Wikipedia

Talk:Khojaly massacre/Archive 9

< Talk:Khojaly massacre
Latest comment: 1 year ago by 74.96.123.134 in topic Edit request: BTR (vehicle)
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9

Khojaly recognition

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Khojaly massacre is currently recognized by every single sovereign nation in the world - this was the basis for deleting the main article. There is no need for recognizing historical facts when they're not denied. The commemoration section has been kept. --92slim (talk) 03:28, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Fatullayev

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This journalist takes almost half of the article, despite the fact that he was neither a witness (he was a teenager back when these events took place), nor conducted any investigation on the matter, as evidenced by the European Court of Human Rights. Moreover, in his recent TV interviews he clearly states that he never accused Azerbaijanis of having committed this crime, and says that it was the Armenians who committed a genocide in Khojaly. This is his 2014 interview in Azerbaijani to ANS TV [1] I suggest to completely remove any reference to him, because they add no useful information. Any information about his views on the subject are better reflected in the article about him. Grandmaster 21:02, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Khojaly Massacre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:13, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Khojaly Massacre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:24, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Khojaly Massacre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:05, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Blanket reverting

Latest comment: 5 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

Grandmaster, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Khojaly_Massacre&type=revision&diff=886364450&oldid=886363548 Such a wholesale reversal is completely unjustified. If you have issues with some edits please explain them here. 21:02, 5 March 2019 (UTC)92.28.129.128 (talk)

David Davidian is a lecturer at the American University of Armenia, who published an article in a blog. It is certainly not an independent and reliable source on this subject. Removing the line that the claim was made by the Armenian media is a misrepresentation of the situation. Clearly, both sides are guilty of such actions, but the information about those incidents comes from Azerbaijani and Armenian media respectively. There are other edits that are not in line with NPOV, so it is better to propose and discuss such edits here, so that the consensus could be reached. Grandmaster 21:19, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for responding. I do not think [[2]] is unsuitable for the purpose I was using it for: to summarize the use of false photographs and also to remove the pov wording insinuating that this misuse is an unsubstantiated accusation by "The Armenian Side". But I hope you will agree that my edits in that section which removed reference to "sides" and wording like "According to" (which implies dishonesty) and instead simply using "Armenian media " / "Azerbaijani media" is better. 92.28.129.128 (talk) 21:26, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't think that source is acceptable for any use at Wikipedia, it is a personal blog, not a published source. The claims of both sides have not been corroborated by any independent source, but in general I don't think the actions of lousy journalists deserve any significant coverage here. And I don't mind replacement of "sides" to "Armenian media " / "Azerbaijani media", even though "according to" does not imply dishonesty, it just attributes the claims to the respective sources. Grandmaster 21:37, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
OK, I won't argue that point, as long as the "sides" language is avoided. For my other edits [3] - "captive" and "detained" mean the same thing so there is no need for both words to be there; "according to" implies dishonesty - I changed it to "said". Where the said was said is unimportant. But it is important imo to mention where the journalist was from esp since the other journalist is described as "Russian". "Claims" is pov - there is not a "claim" that she said it, "grisly" is pov, "unedited footage" is the correct technical term not "original footage", the other changes in that part I think just clarify what she is actually talking about. Ayaz Mutallibov is one of the most important politicians at that time, what he said about the subject is surely valid content and it follows on with the existing content well? 92.28.129.128 (talk) 21:45, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't see how "according to" implies dishonesty, it just attributes an opinion to a person. But I won't argue about that, it is no big deal to replace "according to" to "said". And Mutalibov and his various statements have been already covered in the article. What is the point in yet another mention? And the claim that Ivleva "implied that Mazalova was "paid by the Armenian side" is your personal interpretation, she did not imply anything, she just said that she had no idea if Mazalova was or was not paid by the Armenian side. The source must be quoted correctly, without personal interpretations. Grandmaster 22:04, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
She says "I don't know whether she was paid for by the Armenian side" just before she accuses her of "lying" - that is a clearly implied accusation that she is "lying" because "she was paid for". Though I will give a personal interpretation here that it is not very good form for her to be deliberately vague about how she got into Khojaly (perhaps because she actually entered with the Armenian forces, it says in the 2nd source she entered on the day of the attack) and then accuse someone of lying just because they naturally assumed she got in the same way as almost everyone else got out. But I see in that second source that she is backtracking somewhat, and saying her comments re Mazalova were "taken out of context", so maybe all her quotes need to be taken with care (so I'm not going to continue to argue for the "paid for" wording). The content about Mutallibov in relation to the mutilations is new content, and it needs to be beside the content that he is referring to. That other Mutallibov content is elsewhere is just because the article is a bit of a mess with content dispersed everywhere. 89.242.177.137 (talk) 03:50, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
The Mazalova-Ivleva part about the corridor is controversial because Ivleva disputes Mazalova's claims (as the article itself says). So per WP:UNDUE I propose to remove that paragraph, as it exceedingly focuses on disputed claims of a little-known journalist. Brandmeistertalk 11:42, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
I agree, Mazalova part is overblown, and gives undue weight to a very obscure person, and she is also not a neutral source by any stretch of imagination. And whatever Ivleva or anyone else said should be quoted accurately, without any personal interpretations. I think we both agree on that. As for Mutalibov, he is quoted in much detail in the section above, and is already given way too much space. All the information/speculations around his first interview should be kept in the same section, no need for scattered mentions here and there, it breaks the structure of the article. I see no reason to quote him elsewhere, especially considering that he says now that the first interview the Armenian side refers to was falsified or misquoted [4], and he certainly does not support any claims that are ascribed to him by the Armenian sources. Again, WP:UNDUE, too much weight to a source that denies ever saying that Azerbaijani opposition had anything to do with killings, other than taking advantage of the situation to seize the power. Grandmaster 19:45, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Questioning the neutrality of the article

