Talk:Shusha pogrom/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Comment

This article is WP:POV, WP:OR, and WP:SOAP, created with a purpose of attacking Azerbaijan by a new user whose only contribution was this page. The user is most likely a sock, otherwise, how would a user established on August 26th, create a Wiki article in 1 day, and then even nominate it for DYK [1]. The material is largely unverifiable and unsourced, and references provided are information from a single side of conflict. So the insertion of POV and OR tag is relevant here.

The official name of the city is Shusha, that's the name which was accepted to this former capital of Karabakh khanate. Shushi is Armenian version of the name, which was applied after the occupation of the town by Armenian troops in 1992. Atabek 05:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

What happened to AFG? New fella just startin an article ... you can at least welcome him. Hetoum I 04:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The "new fella" hasn't edited anything other than this one article [2], full of original research and unsourced claims. Atabek 07:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I am still in process of gathering my sources the information has a few sources as of now. More will be added. --Hu1lee 23:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC) see, he just started ... and does he really have to write other articles? what if he likes to write about slaughter of Armenians by Tatars in 1920? Does that make him a bad person? please AGF like others. Hetoum I 01:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Page name

Can someone move it to Shushi massacres please. --Hu1lee 17:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I move it as the article calls Shushi massacres. Its seems to be good work with proved sources. By the way In my opinion the last chapter dedicated to the Sumgait pogrom is better to be moved to "Sumgait" page. Lets discuss it! Andranikpasha 20:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

This article needs to be nominated for deletion for obvious POV issues and lack of any reliable sources. Grandmaster 09:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

You can see there 8 (!) reliable sources six of which are non-Armenian authors included an official speech in the House of Lords, UK, also an Implementation of the Helsinki Accords by United States Congress. Is it not enough for you? Andranikpasha 10:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

POV?

WP:POV: "At Wikipedia, points of view (POV) are often essential to articles which treat controversial subjects. The article should represent the POV of the main scholars and specialists who have produced reliable sources on the issue." Atabek and Grandmaster, there are 6 sources of famous foreign specialists and human rights activists included the famous soviet political prisoner Russian-Jewish poet Osip Mandelstam. Have you any (more) sources discussing the topic? And are they the "main scholars and specialists who have produced reliable sources on the issue"? Pls represent here and we will discuss it! Andranikpasha 10:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Mandelstam was not a witness of the event. He travelled to Shusha many years later. Caroline Cox is a partisan source, since she is a well-known Armenian lobbist. I see no neutral sources in this article, and the title is also POV, as the whole event started after the Armenian militants attacked the Azeri quoter of Shusha. This is admited even by Armenian historians [3]. No neutral sources refer to the event as Shushi Massacres, and according to WP:PROVEIT “If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it”. Grandmaster 14:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

"Mandelstam as not a witness of teh massacres". -who asks he was?

"Caroline Cox is a partisan source, since she is a well-kno Armenian lobbist".- have you any sources? why she is not neutral?

"the whole event started after the Armenian militants attacked the Azeri quoter of Shusha."- sources needed. pls add some (better if so well-known like the Baronesse or Kalli Raptis).

UPD"This is admited even by Armenian historians".- you add one historian! Maybe we (you) can cite from his book too I dont think its a problem despite he's only one! Its a variant represented by him.

Why you didnt represent other your sources to discuss?

“If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it”:

^ Armenia in Crisis: The 1988 Earthquake - Page 6 by Pierre Verluise

^ Implementation of the Helsinki Accords: By United States Congress. Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, United States, p.69

^ "For example, also in the 1920s, Azeris brutally massacred and evicted Armenians from the town of Shushi, which had been a famous and historic centre of Armenian culture." Nagorno Karabakh: forgotten people in a forgotten war, Contemporary Review, Jan, 1997 by Caroline Cox. See also: "Fighting broke out in 1920 over whether Shusha would be part of the newly declared republics of Armenia or Azerbaijan. Thousands died and the Armenian population fled the city." Jerusalem of Karabakh" at the heart of Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict, by Michael Mainville, Agence France Presse, 7/25/07

^ Nadezhda Mandelstam. Kniga tretia (in Russian). Paris, YMCA-Ргess, 1987, p.162-164.

^ Lords Hansard text for 1 Jul 1997 (170701-19) http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199798/ldhansrd/vo970701/text/70701-19.htm

Is this enough? Andranikpasha 15:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

There are references to Walker, United States Congress and Kaufman all reliable. --Hu1lee 16:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Not really. Mandelstam was not in Shusha when clashes occurred, so he cannot be considered a reliable source about what happened there. As for “Lords Hansard”, it is the same Caroline Cox, the Armenian lobbyist. Another Armenian lobbyist Frank Pallone even called her a “true Armenian nationalist”. See:

Special guest of honor, Congressman Frank Pallone who received a standing ovation, has been instrumental in garnering the support of 127 members (30%) of the U.S. House of Representatives for the Armenian Caucus in Congress. He expressed the hope that Congress will give Armenia $75 million next year, and stressed that the North-South Highway is a "lifeline" for the future of Karabakh, and paid tribute to Baroness Cox as a "true Armenian nationalist who would give her life for Armenia and Karabakh." [4]

True Armenian nationalist like Caroline Cox cannot be considered a reliable source, it is enough to read her publications to see her extreme pro-Armenian bias. Contemporary Review is also Cox, so you referred to her twice. Michael Mainville does not say that there was a massacre in Shusha, and he never uses the term “Shushi massacre”. He just says: “Fighting broke out in 1920 over whether Shusha would be part of the newly declared republics of Armenia or Azerbaijan. Thousands died and the Armenian population fled the city”. This source actually contradicts your claim and shows that there was a fighting that led to casualties on both sides.

As for the remaining 2 sources (Armenia in Crisis: The 1988 Earthquake - Page 6 by Pierre Verluise; Implementation of the Helsinki Accords: By United States Congress. Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, United States, p.69), I have no idea what they say, you provided no quotes. And this is what an Armenian scholar wrote about how these events started:

Failure at Khankend sealed the doom of Shushi. As planned, the Varanda militia entered Shushi on the evening of March 22, supposedly to receive its pay and to felicitate Governor-General Sultanov on the occasion of Novruz Bairam. That same night, about 100 armed men led by Nerses Azbekian slipped into the city to disarm the Azerbaijani garrison in the Armenian quarter. But everything went wrong. The Varanda militiamen spent most of the night eating and drinking and were late in taking up their assigned positions, whereas Azbekian's detachment, failing to link up with the militia, began firing on the Azerbaijani fort from afar, awakening the troops and sending them scurrying to arms. It was only then that the Varanda militiamen were roused and began seizing Azerbaijani officers quartered in Armenian homes. The confusion on both sides continued until dawn, when the Azerbaijanis learned that their garrison at Khankend had held and, heartened, began to spread out into the Armenian quarter. The fighting took the Armenians of Shushi by surprise. Several thousand fled under cover of the dense fog by way of Karintak into the Varanda countryside.

Richard G. Hovannisian. The Republic of Armenia, Vol. III: From London to Sèvres, February-August 1920

This source is not neutral either, but it confirms that the fighting was started by the Armenian side. This author also says that the Armenian side lost 500 people, and you included some fantastic figures of 20,000, which are far from reality. Overall, you provided no reliable third party sources to support your claims, so this article should be deleted in accordance with the rules. Grandmaster 17:10, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

"Mandelstam was not in Shusha when clashes occurred, so he cannot be considered a reliable source about what happened there". - Why? Is there such a rule for Wiki? I looked up some articles on different massacres and didnt find any sources by witnesses... Andranikpasha 21:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

PS- Is this a good idea to use Armenian or Azeri fund's sites as a source? This [5] link is not an official site of Mr Pallone nor a news agency, scientifical centre or a reliable source... Andranikpasha 09:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The author says no such thing as '500' first of all. Second the US congress is reliable as it says: "Throughout Karabakh, Armenians particularly those from the city of Shushi fell victim to massacres during the continuous onslaught." and its included in the article soyou did not read the article most likely. Kaufman and Walker are reliable, and Pierre Verluise spoke about the Shushi massacres both good sources reliable. --Hu1lee 17:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

And the 20,000 figure has 3 references including a third party one: "U.S.S.R. Speaks for Itself - Page 24 1941" saying 20,000 were slaughtered, and Russian analysts Igor Babanov and Konstantin Voevodsky write that "more than 30.000 Armenians died in March 1920 when Shushi was occupied". --Hu1lee 17:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

“USSR speaks for itself”? What does it say? And Babanov and the other guy, they appear to be the only source, quite an obscure one. Again, show me a reliable source that uses the term “Shushi massacre”. And Walker is another extremely pro-Armenian source. As for the figures, even Armenian sources claim less than 30 000. Check the census figures of the population of the town before the revolution, the figure of 500 provided by Hovannisian is more realistic and is supported by Thomas de Waal as well. US congress says nothing about Shusha, and I wonder who is the author of the quote anyway? Grandmaster 17:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Grandmaster, you wrote about Thomas de Vaal. Here is a quotation from he: "In 1920, in the peak of battles in Nagorno-Karabakh, Azerbaijani army burned the Armenian quarter of the town and killed hundreds of inhabitants. As a result in Soviet times 90 percents of population in Shusha were Azerbaijanis" ^[1]. Here de Vaal didnt mark 500 as maybe he is not sure what's the correct number. PS- One more source is added: Giovanni Guaita (an Italian scientist and writer). Andranikpasha 20:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Do I have to repeat myself? its in the article. You have to show proof that Walker is pro-Armenian I am willing to comprise if you prove that this article is not accurate/valid. For the 500 I don't know where that is. --Hu1lee 17:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

