Jump to content

Talk:Azykh

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Azokh)

Discussion

[edit]

There is no nargono - karabakh republic. It is a terrorist regime occupying Azerbaijan's sovereign lands recognized by the UN. Wiki administrators must be careful and shall delete such mis-representations and manipulations by armenian origin wiki administrators.

Second Khijavend is not part of the nagorno-karabakh. there is no region named nagorno-karabakh. It is all part of the larger Karabakh region with the majority Azerbaijani population. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.20.63.194 (talk) 04:48, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • First of all, there is an Nagorno-Karabakh Republic that defeated the Azeris and currently is in control of that region if you would care to read the page. Secondly, the region does not have a majority Azeri population either and it never has and in light of these events it seems they never will. However, by telling the reader that it is de facto control rather than de jure we recognise its status as a disputed territory so there is no need to deny their existence. Mugsalot (talk) 09:24, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • here is not the negociation of Karabakh status, but concerning the article and correct information with the sources. Firstly, there is Azykh Cave as it's noted in the sources(M.Huseynov's archeological research, articles, encyclopedies). And should be changed. Secondly, who is Shaghen Mkrtchan? There is no information except his birth date and position in museum as Direktor in Karabkh in 70-s. Who said that Azer comes from azykh. I prefer to wait for the respond, otherwise I'm going to correct some issues in the articles. Aydin mirza (talk) 20:38, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Aydin mirza, if you would like to discuss the merits of renaming the Azokh Cave article, then the article's talk page is the appropriate place for that, not here. In regard to the etymology of the village, there are admittedly no references at all so albeit I would prefer a citation needed tag, I wouldn't contest its removal. If you have citations from reliable sources for the content you aim to add, then I also have no qualms with that. Mugsalot (talk) 13:23, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
sorry, it's missunderstanding between Azykh cave and Azykh village. Here I'd like to edit some info in the article. I back to this article late. Thank you for your respond.Aydin mirza (talk) 23:57, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit the Article

[edit]

Dear all, I have some questions concerning the information in the article- Azokh was first mentioned in the fifth century during Vardan Mamikonian's rebellion against the Sasanian Empire in 451 AD, and also during the Mongol invasion of Armenia in the 13th century. Azokh was part of the Principality of Dizak from the 10th century until its dissolution in the late 18th century. In the early 19th century, immigrants from Karadag, Iran settled in the village.. Where is the reliable source? If there is no important verified source, it should be deleted. as regards to another one - It is believed the Azeri name comes from the word azyh[what language is this?] which means bear den., I can add the source for azykh(it's an ancient-turkish language). But acually the information It is believed the Azeri name comes from the word azyh, has no any base. I think it should be also deleted. I'd like to argue firstly, because many editions are rejected directly without discussion. --Aydin mirza (talk) 01:32, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide source for azykh coming from ancient-turkic language? — CuriousGolden (T·C) 07:36, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
yes, "Encyclopedic Dictionary of azerbaijan toponyms" -
"Azərbaycan toponimlərinin ensiklopedik lüğəti" ("Энциклопедический словарь азербайджанских топонимов" в 2-х томах). — 2007. — Баку: "Şərq-Qərb" ("Восток-Запад"), 2007. — С. Том 1. Aydin mirza (talk) 17:04, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But I'm interested more in the information without reliable sources. What about it? Aydin mirza (talk) 17:06, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it's alright to delete unsourced information as there's no way to confirm it. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 17:43, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
jr, I will. But hope nobody reject it as usually.Aydin mirza (talk) 16:22, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear all, I corrected the name of Azykh Cave in this article. As regards to the information without sources, AntonSamuel thinks that the edition seems not constuctive. He put cite tag. I don't know if I should wait for any confirmation?

