliable. First one looks for other sources which do not match the first cited source(s) this allows one to point out that source A is not in communion with sources B, C, D, etc. Then it appears that source A may be original research or even complete hogwash.--Moosh88 (talk) 18:18, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The articles must be based on third party sources, not connected to the sides of the conflict. WP:VERIFY holds: Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The sources used are not third party, and considering that Armenian and Azerbaijan are engaged in a bitter conflict that also involves partisan scholarship in both countries, it is better to use sources not related to the sides of the conflict. If what is written in this article is true, it must be somehow reflected in the international scholarly sources. Grandmaster 19:32, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Moosh's comments above. This sounds like more discomfort with the fact that the oft-repeated lies about Armenians in Azerbaijan do not quite match the reality of actual sources. Scholarship in Armenia was/is not perfect but it's significantly better than in Azerbaijan, where historians cannot even bring themselves to admit that Armenians once lived and thrived within the modern borders of the country before 1828. Grandmaster's comments are more an excuse than explanation to add a tag. One has to understand that there is not an abundance of international historians who have studied and written about this region or time period. But please try a little harder. You can begin by telling us why prominent historians like Aram Ter-Ghevondyan (whose works were frequently translated and/or published in other languages in Western periodicals) or Tadevos Hakobyan, who are working with primary sources, are unreliable.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 20:14, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Every criticism of partisan scholarship in the Caucasus mentions both Armenian and Azerbaijani scholars. If the works by this Ter-Ghevondyan were translated into English, how come that no international scholar ever mentioned a region by the name of Goghtn? And while Nakhchivan region is not the most internationally researched region, there are plenty of scholarly publications about it in various academic sources. It appears that Goghtn is pretty much the same as recently deleted "Northern Artsakh" that existed only in imagination of some authors in the region. As I mentioned above, the sources used are not third party, and have a conflict of interest. If I create an article based solely on Azerbaijani sources, you would be the first to object. Grandmaster 21:05, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the criticism is not balanced and is leveled, more often than not, against Azerbaijan. But I digress. Ter-Ghevondyan's book is now available in electronic form here A simple Google search yields hundreds of mentions of Goghtn or Goghtan. Your arguments hold no water. The only reason I, or anyone else, would object is because they have a tendency to fabricate facts and ignore the Armenians completely. Let's be a little serious here. You cannot possibly compare someone like Ter-Ghevondyan to a scholar beholden to state authorities, who writes is forced to toe the official line that the Armenian people have not existed for more than 200 years. I have added enough sources to address the concerns of the "existence" of Goght'n.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 21:17, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia requires us to use third party sources. Again, if this region really existed, how come no third party source mentions it? Is any of those sources that you have enough to support the existence of Goght third party? Grandmaster 21:54, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Professor James R. Russell, who is not Armenian–since that seems to be an impediment to scholarly objectivity according to some people–refers to it as "the Armenian province of Golt'n." JackalLantern (talk) 02:58, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And what exactly does he say? Grandmaster 13:41, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are we really having this conversation again? Gołt'n yields numerous results, in works by non-Armenians (Russell included).--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 19:03, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To Grandmaster: WP does not require "us" to use reliable sources. Please stop using your own definitions on reliable sources and impeding the improvement of articles. All sources used by MarshallBaghramyan are reliable. Sprutt (talk) 02:26, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the rules? We are required to use reliable sources, and the sources should be third party and should not have a conflict of interest. In this case there are at least some third party sources like Russel and Hewsen, but most of this article is not based on third party sources. If I create an article based exclusively on Azerbaijani sources, I'm sure you would not be happy. If we want to avoid endless disputes and edit wars, it is better to give preference to non-Armenian and non-Azerbaijani sources. Then the neutrality of an article could not be questioned. Grandmaster 17:33, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Azerbaijani sources are unreliable (state-directed propaganda criticized in the West) and that's why you cannot create articles based on Azerbaijani sources. Armenian sources are mostly reliable. But you are right, actually. There are articles based exclusively on Azerbaijani state propaganda sources - they should be excluded from WP. Sprutt (talk) 18:53, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

... I just checked, Armenian sources are not used in the article, only Western sources. Those who question the validity of these sources are acting in bad faith. Sprutt (talk) 19:20, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How come that Armenian sources could be used, and Azerbaijani ones cannot? Every source criticizing Azerbaijani sources criticizes Armenian sources too, be that de Waal, Shnirelman, Hewsen, etc. You contradict yourself, saying that sources cannot be rejected because of nationality, and then saying that Azerbaijani sources "cannot be trusted", "state propaganda", etc. You have to choose, you cannot have it both ways. And publication in the West does not make a source free from bias. Recently we were discussing at the reliable sources board a book by Michael Bobelian, who was not found to be neutral, despite publication in the USA. And Armenian Soviet Encyclopedia (?) is clearly a very dubious source. Let's face it, Armenia and Azerbaijan were engaged in a propaganda war for decades, therefore the sources related to the sides of the conflict should be used with care. Note that I treat the sources from both sides the same way. Grandmaster 20:28, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources indeed cannot be rejected because of nationality, but there is no contradiction in saying that Azerbaijani sources "cannot be trusted", "state propaganda." Some autocratic hyper-nationalist states like Azerbaijan have exerted strong pressure on historians both in the Soviet and post-Soviet times. Sprutt (talk) 21:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And why Azerbaijan is a "hyper-nationalist" state, and Armenia is not? After all, it is Armenia that ethnically cleansed its entire non-Armenian population, and is almost 100% ethnically homogeneous. This argument holds no water. Grandmaster 22:16, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Groundless bad faith rhetoric plus bizarre historical revisionism that mock WP rules. Sprutt (talk) 23:13, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]