Talk:Capture of Gushchular and Malibeyli/Archive 1

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)

• Let's stay on topic here, which is determining which sources are and are not reliable and/or neutral. I would like to see page 55 of Antero Leitzinger, Caucasus and an unholy alliance, Kirja-Leitzinger, quoted. Since I do not own that book, yet. :-D
• The Croissant source is acceptable as a reliable source
• Bloodshed in the Caucasus is also viable.
• http://azertag.gov.az/index_ru.jsp?id=2312&date=2010-02-11&lang=ru ;is definitely not neutral... per the "gov.az" in the web address
• http://azerigenocide.org/niyazi.htm, also not neutral.
• http://www.azerbaijanfoundation.az/eng/2010/03/10/voice-of-karabakh-65.html, not neutral
• http://azerbaijan.tourism.az/?/ru/topmenu_content/448/, seriously, tourism.az?? not neutral
• http://www.supremecourt.gov.az/?mod=2&cat=302&c=1&id=47&lang=ru&t=g, another "gov.az", not neutral
• http://www.novosti.az/karabakh/20100226/43298581.html, another ".az", not neutral
• http://www.echo-az.com/archive/2008_02/1761/istoriya01.shtml, all I found was this; And on Feb. 12 by the Armenian side looted and burned villages and Malibayli Gushchular Shusha region., this source appears border-line, though error ridden and appears unpublished.
• http://www.trend.az/news/azerbaijan/874657.html, an Azeri news site, not neutral
• http://milliqahraman.az/index/open_full_m.php?id=1217, another ".az" site with military photos, not really neutral. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:26, 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)

Rejection of all the claims in invalid

• 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)