Talk:Shusha pogrom

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Armenia Portal
Shusha pogrom is within the scope of WikiProject Armenia, an attempt to better improve and organize information in articles related or pertaining to Armenia and Armenians. If you would like to contribute or collaborate, you could edit the article attached to this page or visit the project page for further information.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Notice Under the terms of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2, the following sanctions are enacted.
  1. For persistent edit-warring over the Waal source, Andranikpasha is banned from editing Shusha pogrom for two weeks. He may make suggestions on the talk page.
  2. For persistent edit-warring over the Waal source and for failing to actually read either their own edits or Meowy's talk page comments about the duplicated paragraphs, Atabek and Grandmaster are banned from editing Shusha pogrom for 4 weeks and banned from commenting on the talk page for one week. (Since they won't actually take the time to read and comprehend others' comments, their own privilege to comment is temporarily suspended.
  3. Andranikpasha, Grandmaster and Atabek are reminded that during their bans they are not to instruct other editors to edit on their behalf, called proxy editing. Evidence of proxy editing will result in blocking for both the editor directing the edits and the proxy making them.

This notice may be removed by any editor when the bans expire. For more information see [1]. Thatcher 02:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Archive
Archives
Archive 1

Contents


[edit] Some corrections

At first, special for Parishan: pls read the talk carefully to not ask why tags were "removed without any rationale". Im repeating my explanation (which never answered!) esp. for you:"These tags were added some months ago and as we see, no any discusssions are going on. Please, lets assume good faith and finish al last our talk. To Grandmaster and all other users: pls add here: a) what sentences are discussed (point by point), according to which Wiki rule, also are there other sourced versions which we can use! Just concrete points!". De Waal is a modern journalist, not scolar and his unsourced number of those who were killed in 1920 is not a historiographical fact. Anyways we already added the quotes (and numbers, as he aslo marks some hundreds) by him to the article, so no need to repeat it everywhere. Anyways if youre not aggree pls at first leave a note for Admin's "Reliable sources" section. The version of Armenian revolt is not the only one (a too much dubious "Hrono" site, again added by Grandmaster, says fightings happened before pogrom, not revolt), and it is related to the Pogroms background, as pogroms, killings of peaceful population, burning of the whole Armenian quarter have nothing related to a "revolt suppression". And the most of reliable sourced represented here dont mark even any fightings by Armenian side so its not seems something notable. Andranikpasha (talk) 22:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Andranikpasha, this probably the twentieth time you removed De Waal from the article. I explained many times that it is a reliable source and cannot be deleted. The same with tags, you cannot remove them without consensus. This article makes many outrageous claims without citing any reliable sources. The tags are to remain until the problems with this article are resolved. Grandmaster (talk) 05:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Its your unexplained editwarring and pogrom denial that must be stopped not my sourced one! Andranikpasha (talk) 13:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Please refrain from personal attacks. It is a fact not denied even by Armenian sources that the fighting in the city was initiated by Armenian forces. Now why don't we follow some dispute resolution procedure on this? If you don't mind, I will file a request for mediation today. Please tell me if you agree or not. Grandmaster (talk) 06:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Btw, English edition of de Waal does not have these precise quote:

Terrible pogroms took place in Shusha in 1920 shortly after the Russians left the city because of the economic collapse and civil war. This time Azerbaijani forces crushed the higher, Armenian quarter of the city, burned whole streets and killed hundreds of Armenians...

The original text is in English. Please quote the original instead of making translations. Grandmaster (talk) 08:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Grandmaster, your continuous citing of de Waal would be both more encyclopedic and more credible if you would start to cite actual page numbers. If you are using a direct quote, you should always give the page in which the quote can be found. Meowy 17:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Sure, I will add the page numbers a little later. Now please explain why you removed Hutchinson encyclopedia? Who says that the text should be available online? Here's he quote for you: In 1920, inter-ethnic clashes in the Karabakh town of Shusha resulted in the deaths of 30,000 Armenians and 15,000 Azeris. Now please restore the reference that you deleted, you cannot delete it just like that. Thanks. Grandmaster (talk) 17:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Firstly, it is not "Hutchinson encyclopedia"; secondly, to see the article requires a paid subscription - wikipedia recommends the avoidance of such sources; thirdly, it is a tertiary source, again wikipedia says to avoid such sources. Meowy 00:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
You are also cherry-picking casualty figures. You wish to continue to use the laughable de-Waall figure of 500 Armenian dead, yet you do not wish to use the online encyclopedia's figure of "30,000 Armenians" dead, choosing only to use the figure for "15,000 Azeri" casualties. Meowy 01:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
First, it is Hutchinson encyclopedia. You can access the full text by searching the line that I quoted in google. Second, the use of tertiary sources is not prohibited, third, the number of 30,000 is in the intro, and fourth, the number of 500 is the most realistic and is cited in addition to de Waal by the Armenian scholar Richard Hovanissian. Now who is that IP reverting to your version? Grandmaster (talk) 06:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
This article is about the pogrom of Shusha's Armenian population, there was no pogrom of the towns Muslim population so your inclusion of an unverified figure for "Azeri" deaths, taken from a tertiary source that cannot be readily checked, is both unencyclopedic and off-topic. Also, your revert reads "resulted according to various estimates in 500[12][dubious – discuss] to 20,000 Armenian[13][4][14][15][16][dubious – discuss] and 15,000 Azerbaijani deaths" - I see no 30,000 figure there. Meowy 17:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
In fact, the more I read the version you desire, the more un-amusing it becomes. 15,000 Azeri deaths are certain, according to you, yet 20,000 Armenian deaths are "dubious", and the 30,000 Armenian deaths figure (derived from the same source as your 15,000 Azeris figure) isn't worthy of mention at all. Meowy 18:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Check the line right after that one. It quotes some Italian author who claims the number of 30,000, and there's no {{dubious}} after that. You can add it to both figures. Grandmaster (talk) 10:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
OK, I've changed the 20,000 Armenian deaths figure to the 30,000 given in Hutchinson encyclopedia. And since I take it you believe that the Hutchinson encyclopedia figures are not dubious, I've removed the dubious tag that was placed against the Armenian deaths figure when it was 20,000. You may want the dubious tag to remain, but it could only remain if you also placed the same tag against the Azeri deaths figure since both figures are derived from the same sentence of the same source. Doing this would also mean that you considered the whole Hutchinson encyclopedia citation to be dubious, which would make your earlier argument for the validity of its inclusion somewhat strange (to say the least). Meowy 20:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the IP reverting to Meowy's version, I have raised this on WP:AN/AE as there is scope within WP:SOCK to treat IPs or probable socks as one entity. I am on the lookout for IPs editing on any AA related topic, but on this specific article I am too involved to take any action. John Vandenberg (talk) 07:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