You should provide source for the sentence In the early 19th century, immigrants from Karadag, Iran settled in the village. We can remove the CN tag after you've given a source. Cheers. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 17:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I try by today do it. but what about the information without sources? As I told above AntonSamuel rejects to delete it and say about discussion on Talk Page. I think we should delete all info without any recource. Aydin mirza (talk) 14:23, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, the unsourced sentence seems quite specific and that sentence has been there unsourced for a long while. We can ask @AntonSamuel: if they have any source for it and if not, we can delete it. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 14:32, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@CuriousGolden: I've looked a bit online, but English sources are scarce regarding Azokh as well as Artsakh/NK in general. Do you believe that there are reasonable concerns regarding the validity of the statement? AntonSamuel (talk) 14:35, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Mugsalot: Hey! I saw that you added the statement originally, years ago. Do you possibly have sources for it? AntonSamuel (talk) 14:43, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@AntonSamuel: I don't think it being mentioned in Vardan Mamikonian's book is a big concern, since it is probably true. It being in Principality of Dizak sounds true as well because of Dizak's historic location. Though I do think there's a reasonable concern over the validity of "In the early 19th century, immigrants from Karadag, Iran settled in the village." — CuriousGolden (T·C) 14:46, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
AntonSamuel, it seems that I originally added most of the content from the Ukrainian Wikipedia article for Azokh (1, 2), which also lacks a source. It's not particularly contentious so I don't see why it shouldn't be retained with a citation needed tag. Mugsalot (talk) 15:03, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but let me involve in this discussion.

  • As I know the encyclopedia accepts only facts basing on the source, but not our research's results. so, "probably true" accept as the opinion of some scientists (there is no any scientists opinion). so, if there is no any source that "Azokh was first mentioned in the fifth century during Vardan Mamikonian's rebellion against the Sasanian Empire in 451 AD, and also during the Mongol invasion of Armenia in the 13th century. Azokh was part of the Principality of Dizak from the 10th century, and the Karabakh Khanate from the early 18th century until its dissolution in the early 19th century.". Show us a reliable source that Azokh village was mentioned, please(but reliable only).
  • With respect to Ukrain Wikipedia, but why the article concerning Caucasian region is a priority here?
  • Please, assist to solve it. if there is no proof of the above mentioned, let's delete it. Aydin mirza (talk) 16:10, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dear CuriousGolden, regarding the source concerns "In the early 19th century, immigrants from Karadag, Iran settled in the village.", please, see Encyclopedic Dictionary of Azerbaijan Toponyms (you can find here too https://ebooks.az/view/KY6BewUz.pdf). Aydin mirza (talk) 16:34, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks. I'll add that to the article then. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 16:37, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you.Aydin mirza (talk) 16:57, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The citation needed tag is added for the first sentence. What about "Azokh was part of the Principality of Dizak from the 10th century, and the Karabakh Khanate from the early 18th century until its dissolution in the early 19th century."? it's also needed. Aydin mirza (talk) 17:01, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add it there too until there's a source. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 17:04, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ok, thank you. Aydin mirza (talk) 17:45, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear User talk:CuriousGolden/ I back to our subject reg the citiations and reliable sources. Since November 2020 the are the template, no sources. And I tried to find but no way. Can I remove it? I don't want to do it without discussion to avoid contribution wars in the Article. --Aydin mirza (talk) 17:39, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And second question reg the info in "History" about decapitating of the old man during the last conflict in Karabakh. First of all it's not ethic information for encyclopedi, it's not magazine or newspaper. additional to that this information is not confirmed or investigated by professionals. we can't keep such kind of information in the Article. --Aydin mirza (talk) 17:53, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Name. Source

[edit]

