Talk:Lachin
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Lachin article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 12 months  |
 | The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates to Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. |
 | Other talk page banners | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RFC: Looting, destruction, and violence in Lachin 1992-1993
NO CONSENSUS
Including the proposer there were five contributions in support and four in opposition (two support contributions were for a second reformulated text; one oppose contribution was for a third reformulated text). There does not appear to be any particular policy level dispute, rather contributors differed on how sources should be interpreted, in what context and what level of emphasis given.
There appears to be a consensus amongst all contributors that in the period being discussed, the primarily Azeri population of Lachin fled, leaving behind their possessions and that the town was subsequently plundered and heavily damaged once captured by Armenian forces. However, There was not consensus on how to interpret and place in context sourcing which speaks of civilian deaths before, during and after this period. There was also concerns raised that the proposed text could have been better formulated.
Given the almost even split amongst contributors and the differences over civilian deaths, there is no consensus to include this specific text. (It might be considered an actual even split since one support contribution was word-for-word identical in argument; but this has no effect on the outcome). However, there is an implied consensus for a better formulation and the efforts of the proposer were positively noted by those opposed.
As a methodological step to reach consensus, I would suggest those that remain interested agree on a sourced timeline which could be used to then redraft an appropriate text.
I hope I have made a fair summation of the discussion. Regards, (non-admin closure) --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:23, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
There appears to be a consensus amongst all contributors that in the period being discussed, the primarily Azeri population of Lachin fled, leaving behind their possessions and that the town was subsequently plundered and heavily damaged once captured by Armenian forces. However, There was not consensus on how to interpret and place in context sourcing which speaks of civilian deaths before, during and after this period. There was also concerns raised that the proposed text could have been better formulated.
Given the almost even split amongst contributors and the differences over civilian deaths, there is no consensus to include this specific text. (It might be considered an actual even split since one support contribution was word-for-word identical in argument; but this has no effect on the outcome). However, there is an implied consensus for a better formulation and the efforts of the proposer were positively noted by those opposed.
As a methodological step to reach consensus, I would suggest those that remain interested agree on a sourced timeline which could be used to then redraft an appropriate text.
I hope I have made a fair summation of the discussion. Regards, (non-admin closure) --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:23, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I propose to replace the third paragraph of the First Nagorno-Karabakh War subsection by the following (all details related to looting, burning, violence). Any objections?
In the months following city's capture by Armenian forces multiple reports of looting, destruction, and (at least one) on death of civilians were made.[1][2][3][4] Predominantly Azerbaijani population has left the city in advance of its takeover, reportedly.[5]
- Steele, Jonathan (25 May 1992). "Eyewitness: Armenia's looters follow its troops into Azerbaijan - Tit-for-tat pillage of deserted Lachin succeeds a war that may not yet be over". The Guardian.
- Seely, Robert (25 May 1992). "Armenian looters burn down village". The Times. p. 8.
- "Nagorno Karabakh". www.hrw.org. Retrieved 2021-11-17.
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link) - Brock, Daniel (30 August 1993). "Europe's forgotten war". Maclean's. Retrieved 26 October 2021.
- "WAR`S EBB AND FLOW A CYCLE OF REVENGE". Chicago Tribune. Retrieved 2021-11-17.