There was no deception or "sock-puppetry" in the revert you talk about, and your implication of bad faith is completely unjustified and reveals much about your character. I did the revert. However, unknown to me, my account must have timed-out and my IP address appeared rather than my name. Meowy 17:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone have any other reference for the 15,000? It's statistically impossible, it represents all the Muslim population of the town and after the pogrom the town population has fallen to under 15,000, and they were all Muslim until the 40s when the Armenians started repopulating it, and they never managed to represent the proportion of the population prior to the pogroms. From the post-pogrom population there doesn’t seem to be any indication that even a fraction of that figure could ever be substantiated. Had the encyclopedia figures been right, there would have remained no one in the town when we know the Muslim quarter remained intact. Also De Waal's 500 number discredits his entire coverage of the event. Being the only source with that figure, it's a fringe opinion and should be removed. VartanM (talk) 05:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

De Waal is not the only source, Armenian scholar Richard Hovanissian provides the same number. And since de Waal is an author of a critically acclaimed book, his figures cannot be suppressed. All figures with many zeros are dubious, if indeed so many people on either side had died, there would not have been many people left in Karabakh. The figures from de Waal/Hovanissian and Great Soviet Encyclopedia are the most realistic. Blown-up figures come from dubious sources such as Guaita, Babanov and other obscure sources. So the number of 15,000 of Azerbaijani casualties is as good as the number of 20 or 30,000 Armenian casualties. Grandmaster (talk) 06:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
The "Great Soviet Encyclopedia" is not really a credible source to use for events that took place in recent times (i.e. 20th century). During the Soviet period it was the policy to minimise the reporting of, and the size or importance of, ethnic conflicts that had taken place within what was now the Soviet Union, and whenever possible to blame such conflicts on outside influences. Meowy 20:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
The citation from GSE is not direct, and marks it was issued... in London. A possible mistake and we have all the articles of BSE online, no such a quote! Andranikpasha (talk) 00:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Copyvio

Btw, most of the text in the article is copyvio, taken from this Armenian website: [2] everything copied from there should be removed, first, it is copyvio, and second, that website is a partisan source. Grandmaster (talk) 08:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

This is the original version of the article, created by User:Hu1lee, a sock of the banned user: [3] All the edits prior to this version are by this user. As one can see, this text is verbatim copy from another website, [4] i.e. copyvio. Grandmaster (talk) 08:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Grandmaster, I even not going to check your "site", as for me its a reality that the most part of the article is written by me (maybe then used by any site I dont care) and the most part is sourced by me. The unsourced part can be deleted by the time. And pls stop attack Armenian sites as partisan (when you need it) and then use the only Armenian historian as a reliable source (for a pogrom denial policy). Mind WP:SOAP. You never cited anything from the Great Soviet Enc.. You can do it as I find nothing on Shusha pogrom there. And note that Huntington and all other encyclopdeias are unreliable (secondary) sources related to the events of historical serious researches (they say nothing about 15000 Azeris). Andranikpasha (talk) 15:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

That text was online on that website at least since May 2007, and this article was created in August 2007. So it is unlikely that they copied content from here. From what I understand you admit that you added to the article the text that matches word by word that on another website? And why you are not going check the link? Ok, if you don't want to, I can do it for you. Let's compare the text here and at the website. The text in this article:

On June 4 and June 5, 1919, an armed clash between Armenians and Azeris took place in Shusha, organized and initiated by Governor-General Khosrov bek Sultanov[19][20]. The town was isolated and blockaded, and the Armenian population found itself in acute need of food.[21] The barracks in Khankendi (now named Stepanakert by the local population) were filled with soldiers of the Azerbaijani army, and only a single unit of the British Army was located in the town, which was populated by Muslim Indians. In August 1919, 700 Christian inhabitants of Shusha were killed by Tartars.[22] The Armenian part of Shusha was under siege from the armed Turks. The Armenian forces were not only limited in numbers, but had no weapon cartridges.

Attempts to subjugate Karabakh to Azerbaijan continued to fail[23]; the Armenian National Council of Karabakh remained uncooperative.[24] The shootings on June 4 and 5 ended with casualties on both sides. The British mission in Shusha presented Sultanov's conditions for cease fire to the Armenian side: removal of the Armenian National Council members from the town. On June 5, three members of the Council left Shusha. This was partially due to the involvement of the British soldiers.[25] However, a new wave of violence swept through the neighboring villages of Ghaibalishen, Pahlul and Krkzhan, which were pillaged on June 5 through June 7.[citation needed] About 700 people, mostly uninvolved civilians, were killed in Ghaibalishen.[26]

THE “SHUSHI REVIVAL” FUND website:

On June 4-5, 1919, an armed Armenian-Turkish clash takes place in Shushi, organized and incited by Governor-General Sultanov. The town was isolated and blockaded, and the Armenian population found itself in acute need of food. The barracks in Khankendi (Stepanakert) were filled with soldiers of the Azeri army, and only a single unit of the English army was located in the town, which comprised of Sipayis (?), Muslim Indians. The Armenian part of Shushi was under a siege imposed by the armed Turks. The Armenian forces were not only scarce, but had no weapon cartridges.

