Talk:Military Trophy Park (Baku)

Helmets
The article says helmets belong to dead Armenian soldiers. But how is it possible to definitely know to whom each helmet belonged to? Better wording would be that "some news outlets reported that helmets belonged to dead Armenian soldiers", because it is just a claim by some, and others say nothing about who they belonged to, and museum authorities say they were left behind by retreating Armenian soldiers. Grand master  09:34, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Disagree. Its is not just a tentative claim, it is obvious. By which weird logic Armenian soldiers would suddenly throw away their helmets or other PPE when they retreat? And whom else would the helmets belong to - alive Azerbaijani soldiers? It's like saying the piles of shoes were not confiscated from Jews choked in gas chambers in Auschwitz but voluntarily submitted by Italians on their way to vacation resorts, who just got tired of wearing them. Of course the authorities of that hideous museum will deny everything that incriminates their universally condemned exhibition. Multiple third party comparisons made to Saddam's Victory Arch which also features helmets of fallen enemy soldiers support the current text. --Armatura (talk) 11:12, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * They left not just helmets, Armenian soldiers left behind entire depots full of weaponry and ammunition. I understand that most of those helmets were taken from there. Also, some helmets are rusty, which shows that they remained in the ground for years. Maybe left from the first war. Grand  master  11:52, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * In Wikipedia we rely not on personal WP:OR, personal WP:POV, deductions or alternative history theories but on what WP:RS say, and they explicitly say the exhibited helmets are from dead / killed Armenian soldiers, and from 2020 NK war. Links are in article already. --Armatura (talk) 12:22, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * But I do not propose OR, I say that the views need to be properly attributed. If some sources say that the helmets belonged to the dead, and others do not say that, then we should write that according to some sources helmets belonged to dead Armenian soldiers. We cannot claim this as a fact when it is not universally accepted, no one investigated where those helmets actually came from. Grand  master  12:31, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I reiterate that there is a multitude of reliable sources saying that helmets belonged to the dead Armenian soldiers and it is perfectly reasonable to state that as a fact in Wikipedia followed by references supporting it as it would be the case in any other well referenced fact. Only Azerbaijan denies it, and the fact of denial is also appropriately referenced. Whereas a strange argument like "some sources say that the helmets belonged to the dead, and others do not say that" would create a false balance which would artificially downplay the factual hideousness of the exhibition, making a lame reader think that the chance of the written to be factual is 50/50 at best. I have requested WP:THIRD opinion here to avoid this conversation becoming endless dialogue.  --Armatura (talk) 13:16, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * For example, I see that that such a reputable source as BBC does not say whether the helmets belonged to the dead or otherwise: Therefore in my opinion it would be better to write something like "according to a number of sources/news outlets". A third opinion would be useful, thanks.  Grand  master  14:15, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Not saying they belonged vs 2) saying "they did not belong" are different things. While the latter would be relevant, there is no meaning whatsoever in compiling a list of sources that said nothing, as out of hundreds of thousands of newspapers in the world most would most likely say nothing about something. In that case behind every sentence in wikipedia one could add "but such a reputable source such as XYZ said nothing about this". Absence of an active statement is not a statement per se and making it so would create false balance. If a RS (but not a wiki editor) says "BBC avoided saying this and that", thus giving notability to what BBC did not do, then it could be referenced.   --Armatura (talk) 15:22, 7 November 2021 (UTC)