Talk:Capture of Gushchular and Malibeyli/Archive 1

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

Notability and POV

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
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) 11:22, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

You just need to use both names of villages in the search, because they were taken at the same time when the massacres took place: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. Angel670 talk 22:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The entire premise of the article seems very doubtful. If we take a look at the sources cited in the text, it becomes clear that the civilians who were killed died as a result of collateral damage when the village was taken by the Armenians. The only sources which claim a massacre took place (Azerbaijan Foundation, tourism.azerbaijan, president.az, azerigenocide.com, etc.) all originate from Azerbaijan and the state-owned media apparatus of the republic. Given the outright propagandistic and non-scholarly nature of these sources, their neutrality and even accuracy in their reporting is compromised and severely in doubt. Similar agit-prop material is found on these websites and with this in consideration, this article should reflect what really took place in the area around Malibeyli and Guschchular - a military encounter with perhaps one or two isolated cases of executions taking place.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 22:02, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


Nothing agitprop. Everything is based on sources, look at human rights organization report which shows evidence of ethnic cleansening of Azerbaijani civilians. Look at Maragha massacre article which is not agitprop? Dighapet (talk) 16:39, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not disputing the fact that a civilian exodus took place as a result of the battle or that a few civilians may have been killed due to collateral damage, but that's a far cry from calling it a massacre. Even the sources which have been used here are misrepresented to support the notion that killings took place, when it fact they simply say that the Armenians launched a military assault to capture the villages. And a careful evaluation of the sources used here and on Maragha show a stark contrast between reliable and relatively neutral sources (Tom de Waal, AI, HRW, CSI, etc.) in the latter and sources which are directly or very closely linked to the government of Azerbaijan or the state media and which make liberal use of the evocative words like "genocide" to describe singular incidents which cannot be independently confirmed. And why do you keep posting "answer" to every post? I don't recall asking any questions in my previous comments.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

It is not exodus. Exodus happened when the village people fled from this to the neighbor village. The civilians which were in the village were gone through ethnic cleansening. It is in the reports just like the attack on Maragha. In Maragha, who could escape escaped, the others state and were killed like in Malibeyli and Gushcular. CSI is represented by baronessa who said herself she is pro-Armenian. I post answer because I answer your comments. What should I post? Dighapet (talk) 19:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I wonder exactly which neutral/third party source ever identified this exodus as massacre. We cannot go on with groundless statements, but keep in line with relevant sources. If there are no third party sources then this article should be simply renamed. -- Ashot  (talk) 07:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

You do not identify the killings of civilians, women and children as massacre? If Maragha is a massacre than obviously so is this. Lets not assume double standards. Neftchi (talk) 22:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

What counts is intent. In stark contrast to Maragha, where the civilian population was left in the village to the mercy of an advancing military formation, there is no indication that the civilians were deliberately targeted during the battle, but were simply caught in the crossfire. I don't know why no one else sees this important distinction and Dighapet's and Neftchi's objections are not convincing. With such a dearth in reliable sources, then we have to reflect what they actually say. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 23:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I strongly support Marshal's point. And again, Wikipedia is a space for sourced material. If claims of Massacre are not well sourced, then there is nothing to dispute about. If they are, just introduce those. Summary: Either argue based on sources or please don't waste yours and our valuable time. -- Ashot  (talk) 06:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Intent? Do you have sources to proof your description of 'massacre'? It would be easy to ethnic cleanse an area and than claim it was not intentional, and suddenly its not a massacre. This article is based on sources, not your personal interpretation. According to the Human Rights Organization report there is clear evidence of ethnic cleansening of Azerbaijani civilians. Its just ridiculous to say Maragha was a massacre and yet this is not. Neftchi (talk) 09:52, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Sources, Neftchi, sources... web sites, quotes, exact page numbers... Yes to sources and sourced information, no to groundless statements... -- Ashot  (talk) 10:34, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Ashot you know very well that the availability of sources does not make the massacre any less than massacre. We are talking about the killing of civilians. For example, if you google "Armenian terrorism" you get hundreds of hits from academic sources, magazines, books, etc. Yet availability of these sources did not stop people from deleting the article on Armenian terrorism, although the information about it is overwhelming. See here. Neftchi (talk) 21:13, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Just to address Kansas Bear's comments above regarding the most reliable sources: the book Caucasus and an Unholy Alliance alleges that Armenians massacred the inhabitants of Malibeyli but provides no evidence nor cites any sources. Croissant says (p. 78) that "Armenian forces took the village of Malybeyli on 11 February and began a major assault towards Khojaly...", and so does not say that a massacre took place. Bloodshed in the Caucasus recounts isolated, uncoordinated examples of Armenian roughing up some of the inhabitants but it too doesn't say that a massacre took place. Which leaves with the other sources which, as KB has made clear, aren't really neutral. Given their agit-prop style of presentation and failure to back up their claims with at least some form of verifiable, independent sourcing, they really cannot be used to back up the entire body of the article and the thesis which it puts forward.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 01:07, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Marshal, I wonder what is your suggestion for the article improvement and to what it should be renamed (given that there seem to be no sources to secure the term "massacre" and directly related text behind it)? -- Ashot  (talk) 17:10, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
For the moment, I suggest a rename to the Battles of Malibeyli and Gushchular or something of the sort but given their relative insignificance during the Nagorno-Karabakh War I'm not even sure if they even warrant their own article(s). I share similar concerns for the two other articles which were created by the same author of this one, the Agdaban massacre and Garadaghly Massacre. They suffer from similar problems regarding sourcing (i.e., they have no proper, neutral third-party sources which can be characterized as reliable to support their general thesis). After we ascertain this, I suppose the best move would be to group and redirect these three articles onto a single page, something 1993 Summer Offensives, although with a hopefully better-sounding title. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 01:30, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
I wonder if the renomination is another solution. At first glance the previous discussion was "closed as moot" because those articles were deleted without following Wikipedia guidelines properly.
There is also another point in the matter. Since there are so many non-neutral sources about those events, probably Wikipedia should have neutral articles on the topic, so that interested reader is able to get some quality piece of information. -- Ashot  (talk) 05:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
You guys did ignore my comment about abundance of sources on Armenian terrorism and denial of the fact that this term and reality exists, yet you claim the opposite on this talk page. Moreover, the articles can't be merged because they are standalone events recognized by the sources, including HRW.
If Azerbaijani and Turkish sources call this event a massacre since it was a direct extermination of civilians captured in these two villages, and is denied by Armenians why can't they be considered as such?
For example, Marshall created an article called Martuni and Mardakert offensives article although this term does not even exist and there was no source calling any event of this nature in any similar way. Neftchi (talk) 15:36, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
I am not aware of the articles you are talking about, and I guess I am not supposed to. Wikipedia guidelines - this is what I pursue in this concrete article.
Massacre is when people are killed deliberately. Accidental killings taken place during capturing a settlement are not massacre. Hence there should be neutral sources that specify deliberate killings of people in order to term the event as massacre. Otherwise it is groundless and against Wikipedia rules.
Neither Azerbaijani/Turkish nor Armenian sources are all-sufficient when touching upon such a sensitive topic. Therefore we can rely neither on Azeri claims nor on Armenian denials. In a case like this, what we can rely on are trustworthy third party sources. If you have any, let's discuss. Otherwise I don't see any point in keeping the term "massacre". -- Ashot  (talk) 16:57, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Since it has been nearly a week and no one has produced the quote from Antero Leitzinger, I move for the removal of non-neutral "sources" and begin the discussion as to whether to re-name the article or add the relevant information(from neutral sources) to 1993 Summer Offensives article and delete this article. --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:14, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Considering that the talk page has been flooded with comments by people who didnt check the references to see the neutral sources, such as the one you noticed by Antero Leitzinger, where event is called a Massacre, and where the brutalities of Armenian military against civilian villagers are described, there are other neutral sources (particularly Human Watch, Croissant, Svante Cornell in Small Nations and Great Powers ), which stress out assaults against civilians particularly in Malybeyli village and in a number of other villages surrounding Khojali, indicating to a beginning of Khojali massacre. The event deserves a special attention in the history of Nagorno-Karabakh war and can neither be removed nor moved. Moreover, you can not delete what you call "non-neutral" sources because they contain interviews of villagers who survived from Malibeyly massacre and witnessed the massacre. All information provided in the article is valid and supported by sufficient neutral sources. Angel670 talk 16:02, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I support the move together with removal of all non-verifiable information. -- Ashot  (talk) 12:07, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

@Angel670, It is good of you to have checked the Antero Leitzinger. If so, please provide a quote from the book. I haven't read it myself and don't have an access to it. As per non-third-party sources they are OK only if they or their logic is supported by 3rd party sources. Otherwise they cannot be considered as reliable. -- Ashot  (talk) 16:23, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

A massacre is a wholesale indiscriminate killing of persons. It has nothing to do with intentions or deliberately. The availability of sources does not make the massacre any less than massacre. The Human Rights Watch source confirms the killings of civilians. Neftchi (talk) 21:38, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Continuing to repeat the same thing over and over, is meaningless. I have asked for a quote of Leitzinger and instead you and Angel seem to think stating something like, "All information is valid and supported by sufficient neutral sources.", is all the facts you need. Unfortunately it does not. The two neutral sources that can be read do not call it a massacre. Leitzinger source is not legible and no one has decided to provide any evidence who wrote it(since apparently Leitzinger was the editor of that book) or the quote, therefore this article has no neutral source calling it a massacre. HRW mentions killings of civilians but does not use the word massacre. Using HRW to say that it was a massacre is original research. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

@KB

  • Antero Leitzinger, Caucasus and an unholy alliance, Kirja-Leitzinger, 1997, p. 55

    On 11 February, hell was to break loose as heavily armed Armenian rebel troops moved westward in the direction of Shusha and took the village of Malibeyli, ransacked its farms, massacred its inhabitants and finally set fire on the...

  • Its not good how you are trying to dump the source you've never read and never had access to. You already sound biased! Antero Leitzinger is a Finnish political historian and not Azerbaijani. This is a well sufficient neutral source. Angel670 talk 04:20, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
You still haven't shown me the entire page, muchless who authored that statement. Considering all you have is a scrap, from a book, that was edited by Leitzinger, doesn't answer my question. --Kansas Bear (talk) 08:04, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
You asked me a quote from Leitzinger's book where he names the event a massacre. And I provided it. Now you want me to show you the whole page. I guess you could be more pollite in requesting more of the reference, although I sufficiently answered your question! There is such a word in English "THANK YOU" and "PLEASE". Id suggest you learn to use them before editing in Wiki. I can provide you the whole page later when I have a scan of that page. Angel670 talk 13:18, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Ups, reading WP:AGF would be good of you. And while you do that keep in mind that there was no response regarding valid sources for a long time and that is a valid base to assume that there are not any...
As per the quote you presented, it needs to be carefully examined within it's context. So I'll come back to it later. -- Ashot  (talk) 04:42, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

It's misleading to characterize the Caucasus and an unholy alliance as Leitzinger's book. Upon closer inspection, we can see that not only is Mr. Leitzinger just the editor, but that the book is made up of several chapters written by individuals who are not necessarily historians but politicians, political pundits and others who do not really fit the category of "scholars". These include Abulfaz Elchibey, the former president of Azerbaijan, Jokhar Dudayev, the leader of the secessionist movement in Chechnya, and Charles van der Leeuw, a journalist. Obviously, the politicians will be more interested in presenting their views of what took place in Armenia/Azerbaijan and Chechnya. Even the chapter headings betray an anti-Russian slant: Antero Leitzinger - "Kristallnacht, Russian style"; Antero Leitzinger - "The slave who accepts his slavery deserves double the slavery"; Jokhar Dudayev - "Ichkeria: the final fight for freedom", etc. I don't know who wrote the chapter where the reference to Malibeyli is found but given these chapter titles and those who authored them, it doesn't really seem that we can use this book to anchor the underlying thesis of this article. Even a quick search through Google Books shows that the line on Malibeyli is not supported by any citations or sources.

That leaves us with the human rights organizations, which, however, do not describe what took place here as a massacre but a firefight where some civilians were probably caught in the crossfire.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 01:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Marshal's arguments above and silence from the opposing editors seem to be enough to start the move. If there are other arguments, I would like to see them here. -- Ashot  (talk) 13:51, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
The fact that nobody replied yet in short time does not warrant for changing anything. Besides it has been already shown that the MASSACRE had taken place and the source is a third party book. Wait for other contributors to comment before making one sided edits. Neftchi (talk) 15:12, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Azerbaijani users as Massacre is happened and there is no way of denying it. --NovaSkola (talk) 16:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the fact that Neftchi and Novaskola are nonsensically repeating the same thing over and over again ("it already has been shown that a massacre has taken place and there is no way of denying it!!") just goes to show that they don't have any real counter arguments to the serious issues which have been raised above. Indeed, their silence is very telling and indicates that we can now move on ahead with the necessary changes. I think the discussion of this content dispute has finally ran its course and those who oppose this article's move have had more than ample opportunity to provide compelling reasons to keep it, which they clearly have not done.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 16:50, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

My silence is telling that I was too busy to answer. I have provided a quote from the book describing the event of a massacre, indicated the page number, showed the source. Instead, your continuous speculations about the contents of the book you guys have never held in hands prove the fallacy of your arguments. The full quote from Antero Leitzinger's book is as below:

On 11 February, hell was to break loose as heavily armed Armenian rebel troops moved westward in the direction of Shusha and took the village of Malibeyli, ransacked its farms, massacred its inhabitants and finally set fire on the community's remainders.