The attempts to subjugate Karabakh to Azerbaijan kept failing. The Armenian National Council of Karabakh remained unflinching. Sultanov’s goal was bring Karabagh to its knees through massacres, violence and terror, and he was going to start from Shushi. The shootings of June 4-5 left casualties on both sides. The English mission in Shushi presented to the Armenian side Sultanov’s condition for a ceasefire: removal of the Armenian National Council members from the town. On June 5, three members of the Council left Shushi. The ceasefire was reached partially due to the interference of the English soldiers. But a new wave of violence swept through the neighboring villages of Ghaibalishen, Pahlul and Krkzhan, which were pillaged June 5-7. About 700 people, mostly innocent civilians, were killed in Ghaibalishen.

The text here is a word by word copy from that website, it is obvious. The same with the second paragraph, I can quote all the parts that were copy/pasted from that website. So it is copyvio and as such should be removed. Grandmaster (talk) 06:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

More copyvio, second paragraph, almost entirely copied from another website. Only some quotes in the end and the middle are different, and some of those were added by myself. Quotes from this article:

From the beginning of 1920, Governor Sultanov, breaking the terms of the temporary agreement of August 22, 1919, tightened the blockade around Karabakh, through both accumulation of armed forces in the strategically important locations and by arming the Azeri population, attempting to prepare the latter for guerrilla fights.[30][31][13]

In the winter and spring of 1920, Sultanov was well aware of the degree of the Armenian population's armament in Karabakh, which in fact was much more lower than that of the Azeris. One of his dispatches reads: "I think this is the most suitable moment for the final resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh issue, since they have few cartridges available." Armenians were also aware of Sultanov's preparations and tried to resist them.[citation needed]

In the early morning of March 23, 1920, when the Azeri population of Shusha was celebrating Nowruz, an Armenian detachment entered Shusha and attacked the barracks of Azerbaijani army in accordance with an uprising program developed by the Armenian military leaders.

Another version of events regarding the beginning of the pogrom says a Turkish officer tried to disarm a young Armenian and insulted the honor of the Armenian's wife in the man's presence. The young man killed the officer, and his whole family was then killed by the Turkish soldiers accompanying the officer. While the shooting was going on, the Turks called for help from fellow Turks and compatriots.[citation needed]

Some Azeris residing in Shusha, the Azeri soldiers stationed in the town, and other guerrilla warriors sympathetic with the Azeri cause began to destroy the Armenian part of the town; the fires, killings, and looting initiated by the Azeri military and their sympathizers lasted for three days.[citation needed]

The number of casualties was not counted by anyone at the time, nor was the number of Armenian survivors of the siege. According to the 1914 population data, more than 22,000 Armenians lived in Shusha, whereas in 1921, they numbered about 300.[citation needed]

The documented records from the Armenian archives provide evidence that the pogrom of the Armenians in Shusha was thoroughly prepared by the Azerbaijani authorities, under the command of experienced Turkish emissary Khalil Pasha[35][36].[dubious – discuss] Without the purported preparations of the authorities, it is doubtful that a seemingly peaceful population would initiate an attack without some kind of coordination.[37][38].[dubious – discuss]

Now compare it with the text from Armenian website about Shusha [5]:

From the very start of 1920, Governor Sultanov, breaking the terms of the temporary agreement of August 22, 1919, tightened the blockade around Karabagh, not only through accumulation of armed forces in the strategically important locations, but also by arming the Turkish population, preparing the latter for guerrilla fights.

In the winter and spring of 1920, Sultanov, as always, was well aware of the degree of the Armenian population’s armament in Karabakh, which in fact was much worse than that of the Turks. One of his dispatches reads: “I think this is the most suitable moment for the final resolution of the Nagorno Karabagh issue, since they have few cartridges available.

Armenians were also aware of Sultanov’s preparations and tried to resist them.

In the early morning of March 23, 1920, when the Turkish population of Shushi was celebrating Novruz Bairam, a small Armenian detachment entered Shushi and tried to take over the barrack in accordance with an uprising program developed by the Karabakh self-defense commanders.

There is another version of what exactly started the massacre, according to which a Turkish officer tried to disarm a young Armenian and insulted the honor of the Armenian’s wife in the guy’s presence. The young man killed the officer, and then his whole family was slaughtered by the Turks accompanying the officer. While the shooting was going on, the Turks called for help from their companions-in-arms and brothers in faith.

The Turkish part of Shushi, the army located in the town, the “guerrilla” gangs that had arrived from other locations, seized by the rage of killing and plundering, ceaselessly and mercilessly slaughtered, destroyed, burnt and looted the Armenian part of the town for three days.

Nobody did or could have counted the number of victims and those who miraculously survived the ordeal. Let us mention again that, according to the 1914 data, more than 22 thousand Armenians lived in Shushi, whereas in 1921 their number was about 300.

The documental records provide more than sufficient evidence for stating that the massacre of the Armenians in Shushi was thoroughly prepared by the Azerbaijanian authorities, under the command of experienced Turkish emissaries (Khalil pasha). Otherwise it would be hard to believe that the peaceful population that was amid sending its prayers to God could in a wink of an eye, without arms, rush out for an attack upon hearing the shooting noise, and start the beastly destruction of everybody and everything.

