Talk:Imarat cemetery

Respectfull discussion

Mastersun25, it seems we have a misunderstanding. To clarify;

• Agdam was bombarded and attacked many times in the last 30 years, beginning with the Armenian offensive in the '90s and possibly in 2016 and definitely in 2020. How can a journalist determine when exactly was the gravyard damaged?
• "was looted" and "all her bones were taken away." Have the same meaning linguistically, it's like saying someone was "murdered and killed", hence removed for repitition.

Im worried about the language you use. There is no need to whitewash history have you heard about WP:AGF? Do you think comments like these are helpful? and i see no reason why this info should not be mentioned in the article, citing provided the source. You completely ignored the reasons I gave you with whims of "fighting history whitewashing", the source is a photographer-journalist, we only cite him in the capacity that is verifiable from him through pictures. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 00:05, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Mastersun25 as a competent editor you are still expected to answer. Or do you want me to revert first then discuss? - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 09:15, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

""Was looted" and "all her bones were taken away" have the same meaning linguistically," are two different ways to put it and do not have the same meaning. Also the source clearly states that it happened during the years of Armenian occupation without providing the exact date, which was already forlmulated in the original sentence. If you believe that this information is not notable enough to be mentioned, please provide a WP rule you refer to. --Mastersun25 (talk) 09:21, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Mastersun25 can you explain the difference between the two expressions? And the source saying it doesn't prove it, if we're going to include everything everyone claims without the source having any ability to confirm such extravagant claims the Wikipedia is doomed, a photographer can't confirm it and him and the him saying so doesn't have any factual value. I'm removing that unreliable part. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 09:31, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

and another factor to the bones, bones take a few years to decompose in bad conditions. So even "were taken away" could be a wrong synthesis. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 09:36, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Reza

ZaniGiovanni, first of all please self-revert yourself and do not remove the source and material from the stable version of the article until you reach the consensus.

Second, Reza Deghati is a well known photojournalist. His work have been produced by National Geographic Television, he won an Emmy Award and who also served as Creative Director for National Geographic's most viewed documentary. His works were even referenced by US Department of State. When it comes to the material, it is correctly attributed and cited from the source, which posted by Reza. It also contains factual images demonstrating the before and after conditions of the Imarat cemetery. Now tell me based on what you considered that factual photos of Imarat cemetery taken by Reza and factual information about Imarat cemetery provided by Reza is WP:UNDUE? Did you take it to RSN or may be you reached consensus somewhere else? Abrvagl (talk) 15:45, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

The source is an Azeri partisan website. Reza makes it even more WP:UNDUE. He works for the Azerbaijani government and saying he's pro-Azeri would be an understatement, he's practically a government spokesman. [15], [16]

This is an issue of WP:UNDUE and WP:RS for that website. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 10:46, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Then I recommend you to self-revert (you can always edit as soon as you reach the consensus) and take it to the RSN. Abrvagl (talk) 10:59, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

You're telling me to take this to RSN without explaining why? How is that partisan website a WP:RS and not anything but WP:UNDUE? Especially Reza being the source for those exceptional claims. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 11:29, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

You're telling me to take this to RSN without explaining why? - I've previously explained to you that there is nothing UNDUE about Reza and asked you questions that you haven't addressed yet. saying he's pro-Azeri would be an understatement, he's practically a government spokesman - Even if it is true, it is not a reason to disregard him in this case, when he gave verifiable information backed up by factual images. How is that partisan website a WP:RS - you should know from here, that even partisan source can be RS for the properly attributed factual information, which in out case even supported by the factual photos. not anything but WP:UNDUE - This is not how WP:UNDUE works, I believe you have a misunderstanding of it. If you still believe that source is not reliable for the cited information, then you should take it to the RSN. Abrvagl (talk) 19:18, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

you should know from here, that even partisan source can be RS for the properly attributed factual information

This statement alone is enough to disregard your argument; the RSN you're linking was for an extremely partisan source citing government position, and only then it was agreed to be kept on Wikipedia with specific attribution to the government, even 3 users still opposing it.

In this case, however, this is not a government position attributed to the government. This is Reza making a claim about Natavan's grave being destroyed by Armenians, he's very pro-Azeri and is being cited by a partisan Azeri website for an exceptional claim only he made. Photos aren't a "source", this is a source, a non-WP:RS and WP:UNDUE one because of all the reasons I highlighted. You haven't shown a valid counterargument to me, you've only shown an invalid comparison for keeping this source. Comparing two incomparable things as an argument to keep the source is a fallacy. If you disagree with me and don't have a valid counterargument, you're free to take this to RSN yourself. I'm making my case very clear here. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 19:51, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

