Archives
User_talk:Olympian/Archive 1 (5 November 2021 – present)

Hello Olympian,

Your recent edits to the Kapan article are not really an improvement or particularly encyclopedic in my eyes, but I would rather discuss the matter with you here than just go ahead and revert you. As I see you have acknowledged before on this talk page, the Zavek Korkotyan source added is not only outdated, being almost a century old, but contains a number of errors and other problems given it’s age and the available means of statistical and historical research at the time. Are there any other sources available that state that the 31 villages added are all historically part of the modern-day city limits of Kapan?

Also the 1886 nationality section is not really encyclopedic. Nationality is not the right word, as the table refers to ethnicity, “Tatar” is not a nationality. And mentioning a single ethnicity for an entire village at a set point in time when demographics were known to be fluctuant and populations were known to be mixed, does not seem beneficial to readers. I believe we can find a better way to add potential new information about past villages incorporated into modern-day Kapan into the article. Would you mind providing the page # for the Korkotyan source and providing an additional, preferably more modern, source? Looking forward to your response. TagaworShah (talk) 04:08, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tagawor. Certainly, the page numbers are 58–59 (for 1897 & 1926 populations) and 134–135 (for 1831–1931 populations), they're all under the settlement entry number 1467. Whilst certain users have raised qualms about the reliability of Korkotyan's work, the fact is that the Armenian Government cites it for historic village populations in its official index of settlements, see page 4, and such organisations as ANI Armenian Research Centre and CivilNet have made publications, authored by Tatul Hakobyan, based on Korkotyan's work [1] [2], meaning that it's clearly relevant and reliably used to this day.

In regards to the addition itself, I'm happy to reorganise it in a way that's encyclopedic, I believe that it's important for the reader to note that the modern city of Kapan grew from the consolidation (and later absorption) of neighbouring villages. In the meantime, I will look for additional sources. The Korkotyan source has more advanced village populations rather than showing the main one at the time, I just wrote the main one to not overwhelm the reader with information. Regards, – Olympian ^loquere 04:37, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately this does not address my concerns. Modern researchers citing a century-old source in their research is different than a Wikipedia editor directly citing the work. Many old sources contain both good and bad information, professional researchers have the academic authority to use these sources correctly, however, that cannot be said for Wikipedia editors, which is why I still find the use of the source problematic unless you are citing a modern researcher that used the source in their material. Also you did not address my concerns on the unencylopedic nature of the edits, I agree that its important for readers to know that Kapan was formed from various historical villages, however that was not the concerns that were listed above regarding the use of 1886 “nationalities” in the table, and the table itself being generally overkill for the article. Best, TagaworShah (talk) 04:51, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I'm fine with you restructuring it in a way that's more suitable for the article. Moreover, in regards to the 1886 nationalities, the original source labels the column Գլխավոր ազգություն 1886 թ. հիման վրա ("The main nationality based on the year 1886"), so it would be OR to relabel them as being the "ethnicities". Korkotyan's work is already a secondary-source which consolidates numerous primary sources' data, it doesn't require a third historian/researcher to interpret it, and it's not a exactly century old either, so I'll have to disagree. Wikipedia editors familiar with the subject are sufficiently qualified to add the book's data to Wiki, see for example RevolutionSaga's additions to the demographics of the village of Shurnukh or Musayelyan. Regards, – Olympian ^loquere 05:21, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, a mistranslation is not “original research,” the concept of a nationality as defined in that source does not match the English concept of a nationality, rather it refers to an ethnicity, Tatar, Greek, Armenian etc. being ethnicities is a well-accepted fact, not original research. This is even more indication that section should be removed from the article. I take the first sentence of your reply that you are ok with me removing that section based on the concerns given in my original message above, correct? As for the source, its still undoubtably outdated and contains errors due to the limited nature of statistical and historical research of the time, I do not agree that Wikipedia editors have the authority to properly use such a source if they are “familiar” with the material. Even you’ve acknowledged the numerous shortcomings of the source before. A second reliable, more modern source should be added to verify a lot of the data being added in these articles. TagaworShah (talk) 05:44, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to compromise by renaming the column to "Ethnicity" per the translation intricacies, however, I'm not convinced that the list of villages comprising Kapan is unfit for the article. Despite that, I'll keep searching for additional sources to affirm the list and that perhaps even provide their official Russian toponyms rather than the lengthy Armenian names. Regards, – Olympian ^loquere 06:12, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Olympian! The discussion on your requested move is now closed, so I will respond to you here. You have referred me to your comment to Necrothesp, in which you have stated that on Wikipedia, the common name trumps all other conventions when the article title is in question. That is not my impression after reading Wikipedia:Article titles § Use commonly recognizable names, which states:

Editors should also consider all five of the criteria for article titles outlined above. Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources.

One of those five criteria is Consistency:

Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. Many of these patterns are listed (and linked) as topic-specific naming conventions on article titles, in the box above. (See § Consistent titling, below.)

In the box, we find a link to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names), which states:

If the place does not exist any more, or the article deals only with a place in a period when it held a different name, the widely accepted historical English name should be used.
…
Within articles, places should generally be referred to by the same name as is used in their article title, or a historical name when discussing a past period. Use of one name for a settlement in 2000 does not determine what name we should give the same settlement in 1900 or in 1400, nor the other way around.
…
It is important that the sources be from the appropriate period, namely, the modern era for current names, or the relevant historical period for historical names.

As you can see, in the case of articles about historical provinces, it's not what modern reliable sources are calling it, it's what reliable sources of the time were calling it. — UnladenSwallow (talk) 20:01, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UnladenSwallow Thanks so much for that insightful answer, I hadn't realised that this rule applied for former places/subdivisions, in that case, many such articles need to be renamed. What would you say is the best method of determining "the widely accepted historical English name"? Should I be assessing sources from a certain time period or is there a list of certain historical sources? Thanks, – Olympian ^loquere 22:19, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Can you explain these edits [1], [2]. You removed a lot of content with no edit summary. If the issue is regarding unsourced information, wouldn't it be have been better to have tagged it with 'Source needed' for someone to add a source, maybe even the person that added the sections. Even if there are no sources attributed, “unsourced” isn’t a valid reason to remove unless the information is contentious. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 21:54, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, Wikipedia doesn't allow original research per the policy of verifiability, which is content that an editor has added without a reference. If you find a reliable source for the deleted content, feel free to restore it, that being said, unsourced content doesn't require a {{citation needed}} tag to be removed. I hope that answers your question. – Olympian ^loquere 00:21, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This explanation leaves me confused instead of making things clearer unfortunately, Olympian- if that was your logic (I haven’t yet said whether I agree with it or not) then why would you restore contentious content such as unsourced Azeri etymology in Armenian villages [3], [4], [5] ? KhndzorUtogh (talk) 15:08, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding verifiability, it's unfortunately not up to us to agree with it or not, it simply a reality of Wikipedia policy. The linked diffs are from October, since then, I've been deleting unsourced etymology while adding the villages' municipalities: [6] [7] [8]. – Olympian ^loquere 23:03, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’d appreciate if you answer my question: why are you deleting things in one place due to lack of source while restoring other things elsewhere without a source? KhndzorUtogh (talk) 17:08, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As already explained, I was reverting an IP (in October, 5 months ago) when I restored the unsourced etymology, since then, I've been deleting unsourced etymology while adding the villages' subdivisions. FYI, I've added references for the etymologies I restored (and deleted one which I couldn't find a source for): [9] [10] [11]. – Olympian ^loquere 04:35, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Olympian, in the open Armenia-Azerbaijan 3 arbitration case, a remedy or finding of fact has been proposed which relates to you. 

Specifically, your warning about sourcing, and your response to it, have been mentioned. A topic ban has been proposed against you.

Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:01, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Olympian, Can you explain why you have the old Russian orthography in your edits (in the table of Counties)? in spite of what I did but didn't succeed. -- Phaisit16207 (talk) 13:32, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Olympian

I saw you want to rename Uyezd to Uezd from User talk:Olympian/Archive 1#Uyezd -> Uezd, and I will fulfill your proposal myself, starting from Ukraine. I hope you support it. -- Phaisit16207 (talk) 09:22, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Phaisit16207, well done! I'm sorry for my late reply. I saw your work and it's good – I'm open to collaborating on expanding and improving the state of the Russian Empire subdivisions if you'd be interested. I think the articles of the Caucasus Viceroyalty subdivisions serve as a good benchmark for improving the imperial subdivisions in Ukraine, Russia, Poland, the Baltics, etc. Let me know what you think. – Olympian ^loquere 00:12, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for supporting me, I have more encouragement to do what I will do. But I still have concerns about the orthography. I want to use the old orthography, which looks more classic, but someone suggested using the new orthography, nevertheless, I still keep using the old orthography. Again, I hope you support it. -- Phaisit16207 (talk) 18:24, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An arbitration case about the conduct of editors in the Armenia-Azerbaijan topic area has now closed. The final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

• Abrvagl (talk · contribs)
  • is topic banned from pages about Armenia, Azerbaijan, and related ethnic conflicts, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
  • may make only 1 revert on any page in any given 24 hour period. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
  • is indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, ZaniGiovanni anywhere on Wikipedia (subject to the ordinary exceptions). This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
• Dallavid (talk · contribs)
  • is topic banned from pages about Armenia, Azerbaijan, and related ethnic conflicts, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
  • may make only 1 revert on any page in any given 24 hour period. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
• Olympian (talk · contribs)
  • is topic banned from pages about Armenia, Azerbaijan, and related ethnic conflicts, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
  • may make only 1 revert on any page in any given 24 hour period. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
• ZaniGiovanni (talk · contribs)
  • is topic banned from pages about Armenia, Azerbaijan, and related ethnic conflicts, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
  • may make only 1 revert on any page in any given 24 hour period. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
  • is indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, Abrvagl anywhere on Wikipedia (subject to the ordinary exceptions). This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
• Golden (talk · contribs) and Grandmaster (talk · contribs) are placed on indefinite probation. If any party to this case is found to be edit warring within the area of dispute by an uninvolved administrator, the administrator should impose the following sanction: [Editor name] is indefinitely topic banned from all pages about Armenia, Azerbaijan, and related ethnic conflicts, broadly construed. Topic bans imposed via this remedy may only be appealed to the Arbitration Committee. For a topic ban imposed under this remedy, an editor may make their first appeal at any time; further appeals may be made every twelve months after an unsuccessful appeal.
• When deciding on whether or not to issue an Arbitration Enforcement sanction, Administrators are encouraged to consider all behavior, including the seriousness of the violation and the possible recidivism of the editor in question. For instance, users who do not heed warnings or who engage in sustained, low-level misconduct should be sanctioned rather than re-warned. Where editor conduct frequently results in enforcement requests that are dismissed or closed with warnings, administrators are encouraged to impose robust restrictions on editors.

For the Arbitration Committee,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:08, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Armenia-Azerbaijan 3: Arbitration case closed

Per MOS:DATEUNIFY please don't change dates from one format to a different format that is inconsistent with the rest of the article. If an article has a Template:Use mdy dates on it, please don't change dates to dmy format. GA-RT-22 (talk) 23:39, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, thanks for letting me know! – Olympian ^loquere 04:31, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’m interested in seeing where you go with this. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 05:02, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HI, With this edit you restored content that had been removed as unsourced but I do not see any info in the source (the link, in my browser, leads just to a general page with no content about Kilisa/Zhamatun) regarding the sentence "The village was populated by Azerbaijanis before the exodus of Azerbaijanis from Armenia after the outbreak of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict". Could you please check where exactly that info is, and quote from it? Thanks. I removed that info from Zhamatun for the time being. WikiHannibal (talk) 13:11, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]