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The number of casualties and the people responsible for the massacre are sourced with reliable sources. Why is there a need to include “according to the Azerbaijani side”? Rodrigo Valequez(🗣) 18:53, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Likely because of WP:Attribution. This is to highlight the fact that the information provided by Azerbaijan side is consistent with other sources. Brandmeistertalk 22:39, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Categories

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I want to add the "Category:Ethnic cleansing in Asia" to the article. Aksar (talk) 20:51, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Number

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

@El Greekos: Page 5 of 1994 HRW report says this exact sentence which is quoted in the article as well: While it is widely accepted that at least 200 Azeris were killed, as many as 500-1,000 may have died. Please stop edit warring. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 17:09, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

163 is from very first report of HRW, it was later updated and latest number was over 200. One cannot cite the very first report, when later report superseded that number. Grandmaster 21:39, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Reverts

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

After checking the article's history, it looks like the current back-and-forth mess in the lead started with this edit by the now-blocked account. Please either discuss or desist. Since that original reverter has been blocked for battleground attitude, I'll revert otherwise. Brandmeistertalk 14:24, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Article issues

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

This is listed as a "B-class" article. The criteria includes that "Readers are not left wanting" and the article does not fully comply with #1 (quote not cited), #3, and #4. The "External links" section is bloated with 13 entries that does not comply with the guidelines to include WP:ELPOINTS as well as Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#LINK. -- Otr500 (talk) 14:57, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Unsourced content

The "Massacre" section includes unsourced "According to the Memorial". This content is controversial with one party reportedly making one claim and denied by another party. There is also: "...the armed people inside the refugee column did exchange gunfire with Armenian outposts, but on each occasion, the fire was opened first from the Armenian side." It seems strange that the refugees did not exchange gunfire yet the end of the sentence contains "on each occasion, the fire was opened first from the Armenian side." At any rate the content needs sourcing or removing. Considering this and the above issues the article is reassessed on the WikiProject Military history to "C-class". -- Otr500 (talk) 14:29, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Mentioning of massacres of Armenians