As one can see, the differences are very insignificant, and most changes to the wording were made by myself and Parishan, as for example removal of words like "beastly", etc. So this is a clear copyvio and a violation of wiki rules. Instead of copying text from other websites, we should write our own article. So whatever was copied from elsewhere needs to be removed asap. Grandmaster (talk) 06:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Grandmaster, is it your words "most of the text in the article is copyvio"? Surely the texts you represented (they are right now different, but remember its about ONE EVENT, we can reword, never hope we will rewrite facts to have a "copirighted story"...) are not the real most part greated by me. So pls be more carefull during your discussions. Just differ most part and little part, majority views and minority views, etc. its not hard to do. (PS- Pls answer to other questions too if you're interested). Andranikpasha (talk) 10:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
The text that I quoted is absolutely identical, the variations are very minor. Moreover, many references are copied from that website too. So if you agree that the quoted parts are copyvio, they should be removed. The text that was not copied from that website can remain, but whatever is copied should go. Grandmaster (talk) 10:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Can you cite what the reference was copied from the sites you marked? If the represented parts are looks too much alike we can do some copyedit (Ill do it as Hu1lee was blocked) no any reason to delete. I prefer if you assume a little more good faith as we both know a user who used to copy and past to Wiki whole articles:) So why do not try to show a little more tolerancy to others? Andranikpasha (talk) 11:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I have many times asked for the quotes or scans of this source:
Нагорный Карабах в 1918—1923 гг.: сборник документов и материалов. Ереван, 1992.
Now see how many times it was used here and it is the same source quoted here: [6]
It was simply copied from there, and apparently you never read it. If you had, you would have provided the quotes. Grandmaster (talk) 11:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
No, Grandmaster, sorry, but again you're not right. At first, the marked book is not referenced, but included in Bibliography (among many other materials). Also admin Jayvdb (who supports the Azerbaijani user's view's here) already asked at the same talk page and were answered. why to not read the talk at first? Here the full quote from the discussion:

This reference "Нагорный Карабах в 1918—1923" is used a lot in the article. Can someone please provide a English version of that citation; I need to know what authors/editors were involved in it, and who published it. I would also like to see scans, otherwise it is all unverifiable. John Vandenberg 08:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Anyone will need to waste a lot of money and time to scan and translate all the materials he used in Wiki. The problem is also that I leaved this book in my apartment as Im now in another country for some research. Anyways I promise to try to do something and be back during a few days. Andranikpasha 21:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

At the official site of State Archive of Armenia I found a publication which seems to be similar to the marked book:"The Armenian massacres in the Baku and Elizavetpol governorates in 1918-1920", a collection of documents and materials, State Archive of the Republic of Armenia (official publication), Yerevan, 2003, 523 p. (in Armenian and Russian), ed. Dr A. Virabyan. ISBN 99930-78-16-6. I can mark some of materials (in Russian) which are similar to those used in the article: N 198 A letter by G. Bagaturov to the Armenian National Council of Baku about the siege of Karabakh Armenians and necessity of help N 271 The report of the informational bureau of Armenian National Cauncil of Baku to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Armenia about the situation of Armenians in Baku and Azerbaijan (May 22, 1919) N 296 A circular by Karabakh and Zangezur compatriotic unions to the Commander of British Military forces in Transcaucasia (June 14, 1919) N 358 A report by Kh. Vermishev about the "material losses of Armenian population during the past war" (1920, Tiflis) N 387 The letter of Diplomatic representative of Armenia in Georgia (April 14, 1920, Tiflis). Andranikpasha 22:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

This book is online[7], so you can check it!Andranikpasha (talk) 12:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
The sources that you cite are not the same book as used in references. If you use a source, you must be able to provide the exact quote on first demand according to the rules. You haven't done so. And copying text from other websites is not acceptable either. Grandmaster (talk) 12:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
As for Azerbaijani and Armenian websites and sources, will you be happy if I start using sources like these: [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] If you are going to rely on the Armenian sources, I will have no problem using Azerbaijani ones. But I think it is better to rely on neutral ones, which have no bias in this issue. Grandmaster (talk) 12:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Really? But you're already citing ArmeniaFund site as a reliable one despite my protests. Andranikpasha (talk) 14:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
That's different. I cite it as an interview source. They would not distort the words of US congressman, as they have no bias against Cox, on the contrary, they love her. In this case they have a strong bias as one of the sides of the conflct. Grandmaster (talk) 18:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Grandmaster, you can use the ArmenianFund site as an... interview source(?) if you like (or a source by a journalist as the most reliable historical research, etc.) its your decision. In fact its a material on an event issued by Armenia Fund site. Never breake the terms of agreement and then hope to not have a symmetric answer! If you're citing the wording by an ArmeniaFund material on an Armenia-Azerbaijan related person, just cuz they "love her", in that case why to not use the same sources for any city, as they surely love it too! what you say sounds like "when its me its justified anyhow, when its anyone else, its not allowed". Andranikpasha (talk) 20:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Why do you keep bringing up Cox? That issue was resolved at BLP board, and you were explained that there were no problems there. Just let it go already. With regard to this article, there are many sources on Azerbaijani side as well, which can be used as well. Here's another one: [13] They are as good as the ones representing the Armenian position. But my personal opinion is that preference should be given to third party sources, as there are conflicting views on this issue and the sides of the conflict portray them differently. Grandmaster (talk) 08:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Btw, here's precise diff of copyvio being added to the article by the banned user: [14] Grandmaster (talk) 12:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Y Done Copyright violations removed. I have also removed a small sentence that was out of place in the "Background". Obviously some of the removed facts and the references will need to be restored. I strongly recommend that everyone be very careful to avoid bringing back the same content in the same manner. i.e. go out of your way to re-introduce any contents in an obviously different order and wording. John Vandenberg (talk) 07:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I added some sources and made some corrections, included:

  • de Waal is a journalist, not historian, and the number is unsourced POV (possibly by Hovanissian), and these numbers by de Wall are already cited in this article. he's not for the lead.
  • Hunchington is an only secondary source, we need at least one reliable historical source marking the number of killed Azeris. But this secondary source is only one.
  • version of revolt (cite pages pls!) is not the only one and its not for the lead. most of reliable sourced didnt mark any revolt, and another one site (added by Grandmaster) marks an Armenian attack against Azeri gornizon and fightings.
  • I made some copyedit, and also deleted POV tags as we have them for a long period and noone explained why, what is disputted. If you see any problems- discuss, made a consensus and than change everything is really POV: but no need to keep these tags forever. assume good faith.
  • to Jayvdb: pls try to not delete sourced material from the NYT without any consensus. Its not the first time you're doing controversional pro-Azeri edits without any explanations and consensus ("per talk"??: fyi, Armenian side is also participating to this talk, better if you ask our opinion before deleting reliable source info). Andranikpasha (talk) 18:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
We have already discussed this "journalist" thing many times. Please show me the rule that does not allow using journalists as sources. De Waal is the author of a critically acclaimed book, and is notable. Stop removing him from the intro. And the tags should remain until the disputes are resolved. Grandmaster (talk) 18:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

What is disputed? once again: "I deleted POV tags as we have them for a long period and noone explained why, what is disputted. If you see any problems- discuss, made a consensus and than change everything is really POV: but no need to keep these tags forever. assume good faith. BTW you deleted many reliable sources by your revert. Andranikpasha (talk) 18:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

There are plenty of things that are disputed, including the article title, sources used, the description of events, etc. There's an archive full of explanation of what is disputed. So please do not remove any source or tag without consensus. Also, if you think that sources like www.armarchives.am are reliable, we can use Azerbaijani archives too. There are plenty of interesting sources there. Grandmaster (talk) 18:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Also note that per WP:SOURCES the articles should rely on third party sources: Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Is www.armarchives.am a third party published source? Grandmaster (talk) 18:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Also, you criticize de Waal for being a journalist, but look at the sources you use yourself: Cox, Zubov, NESL, etc. None of them are professional historians. Grandmaster (talk) 18:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The removal of very large portions of the text for copyvio reasons strikes me as almost amounting to vandalism. It has resulted in a truncated article that is all but useless. It would have been far better if John Vandenberg had taken time to rewrite the offending text rather than completely removing it. I have just reinstated a rewritten "background" section which now reads far better than its former version did. NB - the New York Times quote [15] - I have not put it back for the moment. The old version stated that the 700 died on August 12th, but that is clearly not the case: the August 12th date refers to the date the nurses' letter arrived. It seems more likely that the 700 deaths refer to the number of dead in the June clashes, and it took 2 months for the letter to reach Constantinople. Meowy 20:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

All the sources that you used are Armenian. nkr.am and similar sources are not reliable. They have a strong bias in this issue. The rules require using third party sources, so please find such sources. Grandmaster (talk) 05:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Please provide the quote from this source (which is in Russian) supporting the claims that you added to the article:
Нагорный Карабах в 1918-1923 гг.: сборник документов и материалов. Ереван, 1992, стр., стр. 240, документ # 155
What does it actually say? I've been asking for it for many months already. Grandmaster (talk) 06:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Also, why [dubious – discuss] tag is added to the line:
when Azerbaijani soldiers suppressed an Armenian revolt[10][11][dubious – discuss] in the town of Shusha
Does anyone actually deny that the was an Armenian revolt there? Even nkr.am, which is an extreme nationalist source, says so:
Proceeding from this being the circumstances, the Karabaghi Armenians decided to prepare for defense. On the night from March 22-23 they rose in an armed revolt in Nagorno-Karabagh. Heavy fighting continued from March 22 till April 13. [16]
So even according to Armenian sources there was “heavy fighting”. Then why is this article called “pogrom”, and why dubious tag is attached to the aforementioned line? Here’s another source about fighting:
In an attempt to combat the Armenian uprising in Nagorno-Karabakh, Azerbaijan shifted the bulk of its military forces to the mountainous region in late March 1920, where it fought numerous engagements and laid waste eventually to the Armenian stronghold of Shusha. Seeing a virtually undefended border before them, the Bolsheviks seized the opportunity to gain a foothold in Azerbaijan. The Eleventh Red Army entered Baku unopposed on 27 April, and Azerbaijan became the first Soviet Socialist Republic (SSR) of Transcaucasia the next day.
Michael P. Croissant. The Armenia-Azerbaijan Conflict: Causes and Implications. ISBN 0275962415
I added it to the article. Grandmaster (talk) 06:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Grandmaster, pls be civil. NKR.am which you called "extreme nationalist" source is the Official site of Nagornk-Karabakh Republic Foreign Affairs Ministry. Before attacking foreign ministries as extreme nationalist, why to not say the same about your native one? That will be more civil and less controversional! Try to not attack foreign governments if even you disagree with them. Andranikpasha (talk) 14:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
nkr.am is a representation of a separatist movement. There's nothing incivil with stating this, considering that PACE also refers to them as separatists. I suggest we stick to third party sources, as I don't think the use of Azerbaijani sources will be acceptable for you. I treat both sides equally, and Azerbaijani sources are POV too. So neutral sources are preferable. Grandmaster (talk) 16:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I am getting more and more tired of Grandmaster's behaviour which is getting close to overt racism. Can't he get it that sources are valid (or invalid) according to what the sources contain (or don't contain), according to the way they are written, according to the sources they they use, but not according to the ethnicity of who wrote the sources. He also sprinkles "fact" and "dubious" tags about as if they were confette. None of the facts that he tagged in the "Background" section are controversial, and there was no need to add tags to them or to provide citations. For example, it will be a matter of record that there were British troops stationed in Shusha, it will be a matter of record what the 8th Congress stated (though, since it is a quote, I should have added a reference for it - it is from the same source as the previous quote). And just to show I am on nobody's "side" I'm also going to be critical of Andranikpasha's additions to what I wrote in the background section. There was no need to add things like "an ardent pan-Turkist, a friend of the Ittihadists of Constantinople, and a terror to all Armenians" - that sort of thing would be better placed in an article about Sultanov. Same goes for the quote from Walker - and personally, I find the anti-British stuff that is common in Armenian sources regarding NK to be not credible: all of that dates back to Soviet times when these "wars between neighbouring peoples" problems had to be explained by the devious plots of outside "imperialists". Remember, the background section is meant to be concise, it is there to give the completely uninformed a brief summary of the background to the events that are the subject of the article. I suggest the removal of the "pan-Turkist" quote, and the "Walker" quote. Meowy 20:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

