Talk:Maraga massacre

POV

The entire article is provided by a single source, a source that is a free self created website from geocities and a very POV to: http://www.geocities.com/master8885/index.html which is in association with: http://www.cilicia.com/Convenience.htm Just go through both sites a bit you will find all kinds of absurt statements. These sources are not reliable and highly POV, either this article should contain reliable sources or be deleted as unsourced. Baku87 12:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I've fixed up the article a bit, I included a second reference and changed the original reference to the article being hosted on Christianity Today, a non-geocities site. I know that Caroline Cox is a contentious figure, so I made it clear that I was referring to her version of the events. However, she isn't the only person who wrote about it, so those references are given as well. -- Augustgrahl 14:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah thats much better but the new first source remains most POV NKR-owned site, something should be done about this. Baku87 18:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

First reference to: http://www.nkrusa.org/nk_conflict/ethnic_cleansing_campaigns.shtml#maragha - This is of course not acceptable for clear and obvious reasons, and is removed per discussion with admin Francis Tyers. Likewise, the Forth reference to "Ethnic Cleansing in Progress, War in Nagorno Karabakh, by Caroline Cox and John Eibner, Institute for Religious Minorities in the Islamic World, Zurich, London, Washington, 1993" -- a very long quote from a well-known pro-Armenian Baroness Cox. At very least the quote should be trimmed, as it's undue weight. --adil 21:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Baroness Cox is a frequent visitor to Armenia and occupied territories of Azerbaijan, such as Nagorno-Karabakh, Lachin, etc. There is no need to reference such a basic fact, but if one insists, sure, here it goes: [1] "paid tribute to guest of honor Baroness Caroline Cox, and the "dedicated group of philanthropists for their continuous support of Armenia Fund USA projects in the last decade."", and "paid tribute to Baroness Cox as a "true Armenian nationalist who would give her life for Armenia and Karabakh."" and "Baroness Caroline Cox, a member of the British House of Lords, a leader in Christian Solidarity, and an Honorary Citizen of Karabakh, has made more than 60 humanitarian trips to Karabakh" (note, she made 60 trips at the 2003 count).

Here's another one from Ambassador of Armenia in USA Arman Kirakossian [2]: "First, I want to thank Baroness Cox on behalf of the President and the people of Armenia. They say ‘a friend in need is a friend indeed,’ and Lady Cox has supported and inspired the Armenian people in Artsakh from the very beginning of their struggle." So Baroness Cox is complete POV and should be identified as such. --adil 23:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I reverted your edits on the page, allegedly is POV, second, the quote is fine and you shouldn't remove bits of it. Artaxiad 01:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Quote is too long and gives undue weight to it, as the source is POV as shown above. Saying "allegedly" is not POV, that's actually NPOV. --adil 07:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

That's one opinion.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 15:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

She is entitled to that opinion, that's why no one is removing it, but it must abide by Wikipedia rules. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AdilBaguirov (talk • contribs) 05:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

I'm reverting your last edit, Adil. It's an obvious removal of information. -- Aivazovsky 16:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Should we not merge all the reported massacres from both sides in one article? Britannica or other encyclopedia's don't do it the way it is done here. Anatolmethanol 15:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Non-existing project tag removed [3]. Atabek (talk) 07:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Present impartial sources to Caroline Cox (Cox herself and her organizations are not impartial) being a witness of those events, else change the wording to "claimed to observe". Atabəy (talk) 15:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Cox, NPOV and parliament of NKR

1. Caroline Cox is pro-Armenian activist, so added referenced information about her.

2. According to NPOV added information at the beginning of the article.

3. Parliament is a state institute, so it's better to use NKR instead of Nagorno-Karabakh. --Quantum666 (talk) 05:16, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't immediately see your question on my talk page.

1. Regardless where her sympathies lie, the way the information is presented makes it sound like someone is trying to undermine her credibility, which is a very cheap shot and otherwise unacceptable.

2. You are stating that this massacre is said to have taken place by the say-so of Armenian or pro-Armenian sources. The accusation against Baroness Cox's organization being pro-Armenian is borderline original research. Also, the sources that have been provided here cannot all be categorized as "Armenian" or "pro-Armenian", since they include a British journalist, Thomas de Waal, a journalist who is nominally neutral, and Helsinki Watch, a human rights organization.

3. No dispute. So I've left that unchanged.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 21:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

1.First of all, terms like "cheap shot" are unacceptable. I hope you won't use them anymore. So you just disagree with the way the information about Cox is presented in the article? If you do then let's find the better way to present the information.