Latest comment: 3 years ago12 comments8 people in discussion

Massacres of Armenians by Azerbaijanis/Azerbaijani military forces should be mentioned in this article to provide unbiased information and additionally to provide necessary background information. There were numerous massacres of ethnic Armenians leading up to Khojaly (Sumgait, Baku, Khirovabad, Operation Ring) and also 6 weeks afterwards (Maraga). The lack of references to these atrocities paints an incomplete picture of what was going on in the region in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Lack of references to these massacres and pogroms is suggestive of a political bias in this article. I included references to these massacres yesterday. Wikipedia has a duty to be unbiased, apolitical, and provide as much legitimate information as possible. The provided justification for reversion does not make sense as it was claimed to mention these is presenting a bias. I would argue that NOT presenting these massacres against Armenian civilians creates and perpetuates a bias. I am going to restore the edits that I made before the reversion. Any exceptions with this can be discussed here.Preservedmoose (talk) 16:36, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

The article already says "During the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, both Armenians and Azerbaijanis became victims of pogroms and ethnic cleansing", so going into one-sided details introduces unbalancies. Undue mentions of other events violate NPOV and WP:UNDUE policies, introducing a partisan language. The article is not about other events, like Maraga massacre, but about one specific massacre. Brandmeistertalk 17:50, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Indeed, both Azerbaijanis and Armenians were targets of pogroms. Like in Armenia, the entire Azerbaijani population was ethnically cleansed, and there were pogroms like in Gugark with numerous casualties. So your edits are unbalanced and POV. And you cannot overload "further information" with so many links, it is normally a link to 1 general article. Grandmaster 17:07, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

This tragedy must be names as Genocide, why you only consider Armenian parts claims?this is unbiased approach Tegmen 29 (talk) 15:48, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

This was not a genocide by any means, and to claim so is disrespectful to victims of actual genocide. Dashoopa (talk) 04:08, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
Actual genocide ? Please don't use your political language in here thats does not appopriate to wiki İsyankar18 (talk) 09:31, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
İsyankar18 This is not political language. Reliable sources do not consider it a genocide, so Wikipedia will not consider it a genocide. It's that simple. Dashoopa (talk) 20:20, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
İsyankar18, did you just deny that the Armenian Genocide is a genocide, and called it "political language" ? - Kevo327 (talk) 11:08, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Please first read and answer after that this is not a discussion forum @Kevo327 İsyankar18 (talk) 11:21, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
İsyankar18 there is nothing for me to answer, and I'm the one who asked you. currently you're the one denying the Genocide, you should know tbat Wikipedia has a strict policy of WP:NONAZIS that disapproves extremism from Wikipedia editors, such as Genocide denial. - Kevo327 (talk) 11:31, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for linking antinazi assay i hope youre gonna read that also. denying genocoide is doing by @Dashoopa as you can see.
He/she is calling " This was not a genocoide by any means" isn't it a denying genocoide dear @Kevo327.
As you can see in here youre denying the genocoide and as you already know Wikipedia has a strict policy of WP:NONAZIS.
Have a good day. İsyankar18 (talk) 11:56, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
The truth neither be pacified, nor be disrupted. This is the massacre of the whole Azerbaijani Turks, most of them are a women, child or elder who's not able to protect theirselves from sudden threats. Face and agree with it. This is an undeniable massacre. (talk) 20:24, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

"Anti-Azerbaijani sentiment" and "Persecution of Azerbaijanis"

Latest comment: 2 years ago14 comments4 people in discussion

@Beshogur you restored Motive: Anti-Azerbaijani sentiment in the infobox (delated by myself as unsourced claim) and then added Persecution of Azerbaijanis category to the article. What WP:RS do support your claim? Are you saying it is a mainstream view that 1) it was specifically "Anti-Azerbaijani sentiment" that motivated Armenians and CIS forces to open fire and that 2) opening fire and the previous blockade by Armenians was organised, intentional "persecution of Azerbaijanis" rather than the sad realities of the bloody war? Best wishes, --Armatura (talk) 20:25, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

@Armatura: What's the motive then, could you tell? And didn't Azerbaijanis get persecuted? Beshogur (talk) 00:24, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