De Waal calls it a battle, which it actually was. The battle was initiated by the Armenian side. As result of the battle, the attacking Armenian side lost and the Armenian part of the city was destroyed in the counterattack of the Azerbaijani army. But we need to provide an objective picture. I will provide more sources, but clearly the clashes were initiated by the Armenian side, so the article should be called Ethic clashes in Shusha in 1920. And you provided no source using the Term “Shushi massacres”. Please do. None of the sources calls the town “Shushi”, so you misspelled the name, and none of them calls it a massacre. And both de Waal and Hovannisian provide the number of 500. Grandmaster 10:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni Guaita is also an extremely pro-Armenian source. See: [6] [7] [8] I will provide info about Walker a little later. You should find a reliable neutral source to support the claims. Right now the article tries to present the story from Armenian POV only. Grandmaster 10:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Raptis, Minority Rights Group (Miranda Bruce-Mitford), Pierre Verluise, Baronesse Cox (see below my answer), Walker, Ordzhonikidze, Babanov and Voevodsky, Mandelstams, Guaita etc... Did you represent any reliable (pls lets dont use links to the "fund"s and (armeniandiaspora) internet-forums!) source asking all of that people were Armenian nationalists...? And pls see the text ^[2]: de Vaal didnt write "battles in Shusha", but "battles in Nagorno-Karabakh". Also Im sure not all the inhabitants (women, children etc of Shushi/Shusha) may be participants of a battle. Or no? ... Andranikpasha 10:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

None of those sources is any good. And none of them uses the words "Shushi massacres". Cox is the worst of them. Grandmaster 13:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

"None of those sources is any good".- So Im waiting for the sources or rules of Wiki to prove that words. Ok, without Cox, despite you didnt cite any reliable source about her (except the "fund"). "Armenians particulary those from the city of Shushi fell victim to massacres" (Implementation of the Helsinki Accords: By United States Congress. Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, United States, p.69), "massacre of the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh's capital, Shushi (called Shusha by the Azerbaijanis)" (Kalli Raptis, Kalli Raptis, "Nagorno-Karabakh and the Eurasian Transport Corridor", http://72.14.235.104/search?q=cache:MSbXaimmyAcJ:www.eliamep.gr/eliamep/files/op9803.PDF), "a terrible pogrom" and "mass killings of about 30000 Armenians" (Giovanni Guaita «ГРАЖДАНИН», M., # 4, 2004 http://www.grazhdanin.com/grazhdanin.phtml?var=Vipuski/2004/4/statya17&number=№4), etc. And what is this? Why they are not any good? Andranikpasha 16:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

It is good

I have seen andranik provide ample sources by non-Armenians, and according to grandmaster, every source Andranik has provided is pro-Armenian. Seems quite dubious.Hetoum I 06:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC) What exactly is wrong with giovanni among the references as an example anyway? your links show him to be only a respectable scholar.06:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hetoum I (talk • contribs)

Created by

This article is a collective work! It hasnt one author but some. Hu1lee created another one (a text with the name "Shushi pogroms" which differs from this, significally contributed by me and some other users). The most important is that this name - "Shushi Massacres" is also created by me, and I used some parts of old "Shushi pogroms" article as anyways the facts and sources represented there are available and easy to check out (also mark, I do it as Hu1lee wasnt blocked in that time)! Andranikpasha 12:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Please see [9] Also please note criterion # 5 here: [10] Grandmaster 12:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

And what? You see- its not the same created by me, and even the text is absolutely different! We cant delete all the terms and names, once used by a sockpuppet or a banned user (and then deleted)! Do you think if a sockpuppet previously created an article about a genocide, an event or a prominent person, anyone else hadnt rights next time (after deletion) create an article with the same name?? Andranikpasha 12:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

There are exceptions to every rule, and an article with over 30 references is not going to be deleted because it was started by a banned user. It is also true that there used to be two articles, Shushi Pogroms and Shushi Massacres, which were merged. Because of the history merge and page move, all edits are attributed to the resulting article and it is impossible to tell who contributed to which original article before the merge. Assuming this is a real and important historical event, please work together to present it according to Wikipedia policies. Thatcher131 18:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Shushi Massacres?

I placed a POV-title tag on the page due to the fact that:

The city has never been officially called or referred to as Shushi.
The choice of the word massacre remains unexplained. The sources provided look ambiguous, such as the one named Implementation of the Helsinki Accords: By United States Congress. Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, United States, p.69. There is a reference to the US Congress. When was this hearing? Who made that speech?

On the other hand, there are reliable sources pointing to the fact that the what happened in Shusha was merely an outcome of a militant Armenian rebellion. And here they are:

The situation was to alter following the events of 4 April, when a mass exodus of Armenians from Shusha to nearby Khankende (Stepanakert, today the capital of Nagorno-Karabakh), following an Armenian uprising put down by Azeri forces, transformed, almost overnight, Shusha into an Azeri city. Tim Potier. Conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh, Abkhazia and South Ossetia: A Legal Appraisal. ISBN-10: 9041114777

The latter group was mainly concentrated in Shusha, but both groups were killed or expelled when an Armenian rebellion was brutally put down in March 1920 with a toll of hundreds of Shusha Armenians. Thomas de Waal. Black Garden: Armenia and Azerbaijan through Peace and War. ISBN 0814719449

(Russian) [11] 1920.03.22 - An Armenian rebellion in Nagorno-Karabakh. The fightings took place in Shusha, Khankendi, Tartar, Askeran, and later spread to the Zangezur, Nakhchivan and Ganja uyezds.

In light of this, I doubt that the word massacre in the title is applicable. The killings of Armenians were rather the outcome of a military operation aimed at putting down a rebellion.

As far as the death toll is concerned, I find the claim of 20,000 victims backed up by a source indicated as U.S.S.R. Speaks for Itself - Page 24 1941 hardly reliable. Let's look at the numbers from real sources:

Two more sackings in the twentieth century ended Shusha's greatness. In March 1920, an Azerbaijani army sacked the town, burning the Armenian quarter and killing some five hundred Armenians. Thomas de Waal. Black Garden: Armenia and Azerbaijan through Peace and War.

The sacking of Shusha by Azeri forces resulted in the burning of hundreds of homes. According to the Great Soviet Encyclopedia (Third Edition, 1970), these events contributed to the death of 2096 (notice that there is no indication of the ethnicity of the killed, meaning altogether 2096 Shushavians were killed - Parishan) of the city's population. Subsequently, only a few Armenian families remained. Great Soviet Encyclopedia, vol. 17, London, Collier Macmillan, 1973, p. 301. Tim Potier. Conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh, Abkhazia and South Ossetia: A Legal Appraisal. Parishan 08:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear Parishan. Pls carefully read the talk page especially the first topic dedicated to the name! About de Vaal also see below. and is the Hronos as reliable source? Potier's view maybe also can be represented in the article as one of the versions (mark, its only one source):"The situation was to alter following the events of 4 April, when a mass exodus of Armenians from Shusha to nearby Khankende (Stepanakert, today the capital of Nagorno-Karabakh), following an Armenian uprising put down by Azeri forces, transformed, almost overnight, Shusha into an Azeri city." Tim Potier. Conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh, Abkhazia and South Ossetia: A Legal Appraisal. ISBN-10: 9041114777 About the numbers: direct quotation from BSE needed, but is it a reliable source? For example, to use in March Days article? Andranikpasha 09:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I see nothing about de Waal below. It is a reliable source. So is Potier. As for BSE, it is a reliable source when it comes to these events, because Bolsheviks were not involved. GSE had a strong pro-communist bias, therefore it is not reliable when it comes to March massacre, but in this particular caseit has no reason for bias, especially considering that editor in chief was son of Stepan Shaumian. Grandmaster 10:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion (read in your talk page about reliable sources that you need to represent to prove something)! PS-BSE in this case dont mean "Great Soviet Encyclopedia", but "Britannica Students Encyclopedia":) So its not "necessary" to criticize the Bolshevik (Soviet) one.... Andranikpasha 20:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Again about the name...

