Misplaced Pages

Should we not merge all the reported massacres from both sides in one article? Britannica or other encyclopedia's don't do it the way it is done here. Anatolmethanol 15:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Non-existing project tag removed . Atabek (talk) 07:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Present impartial sources to Caroline Cox (Cox herself and her organizations are not impartial) being a witness of those events, else change the wording to "claimed to observe". Atabəy (talk) 15:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Cox, NPOV and parliament of NKR

1. Caroline Cox is pro-Armenian activist, so added referenced information about her.

2. According to NPOV added information at the beginning of the article.

3. Parliament is a state institute, so it's better to use NKR instead of Nagorno-Karabakh. --Quantum666 (talk) 05:16, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't immediately see your question on my talk page.

1. Regardless where her sympathies lie, the way the information is presented makes it sound like someone is trying to undermine her credibility, which is a very cheap shot and otherwise unacceptable.

2. You are stating that this massacre is said to have taken place by the say-so of Armenian or pro-Armenian sources. The accusation against Baroness Cox's organization being pro-Armenian is borderline original research. Also, the sources that have been provided here cannot all be categorized as "Armenian" or "pro-Armenian", since they include a British journalist, Thomas de Waal, a journalist who is nominally neutral, and Helsinki Watch, a human rights organization.

3. No dispute. So I've left that unchanged.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 21:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

1.First of all, terms like "cheap shot" are unacceptable. I hope you won't use them anymore. So you just disagree with the way the information about Cox is presented in the article? If you do then let's find the better way to present the information.

2.I haven't said that the massacre didn't take place. But the information about how it happened is provided only by Armenian and pro-Armenian sources. Do you agree? --Quantum666 (talk) 06:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

1. Using the phrase "cheap shot" is not "unacceptable"; the problem here is that someone is trying to subtly insert wording which is used to suggest that because Cox or her organization is pro-Armenian, their claims should only be taken with caution. So, no, not only do I object to the partisan wording that you are offering, but I object to even inserting it at all because it is irrelevant.

2. And yet, no one has came out to dispute that such a massacre took place. Given this, there should be reason for you to try to create an issue when there is none on which organization reported what, since that would be tantamount to original research.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:27, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

1.Maybe the problem is that someone is trying to remove important information about sympathies of Caroline Cox of Armenians? If you think that the information is partisan and irrelevant you can address your complaint to the source of information (Thomas De Waal). This information is important and relevant because it correctly attributes the information from nonneutral source according to NPOV. And this attribution has the reference to a source.

2.Once again: I haven't said that the massacre didn't take place. But the information about how it happened is provided only by Armenian and pro-Armenian sources. Do you agree? --Quantum666 (talk) 05:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Why don't we do the same for Khojali massacre which mostly lies on the informations gathered by the HRW by interviewing refugies, when they are criticized by several notable sources for their blind accusations of the military and blowing their actions out of proportion like they did in several instances (some which they have recognized like in the case of Kossovo)? I also see you adding back this source here when he is at least just as overtly pro Azeri than Cox is pro-Armenian, if not more since he actually does money supporting the Azeri. Would you have any problem if I add the same wording there? But the information about how it happened is provided only by Armenian and pro-Armenian sources. That's simply nonesense, what happened in Maraghar does not require as much material as other places in which there were military justifications in taking such decisions so that that could be added (like for instance what happened in Khojali). Unless you have any info that the some hundreds Armenians living there had any groups similar to the OMONs etc., or attempted any actions which prompted a military action, you will have no grounds to try to balance this. The question here lies on whatever or not there was a massacre and not what happened which prompted a reaction (since in this case there could have been no prior event but only an anti-Armenian action plain and simple). You jump came about here on July 2, I just hope that English Misplaced Pages will not be flauded by all those Azeri who were banned from Russian Misplaced Pages to continue the off-wiki coordination. Ionidasz (talk) 20:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Have I ever said that the massacre didn't take place? --Quantum666 (talk) 21:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

You can continue discussion about Khojaly genocide here. Thanks for your opinion. --Quantum666 (talk) 21:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Her position, to reiterate for the last time, on the Nagorno-Karabakh War is not important. If there is no dispute that a massacre actually took place, then you have no right to create an issue out of it. To insert such irrelevant information merely insinuates that her and her organization's account of the massacre is compromised by her loyalty to a certain side. Go over what WP:NPOV actually says before trying to cite it as a reason to include your unacceptable edits.

And no, I don't agree with your assertion that only Armenian or pro-Armenian organizations reported this because it's original research.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 23:27, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

1. Her position and her sympathies are very important and relevant because they could affect her opinion about the events. Moreover Cox is a primary source and the secondary source (Thomas De Waal) mentions her sympathies talking about Maraghar events. So you are not argueing me but the secondary source.

2. If you don't like words like "Armenian" or "pro-Armenian" we can attribute the sources in other way so it wouldn't seem to you as an OR. --Quantum666 (talk) 05:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to repeat what I just said but you're mistaken if you honestly think any of your proposed changes are even mildly close to being neutral. Take it up with an administrator if you don't believe me. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 21:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I put the POV template until the problem is resolved. For details look here. --Quantum666 (talk) 10:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment on editing disagreement

I gather there is an editing disagreement, and the dispute can be shown by this diff.

Regarding the disputed text:

• "according to Armenian and pro-Armenian sources" implies other sources have a different view. It would be preferable not to include this text, and if there are other notable views, to mention them, along with sources.

• "Baroness" or "the supporter of Karabakh Armenians" - perhaps a compromise could be not to include either description.

If the dispute continues to go round in circles, you could always request mediation from WP:MEDCAB. PhilKnight (talk) 13:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

According to US congress documents.

There is an unspecified source which is called "US congress documents". Before adding it to the article we should define whether it can be called RS. So I have a few questions:

• What kind of document is it?
• Why should we use US congress documents?
• Did the congress investigate the events?

--Quantum666 (talk) 12:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Tags on relevance and neutrality

I think this article has the same if not less notable background than Agdaban massacre. There is not a single neutral source indicating that the massacre in fact took place, or whether what happened can be termed as massacre.Atabəy (talk) 00:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, for now I left notability and POV tags. Let Marshall Bagramyan explain how Malisheyli and Gushchular massacre is less notable or reliable in existence of Human Rights Watch . Tuscumbia (talk) 14:52, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The Amnesty International source already says on page 9 that "Armenian villagers reported...", which means that the massacre taking place is not the opinion of the human rights organization, they just quote it what Armenian source has reported. Hence this is unfit for the WP:NPOV, unless we can somehow emphasize that the opinion quoted by AI was that of Armenian sources. Atabəy (talk) 15:47, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I found the original source from quoted Human Rights Watch book, available on Google Books. It's actually not on page 6 as wrongly cited by someone earlier but on page 92 and refers to Maraga. The source clearly says that 50 civilians were captured in Azerbaijani attack, there is no reference to any massacre taking place there. Page 6 though does refer to Azerbaijani massacres committed by Armenian forces. So I corrected the source to properly reflect what was said on page 92. Atabəy (talk) 16:03, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I reaccessed all references from HRW and AI to properly reflect what was said in this article. Looks like the information placed earlier was misinterpreted in a lot of ways. Also added a reference from Melkonian. Atabəy (talk) 17:42, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

This all sounds like a case of making a point. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:44, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Kansas Bear, I believe on sensitive subjects as this, the same language that was used in Khojaly Massacre must be followed. If the article is proven to be notable, then such language is a must. Misplaced Pages is not a place for inventing massacres, and if the incident happened, the wording must properly reflect the wording of eyewitness sources. The primary source citing them was Armenian eyewitness used by Human Rights Watch, which was quoted in De Waal's book. Atabəy (talk) 18:58, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe the correct "reaction" to the deletion of an article, which apparently some editors had a great deal of personal attachment, would not be an emotional tagging and the numerous introduction of citations to a corresponding article. While I don't agree with Buckshot's actions, I do not see any excuse for demanding his banishment from ethnic related articles. The simple statement "De Waal is from Armenian sources" is battleground mentality. I would warn you against violating 1RR on this article and other emotion diatribes(tagging and citations). --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:13, 21 December 2010 (UTC)