Jump to content

Talk:Capture of Garadaghly

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Notability and POV

[edit]

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Most of links that I could control are not neutral. Please find Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources to prove Wikipedia:Notability. Takabeg (talk) 10:58, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Garadaghly Massacre also has many hits: [1], [2], [3], more in Russian sources [4], [5], [6]. Since the investigation started more facts are coming out. Angel670 talk 22:47, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cornell

[edit]

Cornell states that Armenian troops conquered these villages which resulted in 99 civilian deaths, this meaning they died during the war and it doesn't say they were massacred, so using it in the header as killing of civilians and using Cornell is not accurate at all.Nocturnal781 (talk) 01:08, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you discuss your edits here, otherwise your edits look more like a vandalism than a real edit. Cornell is a good source indicating to the number of casualities. Moreover, Cornell mentions all three villages where civilians were targeted. Meanwhile, to address your concern, I added a text from the book authored by brother of Armenian commander Monte Melkonian where the number is mentioned more than 50 civilians and details of massacre of civilians are described. Angel670 talk 03:04, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Azerbaijani News sources

[edit]

Alot of information is cited by Azerbaijani news media, which can't be reliable, or neutral to use in this such case. Wikipedia aims to contain reliable information from a neutral view. Please see: WP:NEWSORG. Nocturnal781 (talk) 04:07, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As indicated on AfD page by uninvolved editor, the Azerbaijani news media indicate to the notability of the event of the massacre, which Armenian sources do not deny either. I believe this helps. Angel670 talk 03:11, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Here is some important background information which can not be ignored when deciding to base an article mainly on (pro)-Azerbaijani news agencies.

  • Committee to Protect Journalists: "In Azerbaijan, there are no foreign or independent broadcasters on the airwaves, and the few journalists who work on independent newspapers or websites are subject to intimidation tactics, including imprisonment on fabricated charges." (1)
  • Reporters Without Borders: "Local media are highly polarised and the independent and opposition press are the target of continual pressure. Several highly popular foreign radio stations have been absent from Azerbaijan’s FM waveband since January 2009, including the BBC, Radio Free Europe/ Radio Liberty and Voice of America." Opposition newspapers are Azadlig, Khural, Monitor.(1)

Deleting content that violates wiki policies

[edit]

I agree with user Grandmaster to delete all content that violates Wikipedia policies, thus in the first step deleting all content that is not verifiable. What remains would be a stub --Markus2685 (talk) 13:35, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not do that. We just had a full discussion of this article and its sources which resulted in consensus to keep the article. Deleting all content that you deem violates Wikipedia policies because of what you believe is inappropriate sourcing -- and the AfD's consensus was against your opinion in this regard -- does not strike me as a good faith action. It is akin to refusing to accept the outcome of the AfD and, instead of being able to delete the article, simply deleting all of the words in it instead. At the very least, I would not do this without full discussion here. Thank you. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 01:02, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned, I was talking about deleting content which is not verifiable, and that is quite a lot if you look at the article. Content in Wikipedia must be verifiable and if the reference or source leads to a "404 Not Found Error" such a content needs to be deleted according to Wikipedia policies. In this case it is not a matter of "opinion" or discussion because the violation is clearly provable.--Markus2685 (talk) 01:11, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, forgive me, I misunderstood your intent. If the source literally doesn't exist, you are absolutely correct to delete information coming from that source. You should make a good faith effort to verify that the source literally does not exist, but you are certainly correct in this case. If you choose to do so, I'll take a look at the result and hold it against the sources that we do have access to to make sure nothing that can be sourced has been deleted. Okay? ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 01:16, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I have done so. Please have a look at the result.--Markus2685 (talk) 02:19, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Title of the artcile

[edit]

As also the title of the article is disputed I suggest presenting and discussing alternative titles here. Example:

- Garadaghly incidents --Markus2685 (talk) 13:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a mass killing could be called just an incident. Grandmaster 18:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Incident" sounds really poor, Cornell used "conquered", therefore I think that something Armenian conquest of Garadaghly would be suitable. I guess Battle of Garadaghly or Siege of Garadaghly could be also technically usable.--Staberinde (talk) 20:21, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you that it sounds poor. I am also not happy with it and I don't think it is a good alternative. It was just to start somewhere. --Markus2685 (talk) 11:12, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The current name is invariably used by Azerbaijan. No foreign source has called this event a "massacre".--Markus2685 (talk) 11:12, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Melkonian also noted the scale of the massacre, which is enough strong source noting who he is. Best, 188.142.246.17 (talk) 14:39, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I support the present title, because I think that "conquest" or "battle" does not reflect the content of the article, which is about mass killing, and not the hostilities. There was no real battle, as forces were unequal. Also, I found another source, Chicago Tribune, which mentions the event, but the name of the village is spelled as Karadogly. I temporarily post the full text, and will later remove it due to copyright reasons:

20 die in Armenian attack on town in disputed enclave: [FINAL, M Edition]

Chicago Tribune wires.. Chicago Tribune (pre-1997 Fulltext) [Chicago, Ill] 18 Feb 1992: 4.