- Courtesy pinging: @ZaniGiovanni, Grandmaster, Laurel Lodged, and Steverci:
- See also: this article is subject to WP:ARBAA2
- Survey
- Support (as nominator) given an extensive discussion and reasons above (#Looting and #Sources ).AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 19:48, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- I believe we should also mention in your proposal about Armenian civilians being killed, the current wording gives the wrong impression that civilians were killed by Armenian forces, stated just after "In the months following city's capture by Armenian forces, ...", whereas HRW sources states the following:
- On May 28, 1993, the mutilated remains of Armenian civilians killed during 1992 by Azerbaijani forces were found near Lachin. The civilians had attempted to flee Nagorno Karabakh to Armenia and were reportedly massacred by the Gray Wolves. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 20:37, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
- Alexander Davronov what do you think of my suggestion to your text above? It would be in line with HRW source. Regards, ZaniGiovanni (talk) 19:17, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
- I stand by my proposal. Unless sane sources scrutinizing the reports are given I stand by brief description. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 19:25, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
- Alexander Davronov your proposal is fine for the most part, don't get me wrong, and thank you for mediating the discussion so far. It just gives the wrong impression that "death of civilians" happened just after "following city's capture by Armenian forces", when HRW source (RS for civilian deaths) says it was done by Gray Wolves in Lachin against Armenian citizens, see the quote above. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 19:29, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
- Current proposal doesn't assume that Armenian forces are responsible for civilians casualties. I just strongly disagree with putting blame on anyone even if such accusations are delivered by HRW. I want to forge a consensus on more-less neutral statement compiling reports. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 19:44, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
- Alexander Davronov here's my suggestion, in line with HRW. Please tell me what you think:
- In 1992, the Human Rights Watch reported that Armenian civilians had been massacred near Lachin by the Grey Wolves. In the months following city's capture by Armenian forces, multiple reports of looting and destruction were made. The predominantly Azerbaijani population had reportedly left the city in advance of its takeover.ZaniGiovanni (talk) 07:58, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
- Current proposal doesn't assume that Armenian forces are responsible for civilians casualties. I just strongly disagree with putting blame on anyone even if such accusations are delivered by HRW. I want to forge a consensus on more-less neutral statement compiling reports. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 19:44, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
- Alexander Davronov your proposal is fine for the most part, don't get me wrong, and thank you for mediating the discussion so far. It just gives the wrong impression that "death of civilians" happened just after "following city's capture by Armenian forces", when HRW source (RS for civilian deaths) says it was done by Gray Wolves in Lachin against Armenian citizens, see the quote above. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 19:29, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
- I stand by my proposal. Unless sane sources scrutinizing the reports are given I stand by brief description. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 19:25, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
- I believe we should also mention in your proposal about Armenian civilians being killed, the current wording gives the wrong impression that civilians were killed by Armenian forces, stated just after "In the months following city's capture by Armenian forces, ...", whereas HRW sources states the following:
- Support per arguments and thorough discussion above. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 20:14, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- Support per arguments and thorough discussion above. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:17, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose I think this needs more detail, as it is not even clear from the above description who did the looting. And "multiple reports" is also vague. There are many witnesses to looting and burning, including the reporters from top news outlets such as The Guardian or Chicago Tribune. HRW also confirms the fact. Grandmaster 21:15, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- Alternative proposal, with no weasel wording:
- Following the city's capture by Armenian forces, it was looted and burned, and its Azerbaijani population was displaced. International news reporters witnessed looters taking everything of value and setting houses on fire, and trucks loaded with furniture and household utensils moving to Armenia. As result, the town was completely destroyed.
- Grandmaster 21:42, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose as written. The two sentences are contradictory: If predominantly Azerbaijani population reportedly left the city in advance, where did multiple reports of civilian deaths come from? Apparently this is because the source for the latter sentence presents Armenian version: "Armenian officials insist that there were no civilian casualties, because the Azeris had evacuated all civilians from Lachin before the battle began". So suggest dropping the latter sentence, as it contradicts third-party sources. The current wording does not have that problem, it seems. Brandmeistertalk 22:50, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Brandmeister: Clarified that the report is only one. The www.hrw.org has reported that Armenian civilians were killed in 1992. Their remains were found near Lachin on May 28, 1993. See the source. --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 13:54, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
These two sources report bodies in the streets of Lachin:
On the main street a large wheel, apparently from a lorry, bloodstained clothes and a mattress lay beside a gruesome bundle from which protruded an arm. It looked as though an escaping vehicle had suffered a direct hit in the assault.
"Eyewitness: Armenia's looters follow its troops into Azerbaijan - Tit-for-tat pillage of deserted Lachin succeeds a war that may not yet be over." The Guardian, 25 May 1992, p. 22.
Around one ghastly cliffside turn on this so-called humanitarian corridor, two charred corpses rot in the dust of Armenian trucks hauling the pathetic spoils of the nasty war over Nagorno-Karabakh.