No, Meowy, Walker calls Sultanov pan-Turkist while qualifying his activities in Shusha and Karabakh. In this case its more than important as Grandmaster denies that Turkish connections and Turkish generals were involved in massacres. I suggest to include 1919 massacres as a first period for Shusha pogroms, as now it become obvious that 600-700 Armenians were killed during that period and these events have strong connections to the 1920 March massacres. So I prefer if you return NYTimes reliable quote too! Andranikpasha (talk) 22:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
The purpose if this article is to provide the reader with information, presented in an encyclopedic way, about the Shusha pogrom. It's purpose isn't to oppose Grandmaster! The NY Times article was being misused in earlier versions of this article, it probably wasn't deliberate misuse but was due to lazyness. The nurses' letter clearly did not (and could not) refer to a massacre in August 1919 (the same misinformation is repeated in the Shusha entry, btw). Isn't it more likely to be connected to events in June 1919? Meowy 22:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Maybe use "summer of 1919" to be more correct and avoid of mistakes? Andranikpasha (talk) 00:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Maybe just leave it as it is for now: not giving it a date but placing it in the article beside the June 1919 events. To be more precise is inviting conflict. Meowy 01:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Agree. Andranikpasha (talk) 01:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I've added the NY Times info, but I have removed the Walker quote and moved it to the Remembering section: honestly, his comments are just plain stupid. Its removal also means that the final paragraph of the Background section is setting the scene nicely for the start of the Pogrom section. Meowy 23:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Once again, nkr.am is not a reliable source due to a strong bias in this issue. I don't understand how it is racism if I apply the same standard to Azerbaijani sources and do not use any of them? It is in your interest to base the article on neutral sources so that it would not be perceived to be just a copy from Armenian propaganda websites. Let's face it, both sides are engaged in a propaganda war and try to portray themselves innocent victims. So the preference should be given to sources that have no bias in this issue. Also, Meowy, I asked once again for the quote from this source:

Нагорный Карабах в 1918-1923 гг.: сборник документов и материалов. Ереван, 1992, стр., стр. 240, документ # 155

And again received no answer. If you don't have that source, why did you include it as a reference? Grandmaster (talk) 07:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I did not write the sentence which has that reference next to it. Meowy 16:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Then why did you reinsert it? That source was simply copied from the copyvio article, and there's no way to verify it. I don't think it was a right thing to do. Grandmaster (talk) 17:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
"copied from the copyvio article"? what article you mean?Andranikpasha (talk) 17:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm asking you once again, can you quote this source:
Нагорный Карабах в 1918-1923 гг.: сборник документов и материалов. Ереван, 1992, стр., стр. 240, документ # 155
It is the same source mentioned here: [17] I have already asked you many times to quote this source, so far yoy have not done so. Grandmaster (talk) 17:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Already answered by me (three times) and by Meowy once! I have nothing to add, see the archive and answer pls what the article is copyvio? Andranikpasha (talk) 18:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I think Grandmaster means that the source mentioned is actually one being cited within another source (the copyvio article one). That is not forbidden under Wikipedia rules, but in its current form the reference is incorrect: the reference should actually say something like "source xxx, cited in source yyy". However, since exactly the same information appears in Walker's book, why not remove the mention of the Russian-language source and just have the "Armenia: The Survival of a Nation" as the source? Meowy 21:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
The alternative is to just rewrite the reference. NB; since the Walker source corraborates the Russian source, the dubious-discuss tag is, arguably, no longer valid. Meowy 21:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Convenience break 1

I will be removing the reference from Hutchinson Encyclopedia, the Karabakh entry is nowhere near accurate. There are so many obvious mistakes in that article that I will be using my editorial judgement. First the population statistics while it seem right for the 1997, the relative population distribution represents those of prior to 1990. There were no 23% Azeris in 1997. The article claims the capital to be Xankandi, while it is true that NK is still officially recognized as part of Azerbaijan, the renaming of the capital has no official international recognition. And Grandmaster, I am getting really tired of your double standards, presenting the 15,000 figure as an absolute truth and sourcing it by one single source which contains positions which you mostly reject and which contains mistakes that you agree that they’re mistakes. Check the figures of NK war casualties, they even inverted the Armenian and Azeri casualty numbers. If you agree with this article, maybe you’d let me add the inverted casualty numbers in other articles? Neither the 30,000 Armenian figure, neither 15,000 Azeri figure make sense. And it’s interesting that the 15,000 represents Aliyev's figures for Shusha for the Azeris prior to the war, while according to him they were all ethnically cleansed. The article seems to have taken that and transposed it to the Shushi pogrom. Would you agree if I wrote for the NK: The region formed part of Armenia until the 7th century? as it says in the article, and most of the rest on history and the declaration of independence? It’s a badly written article which is contradicted by so many sources. There were no 30,000 Armenians in Shushi, 15,000 represents about all the Azeris in Shushi at the time. No matter what one source says, it’s nonsense. See also how you conveniently present a range for the Armenians and this figure for the Azeris, which again is based on one source and contains many obvious mistakes. So far I stayed away and said nothing, hopping that you would improve it, but you remained there with this obviously wrong info. As for the Soviet encyclopedia, you are assuming it is talking about figures from both sides but you haven't quoted anything from it yet.