More than 20 people were killed and 15 wounded Monday in an Armenian attack on a village in the disputed Nagorno-Karabakh region of Azerbaijan, the ITAR-Tass news agency reported. Armenian militants captured the Azerbaijani village of Karadogly and forced the residents to flee to a nearby forest, the news agency said, quoting the Azerbaijani People's Front information center. The Foreign Ministry of the former Soviet republic of Azerbaijan released a statement accusing neighboring Armenia of attacking unarmed civilians in its drive to gain control of Nagorno-Karabakh. Predominantly Christian Armenians and Muslim Azerbaijanis both want Nagorno-Karabakh.

The article is available here: [7] or Proquest. Grandmaster 19:43, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also here: [8] Grandmaster 19:46, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But the main source of this article again is an Azerbaijani governmental (=primary) source. The paper admittedly quotes the ITAR-Tass news agency, but on the other hand the ITAR-Tass news agency quotes the Foreign Ministry of the former Soviet republic of Azerbaijan. So no matter what we do. With every step we take it seems clearer that almost all sources are based on information coming from the Azerbaijani government.--Markus2685 (talk) 03:11, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Karadagly (as Karadogly) is also mentioned by de Waal on page 115, but it is about an earlier incident (about a year before) with a lower number of casualties:

In the spring and summer of 1991, the violence escalated into a partisan-style conflict between villages; raids were made and hostages were taken. Six Azerbaijani villagers were killed in one attack by Armenian fighters on the village of Karadogly.

Grandmaster 19:59, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source you posted actually backs the position to move article. Absolutely no use of word "massacre" there. Current title plainly doesn't qualify for WP:POVTITLE as there are no reliable English language sources to back it. It seems quite clear that village was captured after battle that lasted quite a while (even though forces may have been uneven). Therefore something like "Capture", "Conquest", "Siege" or "Battle" would be suitable. Current title should be mentioned in lede as one of the alternative names for event.--Staberinde (talk) 20:34, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the current situation speaks in favor of a merge. This event is not mentioned by any international human rights organizations, had no immediate political or social effects on either country, and barely (if even that) meets the requirements of notability. It would seem to go best somewhere in the Nagorno-Karabakh War article.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 22:10, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


  • Change Name - I prefer neutral words like "incident" or similar. Unless there is broad sourcing near-universally using the word "massacre," that is an incredibly loaded word to use. Yes, the events depicted sound monstrous, but we would not title the article Armenian Slaughter of Innocent Civilians in Garadaghly either. Those are loaded words. Events like the Boston Massacre can be titled as such because they are universally referred to as such. In cases such as this where the word "massacre" is NOT being used in most/all sources, referring to it as such is an unfortunate combination of violating WP:OR and WP:NPOV. I strongly believe the title needs to be changed.