Yes, the book is written in Chapters and the author of the Chapter is Charles van der Leeuw, the journalist, non-Azerbaijani, neutral, and experienced expert in the Caucasian issues. He is also author of several books covering conflicts in the Caucasus. Angel670 talk 19:06, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I think we have seen enough here. If the best you have to offer is a journalist who, after briefly skimming over his only work on the subject, at best isn't entirely neutral and at worst is not a scholar, then that means we can finally go ahead with renaming this article. The information provided by the human rights organizations can of course be integrated into the new page but it's clear that there are no reliable sources which term this incident a massacre. The repetitious and nonsensical arguments presented here ad nauseum only convinces me that there are no serious objections that can be lodged against the move.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 01:17, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Agree. The only thing one can claim with currently available sources is a mention within the text that some sources characterize the incident as massacre. -- Ashot  (talk) 08:43, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
@MB Yes indeed, we have enough. Nevertheless, you choose to continue. About your isn't entirely neutral - can you please prove me that Charles van der Leeuw is an Azerbaijani, or half Azerbaijani, or isnt entirely Azerbaijani? I will go on commenting on your next arguments after you answer this question. Angel670 talk 14:55, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand Neftchi's panic. Aren't the following my words: "If there are other arguments, I would like to see them here."? As for me, I don't mind waiting another 48 hours, though I totally support Marshal's position. -- Ashot  (talk) 17:07, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Marshal stop your trivial talk. Charles van der Leeuw is a neutral source, the fact that you deny it shows your POV pushing. You have no evidence nor any arguments to counter this source. Both sources have proven it was a massacre. Neftchi (talk) 15:33, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


Reliability of Charles van der Leeuw as a source

  • Some interesting notes regarding Charles van der Leeuw:
About his book "Storm over the Caucasus: In the Wake of Independence":
Van der Leeuw's narrative combines historical background information and politics of the 1990s with his personal experiences as a media correspondent based in Baku. This travelogue, however, lacks the stylistic eloquence of its genre. Moreover, it is full of stereotypes and extremely judgemental. It lacks exactly the kind of deeper understanding of the different nations' history and culture that it is trying to convey. Anybody who only reads this account would get a rather skewed Baku-perspective on the Southern Caucasus.
Source: Sasse, Gwendolyn (2001). "Book Review: Charles van der Leeuw, Storm over the Caucasus: In the Wake of Independence". Nations & Nationalism. 7 (2). Blackwell Publishing: 253-254. ISSN 1354-5078. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help).
Another review of the same book:
Rather than filling any void in the study of the Caucasus, van der Leeuw has managed to produce one of the poorest books ever written on the region in recent years.
Source: Central Asian Survey; Jun2000, Vol. 19 Issue 2, p297-303.
Yet another review of the same book:
I think I have said enough to demonstrate that this is most certainly a work to be approached, if at all, with extreme caution.
Source: Hewitt, George (1999). Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London. 62 (3). Cambridge University Press: 594. {{cite journal}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
About his book "Oil and Gas in the Caucasus: A History":
Consequently the appearance of this book should have been timely, to provide a much needed context for the events that are currently taking place within the region. Sadly, readers are likely to be disappointed. The book is not an easy read. The written style lacks clarity and can be convoluted. Statistics are not put into context and have not been standardised (there is an oily mix of puds, tons and barrels). Contemporary costs (e.g. kopeks per pud) have not been explained with reference to modern equivalents, so one has no sense of values..
Source: Adams, Terry (2001). "OIL & Gas in the Caucasus (Book)". Asian Affairs. 32 (1): 80. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help).
About his book "Central Asia A Quest for Identity. Caucasus World":
The writer does not hesitate to voice strong personal opinions about various members of the dramatis personae. Timur, for example, is an "uncivilised, murderous maniac". Not far wrong in that particular instance, but the style is more suited to the tabloids than what purports to be a serious history book.
Source: Bergne, Paul (2001). "Azerbaijan (Book Review)". Asian Affairs. 32 (2): 214. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

Additionally, Charles van der Leeuw was arrested in Lebanon for espionage and possession of a narcotic (The Independent, November 16 1989), though I am not aware if his guiltiness was proven.

Now it is more than apparent that With Charles van der Leeuw as the only the only reference, we definitely can't accept the term "massacre" for this article. -- Ashot  (talk) 16:33, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


Wow, good research but I will disappoint you. Why do you search only for negative notes on Charles van der Leeuw? Type his name and the word excellent and good and I am sure you will find many good reviews about his writing. If you say a few critics make him non-reliable, why then you don't remove Baroness Coxx as the source in Maragha Massacre page? She is criticized often (look here [6]) or why do you use Markar Melkonian's book "My brother's road"? He based his book on statements from world known terrorist Monte Melkonian. Can you answer these? If many authors used and continue using Charles van der Leeuw's books as a source, then can we too. Find another argument to dismiss this neutral writer, not what you describe above. Dighapet (talk) 16:55, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

In choosing appropriate wording for the article one should defenetly refer to the wording of international human rights organizations and not a journalist with disputable reputation and so seriously critisized by scholar sources. -- Ashot  (talk) 19:35, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Ashot this is called cherry-picking and is not allowed. You made a POV selection of sources. Neftchi (talk) 10:47, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Ashot, read my answer to you. When you give me answer on those, we can talk further. Charles van der Leeuw’s books, including the book used in this article is recognized as good review of conflict and used by many authors and scholars. You can not achieve something if you just go and find something you like from google and come post only those comments. Also, when you delete all sources and references where journalists questioned by others wrote something like Tsevatana Paskaleva, then you can come to this page and present your consensus solution to problem. Dighapet (talk) 14:31, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok guys, your arguments are just failing to stick. This is now just plain stonewalling and approaching the level of deliberate disruption. Neftchi's allegation of "cherry picking" is absurd because it does not address the concerns brought up by the reviewers and doesn't even accurately convey what Ashot is doing. Even if other authors might have used van der Leeuw's books, that still does not mean they endorse what he has said nor negate what reviewers have said about his obviously shoddy works, least of all those authors writing in prestigious journals such as the BSOAS. From all accounts it's clear that 1)The individual is not a professional scholar or historian 2)He is a journalist and also a former correspondent from Baku, which consequently raises questions about his neutrality 3)Never carried out any personal investigation into the attack on Malibeyli and hence has no claims to being a specialist in the matter nor purports to bring any evidence to support his claims. This is perhaps the last word regarding the issue, and the only person's opinion who I am interested in hearing now is Kansas Bear's.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 16:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Marshal you contradict yourself. On the talks regarding a photo you said that Onnik Krikorian (Armenian blogger) is a reliable source. Yet you claim that professional and experienced journalist Charles van de Leeuw is not reliable? This proofs just how biased you are. Neftchi (talk) 18:35, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Obviously, you have seen this, this is number 1. You have also seen it the second time here and you still say that Onnik Krikorian is an Armenian blogger while you accuse me of cherry-picking... -- Ashot  (talk) 19:31, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Neftchi, it's precisely comments like the above which exemplify why it is so difficult to achieve any progress, let alone consensus, on these articles. You have been editing on Wikipedia for years now and yet you still show an inability to understand its most fundamental premises of sourcing and attribution. This non-sequiter style of argumentation and this attitude in which you deal with absolutes serve as major obstacles for the improvement of these articles. These are two completely different cases which you have failed to discern. On the one hand, we are simply asking Mr. Krikorian to give further details regarding the photo that is attributed to him; while on the other, Mr. van de Leeuw's reliability as a source is being questioned in light of what other academics have said about his previous works and his lack of credentials to speak about an event he evidently did not witness personally nor cite any sources to support his claims. Now, please cease the dilatory and childish antics and accept the fact that this article cannot remain hinged on the word of a sole individual whose reliability as a source is far less than certain.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 19:46, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Enough of your trivial games Marshal. It were your own words that the Armenian blogger Krikorian "qualifies as a reliable source". Yet a professional and experienced journalist as Charles van de Leeuw is considered "not reliable" to you. It is clear that you try to disassociate two similar cases. It won't work this time. Your bashing one renowned journalist whose work on Karabakh and Caucasus has been used throughout and yet you favor an Armenian blogger. There must be consistency. Your bias has been exposed. And I remind you to keep your uncivil comments to yourself. Neftchi (talk) 20:51, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Counter-arguments
  • There are 2 things about the above mentioned sources:
1. All these critical reviews are concerning totally different books by C.V. Der Leeuw, but not the work we refer in the present article.
2. Most of them are personal, otherwise, the criticism is mainly about format of some of his works, lack of stylistics or its descriptive character. None of these sources deny the fact of a massacre or mention anything about Malybeily.
Source: Sasse, Gwendolyn (April 2001). "Book Review: Charles van der Leeuw, Storm over the Caucasus: In the Wake of Independence". Nations & Nationalism (Blackwell Publishing) 7 (2): 253-254. ISSN 13545078.
What this book has to do with the source we refer in the article?
Secondly, Sasse Gwendolyn - she is not an expert on Caucasian issues at all and never visited Caucasus and never made an extensive research into Caucasus. Her focus is EU policies toward its neighbourhood, and mainly Eastern Europe. A single book where NK is mentioned and where she acts as an editor only, is the "Ethnicity and Territory in the Former Soviet Union: Regions in Conflict". The biased approach of Sasse Gwendolyn is clearly proven by the Chapter in her book covering Nagorno Karabakh, which is written by staunch Armenian nationalist Razmik Pannosian. Therefore, her "formal" critique based on Armenian sources and friendships reflects more of her personal opinion rather than scholarly review.
Central Asian Survey; Jun2000, Vol. 19 Issue 2, p297-303
Author Hovann Simonian does not count at all as he is an Armenian. Please refrain from bringing up non-neutral criticism to this discussion.
Source: Hewitt, George (1999). Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London (Cambridge University Press) 62 (3): 594.
This review is also about totally different book which has nothing to do with the reference provided in M&G Massacre article.
George Hewitt, whose wife is an Abkhasian, got crossed with Van der Leeuw not because of the latter's works on Nagorno-Karabakh but because of Van der Leeuw's Chapter on Ossetia. This is also personal and has nothing to do with Nagorno Karabakh. Hewitt is really personally sensitive about this topic and does not hide his frustration about the fact that Van der Leew is touching the sacred Ossetian issue, by saying "Since the Azerbaijani case is perhaps under-represented in the West, this volume might have made useful contribution to the debate over this thorny problem, had Van der Leeuw restricted himself exclusively to this [NK] topic".
Source: Adams, Terry (February 2001). "OIL & Gas in the Caucasus (Book)". Asian Affairs 32 (1): 80.
Again, the book is about oil & gas, which has nothing to do with the source and topic we are discussing. Yet, if you read the review, indication that the book is not an easy read and to the lack of figures and numbers, or conversion of old units to modern ones, is addressed exclusively to the Chapter 6 "Return of the West" and oil & gas developments in Azerbaijan after 1993. What this comment has to to with Malybeyli massacre and NK conflict at all?
Source: Bergne, Paul (June 2001). "Azerbaijan (Book Review)". Asian Affairs 32 (2): 214.
Here again, Paul Bergne is making comment about totally different book, different work of Van der Leeuw.
Finally, the note about Van der Leeuw's detention in Lebanon represents another prove that he is a professional journalist who takes risk and chooses to travel to the hotspots of conflicts to personally witness the events before publishing anything. Angel670 talk 18:53, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

"Author Hovann Simonian does not count at all as he is an Armenian. Please refrain from bringing up non-neutral criticism to this discussion."

I stopped reading your post after this sentence. If you are going to evaluate Mr. Simonian's competence as a scholar, please do so without making any issue of his ethnicity as grounds for exclusion. With that sort of mindset, we might as well exclude Americans from commenting about affairs in Iraq or Afghanistan all "because they're American". I don't know how a serious discussion can ever take place when these sort of comments are regularly encountered time and time again by different editors.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 20:40, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I understand your concern but being a person of certain ethnicity and commenting in favor of that ethnic group can be considered bias. By the same token, when criticizing a journalist who had authored the book on the conflict, you gentlemen should refrain from including negative comments from non-neutral commentators like Simonian, just for the sake of good faith and neutrality in the discussion. Angel670 talk 20:56, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
I am glad to see such concern from Angel and Neftchi and expect to see such concern towards removing the non-neutral sources I have outlined in this article.[7]
As for Leitzinger's book, edited and published by him, I have serious concerns as outlined by WP:SPS. And I have made inquires regarding said self-published source. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


I wonder what is the value of Angel's post if we take out all the racism from it...

