Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:43, 29 December 2011

Azerbaijan Stub‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Azerbaijan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Azerbaijan-related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AzerbaijanWikipedia:WikiProject AzerbaijanTemplate:WikiProject AzerbaijanAzerbaijan Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Islam Stub‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Need for neutral sources

With one exception this article is only based on sources from Azerbaijan. These sources are not neutral and the information they provide is often not completely accurate. I think we should try to replace or combine these sources with neutral ones. Lets starting from the lead of the article: based on Azerbaijani sources it asserts that the mosque was partly destroyed during the war, however according to RFERL the mosque wasn't destroyed. --vacio 19:43, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

You can see a pictures taken from inside the mosque in this link. Or maybe you will require the photographers to be neutral too? --Verman1 (talk) 20:02, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

No, I won't. But the problem is, it does not appear from the photographs that the mosque is used as a cowshed. Even Andrei Galafyev. the photographer seems to say that the entrance of cattle to the mosque is rather accidental. Please read his quotation. --vacio 20:41, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you really think that so many cattle entered inside the mosque just "accidentally"? For what? Your statement is just ridiculous. Photographer didn't mean it was by accident. --Verman1 (talk) 21:20, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

It's not up to us to decide whether it was accidentally or not, although there are no drinking troughs, mangers or other utensils one expects to see in a stable. Also if it wasn't just accidentally, the photographer would surely mention that, don't you think? --vacio 17:33, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure the photographer would mention that, but at least we have photos as proof that mosque is being used as a cowshed (at least for the time photos being taken). Unfortunately, photographer wasn't a specialist in how stables should be designed, that's why he didn't take photo of every corner inside for detailed illustration. It is not rationale to require utensils and other cowshed staff to be shown in the photos if we see everything very clearly how mosque being used. About your last edit, in the second sentence of the article it says that "It was one of the few buildings of the town that wasn't destroyed during the Nagorno-Karabakh war". And in the last sentence you add "They also announced that the mosque has been refurbished." Don't you think that there is something wrong with these? If mosque stayed intact, for what reason it was refurbished? Just for propaganda? --Verman1 (talk) 18:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Does refurbish necessarily mean that the building has been destroyed? --vacio 18:44, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry, but the article doesn't even mention what has been refurbished. It only says that authorities are planning to restore mosque in the next (2011) year, but there is no confirmation that such works have been carried out. The information you added is completely different than in the source and misleads the reader. --Verman1 (talk) 19:05, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Which article do you mean? The one from News.am or the one from RFERL? Here Is what they say:

• News.am: Shahverdyan stressed the mosques in Shushi and Akna and their surroundings were cleaned from rubble and fenced.
• RFERL: Karabakh authorities said the mosque in Agdam has also been refurbished.

Bot statements are in past tense. Can you explain what is misleading the way I used this information? --vacio 19:22, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Is there any neutral source confirming your words? Any pictures at least. --Verman1 (talk) 06:56, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I quoted already two sources, what does make you believe they are not neutral? And please explain why you moved information based on this sources. --vacio 08:31, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

You deleted well sourced third party source and inserted a misleading, unproved information into article. Your sources include just quotes, they don't show any proofs for your claims. If you want to add something to the article, you are more than welcome, but please do not delete well sourced material and do not make edits that can mislead the reader. --Verman1 (talk) 10:35, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Verman1, I try to understand what you call 'misleading, unproved information'. Maybe we should see whether we agree about what the sources say? We have 4 sources about the current state of the mosque:

• an article from today.az dd 22 June 2010
• an article from news.az dd 17 July 2010
• an article from news.am dd 17 November 2010
• an article from rferl.org dd 18 November 2010

These sources provide the following statements or claims:

1. Today.az: A photographer visited the mosque at Sept. 7, 2007
2. Today.az: The photographer reported that: The floor in the mosque is entirely dirtied with manure of cattle, which wanders on the ruins of Agdam in daytime
3. News.az: In 2010 a Turkish organization complained to the Pope that the mosque is being used as a cowshed
4. News.az: Armenians have turned a mosque in Azerbaijan’s Agdam town into a pigpen and cowshed
5. News.am: The govenment of NK announced that the mosque of Agdam and its surrounding were cleaned from rubble and fenced.
6. News.am: This work was funded by the government of NK.
7. RFERL: Karabakh authorities said the mosque in Agdam has also been refurbished.

Now, please explain with which of these statements you agree or disagree. And please be specific. --vacio 19:03, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Can user NovaSkola explain, why he removed information based on RFERL and News.am? --vacio 17:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Why are Azerbaijani users so eager to remove the information about the clean up of the Mosque? --George Spurlin (talk) 02:00, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

There is no need emphasize the nationality of editors in here. It regards to the nationality of sources also. I need to put my question again. Is there any evidence or proof, supporting fact that mosque has been refurbished or not being used as cowshed? I agree with the fact that Karabakh authorities claimed that mosque has been refurbished, if you want to add their quotes or declarations to the article, it is OK. But there is no need to delete obvious fact that mosque is used as cowshed, we have strong source to confirm this, and I see no evidence or claim denying this fact. If you have one, please provide them. --Verman1 (talk) 12:14, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Verman1, wikipedians are not journalists, we do not confirm or provide evidence to support the information we add in an article. What we do, is to look for reliable sources and use a reference to them allowing the reader to decide whether to trust or not to believe this sources. I am glad that you agree to add the mention that Karabakh authorities announced that the mosque has been cleaned and refurbished. Indeed its all we can do in this case since there are only 3 things we can be sure about: (1) photographs were published showing cattle inside the mosque, (2) Some sources claiming that it was used as cowshed (based on this photographs), (3) Some sources claiming that the mosque was cleaned and recovered. --vacio 17:11, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad we agree Verman1, information about clean up will stay, and be attributed to NKR officials. This way, Azerbaijanis get to say mosque is being used as a cow shed, and Armenians get to say they clean it up. Until more reliable sources are found to prove or disprove either claim. --George Spurlin (talk) 19:49, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Verman1, I waited for weeks on your reaction here. If you think something is misleading, you should explain it here. Please don't start again edit warring, I have warned you for this several times now. --vacio 18:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Also please explain how you are sure that the mosque is Today (i.e. December 29, 2024) still used as a cowshed, when the source that makes such a claim is published July 17, 2010. --vacio 18:37, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I support statement by George Spurlin: "Azerbaijanis get to say mosque is being used as a cow shed, and Armenians get to say they clean it up. Until more reliable sources are found to prove or disprove either claim." Both sides get what they need, if you want to add more info than this, you need to provide sources. But I see none. --Verman1 (talk) 17:43, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• Stub-Class Azerbaijan articles
• Mid-importance Azerbaijan articles
• WikiProject Azerbaijan articles
• Stub-Class Islam-related articles
• Unknown-importance Islam-related articles
• WikiProject Islam articles