Also, will Parishan ever change his behavior? Meowy has provided legitimate arguments to make the change, Parishan comes and reverts it by claiming that Meowy removed informations. Did he even read what Meowy said? He didn't said he does not want this to be added, he said that it does not fit in the intro. VartanM (talk) 20:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The fate of Bishop Vartan

On page 30 of the 1993 book "Ethnic Cleansing in Progress", it is stated that in Shusha on April 4th 1920: "Half the town's residents were murdered. The heads of Bishop Vartan and other prominent Karabakhi Armenians were paraded on spikes in celebration of the Azeri-Turk triumph". No source is given in thebook for this information about the fate of Bishop Vartan. Does anyone know of a source? Meowy 00:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

A Member of House of Lords, Lord Hylton wrote that Bisop Vartan was murdered during the Shusha Pogrom (Lord Hylton, House of Lords, Appendices to the Minutes of Evidence).Andranikpasha (talk) 00:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
But there has to be an older source somewhere - otherwise it could be said that that appendix just got the info from the "Ethnic Cleansing in Progress" book. Once we locate a suitable source, this information should be included in the article. Meowy 01:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Other source I have is in Armenian (a written protest by Armenian organizations from 1920). So Ill also look for a source. Andranikpasha (talk) 01:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, Meowy, why did you removed from the intro referenced statement about Armenian revolt in Shusha? All Armenian sources support this fact, and you removed a number of third party references that I added. Such selective use of sources is not acceptable. Grandmaster (talk) 07:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC) Btw, you removed 4 references about the Armenian revolt that I added to the intro, including 2 that I added yesterday. So it is a revert, and I'm informing you about that beforehand. Grandmaster (talk) 07:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Armenian revolt is an obvious POV by 3 sources, while all others says nothing about it and even another source cited by you says about fightings between bands. So its not for the lead. There were revolts during the genocides and notable massacres, we're not going to describe them as "N people were massacred because a revolt was supressed" (?). You can create separate article on "Denial of Shusha pogrom" and have all the info on revolts, fightings, etc there. And about the Armenian sources: I can provide some (included renowned historian John Kirakosian) if you're interested and agree to use them without any national discrimination. Andranikpasha (talk) 16:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Meowy removed the info supported by 4 third party sources, in addition to the fact that every Armenian sources agrees that there was a revolt. As for sources, will Azerbaijani sources be acceptable for you? I showed you some examples above? It is not discrimination, I treat both sides equally. I only want to maintain neutrality here. Grandmaster (talk) 17:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I reverted nothing: I rewrote the introductory paragraph and removed off-topic material. This article is about the 1920 Shusha pogram, "pogrom" not "revolt" - get it? The introductory paragraph exists to give the reader a brief overview and summary of what the article is about. I replaced a confusing, badly written, and overly long introduction with a concise and factually neutral one. Which leads me to ask why are there 9 references given against the words "Shusha pogrom" in the first sentence of this article? Meowy 17:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I think the words of Guaita are too much right for this situation: "Azerbaijani and Soviet authorities during the decades will deny and try to hush up the mass killings of about 30,000 Armenians". unfortunately we face up it until our days, its an official policy, as recognize what happened is so hard both for Turkey or Azerbaijan. Everything, also unexplained THREE (!) POV tags putted here with a "good faith" and seems will remain here always, the pushing of "revolt", 15.000 Azeris, journalist de Waal (who seems even not sure on his "numbers"), Armenian "secret" sources (noone know about them), etc. etc. all lays under this simple denial. But us we know any denial is temporary. Andranikpasha (talk) 17:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
But why is that reference, or any of the other 8, placed in the very first sentence of this article? I think they should not be there. If they are valid and useful sources, shouldn't they be incorporated into whatever section of the article that is the most appropriate? Meowy 17:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Because some supporters of denial says massacres didnt happened I had to put all these (and other, deleted by Grandmaster without explanations) ref's to show the nonsense of denial. Anyways, f.e. Grandmaster have even not one, but some different self-interpretations of these events: "Ethnic clashes in Shusha" (he moved article without any discussion then Tigran returned it back), "Shusha fightings" and "Shusha revolt". Choose!... Andranikpasha (talk) 17:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I had a feeling that was the reason. But isn't that partly what this Talk Page should be for. The article itself shouldn't need to have references to prove its subject's existence. If they were removed, or moved to another part of the article, what would happen? Nothing, I suggest. The article's name is probably fixed for good, and any arguments against a change can easily be countered on the talk page. Meowy 18:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, its my sad experience here as Im working here for a long period. Its not the only article where users sometimes prefer undiscussed movings and editwarrings. If you have not these 8 references, there will be a user who moves article f.e. to the "Shusha revolt" with an only editsum "pov title! Potier and Libermann says a revolt took place in 1920". You're working at Armenian Genocide, you surely know about these mechanismes. Its easier for them to do the same here. I have an idea to collect all I have and open a mediation for admin's to make a balanced, NPOVed variant. Are you interested to participate? Andranikpasha (talk) 18:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I suppose so. But I don't hold the abilities of Wikipedia administrators in high regard. They would probably rather hush up or ignore the legitimate points you would be raising because they would expose the flaws in the concept of Wikipedia. Meowy 16:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
It is a very important detail that the fighting in the city was started by the Armenian forces, and the way you presented it looks like it was Azerbaijani forces who attacked peaceful Armenians, while it was in fact quite the opposite. I see that most third party sources describe this event as an ethnic clash, which was the result of the revolt. Grandmaster (talk) 17:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
The article is about the Shusha pogrom and the introductory paragraph should consist of a succinct summary of the event, the event in this case being a pogrom. The word pogrom has a specific meaning, and what happened in Shusha fits that meaning. Pograms are more often than not the result of ethnic clashes. If you want to expand on details, and can justify those details, then place them in the body of the article. Meowy 18:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

