Talk:Hadrut

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1991[edit]

The wording "was the capital of the Hadrut rayon within the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast of the Azerbaijan Soviet Socialist Republic until the establishment of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic in 1991 until the establishment of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic in 1991" does not make sense. How does the establishment of this 'republic' affect the disestablishment of the Soviet regime in Azerbaijan? Why not then say "was the capital of the Hadrut rayon within the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast of the Azerbaijan Soviet Socialist Republic until the establishment of the Republic of Azerbaijan in 1991"? Parishan (talk) 23:44, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed it to reflect that the NKAO was abolished within Azerbaijan. Mugsalot (talk) 10:59, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hadrut (town). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:27, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 9 October 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: Consensus to move (non-admin closure) BegbertBiggs (talk) 14:44, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Hadrut (town) → Hadrut – It has redirected here for 3 years. If the town is not the primary topic, Hadrut (disambiguation) is to be moved instead. (CC) Tbhotch™ 18:57, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support the 2 administrative units seem to be sub topics of the town. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:39, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Perhaps all the three articles should link to the disambiguation page in the same way, currently it's not uniform. AntonSamuel (talk) 20:42, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I agree having more than one is unnecessary. Daedal45 (talk) 20:38, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Resnjari (talk) 02:01, 17 October 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.

checkY Done. -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:46, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 10 October 2020[edit]

Please change "On 9 October, the Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev announced that Azerbaijani forces has taken control of the town."

to "On 9 October 2020, the Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev announced that Azerbaijani forces has taken control of the town." Daedal45 (talk) 20:34, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 20:59, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hadrut was totally captured by Azerbaijan[edit]

The BBC-Russian link in the article proves this as well:
"Azerbaijani Defense Ministry publishes video confirmation of capture of Hadrut: The Azerbaijani Defense Ministry on Friday published a video with footage from the center of the village of Hadrut. The Azerbaijanis announced the capture of this regional center and strategically important point a few days ago, but they did not present convincing evidence of this. The new video captures recognizable places in the center of Hadrut: a park and a memorial, plaques on the buildings of the authorities of the unrecognized NKR, and so on. In the city during the shooting - silence, no battles, or even distant cannonade is not heard. When the video was shot, it is not reported. The Armenian side has not yet confirmed the surrender of Hadrut. The Azerbaijani military has already published a video this week, which, as they claimed, was filmed in Hadrut, which they had taken, but in fact, the frame included nearby villages and views of Hadrut from them."

When Azerbaijan shows a video from the city center of Hadrut, whether Armenia has confirmed the surrender or not is not relevant. The video itself proves the surrender.Fullscaledx (talk) 06:31, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Information tab says the town is currently uninhabited[edit]

There isn't any source that actually says this. It guess it just assumes it is because there is a war going on? IveGonePostal (talk) 12:29, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IveGonePostal, infobox now shows the 2015 data for population, which I presume is the most up to date figure available. Darren-M talk 11:52, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Darren-M, it was removed in This edit IveGonePostal (talk) 12:12, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong information is provided[edit]

Hadrut is a city inside of Artsakh, this information is wrong and not real, please start the update process or unlock the page to be edited publicly. Gevornairi (talk) 13:51, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccurate information is provided[edit]

Hadrut is a city inside of Artsakh and so long as Artsakh has not been taken, whether one battle has been won over a city or not is irrelevant, and especially when solid proof is not presented. The intent of information provided on wikipedia should be to inform unknowing people seeking quick information about the subject matter they are researching. This is not a news agency reporting on ongoing clashes. This platform should also not be used to sway public opinion on garter support for a cause or to give inaccurate reporting by presenting conflicting information and presenting rapid edits while a situation is developing. perhaps It would be wise return the information to how it was before the war, or we should agree to allow all biases (like perhaps change the claim that this is a "conflict" to "Second Armenian Genocide") to reflect the viewpoints of both sides. 66.196.211.126 (talk) 15:54, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Artsakh[edit]

WikiProject Artsakh template cannot be located in Hadrut Talk Page: Hadrut is part of Azerbaijan, internationally. There are 4 UNSC resolution that require Armenia leave Nagorno-Karabakh. Azerbaijan totally liberated Hadrut.Fullscaledx (talk) 16:33, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Republic of Artsakh (Category:Populated places in Hadrut province belongs to it) is part of the WikiProject. Therefore, it is part of its scope. WikiProjects are not a synonym of "This article belongs to X territory". See also: Talk:Crimea. (CC) Tbhotch™ 16:37, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image format[edit]

