Talk:Stepanakert/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Split

@Chessrat: Before implementing your split, can we have a discussion here? I’m not convinced a split is either beneficial or required. BilledMammal (talk) 02:36, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

@BilledMammal: A lot of the information in this article is currently outdated and needs removing (e.g. the #Twin towns – sister cities section, the #Friendship declarations section, etc); I was intending to remove that information so that the article doesn't need the "Outdated" tag any more (which has been in need of action for months). I put it into the split off article to avoid the information being lost- if you have any other ideas for how to remove the outdated information from the article do please say so? As it hadn't been done in the months since that tag was added, I had thought that me removing the outdated info would not be controversial. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 02:43, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Also see for example the section above on this talk page noting that the outdated info needs removing- in the seven weeks since that discussion was created, there was no reply to it nor any other attempt to remove the outdated info as suggested. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 02:44, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

The issue with removing it is that what it was historically remains relevant; articles on cities often discuss their past, including their past under a different nation or government.

For example, you removed this:

During the control by the Armenians, the city was a regional center of education and culture, being home to Artsakh University, musical schools, and a palace of culture. The economy was based on the service industry and had varied enterprises, food processing, wine making, and silk weaving being the most important. As of 2021, the population of Stepanakert was 75,000.

I think that information warrants inclusion. BilledMammal (talk) 03:03, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I hadn't intended to remove that sentence- that was a genuine mistake. I think it makes sense to have summaries of the Artsakh-era history included in the article like that- it's just that the level of detail about the economy, transport, city twinnings, etc, in the Artsakh era are very clearly not relevant nowadays, and a large amount of it was still included in the present tense with no attempt to adapt the article in any way. So it's either a case of accepting a lot of information being lost or having the dedicated sub-article to cover that period in detail. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 03:16, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I'd like to also point out that no other editors have yet updated the article such that it doesn't need the mass of "outdated" tags any more. I'd like to continue the cleaning up of the article, but if in the process I inadvertently remove any other important information such as the sentence you mentioned, I am completely fine with editors such as yourself re-adding it. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 03:21, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Removing important, relevant and sourced information is not helpful, this article is about a city not a political regime, the outdated tags were added by editors seeking to erase information about the Armenian history (including recent history) from the article, we can update the article as new information comes along and add it to the present information while clarifying what era and regime that information corresponds to and maybe in the future the new information outweighs the old in importance but now that deletion is undue. TagaworShah (talk) 03:39, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Examples of the numerous cases of outdated information:

- "Stepanakert is twinned with: Montebello, United States"

- Education section- "Stepanakert campus of the Armenian National Agrarian University"

- Economy section- "The most developed sectors of Stepanakert and the rest of the Republic of Artsakh are tourism and services."

Etc. Yes, some information can remain in a historic context but that has not been the case so far. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 03:46, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

All of those cases can be properly attributed to the respective time frame and regime, there is no other information to replace it because the town has been reduced to a ghost town, there is no need to rush to blank the article until more relevant sourced information comes forward, it’s not outdated if this was the reality of the city for the past 30 years until very recently, just needs to be properly attributed and new information can be added as it comes in. TagaworShah (talk) 04:02, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

It is nevertheless the case that nobody attempted to actually update all of that outdated information for the last three months, and then when I make an attempt to do so, there is opposition to doing so. Trimming content and placing the detail in a sub-article is not the same as blanking, and the sub-article on this period of Stepanakert's history is necessary to avoid content being lost- e.g. in the event of the new Azerbaijani city government starting a new twinning program with other cities, it is likely that the old information will be lost as Wikipedia does not tend to display former twinnings. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 04:09, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the article needs to be updated to reflect the current situation. And splitting excessive content will improve readability of the article. Grandmaster 09:50, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Terribly written article not up to Wikipedia standards.

Unfortunately, we are faced with a terribly poorly written article. The article has become a "was" article. It used to be like this, once there was that. First of all, outdated references to Khankendi need to be removed.

For example.

- What does it mean that the "Administrative divisions of Artsakh" template is still found in this article?

- What is the reason why there are still links in the "External links" section, none of which are accessible, such as the imaginary municipality website?

- What is the reason why the "Notable people" section is still prepared from a one-sided Armenian perspective and other people born in Khankendi are still not included?

-etc...

I'm not even mentioning the fact that the title of the article still stubbornly appears as the Armenian name of the city. In its current form, this article is nothing more than a smear that is of no use to anyone who wants to be informed about the subject.

Who is preventing this article about the city of Khankendi in Azerbaijan from being turned into an article containing up-to-date and accurate information in accordance with Wikipedia standards. Hezarfen (talk) 21:48, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I have fixed the three things you mentioned- had already moved some more detail about the Artsakh era into the sub-article Stepanakert in the Republic of Artsakh several days ago. The name of the article is being discussed above and it will only change in the event of English language sources broadly shifting in their usage, which is standard practice for Wikipedia (e.g. Cologne is titled with the French name rather than the German name because the French name is more commonly used in English). As more information about the current state of the city comes about, it will be added, but the city is currently unpopulated so it's impossible to, for example, write about the current state of the economy (because there is not one). Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 09:00, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

POV editing

@Vanezi Astghik:: the statement you are reverting is supported by the citation. The statement was made and it is being reported. This has nothing to do with your opinion that this is not possible. The statement by a leader of one of the principles in this situation is notable and WEIGHT supports its inclusion.

The talk page has the required "The contentious topics procedure applies to this page." notice.

• You have made a change [1]
• Your change has been reverted per WP:ONUS
• You have restored your revision without WP:CONSENSUS.

You need to restore the sourced content and per WP:BRD find WP:CONSENSUS for your changes.  // Timothy :: talk  16:03, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

The full text of the address is available here: [2] I think it is better to use the official text in English in the article. The relevant part is as follows, quote:

I must also note that formerly displaced persons and refugees will return to several more residential settlements in 2024. I want to share the joyful news with them today and inform that the villages of Karkijahan, Malibayli and Turshsu will be completely restored and made available to the formerly displaced persons during upcoming year. Residents of Khojaly and Khankendi will also return to their homes.

The president clearly talks about the return of former residents of the settlements that he mentioned. I agree that the accurate quote of the president's speech must be restored to the article. Grandmaster 21:48, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

@TimothyBlue thanks for the discussion. "Your change has been reverted per WP:ONUS": WP:ONUS actually states that "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." I didn't add this sentence, I removed it from the lead which clearly is undue for the lead. Just because Aliev says something doesn't mean it's true or has due weight for the lead section, and Aliev is far from a reputable source, he openly denies Armenia's right to exist [3]; Stepanakert was overwhelmingly Armenian populated and pov unreliably sourced statements from Aliev claiming to be "repopulating" the city when it only had around 10% Azeri population prior to the first Karabakh war are undue and certainly don't hold due weight for the lead, that's my 2 cents.

In order to keep the WP:LEAD in a neutral point of view, there’s nothing more that needs to be said now than “city is currently unpopulated”. This can be updated if and when that changes. Vanezi (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:31, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Technically you are the one trying to dispute content because the sentence was in the lead for three weeks before you removed it. Other editors' attempts to improve the sentence, without having to remove it, indicates that no one had doubted the information being WP:DUE: [4] [5] [6]. Edit-warring is not the way to get a point across. Parishan (talk) 14:44, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Firstly, I wasn’t talking to you, my comment was intended for user TimothyBlue. But if you have something to say, comment on content not the contributor. I saw a sentence that shouldn’t be there (for several reasons I already explained above) and made an edit removing it. Someone reverted me, I reverted back, they commented and I replied. As I’ve already explained, in order to keep the WP:LEAD in a neutral point of view, there’s nothing more that needs to be said now than “city is currently unpopulated”. This can be updated if and when that changes. If you disagree with this, tell me why instead of casting "edit-warring" aspersions when I had just made one revert that doesn't even breach WP:1RR (which this article isn't restricted to), let alone "edit-warring is not the way to get a point across”. Regarding WP:ONUS, consensus should be achieved for the inclusion of disputed content. Vanezi (talk) 20:02, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I have restored the content you removed without consensus with the quote suggested per the discussion and [7]. If you choose to edit war for your change, expect a topic ban from articles related to Armenia and Azerbaijan under arbitration enforcement.  // Timothy :: talk  21:08, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

This version is not stable and was never the previous version, the last stable lead was before January 19th. The lead now not only reads like a propaganda piece that violates NPOV, it also violates MOS:LEADLENGTH. Why does the lead need to say anything more than the basic truth, that the city is currently unpopulated? Vanezi (talk) 23:08, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

It does say that the city is unpopulated, but also mentions plans on return of former Azerbaijani inhabitants. Maybe the full quote could be reduced to a simple statement that the president of Azerbaijan announced plans on return of former Azerbaijani inhabitants, or the full quote could be moved to references. That will keep it short, and address your concerns about the lead length. But the information on planned return of Azerbaijani part of the population does not violate NPOV. Grandmaster 05:07, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I moved that quote to the reference. Regarding Aliev’s statement, I had highlighted the issues with it here [8], these issues are especially concerning for the WP:LEAD. Do you disagree with any of the points I raised in that comment i.e. the statement being unsuitable in lead for several reasons? And if you disagree, why specifically? Because I've yet to see a rebuttal of my points. For your information, the "repopulation" Aliev said is in the article already [9], but I don't see a valid reason why it should be in the lead as there are several issues with it I have highlighted already. I'll wait for a response. Vanezi (talk) 19:04, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I'll just request AE since you've again edited against consensus.  // Timothy :: talk  00:03, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

@TimothyBlue what is the consensus regarding the direct quote you added just 2 days ago that was never in the article? If you actually saw me contesting that quote shortly after ‘’you’’ added it, you would see that user who instead replied to my comment suggested moving the quote to the reference, which is exactly what I did in order to address lead length and npov issues I mentioned to you here, unanswered. That quote wasn't the stable version like you’ve said here. And I didn't remove the Aliev's "go back to live in their homes" statement that you restored and that was the point of dispute, still patiently waiting for rebuttal of my arguments regarding its inclusion. Vanezi (talk) 02:54, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Lead sections are supposed to be a summary of the article's content (the body text below it). In my opinion, all the details like the full quotation, should belong in the "history" section of the article, not in the lead. — AP 499D25 (talk) 08:21, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

We can leave the full quote in the references, where it is now. Grandmaster 07:12, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Deletion nomination of Talk:Stepanakert/FAQ

Hi, I started a MfD for Talk:Stepanakert/FAQ. Users are invited to participate at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Stepanakert/FAQ. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 20:50, 4 February 2024 (UTC)