2.I haven't said that the massacre didn't take place. But the information about how it happened is provided only by Armenian and pro-Armenian sources. Do you agree? --Quantum666 (talk) 06:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

1. Using the phrase "cheap shot" is not "unacceptable"; the problem here is that someone is trying to subtly insert wording which is used to suggest that because Cox or her organization is pro-Armenian, their claims should only be taken with caution. So, no, not only do I object to the partisan wording that you are offering, but I object to even inserting it at all because it is irrelevant.

2. And yet, no one has came out to dispute that such a massacre took place. Given this, there should be reason for you to try to create an issue when there is none on which organization reported what, since that would be tantamount to original research.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:27, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

1.Maybe the problem is that someone is trying to remove important information about sympathies of Caroline Cox of Armenians? If you think that the information is partisan and irrelevant you can address your complaint to the source of information (Thomas De Waal). This information is important and relevant because it correctly attributes the information from nonneutral source according to NPOV. And this attribution has the reference to a source.

2.Once again: I haven't said that the massacre didn't take place. But the information about how it happened is provided only by Armenian and pro-Armenian sources. Do you agree? --Quantum666 (talk) 05:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Why don't we do the same for Khojali massacre which mostly lies on the informations gathered by the HRW by interviewing refugies, when they are criticized by several notable sources for their blind accusations of the military and blowing their actions out of proportion like they did in several instances (some which they have recognized like in the case of Kossovo)? I also see you adding back this source here when he is at least just as overtly pro Azeri than Cox is pro-Armenian, if not more since he actually does money supporting the Azeri. Would you have any problem if I add the same wording there? But the information about how it happened is provided only by Armenian and pro-Armenian sources. That's simply nonesense, what happened in Maraghar does not require as much material as other places in which there were military justifications in taking such decisions so that that could be added (like for instance what happened in Khojali). Unless you have any info that the some hundreds Armenians living there had any groups similar to the OMONs etc., or attempted any actions which prompted a military action, you will have no grounds to try to balance this. The question here lies on whatever or not there was a massacre and not what happened which prompted a reaction (since in this case there could have been no prior event but only an anti-Armenian action plain and simple). You jump came about here on July 2, I just hope that English Wikipedia will not be flauded by all those Azeri who were banned from Russian Wikipedia to continue the off-wiki coordination. Ionidasz (talk) 20:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Have I ever said that the massacre didn't take place? --Quantum666 (talk) 21:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

You can continue discussion about Khojaly genocide here. Thanks for your opinion. --Quantum666 (talk) 21:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Her position, to reiterate for the last time, on the Nagorno-Karabakh War is not important. If there is no dispute that a massacre actually took place, then you have no right to create an issue out of it. To insert such irrelevant information merely insinuates that her and her organization's account of the massacre is compromised by her loyalty to a certain side. Go over what WP:NPOV actually says before trying to cite it as a reason to include your unacceptable edits.

And no, I don't agree with your assertion that only Armenian or pro-Armenian organizations reported this because it's original research.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 23:27, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

1. Her position and her sympathies are very important and relevant because they could affect her opinion about the events. Moreover Cox is a primary source and the secondary source (Thomas De Waal) mentions her sympathies talking about Maraghar events. So you are not argueing me but the secondary source.

2. If you don't like words like "Armenian" or "pro-Armenian" we can attribute the sources in other way so it wouldn't seem to you as an OR. --Quantum666 (talk) 05:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to repeat what I just said but you're mistaken if you honestly think any of your proposed changes are even mildly close to being neutral. Take it up with an administrator if you don't believe me. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 21:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I put the POV template until the problem is resolved. For details look here. --Quantum666 (talk) 10:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the lengthy Cox quote. There are still several phrases on her views on the massacre in the article.I have also rated the article to a B and added the Azerbaijani project to it.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 20:23, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Comment on editing disagreement

I gather there is an editing disagreement, and the dispute can be shown by this diff.

Regarding the disputed text:

• "according to Armenian and pro-Armenian sources" implies other sources have a different view. It would be preferable not to include this text, and if there are other notable views, to mention them, along with sources.

• "Baroness" or "the supporter of Karabakh Armenians" - perhaps a compromise could be not to include either description.

If the dispute continues to go round in circles, you could always request mediation from WP:MEDCAB. PhilKnight (talk) 13:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

According to US congress documents.

There is an unspecified source which is called "US congress documents". Before adding it to the article we should define whether it can be called RS. So I have a few questions:

• What kind of document is it?
• Why should we use US congress documents?
• Did the congress investigate the events?