@CuriousGolden: Any specific reason as to why you moved the images of the historical churches from the History section to the Gallery section? Besides the relevance of the images for the section, the former version also looked better aesthetically in my view, now all the images are clustered in the Gallery section and not spread out a bit more, which also increases the readability of the page. AntonSamuel (talk) 17:57, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article looked much more clustered when there were 3 images down-to-down that covered the whole left section of the article. You can replace the current image with any of the church images, I don't mind. I only chose the general view one, because it, in my opinion, helps understand the town more. And about Gallery being cluttered, we should remove some unnecessary images from that section as a "Gallery" section shouldn't be a place for every single image tagged with Hadrut from Commons. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 18:04, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I feel more inclined to read an article that has images featured a bit alongside the text, but that's also a matter of taste - some find it distracting as well. I try in general to only include the most important images; a couple of images depicting scenery, monuments and municipal services such as hospitals, religious sites and general views of the town and its streets. However, I would argue for inclusion rather than exclusion when it comes to featuring images - I don't think it's very constructive in general to go on deletion or marginalization sprees with regard to images as that can be a sensitive issue, while I try to clear out some very low resolution pictures if there are better replacements. I'll re-add the church images to the history section, as they are most relevant for this section - but I don't mind all three images as well alongside the text. AntonSamuel (talk) 18:14, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Putting images that are not relevant or aren't elaborated on in the appropriate section aren't usually done. I've put the church images into a {{multiple image}} template to avoid image walling on the left side of the article. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 18:28, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Execution of 2 Armenian servicemen"[edit]

User CuriousGolden changed this sentence from

"Though most of the civilian population was evacuated, a number of civilians were killed in Hadrut and the surrounding area during or after the battle, including a 73-year-old man who was executed along with an Armenian serviceman on video by Azerbaijani soldiers"

to the following:

"Following the battle, video of an execution of two Armenian servicemen spread online, which prompted investigations."

I don't know why mention of civilian deaths and the evacuation of the population should be removed entirely. As for the 2 executed men, Belligcat calls both servicemen, BBC does not positively identify both as soldiers, it says about the Benik Hakobyan (the 73-year-old killed) "it's unclear whether he is a soldier."

There is also this[1] RFE/RL article where a former resident of Hadrut who knew Hakobyan personally says he was not a soldier, and that he had suffered a stroke recently. It's also not clear why the new revision does not mention that the people committing the execution were Azerbaijani soldiers. Fischia Il Vento (talk) 08:19, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can definitely add back the evacuation of civilians and the information about executors being Azerbaijanis. I only removed the sentence about civilians as it was merged with the other sentence claiming one of the executed was a civilian, which is far from accepted. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 08:26, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I'll do that. But neither is it accepted that both were definitely servicemen or combatants. So I propose that it say "Following the battle, a video of an execution of two Armenian men by Azerbaijani soldiers spread online, which prompted investigations." Fischia Il Vento (talk) 08:38, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, that'd do. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 08:43, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Revolution Saga: "Though most of the civilian population was evacuated, a number of civilians were killed in Hadrut and the surrounding area during or after the battle." I'm not sure how correct this sentence is. The source you provided is from Artsakh ombudsman and it claims one death in Hadrut, so it's not "number of civilians" and I presume that one civilian is the unclear executioned man, so including it wouldn't be wise as his status is contested within WP:RS. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 08:53, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That report was as of October 7th, i.e. shortly before the capture of the city and the video of the execution. I can find at least four other civilian deaths reported in Hadrut unrelated to the execution video. I'll add these sources [2] [3] Fischia Il Vento (talk) 09:41, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Capture vs Recapture[edit]

CuriousGolden, I want to avoid an edit-warring situation again so I’m opening this talk section regarding the capture vs recapture. Since capture was the original terminology, please refrain from changing it until we have a consensus here. I don’t see how the usage of this term is justified here, considering the town was never “captured” by Armenian forces in the first place. Achemish (talk) 07:47, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Achemish, it's fine, it can be "captured" here. I mixed up the paragraphs I had read. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 08:03, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Content removal[edit]