The reviews are about other books. True, I searched numerous scholar databases and I found nothing about that particular book (probably because it is not extremely notable). However, the messages conveyed by the reviews are enough for forming generalized opinion about the author. The person whose style may be "more suited to the tabloids than what purports to be a serious history book" obviously would not think alot on the difference of massacre and incidental killings.

So what now? The excerptions I had presented here were not intended to completely disqualify van der Leeuw (and certainly lots of useful things can be read in his works), but to reveal that van der Leeuw should be approached with "caution". The main point here is whether we can refer to the incidents taken place in Malibeyli and Gushchular as massacre based exclusively on van der Leeuw, while international human rights organizations refrain from that wording. For me the answer is negative. -- Ashot  (talk) 07:39, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Ashot what you are attempting to do is character assassination, which is against Wikipedia rules. You are trying to disqualify an author and expert in the conflict by cherry-picking for negative comments. In one example you even said that "Charles van der Leeuw was arrested in Lebanon for espionage and possession of a narcotic". Dont you find it "coincidental" that so many journalists were arrested for espionage and possession of a narcotic? Heck it still happens today all over the Middle East, just look at Iran. Im pretty sure you are smart enough to know all this. So what your saying is an unfair attempt to disqualify him. But its just not acceptable because its a neutral source attesting to the massacre. You are also doing the same thing against Angel by calling her a racist. So I remind you to be civil in your language and not to make any personal attacks. Back to the subject. Angel has proven that all the critical reviews were about different books and not the current source. Charles van der Leeuw has worked for many prominent broadcasting agencies. He was good enough for The Independent, VARA, Haagsche Courant, etc. He was good enough for Madrid, Beirut, Baku and Almaty. But he's not good enough for you? I think you need to be more reasonable. Neftchi (talk) 16:22, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I think this matter has come to a head and that some of us now realize that we unfortunately do not have serious partners who show a genuine and sincere interest in making progress on these articles. Instead we are treated with these circular conversations and have to play these silly games. Instead of properly answering our concerns, we are given nonsensical arguments and are inexplicably told that our objections are plain wrong. When sources are introduced, they are dismissed out of hand and we ourselves are absurdly accused, among other things, of character assassination. After all this, not a single neutral, third-party, or reliable, specialist source has been introduced and a move is now in order. I'm upset to see that this much time and effort has been squandered on this page.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 19:15, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

@KansanBear
As you outlined very well there are plenty neutral sources in the references and most of the article relies mainly on neutral sources. Yes, I have extra references from Azerbaijani sources, which you dont like, however, no one has prohibited to refer to the supportive information/sources. Regarding the book edited by political historian Antero Leitzinger (neutral), the Chapter of the book I refer to was written by another reputable and neutral author Charles Van der Leeuw. I hope I answered your inquiry about neutral and non-neutral sources.
@MarshallBagramyan
I thought you do not even read to the end what Im writing (as you mentioned earlier). Therefore, Im also upset that you can see but you do not want to recognise a neutral source. Angel670 talk 20:26, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
No you haven't. The non-neutral "sources" should be removed just as your buddy Neftchi removed these Armenian newssites stating they were not neutral.[8] Therefore, using the same concern shown by Neftchi, the non-neutral "sources" should also be removed from this article. Then this article can be discussed rationally. The book edited, partially written and published by Leitzinger is still questionable and I have been making inquiries as to what can and can not be used in that book. Besides that all I see is editors ignoring these facts:
  • Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:
1.the material is not unduly self-serving;
2.it does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities);
3.it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
4.there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
5.the article is not based primarily on such sources.
You can see that the "sources" I have already outlined as not-neutral[9], fail #2, because it does involve claims about a third party. Is this clear enough for you Angel? --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:00, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Kansas I certainly hope that you're not here for some kind of revenge against me for my removal of Armenian source in NK war article. Because that is not the spirit of Wikipedia. On that regard I want to point out that even Marshall and Yalens agreed that the sources were invalid. Besides there are dozens of articles which are founded and based on Armenian sources. Tigranakert (Artsakh), Targmanchats Monastery, etc are a couple examples. So its not fair when Armenian articles can explicitly use their own sources and yet Azerbaijani articles are not allowed to do so. Neftchi (talk) 17:32, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Revenge? Please. You can not even begin to address what I have stated(restrictions on self-published works, non-neutral sources). Unless you can bring something relevant to this discussion, don't waste my time. If you want to discuss "revenge-oriented" individuals I would start looking at certain off-wiki coordinated group that is highly racist and highly revenge oriented.[10] Enjoy! --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:21, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
@KB, Once again I would like to suggest you to change your aggressive manner of speaking to a civic tone. Then it will be "clear enough". Im not accepting your rude and insulting way of communication. Secondly, I do not accept that you are taking a chance to use this talk to pay revenge to Neftchi (this is how you put it in your previous comment). If you run out of your arguments, just please leave the talk or let us keep a constructive discussion.
In the link you provided about questionable sources, its clearly written Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Both Antero Leitzinger and Charles Van Der Leewu are well-established experts and have been previously published on the topics of ethnic conflicts by third parties. Just go to Google Books and you will find lots of works by these experts.
Moreover, if you wish I can bring you plenty of other neutral sources which support the article such as :
  • Svante E. Cornell. The Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict. Department of East European Studies. Report no. 46, Uppsala University, 1999, pp 29-31
  • Svante E. Cornell. Small Nations and Great Powers: Study of Ethnopolitical Conflict in the Caucasus. A study of ethnopolitical conflict in the Caucasus. p 79-81. Taylor & Francis Group. London and New-York, 2001. ISBN 0-203-98887-6
  • Johannes Rau: Der Nagorny-Karabach-Konflikt (1988-2002). S11. Verlag Dr. Köster, Berlin 2003, ISBN 3-89574-510-3
  • Tofig Kocharli. К истории Карабахского вопроса.("Towards the history of Karabakh conflict"),Section Khojaly Massacre, p32. Baku, 2009.
I hope this helps. A ngel670 talk 06:35, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
I would suggest you take your "advice" and apply it to your "buddies" and yourself. You don't like what I am saying or how I am saying it, then notify an Admin. Or maybe you should notify this group[11] and they can have me removed like they have done to others......
Run out of arguments? Why don't you start making outlandish claims like "seeking" revenge for Neftchi's edit, yet oddly I've never edited the NK war article. OOPS!!! Guess you were in such a hurry to label someone you missed that glaring fact. Sounds to me like your buddies are "running out of arguments"....
The self-published or questionable sources section I posted was concerning the numerous non-neutral sources which still violate #2. As for Leitzinger's book, van der Leeuw is not an expert on massacres, he is a journalist, not a political scientist(like the publisher), and gives no source to his claim on page 55. I am still inquiring what can exactly be used or not used in that book. From what I can tell, since Leitzinger published the book, then only what Leitzinger(who is the political scientist) wrote in that book can be used. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:07, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Svante Cornell, while not the most neutral source, still does not use the word massacre. In both of the works mentioned above, he writes, "From early February onwards, the Azeri villages of Malybeili, Karadagly, and Agdaban were conquered an their population evicted, leading to at least 99 civilian deaths and 140 wounded." Not only are the given figures combined for the capture of the three villages, but they are given in somewhat vague circumstances. For all we know, the population may have been killed in the crossfire between Armenian and Azeri forces, thus leaving us with very little room for interpretation. And the final source, that by Kocharli and published in Baku, seems to be the exact kind of sources we should be avoiding to use.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

@KB I have already addressed your concerns and unless you assume good faith and mind civility you will not get anywhere with discussion. FYI, there is no such a qualification "expert on massacres".
@Marshall Thank you for quote. As you can see from the book by Svante Cornell he also does NOT say that people were killed in the crossfire, instead he says the population was evicted, leading to at least 99 civilian deaths and 140 wounded. As it comes to Kocharli, he is one of the distinguished Soviet historians and his works on the history of Azerbaijan and Caucasus are well known. Im bringing the quote from his book:
За пару недель до этого армянские боевики захватили Aзербайджанские деревни Малыбейли и Кушчулар, расположенные в окрестностях города Шуша, при этом устроив массовую резню над 47 оставшимися позади мирными жителями села.
(English translation) Just a couple of weeks earlier, Armenian militants сaptured the villages of Malibeyli and Gushchular in the vicinity of Shusha massacring 47 Azerbaijani civilians left behind... The difference in numbers of victims does not undermine the fact of a massacre. Angel670 talk 17:11, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Wow. Good job ignoring everything I said. Talk about not getting the point. You ignored what I said about non-neutral sources and you ignored what I said about Leitzinger's book being self-published and therefore, the only "expert" is Leitzinger himself. Keep quoting "civility" and "good faith", all the while ignoring the facts, which is WHY this discussion has gotten no where. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:31, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

You're just confirming what I already said above Angel. Cornell's phrasing is so vague that he leaves it to the reader's imagination as to how exactly these civilians were killed. As editors, we're not allowed to make any interpretations beyond that, including the automatic assertion that these civilians were slaughtered in a massacre. And I'm sorry, but Kocharli who? Writing in a country where it is practically a crime to contradict state dogma and national narratives, are we really going to trust an author who, according to his Wikipedia entry, penned a work called Armenian Falsifications? He's precisely the type of "historian" Western scholars have cautioned us not to consult. Kansas Bear has hit the nail on the head – no actual discussion is taking place and all our objections are simply being dismissed outright or ignored. The discussion just runs in circles. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 21:48, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Marshall the discussion runs in circles because you do not fully read what is said. As you have pointed out that you "stopped reading your post after this sentence." You also ignore neutral like Charles van der Leeuw and academic sources like Kocharli. Who is very well known in his area of expertise. So you are wong about Kocharli. Neftchi (talk) 12:06, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
See, it's quick conclusions like the above which are so troublesome and lacking in persuasion. You base your entire argument on a single sentence and then are quick to say, "So you are wrong". There is no refutation, no clear answer - just obfuscation and silly games. No, the discussion runs in circles because you expect everyone to believe what you repeatedly say without providing any evidence to back it up. Simply saying that van der Leeuw is neutral and that Kocharli is an academic, even after all these authorities have been quoted, seems to confirm that you're just ignoring what everyone else has been saying for all this time. Sources published in Azerbaijan have such a strong tint of state propaganda to them that even Western scholars have cautioned others to avoid them at all costs. Kocharli doesn't appear to be a prolific author or someone who has at least received praise from any Western scholars, and his works should also be approached with caution because he worked in an area (modern history) which the Soviet Union guarded with extreme jealousy and later in a country which essentially dictated to him how events of the recent past had taken place. And I eventually got around reading all of Angel's comments but wasn't any more impressed. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 16:26, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
I have never heard anything more troubling than these words about a scholar based on his place of residence or qualifications. He is a historian, a distinguished Soviet historian. The fact that he disclosed the fact of the massacre does not warrant unpleasant words about him. Angel670 talk 18:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Enough with the petty posturing. It's clear that you convinced no one and, judging by your ceaseless agitation to have me banned by resorting to unearth edits that I made almost a year ago, that your objective had more to do with banning and punishing another fellow editor than for any genuine desire to see an improvement of the AA articles. I stand by criticism of Kocharli but not for the reasons you misleadingly trot out in front of other editors.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 15:47, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Der Nagorny-Karabach-Konflikt

I noticed this post by Angel.
Among many groundless accusations and things of the sort, the post says that the book Johannes Rau: Der Nagorny-Karabach-Konflikt (1988-2002). S11. Verlag Dr. Köster, Berlin 2003, ISBN 3-89574-510-3, p. 80 (citation per Angel) contains the following text:

Am 10.2.1992 begannen schwer bewaffnete armenische Aufständische Nagorny-Karabachs in Richtung Schuscha zu marschieren. Am 11.2.1992 okkupierten sie die azerbaidschanische Siedlung Malibeyli. Die Bauernhofe wurden geplündert, fast alle bewohner massakriert, die zerstorte Siedlung in Brand gesetzt. Uber eine Woche blieb diese "Herausforderung" unbeantwortet.

Its google translation is as follows:

On 02/10/1992 started heavily armed Armenian rebels Nagorno-Karabakh to march in the direction of Shusha. On 11/02/1992 they occupied the settlement Malibeyli Azerbaijan. The farm was plundered, massacred almost all inhabitants, set fire to the destroyed village. About one week was this "challenge" unanswered.

