Talk:Capture of Gushchular and Malibeyli/Archive 1: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m oops, accidentally deleted message above me
Mursel (talk | contribs)
7,779 edits
Line 150: Line 150:


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.--[[User:MarshallBagramyan|Marshal Bagramyan]] ([[User talk:MarshallBagramyan|talk]]) 19:46, 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.--[[User:MarshallBagramyan|Marshal Bagramyan]] ([[User talk:MarshallBagramyan|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. [[User:Neftchi|Neftchi]] ([[User talk:Neftchi|talk]]) 20:51, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:51, 18 May 2011

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)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Capture_of_Gushchular_and_Malibeyli/Archive_1&oldid=429780041"