1. In this case, however, this is not a government position attributed to the government. - it was government position there and it is factual information here. Many sources are reliable for statement "X", but unreliable for statement "Y". In this case, the source is reliable for the cited information, because it is factual information. The source does not interpret anything, it just directly quotes what Reza had written and it is reliable to state what Reza said if properly attributed.
2. This is Reza making a claim about Natavan's grave being destroyed by Armenians - Neither Reza's post, nor cited statement claims such thing.
3. Photos aren't a "source", this is a source, and WP:UNDUE one because of all the reasons I highlighted. - photos are in the post to which source is referring and they are literally posted in the source. Nothing from what you have said makes source UNDUE, UNDUE is not even suitable to cite here.
4. if you disagree with me and don't have a valid counterargument, you're free to take this to RSN yourself. I'm making my case very clear here. - As far as I understood your arguments are that we should remove properly attributed factual information from the article because Reza is pro-Azerbaijani and the source is partisan and I have addressed both of them. Zani, you are altering information which was in the article for almost a two years, and you need to reach the consensus in order to do that(WP:BRD, WP:CONSENSUS). We shared our views and did not reach the consensus, but if you raise RSN, which will prove that source X is not reliable for statement Y, then I will agree with your proposed edit. Abrvagl (talk) 20:51, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

   The world-famous photographer wrote about Armenians insulting Natavan's grave in Aghdam - PHOTO

   The source then links an ... Instagram post from Reza with the following;

   • "In 1992 before the fall of town to Armenian forces I visited the cultural centre and was amazed by the architecture and also the beauty of the statue that was on her tombstone."
   • "After the city was liberated, Nov.2020, I returned to the same place.
   • The big shock was not to see how everything was destroyed deliberately, but to find out that her tomb was raided and even all her bones were taken away, probably by the same people who have been drinking water from the Aqueduct that she built!"'

   The source isn't WP:RS, it literally cites a Reza Instagram post. Reza makes the claim that her tomb was "raided' and "all her bones were taken" after the town fell to Armenians in 1992, and he discovered this after its "liberation" by Azeirs in 2020. The source is non WP:RS, it's a partisan source citing an Instagram post, Reza is highly pro-Azeri and we don't have a single WP:RS / independent source backing this claim other than Reza's Instagram post. Clear issues here are WP:RS and WP:EXCEPTIONAL. I don't have anything else to say to you if you don't see this. I'm not wasting communities time on obvious matters. You're free to take this to RSN if you want. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 21:09, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Not sure why you are quoting entire content of the source to the talk page, when we are talking only about this information "In January 2021, French-Iranian Azerbaijani photojournalist Reza Deghati claimed during his visit to Aghdam that the cemetery was destroyed and the tomb Khurshidbanu Natavan was looted and her bones missing.".

*The source is non WP:RS, it's a partisan source citing an Instagram post - I already explained to you that you need to prove that. Repeating the same argument does not add any weight.

*we don't have a single WP:RS / independent source backing this claim other than Reza's Instagram post - Exactly for that reason the whole statement is properly attributed to the Reza. Reza was there before the city was captured by the Armenian forces, and Reza visited the city after the city was returned to Azerbaijan. He saw that cemetery was destroyed and the tomb Khurshidbanu Natavan was looted and her bones missing, and have before and after photo evidence in hand. You do not need an independent source to back up that.

*WP:EXCEPTIONAL What is exceptional here? The fact that the grave was vandalized? Sadly, there is nothing exceptional about that. Most Azerbaijani tombs in Karabakh suffered the same fate. Even 2021 U.S. Department of state report reflects that:

An international photojournalist, Reza Deghati, know professionally as “REZA,” documented the systematic destruction of dozens of Azerbaijani cemeteries in Fuzuli, Aghdam, Zangelan, Kelbajar, and Jebrayil. Graves were desecrated; in some instances, holes were dug out to rob graves, while other sites showed evidence of the destruction and exhumation by heavy construction equipment. The methodical vandalism of headstones left few individual graves untouched. Many graves had the carefully hewn faces of the deceased (carved into gravestones) destroyed by hammers or similar objects. Additionally, the remains from Azerbaijani graves were exhumed and gold teeth removed, leaving skulls and bones strewn across Azerbaijani cemeteries or in some cases completely removed.

*You're free to take this to RSN if you want. Zany, I really do not know why you expect me to raise RSN instead of you. It is not me, but you edited a stable version of the article and you need to reach a consensus in order to do that. If you still believe that your arguments are valid, then you are the one who should do that and I already explained to you that in my previous comment. --Abrvagl (talk) 22:25, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I requested a 3rd opinion on this since clearly we reached a brick wall here. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 22:45, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

It seems redundant with the State Department report and more appropriate in the Khurshidbanu Natavan article. Beyond this, I don't have any comments other than that disputed material should only be reinstated with consensus per WP:ONUS. You cannot assume there was prior consensus in a stable version because it was not previously challenged. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:37, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Zani, just friendly advice for the future, this may be considered as WP:CANVASSing. It is more appropriate to use third opinion tool if you want to get a third-party opinion.

