This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ginsengbomb (talk | contribs) at 01:16, 1 February 2013 (→Deleting content that violates wiki policies: re). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 01:16, 1 February 2013 by Ginsengbomb (talk | contribs) (→Deleting content that violates wiki policies: re)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | This article was nominated for deletion review on 24 December 2010. The result of the discussion was closed as moot. |
| This article was nominated for deletion on 25 February 2012 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
| This article was nominated for deletion on 21 January 2013 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Capture of Garadaghly article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Notability and POV
- "Garadaghly Massacre" - 0 hit.
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 Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources to prove Misplaced Pages:Notability. Takabeg (talk) 10:58, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- Garadaghly Massacre also has many hits: , , , more in Russian sources , , . Since the investigation started more facts are coming out. Angel670 talk 22:47, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Cornell
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)
- 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)
Azerbaijani News sources
Alot of information is cited by Azerbaijani news media, which can't be reliable, or neutral to use in this such case. Misplaced Pages aims to contain reliable information from a neutral view. Please see: WP:NEWSORG. Nocturnal781 (talk) 04:07, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
- 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)
Here is some important background information which can not be ignored when deciding to base an article mainly on (pro)-Azerbaijani news agencies.
- Freedom House: Freedom House has ranked Azerbaijans Press as "Not Free". (1)
- 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)
- Institute for Reporters' Freedom and Safety (IRFS): "Azerbaijani citizens and the international community are unable to access reliable, comprehensive, and objective news on human rights issues relevant to Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan is overly reliant on government sources for information, and the population is under-informed about matters of public interest. Traditional radio and television broadcasting is under strict government control." (p.28)--Markus2685 (talk) 12:17, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleting content that violates wiki policies
I agree with user Grandmaster to delete all content that violates Misplaced Pages 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)
- 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 Misplaced Pages 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)
- 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)
- 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)
- 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)
Title of the artcile
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)
- I don't think a mass killing could be called just an incident. Grandmaster 18:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- "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)
- 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)
- "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)
- Keep the name - let's keep the current name, it is appropriate to the violent mass killings. Best, Konullu (talk) 23:02, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- 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)
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:
Chicago Tribune wires.. Chicago Tribune (pre-1997 Fulltext) 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: or Proquest. Grandmaster 19:43, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Also here: Grandmaster 19:46, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)