O'Neill, Juliet. CanWest News; Don Mills, Ont. 28 May 1992
Grandmaster 19:42, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
- But what about Azerbaijani civilians? AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 19:27, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
- Those sources are about Azerbaijani civilians. Armenians would not let bodies of their own people lie in the streets. Grandmaster 05:57, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
- That's your own guess entirely. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 07:56, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
- There are no Armenian civilians in a city that is exclusively Azeri and Kurdish — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.219.167.135 (talk) 13:24, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
- It is an obvious fact. Who could these civilians be in a town that had only Azerbaijani and Kurdish population, as was noted above? Getting killed as tried to escape the Armenian forces? Grandmaster 06:23, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
- You started your sentence with:
These two sources report bodies in the streets of Lachin
. Body ≠ "Azerbaijani civilians" please stop this WP:OR. For all we know, these could've been soldiers bodies. You've been asked to provide the exact source saying "Azerbaijnai civilians were killed by Armenian forces", and so far, you've been doing original research. - The only source we actually have for civilians states that specifically Azerbaijani civilians left the city in advance of its takeover, and reported Armenian civilians being mutilated and killed by Grey Wolves near Lachin. Should we add this part, since you care so much about civilians being mentioned, and the HRW source we have actually does mention Armenian civilians?
- What do you think regarding this whole WP:OR guesses Alexander Davronov? I think it's becoming counterproductive and someone should learn to stop if they have no sources to add besides their own thoughts and guesses. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 09:09, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
- You started your sentence with:
- It is an obvious fact. Who could these civilians be in a town that had only Azerbaijani and Kurdish population, as was noted above? Getting killed as tried to escape the Armenian forces? Grandmaster 06:23, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
- There are no Armenian civilians in a city that is exclusively Azeri and Kurdish — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.219.167.135 (talk) 13:24, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
- That's your own guess entirely. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 07:56, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
- Those sources are about Azerbaijani civilians. Armenians would not let bodies of their own people lie in the streets. Grandmaster 05:57, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
- Support I agree with Zanni's version per sources and arguments above. Seems clear cut to me. - Kevo327 (talk) 18:52, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose I've read Grandmaster's arguments which sounded the most reasonable to me. The clearer, the better. Therefore I support his opinions. — leilahuseynova (talk) 11:26, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
- Based on what you found them “the most reasonable”, could you please elaborate? We write what sources say on wikipedia, and HRW information is missing from that particular suggestion. Not to mention this RfC is about trimming the unnecessary and non encyclopedic details, which it still keeps. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 12:11, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
- Support ZaniGiovanni's version. Grammatically correct and according to Human Rights Watch source. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 23:21, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose. Looting and destruction of a populated place as large as Lachin, especially given that its deliberate nature is not contested, is notable enough to be mentioned in a little more than an evasive and blandly formulated sentence; all the more so as the process was covered by periodicals such as Chicago Tribune and the Guardian, all of which clearly identify the perpetrator party. I also see no reason in wording it in a way as to suggest that the pillage and the killings of civilians were somehow mutual in this particular case. It skews the whole point of why and how the town ended up the way it did. Parishan (talk) 17:53, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Legobot messed up
I've tried twice, to add the RFC template. But legobot keeps deleting it. GoodDay (talk) 21:21, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
- GoodDay Hi and thanks for helping. What would you suggest doing then? ZaniGiovanni (talk) 09:06, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Closing (end note)
Responding per request at WP:RFCL. As a statement of transparency: I've not edited this article before and as far as memory serves I have never edited any article related to the conflict. Please do not add further comments. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 02:37, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
HRW
In 1992, the Human Rights Watch reported that Armenian civilians had been massacred near Lachin by the Grey Wolves. This should be added in the Lachin#First_Nagorno-Karabakh_War section, per HRW. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 11:28, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, this can be reflected. However, the way you reflected it is not correct. We can not reword the information from the source such that it or draw personal conclusions . I suggest you to add statement from the as it is. I also suggest you to add it between the "Following the town's capture by Armenian forces" and "Following the town's capture by Armenian forces" paragraphs as separate statement, to keep the flow of the article right. --Abrvagl (talk) 13:52, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
- What personal conclusion? What are you talking about? This is the full text:
- On May 28, 1993, the mutilated remains of Armenian civilians killed during 1992 by Azerbaijani forces were found near Lachin. The civilians had attempted to flee Nagorno Karabakh to Armenia and were reportedly massacred by the Gray Wolves.