In the article there re 5 references- Shushi massacres [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. you can see and discuss them here!Andranikpasha 09:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I have not seen a single source that spelled the name of the town as "Shushi". And you cannot say that there's a consensus to call these events a "massacre". Parishan provided sources that prove that there was a revolt of local Armenians, which resulted in clashes and casualties on both sides. In addition, I provided a quote from Armenian scholar Havonanissian, who also says that there was a rebellion. Considering all that, the title should be moved to "Armenian uprising in Shusha" or better yet "Ethnic clashes in Shusha in 1920". --Grandmaster 09:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

its seems to be a continuous circle... I must repeat what I wrote especially for you earlier: Ok, without Cox, despite you didnt cite any reliable source about her (except the "fund"). "Armenians particulary those from the city of Shushi fell victim to massacres" (Implementation of the Helsinki Accords: By United States Congress. Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, United States, p.69), "massacre of the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh's capital, Shushi (called Shusha by the Azerbaijanis)" (Kalli Raptis, Kalli Raptis, "Nagorno-Karabakh and the Eurasian Transport Corridor", http://72.14.235.104/search?q=cache:MSbXaimmyAcJ:www.eliamep.gr/eliamep/files/op9803.PDF). About rebellon and clashes maybe I'll suggest it for March days, but I need to reserch how many references we have about it as a massacre and as a "rebellon". thank you! Andranikpasha 09:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC) UPD- to all the users: while to ask questions or criticizing the name please read posts here as many of questions asked and replied earlier many times! Thanks in advance!Andranikpasha 10:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I knew something was wrong with Implementation of Helsinki accords, and it is. That source says: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is Mourad Topalian and I am the National Chairman of the Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA). And what follows after that is presentation of the Armenian view of the issue. Topolian is not a reliable source. As for the other source, it is not a historical research, and you cannot base this whole article on one source. Grandmaster 11:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

This is the full title of the section of the above document that your are quoting: Prepared statement of Mourad Topalian, Chairman of the Armenian National Committee of America before the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe. Room G-50 Dirksen Senate Office Building. Washington, DC. March 8, 1993. Of course, this source cannot be considered reliable. Grandmaster 11:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

And pls also carefully read the questions you asked:): "I have not seen a single source that spelled the name of the town as "Shushi". And you cannot say that there's a consensus to call these events a "massacre""... And now: "Of course, this source cannot be considered reliable". And more: "As for the other source, it is not a historical research, and you cannot base this whole article on one source." Really? And what about this "historical" one (read: "in this book we're researching the problems of political development of modern Azerbaijan"): [12] An article in Wiki is based on the "historical" research of PhD Smith from there... Grandmaster, lets standardize our demands, ok?

Then, about historical sources: "British administrator of Karabakh colonel Chatelword didnt empede the discrimination of Armenians by Tatarian administration of governor Saltanov. The national clashes ended by the terrible massacres in which the most of Armenians in Shushi town perished. The Parliament in Baku refused even condemn the accomplishers of the massacres in Shushi and the war was started in Karabakh. Британский администратор Карабаха полковник Шательворт не препятствовал притеснениям армян, чинимым татарской администрацией губернатора Салтанова. Межнациональные трения завершились страшной резней , в которой погибла большая часть армян города Шуши . Бакинский парламент отказался даже осудить свершителей Шушинской резни и в Карабахе вспыхнула война. А.Зубов ПОЛИТИЧЕСКОЕ БУДУЩЕЕ КАВКАЗА: ОПЫТ РЕТРОСПЕКТИВНО-СРАВНИТЕЛЬНОГО АНАЛИЗА, Znamia journal, 2000, #4, http://magazines.russ.ru/znamia/2000/4/zubov.html). Also: "On March, 1920, during the occupation of Shushi town, 30 thousand Armenians were massacred". Russian analysts I. Babanov and K. Voevodsky / Игорь Бабанов, Константин Воеводский, Карабахский кризис, Санкт-Петербург, 1992). Also: "A month ago after the massacres of Shushi, in April 19, 1920, prime-minsters of England, France and Italy with participation of the representatives of Japan and USA collected in San-Remo... Месяц спустя после резни в Шуши , 19 апреля 1920 года, премьер-министры Англии, Франции и Италии при участии представителей Японии и США собираются в Сан-Ремо для рассмотрения ситуации в связи с Турцией и принимают решение о создании армянского государства в составе провинций Ван, Эрзерум, Трапезунд и Битлис. Giovanni Guaita, Джованни ГУАЙТА, Армения между кемалистским молотом и большевистской наковальней // «ГРАЖДАНИН», M., # 4, 2004 http://www.grazhdanin.com/grazhdanin.phtml?var=Vipuski/2004/4/statya17&number=%B94)". PS- If anyways historical sources also are not good enough for this article, see this: "In August 1919, the Karabagh National Council entered into a provisional treaty agreement with the Azerbaijani government. Despite signing the Agreement, the Azerbaijani government continuously violated the terms of the treaty. This culminated in March 1920 with the Azerbaijanis' massacre of Armenians in Karabagh's former capital, Shushi, in which it is estimated that more than 20,000 Armenians were killed." The Nagorno-Karabagh Crisis:A Blueprint for Resolution, A Memorandum Prepared by the Public International Law & Policy Group and the New England Center for International Law & Policy, June, 2000, p. 3 http://www.nesl.edu/center/pubs/nagorno.pdf). See the memoires ("...in this town, which formerly off course was healthy and with every amenity, the picture of catastrofe and massacres was terribly visual".Nadezhda Mandelstam На рассвете мы выехали на автобусе из Гянджи в Шуши. Город начинался с бесконечного кладбища, потом крохотная базарная площадь, куда спускаются улицы разоренного города. Нам уже случалось видеть деревни, брошенные жителями, состоящие из нескольких полуразрушенных домов, но в этом городе, когда-то, очевидно, богатом и благоустроенном, картина катастрофы и резни была до ужаса наглядной. Н.Я. Мандельштам. Книга третья. Париж, YMCA-Ргess, с.162). Andranikpasha 16:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Smith is a professional historian, professor in an American university. You cannot compare him with the sources presented by you. Again, only one source spells the name as Shushi, while most spell it as Shusha. I think this cannot be disputed. The name selected by you was never official, neither in Russian, nor in the USSR. As for your sources, they are all well known for pro-Armenian bias. Zubov was a good friend and disciple of Galina Starovoytova. Giovanni Guaita we discussed above, and New England Center for International Law & Policy is also a well known pro-separatist organization. Only Mandelstamm can be considered neutral, but she was not a witness of the events, she only saw the aftermath a few years later. Grandmaster 17:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

anyways thanks for the point of view (is it yours?)- just 2 very important things: 1. please be more accurate with the words like "a good friend and disciple of Galina Starovoytova" (from where you know it? is it a shame, or why anyone hadnt right be a friend of her?), "pro-separatist organization" (??, first time I hear this term...) and with mathematics (if Im OK I hope Im:)- I read SHUSHI in all 5 sources represented below), so pls see again and then write... "only one source spells the name as Shushi, while most spell it as Shusha"..... Andranikpasha 20:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Andranikpasha, the quote you claim belongs to Nadezhda Mandelstam was taken straight out of an Armenian source; either this or this. However the original source reads "На рассвете мы выехали на автобусе из Гянджи в Шушу", which makes a lot more sense. She simply could not have written Shushi. Parishan 05:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Parishan, in that Arm. materials you provided there arent any references so I cant use them:) I looked it up in the book marked earlier. As I understand in her memoire's different publications the name used by both variants (for example, in your variant I read- Correction: David Titievsky (Kharkov), dec. 2005). Anyways its not a historical research but memoirs, so the spelling of the name of the city is not important (especially if in 1930-70 in USSR it officially called Shusha). You see its not a general discussion of the name, but details... Andranikpasha 09:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The spelling is important. This is a Wikipedia article. Shushi is not a generally accepted spelling for the name of this city. The Shushi spelling with regards to Mandelstam appears only on Armenian websites. Saying Titievsky corrected the name of the city is original research. I can provide one more excerpt from a different web-source where Mandelstam names it precisely Shusha, and not Shushi, or Shushu, or Shusho, etc. [13]: "В те годы мы на каждом шагу видели следы мусаватистских погромов (одна Шуша чего стоила!)." Parishan 10:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Parishan, Mandelstam's book is a memoires about a tour in Shusha of 1930's its not a hist. research not a source asking the official name of Shusha in 1920 was Shusha! Pls feel the difference. Also look up the quotations after the article name or see them above!Andranikpasha 10:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so you're saying, Mandelstam is out, because she travelled to Shusha in 1930. Then be kind to provide a source from 1920, where Shusha is named Shushi. Parishan 10:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Shushi or Shusha Massacres

How many references there're asking that massacres took part not in Shusha, but in Shushi: 1. A. Zubov (in Russian) А.Зубов Политическое будущее Кавказа: опыт ретроспективно-сравнительного анализа, журнал "Знамья", 2000, #4, http://magazines.russ.ru/znamia/2000/4/zubov.html , 2. Kalli Raptis, "Nagorno-Karabakh and the Eurasian Transport Corridor", http://72.14.235.104/search?q=cache:MSbXaimmyAcJ:www.eliamep.gr/eliamep/files/op9803.PDF , 3. Giovanni Guaita (in Russian) Джованни ГУАЙТА, Армения между кемалистским молотом и большевистской наковальней // «ГРАЖДАНИН», M., # 4, 2004 http://www.grazhdanin.com/grazhdanin.phtml?var=Vipuski/2004/4/statya17&number=%B94 , 4. The Nagorno-Karabagh Crisis:A Blueprint for Resolution, A Memorandum Prepared by the Public International Law & Policy Group and the New England Center for International Law & Policy, June, 2000, p. 3 http://www.nesl.edu/center/pubs/nagorno.pdf , 5. Lords Hansard text for 1 Jul 1997 (170701-19) http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199798/ldhansrd/vo970701/text/70701-19.htm , 6. " Nagorno Karabakh: forgotten people in a forgotten war, Contemporary Review, Jan, 1997 by Caroline Cox, 7. Igor Babanov and Konstantin Voevodsky / Игорь Бабанов, Константин Воеводский, Карабахский кризис, Санкт-Петербург, 1992. All 7 are not memoires but serious historical researches of non-Armenian authors. And how many historical researches called the events massacres of Shusha, and how many write there werent massacres?? Pls represent here! Andranikpasha 10:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

You need to prove that most sources refer to the town as Shushi. Wikipedia article about the town is called Shusha, not Shushi. Therefore all the articles should use this name. And do not misrepresent the sources, "Lords Hansard" is Caroline Cox, Armenian lobbyist. Grandmaster 16:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