I have not yet investigated the source myself (will do soon), but I think it should be brought for discussion here. Right now I am very interested what Marshal and Kansas Bear think of it. -- Ashot  (talk) 09:04, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Two questions arise - who is Johannes Rau and what are his credentials? And does he give any footnotes for the above text?--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 15:47, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
So far I managed to find this: [12]. Nothing notable on credentials, this particular book and its publisher, and, of course, footnotes. -- Ashot  (talk) 22:59, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
I am still waiting for the non-neutral sources to be removed, before anything can be decided about this article. Until then, all of this is just so much......... --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:07, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
It's not just about removal of non-neutral sources. If things follow current track, the whole article is going to be cleaned-up and merged to a more notable one. How do you see if we come to final consensus about all the sources we have on hand so that to make final changes to the article then? -- Ashot  (talk) 05:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps an RfC is in order? This doesn't involve any mediation but I feel that the opinion of a neutral editor might suffice. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:23, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Sure, though it would be great if Angel, who introduced the quotes from "Der Nagorny-Karabach-Konflikt" and "Caucasus and an unholy alliance" provide us all with scanned versions, so that we try to form a complete opinion about the sources. We still know nothing about how the quotes appear in the text itself, what are the footnotes and references... -- Ashot  (talk) 12:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
There are no sources or references and thus no bibliography concerning, "Caucasus and an unholy alliance". --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:53, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Accordingly, "Such books are OK to use as sources only if they list a bibliography that would give them credibility in spite of the fact that they are self-published. An author who publishes a book obviously based on the scholarly and reliable work of others would have to be citable as a source, I think. It's sort of like WP articles - no sources, no good.".[13] --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:30, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


BTW, I found one more source covering events of those days: BILL, FRELICK (1994). "Faultlines of Nationality Conflict: Refugees and Displaced Persons From Armenia and Azerbaijan". International Journal of Refugee Law. 6 (4). Oxford University Press: 581–619.. The source particularly says:

... In February, the ethnic Armenians (now often called the "Karabakh Armenians" as a way of distinguishing them from Armenians from Armenia) had a series of military successes in Karabakh, taking several Azerbaijani-populated villages, including Malybeyli and Gushchular. An ugly war became even uglier, however, on 25 February 1992. For several months prior to that night, Stepanakert, the capital of the newly selfproclaimed Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, had been heavily shelled by mortars that appeared to have been fired from the town of Khojaly, the second largest Azerbaijani town in Nagorno-Karabakh. The Nagorno Karabakh paramilitary attacked Khojaly, backed by tanks and armoured personnel carriers ...

No alleged massacre is mentioned. -- Ashot  (talk) 09:36, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Request for Comment

This Request for Comment RFC concerns the use of Azerbaijani and Armenian sources in controversial AA (Azerbaijani - Armenian) articles.

Two issues are being addressed on this talk page for RfC:

  • Acceptability of Azerbaijani or Armenian authors in general, and
  • Acceptability of neutral authors who call Malibeyli and Gushchular Massacre a MASSACRE


1. Acceptability of Azerbaijani or Armenian authors in general. The first question is, how acceptable are the Azerbaijani and Armenian sources, and is it OK to use double standards in evaluation of those sources? I can demonstrate that in many AA articles such sources as Armenian Soviet Encyclopedia (!) and Bagrat Ulubabyan are used to support certain controversial claims despite the fact that Ulubabyan is criticized by the neutral researchers such as Victor Shnirelman for promoting nationalistic agenda. At the same time, all Azerbaijani sources are being rejected by certain editors on the basis of their nationality. I think there should be a common standard for the use of Azerbaijani and Armenan sources in controversial AA articles. We should either use both Azerbaijani and Armenian sources, or not use any at all. I would appreciate the comments of experienced third party editors to help resolve this situation.

As an example of seemingly double standards, case in point is AE on User MarshallBagramyan, where he was reported for dismissal of Azerbaijani authors (namely Tofig Kocharli discussed on this article's talk page) based on one of the following: ethnicity, residence, location where their books were published. As a response, MarshallBagramyan based his argument on allegations that other neutral researchers and scholars have dismissed works of Azerbaijani authors, among them Viktor Shnirelman: "I was merely repeating what Hewsen, Professor Viktor Shnirelman, and others have stated long before me. Shnirelman, a scholar who has actually studied and written about the role of Soviet nation-building at some length now, has several chapters in his book The Value of the Past: Myths, Identity, and Politics in Transcaucasia (Osaka, 2001) dealing with the subject entitled "The Median Temptation and Soviet Patriotism", "Revisionists: The Pan-Turkic Assault", "The Albanization of the Armenian Heritage", "The Albanian Myth", etc. I say all this because I wish to make it clear that this mine is not a personal preference based on nationalist lines.". Yet, at the same time this user has added or encouraged others to add works of a similar author (Bagrat Ulubabyan) but of Armenian ethnicity while ignoring the fact that exactly the same researcher Viktor Shnirelman which he had cited as "dismissing Azeri authors", also dismissed Ulubabyan. Therefore, the question arises: Why is a Soviet/Azerbaijani author Tofig Kocharli is being dismissed as a source based on his ethnicity/place of residence/location of publication while his Soviet/Armenian peer Bagrat Ulubabyan gets a more priviledged treatment being cited in a number of articles?


2. Acceptability of neutral authors who call Malibeyli and Gushchular Massacre a MASSACRE. Second question arises from the long threads above about the word massacre and whether the killings of Azerbaijani civilians in villages of Malibeyli and Gushchular constituted a massacre. The article cites references from neutral sources calling the killings a massacre, neutral sources describing the killings but not using the word massacre and Azerbaijani sources supplementing those neutral sources, calling the killings a massacre.

The main neutral sources already given to editors discussing the name of the article are:

a) Antero Leitzinger, Caucasus and an unholy alliance, Kirja-Leitzinger, 1997, p. 55, specifically calls these killings a massacre, in reference to Dutch journalist Charles van der Leeuw who had written books of conflicts in Caucasus

b) Johannes Rau: Der Nagorny-Karabach-Konflikt (1988-2002). S11. Verlag Dr. Köster, Berlin 2003, ISBN 3-89574-510-3

Supplementary neutral sources:

a) Croissant, Michael P. (2006). The Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict: causes and implications. Praeger Publishers. p. 78. ISBN 0-275-96241-5. The Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict: causes and implications. Praeger Publishers. p. 78. ISBN 0-275-96241-5

b) Goldman, Robert K. (1992). Bloodshed in the Caucasus: escalation of the armed conflict in Nagorno Karabakh. Praeger Publishers. pp. 24–27. ISBN 0-275-96241-5

c) Svante E. Cornell. Small Nations and Great Powers: Study of Ethnopolitical Conflict in the Caucasus. A study of ethnopolitical conflict in the Caucasus. p 79-81. Taylor & Francis Group. London and New-York, 2001. ISBN 0-203-98887-6

Unlike Khojaly Massacre, the information about Malibeyli and Gushchular Massacre was suppressed by the central Azerbaijani government headed by President Ayaz Mutalibov due to his inability to provide military and humanitarian help to Azerbaijani villages in Karabakh. That's why most of information did not leak on February 10-12, 1992, but later the attacks culminated in Khojaly Massacre on February 25-26, 1992. The question is, should the limited neutral sources be considered sufficient along with supplementary Azerbaijani sources to call the article Malibeyli and Gushchular Massacre? Angel670 talk 17:53, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Marshal Bagramyan

I'm not really going to comment on Angel's first point, which is more akin to a diatribe than an actual representation of the problem and seems to ignore the genuine reasons why her favored authors are being rejected. The sources originating in Azerbaijan have such strong tint of propaganda to them that their sole objective appears to advance a political agenda. The same applies to Tofik Kocharli, whose work Armenian Deception does not come off as a neutral source, a notion which is confirmed after a quick perusal of the book's contents here.

The supplementary sources that he cites in his second point do not support the main thesis of the article. Croissant simply says that a military station at Malibeyli was attacked and makes no mention of civilians being killed. Goldman's book includes the testimonies of civilians who fled Malibeyli but there is likewise no clear notion that a massacre was perpetrated. Cornell simply says that civilians were killed in the attack but it is left to the reader's imagination as to how exactly there were killed (killed in the crossfire between Armenian and Azeri soldiers? a massacre? starvation? freezing to death?, etc.) As for the two sources which do explicitly use the word massacre: the first (edited by Leitzinger) is by a journalist by the name of van der Leeuw who does not backup his comments by citing any sources and, according to the reviews of his other works, is not quite impartial and is not by any stretch of the imagination abiding by basic scholarly standards. The author of the second source is Johannes Rau, who apparently is a sociologist and thus seems unqualified to comment about such a controversial issue. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 21:43, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

And how long do we have to wait for any comments? It would appear that after one week and no comments from outside sources, this needs to go to a third opinion or dispute resolution. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:16, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
The policies imply the RfC can last 30 days and can even be extended if consensus is not reached. So, please be patient and allow third parties to look at the subject. Thanks a lot. Angel670 talk 14:03, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment

1) The reliability of Armenian, Azeri/Azerbaijani or Turkish sources in the frames of AA conflicts and resolutions are long known. Sides must exercise utmost care when using these sources especially in picky subjects such as massacres or other strong allegations. If certain news agencies or sources are sites that are noted to be under strong pressure for bias, including them in an article containing strong allegations means simply biasing it.

2) Strong POVs need strong reliable sources. This is a rule of WP. The strong sources sited above and having NPV do not confirm the allegation of massacre. Other 2 seemingly NPV sources do not seem to have a strongly backed and documented background for allegations of such type. By this they do not seem to match the criteria of being a strong source. Aregakn (talk) 07:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Please allow it for the non-involved editors to comment. Angel670 talk 01:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Please be so kind not to shut the mouths of others to express one or another opinion. Everynody has a right for that. Thank you Aregakn (talk) 21:28, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Uninvolved editor opinion

(1) Regarding the sources: if the sources' ethnicity/nationality makes them potentially biased, then the ethnicity/nationality should be identified in the text. Example: Rather than say "An estimated 40 persons died" write "J. Smith, Azerb. journalist, estimates that 40 persons died, while Armenian politician B. Brown claims that there were no deaths". Thus, the sources' affiliations are presented to the reader, and the reader can infer potential bias. If other sources make explicit claims of bias against the primar source, those can also be included, either in the main text or in a footnote as in: "Professor of History at university XYZ notes that B. Brown is biased because blah, blah".

(2) The title of the article: "Massacre" vs "Incident" vs "Alleged massacre". The title needs to reflect the terminology that the majority of mainstream sources use. Google counts are commonly used to make this determination. Unfortunately, this is not a broadly discussed topic, so not many sources will have named it, and google may not help. It is additionally complicated by the fact that most sources that mention it will be somewhat partisan. The best way to resolve the title/terminology is to - painful, but necessary - list all the sources and count how many use the various terms. For instance, if 18 sources use "massacre" but 42 sources use "alleged massacre" then the latter must prevail (I'm making those numbers up, for the sake of example). If some of the sources are biased, then it would be better to omit them from the count, and limit the counting to non-partisan sources (neutral historians and journalists). --Noleander (talk) 02:55, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Noleander, thank you for your input in this RfC. My response is below:
(1) I would not oppose to underlining the names or origin of sources which present a certain fact or opinion if this rule is applied to all other articles including ones where Ulubabyan is used as a source. This means that fair treatment of sources from both sides should be applied in Wikipedia articles.
(2) This is true. You will likely to find more sources confirming this was a massacre than those refuting it, which makes us rely on neutral sources. That's why the editors who have been asking for neutral and non-partisan authors calling these killings a massacre, received them. So, there should be no other argument to deny this was a massacre. Angel670 talk 13:48, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Note: (1) This talk page is not about Ulubabyan. As far as we know he is not in the list of disputed authors for the current article. This type of questions should be raised either centralized (WP:RSN) or on the discussion pages of respective articles. (2) In the light of preceding discussion the phrase "received them" is absurd. It would be good of Angel to read WP:HEAR and WP:TE. Furthermore, unfortunately, till this point Angel hasn't even provided us with digital copies of those only two sources that use the term "massacre" for further research. -- Ashot  (talk) 16:32, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
(1) The discussion and RfC does involve questions and concerns of editors on usage of authors from sides of the conflict (Azerbaijani and Armenian) and yes Ulubabyan is a part of the discussion in the context of reliability of these authors, since a similar author Tofig Kocharli is mentioned on this talk page. Your attempts to supress the discussion or divert it to another route is not warranted.
(2) None of my statements is "absurd" and I ask and warn you to mind civility. You asked for neutral sources and provided them, which means you received them, as requested. And yes, I did say I could provide the scanned pages of the neutral sources. You can email me and I'll reply with an attachment. Angel670 talk 17:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
What is missing from this discussion are specific quotes from sources, specifically those sources that use the term "massacre", and those that refute the notion of a massacre. For example, an editor above provided a list of five sources (from Leitzinger to Cornell) that purportedly use the term "massacre": we need full quotes from those sources, including the context of the quote (i.e. sentences before and after the sentence that uses the word "massacre" ... no digitized text needed: just type in the full quote here in the Talk page). At the same time, other editors should provide, if available, sources that use alternative terms ("incident', "alleged massacre", "fabrication", "propoganda", etc), including a brief point about possible bias of the sources. Until some specific quotes are presented here (with possible bias identified) it will be hard to come to a conclusion. --Noleander (talk) 17:51, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Dear Noleander, thanks for your reply. Here are the quotes from sources that do use the word massacre:
(a) Source: Johannes Rau (2003). Der Nagorny-Karabach-Konflikt (1988-2002), p 80. Verlag Dr. Köster, Berlin. ISBN 3-89574-510-3

Am 10.2.1992 begannen schwer bewaffnete armenische Aufständische Nagorny-Karabachs in Richtung Schuscha zu marschieren. Am 11.2.1992 okkupierten sie die azerbaidschanische Siedlung Malibeyli. Die Bauernhofe wurden geplündert, fast alle bewohner massakriert, die zerstorte Siedlung in Brand gesetzt. Uber eine Woche blieb diese "Herausforderung" unbeantwortet.

and its google translation

On 02/10/1992 heavily armed Armenian rebels in Nagorno-Karabakh started to march in the direction of Shusha. On 11/02/1992 they occupied the settlement of Malibeyli of Azerbaijan. The farms were looted, almost all inhabitants massacred, and the rest of the village was set to fire. About one week this "challenge" remained unanswered.