- And it's already noted "Following town's capture" are you not reading the same thing ? I'm literary stating what the source says. You're nearing into another ANI report if I'm being honest, this WP:SPA journey of yours is becoming very disruptive. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 14:21, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
- If you're gonna state WP:ONUS, you have to actually present valid arguments. This isn't one neither is your talk comment above, you're just disrupting now. You shouldn't abuse guidelines without presenting a valid reason for your removal which you failed to do so. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 14:50, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
- Your continuous threatening with ANI anything you dont like is disruptive. please stop that behavior. Source states "On May 28, 1993, the mutilated remains of Armenian civilians killed during 1992 by Azerbaijani forces were found near Lachin. The civilians had attempted to flee Nagorno Karabakh to Armenia and were reportedly massacred by the Gray Wolves.". You are statement is "The Human Rights Watch reported that Armenian civilians had been massacred near Lachin by the Grey Wolves". You statement re-worded and does not exactly reflect what source states. I suggest following wording "As per the Human rights Watch report on May 28, 1993, the mutilated remains of Armenian civilians killed during 1992 by Azerbaijani forces were found near Lachin. The civilians had attempted to flee Nagorno Karabakh to Armenia and were reportedly massacred by the Gray Wolves. I suggest to include separately, because I do not see how it can be liked to "Following town's capture". There no evidence that this happened following to town capture or before that. --Abrvagl (talk) 14:58, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
I also suggest you to add it between the "Following the town's capture by Armenian forces"
- You just says this above, and now you're saying to remove it? I didn't add the "Following the town's capture by Armenian forces" it was already there. My added text correctly reflects the HRW source, and you're making 0 sense now. You're just edit-warring at this point for the sake of pushing your POV without providing valid arguments for your removals of sourced content. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 15:03, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
I also suggest you to add it between the "Following the town's capture by Armenian forces" and "Following the town's capture by Armenian forces" paragraphs
. That what I said, dont know why you TG half of the sentence. Lets do like that, I will now edit the article and reflect it as I propose and you have a look. It will be easier for you to understand what is proposal. If you will not like it, then rewert it and we will ask third party admin to provide opinion. Do you agree? --Abrvagl (talk) 15:10, 25 February 2022 (UTC)- You don't just remove stuff because you don't like it. You've yet to provide an actual valid reasoning for all of these shenanigans. You keep changing your reasoning trying to find something that sticks, but the HRW source supports my text entirely and it was appropriately placed. The DRN mediator should take a look at this and if not, you'll be reported for edit-warring and POV push. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 15:14, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
- I did not remove anything because I dont like it. And I never changed my reasoning, what Im doing trying keep civil discussion to reach the consensus. I even offered you the way, but looks like you deny that. I suggest you to be WP:IMPARTIAL. I do not understand why you are so aggressive. --Abrvagl (talk) 15:26, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
- The removal was a classic example of WP:idontlikeit. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:29, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
- I don't understand why you keep pushing a certain POV and removing stuff without valid explanation. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 15:29, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
- I did not remove anything because I dont like it. And I never changed my reasoning, what Im doing trying keep civil discussion to reach the consensus. I even offered you the way, but looks like you deny that. I suggest you to be WP:IMPARTIAL. I do not understand why you are so aggressive. --Abrvagl (talk) 15:26, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
- You don't just remove stuff because you don't like it. You've yet to provide an actual valid reasoning for all of these shenanigans. You keep changing your reasoning trying to find something that sticks, but the HRW source supports my text entirely and it was appropriately placed. The DRN mediator should take a look at this and if not, you'll be reported for edit-warring and POV push. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 15:14, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
- Your continuous threatening with ANI anything you dont like is disruptive. please stop that behavior. Source states "On May 28, 1993, the mutilated remains of Armenian civilians killed during 1992 by Azerbaijani forces were found near Lachin. The civilians had attempted to flee Nagorno Karabakh to Armenia and were reportedly massacred by the Gray Wolves.". You are statement is "The Human Rights Watch reported that Armenian civilians had been massacred near Lachin by the Grey Wolves". You statement re-worded and does not exactly reflect what source states. I suggest following wording "As per the Human rights Watch report on May 28, 1993, the mutilated remains of Armenian civilians killed during 1992 by Azerbaijani forces were found near Lachin. The civilians had attempted to flee Nagorno Karabakh to Armenia and were reportedly massacred by the Gray Wolves. I suggest to include separately, because I do not see how it can be liked to "Following town's capture". There no evidence that this happened following to town capture or before that. --Abrvagl (talk) 14:58, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
- What personal conclusion? What are you talking about? This is the full text:
- Yes, this can be reflected. However, the way you reflected it is not correct. We can not reword the information from the source such that it or draw personal conclusions . I suggest you to add statement from the as it is. I also suggest you to add it between the "Following the town's capture by Armenian forces" and "Following the town's capture by Armenian forces" paragraphs as separate statement, to keep the flow of the article right. --Abrvagl (talk) 13:52, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
- I provided Valid explanation and providing it to you, and to all others Laurel Lodged.