About Zubov, it is the same guy from Sakharov - Starovoytova team who travelled to Karabakh back in late 1980s. Bonner says:

Е. БОННЕР: Да, лично, но вначале я его узнала, как все рядовые граждане нашей страны по телевидению и в его выступлениях, а после Карабахской истории Андрей Дмитриевич общался с ним лично и потом я, когда мы ездили в Карабах в составе такой бригады: Андрей Дмитриевич, Баткин, Зубов, Старовойтова и я. После этого мы писали такие маленькие отчеты, я их собрала все вместе, о том, что мы видели и что нам представляется необходимым делать, и вот тогда было общение с Яковлевым. [14]

And Sakharov's memoirs: В состав группы, которой предстояла поездка в Азербайджан и Армению, вошли Андрей Зубов, Галина Старовойтова и Леонид Баткин от “Трибуны”, Люся и я. [15] It is the same Andrei Zubov mentioned there. Grandmaster 17:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

"You need to prove that most sources refer to the town as Shushi". I do not! The right, more popular etc. name of the town is OFF the topic of this article (I need to prove more commonly used terms for the event, I done it above)! Pls translate the Russian text for everyone to be available, as I see there nothing related to our topic!!! Andranikpasha 17:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you need to prove that most of reliable sources refer to the event as "Shushi massacre". So far you have not done that. We see that there was an Armenian revolt that led to fighting and destruction of Armenian quarters of the town. And this is your own source:

"Fighting broke out in 1920 over whether Shusha would be part of the newly declared republics of Armenia or Azerbaijan. Thousands died and the Armenian population fled the city." Jerusalem of Karabakh" at the heart of Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict, by Michael Mainville, Agence France Presse, 7/25/07

Note that "thousands died" refers to both sides of the conflict. Grandmaster 17:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

"Note that "thousands died" refers to both sides of the conflict". Thanks for your comments and interpretations! You asked me to use historical researches for description, Grandmaster, pls standardize your demands! Andranikpasha 17:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I did, yet you provided 2 quotes from Cox, who is not a historian and is not neutral either (one is being House of Lords speech). Grandmaster 05:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I readded the tags until the problems are resolved. Grandmaster 08:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I moved the article to a neutral title, because the previous one was POV. Clearly, the events in Shusha started from the attack of Armenian militants on Azeri quarters, this is acknowledged even by Armenian sources, and many lives were lost from both sides. One-sided representation of actual events is not in line with WP:NPOV. --Grandmaster 04:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I reworded the intro to remove POV, and also deleted the quote from Vahram Atanesyan, as well as some other dubious sources, as discussed above. But the article still needs a major rewrite, so the tags remain. Grandmaster 11:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Dubious

This source claims to be from some "Communist" newspaper in 1920, yet does not cite neither page number nor article title. The source is clearly dubious and need more clarification as to where it came from. Atabek 01:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

And another dubious reference saying in Russian in footnotes: "Н. Я. Мандельштам. Книга третья. Париж, YMCA-Ргess, 1987, с.162-164.". - OK. It says "Book Three" but of what?? Of which title? Atabek 01:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Assume good faith Atabek, I'm sure you could have said the same thing in a more civil way. You're hostile attitude only ads fuel to the fire.

"When you can reasonably assume that a mistake someone made was a well-intentioned attempt to further the goals of the project, correct it without criticizing. When you disagree with people, remember that they probably believe that they are helping the project." VartanM 02:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Where do you see incivility on part of Atabek? He just points out that the reference is not accurate. Is that incivil? Please AGF yourself. --Grandmaster 04:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Grandmaster, I didn't say he was incivil. I only asked him to be more polite. The first post was fine, in the second one, he was clearly upset. I asked him, to assume that the person who added those sources was acting on good faith. And if Atabek saw a mistake, he shouldn't be throwing this to our face, but to simply point it out. His message could very well provoke another user, namely the user who added those sources, to answer back in a similar tone. VartanM 06:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

In my view he only asked for the correct citation. But anyway, this is not worth escalating any further. Let's stop it at that and discuss the issue in question. --Grandmaster 06:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Atabek and Grandmaster: "Kniga tretya" (Third book) is a famous book title (not the number of volume), as previously Mrs Mandelstam wrote 2 other books ("Hope against hope" and "Hope abandoned") of memoirs and third one she called just a "Third book". It reissued several times last time in 2006: you can find in catalog: ISBN: 5778402783. Its the name of book, not the volume! And "Communist" is a famous newspaper from Baku (by Wiki rules no need to add the page from newspaper, its not a journal).Andranikpasha 09:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

A quotation from another memoirs: one of the Comsomol leaders of Soviet Azerbaijan- Olga Shatunovskaya wrote: "Azerbaijan dont want to lose the power as Nagorno-Karabakh is a great region. Its autonomous but only nominally, during these years they ousted many Armenians, closed schools, colleges. Earlier the main city was Shusha. When in 1920s there was a massacre, they burnt all the central part of the town, and then they even didnt restored it." ("Азербайджан не хочет терять власть, это большая область, Нагорный Карабах. Автономная только номинально - они за эти годы вытеснили много армян, закрывали школы, училища. Раньше главный город был Шуша . Когда в двадцатых годах была резня, сожгли всю центральную часть города, ее даже не стали восстанавливать." (in Russian) Шатуновская О. Г . Об ушедшем веке. Рассказывает Ольга Шатуновская / сост.: Д. Кутьина, А. Бройдо, А. Кутьин. – La Jolla (Calif.) : DAA Books, 2001. – 470 с., c. 71).Andranikpasha 00:02, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

How a communist source could be a reliable when discussing Musavat? Of course commy's hated Musavat and did whatever was possible to discredit Musavat government. And Mikoyan, Shaginyan and Cox are all Armenian sources, thus cannot be used due to strong bias. Grandmaster 07:28, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

At first she was a communist but opposed many actions of Soviet as a human rights activist. Then, she didnt discuss here Musavat!?? Remember you even used ultra-Communist Soviet Encyclopedia (without direct anf full quotation) to prove there were fightings and less people killed during these massacres... Stop call all the sources (prominent Soviet leaders and British Baronesse) Armenian! and stop attacking this article. look for reliable sources to prove NPOV which is going to be deleted! Andranikpasha 09:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Atanesyan

Also, we have a whole section called "Name", which quotes some Vahram Atanesyan:

Known as the Shushi massacres or the Shushi pogroms, the usage of the word 'genocide' has been reported as well (see below).

According to Chairman of the parliamentary Commission for Foreign Relations of Karabakh, Vahram Atanesyan:

The massacre of Armenians in Shushi in 1920 is nothing but a genocide, Chairman of the parliamentary Commission for Foreign Relations of Karabakh, Vahram Atanesyan, said at a press-conference today. He said the massacre was perpetrated by Azerbaijan with the support of the Turkish expeditionary corps. Atanesyan stressed that Karabakh has never been a part of Azerbaijan and was de facto independent at that moment, its status being recognized by Armenia, Georgia and Azerbaijan.

Why opinion of this guy is notable and why no opinion of Azerbaijani sources is quoted in the same section? How about observing WP:NPOV? --Grandmaster 05:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Im agree that we will reedit this and some other parts: for it we need to finish our discussions related to the name and first part (preface). Also here Armenians were the massacred side, they have rights to ask their official view. As you see during the March days peoples from the both sides were killed and in the preface (!) we (you) added the calling of the events by Azeri officials as a genocide... pls think about it! Andranikpasha 09:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

In March days there's just a short line that Azerbaijani government considers those events to be a genocide. The view of Azerbaijani side does not have a whole section dedicated to it, and no quotes of Azerbaijani officials are included either. Grandmaster 10:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

By one side, yes (I asked Id like to reedit it), and by other part, Armenians were the massacred side, they have rights to ask their official view. As you see during the March days peoples from the both sides were killed, so we need to add the opinion of another side- Bolsheviks. Im glad if we're really going to find some compromisses. Andranikpasha 11:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

We have the opinion of Shaumian there. Why no Azeri opinion is cited here and why the quote from Atanesyan takes a whole section? Grandmaster 06:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

According to the sources (included NYT) there were fightings and peoples from both sides (both Muslims and Bolsheviks are killed) but you have a Azeri opinion at the description and an opinion of Shaumyan at the text (sorry is it not a discrimination?). And here only Armenians were massacred no any Turk or Azeri inhabvitant so their opinion is not equal to the massacred side sorry (and what happened before massacres we can discuss here for bckground section nothing more)! About Atanesyan I asked earlier.Andranikpasha 15:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Once again, March days contains only a short line that the government of Azerbaijan considers those events to be a genocide. No large quotes reflecting official Azerbaijani position were included. That is not the case with this article. Also, do you have any sources to attest to the presence of Turkish army in the region after 1918? If so, please cite them. Grandmaster 07:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

"In March, 1920 a terrible pogrom took place in Shushi, organized by Azerbaijanis with the support of Turkish forces. Azerbaijani and Soviet authorities during the decades will deny and try to hush up the mass killings of about 30000 Armenians". Giovanni Guaita (see Джованни ГУАЙТА, Армения между кемалистским молотом и большевистской наковальней // «ГРАЖДАНИН», M., # 4, 2004 http://www.grazhdanin.com/grazhdanin.phtml?var=Vipuski/2004/4/statya17&number=№4) Andranikpasha 16:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

