Talk:Samvel Karapetyan (author)

message: These are contextual quotes from the news articles cited in the article. These quotes are not full articles. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 17:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotes for citations 

message: For a criticism section reading like a hit-piece, there would need to be numerous high-quality sources that the subject was heavily criticized, which doesn't apply to Karapetyan. I tried researching who Bondo Arveladze is and if he is a notable expert, and the only thing I could really find was an Azeri news page where he says "where there is an Armenian Diaspora; there is a threat to local population". It seems he is fringe and unreliable. We also don't need undue language like "he argued that Turkey has a policy of intentional neglect and planned destruction" when there is a whole article confirming this. As for De Waal, he is a figure far more deserving of a Criticism section, as his Black Garden book has, so this source is not enough weight on its own. --Dallavid (talk) 19:36, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Bondo Arveladze is a Georgian Armenologist active since at least the 1980s. Google Books shows his multiple articles in Russian about various Armenian matters. As for De Waal, his article also includes critical information about him. Many noted experts receive some peer criticism, there's nothing unusual about it. It's a part of scholar career and that doesn't mean they can't criticize others. Alternatively, the criticism section could be incorporated into the existing Research work section. Would that be ok? Brandmeistertalk   20:34, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The claims of Arveladze seem to just be his word against Karapetyan's, so there's no evidence hat they are notable enough to include. Arveladze's claim on the Norashen Church seems to be undue because it is even contradicted by other Georgian sources, further proving that he is not a credible source. De Waal appears to just be recalling a conversation he had with Karapetyan, of which no one else has access to or can verify and we can only trust De Waal's word for (and he is much criticized himself). This is WP:PRIMARY and not noteworthy, especially for a biography of someone else. --Dallavid (talk) 23:38, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: De Waal is WP:SECONDARY here rather than primary: A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources (in this case Karapetyan's concepts). The primary source here is Karapetyan's own publications. Brandmeistertalk   09:30, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: De Waal is only recalling a conversation he had with Karapetian, even detailing how his office looked. That's a primary source. The book is more journalism than research. --Dallavid (talk) 23:55, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesn't make him primary source. He assesses Karapetian in a relevant, topic-specific book that was well-received by various authors and per Wikipedia definition that's enough. If you think Black Garden is not reliable, feel free to bring this to WP:RSN. Brandmeistertalk   11:54, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if we consider it a credible secondary source, De Waal on his own is not enough due weight to merit a criticism section. --Dallavid (talk) 20:37, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It could be included into the existing Research work section or elsewhere. Brandmeistertalk   21:25, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It's still undue and libelous. Black Garden has much criticism itself. --Dallavid (talk) 20:11, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

text: Here from NPOV/N. Information about the most prominent criticisms is generally due, and calling its inclusion "libelous" is inaccurate. I'm against a full criticism section, however, and I'm skepitcal of criticism sections in general. I would also ask Dallavid to read this essay on nationalist editing and keep it in mind. Even if you're not engaging in nationalist behavior, just the appearance of nationalist editing can make it difficult to gain support in discussions. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:15, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the feedback, the suggestion is ok for me. Brandmeistertalk   16:47, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

text: Except it's not a prominent criticism, there are no other sources making the same criticism, and De Waal isn't criticizing Karapetyan's work, he's recalling a meeting he had with Karapetyan in a format where Karapetyan has no means to give his side of the story. How is suggesting that a respected researcher's article shouldn't be 50% criticism from one person, who has been heavily criticized themselves, nationalist editing? --Dallavid (talk) 19:37, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: A third opinion has been provided here. I think it's time to drop the stick and move on. Brandmeistertalk   11:11, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Polling is not a substitute for discussion. Thomas de Waal is a journalist who studied Russian literature. He is not qualified to be critical of Karapetyan at all. --Dallavid (talk) 22:12, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: As Thebiguglyalien wrote above, this has been raised at the NPOV noticeboard, which is one of the instruments listed at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Hope this helps. Brandmeistertalk   11:47, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do not misrepresent the purpose of WP:3O; it's not a vote. --Dallavid (talk) 19:38, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I some kind agree about the Bondo Arveladze, but do not agree about the De Waal. De Waal's book Black Garden is not primary source neither information from it violates BLP, it is reliable book, which actually won the Outstanding Academic Title 2003 award from Choice Reviews. A b r v a g l (PingMe) 17:49, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

text: De Waal's explanation is already there: "In what sense can Kelbajar be called 'Armenian'", meaning that in Karapetian's view it's Armenian. As for "take up half of the text in the article" - this may sound big, but it's actually only three sentences. You may wish to expand the article rather than removing what is already there. Brandmeistertalk   17:45, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The passage in De Waal's travel diary is from a personal conversation he had with Karapetyan, in which only De Waal's narrative is given and he writes about Karapetyan antagonistically. It has nothing to do with Karapetyan's research work and doesn't belong in such a section, and a criticism section was deemed inappropriate. --Dallavid (talk) 20:14, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: At this point I don't have an appetite to argue further as I believe everything has been explained in that regard. If you're not satisfied with Thebiguglyalien's opinion, you may go for any other instrument of dispute resolution. Brandmeistertalk   21:06, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Libelous claims