- Original statement from the source is "On May 28, 1993, the mutilated remains of Armenian civilians killed during 1992 by Azerbaijani forces were found near Lachin. The civilians had attempted to flee Nagorno Karabakh to Armenia and were reportedly massacred by the Gray Wolves."
- Statement made by ZaniGiovanni is "The Human Rights Watch reported that Armenian civilians had been massacred near Lachin by the Grey Wolves"
- HRW does not say that civilians had been massacred by the Grey Wolves. HWR clearly states that "remains of Armenian civilians killed during 1992 by Azerbaijani forces were found near Lachin" and that they are "were reportedly massacred by the Gray Wolves". This is my first point.
- My second point that we do not have reliable information to prove that whether this happened before of after the Lachin city capture, therefore we should include it as separate statement. --Abrvagl (talk) 15:41, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
- I don't understand your distinction between "Reportedly massacred" and "reported that...". Please explain. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:00, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
- Laurel Lodged with pleasure. When you say something reportedly happened, this means that something is reportedly true. It means that someone has said that it is true, but you have no direct evidence of it. However, if you say that something happened, it means that you have direct evidence of it. So in our case HWR states that they were told that these people were massacred by the Gray Wolves, however, they do not have direct evidence of that. --Abrvagl (talk) 16:16, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
- I don't understand your distinction between "Reportedly massacred" and "reported that...". Please explain. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:00, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Laurel Lodged, if you agree, I can edit article and include HWR report information the way I propose. If you like it - we can keep it, if don't you can rephrase or revert it and we will continue discussions to reach the consensus. I thin this will be better that writing tons of text on the Talk page. What do you think? --Abrvagl (talk) 16:51, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
- Post your proposal in talk and how exactly it is better than the current one, because as far as I can see, the current wording follows the HRW source. Your behavior in this article is inexcusable btw, you didn't include any "proposals" when I opened this talk discussion, you just came and entirely removed sourced content then started to edit-war over it when I asked for a valid argument, which I still haven't seen. Hope the DRN mediator Robert McClenon takes a note of this and the user's continual disruptive behavior and addition of every talk discussion in DRN. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 16:59, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
- I did not sign any of these posts. It seems that a ping of me has been mistaken for my signature. I am recusing from any mediation of any related disputes since I am being thought to be involved. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:46, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Laurel Lodged, ZaniGiovanni, my proposal is to keep wording as it is stated in the source "On May 28, 1993, the mutilated remains of Armenian civilians killed during 1992 by Azerbaijani forces were found near Lachin. The civilians had attempted to flee Nagorno Karabakh to Armenia and were reportedly massacred by the Gray Wolves", and add this information as separate paragraph between 3 and 4 paragraph of Nagorno-Karabakh conflict section of the article.
Justification for that I already provided (here). --Abrvagl (talk) 18:53, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
- The answer to your question is in your provided quote. Lachin was captured in 1992, the remains were found in 1993, so we do actually know when this happened which is after the town's capture. And once again, the placement was correct all this time. I can add 'reportedly' too if you want, here's my slighly paraphrased proposal (we don't copy-paste info because of WP:COPYVIO)
- The disfigured bodies of Armenian civilians killed by Azerbaijani soldiers in 1992 were discovered near Lachin on May 28, 1993. The civilians had attempted to flee Nagorno-Karabakh to Armenia and were reportedly massacred by the Gray Wolves. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 19:27, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, this wording is good. Great. Yes, remains were found in 1993, but killed during the 1992. We do not know were they killed before, during or after capture. Most probably it was either before or during. My point is that it really does not fits to the paragraph.