--Quantum666 (talk) 12:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Tags on relevance and neutrality

I think this article has the same if not less notable background than Agdaban massacre. There is not a single neutral source indicating that the massacre in fact took place, or whether what happened can be termed as massacre.Atabəy (talk) 00:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, for now I left notability and POV tags. Let Marshall Bagramyan explain how Malisheyli and Gushchular massacre is less notable or reliable in existence of Human Rights Watch [4]. Tuscumbia (talk) 14:52, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The Amnesty International source already says on page 9 that "Armenian villagers reported...", which means that the massacre taking place is not the opinion of the human rights organization, they just quote it what Armenian source has reported. Hence this is unfit for the WP:NPOV, unless we can somehow emphasize that the opinion quoted by AI was that of Armenian sources. Atabəy (talk) 15:47, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I found the original source from quoted Human Rights Watch book, available on Google Books. It's actually not on page 6 as wrongly cited by someone earlier but on page 92 and refers to Maraga. The source clearly says that 50 civilians were captured in Azerbaijani attack, there is no reference to any massacre taking place there. Page 6 though does refer to Azerbaijani massacres committed by Armenian forces. So I corrected the source to properly reflect what was said on page 92. Atabəy (talk) 16:03, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I reaccessed all references from HRW and AI to properly reflect what was said in this article. Looks like the information placed earlier was misinterpreted in a lot of ways. Also added a reference from Melkonian. Atabəy (talk) 17:42, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

This all sounds like a case of making a point. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:44, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Kansas Bear, I believe on sensitive subjects as this, the same language that was used in Khojaly Massacre must be followed. If the article is proven to be notable, then such language is a must. Wikipedia is not a place for inventing massacres, and if the incident happened, the wording must properly reflect the wording of eyewitness sources. The primary source citing them was Armenian eyewitness used by Human Rights Watch, which was quoted in De Waal's book. Atabəy (talk) 18:58, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe the correct "reaction" to the deletion of an article, which apparently some editors had a great deal of personal attachment, would not be an emotional tagging and the numerous introduction of citations to a corresponding article. While I don't agree with Buckshot's actions, I do not see any excuse for demanding his banishment from ethnic related articles. The simple statement "De Waal is from Armenian sources" is battleground mentality. I would warn you against violating 1RR on this article and other emotion diatribes(tagging and citations). --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:13, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Kansas Bear on this one. I am of the opinion that Tuscumbia's and Atabey's recent edits to this article are a direct reaction to the deletion of the articles by Buckshot08. The weasel wording and even the tagging of sources like HRW, Amnesty International and Thomas de Waal as unreliable seem to indicate to me that a POINT is being made, with a flagrant disregard of basic Wikipedia rules. Atabey's unhelpful sarcasm and odd comments that this massacre was simply invented and even the implicit admission that this is being done in retaliation for Buckshot's actions are quite disturbing. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 20:29, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

KansasBear, it is not about personal attachment. And who said "De Waal is from Armenian sources"? The material which you tried to insert as reference was taken by De Waal from Human Rights Watch, HRW in turn cited it from Armenian eyewitness, who was fighting against Azeri forces. This is spelled out well in HRW reference, including the initials/name of Armenian witness. So given that Armenian eyewitness is not a neutral source, then everything should be recited exactly as HRW puts it, without taking direct responsibility for the report. Atabəy (talk) 01:54, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

And based on both Human Rights Watch reports using Armenian combatant eyewitness, and Amnesty International doing the same, there is no sufficient evidence of massacre available from neutral notable sources. Excuse me but Baroness Cox, who calls herself, I quote, "an unashamed advocate of the Armenian cause in Karabakh" is by far not a neutral source here too. Atabəy (talk) 02:09, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what to say - it's almost as if you're playing games with the article just so you can make your point following Buckshot08's actions. This is turning out to be a clear-cut case of WP:POINT and the article's neutrality and attempt for factual integrity appears to be compromised.