(b) Source: Antero Leitzinger (1997). Caucasus and an unholy alliance, Kirja-Leitzinger, p. 55, ISBN 952-9752-16-4

On 11 February, hell was to break loose as heavily armed Armenian rebel troops moved westward in the direction of Shusha and took the village of Malibeyli, ransacked its farms, massacred its inhabitants and finally set fire on the community's remainders

(c) Source: Charles Van der Leeuw. Azerbaijan: A Quest for Identity (Caucasus World). p 171. Palgrave MacMillan. ISBN 0-312-21903-2
  • I am expecting this book from library interlending and will quote it here as soon as I get it.
(d) Source: Kathleen Pellatt (2008). Nagorno-Karabakh, Abkhazia and Chechnya: Violence and autonomy in Eurasia's secessionist conflicts. A Thesis submitted to the Division of Graduate Studies of the Royal Military College of Canada. ISBN 978-0-494-47900-1.

p.86 Footnote: Malibeili can also be transliterated as Malybeyli. Armenian forces also attacked the Azeris towns of Karadagly and Agdaban. The ethnic cleansing of these three towns is estimated to have resulted in 99 deaths, and van der Leeuw writes that the villages were burned down as well.

Thank you. Angel670 talk 18:36, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Quick Note: In (b) Antero Leitzinger is the editor, author of the particular chapter is Charles Van der Leeuw, (d) again refers to Charles Van der Leeuw as primary source. We still have those only two sources: Charles Van der Leeuw and Johannes Rau. Furthermore, as Noleander and other editors can see, there are no quotes from Croissant, Goldman or Cornell as it was misleadingly mentioned in the RfC.
Angel also mentioned that he/she can send an email to me. Since I am not alone here, there are many other options to do provide those data to editors, e.g. upload in Wikipedia, GoogleDocs, etc... -- Ashot  (talk) 04:57, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Leitzinger's book is self published which, according to inquiries I have made, should not be used. I see that the unpublished non-neutral sources continue to be intentionally "not mentioned". --Kansas Bear (talk) 12:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
1. Antero Leitzinger is a Finnish Political Historian and his works have been published by third-party sources. The library of the Sheffield University in UK considers this book a reliable source for post-graduate research in Politics and History.
2. Regarding Chapter by Charles Van der Leeuw in Leitzinger edited book – yet it is another source, considering that C.Van der Leeuw has published a number of works about NK and other conflicts in post-Soviet space.
3. Kathleen Pellatt citing C. Van der Leeuw – it is another proof that C. Van der Leeuw is a widely cited author and his works, even in different books, by different publishers, are good enough for scholarly research.
4. Quotes from Croissant, Goldman and Cornell are not "misleading". As mentioned above they are supplementary sources which attest to the fact of mass killings of civilians. We have three sources (Antero Leitzinger-Van der Leeuw, Van der Leeuw and Rau Johannes calling it a massacre, and a new source Kathleen Pellatt, who calls it ethnic cleansing (ethnic cleansing of these three towns is estimated to have resulted in 99 deaths...). New sources keep coming up and will appear because they exist, some may not have yet been uploaded to Google Books, but the fact of the massacre is undeniable.
I don't know how to upload PDF files here. As I said, anyone can send me an email and I'll send it to you. You can then upload it for everyone else who want to see the scans. Angel670 talk 16:12, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
1. Leitzinger's book is self-published. The numerous inquires I made to other editors was virtually unanimous in the avoidance of using self-published books. The fact that Leitzinger has been published by a 3rd party only allows, according to other editors, for what he wrote to be used.
2. Leeuw's opinion in Leitzinger's self-published book is not acceptable according to Wikipedia standards. However, this:Charles Van der Leeuw. Azerbaijan: A Quest for Identity (Caucasus World). p 171. Palgrave MacMillan. ISBN 0-312-21903-2, is acceptable(at least to me) and can be viewed on amazon.com.
3. "Kathleen Pellatt"? What books has she wrote? google books - 0 hits; amazon.com - 0 hit. Besides, if all she is doing is quoting Van der Leeuw, it is redundant.
4. Leitzinger-self-published-, Van der Leeuw in his book mentions massacre, a search for Malibeyli in Rau Johannes book resulted in nothing(and it is not searchable via German amazon.com)[14].
So when are the unpublished non-neutral "sources" going to be removed? --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:16, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
BTW, Kathleen Pellatt's work is a master thesis prepared at Royal Military College of Canada ([15]). WP:RS states that "Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a PhD... are considered publications by scholars and are routinely cited in footnotes." I wonder if master thesis at all counts. -- Ashot  (talk) 05:37, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Note: I made an inquiry and found out that "masters theses are not reliable" so there is no need to further discuss Kathleen Pellatt as a source. -- Ashot  (talk) 08:40, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
(1) As I already mentioned, Leitzinger is a political historian, whose works in the field have been extensively used and published by political institutions and magazine: [16][17], [18], [19],etc. He is an editor and publisher of the book listed above, where we refer to the chapter written yet by a different author and expert in the field, Charles Van der Leeuw.
I am not sure what kind of inquiries you have made, but specific boards is where the discussion has to occur on this kind of resources, and if rejected, this must be a rule for all articles. Selective canvassing and posting only selective messages to one's like is not encouraged. However, I am addressing your concern anyway. The Wikipedia policy on Self-published sources clearly states that Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Take care when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so. Leitzinger's works on conflicts and political issues have been published as shown above and the naming of the Malibeyli and Gushchular killings a massacre has been corraborated by other sources and new sources not availbale online yet, still keep appearing.
(2) Kathleen Pellatt's work is accepted. That work is based on relaible sources as well. As I mentioned before, authors research and base their works on third party sources. Pellatt is no different. Moreover, Ashot, did you find out that "We have occasionally accepted specific masters theses where they can be demonstrated to meet the criteria of scholarly texts" as well?
(3) Now when you agree we have two sources (Rau Johannes and Van der Leeuw), plus third one by Charles Van der Leeuw in Antero Leiztinger edited book, which is also a neutral and reputable source, and while I have been listing everything stating it was a massacre, as requested by Noleander, you have yet to bring neutral sources indicating it was not a massacre. Instead, you slander well known authors, journalists and their books.
(4) Kansas Bear, I don't know what you search and where you search but you can purchase the books online or send me an email and I will send you a scan. Your argument that you can’t find the book online does not stand. Many good books are not available for review online, but you can get them at reputable libraries, or purchase online as I did when couldn't find some.
I suggest we let the third party review the arguments and comment. This is why the request is called Request for Comment and it is expected that we hear the opinion of non-involved editors, presenting a case and providing information for him or her, as requested. Angel670 talk 20:03, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
This is your answer? Accusations of canvassing and slander? You want canvassing, talk to this group[20]. Which is in existance to further their government's opinion of history. So do not spew your hate towards me. Unlike those in that "secret society", I am not a racist. As usual, any editing concerning this area(Armenia, Azerbaijan, Turkey) continues to be degraded into the same sad ethnic hatred.
I asked editors that I have worked with to give their opinions regarding a self-published work(while not mentioning the particulars concerning massacres, ethnic disputes, Nagorno-Karabakh). I did make an inquiry on the Reliable sources board[21], receiving only one response. Editors I asked and responded were; User:Malleus Fatuorum, User:Srnec, User:Surtsicna, User:Dr K, just to name a few. Undoubtedly you will find something wrong with their opinion, either ethnicity or some other failing.
Pity, yet again no mention as to why unpublished non-neutral websites continue to remain. Talk about "selective canvassing".....
So after having been insulted again, "selective canvassing", "slander",(which is the typical response concerning this area of editing), I will leave. Which was the entire reason for such insults. sine odio --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:04, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, this is my best answer. If you re-read my message carefully without your “emotional victimisation”, you will find my answer to your question. I understand in lack of proper answer to the request by uninvolved editor to provide sources backing your argument of denying a massacre, you decided to send a sentimental message. The reason discussion went nowhere is that you are trying to divert the attention from the actual discussion and keep slandering neutral sources and authors in an attempt to disqualify them, while so far you haven’t provided any firm counter source.
Moreover, we have RfC open and we have a neutral person who responded the RfC. You should ask your questions on the board of RfC to be transparent instead of canvassing and posting here selective messages.
At this stage, the best we can do is to provide here the requested information, so that a person who mediates would make his/her conclusion. So, instead of "self victimisation" messages and author-slandering diverting the attention from the subject matter, providing neutral sources, which deny a massacre (as requested by Noleander), would be better. Angel670 talk 15:44, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
And the source to back the "massacre" is a student of a college. Sounds promising... -- Ashot  (talk) 08:27, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
So far, I don't see many reliable sources that use the word "massacre". Just 2 or 3 sources are not sufficient, particularly if one is self-published. The term "massacre" does seem to be used a little bit within the indexing range of Google, but it appears to be mostly partisan sources that represent one side of a conflict. Unfortunately, this massacre/incident is just not very widely described. The bottom line is there are not very many sources that really talk about this topic. I think the next step is to see if there are any quotes from sources that say it is not a massacre (specifically, if they claim that the allegation of a "massacre" is propaganda, etc). Can any editors supply such sources? If so, that would demonstrate that there is an ongoing dispute over whether it was a massacre or not, and WP cannot take sides, so the article title would need to change to "incident" or "alleged massacre" or similar. --Noleander (talk) 19:42, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
The incident we discuss here seems to be not very notable by default. We have 2 authors (van der Leeuw, and Rau) who use the term "massacre", but the credibility of both seems to be arguable (see the long discussions above). We have 3 sources that cover the incident but don't use the term "massacre" or something of a sort (Croissant, Goldman, and Cornell), and there are authors who don't even mention the incident in their research related to that time and location which may be either due to lack of notability or awareness (e.g. Frelick). My searches in numerous reputable scholar databases failed to find any further notes on the incidents, so I don't think there can be any other reliable source to either attest or reject the term "massacre". -- Ashot  (talk) 07:52, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, but what is the path forward? There are four choices: (1) keep article with Massacre in title; (2) keep article, but change title to "Incident" or "Alleged Massacre" or "Battle of .."; (3) delete the article via WP:AFD process; (4) delete the article by merging it into Nagorno-Karabakh War. We dont have enough information to select one of those choices. If no editor can provide sources denying the massacre, then maybe (1) is best. But if sources that deny are found, then (2) may be best. If the topic is very rarely mentioned, then (3) or (4) may be best, but an AfD should be initiated if an editor want to do (3) or (4). --Noleander (talk) 12:55, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
I think we should not be in search of denial of unnotable claims (hardly any serious scholar would engage in denying a couple of sentences written by van der Leeuw or Rau), rather we should check whether there are any serious claims for the term "massacre". If yes, then (1) is OK, if no, then other options should be implemented (I think this proposal by Marshal Baghramyan is still valid). However, so far we seem not to have well-grounded sources to claim the "massacre" and support (1). -- Ashot  (talk) 14:35, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, you are correct, denials may not be available if very few assertions of massacre are made (and the topic is not especially publicized). I like the suggestion of "Battle of ..." as a title that may be less problematic. That would fall under "path 2" ... leaving the article, but picking a more neutral title. Of the two choices Battles of Malibeyli and Gushchular vs. Malibeyli and Gushchular Incident, which seems better? Editor Marshal B. also suggests path (5) which is merging the three "massacre" articles into one named Nagorno-Karabakh War: 1993 Summer Offensives or similar. --Noleander (talk) 14:55, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
I would support a temporary move to Battles of Malibeyli and Gushchular. If the other two articles seem to be built on such shaky foundations, I would also contemplate merging these three into a single article. But for the moment, Battles of... sounds fine by me.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:45, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
I would have agreed with option (2) or (5) if there were sources provided to deny a massacre, as Noleander suggested, or to claim it was Malibeyli and Gushchular battle. All sources we have (Van der Leeuw, Johannes, Croissant, Goldman, and Cornell) say civilians in these villages were left at the mercy of advancing well-prepared armed units and deliberately massacred, killed, evicted, the whole villages burnt down and swept away from the Earth's surface. Therefore, both options (2) and (5) remain a personal POV only not backed up by any source so far. If the article can not be improved further more, the only viable option remains (1), with incorporation of new neutral sources supporting the article title and contents to the reference list. Angel670 talk 13:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Angel670: The problem is that "massacre" is a very, very loaded word, and we need some very strong sources to justify using it in the title of the article. We dont quite have enough sources yet (although those sources do permit using the word "massacre" in the body of the article, where context can be given). How about this source: Human Rights Watch / Helsinki. Azerbaijan: Seven Years of Conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh. New York. 1994 .. this source is mentioned in another article, and it may be useful. Do you have access to it and can you provide some quotes from it that use the word "massacre"regarding this topic? If we cannot get more sources, it may be better to change the title to "Battle of ..." until more sources are found (which may happen over time; or may not). --Noleander (talk) 14:47, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Dear Noleander, your feedback is very interesting but the terminology of "battle" is different from what actually took place. As Angel pointed out civilians were killed by well prepared soldiers. There is no such thing as a battle between civilians and soldiers. And how do we know it was an incident? No source calls this a battle or an incident, but there are clear sources which call it a massacre. Its logical why. The killing of dozens of civilians is a massacre, that does not change. This article has many similarities with Maraga Massacre page. That page also is backed by several POV sources. My suggestion is that there must be consistency in the usage of massacre. If Maraga was a massacre, then so was Malibeyli and Gushchular. Neftchi (talk) 15:55, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
  • WP is not a barter trade bazaar and Neftchi has been notified about that for several times earlier. If there are POV sources, they should be either removed or clarified about being as such. If one sees problems in other articles' sourcing, it is always allowed to start a discussion out there. But if, say, something is wrong in any other article, it doesn't mean it should be wrong here too. -- Ashot  (talk) 16:35, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

You're deliberately misleading Noleander, Neftchi. What distinguishes a massacre is the intent of the perpetrator to cause bodily harm to the victims. While the sources used on Maraga are clear in saying that the the Armenian villagers were left at the mercy of advancing Azerbaijani armor and were killed en masse, it's clear that these two villages were targets for a military operation and that if civilians were killed they might have been killed in the crossfire between Armenian and Azerbaijani troops. None of the neutral sources use the word "massacre", including Human Rights Watch, and the circumstances revolving around their deaths are almost as uncertain. In the clear absence of such evidence, "Battle of..." is our best alternative.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 16:43, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Ashot you cannot deprive me of my right to give feedback or make new suggestions. Keep in mind that Wikipedia is an open and free encyclopedia. My point is that Maraga, Malibeyli and Gushchular are all the same-related conflict and therefore consistency in terminology is one of the basic points to keep these articles objective. We cannot call one a massacre and the other a battle. That is not be according to Wikipedia standards.
As for Marshall, "deliberate misleading" those are some harsh accusations, I warn you not to make any further unground accusations. There is no need for your colorful language. But I agree with your point Marshall, the same thing that happened in Maraga happened in Malibeyli and Gushchular. As Angel said before you regarding Malibeyli and Gushchular: "Civilians in these villages were left at the mercy of advancing well-prepared armed units" - that is exacly what you said on Maraga. So this shows the relation between these massacres, therefore consistancy in terminology must be maintained. Neftchi (talk) 18:16, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Neftchi, apparently you are very fond of hearing what you want to hear and actually just misinterpreted what I wrote above. Nowhere in the reliable sources do we read that the civilian population was "left at the mercy" of the attacking troops. Rather, the image that emerges from this admittedly chaotic picture is that the Azerbaijani troops were unable to hold back the advancing the Armenians and a general retreat was ordered. That the civilians may have been caught in the crossfire between Armenian and Azeri troops is plausible and probable but the sources are so meager that this is about as far as we can go before stepping into original research territory. Like Ashot said, you should stop trying to barter for changes and act more seriously when these kinds of disputes arise. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:37, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
@Noleander: Yes, I know what you mean and many thanks for providing one more source. I have access to that document which is brilliant and helpful. The only thing is that its describing events starting from 1993, while these massacres took place in early 1992. It means in early 1992 there was no proper battle, except for self-defending villagers, why it would be wrong to use the word battle which is nothing else but someone's WP:OR. There were no international mediators or whatsover at that time in Nagorno-Karabakh except few journalists, and Azerbaijani villages were totally at the mercy of advancing ethnic Armenian armed forced. This is proved by the sources and quotes I’m going to provide below about exactly end of 1991 and early 1992. Full-scale war started after the series of massacres in Azeri villages. The very good thing about the document you advised is that its providing proof of that.

page xviii. By mid-1992 Karabakh Armenian troops had forced out all of Nagorno-Karabakh’s Azeris population.

page 2. On January 6, 1992 the Nagorno Karabakh "Republic" parliament declared independence from Azerbaijan.

page 6. Karabakh erupted into full-scale war in 1992... Four major events characterized the war in 1992: the massacre of hundreds of Azeri civilians in Khojaly, NKAO, by Karabakh forces with alleged support of the 366th Regiment of the Russian army; the Karabakh Armenian seizure of Shusha, the last Azeri-populated town in Karabakh (it served as a fire base for attacks on Stepanakert); the Karabakh Armenian capture of the Azerbaijani town of Lachin and the six-mile "corridor" between Nagorno-Karabakh and Armenia; and the June 1992 Azerbaijani offensive against Mardakert province in Nagorno-Karabakh. Serious human rights violations by both sides characterized all the above actions

Please note: the listing of major events start with the massacre of Azeri civilians. The Malibeyli and Gushchular massacre took place few days before the first major event mentioned in this document – before Khojali.


(a) Charles Van der Leeuw,1998. Storm over the Caucasus: In the wake of Independence. Curzon Press. Richmond. ISBN 0700711163. page 58.

It is generally accepted that the horrors of Khojali, Shusha, Lachin and several dozens of other similar massacres on a lesser scale elsewhere in the area during the first half of 1992 were the handiwork of Oganian and his followers.

(b)Svante E. Cornell (1999). The Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict.. Department of East European Studies. Report no. 46, Department of East European Studies, Uppsala University, page 31.

By early 1992, the power vacuum created by the dissolution of the Soviet Union led to the loss of the last factor containing the conflict. Thus with the imminent withdrawal of the formerly Soviet forces, Karabakh became the scene of what gradually increased to a full-scale war. The Armenian side, having prepared itself to solve the conflict through military means, did not lose any time to act. From early February onwards, the Azeri villages of Malybeili, Karadagly, and Agdaban were conquered and their population evicted, leading to at least 99 civilian deaths and 140 wounded

(c) Thomas de Waal (2003). Black Garden: Armenia and Azerbaijan through Peace and War. New York University Press. ISBN 08147-1944-9. p.166-169

At the end of 1991, Nagorny Karabakh was still a mosaic of Azerbaijani and Armenian villages. As Soviet forces pulled out, each side tried to redraw this complex map in its favour. The less numerous Karabakh Azerbaijani villages found themselves in dozens of small traps, at the mercy of Armenian fedayin. According to the Armenian leader Robert Kocharian, "When [the Soviet] forces withdrew we were left one on one with Azerbaijan, one on one, but organized and having as a minimum three or four years of experience of underground activity." These Armenian fighters began to intimidate Karabakh Azerbaijanis out of their villages. In the euphemistic explanation of the Armenian military commander Serzh Sarkisian, "We took the decision to try to reduce the line of the front..."

The Armenians armed themselves by taking over most of the arsenal of the Soviet forces, stationed in Karabakh. "It was a very solid foundation," said Robert Kocharian. "All of the equipment stayed, we did not allow it to be removed..."

On 22 December, armed Armenians broke into the barracks of the police regiment in Stepanakert, seized the ammunition store and armored vehicles, and forced the unit to leave Karabakh without its weapons. One Russian driver was killed in a shoot-out. That at least is the official version of events—it is possible that the raid was a cover for a business deal.

The regular units of the 4th Army of Azerbaijan, manned by conscripts from across the Soviet Union, were in disarray. Soldiers from far- flung republics simply left their units and traveled home. Stepanakert had been the base for the 366th Motorized Regiment since August 1988. Officers in the 366th began to help the Armenians...

Beginning in the New Year of 1992, the Armenians began to break out of the Karabakhi capital, Stepanakert. They captured the Azerbaijani villages that surrounded the town, expelling the hundreds of Azerbaijanis who remained there. Their main target was now Khojali

The fact the civilians were deliberately killed is proven by Thomas De Waal in the interview of Serzh Sargsyan, who admitted killings of civilians, p.172 of the same book, De Waal is writing:

Asked about the taking of Khojali, the Armenian military leader Serzh Sarkisian said carefully, "We don’t speak loudly about these things." "A lot was exaggerated" in the casualties and the fleeing Azerbaijanis had put up armed resistance", he claimed. Sarkisian’s summation of what had happened, however, was more honest and more brutal: "But I think the main point is something different. Before Khojali, the Azerbaijanis thought that they were joking with us, they thought that the Armenians were people who could not raise their hand against the civilian population. We were able to break that [stereotype]. And that’s what happened". Sarkisian’s account throws a different light on the worst massacre of the Karabakh war, suggesting that the killings may, at least in part, have been a deliberate act of mass killing as intimidation.

And these are few to mention. So, we have clear evidence of what had been happening in Nagorno Karabakh by early 1992, there was no battle, and what has happened in February 1992 was a deliberate killings of civilians. We have proves by Charles Van der Leeuw and Rau Johannes, both of which are neutral and notable sources calling it exactly a massacre. Numerous other sources are describing the horror and intimidation the people in these villages lived, what falls within the definition of an ethnic cleansing and massacre. We do not invent words and can not put words other than massacre to avoid WP:OR.
Later on I will bring quotes of the events from the second book by Charles Van der Leeuw Azerbaijan: A Quest for Identity exactly about how these massacres happened, which Im still waiting. I would like to ask whats the Wiki requirement on the number of sources to support the particular title? Thank you.Angel670 talk 14:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The above is nothing more than circumstantial evidence presented by Angel which aims to tie in different events with an overall theme of Armenian aggression. It detracts us from the real discussion on what took place Malibeyli and is a waste of time for all the editors currently involved in this RfC. Angel's original research comes off as a desperate attempt to subvert a discussion which is about to reach a decision by a deluge of irrelevant quotations, based solely on the words of authors who have dubious backgrounds. It's circular games like this which have stopped any progress from being made on this article for several months now.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 16:30, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Really? ALL the neutral authors have dubious background? It looks like if the view of these authors does not match your personal POV you are ready to label them with "dubious background" which is Character Assassination and Defamation. Could you please explain in details what do you mean by "dubious"? What about publishers? Are they also falling under your categorisation of "dubious"? New York University Press? Curzon Press? Don't you think you are pushing your personal POV too harsh and belittling everyone who does not satisfy your personal POV. Angel670 talk 17:38, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The only people who have explicitly used the word massacre or referred to intentional killings have been van der Leeuw, a journalist whose credentials are nothing to boast about, and someone called Johannes Rau. Every other author cited above is talking about events that are entirely irrelevant to Malibeyli and give the impression that you are just grasping for straws. I would say that you are engaged in original research and that you are the one who is actually wasting everyone's time by playing these circular games and using stonewall tactics to prevent anything from being accomplished.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 01:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi all. Just jumped in and saw that it was mentioned once in a comment above, that the rules of Wikipedia demand strong reliable sources if the point of view is also strong. Reading through the comments of the uninvolved editor I saw he confirms that. What is the discussion here for, if such strong and reliable sources are not found?! The term can be a POV of 1 or 2 non-essential authors but that cannot be enouth for an encyclopedic article, can it?
I would support the title to change to "Battle(s) of.." and maybe the article can be mentioned in the overall "NK war". 109.75.34.150 (talk) 20:32, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Should we go ahead with the move since no demonstrably serious objections have been lodged?--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 22:37, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
It's more than obvious now (especially after that last (desperate?) attempt we all witnessed here). I think, though, Noleander's opinion would be very appreciated. -- Ashot  (talk) 11:07, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
What is that supposed to mean "No serious" objections? You should probably re-read the whole discussion before making any unserious claims here. Noleander has openly asked you to provide sources refuting the massacres took place? Once you find those neutral sources, you may bring new arguments. Until then, I see no logic in your arguments. Angel670 talk 08:25, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


Angel's post is strange at least in the light of Noleander's last message. If WP:HEAR is continuously violated by this editor, I guess the issue should be raised at a relevant noticeboard. -- Ashot  (talk) 10:12, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I do not appreciate Ashots and MB's personal attacks like "desperate", "games" etc. Before showing me that diff I suggest Ashot and MB show a bit of respect to RfC and re-read my last message where I'm providing famous quotes from well-known sources on Nagorno Karabakh war which prove there was NO Malibeyli and Gushchular battle but there WAS exactly Malibeyli and Gushchular massacre. All above sources are supporting my statement. In the same message I'm asking a question. The disrespect to RfC and violation of WP:HEAR by these users are clearly traceable through the whole talkage.
Therefore, instead of pointing on me I would suggest users Ashot and MB think that they failed to respond to the request by Noleander to provide a neutral source stating there was no massacre. The failure to oppose the word "massacre" with valid sources is quite telling.
Meanwhile, I suggest user Ashot clearly formulates what is his argument, otherwise agreeing that we have two neutral sources (while dismissing the rest) calling the event a massacre, and then stepping back from his own words is not a good indicator. Ashot's and MB's attitude sounds more of WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. Also I do not appreciate that user Ashot rushed to edit the article about Charles van der Leeuw and added edit that van der Leeuw was "seriously criticised", while the author has got many positive reviews too. It is not fair to show criticism only while a person received an appreciation too. Moreover, what is more important is that Van der Leeuw's books are extensively cited in scholarly research and we constantly come across his name in the bibliography of research works on Nagorno Karabakh war. Ashot's edit that Charles van der Leeuw wrote his book during his stay in Baku is totally false and mistaken too. For writing his books he lived in Yerevan too. The most interesting is that in Yerevan he worked closely with then Armenian President Ter-Petrossian's administration for quite a lengthy period. I just wonder how it happened that user Ashot missed that? It is not good to throw groundless and biased information to Wiki. In addition to staying and working in both Baku and Yerevan, van der Leeuw was travelling along the frontline throughout the whole Nagorno Karabakh War. All these are described in his two books I mentioned earlier. These users just need to go, read and come back with firm knowledge before commenting on RfC page or editing on the subject matter. For this, they have been given sufficient time. User Ashot's edits about Charles van der Leeuw are more than strange if not totally false and intentionally misleading. I hope administrators pay attention at how users Ashot and MB are mistreating Wiki by modifying articles with false information to support their biased unsourced arguments, and that when failing to oppose any statement they tend to apply personal attacks, defamation and using slandering and harsh vocabulary.
Coming back to the 1st part of RfC, from the comment by uninvolved editor I understand I can cite Tofig Kocharli in this article by indicating to his Soviet/Azerbaijani origin.
And finally, I suggest users Ashot and MB refrain from personal attacks and wait for the uninvolved editor to read my last messages and respond. Thanks. Angel670 talk 08:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Instead of running circular discussions, you might consider reading (1) WP:HEAR, which would probably help you give an ear to Noleander's last message, (2) WP:NOR, which would help you understand that this is not a place for original research (regarding those several totally unrelated quotes you brought in).
Finally, if you see problems with my edits in van der Leeuw's article, you are welcome to address the issue in its talkpage.
PS: Claiming that I ever said "during his stay in Baku" is nonsense. -- Ashot  (talk) 10:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
For you it is a circular discussion because you keep repeating MB's words. At some point you agree and accept the book by Charles van der Leeuw supporting the word "massacre", and then you step back, what doesn't look serious. If you can't bring anything new to this discussion then there is not point in opposing it indeed. I do not think so many posts by you and MB have contribited at all to the improvement of the article.
Regarding Wiki article about Charles Van der Leeuw, you can write there whatever you want, as long as admins see your intention behind editing that article and adding biased information. You do use the expression during his stay in Baku which is sending a wrong message. Van der Leeuw wrote his books during travelling across the whole Caucasus. You should see the difference. Angel670 talk 11:17, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
I really can't follow the track of your mind... Nothing what you said in your response is true.
PS: "You do use the expression during his stay in Baku which is sending a wrong message." Where? -- Ashot  (talk) 12:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

She refers to your discussion in this talk page where you were implying Charles is biased because he was in Baku. He was not only in Baku. He lived in many places, including Yerevan. Please reserch everything on author before making comments. The neutral person Noleander asked for proof and neutral sources which say this was not massacre. So you did not supply any sources. Everybody sees how many neutral and good sources Angel gave you but you again try to eliminate them. Not good. Dighapet (talk) 12:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

You'd better read the discussions above prior to engaging in the conversation with your nonsense about what I implied or tried or what Noleander said. -- Ashot  (talk) 13:12, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
I warn you to be civil. Clear your mind from agression and read your comments on him and his stay in Baku in the above sections. Also read what Noleander asked. Dighapet (talk) 13:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Reread my previous message. -- Ashot  (talk) 13:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Summary of sources that use the word massacre

In response to a request for more sources, the following have been provided:

  • Human Rights Watch / Helsinki. Azerbaijan: Seven Years of Conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh. New York. 1994 - Uses the word "massacre", but focuses on events 1993 onward (the topic of this article is 1992)
  • Charles Van der Leeuw,1998. Storm over the Caucasus: In the wake of Independence. Curzon Press. - Word "massacre" is used, but Malibeyli and Gushchular are not specifically mentioned.
  • Svante E. Cornell (1999). The Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict. Department of East European Studies. Report no. 46, Department of East European Studies, Uppsala University, - Does not use the word massacre.
  • Thomas de Waal (2003). Black Garden: Armenia and Azerbaijan through Peace and War. New York University Press - Does use the word "massacre", but apparently when summarizing the comments of an interviewee, Sarkisian.

My assessment is that the use of the word "massacre" is indeed found, but in all cases it is mitigated by something: in one source, the two towns are not named, in another source the word "massacre" is not used; another source is focusing on later 1993 events, and another source is summarizing the comments of an interviewee. For those reasons, I do not yet think the sources support the word "massacre" in the article title. As a compromise solution to this issue, I suggest that the article be renamed to "Battle of..." or something similar, and that the article contain a section that focuses on the allegations of a massacre and/or ethnic cleansing, perhaps named "Allegations of ethnic cleansing" or "Allegations of massacres". --Noleander (talk) 15:29, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a reasonable compromise to me.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 16:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Noleander, thank you for input and study of supporting sources which I provided to support the use of the word "massacre" and prove there was no battle.

But, you forgot to mention that we have two main sources calling the event explicitly a massacre of civilians in Malibeyli village:

  • Charles Van der Leeuw. Azerbaijan: A Quest for Identity (Caucasus World). p 171. Palgrave MacMillan. ISBN 0-312-21903-2
  • Johannes Rau (2003). Der Nagorny-Karabach-Konflikt (1988-2002), p 80. Verlag Dr. Köster, Berlin. ISBN 3-89574-510-3

(1) As a compromise, I would agree we use in the title only Malibeyli village massacre as per above sources (although Human Rights Watch keeps the names of these two villages together as one event). I have already compromised three extra sources which are using the word "massacre": Antero Leitzinger book, Kathleen Pellatt Masters dissertation (using expression an "ethnic cleansing"), and Tofig Kocharli book calling it a "massacre" because the latter is an Azerbaijani historian, although this is against Wiki rules. Nevertheless, for some reason dismissal of ethnically Azerbaijani authors is widely practiced in Wiki by user MarshallBagramyan and overlooked by Wiki administration. Im addressing this in the first part of RfC.

(2) Considerng there is no any single source which would mention anything about "Malibeyli battle" or "Malibeyli and Gushchular battle", the usage of the word "battle" is not properly validated and contradicts to Wiki guidelines about provision of sourced information. We can't change the title to this word without showing the source.

(3) Books by Charles van der Leeuw and all above authors are widely publicised and cited, yet this massacre has not been denied by any scholar.

(4) In my previous message Im asking a question what's the Wiki rule specifying the number of sources required to support particular title. You possibly didn't notice it. I would appreciate if you advise on this too. Thanks. Angel670 talk 07:01, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The fact is that sources that are based on field research (first hand sources) avoid using "massacre". Next, all we have is Van der Leeuw, about whom we are cautioned by many scholars and sociologist Johannes Rau. Judging from the quote we have the later doesn't seem to have been engaged in field research too. Basing arguments on a college student or Tofig Kocharli is further more unserious.-- Ashot  (talk) 08:47, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
@Angel670: You ask about " what's the Wiki rule specifying the number of sources required to support particular title. ". Of course, there is no hard and fast rule on the number of sources. It is influenced by many factors, see Wikipedia:Article titles for details. The bottom line is that the title must be very clear, very unbiased, and very encyclopedic. The word "massacre" is acceptable in titles (there are several articles that include that word) but in all cases where it is used (1) there are a large number of sources that use the word; and (2) massacre is overwhelming the most commonly used phrase, especially by sources not involved in the conflict. Unfortunately, the topic of this article does not have many English-language sources that discuss it, so it is hard to make an assessment. But so far, it does not appear that there are sufficient sources for massacre in the title. --Noleander (talk) 15:06, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Noleander, I sincerely appreciate your willingness to bring this discussion to a compromise but I have to point out a few things in your argument.
1. When you argue that the word "massacre" is acceptable in article titles, you underline the fact that these articles usually have a large number of sources that use that word. I would agree if we were to review the Khojaly Massacre, Srebrenica Massacre, etc but when you compare Malibeyli and Gushchular Massacre to Maraga Massacre (claimed to be massacre by Armenians), two events that are strikingly similar in nature, then you fail to understand how Maraga Massacre came to be called a "massacre" when Malibeyli and Gushchular is contested, while both massacres have limited sources naming the events a "massacre". Actually, the sources at Maraga Massacre seem to have only one source, Black Garden (by Thomas De Waal) calling the event a "massacre". The rest of the sources do not use a word "massacre", except perhaps, for Caroline Cox who declared openly she is pro-Armenian, and stories of an Armenian defender of the village. Therefore, the argument that the article should have a lot of sources stating it was a massacre, can be agreed to, but (1) how many sources as per specific Wikipedia policy and (2) why would one article not be contested and the other one would be debated despite the fact that more than enough neutral sources have been presented to attest to the fact of massacre? Also, there are many supplementary sources just clearly verify the fact of ethnic cleansing even if they don't use the word "massacre" and they have also been reported above.
2. As I had mentioned already, this massacre is not described as Malibeyli battle or Malibeyli and Gushchular battle in any source. Instead, it is describes as massacre and as ethnic cleansing. Your calls for other editors to present neutral sources refuting the fact of massacre have not been answered, and likely won't be answered.
3. The first point of this RfC has also not been addressed. It concerns the usage of Azerbaijani and Armenian authors which specifically concerns this article thanks to Dr. Tofig Kocharli who had also written about Malibeyli and Gushchular and called it a massacre, but is being dismissed by Armenian users on this page. I'd appreciate your input. Angel670 talk 14:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

No moves without consensus

@MB, nobody gave to you a consensus to move the page. You are the only one who agreed to move te page. It doesn't mean it has to be moved. Understand? Dighapet (talk) 22:09, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

A consensus was established. A third opinion was given and settled that this article cannot have the current title when no reliable sources exist to support it. The only people who actually continue to object to its move are the ones who have been stonewalling and leading this circular argument for months on end.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 22:46, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
The third opinion was quite straightforward: I suggest that the article be renamed to "Battle of..." or something similar, and that the article contain a section that focuses on the allegations of a massacre and/or ethnic cleansing, perhaps named "Allegations of ethnic cleansing" or "Allegations of massacres".
So Marshal's move is supported by third opinion and rejected by just one party. -- Ashot  (talk) 08:47, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Marshall's continuation of his misleading arguments is against Wiki regulations. First of all, Angel's arguments were not answered. The last reply by Angel was on July 22 and yet Marshall claims a consensus was reached but he decided to wait a whole month and do a sneak move in September. Does does sound logical to you? I think not. An experienced user like Marshall knows very well when a consensus is reached and when not. Neftchi (talk) 14:32, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
  • If one administrator from enforcement page thinks, it doesn't mean consensus was reached. Mediator also asked Armenian users to bring proof that it was not massacre and they have not brought any sources as mediator Noleander asked and not all questions asked by Angel670 were answered. So, consensus is not reached. Consensus is when both sides agree or compromise. I don't see consensus here. Dighapet (talk) 13:10, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
The burden of proof ultimately lies with the side bringing forth the claims. We have been indulgent enough to give the opposing side some time to introduce new sources, but all have been highly partisan or just plain inadequate to qualify as reliable sources. Like AGK noted, we've waited over a month to enact this change and even then it was immediately reverted by you. Not a single third-party editor sees any merit in Angel's or Neftchi's or your statements. The stonewalling actions made on all your parts has not contributed to a breakthrough but has actually done the quite opposite by preventing it from being improved. This discussion has been exhausted and we cannot continue to have a minority of editors hold the majority hostage.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 16:30, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
  • You are right! Burden of proof lies with those who bring claims. Malibeyli and Gushchular Massacre is a fact and you claim the opposite and you want to prove opposite. So, it’s you who have to prove there was not a massacre. Even Noleander, the mediator asked to provide sources which say it was not a massacre. So, where are those sources? I don’t see them. When you bring those sources to talk page, consensus can be discussed. If not, don’t make bold statements saying consensus was reached. AGK’s statement in Enforcement page is not a solution. He did not even study this case to position himself to support any side. If the mediator Noleander did not complete his mission on this page and answer all concerns of each side, and especially if the sides did not agree, then there is no consensus. Look at Angel670’s last message where she asks again and again to be answered, but she received no response. Noleander did not receive response on your sources. So, what consensus are you talking about? All questions have to be answered first. Dighapet (talk) 19:21, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
You've got it completely backwards: you are assuming that an event took place and you wish to describe that event as a massacre. However, neither you nor anyone else has been unable to introduce any sources which conclusively proves your thesis. All the sources at our disposal say that a battle took place, not the deliberate killings of a certain group of people. Noleander's proposed solution was simple and clear:

As a compromise solution to this issue, I suggest that the article be renamed to "Battle of..." or something similar, and that the article contain a section that focuses on the allegations of a massacre and/or ethnic cleansing, perhaps named "Allegations of ethnic cleansing" or "Allegations of massacres".

Angel's subsequent comments did not merit responses because they contained nothing new. The fact that neither of you are showing an openness to compromise but are simply rehashing the same discredited sources and arguments just demonstrates how little interest you all have in improving it. It's just plain stonewalling and it's getting quite absurd because everyone else on this page has gotten sick of having these tedious, interminable arguments with you guys.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 20:14, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


No, you are not right about this. But I will repeat again for you. Maybe you will understand this time: The mediator Noleander said in the beginning “At the same time, other editors should provide, if available, sources that use alternative terms ("incident', "alleged massacre", "fabrication", "propoganda", etc), including a brief point about possible bias of the sources. Until some specific quotes are presented here (with possible bias identified) it will be hard to come to a conclusion” and asked both sides to comment. Angel670 brought so many arguments basing her comments on quotes from various sources and the NEUTRAL sources which include words “massacre”. So, she did what Noleander asked to do. You and your friends did not do what he asked. You did not bring any supported arguments by NEUTRAL sources, saying this was NOT a massacre or that it had alternative names. Instead of answering to comments by Noleander, you actually began a campaign (as usual) of saying bad things about authors who used the word massacre. So your strategy is to low down neutral authors who do not write Armenian propoganda and in this case you do the same. I still want answers to the same question. Where are neutral sources supporting it was just battle of Malibeyli, where Armenian soldiers killed Azerbaijani civilians.   The request for comment includes question about use of Azerbaijani and Armenian authors which is connected to this case. Because Tofig Kocharli, a well-known Soviet and Azerbaijani historian also called the killing of Azerbaijani civilians by Armenian army – massacre. So we have to have answers to that question too. Is he accepted as reliable author or not? If yes, then yes, it’s one more source. If not, then why is he not accepted because his Armenian colleague Ulubabyan is used in Wikipedia articles. Why is Ulubabyan used and Kocharli can’t be used? This questions have to be answered plus Angel670’s last comment is not answered by non-involved editor. Also please do not use that language. Everyone on this page is not sick of discussion but sick of your personal attacks. Dighapet (talk) 21:08, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I am not going to continue to do battle with your warped understanding of Wikipedia's rules and your misconstrued interpretation of Noleander's remarks. Not a single neutral or non-involved editor has sided to keep this article under the current name. AGK's comments only reinforce the notion that my move was correct and I will try once more unless new sources which meet the qualifications stipulated by Wikipedia policy are introduced. You cannot intimidate your fellow editors with this kind of bullying attitude.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 22:02, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Marshall you need to tone down on your personal attacks and incivil language. Your bullying tactics will not work here. Volunteer Marek was also very clear that Marshall used misleaded arguments to justify his move. No consensus was reach because not all arguments were answered. Rather than arguing on the self proclaimed consensus, I suggest you to actually adress the concerns. Battle of Malibeyli and Gushchular is unrelated to this subject. What battle? Such a title implies a skirmish between armed forces, but this article is about a MASSACRE of civilians by Armenian soldiers. These are all sources in the article. Another concern is that this article is similar to Maraga massacre article. Both this and Maraga article have limited sources naming the events a "massacre". There must be consistency, or else it would be double-standard. And since Maraga has massacre in the title then the same should apply here. Neftchi (talk) 22:40, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Enough of this "tone down on your personal attacks and incivil language" nonsense, Neftchi. Every other editor has called you out on your posturing and knows that the fraudulent cries of outrage are way overblown. If anything, they are exasperated by these round about games you and the others are so keen on playing.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 05:09, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Why doesn't one person from each faction produce a short list of the involved editors and their respective opinions, and also a short list of the sources for and against Massacre? To do so may help to put everything in perspective. AGK [•] 09:50, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Neftchi is right. This is about killing of civilians which is a massacre and if Marshallbagramyan doubts, he should doubt Maraga massacre too. AGK, of course but those points were given by Angel above and then answered again and more times by Angel670. It became unconstructive when other fraction began giving labels to authors, just because the authors did not serve against truth. Let the other fraction make the list. Dighapet (talk) 17:24, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

AGK, we already have gone through those motions at least twice. It has been demonstrated that every source that says a massacre took place is written by highly partisan authors (e.g. Cornell) or by individuals (e.g. Kocharli) whose amateurish style of writing would never meet the most basic standards of academic scholarship in the West. The most authoritative source we have, Human Rights Watch, makes it clear that all civilian deaths were a result of unintended consequences of war, not a pre-planned action to murder civilians. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:56, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Amateurish writing? Do seperate your personal opinion and the biography of a scholar. What are your objections for Kocharli? Neftchi (talk) 08:34, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
No respectable scholar, no matter what he or she is trying to prove, would ever title their book Armenian Falsifications or Armenian Deception and try to paint an entire people with so thick a brush. Kocharli's writings are embarrassing and excruciatingly painful to read and so unprofessional that they would never pass the threshold of the basic standards of scholarship. Equally troubling are remarks like "Attempts by Armenia or any other state to deceive the whole world and the United Nations should be exposed....In a word, the degree of Armenian deception is limitless" (http://books.google.com/books?id=D_y3NkMInesC&pg=PA3&dq=kocharli+armenians&hl=en&ei=H714TviQCeKRsALb-LWvDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false), etc., etc. My personal opinion is probably shared by most people.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 16:33, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
So you dont like the title of the book? That is your personal opinion but your personal interpretation cannot be reflected in the article's sources. Have you never heard not to judge a book by its cover? Neftchi (talk) 18:59, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
I've read the content - it's just a badly-written propaganda piece that does not pretend to give an accurate history of the Karabakh conflict but just vilifies the Armenians and makes them out to be late twentieth century Nazis. The truth of the matter is that few individuals, in the West and in the Caucasus, have made little effort to provide a comprehensive study of the Karabakh conflict. Some effort has to be made to report information in a dispassionate, viewed-from-a-distance manner, and that's why amateurish works like Kocharli's tract have no place here.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 19:34, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Marshall you have an obvious bias against Azerbaijani sources. Earlier you mentioned that "Writing in a country where it is practically a crime to contradict state dogma and national narratives" than you continued saying that "Sources published in Azerbaijan have such a strong tint of state propaganda". Your own statements confirm that you have a bias against any Azerbaijani source. By this you're taking a highly unreasonable approach and it seems to me that what you are attempting to do is character assassination. Neftchi (talk) 10:11, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

It's not the fact that the sources are Azerbaijani or Russian or Saturnian in origin. Rather, it's the lamentable reality that historians from that country feel compelled to stretch or distort the facts because they feel they do not neatly fit their narrative of history. The Armenians are mentioned in Strabo's Geography? Oh, well let's just strike out their names and replace them with Caucasian Albanians and do the same thing in every other historical source until 1828. Historians in Armenia come up with some amateurish material every once in a while, but you never see me using it. Ultimately, it boils down to the fact that the subject of history in Azerbaijan is not held in high regard and scholars and layman alike are forced to resort to embarrassing measures to somehow make everything fit into a national narrative. That's all it is. I'm sorry to see that you still have not, or perhaps do not want, understood this. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 16:25, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Nocturnal, read this page in full forst, before moving the articles. Tuscumbia (talk) 16:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Please replace the one sided references to reliable and third party sources. Per Wikipedia policy. Also dont reference information if the information from the reference is being mislead, I've checked the third party sources such as the Human Rights Watch, they are not being written properly in the article. Nocturnal781 (talk) 01:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Moved

Besides the Azerbaijani state sources the only other source that calls this a massacre is Storm over the Caucasus: In the Wake of Independence which has been criticized as being biased and skewed. I think we should stick to HRW, which provides detailed timeline of what happened. VartanM (talk) 20:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Neftchi, aren't you suppose to justify your reverts in the talkpage? I'm disputing the neutrality of the Azerbaijani sources. Please refrain from removing the tags. VartanM (talk) 18:23, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Number of civilian casualties

Where did the 15-50 number come from? According to Rafael Guliyev interview to HRW the number of killed civilians was 8. He gave the interview on April 25 and claimed to be the representative of the village[22]. VartanM (talk) 21:50, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Removed khojaly and war crimes categories because they did not fit. Khojaly was a different event. and there is no source for war crimes. VartanM (talk) 02:32, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Again, are there neutral sources that support the 15-50 number. If not, the HRW's 8 should be used. VartanM (talk) 02:44, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree, the source for 8 deaths is more reliable than the others and should be used accordingly. Nocturnal781 (talk) 07:07, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Please read the talk page carefully

If you have any counter-source to bring in to the discussion in the talk page please do so. Otherwise, you can not nominate article for deletion unless you provide valid sources supporting your edit as it was requested above by uninvolved editor. Thank you Angel670 talk 04:20, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The article is nominated for deletion. Stop removing the template saying so and linking to the deletion page. Sardur (talk) 12:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
First of all, I didnt know this rule. Second, the nomination of the article supported by numerous international sources for deletion is already a disruptive attitude. I hope admins will read the talk page and respect the fact that dispute is not resolved and in the course of discussion on the talk page there were many more sources revealed supporting the article, and brought into discussion. Its just unfair to remove the well-supported Wiki article for preparation and improvement of which other users have spent a lot of time and energy. Angel670 talk 13:37, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The 1st paragraph of Overview and Massacre part/ unclear references

Nocturnal, the Memorial report does not support the first part of this diff. I would like to check the other references which you added:
  • (7) "14 KILLED AS AZERIS DISRUPT ELECTION". The Courier Mail/The Sunday Mail (Australia). 30 December 1991.
  • (8) "Shelling kills 14 people in Azerbaijan". The Advertiser/Sunday Mail (Adelaide, South Australia). 30 December 1991.
  • (9) "Untitled". The Mercury/Sunday Tasmanian (Australia). 30 December 1991.
They seem not to be available online. Could you please provide exact quotes you refer to in these newspapers, and more details about these publications (must be the number of the issue and the city where published, I guess). Thank you Angel670 talk 01:15, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Lack of Verifiability

The sources used in this article lack credibility especially news sources that can't be used as reference to facts, since Wikipedia policy says only mainstream media can be used in certain times, but that even remains questionable sometimes. Also, neutral point of view, which many of these sources that don't have violate Wikipedia rules. Please work together and fix these issues, and help the article be built on by neutral points of view and reliable sourcing. Nocturnal781 (talk) 07:10, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

References

This reference used, says nothing about attacks on the village as far as I've looked, please provide a page number.

4. Book: Azerbaijan: A quest for identity. Palgrave Macmillan

Malibeyli is not mentioned on this page, nothing about a blockade.

9. de Waal, Thomas (2003). Black Garden. New York University Press. p. 166.

I can't find information about the blockade on this page either, please provide a sentence with it here so I can verify.

8. Cornell, Svante (2001). Small Nations and Great Powers: A Study of Ethnopolitical Conflict in the Caucasus . 81

This book has no context about the sentence referenced.

5. Antero, Leitzinger (1997). Caucasus and an unholy alliance. Kirja-Leitzinger. p. 55.

I can't find anywhere where it says it was followed by the massacres mentioned.

20. Kathleen, Pellatt (2008). Nagorno-Karabakh, Abkhazia and Chechnya: Violence and autonomy in Eurasia's secessionist conflicts. A Thesis submitted to the Division of Graduate Studies of the Royal Military College of Canada. p. 86

This reference says Malibeyli was stranded and many were wounded, doesn't say anything about ethnic cleansing or burning of the village.

12. "The Deseret News". Retrieved March 5, 2012.

This source is from a point of view, which goes against neutral point of view, which is not in accordance with Wikipedia main guidelines.

21. "The Debacle: From Kafan To Khojaly – OpEd". Retrieved March 5, 2011. Nocturnal781 (talk) 08:01, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Capture_of_Gushchular_and_Malibeyli/Archive_1&oldid=1178409694"