The onus is on you, Beshogur, to prove that it was specifically due to anti Azerbaijani sentiment and that it constituted persecution on ethnic grounds, per Wikipedia:VERIFY. Neither my nor your opinion counts, reliable sources should say what you put in Wikipedia, with a strong concensus for such incriminating claims. De Waal, for example, who is the most cited source in AA topic, says that the fire on civilians was not planned or deliberate. Same for other incidents in 1992 / First NK war - wars frequently involve civilian deaths (there is hardly a single large scale war without civilian deaths, sadly) , but you need hard evidence to say those deaths are due to ethnic hatred / intolerance or form of ethnic persecution --Armatura (talk) 07:59, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

I can not say anything about the motive right now, but you can not claim this was a sort of collateral damage. So the persecution category is fine. Beshogur (talk) 11:44, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
“Fine” just because you say so or your hunch tells so? Nothing is fine, until you provide reliable sources for that, especially for such serious claims as ethnic hatred or persecution. It’s not your blog where you could write whatever you think is true. Material without adequate source should not be on Wikipedia. Add things when you have reliable sources, please, and don’t add things when you don’t have those reliable sources, as simple as that. And beware of asking others to disprove your theory where the onus is on you to support your hypothesis. I’m not claiming anything, you’re the one who claims this event occurred due to anti-ethnic sentiment or constitutes ethnic persecution --Armatura (talk) 12:34, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Before this dialogue becomes too long to read, I requested a neutral third opinion at WP:3O. --Armatura (talk) 16:52, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
@Armatura: I don't get your point. Persecution means massacre. It doesn't have to be "planned" as you told. Beshogur (talk) 17:08, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
@Beshogur: No, it is circular logic, which you used in other articles as well I see. They are not synonyms. Persecution is the systematic mistreatment of an individual or group by another individual or group. .... not all suffering will necessarily establish persecution. I am sure you understand what "systematic" means. --Armatura (talk) 17:17, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
So how is this not systematic mistreatment if the supposed troops of the 366th CIS regiment (who were not apparently acting on orders from their commanders) deliberately disregarded this customary law restraint on attacks. As I told, this is not a "collateral damage", but a massacre. even it is spontaneously not "planned". Beshogur (talk) 17:43, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
I am not arguing that it was a massacre, if you have not noticed, as there is good consensus of reliable sources for that. But you need WP:RSs to clearly state what you are trying to WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS - that this massacre 1) constituted systematic persecution, or 2) was motivated by anti-Azerbaijani sentiment. I already asked you to avoid using circular logic in arguments - instead of ignoring my explanation above and continuing with rhetorical question "how X is not Y?", you have to prove that "x is y" in the first place, as you are the one who came up with that postulate. If you want to claim that God exists, you are the one who have to prove its existence, instead of expecting others to prove its non-existence. I am sure an experienced user like you understands what onus means. --Armatura (talk) 18:24, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
This goes without saying, there's a misuse of the guidelines to act on denialist grounds. You don't massacre an ethnic group because you love them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.219.167.107 (talk) 13:21, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
No WP:Trolling, please. Posting as IP does not protect one from getting blocked on the grounds of carefree accusations of editors in "denialism". WP:NOR and WP:VERIFIABILITY are cornerstones of Wikipedia, and should be followed. --Armatura (talk) 13:44, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
But indeed, if a large group of people gets deliberately killed by representatives of another ethnic group in an ethnic conflict, it is clearly because of negative sentiment towards that group, not because of love. Even Melkonian said it was a act of "revenge". Grandmaster 11:30, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
But no WP:OR, WP:SYNTHESIS, WP:ADVOCACY, please, Grandmaster. You are entitled to have your own opinion as everyone else, WP is not a collection of points of views people editing it. Not a WP:FORUM, either. --Armatura (talk) 14:54, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Azerbaijani-language YouTube video as a source