Where does one begin? On the one hand, the article cites several sources (De Waal; BBC Russia) which positively assert that a massacre took place. On the other, Atabey has, what I believe, disingenuously added the adverb "allegedly" to qualify the killings and discredit other reports used in the article. Witness this insertion of a quotation by an American Congressman by Atabey to what can best be viewed as to discredit Caroline Cox's report. I can understand if someone else's actions have greatly upset some editors. I can understand if you wish to modify a section which you believe contains some errors and bring it more line with nPOV. But, please, retaliating against the administrator and then unabashedly attacking another article beggars some belief. That Atabey has almost admitted to as much in his edits here and the Kirovabad Pogrom article is even more surprising. I believe that Kansas Bear has taken the correct step by notifying administrators of Atabey's edits, since he now seems to be abusing his privileges as an editor.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 03:09, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I think Buckshot himself should probably explain his revert, reinserting the POV "killing of the ethnic Armenians...by Azeris", to provide little more detail on "which Azeris" that is. Unless of course, he personally entrusted MarshallBagramyan to comment in regards to his article edits, in which case he should note that on talk page along with reverts. Atabəy (talk) 23:32, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand why inserting Caroline Cox reference from Congressman Pallone or herself is considered discrediting her? All it reveals is that she is staunchly pro-Armenian, hence unable to hold a neutral opinion on the matter. And the word allegedly is based on Human Rights Watch reports, I did not invent it. Finally, administrator is elected to set an example by obeying guidelines that he enforces. Thus I don't see why questioning administrator on controversial or conflicting edit should be any different from questioning any other editor without administrative privilege. Atabəy (talk) 23:39, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, it's odd that an administrator who expressed his affection to user MarshallBagramyan keeps reverting on controversial articles. Perhaps, presence of another admin would be best in this case. Tuscumbia (talk) 15:38, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

It is fascinating that the editors complaining about my edits in this article actually spend more time to make frivolous reporting on WP:AE board instead of taking part in discussion on this talk page. Atabəy (talk) 23:32, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Request for moving the article to Maraga Massacre was right. There is no such place as Maraghar. It's called Maraga and it's located in Tartar Rayon. Tuscumbia (talk) 13:52, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved Dpmuk (talk) 15:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

---

Maraghar Massacre → Maraga Massacre — There is no place spelling Maraghar. The village name in all available references is Maraga. Atabəy (talk) 23:43, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• Is there any objection to the proposed change of title? I see the spelling "Maraghar" is used in some of the references (as is "Maragha"), but this may be simply a misspelling by the author.--Kotniski (talk) 11:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

No objection. The village is called Maraga, not Maraghar or Maragha. Tuscumbia (talk) 14:11, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Deletion of reference

What is the reasoning for the deletion of this reference?? The Parliament Debates (Hansard), House of Lords, Vol. 589, H.M.S.O., 1999 --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Kansas Bear, the POV reference which says "Azeris killed" (ok, which Azeris? forces? people?) is from Baroness Caroline Cox, who, as confirmed in variety of references (including Congressman Frank Pallone calling her an Armenian nationalist) is a pro-Armenian and religious fundamentalist zealot. Atabəy (talk) 23:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I guess that is the difference, you don't see Quantum666 over at Agdaban massacre deleting sources like http://agdaban.org/agdaban_tragedy.php, this speech[5] by Mrs. Kasumova a government delegate from Azerbaijan or this site http://www.azerigenocide.org/facts/fact06d.htm, which are definitely pro-Azeribaijani. Therefore, if this "pro-Armenian, religious fundamentalist" source should be deleted then I see 3 sources that clearly are not neutral sources. If we are striving for neutral sources then let's go to work! --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Kansas Bear, opinion of Cox can be presented in the article as her opinion is mentioned by other sources (e.g. De Waal) but her pro-armenian sympathies must be mentioned too in order not to mislead a reader about her "neutrality". And I see no need to write her opinion in the lead section as the main information is already presented there. At least the phrase "by Azerbaijani troops or Azeris" looks very odd. --Quantum666 (talk) 09:25, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Odd, I don't see the same highlighting of opinion on the Agdaban massacre. Where Azerbaijani government delegates and pro-Azeri websites are used as references. I see a need for neutrality to be enforced equally. I see no need for that reference to be deleted. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:27, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I removed the image attributed as "Azeri tanks approaching Maraga". The photo has a questionable copyright, and it is not known whether this is indeed a photo of Azeri tank taken on April 10, 1992 in Maraga. Atabəy (talk) 19:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

MarshallBagramyan, before removing factual information from the article, please, discuss it on the talk page and come to a consensus conclusion. The reference by Markar Melkonian, is based on diary of Monte Melkonian, and that's what was in the article. Why are you trying to deliberately remove that information? Atabəy (talk) 00:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Atabey, after editing on Wikipedia for all these years, you know that I should not have to come here and explain to you on why such edits are unacceptable and tantamount to vandalism. Constantly adding those lines regarding Mrs. Cox make it too obvious that you are trying to belittle her credibility. This isn't the first time an editor has tried to do so on one of these articles but it's not difficult to miss. There are photos of Mrs. Cox with her investigative team (see De Waal here, p. 176 for confirmation) and whatever her position is on the conflict, let the reader decide their merit, instead of you yourself trying to tell the reader what to think in so blatant a fashion.

The same goes for Melkonian: instead of identifying him in the article as the most prominent commander of the Nagorno-Karabakh War, the one position he is best known for, you immediately highlight his time in ASALA, which really does not compare to the former. Regardless of which: nowhere does Melkonian's brother indicate that he is quoting Monte from his diary but is merely expressing his own opinion. These kinds of disruptive edits, blatant attempts to violate article neutrality and distortion of sources are absolutely unacceptable and I trust that this will be the last time that I will have to state these basic principles to you. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 02:08, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Marshall, Baroness Cox is a strong advocate of Karabakh Armenian separatism, hence is NOT a neutral reference. Therefore quoting, one must inform the reader about the obvious lack of neutrality on a rather sensitive subject.

Again you are deliberately removing referenced material (now in violation of AA2 remedies) whether on Melkonian or Cox, without proper justification provided on the talk page. So, kindly restore the reference and discuss on the talk page, or I would have no choice but to report the 1RR violation case. Atabəy (talk) 23:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

The issue of her neutrality is moot considering that no source actually disputes that a massacre took place and most agree that at least forty of the village's residents were killed or maimed and an equal or greater number were taken hostage. In other words, no one has ever found reason to challenge the basis of her findings or the reports of the massacre itself. If anything, the manner in which you and other editors have attempted to characterize her has been nothing short of discrediting her or raising suspicion about the validity of her findings, something which is almost tantamount to WP:OR.

Referenced material can be removed if it is deemed irrelevant or obnoxiously POV, two conditions which your added material readily satisfy. I have outlined my concerns in detail and so it's rather peculiar that you're demanding me to add/modify information which another editor has legitimate objections to (my comments notwithstanding the fact that someone else has already reverted my edits). And in light of your threat, please note that I am not under 1RR restrictions nor have I engaged in any form of edit warring.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 02:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

MarshallBagrmayan, if the referenced material does not question the fact of massacre, but does emphasize the lack of neutrality of the author it shall be pointed out. In fact, Baroness Cox who calls herself "an unashamed advocate of the Armenian cause in Karabakh" and even named as "Armenian nationalist" by Congressman Frank Pallone Jr. is not neutral regardless of what investigation she conducts. There was a discussion on this above, which you seem to overlook.

I would emphasize more on Human Rights Watch (which actually itself referenced only a single Armenian combatant witness) from whom all others obtained the figure of 43 civilians. And please, refrain from removing relevant materials in reverting manner. For example, Melkonyan's account of some of the Karabakh battles is among the most relevant and non-neutral ones. Atabəy (talk) 15:46, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The emphasis is unnecessary and sticks out in a very obvious manner, one which does not disguise the fact that whoever inserted it was trying to make a less-than-genuine point across. What others have called her (especially Pallone) is likewise unnecessary and only to seems belabor the point I made above. And, in fact, Human Rights Watch's report was preliminary and so I would assign greater credence to a group which actually spoke with the victims themselves, and not just a single fighter who did not witness the actual massacre. And, like I said, I modified the lines inserted by on Melkonian because they clearly did not reflect what is found in the source.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 02:21, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

It is absolutely relevant in judging her (lack of) neutrality in expressing a viewpoint. As far as source, which "group that talked to victims" are you talking about? The most credible sources on this topic are AI and HRW, both of which talk about a single combatant Armenian witness who claimed to see the aftermath. De Waal cites HRW in his material. And Cox is not neutral to a point that any word that she says is questionable. Atabəy (talk) 22:49, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Are some editors questioning the neutrality of Cox or some reliable sources? Aregakn (talk) 10:02, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Maraga massacre. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110815083915/http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/EUR55/008/1993/en/ffa2b3d0-ecc8-11dd-85fd-99a1fce0c9ec/eur550081993en.pdf to https://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/EUR55/008/1993/en/ffa2b3d0-ecc8-11dd-85fd-99a1fce0c9ec/eur550081993en.pdf

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) 05:10, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Maraga / Maragha / Maraghar

I've noticed this article previously used the spellings Maraga, Maragha and Maraghar to refer to the town. Based on the article's title, I have amended these all to read Maraga, save for the Baroness Cox quotation under the Investigations section. RioVerde (talk) 21:03, 25 April 2018 (UTC)