This is just another proof of unreliability of this source. It is well-known fact that Turkish army left Caucasus in 1918 following defeat of the Ottoman Empire in the World War I, and the region was under the British occupation. If you need sources on that, they are in abundance. Grandmaster 09:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

"unreliability of this source"- is it your opinion or there're any academian discussions on this prominent historian's works reliability? "It is well-known fact that Turkish army left Caucasus in 1918 following defeat of the Ottoman Empire in the World War I, and the region was under the British occupation."- No, its not a fact! Maybe they leave Azerbaijan, but even in 1920 there were an Armenian-Turkish war so they were in the region included Karabakh which was an area of Armenian-Azeri war.Andranikpasha 14:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

How did Turkish army come to be in Shusha considering that it was the area of British occupation? Do you have any other source to attest to the presence of Turkish army in the region? Gauita is clearly not aware of what was happening there, as he makes claims that contradict known facts. Grandmaster 10:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

We re going to start an original research here. I dont know if the area was de facto a place of British occupation, as it is a fact that a war started there and anyways Azeri army also was in this "area of British oppupation". We need reliable sources asking Guaita isnt right, there werent Turkish forces participationg in this war in the region or during the Shushi massacres, then we can represent that "well-known"(?) view too.Andranikpasha 11:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's a quote for you:

The Democratic Republic, the first experiment in the Azerbaijani nation-state, lasted 23 months, a period that may be divided into three distinct phases. The first was that of the Ottoman Turkish occupation, during which the military authorities regarded Azerbaijan as a land to be united, in one way or another, with Turkey. However, the Ottoman Empire was losing the war, and by the end of October 1918 it had capitulated to the Western Allied forces. The Ottoman occupation was succeeded by arrival of British troops. Their military presence provided the young republic with a sense of temporary security from the warring armies in the Russian civil war, and indirectly encouraged the rise of national institutions, modelled on a Western-style parliamentary democracy.

Imogen Bell. Eastern Europe, Russia and Central Asia. ISBN 1857431375

It’s not like there are different versions of whether or not Turkish army left Caucasus, you can find in any serious historical book that Ottoman army was forced to leave Caucasus and it fell under the British occupation. Therefore any Turkish military presence in Azerbaijan after 1918 was not possible. Grandmaster 12:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The only sentence is related to Turkish forces: "However, the Ottoman Empire was losing the war, and by the end of October 1918 it had capitulated to the Western Allied forces." - so what, is it means they leaved Caucasus and there werent Turkish forces ...in 1920... in Karabakh? Grandmaster lets discuss directly questions related to the article, sources on capitulation of Turkish army 2 years earlier in ADR not important here its not an article on research of common ADR history of 1918...Andranikpasha 16:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Did you actually read the source? It says: The Ottoman occupation was succeeded by arrival of British troops. British came, Turks left. Since they left in 1918, they could not take any part in Shusha fighting in 1920, therefore Guaita provides false info. Grandmaster 04:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Guaita is respected researcher, that source is not false. This - "British came, Turks left" seems to be false, unsourced original research.Andranikpasha 09:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's more:

The CUP government fell on October 9, and the new cabinet of Ahmet Izzet Pasha signed an armistice with the Allies before the end of the month at Mudros. Under the provisions of this agreement, the Ottoman forces were required to leave Transcaucasia and northern Iran, while the Allies were to occupy Baku and take control of the Transcaucasian railways.

Tadeusz Swietochowski. Russia and Azerbaijan. A Borderland In Transition ISBN-10: 0231070683

Grandmaster 06:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

"Ottoman forces were required to leave Transcaucasia and northern Iran". - so what, the Ottoman or Turkish forces done it?Andranikpasha 09:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they did it.

The Turkish conquest of oil-rich Baku was greatly resented both by Lenin's government in Moscow and by the Germans, but neither could do much about the fait accompli. The wrath of Berlin was heightened by the fact that the Ottoman armies in the other theatres of war, especially in Iraq and Palestine, were on the brink of collapse and badly needed support from units now squandered on the Turkish drive to the east. Suffice it to note that the Turks stayed in Baku until November, when they slowly withdrew from all Trancaucasian regions of the defunct Russian empire.

Hew Strachan. The Oxford Illustrated History of the First World War. ISBN 0192893254

During the summer of 1918, the Ottomans launched a new offensive in eastern Anatolia. In this campaign, Ottoman troops occupied Azerbaijan, including the city of Baku on the Caspian Sea, before they were forced to withdraw with the war's end.

Douglas Arthur Howard. The History of Turkey. ISBN 0313307083

The war ended in 1918. Now tell how Turkish army could have anything to do with the events of 1920 if it left the Caucasus in November 1918? Grandmaster 11:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Im not welcoming this original research out of topics, anyways:

"Turks stayed in Baku until November, when they slowly withdrew from all Trancaucasian regions". What the November? Also about your original research above: Atabek's source from NYT [19] asked about ending of British occupation of Baku in 1918, anyways earlier than Turks leaved Transcaucasia(???, not the Transcaucasia but Azerbaijan: ther were a well-known Armenian-Turkish war in 1920 and according to the same reliable source by NYT[20], also Karabakh was recognized as Armenia during that period and both were in Transcaucasia- see the map! Are you deniing that in 1920 Turks were in ... Transcaucasia?Andranikpasha 20:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

November 1918, of course. According to Armistice of Mudros Turkish army left Caucasus. And Atabek's source actually says:

In firm possession of the capital the Azerbaijan government sent a mission to the Persian town of Enzeli to invite General Thompson, the British commander of the allied troops in that territory, to enter Baku. On Nov. 17, 1918, the allied forces entered the port; they were received with great ceremony and public acclaim. The British occupation of Baku lasted until the end of the year 1919, when the British troops evacuated all the Caucasus, leaving only a diplomatic mission to represent British interests in this region.

British army came to Caucasus in November 1918, when Turkish army left, and stayed there until the end of 1919. As you can see, there could be no Turkish army in the Azerbaijan, and Karabakh was recognized as part of Azerbaijan by the allies, and never recognized as part of Armenia. See this: [21], even Armenian sources confirm this fact. Grandmaster 07:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Lets stop to do original research and go for sources proving what you ask. Im not here to make historiographical research and the article is dedicated to 1920 not 1918. Again: Are you deniing that in 1920 Turks were in ... Transcaucasia? if no, whats the problem? Is it important if they were in Transcaucasia in 1918 or 1919 or maybe in 1863?Andranikpasha 09:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

It is a fact that there was no Turkish army on the territory of Azerbaijan in 1920, including Karabakh region. I provided many sources that say that Turkish army left Azerbaijan in 1918. So any claims to the contrary are simply distortion of well-known facts. Grandmaster 16:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

"It is a fact that there was no Turkish army on the territory of Azerbaijan in 1920, including Karabakh region." - Im glad there is even one source (you) who includes Karabakh in Azerbaijan of 1920... anyways: what you're asking is not true: many sources asking the different thing (as it is well known fact): 1. international researchers: a "In March, 1920 a terrible pogrom took place in Shushi, organized by Azerbaijanis with the support of Turkish forces. Giovanni Guaita (see Джованни ГУАЙТА, Армения между кемалистским молотом и большевистской наковальней // «ГРАЖДАНИН», M., # 4, 2004 http://www.grazhdanin.com/grazhdanin.phtml?var=Vipuski/2004/4/statya17&number=№4) b. According to Aleksandr Tarasov, from 1918 to 1920 Armenian inhabitants of Karabakh succesfully repulsed the claims of musavatists and Turkish army to conrtol that territories "Первоначально - в декабре 1920 года - и Советская Россия, и Рабоче-крестьянское правительство Азербайджана безоговорочно признали Нагорный Карабах , Зангезур и Нахичевань «составной частью Армянской Социалистической Республики»[2]. Такая позиция объяснялась тем, что отношение местного населения к вопросу о самоопределении было выражено еще в 1918 году - и вплоть до советизации в 1920 -м армянское население успешно отбивало все попытки мусаватистов и турецкой армии установить контроль над этими территориями." (Александр Тарасов, Право народов на самоопределение как фундаментальный демократический принцип http://magazines.russ.ru/nz/2003/2/taras.html) 2. Soviet researchers also marks many times that Turkish army and Turkish generals were in Karabakh region in 1920: for example according to Great Soviet encyclopedia, the commander of Turkish occupation army Nuri-pasha organized a revolt in Ganja in May 1920 "Организаторами восстания были командующий турецкими оккупациоными войсками на Кавказе Нури-паша, генерал Д. Шихлинский и др. 26 мая мятежники захватили мусульманскую часть Гянджи, разоружили расположенные там подразделения 20-й стрелковой дивизии, пытались занять ж.-д. станцию." (Большая советская энциклопедия Гянджинский мятеж 1920, http://slovari.yandex.ru/dict/bse/article/00021/33800.htm?text=%D0%B3%D1%8F%D0%BD%D0%B4%D0%B6%D0%B0) 3. Turkish researchers: "On 28 March 1920, Karabekir wrote to Halil and Nuri Pashas, asking them to establish a wireless in the city of Gence and transmit information to be received by those three stations of the XV. Army Corps.", also "On 23 March 1920, two Bolshevik Inspectors [no names cited] arrived in the vicinity of Trabzon,106 to rendezvous with Batum Bolsheviks. ...The Bolsheviks provided information on their strength, conditions in the Caucasus, their own programs. They appeared to have detailed knowledge on the activities of Halil and Nuri Pashas...On 11 April, Artillery Lieutenant Ibrahim Efendi returned from Baku, after having established contact, as ordered, with Halil and Nuri Pashas" (U.S. And Bolshevik Relations With The TBMM Government: The First Contacts, 1919-1921, by H.B. Paksoy http://vlib.iue.it/carrie/texts/carrie_books/paksoy-9/)

You see I didnt mark any researcher of Armenian ancestry.