Latest comment: 2 years ago12 comments4 people in discussion

@Grandmaster, do you have a written source that proves what you say he says in the YouTube video here? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pjk5dnn-PQ Editors in English wikipedia not proficient in Azerbaijani have not direct way of verifying what is or is not said in a Azerbaijani video. Thanks. --Armatura (talk) 12:42, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Any Azerbaijani speaker can verify what he says. We use different language sources, even if we are not always the speakers of the language. Grandmaster 12:51, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
We need something better than "Any x-language speaker can verify what YouTube or TikTok video says" solution for such an important citation I am afraid. That violates WP policy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples#Are_IRC,_Myspace,_Facebook,_and_YouTube_reliable_sources? --Armatura (talk) 13:13, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Here is a transcript to what he said, from 1:58:
Mən düşünürəm ki, mən Xocalı faciəsi ilə bağlı münasibəti hər bir zaman birmənalı şəkildə ifadə etmişəm ki, bu soyqırım olub, ermənilər tərəfindən törədilmiş vəhşilik və vandalism olub, və mən heç zaman bunu şübhə altına almamışam, hətta o başıbəlalı və qalmaqallı Qarabağ gündəliyi məqaləsində belə. Mən ümumiyyətlə Xocalıda olan son jurnalistəm, məndən sonra Xocalıya həç kəs səfər etməyib. Mən Xankəndindən Xocalıya gələrkən əlbətdə ki bütün o hadisələri ürək ağrısı, mən deyərdim ki daxili fəryadla seyr edirdim. O çayın yanından piyada keçərkən sanki o hadisələr gözümün qarşısında canlanırdı. Əlbətdə, sızıltı ilə, daxili sızıltı, ürək ağrısı, bu heç şübhəsiz ki böyük faciədir.
Grandmaster 13:19, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
WP:NOYT. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 13:23, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Eynulla actually posted a link to that conversation with Mishahin Agayev (the interviewer) on his own website: [5] The link to the video expired, but it was reposted on YouTube, and it is the same interview of 23 February 2014. Grandmaster 14:38, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Read the policy about not using YouTube as a source, please, Grandmaster. If you want to challenge that policy, this is not the right place. --Armatura (talk) 14:47, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
The source is ANS TV, like it or not. It is published by a television channel and includes interview from Eynulla himself. The Armenian users should be aware that such sources can be used, like Aliyev's Twitter account, for the things about themselves, in this case, Eynulla. It is a direct video source for the things he said. More experienced editors should be invited to prove my point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.219.164.131 (talk) 15:21, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Verifiability says: "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they are published experts in the field, so long as:
  1. youthe material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;
  2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
  3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
  4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and
  5. the article is not based primarily on such sources."

And this applies to YT as well. You can check the other guideline: ' Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.219.164.131 (talk) 15:27, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Go ahead and an invite those "more experienced editors" to prove your point, unregistered Baku-based IP user. Or get registered, for your arguments to be given more weight. --Armatura (talk) 16:04, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
You seem to fail to grasp the importance of IP contributions, sadly. You've clearly failed to touch upon my arguments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.219.164.131 (talk) 17:07, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
What does a one day old IP know about the "importance of IP contributions"? Care to share your knowledge? It seems like you aren't new to Wikipedia after all. And you're the one who needs to read WP:NOYT since this thread is about a youtube video being used a source. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 17:14, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 July 2022

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Remove dead link Thprfssnl (talk) 03:12, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 04:50, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Fatullayev