- Would it be better to reflect it in the same section, but right after “During May 1992, an Armenian offensive captured the town; as a result, Lachin became a strategic link between Armenia and the Nagorno-Karabakh region -the Lachin corridor.[3]: 8, 10, 31 ”? It would be more logical and flawless. City captured and then bodies were found. --Abrvagl (talk) 20:12, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
ZaniGiovanni, are you happy with below proposed?
First Nagorno-Karabakh War
The town and hinterland of Lachin was the location of severe fighting during the First Nagorno-Karabakh War (1990–1994).[citation needed].
During May 1992, an Armenian offensive captured the town; as a result, Lachin became a strategic link between Armenia and the Nagorno-Karabakh region -the Lachin corridor. The disfigured bodies of Armenian civilians killed by Azerbaijani soldiers in 1992 were discovered near Lachin on May 28, 1993. The civilians had attempted to flee Nagorno-Karabakh to Armenia and were reportedly massacred by the Gray Wolves.
Following the town's capture by Armenian forces, it was looted and burned. The mainly Azerbaijani population fled........
--Abrvagl (talk) 17:36, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
- I'll check the HRW again just in case and tell you for sure most likely tomorrow. I'm busy right now irl. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 18:25, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
- Checked again the HRW source. Looks good. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 09:51, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
ZaniGiovanni (talk), Thanks for cooperation. Consensus reached. Dispute closed. --Abrvagl (talk) 12:15, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
An Armenian sergeant
Hi ZaniGiovanni, please explain why you reverted my good faith and well justified edit, which I did according to the source?
Thanks. Abrvagl (talk) 14:12, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- I restored the previous edit because I have the source, and the previous edit is the closest to what the sergeant says: "They stole from us. Twenty three Armenian villages were pillaged. Now we're taking from them" . We either attribute all of it to the source or none of it. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 14:17, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- 1.
none of it.
- I would be happy to remove mention of Armenian sergeant. It is not encyclopedic material. Who cares what some unknown sergeant said? However, as some editors insists to keep this non-encyclopedic information - I did not remove it. - 2. I rephrased the sentence to remove wartime ethnic retribution logic from the article. There is no "because" work in the article. What I rephrased is perfectly fine and reflects exactly what is written in the source
An Armenian policeman on Azerbaijan's border told the British journalist that Azerbaijani forces had previously pillaged 23 adjacent villages.
. There is no place for wartime ethnic retribution logic in the Wikipedia, especially when we talking about words of unknown sergeant. His tit-talk to journalist not even an encyclopedic material. So please reinstate my edit that you reverted or, if you wish, remove the sentence as whole. Abrvagl (talk) 14:50, 20 June 2022 (UTC)1. none of it. - I would be happy to remove mention of Armenian sergeant. It is not encyclopedic material. Who cares what some unknown sergeant said? However, as some editors insists to keep this non-encyclopedic information - I did not remove it.
- You really need to stop quoting me out of context (literally a single phrase out of the whole sentence), and I never suggested removing the sergeant. By "we either attribute all of it to the source or none of it", I mean by adding ‘according to one person that said something to one journalist’ you're casting doubt on what they said, essentially MOS:ALLEGED, yet the rest of the information that comes from this one source like the looting is stated as an indisputable fact by not attributing it to someone.
2. I rephrased the sentence to remove wartime ethnic retribution logic from the article. There is no "because" work in the article.
- Your "rephrasing" omits as to why in sergeant's words the looting was done. There doesn't need to be literal "because", it's called paraphrasing. "They stole from us. Twenty three Armenian villages were pillaged. Now we're taking from them" - this means, per sergeant, that the looting was done because Azeris pillaged those 23 villages previously, if you don't understand basic English paraphrasing, that's not a me problem. And the Guardian, a reliable source, thought it was alright to include this information in their report, so I see no problem to its inclusion in the article. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 10:35, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- 1. Not sure why you highlight that Guardian is reliable. I never said that Guardian not reliable.
- 2. "They stole from us. Twenty three Armenian villages were pillaged. Now we're taking from them" - It is not about understanding. It is about how you paraphrasing. Quote itself can be understood in many ways, but by adding "because" you making it wartime ethnic retribution logic. Moreover, for your attention, that was also commented by the moderators:
saying that one village was destroyed "because" the other side had previously pillaged others, is injecting the logic of wartime ethnic retribution and nationalist tit-for-tat right into Wikipedia's own voice. This one word alone, "because", would warrant a topic ban as far as I'm concerned, if nothing else did.