So Im waiting for your answer that I have sources but they are not reliable for you and you hadnt sources but they must be reliable:)Andranikpasha 19:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Nuri was in Azerbaijan in 1920, but 1 or 2 officers is not Turkish army, is it? I provided many third party sources that Turkish army left the region in 1918. If you have a source that Turkish army returned to Azerbaijan in 1919 or 1920, please provide it. Grandmaster 11:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Dubious sources

I removed some of the dubious quotes from the article. I'm posting them here for discussion:

“Ermenistan that you have seen is now burnt down, just about five or ten houses were left…“ “After killing the prominent Armenians, their severed heads were carried and displayed during rounds made at the marketplaces…” “You will see no more Armenians in our area; neither will you meet a Turk who has brought less than one hundred thousand’s worth of loot”. (Excerpts from the originals of Ottoman letters written in Arabic letters)<ref>http://www.nkr.am/rus/mid/bull/text1_00.htm</ref> <ref>State Historio-cultural museum of NKR, f.11, p.107</ref>.

Two prominent Armenian-Russian Communist activists- Anastas Mikoyan and writer Marietta Shaginyan ^[3] wrote about this pogroms in their memoirs. Mikoyan, who was in that region, later marks: "According to the reconaissance information, at Azerbaijani Mousavatist government's disposal was army of 30-thousands, of whom 20 thousants deployed near the border of Armenia... The army of Azerbaijan shortly before that massacred the Armenians in Shusha, Karabakh" <ref> (in Russian) Микоян Анастас. Так было (воспоминания), http://biblioteka.org.ua/book.php?id=1121020105&p=19</ref>.

In 1 July 1997, in her speech in the House of Lords, United Kingdom, Baroness Caroline Cox marked: "Armenians have repeatedly suffered atrocities at the hands of Turks and Azeris, including the murder of 1.5 million Armenians by Turkey in the genocide of 1915; the massacre of 20,000 Armenians in the ancient Armenian city of Shushi in 1920; and massacres in Sumgait and Baku in 1988 and 1990" <ref>Lords Hansard text for 1 Jul 1997 (170701-19) http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199798/ldhansrd/vo970701/text/70701-19.htm</ref>.

One of the Komsomol leaders of Soviet Azerbaijan- Olga Shatunovskaya later wrote in her memoirs: "Azerbaijan dont want to lose the power as Nagorno-Karabakh is a great region. Its autonomous but only nominally, during these years they ousted many Armenians, closed schools, colleges. Earlier the main city was Shusha. When in 1920s there was a massacre, they burnt all the central part of the town, and then they even didnt restored it." <ref>(in Russian) Шатуновская О. Г . Об ушедшем веке. Рассказывает Ольга Шатуновская / сост.: Д. Кутьина, А. Бройдо, А. Кутьин. – La Jolla (Calif.) : DAA Books, 2001. – 470 с., c. 71</ref>

The documented 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) <ref>(in Russian) Нагорный Карабах в 1918—1923 гг.: сборник документов и материалов. Ереван, 1992, стр. 376, документ № 254</ref>. 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 "For example, also in the 1920s, Azeris brutally massacred and evicted Armenians from the town of Shushi, which had been a famous and historic centre of Armenian culture." Nagorno Karabakh: forgotten people in a forgotten war, Contemporary Review, Jan, 1997 by Caroline Cox.

Grandmaster 07:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Analyzing the above sources, obviously www.nkr.am cannot be considered a reliable source, same as "State Historio-cultural museum of NKR" or "Нагорный Карабах в 1918—1923 гг.: сборник документов и материалов. Ереван, 1992". Please use neutral reliable sources. Grandmaster 07:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Pls do not delete anything to discuss it here. Are you going to delete all the article to discuss here? At first discuss here and if you prove thay are not reliable then we will delete them. I dont know if the State Historio-cultural museum of NKR (the state archive) is not a reliable source (?) anyways Im agree to delete it to discuss here. All the other sources you deleted without explanations are discussed reliable sources and pls affraid of attacking them. If you think they are not reliable at first discuss them here! (PS- "Нагорный Карабах в 1918—1923 гг.: сборник документов и материалов. Ереван, 1992" is a commonly used at Wiki (see for example anti-Armenian quotations in "Armenian-Azerbaijani war" article) collection of archival materials nothing more)!Andranikpasha 09:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Collection of sources should be a thrid party publication, which can be checked by anyone. Нагорный Карабах в 1918—1923 гг.: сборник документов и материалов. Ереван, 1992 is not such a source, and neither is State Historio-cultural museum of NKR. Third party sources are prefered here, and in fact this is what Wikipedia:Verifiability says: If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. Grandmaster 16:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

This collection is available everywhere also Armenian State archive is open for every person in the world to make research there. Its good strategy to use sources when it says something against Armenians (in that case it is reliable) and when any source detailing anything with no anti-Armenian POV then it becomes unreliable for you... If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it- Read again the article:) Andranikpasha 18:01, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm unable to travel to Yerevan to check Armenian State Archives. Have you read that document yourself? Can you provide a scan? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grandmaster (talk • contribs) 11:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

Deletion of important reliable sources

Grandmaster, once again: Pls stop to delete important sources from the article and make changes lake the deletion of commonly used and proved name. lets stop the original reserches, and look for more reliable sorces proving your tags! And if you find even one reliable source directly asking the inhabitants died from both sides (without your original comments, you see I dont comment my sources) I promise to try represent that version in the article for a full neuthrality! I also promise to help you to change the name from Shushi Massacres to Shusha Massacres if you prove that most sources call these events Shusha Massacres or massacres, pogroms in Shusha). The memoirs of prominent Soviet political leader's must remain here. Even no need to call them Armenian! They were and are ruling and outstanding persons of their times in the foreign countries and never participated in Shusha events they just asked what they see or know about Shushi massacres, they are important documantal documants (mark- I dont mean historiological researches which going to prove anything at Wiki). And pls be more tolerant to the widely-known human rights activists publications (Caroline Cox is an Armenian?? are you sure? Olga Shatunovskaya was a famous anti-stalinist and human rights activist, also a Communist party member. Is it means she partisan in the Armenians massacres... during an Armenian-Azerbaijani war which happened even before Sovetization of these countries?)! Andranikpasha 20:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Cox is well-known for her extreme pro-Armenian bias, therefore she is not a reliable source. And the issue of the town's name is not that important, because Shusha is internationally accepted spelling and Wikipedia article about the town is called Shusha. Therefore any articles referring to the town should use the same spelling. The problem here is that you have not proven that most sources call these events a "massacre". Therefore the article should be moved to a neutral title. Grandmaster 16:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion! Cox's "extreme pro-Armenian bias" is a POV, by which you want to hide her outstanding human rights activities. Off course any source calling these events by its real name are "extreme pro-Armenian" for you! No propagand, just sources, pls! Andranikpasha 17:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

It is not my POV. She advocates separation of NK from Azerbaijan, attends all the meetings of Armenian separatists and is being praised as a true Armenian nationalist. You can find all that info in sources. I don't think any other evidence of her pro-Armenian bias is required. Grandmaster 11:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I added also some French sources and deleted the "POV title" tag as "totally disputed" means flso the name is disputed. Andranikpasha 20:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The tag about the name being disputed is necessary, it shows that not only the content but also the title are in dispute. Grandmaster 05:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Move proposal

"Shushi Massacres" is a bad title, especially with the capitalised plural "Massacres". We only call articles by either proper names that are commonly accepted, or names that are NPOV and are clearly not a proper name. "Shushi Massacres" attempts to be a proper name, when there is no common or scholarly use of that name. We should not be making catchy new titles for topics. Under Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events), "massacre" (lower case) would only be acceptable if it was the generally accepted that the event was a planned massacre (rule #2), which is a very strong word. Note that even Darfur conflict is not called massacre or genocide, because rule 2 is intended to allow sensible names even when a common one doesnt exist. While there are a lot of sources that say a massacre occurred, this does not mean the event is well described as a massacre, as there is a lot more to this event than just the massacre that has been recorded. As a result, I suggest that we move this article to Battle of Shusha (1920) (per WP:MILMOS#NAME) which is neutral and short. John Vandenberg 08:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

"even Darfur conflict is not called massacre or genocide".- it asks a lot about the Wiki "principes" and "neutrality" (Im remembering the times of communist pressure)... There werent battles in Shusha/Shushi during these days, so it is a original research (Armenian army comes to Shushi/Shusha in April). If rule 2 is really ("a lot more to this event than just the massacre that has been recorded"- really?, pls add one here, Id like to discuss it!) against this name a can suggest the Shusha Events (1920) or Shusha pogrom (1920). By the way, I find one more source from NYT asking about the massacre ("battle"??...) even before the events (we need to add it to the background) in the same city!Andranikpasha 11:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

You have a NYT article regarding events just prior to the battle/massacre/whatever? That sounds very interesting ... could you provide a link or reference here, or add it to the background section of the article.

Regarding Darfur conflict and naming, the names of articles should always be more neutral than the content. The reason is that readers should not have their mind clouded by the title of the article, because the title is too short to accurately describe complex situations.