Latest comment: 2 years ago16 comments5 people in discussion

I don't think statement of Fatullayev should be restored to the article. This journalist's story takes large space in the article, despite the fact that he was neither a witness (he was a teenager back when these events took place), nor conducted any investigation on the matter, as evidenced by the European Court of Human Rights. Moreover, in his recent TV interviews he clearly states that he never accused Azerbaijanis of having committed this crime, and says that it was the Armenians who committed (in his words) a genocide in Khojaly. This is his 2014 interview in Azerbaijani to ANS TV [6] His case has no direct relevance to the massacre, and his varying opinions do not add any useful information. Any information about his views on the subject are better reflected in the article about him. Grandmaster 08:55, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Grandmaster, when you do disagree with the inclusion of content on a page, but the inclusion is not vandalism, you should discuss on the talk page and find consensus for removing or leaving, rather than removing it straightaway. If somebody hot-headed then reverts you, it will become an edit war, as you well know from previous experiences in AA articles. Secondly I did not hear any convincing arguments - sounds like you just do not like what the journalist wrote. Surely, a case of a journalist who interviewed refugees from the massacre and then got prosecuted in his country, taking a stand against the authoritarian government, with this escalating to European Court of Human Rights and his sentence was condemned by Reporters Without Borders, International PEN, and the Committee to Protect Journalists, and Amnesty International releasing condemning statement about his repression, all point to high notability and relevance to the article on massacre. In fact, he is notable almost exclusively for this, hence there is a good argument that most if not all content of his page should actually be in the aftermath of Khojaly massacre. The timeline of his changing some of his statements is also important - you don't delete his previous statements only because he said something different later in life - you are not a detective whose task is to leave "the truth" (in your opinion) on Wikipedia and erases the rest. His age at the time of events is of no relevance (we are not ageists in Wikipedia). The fact of him not being the witness is also not a reason for deleting his statements - who says we keep only direct witness accounts on the massacre page? On the contrary, what he wrote is secondary source - just what we value in Wikipedia. He says he interviewed refugees from massacre, it received wide coverage in local and international media, and that's what matters. So, can you please restore the section about him? Thanks. --Armatura (talk) 10:03, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
You were bold by readding content, I reverted to invite for discussion. Fatullayev's criminal case has no direct relation to the massacre. It was a matter of Azerbaijan's internal politics, and it belongs to the article about that person. As it was legally established by European Court of Human Rights, Fatullayev is not a serious source on the massacre, because he conducted no investigation, was not a witness, and made only a passing remark about it in his article. Why then dedicate so much space to something like this? His legal problems are better described elsewhere, not here. Plus, he accuses Armenians of committing the massacre, in addition to video interview, you can read his own articles. A couple of examples:
The Armenian prime minister was also let down by assistants. Justifying the crimes of his predecessors and the main political enemies in Khojaly, Pashinyan for some reason referred to the imaginary interview of the former President of Azerbaijan, Ayaz Mutallibov. [7]
They were killed by the Armenians only because they were Azerbaijanis. And along with the Armenian expeditionary corps, they were also killed by 'ours.' By their indifference, betrayal, attempt to transfer the war from Karabakh to Baku. [8]
If we are going to describe everything he said over the years on this matter, it will take too much space, which will be wasted on personal veiws of a person who was not involved in the events. It is not in line with WP:UNDUE. Grandmaster 10:31, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
I reverted to invite for discussion – We don't revert for the sake of discussing. You can discuss without doing reverts, as undue reverts are disruptive. You have to show a valid reason for reverting. And your reasoning is far from revert worthy and still unclear. If "X" is in the article then "Y" should also be isn't a valid reason to remove "X". You're doing whataboutism actually (again), which is a logical fallacy. This is noway near a good reason to remove well sourced information, and indeed your revert is disruptive. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 11:17, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
I suggest you read WP:BOLD and WP:BRD. Grandmaster 11:31, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Grandmaster I suggest you read the policy you just cited and reflect on whether you could be more considerate and careful and diplomatic. Beware that somebody may revert you, escalating this into edit war:
BOLD, revert, discuss cycle is an optional method of seeking consensus. This process is not mandated by Wikipedia policy, but it can be useful for identifying objections, keeping discussion moving forward and helping to break deadlocks. In other situations, you may have better success with alternatives to this approach. Care and diplomacy should be exercised. Some editors will see any reversion as a challenge, so be considerate and patient.
As for Fattulayev's statements, I am less interested who he blames or does not blame, but his case is clearly WP:NOTABLE and WP:VERIFIABLE and extremely relevant to the massacre, regardless of whether he says the truth and is lying, it is not up to you or me to be the detective / judge for that, we are only adding content to wikipedia based on notability and relevance. When you say something that others criticise what you say, please try to listen, instead of advancing your point of view, and that may persuade others that you opened a discussion to really discuss rather than to "tickbox" for BRD. I see your revert as disruptive and case of WP:IJDLI. --Armatura (talk) 12:05, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Once again, why so much space should be dedicated to a criminal case of a person who only made a passing remark on Khojaly massacre? This only has a tangential relevance to the topic, and as a person who made no investigation and was not a witness, he cannot be a reliable source on the topic. Grandmaster 12:12, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Passing mentions for me but not for thee. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 12:17, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Different situation. A passing mention to support a claim, and a passing mention to dedicate a whole section to someone who made it are not the same. Grandmaster 12:52, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
This reminds me of "Do what Romans say, not what Romans do", Grandmaster Please avoid trivialising / marginalising something that is clearly NOTABLE. We are not in politics and this is not a rhetorics class. He may be not loved in Azerbaijan / by Azerbaijanis for his statements (which go against mainstream views in Azerbaijani media), but that is not a reason to downplay the furore his diary and prosecution produced. I had enough of this discussion for today already. --Armatura (talk) 13:24, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
He runs a popular news outlet in Baku and only blames Armenians for the massacre. He said the same thing to the European Court. Armenian propaganda tried to use him for their denialist attempts, but without any success. It is just a matter of WP:UNDUE. Why dedicate so much space to confusing statements of someone who is not a reliable source on this subject? It is not in line with WP:UNDUE. Grandmaster 13:31, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, your arguments are so far weak and hence failed to persuade me. Try persuading others. I’m not interested in personal interpretations of any editor, including yours. Efforts of erasing notable and verifiable material from Wikipedia are undue for me. Good day. --Armatura (talk) 14:24, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

We have been through this at least two times before and there has been no consensus to include him to such an extent. Per WP:FRINGE, WP:PRIMARY and WP:DUE I suggest we trim the Fatullayev section to a certain extent, his notions are not supported by the majority of RS. One paragraph about his views and associated controversy could be enough. Currently it's bigger than all other evidence in the Reports_and_analyses section. Brandmeistertalk 16:33, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
There was certainly no consensus for not including him in reasonable extent, and yet somebody deleted a whole section entirely twice... I don't know why you mention WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE- I understand somebody putting at least of part of the responsibility of the event on Azerbaijani authorities may be marginalised in Azerbaijan, but his statements were certainly taken seriously by international organisations and this is English Wikipedia. Same for WP:PRIMARY - most resources used are secondary. Trimming can be done, by copy-editing, switching from direct to indirect speech, etc, but without loss of meaning. The case is certainly notable by the amount of attention it generated in Azerbaijan and internationally. --Armatura (talk) 18:22, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
From the article: The Court also noted that "The Karabakh Diary" did not constitute a piece of investigative journalism focusing specifically on the Khojaly events and considered that Fatullayev's statements about these events were made rather in passing, parallel to the main theme of the article. I recommend that we keep only first three paragraphs with some copyedit, down to the European Court of Human Rights decision. The rest belongs to the Eynulla Fatullayev article and is more like flogging of a dead horse. Brandmeistertalk 18:43, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
The whole Fatullayev section is one big UNDUE and should be removed. Fatullayev claimed to have met some Khojaly refugees, but with whom? There is not a single evidence and we can't even tell if it was factual interviews or simply his fantasy. Furthermore, Fatullayev did not conduct any investigation, thus we should not place any weight on the alleged passing remark regarding the Khojaly massacre based on the words of unknown persons expressed 20-25 years afterwards.
I believe that I do not need to explain, that Wikipedia is not a place for not investigated and analyzed information, which allegedly gathered by asking questions from few random unknow people.
Regarding the imprisonment of the Fatullayed, I'm not sure what it has to do with the story, because article has nothing to do with it. A b r v a g l (PingMe) 08:31, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 November 2022

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

"though as many as 500-1,000 may have died", should be "though as many as 500–1,000 may have died", utilizing en dash. 85.132.96.210 (talk) 10:30, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

  Done – dudhhr talk contribs (he/they) 17:10, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Edit request: BTR (vehicle)

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Howdy - Worth adding a simple link to BTR (vehicle) for the unexplained acronym in the first para describing the limited equipment available to the defenders. 74.96.123.134 (talk) 16:19, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Khojaly_massacre/Archive_9&oldid=1231114656"