Hi Morbidthoughts, thanks for reply. The discussion is not about if this should be kept in the article or not. The dispute is on whether source is reliable for this statement. Also, I believe it was challenged…doesn’t this[1] count as a challenge?--Abrvagl (talk) 06:47, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Zani made an UNDUE challenge which goes beyond whether the source is RS or true. UNDUE is challenging whether the disputed content is appropriate for the article given the weight of the source. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:28, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

I tried to tell this to Abrvagl several times, but they brushed off my comments as "UNDUE is not even suitable to cite here". They didn't oppose to similar undue content removals here not so recently [2], [3], [4]. I had to explain my position several times just to be told that undue has nothing to do here, over and over again, without elaboration as to why. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 09:39, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Morbidthoughts, It is clear now, I was confused, because Zani first said that Reza is UNDUE, then he said that source is UNDUE, and this is not how UNDUE works. Article is about Imarat cemetery (Aghdam cementry) where is Khurshidbanu Natavan's tomb located; Thus, information documented and reported by the international photojournalist Reza Deghati reflects latest state of the cemetery and has direct relation to the article. Oxu.az is not only source which described what Reza stated, there are number of them. For example: [5], [6], [7]

I still can not see what is UNDUE about factual information, which related to the article, which was reported by the international photojournalist and which was covered by the number of sources. Abrvagl (talk) 11:47, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

You're citing 3 more partisan Azeri sources, referring to Reza's Instagram and Facebook posts, and you think this is enough to keep the WP:UNDUE information in the article? None of those source have the appropriate weight to be kept. As per WP:WEIGHT; Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public..

The last website literally has an article on him like he's an Azeri government spokesperson [8]. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 11:58, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Morbidthoughts, hi, hope you are doing well. I provided additional sources, which are obviously reliable for the statement of the fact. Is it enough or it is still UNDUE? I really can not see the reason why on the earth it is undue, considering, that 2021 U.S. Department of state report basically confirms what Reza observed:

Cemeteries throughout Aghdam were desecrated, looted, and/or destroyed, including the sacred and historic 18th-century tombs of Imarat Garvand Cemetery, the city’s “Martyrs’ Alley.” Western diplomats visiting Martyrs’ Alley reported seeing holes where bodies were once interred and that only one broken headstone remained in the cemetery.

Abrvagl (talk) 21:20, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

US department source wasn't cited for the edit in question, in fact, US department source is still cited in the article for more broad statement. And US department source doesn't confirm anything Reza claimed in this specific instance, those are partisan websites just copying-pasting of his Instagram/Facebook posts. Nowhere in the department source there are claims of Khurshidbanu Natavan was "raided" and her "bones were taken away" what???, this is only something Reza said and couple Azeri websites reposted straight of his social media. This is UNDUE and inappropriate weight.

You keep disagreeing even with 3rd party, strange you were trying to say the same to me in AE not so recently about some non-established 200 edit 3rd party that even an admin agreed is ok to be ignored. Practice what you preach. You can't compare something broad which is already in the article to Reza's specific claims unconfirmed by any due weight RS. We don't cite websites like this as appropriate weight for the article. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 21:37, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

• Admittedly, I don't know the topic and have no interest in it, and haven't read everything above, but I can say this with authority: Abrvagl, if you want some material included that is contentious, the onus is on you. See WP:ONUS. You need to leave it out, go to WP:RSN if you must, see if the source has been discussed before, and if not, start a new discussion. You are the one wanting to add new material to an otherwise stable article. That is how WP:BRD works. Also, just because a source is reliable, that doesn't make it pass WP:DUE. That means you need a consensus here on the talk page that agrees. Keep in mind, often this means there will be a compromise, and only some of the material is added, and maybe a different source. Or all of it. Or none of it. Regardless, this is bordering on an edit war, and I will start handing blocks if it doesn't stop. Leave it out, discuss it here, start an RFC if you must, but do something besides revert or it will get ugly. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:05, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

  Dennis Brown I think RfC is a good suggestion. In this dispute, the 3rd opinion agreed with me. This is the information in question, which I argue is WP:UNDUE for this article given the weight of the source. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 22:12, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

  Dennis Brown, Hi, Thanks for advice and intervention. I know about WP:ONUS and how WP:BRD works... and I know that just because a source is reliable, that doesn't make it pass WP:DUE. I am not doing any reverts and I don't address anything to ZaniGiovanni because he already clearly shared his position. I just wanted to get third party opinion on the additional sources that I provided in order not to drag simple and obvious staff to the RSN. I really do not know why ZaniGiovanni keeps replying me. In last two instances I was talking directly and only to Morbidthoughts. Abrvagl (talk) 22:23, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

  Because you weren't giving context in your last reply (as in US department source has nothing to do with this edit because it doesn't talk about Khurshidbanu Natavan's tomb), and the additional sources you linked here were more partisan Az websites reposting Reza's Instagram/Facebook posts, hence it's still UNDUE. The last website has an article on him like he's a government spokesperson [9]. And the third party can still reply to you, I'm just providing context that I thought was missing. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 22:33, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

  I am out of this conversation before it gets even more ugly. Good luck everyone. Abrvagl (talk) 22:42, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

  I am out of this conversation before it gets even more ugly

  huh? ZaniGiovanni (talk) 22:56, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

• I left you both a message on my talk page. We need to reboot here, start over, assume good faith, and list what the editing objectives are in simple terms. And cooperate. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:04, 17 July 2022 (UTC)