I understand that "Battle" isn't a perfect description, as it was not a long battle. "Battle" is just a nice simple name to use, but your suggestions on possible names are also good. I think that Shusha Events (1920) is a bit too vague, and I am not comfortable with Shusha pogrom (1920), as I dont see enough detail in the article to label it as a pogrom. I think that the best name for this article will not be known for a while, until the article is expanded a lot with details. John Vandenberg 15:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Shusha pogrom (1920) can be a consensus. As pogrom means killings of peaceful inhabitants and destroying of city, which took place during these events. Its very hard consensus for me and Im not sure if other users also agree with me, as we use here not the Armenian but Azerbaijani name of the city (even without marking of Armenian name despite the most reliable sources call it massacres in Shushi you can see the references). But Im agree as I welcomed any admin's unbiased opinion here!

the article from NYT: "CONSTANTINOPLE, Aug. 12, (Correspondence of Associated Press.) - Two American nurses, Miss Margaret Mack of Hillburn, N.Y., and Miss Ruth Stuart of New York City, working for the American Commision for Relief in Near East, declined to abandon the sick and wounded at Shusha, Armenia, after having survived a massacre by Tartars of 700 of the Christian inhabitants of the town, according to a letter just received here by Major David G. Arnold of Providence, R.I., Director of the commission. The letter read: "Our doctors and nurses were in the midst of the fight, but were unharmed. On advice from General Beach I recalled the two nurses. They came reluctantly, and bagged to remain at their station, as there was an urgent need for them among the survivors. The spirit MissMiss Mack and Miss Stuart have shown has been splendid., and I felt that they should be allowed to return if they went as volunteers, understanding the serious situation. They signed papers to the effect that they knew the danger, and that they were returning to their work at their own request."" Nurses suck to Post. American Girls Refused to Abandon Charges After Armenian Massacre / The New York Times, Sept. 4, 1919. The PDF variant of the article is at the NYT official site.Andranikpasha 16:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Even Armenian sources admit that there was a fighting in Shusha. This is from an Armenian historian:

Richard G. Hovannisian. The Republic of Armenia, Vol. III: From London to Sèvres, February-August 1920

The source cited by Andranikpasha provides a number of 700 as Armenian casualties, which is close to the figure of 500 provided by Hovannisian and de Waal. Grandmaster 16:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

And this is from third party sources:

(Russian) [22] 1920.03.22 - An Armenian rebellion in Nagorno-Karabakh. The fightings took place in Shusha, Khankendi, Tartar, Askeran, and later spread to the Zangezur, Nakhchivan and Ganja uyezds.

It is clear from the above sources that there was a fighting in Shusha, which started after the Armenian forces attacked Azerbajani part of the city. The article might as well be moved to "Uprising in Shusha" or something similiar. Grandmaster 16:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Grandmaster stop attacking me by your partisan Armenian "sources"! at first read what the Wiki rules are asking!

Really! But it was in 1919, before the main massacres! Do you think during the little first massacres killed 700 persons and in 1920, durning the main massacres killed 500 persons (according to a partisan source and a moder journalist de Waal). Lets be more serious and read what about is the quotation!

And this is from third party sources:

Its ok, a source about uprising putted down, transformed the sity overnight into an Azeri city...

This is a moder journalist, not a historian[canada.ifex.org/alerts/content/view/full/75465/] [www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/3691.html], so his opinions (and especially unsourced numbers of those who killed 80 years ago) are not reliable for important historical event's representation.

(Russian) [23] 1920.03.22 - An Armenian rebellion in Nagorno-Karabakh. The fightings took place in Shusha, Khankendi, Tartar, Askeran, and later spread to the Zangezur, Nakhchivan and Ganja uyezds.

Hronos.km.ru is a personal unreliable unrelevant site... a can show you other such "hronologies" asking different things!

Again a modern journalist without any historical sources.

So, "In 1920 Azerbaijanis had suppressed an Armenian uprising at Shusha and destroyed much of the Armenian town". He call the town Armenian (lets use it in the deccription) and asking about a suppresing of uprising, not a simple uprising...

In that case we should redirect "Khojaly massacres" falsifyed article to the neutral Khojaly fightings name as there are many sources asking about it. For example, "In the some groups of deportees there were Azerbaijani OMON'ers (Special Forces memebers) and armed people from the city's gornizon. These armed jigits, when they saw Armenian frontier port, opened fire on them. Armenians answered them." В некоторых группах бегущих находились азербайджанские омоновцы и просто вооруженные люди из гарнизона города. Эти вооруженные джигиты, увидев армянские заставы, открыли по ним огонь... Армяне ответили тем же. Азербайджанцы из Агдама предприняли попытку вооруженного прорыва по направлению "свободного коридора". В этом прорыве по своей инициативе принимали участие несколько прапорщиков из нашего саперного батальона. Двое из них погибло. Погиб там же и наш участковый, старший лейтенант милиции Вагиф Искендеров. В момент, когда армянские заставы отбивали эту атаку, к ним в тыл подошли первые группы беженцев из Ходжалы. Среди этих групп были омоновцы. Они открыли огонь по заставе... В результате чего один пост этой заставы был полностью уничтожен. Но был второй пост, о существовании которого азербайджанцы не подозревали. (Юрий Викторович Гирченко, Армия Государства, которого нет // «Мы были на этих войнах». Свидетельства участников событий 1989-2000 годов.- СПб, Издательство журнала «Звезда», 2003.- с. 88) Do you need some more? Andranikpasha 17:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

First, do not post on my postings, create your own so that people could understand who is actually writing. Second, I never attacked you, mind WP:AGF. And third, Khojaly massacre is a generally accepted name for the event, same as Sumgait pogrom. The events in Shusha do not have a generally accepted name, as you could see from the sources above. Many of them refer to the events as fighting, rebellion, revolt, etc. Therefore you cannot invent a name that is not generally accepted. I suggest something like "Armenian uprising in Shusha", because it is obvious from all sources (even Armenian ones) that there was a revolt that led to clashes and casualties, and many sources support this title. Grandmaster 05:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Andranik, his right about the posting. It's generally not acceptable to post in somebody else post, it makes reading confusing. Also we don't quote each other, it just makes the talkpage longer. Now for the naming. I seem to have heard this argument before. Something about local people uprising and being ethnically cleansed from their homeland. But they deserved it, because they didn't listen to their master. Please pick another argument this one isn't working. --VartanM 07:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are talking about. Please be more specific. The argument here is that the present title is not a generally accepted name for these events. Grandmaster 08:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

You're arguing that, before the massacre there was an uprising, so it wasn't a massacre but a clash and we can't call it a massacre. The same argument is being used, by the Turkish denialists of the Armenian genocide. I'm not comparing you to one, nor am I implying that you are one. But its the same argument. The fact that there was an uprising or a military confrontation before, doesn't change the fact that Armenian population was massacred. VartanM 08:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

See March days, why not March massacre? The point here is that it is not generally accepted to call events in Shusha a massacre, I cited many sources that don't call them a massacre. Therefore the current title is not appropriate. Grandmaster 09:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I can site many sources that don't call the Khojaly massacre as a massacre, or the Armenian Genocide a genocide. --VartanM 21:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I just wanted to comment the quotes by Grandmaster! Surely these events cannot be called "Armenian uprising in Shusha", as the main topic is not the uprising (if it really took place which is very dubious), but the mass killings of a large number unarmed peaceful inhabitants and destroying of the city. These events was an attack by one part to another (Armenian inhabitants) as only Armenians were killed (there isnt a fact about even one killed Azeri) and only Armenian quarter was destroyed, and no regulary Armenian army were in Shusha! The topic of article are these facts, not an "uprising" during the background, if even it happened. And what about Armenian Massacre took place in 1919 in Shusha, marked by NYT? Grandmaster, is it happened before the "uprising", or maybe also after? Andranikpasha 14:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

It would be really difficult to find a source that would not call what happened in Khojaly a massacre. The topic is extensively covered in media, and it is not really difficult to establish the predominant name. But this one is different. It does not have a commonly accepted name of "Shushi massacres", simple as that. Therefore a neutral title should be chosen. It is clear from all sources that the fighting was initiated by the Armenian bands, who attacked Azerbaijanis during celebration of Novruz. So claiming that it was an unprovoked massacre of civil inhabitants is not right, it is impossible to tell how many of 500 - 1000 people who died were civilians and how many were armed guerrillas. Therefore this falls into a general title of the Armenian uprising and should also cover simultaneous attack on Azerbaijani positions in Khankendi and Askeran, as these were all part of the same failed military operation by the Armenian forces. Grandmaster 05:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Grandmaster, when you speak about 500 killed persons, about provoked massacre and fightings (marked by many sources), its all happened during the Khojaly massacres, see for example the source below. When you ask Shushi massacres is not commonly accepted name, do you mean de Waal?: see above! Also pls answer: Is the Armenian Massacre of 1919 in Shusha, marked by NYT, happened before the "uprising", or after? This theory you represent here is seems to be an original research which cant explain, how 700 inhabitants massacred in 1919 in Shushi, how 20000 inhabitants massacred in Shushi in 1920 (according to a lot of sources), how no even one Azeri was killed during these "clashes/uprising/revolt"; also according to the NYT Shusha/Shushi was a recognized part of Armenia, how we can ask about ... an uprising of Armenians in their home territories, especially if Azeri armed forces attacked them for a year and there werent Armenian regulary forces in Shushi until the April 1920 as they participated in the Armenian-Turkish war?? What you write its a little version for the background, nothing more! I asked you many times to look for reliable, historical (not modern journalistic) sources, describing the events not as massacres... There isnt even one massacre in the world which named massacre in all the sources! Even the Armenian Genocide and Holocaust have their "deniers". But you must prove that the version of "uprising" by you (do you remember, previously you were asking about "ethnic clashes", not uprising) is really significant (not a modern journalistic POV by 2 persons) and have serious historians who asking about an uprising, not massacres. Andranikpasha 08:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