    As for merging the article, as Marshal suggests above, that should not be done unless a separate discussion around the merge is conducted, and I'd recommend inviting all participants in the recent AfD to participate. There was consensus to Keep the article in that discussion, so an immediate merge would be very inappropriate without further discussion. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 00:55, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the result of the recent Afd was "no consensus". I still find it a bit strange why User Sandstein has titled it as "keep" instead of "no consensus".--Markus2685 (talk) 01:03, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is incorrect. The result is what is written in bold, and that is, in this case, as anyone can see here, Keep. When one closes an AfD, you literally have to type the result in a field, and in this case Sandstein typed "keep." You can also see the result at the top of this talk page, where it says "The result of the discussion was Keep." ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 01:06, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I understood clearly. I know that "keep" is written in bold as result. But this depicts the opinion of Sandstein because he thinks the result should be "keep". And I said I disagree with him because the result was according to the discussion "no consensus" and not "keep."--Markus2685 (talk) 01:15, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but your opinion of what the result of the discussion was literally doesn't matter in this case. The result of the discussion was keep. That isn't my opinion :). Put another way, Sandstein's opinion in this case is the result. That's how AfDs are closed; an uninvolved administrator judges the consensus and gives the result. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 01:17, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well again… I know what user Sandstein has written there. But again… the discussion was still ongoing, questions were still unanswered and suddendly the discussion was closed as if there was "consensus". Absurd. Actually I don't want to discuss this because, as you said, I know that the few proponents of this article don't care. The same way they obviously don't care about the quality of this article. So know we will edit this article according to Wikipedia guidelines and I think it will be very interesting to see what will come out or if any siginificant third-party sources will ever be added so that this article can be taken serious. Because the current situation is totally unscientific. Well, let's see :) --Markus2685 (talk) 01:28, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change Name: I suggest using "Garadaghly Capture" and the text could be changed to:
"The Garadaghly Capture resulted in the killing of ethnic Azerbaijani civilians and prisoners of war by Armenian troops in the village of Garadaghly on 17 February 1992 during the Nagorno-Karabakh War. Azerbaijani sources refer to the incident as Garadaghly massacre". --Markus2685 (talk) 02:44, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Standard seems to be "Capture of X", like Capture of Gibraltar and Capture of New Orleans, so here would suit Capture of Garadaghly.--Staberinde (talk) 16:00, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly, using "massacre" in title is acceptable only if it is clearly most common name in English language reliable sources. It is not. Therefore NPOV applies and article needs to be renamed.--Staberinde (talk) 11:23, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I see this same procedure must now be done to the artcile Malibeyli and Gushchular Massacre. It's the same there.--Markus2685 (talk) 21:50, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Tyrol5 [Talk] 03:34, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Garadaghly Massacre → Capture of Garadaghly – per WP:NPOV. There is no common name in English for this relatively obscure event, in few reliable English sources where it is mentioned the Armenian takeover of the village has been described with words like "captured" and "conquered". As current title is only used in Azerbaijani sources, it does not qualify per WP:POVTITLE. Therefore WP:NDESC applies and a neutral descriptive title should be used.-- Staberinde (talk) 17:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree--Markus2685 (talk) 19:45, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: The use of massacre in the title is somewhat emotive, which could be understood and justified if there were any non-partisan publications using this term in English. I cannot find any such uses (I've also tried searching for Garadaghly killings and Garadaghly genocide). For that reason, the more neutral title suggested is appropriate. Skinsmoke (talk) 10:09, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: The name should be changed to "Capture of Garadaghly" for the reasons mentioned above. More than 7 days after opening the discussion have left and it seems that consensus has been reached to change the name. I therefore think the discussion may be closed and the title should be changed.--Markus2685 (talk) 12:33, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There's a backlog at Wikipedia:Requested moves, so you'll just have to show a little patience and wait. Skinsmoke (talk) 17:42, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Articles about pogroms in "See also" section?!

[edit]

I have to delete again the articles about pogroms in "See also" section, because they are not relevant to this article. Please don't revert back without discussion here. Best, Konullu (talk) 23:42, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but they are perfectly relevant to this article, as they document similar events in the same conflict. I have no axe to grind on this issue, with no ties to either Armenia or Azerbaijan, and really don't care which side carried out which atrocities. All similar events in a conflict are interlinked (and one often influences another). Skinsmoke (talk) 09:05, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Capture of Garadaghly. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:47, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Capture of Garadaghly. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 21:51, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removing POV and 3rd Party sources tag

[edit]

There are 9 sources in the article, of which only 3 seem to be somewhat associated with the subject. And one of them is just a source backing the sentence saying that "Azerbaijan sent letters". Therefore I don't see the reason for 3rd Party sources tag.

And for the POV tag, the article seems alright and the original POV tag giver has not given any reason as to why they think it's POV, therefore it's impossible to know for me, and most users to know what the problem is. Thus, I suggest removing it. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 08:15, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

De Wall

[edit]

On google book the only info on these events was on the six villagers. Anyone has access to the page that was cited (p.115)? If De Waal comment is about the event described in the article and not some prior event, it has to be contextualized, and clarified that it is about the actual event termed here as massacre. Tks. Hemşinli çocuk 02:18, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

There are no links in the article to any sources that would confirm these events. It is required either to bring such resources (not Azerbaijani, of course), or to nominate the article for deletion and delete it, since it does not carry any valuable information for a reader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Servantis (talk • contribs) 18:32, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Melkonian

[edit]

@N1C4T97: Where does it say 53 people were killed ? I don’t see it in the book. Thank you. Nocturnal781 (talk) 17:40, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Capture_of_Garadaghly&oldid=1206541692"