![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The current text regarding the recently discovered graves from the First Nagorno-Karabakh War which was added in October 2022, is quite problematic regarding its length, language, and the sources used (Azerbaijani government sources or those parroting them). Below you can find my proposal for a new text (previous context regarding the issue can be found here: [1]), if there are further reliable sources that can be found describing the incident as a war crime, I don't have an issue with removing attribution. AntonSamuel ( talk) 09:49, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
On 4 October 2022, three sites of graves of Azerbaijani military servicemen from the First Nagorno-Karabakh War were discovered in the village. As most of the buried soldiers had had their legs tied, Azeri human rights lawyer Ziya Guliyev has described it as an example of a war crime. [1] [2]
References
What kind of problems are we talking about? The content is properly sourced and attributed and related. I can not see any reason to delete factual information, which is sourced and attributed properly. A b r v a g l ( PingMe) 13:05, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Armenian, Azeri or other local sources are subject to the same requirements of reliability as any other scholarly or journalistic sources. Use of material from propagandistic nationalist sites is unacceptable.There appears to be some misunderstanding of what reliable implies, as the content you deleted was properly cited and attributed. It is attributed, which means that we publish factual information without saying whether or not it is accurate. Every piece of material I contribute is referenced and reliable, and WP:ONUS does not imply that you can simply come in and delete any information from the article with some hazy reasoning over two months after it was written. So I expect you to point what exactly is unreliable in the factual information, which supported with video and photo footage and covered by the number of third-party newspapers [4], [5], [6], [7], [8] ?
determine that certain information does not improve an article.You were advised to start the talk and reach the consensus, and so far you did not achieve consensus.
the material you added was far too long for a geographic article for the village- First, the article is about Edili village, and mass graves discovered in Edili village are completely relevant to the article. Second, the Mass Graves section, which you also omitted, is significant enough to need its own section. Neither the claim that it is a "geographic article" nor the fact that the information is lengthier than other material are grounds for removing sourced materials directly relevant to the article.
contemporary reports of war crimes on other Nagorno-Karabakh geographic articles, such as Hadrut, Ghaibalishen and Mets Tagher for example, the reports are usually short and concise.- That appears to be whataboutism. Furthermore, the material was brief and to the point; it discussed two instances where mass graves were discovered, as well as two remarks indicating that the process is ongoing. What you did was not make it brief and succinct; instead, you shredded it to nothing and erased entire sections, inserting 1 phrase into the history part instead, despite the fact that it is not even a history, but mass graves that are being discovered now.
it did not give proper attribution – you've treated the Azerbaijani government reports as factual and reliable.- It is impossible to address the ambiguous claims; please specify what exactly you're talking about, what statement is not attributed, but requires attribution?
The language of the material you added was also not neutral- again, what is exactly not neutral? Not neutral in what way? You need to be specific. Editors really cannot sit and imagine what you meant by such kind of vague claims. A b r v a g l ( PingMe) 09:13, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The current text regarding the recently discovered graves from the First Nagorno-Karabakh War which was added in October 2022, is quite problematic regarding its length, language, and the sources used (Azerbaijani government sources or those parroting them). Below you can find my proposal for a new text (previous context regarding the issue can be found here: [1]), if there are further reliable sources that can be found describing the incident as a war crime, I don't have an issue with removing attribution. AntonSamuel ( talk) 09:49, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
On 4 October 2022, three sites of graves of Azerbaijani military servicemen from the First Nagorno-Karabakh War were discovered in the village. As most of the buried soldiers had had their legs tied, Azeri human rights lawyer Ziya Guliyev has described it as an example of a war crime. [1] [2]
References
What kind of problems are we talking about? The content is properly sourced and attributed and related. I can not see any reason to delete factual information, which is sourced and attributed properly. A b r v a g l ( PingMe) 13:05, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Armenian, Azeri or other local sources are subject to the same requirements of reliability as any other scholarly or journalistic sources. Use of material from propagandistic nationalist sites is unacceptable.There appears to be some misunderstanding of what reliable implies, as the content you deleted was properly cited and attributed. It is attributed, which means that we publish factual information without saying whether or not it is accurate. Every piece of material I contribute is referenced and reliable, and WP:ONUS does not imply that you can simply come in and delete any information from the article with some hazy reasoning over two months after it was written. So I expect you to point what exactly is unreliable in the factual information, which supported with video and photo footage and covered by the number of third-party newspapers [4], [5], [6], [7], [8] ?
determine that certain information does not improve an article.You were advised to start the talk and reach the consensus, and so far you did not achieve consensus.
the material you added was far too long for a geographic article for the village- First, the article is about Edili village, and mass graves discovered in Edili village are completely relevant to the article. Second, the Mass Graves section, which you also omitted, is significant enough to need its own section. Neither the claim that it is a "geographic article" nor the fact that the information is lengthier than other material are grounds for removing sourced materials directly relevant to the article.
contemporary reports of war crimes on other Nagorno-Karabakh geographic articles, such as Hadrut, Ghaibalishen and Mets Tagher for example, the reports are usually short and concise.- That appears to be whataboutism. Furthermore, the material was brief and to the point; it discussed two instances where mass graves were discovered, as well as two remarks indicating that the process is ongoing. What you did was not make it brief and succinct; instead, you shredded it to nothing and erased entire sections, inserting 1 phrase into the history part instead, despite the fact that it is not even a history, but mass graves that are being discovered now.
it did not give proper attribution – you've treated the Azerbaijani government reports as factual and reliable.- It is impossible to address the ambiguous claims; please specify what exactly you're talking about, what statement is not attributed, but requires attribution?
The language of the material you added was also not neutral- again, what is exactly not neutral? Not neutral in what way? You need to be specific. Editors really cannot sit and imagine what you meant by such kind of vague claims. A b r v a g l ( PingMe) 09:13, 2 December 2022 (UTC)