NYT does not say anything about Shusha being part of Armenia. It is impossible, because it was recognized as part of Azerbaijan pending final decision of the Paris Peace Conference, which never happened. British appointed Azerbaijani governor Sultanov to the region, so it was part of Azerbaijan at the time. The Armenian uprising is Shusha is confirmed even by Armenian sources, so presenting this fierce fighting initiated by the Armenian military units as a massacre is wrong. And the rules require using generally accepted name for the event, however "Shushi massacres" is not a generally accepted name. You cannot find these combination of words in most sources referring to the event, so it cannot be used. Also, there’s an article in the same NYT called “Armenians give no quarter, said to be committing frightful atrocities in Transcaucasia”. It is about the events of 1905 in Shusha and Agdam. However this article is not about what happened in 1905 or 1919, it is about the fighting that took place in the region in 1920. Armenian forces attacked Shusha, Khankendi and Askeran all at the same time, but managed to capture only Askeran. Their attacks in other places failed, and Askeran was also soon recaptured by the Azerbaijani army. This whole chain of events is part of the same Armenian uprising, so splitting it to events in Shusha, events in Khankendi and events in Askeran is wrong. There should be one general article about it, and events in Shisha need to be a part of it. Grandmaster 10:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Grandmaster, to not ask questions about 1919, on variant of uprising at background of events, if most sources reffering the "Shushi Massacres" etc just look up the article again! We do not need to make original researches and classes on history here. We need to represent reliable sources, compare and use them. Its not the right place all the time to describe our own opinions what happened in Shushi, based on one partisan historian's and 2 modern journalists views. See f.e. all the teens of reliable quotations in the page asking about massacres happened in Shushi/Shusha. If you really deny that Shushi/Shusha was recognized as a part of Armenia during 1919-20, pls prove these [24][25] reliable sources are lying! The words like its impossible!, I cant believe etc are not enough.Andranikpasha 21:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, see all the above quotes by me, they do not refer to the events as massacre, but as fighting and revolt. You cannot say that there's a consensus to call these events a massacre. And Karabakh was not part of the Republic of Armenia in 1918-1920, it was recognized as part of Azerbaijan, see all these sources, including Armenian ones: [26] Neither of your links says that Karabakh was part of Armenia. And how it could be if the British appointed Sultanov the governor of Karabakh? Grandmaster 04:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

There is a largely admitted consensus! And Sorry, its preferable to believe to NYT day-to-day news, not to your personal page with "extremaly pro-Armenian, anti-Azeri" (?- if you call them so, then why to use them, we need more serious sources not extremal POV) quotations. Even your biased quotations (like in the case of de Waal) from few modern journalists never deny the fact of Shushi Massacres. You hadnt even one more or less seriuos or "extremist" historian asking Shushi Massacres didnt happened. The version of fightings or revolt happened during more than year before massacres are not enough argument to prove such tragic events didnt happened after... You're asking about Sultanov: it seems you're always use Hovanissyan's book. You can read it for the answer. Andranikpasha 18:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

It is not my personal page, those are the quotes from variuos sources which you can check for yourself. Hovanissyan also confirms that Sultanov was a governor of Karabakh, but of course since he is not a neutral source he tries to downplay the importance of the fact. I cited many other sources about this fact as well. And no, there's no consensus among the historians to call those events what you call it. Any claims of consensus must be sourced according to the rules. See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Claims_of_consensus. If you think that there's a consensus you need to cite a source that says there's a consensus. Grandmaster 05:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Also. I'm refering you to another guideline, Wikipedia:Naming_conflict#How_to_make_a_choice_among_controversial_names. It says:

A number of objective criteria can be used to determine common or official usage:

* Is the name in common usage in English? (check Google, other reference works, websites of media, government and international organisations)

* Is it the official current name of the subject? (check if the name is used in a legal context, e.g. a constitution)

* Is it the name used by the subject to describe itself or themselves? (check if it is a self-identifying term)

So far I don't see that the name "Shushi massacres" is commonly accepted in English, therefore this title is in violation of Wikipedia rules. The admin also said on top of this section that this is a bad title. Grandmaster 05:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The answer is long, so pls see the new section opened especially for criterias! Andranikpasha 20:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Naming of the events by the journalist de Waal

Grandmaster, please look the sources presented by you more carefully! Today I checked the one by Thomas de Waal. Look how the modern journalist de Waal qualifies the Shushi events: "Terrible pogrom's took place in Shusha in 1920" etc etc. "Связующими звеньями для обеих общин всегда была торговля и российская власть. Первая была вполне естественным звеном, вторая - скорее искусственным. Жуткие погромы прошли в Шуше в 1920 году сразу же после того, как на излете очередного периода экономической разрухи и гражданской войны русские оставили город. В тот раз азербайджанские войска смели ветхнюю, армянскую часть города, выжигая целые улицы и сотнями убивая армян. Когда же русские вернулись, уже в большевистских кожанках и с наганами, новой столицей Нагорного Карабаха был объявлен Степанакерт. Руины армянского квартала Шуши, точно призрак, простояли в нетронутыми более сорока лет. В 1930 году поэт Осип Мандельштам посетил город и ужаснулся его пустым безмолвным улицам. В одном из своих стихотворений он вспоминает, как изведал страх от "сорока тысяч мертвых окон". Наконец, в 1961 году коммунистическое руководство Баку приняло решение о сносе руин, хотя многие старые здания еще можно было восстановить. Шуша. Рассказ о соседях // Главы из русского издания книги "Черный сад", Том де Ваал So if you will continue to add this unreliable non-historical source to the different articles at Wiki then lets to translate this text asking about the tragedy of Shushi Pogroms (you see, both names- Shusha and Shushi are used in the text) by this source which you mark as reliable! Andranikpasha 22:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

For the last time, de Waal does not use "Shushi" anywhere. And neither does Zubov, nor Mandelstam. In Russian, when one says "Руины армянского квартала Шуши", they refer to the word Shusha in its singular genitive form, hence it becomes "Шуши". The -i would be added to any declining feminine noun that ends in -a. If he were to say "армянского квартала Риги", we wouldn't be going around demanding to change the name Riga into Rigi. The -i is a case marker, not part of the stem. This is simple grammar. Watch:

The phrase is "большая часть армян города Шуши" (transl. "bol'shaja chast' armjan goroda Shushi" - "the majority of Armenians of the city of Shusha").

Case	Example 1 (in Russian)	Example 1 (Romanized Russian)	Example 2 (Russian)	Example 2 (Romanized Russian)	English translation
Nominative case (именительный падеж)	город Шуша	gorod Shusha	город Рига	gorod Riga	the city of Shusha the city of Riga
Genitive case (родительный падеж)	города Шуши	goroda Shushi	города Риги	goroda Rigi	of the city of Shusha of the city of Riga
Dative case (дательный падеж)	городу Шуше	gorodu Shushe	городу Риге	gorodu Rige	to the city of Shusha (non-dir.) to the city of Riga (non-dir.)
Accusative case (винительный падеж)	город Шушу	gorod Shushu	город Ригу	gorod Rigu	the city of Shusha (obj.) the city of Riga (obj.)
Instrumental case (творительный падеж)	городом Шушой	gorodom Shushoj	городом Ригой	gorodom Rigoj	with the city of Shusha with the city of Riga
Prepositional case (предложный падеж)	о городе Шуше or о городе Шуша	o gorode Shushe or o gorode Shusha	о городе Риге or о городе Рига	o gorode Rige or o gorode Riga	on/about the city of Shusha on/about the city of Riga

Parishan 00:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Parishan, no need for linguistic OR. Just ask me: it sounds impossible for you, but lets imagine one minute if all the soures mean not Shusha, but Shushi. Then, according to the linguistics, what must be the Genitive case? Yes, Shushi! So what you write is nothing prove!:) to not waste your time on meaningless linguistic research, pls also look at English and French sources calling the name Shushi...Andranikpasha 17:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

This is not OR. This is the grammar of the Russian language, which you ought to be familiar with in light of your revelations of being a Russian-speaker. I cannot take for a fact that the author used the name Shushi, since everywhere else in the text he uses the form Shusha. The burden of proof is therefore on you: if you find a non-genitive form that is spelled Shushi by either Zubov, or de Waal, or Mandelstam, I will say no more about it. Parishan 00:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

No, Parishan, its just an OR. Im responsible for my words! I dont know from where you cited this "table" its just comparing "Ri' ga" with "Shusha' ". When de Waal use the name as Shusha in Russian Genitive is Шушы not "Шуши" (compare with Moskva' , Moskvy): see de Waal's cited book at Russian BBC, f.e. "Мы организовали оборону Шушы" [27], or see the material from Prime News agency [28],

Azeri materials in Russian which I dont think are not OK in linguistics- Bakililar [29], "Zerkalo" (look, they mark both names Armenian and Azeri and used Шушы) [30], Day.az [31], