Talk:Edilli

Proposal for new text regarding graves from the First Nagorno-Karabakh War
The current text regarding the recently discovered graves from the First Nagorno-Karabakh War which was added in October 2022, is quite problematic regarding its length, language, and the sources used (Azerbaijani government sources or those parroting them). Below you can find my proposal for a new text (previous context regarding the issue can be found here: ), if there are further reliable sources that can be found describing the incident as a war crime, I don't have an issue with removing attribution. AntonSamuel (talk) 09:49, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

On 4 October 2022, three sites of graves of Azerbaijani military servicemen from the First Nagorno-Karabakh War were discovered in the village. As most of the buried soldiers had had their legs tied, Azeri human rights lawyer Ziya Guliyev has described it as an example of a war crime.


 * I would agree with a sentence that describes the finding neutrally, with attribution of who says it is war crime, without citing Azerbaijani government-controlled sources (gov.az, azertag.az) or sources simply repeating them without sober analysis of the available information or without using neutral language (unian.net, eureporter.co). The reported findings are not confirmed by any independent observers, and Azerbaijani government, known for Armenophobia, is as reliable for reporting things related to Armenians as Russian government for reporting things related to Ukrainians. We should keep the article mostly about the geographical location / dwelling it is about and we should not indulge in Recentism but wait for independent analyses, to avoid Wikipedia becoming the mouthpiece of Azerbaijani (or any other) government. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 19:41, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

What kind of problems are we talking about? The content is properly sourced and attributed and related. I can not see any reason to delete factual information, which is sourced and attributed properly. A b r v a g l (PingMe) 13:05, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You've added content in October 2022 to the article based largely on Azerbaijani government reports - these are not reliable . If there are reliable sources describing the issue, that is another issue, the WP:ONUS is on the editor that wishes to include controversial/disputed content, through discussion - not reverts. The summary above by summarizes it pretty well, as well as the arguments presented in the link I've provided to the previous discussion . I think I've explained the problematic nature of your additions quite clearly and extensively at this point. AntonSamuel (talk) 13:15, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * We cannot just label factual information unreliable while explaining it with some personal belief that any Azerbaijani source is unreliable due to "Armenophobia" and with odd comparisons of Azerbaijan-Armenia to Russia-Ukraine.
 * [2] does not make the sources used "unreliable." This is what it says: Armenian, Azeri or other local sources are subject to the same requirements of reliability as any other scholarly or journalistic sources. Use of material from propagandistic nationalist sites is unacceptable. There appears to be some misunderstanding of what reliable implies, as the content you deleted was properly cited and attributed. It is attributed, which means that we publish factual information without saying whether or not it is accurate. Every piece of material I contribute is referenced and reliable, and WP:ONUS does not imply that you can simply come in and delete any information from the article with some hazy reasoning over two months after it was written. So I expect you to point what exactly is unreliable in the factual information, which supported with video and photo footage and covered by the number of third-party newspapers, , , , ?
 * P.S. Why this talk does not mentions any arguments from previous discussions with @Kleuske? A b r v a g l (PingMe) 16:33, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I have not stated that all Azerbaijani sources are unreliable. Azerbaijani government reports certainly fall within the parameters of nationalistic and propagandist sources – especially when dealing with controversial issues connected to the conflict. WP:ONUS is quite clear (and concise): "While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article. Such information should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." Apart from the reliability issue, the material you added was far too long for a geographic article for the village – it was longer than all the other material featured in the article and regarding precedence – if you look for both historical and contemporary reports of war crimes on other Nagorno-Karabakh geographic articles, such as Hadrut, Ghaibalishen and Mets Tagher for example, the reports are usually short and concise. The language of the material you added was also not neutral, it did not give proper attribution – you've treated the Azerbaijani government reports as factual and reliable. I would advise you to create a new article using reliable third-party sources for such an in-depth and lengthy text that covers the topic. AntonSamuel (talk) 17:04, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:ONUS does not mean that you can delete sourced content that was in the article nearly for 2 month. ONUS currently is on you to achieve consensus which determine that certain information does not improve an article. You were advised to start the talk and reach the consensus, and so far you did not achieve consensus.
 * the material you added was far too long for a geographic article for the village - First, the article is about Edili village, and mass graves discovered in Edili village are completely relevant to the article. Second, the Mass Graves section, which you also omitted, is significant enough to need its own section. Neither the claim that it is a "geographic article" nor the fact that the information is lengthier than other material are grounds for removing sourced materials directly relevant to the article.
 * contemporary reports of war crimes on other Nagorno-Karabakh geographic articles, such as Hadrut, Ghaibalishen and Mets Tagher for example, the reports are usually short and concise. - That appears to be whataboutism. Furthermore, the material was brief and to the point; it discussed two instances where mass graves were discovered, as well as two remarks indicating that the process is ongoing. What you did was not make it brief and succinct; instead, you shredded it to nothing and erased entire sections, inserting 1 phrase into the history part instead, despite the fact that it is not even a history, but mass graves that are being discovered now.
 * it did not give proper attribution – you've treated the Azerbaijani government reports as factual and reliable. - It is impossible to address the ambiguous claims; please specify what exactly you're talking about, what statement is not attributed, but requires attribution?
 * The language of the material you added was also not neutral - again, what is exactly not neutral? Not neutral in what way? You need to be specific. Editors really cannot sit and imagine what you meant by such kind of vague claims. A b r v a g l (PingMe) 09:13, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * What you've added has tangential relation to the article, is not neutrally worded (we cannot state in Wikivoice these are graves of Azeris killed by Armenians based solely on Az government allegations), and the majority of the article (which is how it looked like after your undue expansion) can't be dedicated to a tangential claim. The current version is due and summarizes with attribution what the Az government claims, and is sufficient for this small article. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 10:03, 3 December 2022 (UTC)