Hello, till we are waiting for the sources in the Article, I'd like to ask concerning the name of Article. there are a few References. Which one (except one, it's a map of 1988-94, the period of conflict) let us know that the name of village is Azokh? I can provide with the following sources that shows the village like Azykh: 1. АЗЕРБАЙДЖАНСКАЯ ССР. АДМИНИСТРАТИВНОТЕРРИТОРИАЛЬНОЕ ДЕЛЕНИЕ. НА 1 ЯАНВАРЯ 1977 ГОДА. ИЗДАНИЕ ЧЕТВЕРТОЕ. Баку-1979. стр.116, 122.(Administrative-Territorial Units of Azerbaijan Soviet Republic. 1st of January 1977. Edition 4. Baku-1979. p.116, 122) 2. https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=%D0%90%D0%B7%D0%BE%D1%85%2C%D0%90%D0%B7%D1%8B%D1%85&year_start=1990&year_end=2008&corpus=25&smoothing=1&direct_url=t1%3B%2C%D0%90%D0%B7%D0%BE%D1%85%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2C%D0%90%D0%B7%D1%8B%D1%85%3B%2Cc0#t1%3B%2C%D0%90%D0%B7%D0%BE%D1%85%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2C%D0%90%D0%B7%D1%8B%D1%85%3B%2Cc0 3. "Encyclopedia of Azerbaijani toponyms" 4. http://www.fallingrain.com/world/AJ/65/Azix.html (References in the article) 5. https://geonames.nga.mil/namesgaz/detaillinksearch.asp?G_NAME=%2732FA88151DF83774E0440003BA962ED3%27&Diacritics=DC (References in the article) 6. https://report.az/dagliq-qarabag-munaqishesi/yeni-eraziler-isgaldan-azad-edildi-2/ (References in the article) The article should be renamed according to the rules. --Aydin mirza (talk) 01:06, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Azykh village" gives me 22,700 results, but "Azokh village" gives 11,500. Also, report.az in your list is not WP:RS, so that shouldn't be used. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 08:26, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I don't understand what you mean. could we rename and put right official name? this village officially refers to definite country and has definite name at the moment. as regards to report.az, ok(but it's in the references of current version). Aydin mirza (talk) 12:07, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In Wikipedia, we usually use the WP:COMMONNAME for places (e.g. how it's most often referred to) and google is a good way to know. And since google has more results for "Azykh village" than "Azokh village", I think it passes. But I would still want more academic/foreign media sources confirming Azykh's common use. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 12:21, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
it's clear now, understood. But if the research shows more(even I don't appreciate this way, sorry)Azykh, the sources show Azykh, what kind of academic source does it requested? you say about academic or foriegn sources, but this village is very small, has no any importance except location near Azykh Cave, it's not historical site or smth important. I just try to understand-which academic sources were it used when this article was issued as Azokh? The administrative-territorial unit of any country is reliable all over the world. Should I understand that this law doesn't work for Azerbaijan? And I'm really suprised that we should search foreign sources about azerbaijan very small village. So we're waiting for the template of renaming. Let me know if you could make it. Thank you for your assistance and hope . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aydin mirza (talkcontribs) 13:23, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
sorry, Aydin mirza (talk) 13:33, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dear all, what about the Rename of the Title? there are sourse, and the main is administrative-territorial units of Azerbaijan Republic (although the same was in Soviet one, you can find in References of this article). I'm not sure if I can to insert this template technically right. and I'm applying to you to avoid further corrections from your side. Aydin mirza (talk) 01:31, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to request a move, use {{subst:Requested move|NewName |reason= Why}} template in a new talk page section. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 07:06, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ok, thank you. I'll try.Aydin mirza (talk) 13:17, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 24 November 2020

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Page moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jerm (talk) 15:10, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]


AzokhAzykh – the village is administrative-territorial unit in Azerbaijan Republic. Aydin mirza (talk) 00:24, 24 November 2020 (UTC) ==[reply]

АЗЕРБАЙДЖАНСКАЯ ССР. АДМИНИСТРАТИВНОТЕРРИТОРИАЛЬНОЕ ДЕЛЕНИЕ. НА 1 ЯАНВАРЯ 1977 ГОДА. ИЗДАНИЕ ЧЕТВЕРТОЕ. Баку-1979. стр.116, 122.(Administrative-Territorial Units of Azerbaijan Soviet Republic. 1st of January 1977. Edition 4. Baku-1979. p.116, 122)[1] 

https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=%D0%90%D0%B7%D0%BE%D1%85%2C%D0%90%D0%B7%D1%8B%D1%85&year_start=1990&year[2]

"Encyclopedia of Azerbaijani toponyms"[3] http://www.fallingrain.com/world/AJ/65/Azix.html[4]

https://geonames.nga.mil/namesgaz/detaillinksearch.asp?G_NAME=%2732FA88151DF83774E0440003BA962ED3%27&Diacritics=DC https://report.az/dagliq-qarabag-munaqishesi/yeni-eraziler-isgaldan-azad-edildi-2[5]

  1. ^ АЗЕРБАЙДЖАНСКАЯ ССР. АДМИНИСТРАТИВНОТЕРРИТОРИАЛЬНОЕ ДЕЛЕНИЕ НА 1 ЯНВАРЯ 1977 (ИЗДАНИЕ ЧЕТВЕРТОЕ ed.). Баку1979. pp. 116, 122.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location (link)
  2. ^ https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=%D0%90%D0%B7%D0%BE%D1%85%2C%D0%90%D0%B7%D1%8B%D1%85&year_start=1990&year. {{cite web}}: External link in |website= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help); Missing or empty |url= (help)
  3. ^ "Encyclopedia of Azerbaijani toponyms".
  4. ^ http://www.fallingrain.com/world/AJ/65/Azix.html. {{cite web}}: External link in |website= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help); Missing or empty |url= (help)
  5. ^ https://geonames.nga.mil/namesgaz/detaillinksearch.asp?G_NAME=%2732FA88151DF83774E0440003BA962ED3%27&Diacritics=DC https://report.az/dagliq-qarabag-munaqishesi/yeni-eraziler-isgaldan-azad-edildi-2. {{cite web}}: External link in |website= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help); Missing or empty |url= (help)
I imagine an admin can take care of that. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 04:42, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Edition and sources

[edit]

Dear all, please, let us know what about the information without citiations and non-relieble soutces like Mkrtchan Sh. I'd like to remove the information that we can't confirm.--Aydin mirza (talk) 16:36, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. But please do not put a : infront of the paragraph. DXLBandLokiBlaster 16:37, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ok. so, can I remove the info without source (since November 2020)? in general there is no any info about the small village before the soviet time. --Aydin mirza (talk) 16:57, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thats how we do things on wikipedia. You must have a source or it has to come from an another language wikipedia page. DXLBandLokiBlaster 17:00, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear BaxçeyêReş, the name of the village is Azykh and refers to Azerbaijan de-facto and de-jure, so the armenian name is noted like variant, to insert it like alternative is unlogic, no official notice. and don't forget it's small village, not huge city. 2. what's problem with "From 1992 to 2020 the village was de facto in the Hadrut Province". the village de-facto, not de-jure. 3. reg Mkrtchan, it's template of the unreliable source stands, besides that no another source to confirm it. 4. another information reg the village with Azokh name is not confirmed also. sorry but Mkrtchan is not historian, he's announced historian, he has never published in reliable editions, exept Armenian encyclopedia, but in any case this History information is not confirmed. it's not professional to insert such kind of information basing on single source like Mkrtchan Sh.--Aydin mirza (talk) 19:35, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear ZaniGiovanni, I argued my edition, Mkrtchan is not historian. I haven't yet reached to reliability of this author. But the information in the article is wrong, he is not historian. To your info WP:HISTAR "Historians carry out original research, often using primary sources. Historians often have a PhD or advanced academic training in historiography, but may have an advanced degree in a related social science field or a domain specific field; other scholars and reliable sources will typically use the descriptive label historian to refer to an historian." Could you, pls, identify him as historian? If you can argue according to the rules, I will undo my contributions --Aydin mirza (talk) 12:31, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You earlier tried to argue that Shahen Mkrtchyan, a Soviet Armenian historian, is "unreliable", only on a different article. You tagged a Armenian Soviet Encyclopedia, produced by the Armenian National Academy of Sciences source that he was being cited from and worked on as "unreliable" [1]. This has already been explained you multiple times on Talk: Stepanakert, yet you're still here minimizing his credentials. Being a notable academic reference work, I'll presume the Armenian Soviet Encyclopedia had a reliable peer-review process unless a trustworthy academic source says otherwise or criticizes it. The fact that he was chosen to write in the encyclopedia, and that the only references to him online describe him simply as an Armenian historian [2] [3] [4] [5], and in the official Artsakh president's website, the president himself describing Shahen in a letter as a "prominent historian" [6], means I haven't seen any signs of him not being a historian, as you are claiming now. And regarding more on your claim that he's "not a historian": Point to a reliable, secondary source that describes him as a fraud, or this discussion is again, going nowhere. Your constant reverts regarding him is not how Wikipedia operates. It's on you to prove that he's not a historian, not on anyone else here, as it was/is established already that he is in fact a historian. I'm asking you to stop your constant baseless reverts and changes regarding him from now on. Your disruptive behavior will not be tolerated. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 12:05, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
1. He's not historian according his education(padagogoc institution doesn't refer to historian education). Pls, read WP:SCHOLARSHIP, WP:HISTAR once more. 2. all 5 sites are armenian, it's not Neutral point of view, independent. If you see Talk Page of the current article and history of editions, you can find the same arguments concerning azerbaijan sources. The rules are for everybody. 3. as regards to Armenian Encyclopedi, there is his name as author of the article, there is no article about Mkrtchan in this encyclopedi as historian. It's WP:No original research, because it's your opinion "The fact that he was chosen to write in the encyclopedia, and that the only references to him online describe him simply as an Armenian historian". According to your logic, everyone who writes now historical books and articles could be announced as historian. 4. first of all, show me whisch rules of this project I break with my editions? 5. Reg reliablility of Mkrtchan is another subject and I will open the new editions on another Page. Now the edition "Mkrtchan is Armenian historian" is discussed. I will put template and request to discuss it. Aydin mirza (talk) 19:17, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry but "Shahen Mkrtchyan is not a historian" statement has no backing. He is listed in Armenian National Library as one:
SHAHEN MKRTCHYAN (1936-2020), historian, cultural figure, Director of the Nagorno Karabakh Regional State Historical-Geographical Museum (1965-1972), Director of the Scientific Museum of the History Museum of Armenia, Branch of the National Gallery of Armenia
And he was not like a unilateral partisan figure either, he was published in Baku:
"Лит.: Мкртчян Ш. М., Нагорно - Карабахская автономная область. Путеводитель, Баку, 1970" 
He has published academic works, and is cited by international authors:
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=shahen+mkrtchyan&btnG=

--Armatura (talk) 21:22, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User:Armatura, this edition in Etymolgy is acceptable in this way. As regards to Mkrtchan Sh. and your argumaents, we'll discuss later on Talk Page in new edition. I wrote but it seems useless because the uncorrect information is edited from your side. Thank you Aydin mirza (talk) 00:52, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, Aydin mirza, glad you are happy with the NPOV / non-undue weight version. ZaniGiovanni, BaxçeyêReş, DXLB_Muzikant, are you happy as well? --Armatura (talk) 01:09, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent! I'm glad that it seems like we can finally wrap this up. BaxçeyêReş (talk) 18:18, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

History section

[edit]

Dear all, I'd like to discus the information in the section concerning the crime act that is confirmed by Newspapers(even popualar, ahve they investigated). Pls, see first of all Wikipedia:Notability (events) § Criminal acts, "Where there are no appropriate existing articles, the criminal or victim in question should be the subject of a Wikipedia article only if one of the following applies: For victims, and those wrongly accused or wrongly convicted of crime,The victim or person wrongly convicted, consistent with Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Subjects notable only for one event, had a large role within a well-documented historic event. The historic significance is indicated by persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role.". Why schould provoking information be insert in the article? There are many crime acts during the war from both side, but Wikipedia is encyclopedic project, and this information is not encyclopedic according the a.m.rules. See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Crime_victims_and_perpetrators and WP:SENSATIONAL. --Aydin mirza (talk) 23:43, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please ask these kind of general questions in Wikipedia:Teahouse, Aydin mirza, this is the talk page of article Azykh. And maybe you could use a spellchecker / translator, and refrain from using abbreviations such as "a.m.rules."; it is quite difficult to understand what you are asking, due to some language barrier. Cheers --Armatura (talk) 00:13, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
thank you for advice. See you later.--Aydin mirza (talk) 11:11, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've applied to WP:Teahouse. Waiting for their advice too, but in any case such kind of information shouldn't be kept in the article because of WP:SENSATIONAL and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Crime_victims_and_perpetrators. --Aydin mirza (talk) 23:18, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
quick bypasser note: WP:SENSATIONAL doesn't apply here, it usually applies to tabloids, whereas here we have high quality sources. And WP:VICTIM is a guideline and not a policy, and is generally about civil crimes, not war crimes during wartime. - Kevo327 (talk) 07:00, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

what about WP:RSBREAKING "Claims sourced to initial news reports should be immediately replaced with better-researched ones as soon as they are published, especially if those original reports contained inaccuracies. All breaking-news stories, without exception, are primary sources, and must be treated with caution: see Wikipedia:No original research § Primary, secondary and tertiary sources, Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources § Examples of news reports as primary sources.". In any case, do you think that such kind of information in the article reg "village" should be insert? Can we see official investigation or smth like this? Wikipedia is encyclopedi, isn't it? --Aydin mirza (talk) 18:26, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

keep researching wikipedia policies, because WP:RSBREAKING doesn't apply either because the sources aren't breaking news articles.- Kevo327 (talk) 17:05, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, User talk:Kevo327. You don't answer my question. is this information for encyclopedic article? should be it inserted without the results of any investigation? So, in this case, we could insert such kind of stories in another articles all over conflicts zones. For example villages or cities in Armenia and Karabakh, or recently occupieded Zaangelan and Kalbajar. I'm sure that you will request very strong sources(not jurnalist article). Why here should we accept it? --Aydin mirza (talk) 22:48, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]