. The way I paraphrased is perfectly reflects words of the Serjeant while removing retribution logic, but I am ready to hear your suggestions. Abrvagl (talk) 10:58, 24 June 2022 (UTC)- I say that if we’re going to use a source of one journalist, we have to include the key details and not be selective about what we cite. Language like “everything of value” is not neutral or encyclopedic, so it’s not fair to cite only the journalist’s viewpoint for Azeris but not Armenians. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 21:42, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- There is nothing fair-unfair to talk about. In one case, journalist witnessed something, while in another, a serjant told him something. Lets not mix staff and not make it WP:ALLORNOTHING. I never intended to remove one or another. My point was that wartime retribution logic is not for Wikipedia and I paraphrased it accordingly. Now, my question to you is: Do you have any suggestions how to paraphrase it differently, or not? Because if not, then I will paraphrase it the way I proposed. Abrvagl (talk) 03:51, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- ZaniGiovanni Please be informed that I am about to construe your silence as agreement.WP:NOTSILENCE. Abrvagl (talk) 19:38, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
In one case, journalist witnessed something, while in another, a serjant told him something.
- It’s what the journalist witnessed a sergeant tell him, both are things he witnessed. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 22:48, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- I already said, WP:ALLORNOTHING is out of the discussion. And you did not answer to my question. Should I repeat it again? Abrvagl (talk) 03:51, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Pretty sure you don't understand what you're citing, an essay about deletion discussions is irrelevant here and to my argument. And I already replied to the point you made. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 09:11, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- First, I' am not here to explain you simple staff like what is the difference between journalist reporting what he saw personally and journalist reporting was told while not witnessing that personally.
- Second, what it your argument? We are not being selective here, neither we keeping the journalist’s viewpoint for Azeris but not Armenians. I already told you I paraphrased it while keeping the main points, and I explained why I did that(wartime ethnic retribution logic) and even showed you how that was commented by the moderators.
- I asked you simple question: Do you have any suggestions how to paraphrase it differently, or not? Now please answer that one simple question. Abrvagl (talk) 09:56, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- WP:NOTSILENCE. There hasn't been a response in over a month. While waiting for your response, I considered and researched this. There is a significant distinction between what the journalist witnessed firsthand and what some unknown serjant told him. There number of sources reported that Lachin was looted, and there are even factual video evidences of it. According to the 1979 census, only 34 (0.1%) Armenians lived in Lachin. 34 persons are insufficient to form even one village, what 23 villages are we talking about? When were they pillaged? Statement of sergeant is hearsay and vague, he was questioned while looting and burning of Lachin was ongoing...he would say that, wouldn't he?. Thus it is WP:UNDUE. Abrvagl (talk) 04:42, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
- I will wait one more day, and if there is no reply from anyone, then I will implement the edit. A b r v a g l (PingMe) 06:43, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
- Are you still talking about this? I suggest taking it to DRN or asking WP:THIRD, I already said what I had to say regarding this dispute. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 10:59, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
- Pretty sure you don't understand what you're citing, an essay about deletion discussions is irrelevant here and to my argument. And I already replied to the point you made. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 09:11, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- I already said, WP:ALLORNOTHING is out of the discussion. And you did not answer to my question. Should I repeat it again? Abrvagl (talk) 03:51, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- There is nothing fair-unfair to talk about. In one case, journalist witnessed something, while in another, a serjant told him something. Lets not mix staff and not make it WP:ALLORNOTHING. I never intended to remove one or another. My point was that wartime retribution logic is not for Wikipedia and I paraphrased it accordingly. Now, my question to you is: Do you have any suggestions how to paraphrase it differently, or not? Because if not, then I will paraphrase it the way I proposed. Abrvagl (talk) 03:51, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- I say that if we’re going to use a source of one journalist, we have to include the key details and not be selective about what we cite. Language like “everything of value” is not neutral or encyclopedic, so it’s not fair to cite only the journalist’s viewpoint for Azeris but not Armenians. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 21:42, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- 1.
Co-name of Berdzor should be deleted
This town is under sovereignty of Azerbaijan, de facto and de jure both. The so called "Berdzor" naming should be deleted or transfer. 78.190.238.171 (talk) 21:18, 16 November 2023 (UTC)