"In fact". Were you there during the events? Andranikpasha (talk) 17:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Meowy, you claim you rewrote the introduction, when in fact you deleted a huge chunk of information backed up by 11 sources and replaced it with unsourced statements that seem like a personal view on the issue. I don't think this is acceptable. Parishan (talk) 06:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Please do not edit a page unless you know how to do it - your edit repeats, almost verbatim, information that was already in the article in the following paragraph! Your edit was so badly executed that it amounts to vandalism, and for that reason I am justified in reverting it. Meowy 16:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
And as for what Parishan claims, the exact opposite is true. I did not delete "a huge chunk of material" - in fact, it is Parishan who has deleted material. The text he removed contained 72 words, the text he replaced it with contained only 46 words when the duplicated words are discounted. Parishan's edit also had the POV phrase "when Azerbaijani soldiers suppressed an Armenian revolt" (complete with its "dubious-discuss" tag). I had replaced that sentence with the neutral and factually correct "had as its background a conflict over competing claims of ownership of the region by Armenia and Azerbaijan". My edit is clearly better. Parishan does not seem understand what the function of an article's introduction should be. Meowy 17:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
The line "when Azerbaijani soldiers suppressed an Armenian revolt" is factually accurate and is supported by every Armenian source that you referred to, and it had 4 third party sources as a reference. So your edit only introduces POV and removes factually accurate info that is not disputed by anyone. I don't think it is acceptable. Grandmaster (talk) 17:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
The purpose of editing an article should be to improve it. A phrase like "when Azerbaijani soldiers suppressed an Armenian revolt" is POV, and is always going to have a "dubious-discuss" tag. There should be no place in the very first part of any article for a phrase that is going to attract such a tag. There is not a single POV word in my "had as its background a conflict over competing claims of ownership of the region by Armenia and Azerbaijan" and it is factually 100% accurate. Meowy 20:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Parishan's long-term work on this article surely contains elements of bad edit's. Parishan just reverts here without any significant contribution or real interest to the topic. Grandmaster, once again: pls stop this misinterpretation (disputed by noone?) with "Armenian sources". As I know you're not fluent in Armenian, so what do you know about "every Armenian source"? To stop this misinterpretation of Armenian sources, find pls anything about revolt:

  • an official Armenian source [18]
  • article from "Voice of Armenia" [19], look also Armenian sites on Shushi Massacres

Not John Kirakosian, nor Parseghian or Mikoyan, nor the majority of neutral sources and the archive materials, deleted by you, support this POV. So pls stop it. Andranikpasha (talk) 18:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Parishan's edit was bad from a content point-of-view, but I reverted it because it was technically bad - about 2/3rds of the text he added simply repeated word for word the content of the paragraph that followed on from his edited paragraph. Vandalism was probably too strong a word for me to use to describe it, but he should pay more attention to what he is copypasting, and should use the "show preview" button when editing text with a lot of code within it. If he wants its return (minus the duplicated material of course), then I hope he will first discuss it and argue the case for it here. Meowy 20:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Meowy, there is really no need to remove so much sourced material as you did here [20]. Let's try to discuss such major changes before you make reverts removing major chunks of sources texts. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 07:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Atabek's behaviour must be noticed too! Looks like Parishan is not the only user who reverts not only without any interest to the topic research but even without previewing if the revert is good. Andranikpasha (talk) 11:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
The revert was good. There's no justification for removal of a fact supported by 4 third party sources, which is what Meowy did. If he wants to rewrite the intro, let him propose his version on talk, so that we can discuss it. But deletion of sourced info is not acceptable. Grandmaster (talk) 12:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the edit made by Atabeg because the edit amounts to vandalism. Atabeg has returned the page to the version made by Parishan. As I have pointed out above, 2/3rds of Parishan's addition simply repeated what was said in the paragraph that followed on from it. This was probably just due to an editing mistake by Parishan. However, Atabeg does not have this excuse because the flaw in Parishan's edit has been clearly pointed out. By ignoring what has been written here, and simply returning to Parishan's edit without bothering to correcting its flaw, he has vandalised the article. Meowy 15:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

You did so in violation of your parole, moreover take a look at your edit again, you're removing large portion of sourced material, including references to Thomas de Waal, and then claiming that I am vandalizing the page. I only added those neutral sources back to the text. Your activity on this page and comments made above symbolize a severe violation of WP:AGF. Assume good faith. Atabek (talk) 23:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I did not remove a "large portion of sourced material" and I did not remove the reference to de Waal, it is still there! How can you continue to justify your edit when I have pointed out its flaw? I'll repeat it, in bold, maybe you will read it this time: 2/3rds of your edit repeated, almost word for word, what was already in the paragraph that followed on from it. Meowy 02:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
They are not repeated, you removed the mention of the fact that the events started with the Armenian revolt in the city along with 4 third party sources supporting the fact. There's no justification for that and it is a clear violation of your parole. Grandmaster (talk) 07:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Go back and read your edits again. Meowy did remove reference to "revolt" and 4 sources, but that is not what you and Atabek restored. You instead restored a different part of the intro resulting in text and references/footnotes that exactly duplicated the end of the previous paragraph. Thatcher 02:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Who violated the Wiki rules are Atabek and Parishan, and your support to their behaviour is another fact of double standards, Grandmaster. Andranikpasha (talk) 16:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)