No valid reason to remove sourced information from the article, covered by WP:RS. Regarding aysor.am, both articles quote the Artsakh Ombudsman and the Office of Human Rights Ombudsman [4], [5], so its usage is appropriate. Notnews doesn't apply here either. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 17:14, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. First of all, this article is about a settlement whose history is retraced at least three centuries back. The shooting of two captured soldiers in a war that took place in 2020, as tragic as it is, is hardly notable enough to be mentioned in the lede of an article about a settlement, especially if the event is covered copiously in the appropriate section of the body. This would be like mentioning the 2015 Paris attacks in the lede of the Paris article. In addition, this particular event was never followed up on in any recent reports in a way that would affect significantly the history of this town, and references to it are limited to the time when the war was making news, so I find WP:NOTNEWS quite applicable here. What exactly is your rationale for keeping it in the lede?
Secondly, aysor.am being used to quote an ombudsman is, of course, acceptable as long as it is cited appropriately. In a situation where (1) the Armenian ombudsman is not a reliable source, (2) aysor.am is a partisan publication and (3) the killing of "many civilians" has never been corroborated by an independent investigation, this should be presented as a claim. Is there any reason to present this as an independently checked fact? Parishan (talk) 23:11, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
1) This article is about Hadrut, the current town. The centuries old settlements in the area didn't even bear its name and are covered in their respective section. The 2020 War has by far the highest notability in the article, higher than any historical information regarding this article. So I do believe it's warranted to be included in the lead.
2) Ombudsman can be attributed, I have no problem with that. Meanwhile, I'll look for more sources confirming it. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 15:02, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The name Hadrut appears in sources from at least the beginning of the nineteenth century and the settlement has seen other wars, including the Russo-Persian War (1826–1828) and the Armenian-Azerbaijani War (1918–1920) but that is not the point. Calling the recent war the single most notable event pertaining to this town is your personal opinion, and with all due respect, this is not what I am inquiring about. I am yet to hear rationale as two why the killing of two captured soldiers, a clearly breaking-news and never-followed-up-on episode of one of many events related to Hadrut, should appear in the lede of this article about a town (not even about the battle but the town itself), especially when it is mentioned in the body. Parishan (talk) 16:27, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The name Hadrut appears in sources from at least the beginning of the nineteenth - That's not the same as saying centuries old settlement which is irrelevant in case of Hadrut.
Calling the recent war the single most notable event pertaining to this town is your personal opinion, and with all due respect, this is not what I am inquiring about. - It has the highest notability this isn't an opinion, but I digress.
I am yet to hear rationale as two why the killing of two captured soldiers, a clearly breaking-news and never-followed-up-on episode of one of many events related to Hadrut, should appear in the lede of this article about a town (not even about the battle but the town itself), especially when it is mentioned in the body. - This would be my suggestion regarding rewriting the lead and shortening a bit:
This hardly a solution, if at all. First, we are yet to see proof that numerous Armenian civilians were killed coming from a more credible source than what an Armenian official said in an interview to an Armenian news agency during the war. I cannot fathom how including such a partisan claim in the lede would (even remotely) make for a neutral proposal. Secondly, even if proven, I still do not see why of all the historical events that have happened in Hadrut for the past three centuries you insist on zooming in on a breaking-news report about what Azerbaijani soldiers did to two POWs or to Armenian-owned property. Mind you, I am not against including this information in the article. The question remains: why should this be in the lede? Parishan (talk) 22:55, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Nick Waters, a former British Army officer who analyzed the footage for Bellingcat, told RFE/RL he was "confident" the video is "authentic" proof of a war crime."[6]
Confirmation of war crime by third party. Regarding why it should be in lead - If the town’s population had been always around 90% or more Armenian for over a century and there are now 0 Armenians due to war crimes, this is very noteworthy for the lead, and isn’t mere news. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 11:24, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ZaniGiovanni: So what if it was confirmed by a former British Army officer? It is still part of the news buzz of October 2020. The 2015 Paris attacks were confirmed by many more sources and had a larger impact on the history of the city but this does not make them lede material. I am not talking about the town's Armenian majority. I am talking specifically about the need to include in the lede an isolated episode from the 2020 war, for which there is no rationale. What makes it "very noteworhy", i.e. as noteworthy as the location and administrative status of Hadrut? Also, you promised to find independent sources regarding the claim that "numerous Armenian civilians were killed" in the town during the war, but all I see are Armenian sources or references thereto. Parishan (talk) 19:31, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are you really comparing Paris to Hadrut? For a small town like Hadrut, again, for mentioned reasons above, this isn't just mere news and is a big deal. It directly relates to ~90% of its century old population and why there are 0 Armenians now. This is why it's noteworthy for the lede, and your comparison isn't a sufficient one, far from it.
Thanks for reminding, I'm looking for sources. I thought the RFE source mentioned numerous civilians killed, maybe I was wrong. I'll re-check just to be sure and look for other ones. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 19:01, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I still do not understand your logic. How does the killing of two captured soldiers during the war "directly relate" or is in any way logically conducive to the fact that 90% of Hadrut's century-old population is not found there any more? Not to mention how clearly WP:UNDUE this piece of news is. Parishan (talk) 19:56, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what else do you want me to explain. I laid out my rationale pretty clearly imo. Hadrut is a small town with not much (if any) notability or notable events happening other than the 2 NK wars. The execution of 2 Armenian unarmed men we agreed that should stay in body only. In the meantime, as I said, I'll look for a 3rd party source for civilians being killed in the 2020 War. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 20:17, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If we are looking to focus on the fact that Hadrut used to be an Armenian-majority settlement and that this is no longer the case, then this is probably how we should word it in the lede. Even if you do find evidence from a non-partisan source that there were occasional civilian casualties, I do not see why it needs to be in the lede, even given Hadrut's age. There have been very few wars in the history of humankind without civilian casualties. Unless we can prove that this was part of a deliberate massacre (which, in my opinion, would be even more difficult to justify than the claim of the victims being "numerous"), I do not see how this fact, as tragic as it is, would be relevant enough to define in two or three sentences what Hadrut is. Parishan (talk) 20:55, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We're looking to focus on the 2nd Karabakh War, which isn't just something to be noted in history, it happened relatively recently and has the most notability in the article. Hence, it's appropriate to note in the lead along with deaths of civilians during that war.
Here's third party about civilians being killed. And you keep calling Armenian sources partisan, but you've yet to identify sources disputing them. I think this discussion is starting to become circular. if you're still unhappy, I would suggest opening an RfC with your preferred version and mine and see what wider community consensus is. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 11:36, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ZaniGiovanni: Where exactly was it established that the focus of the article should be the Second Karabakh War? There is an article on the war itself with a special section dedicated to suspected war crimes and there is a separate article on the Battle of Hadrut. The history of the town does not revolve around the details of what happened there during the 2020 war. I have nothing against mentioning them in the history section but I find that information WP:UNDUE for the lede.
I do not think I need to dispute partisan sources. The claim of there being "numerous civilians deaths" is WP:EXCEPTIONAL, which means that the burden of proof is on the editor who insists on its inclusion. Your source does not prove anything: it merely says that Armenian sources claim six civilians had been killed. This remains a claim coming from the Nagorno-Karabakh Human Rights Ombudsman Office, whereas you insist on presenting it in the article as an independently verified fact. Has there been an investigation by Human Rights Watch or Amnesty International or any other body that does not merely quote the Armenian ombudsman? If not, then the source you have cited is no better than any other news agency quoted in the article so far. Also, with all due respect, referring to six victims as "numerous civilians" is slightly exaggerated considering that Oxford Dictionary defines the word "numerous" as "existing in large numbers".
I do not find this discussion circular. I believe we are actually getting somewhere with this. Parishan (talk) 06:58, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The town going from always being around at least 90% or higher Armenian to 0% through war crimes is a substantial part of its history. Please familiarize yourself with the sources already in the header, because the RFERL source with analyst Nick Waters declares these to be war crimes, there is nothing “suspected” about them. And as I’ve just said, OC Media is a non-partisan source, and you haven’t provided any sources denying the civilian deaths. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 09:44, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support suggestion above. Nothing of interest has happened in Hadrut in the past 3 centuries that is as interesting as the 2 NK wars. Of course they should be in the lead.Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:52, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Андрей Зубов. "Андрей Зубов. Карабах: Мир и Война". drugoivzgliad.com.
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference armcivilian1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference armcivilian2 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ Cite error: The named reference armcivilian3 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. ^ Cite error: The named reference :2 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Name[edit]

What's the reason for this edit and name Ağoğlan, and what is its notability for the lede? Article is named Hadrut even in az.wiki [7]. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 11:37, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hadrut&oldid=1212545859"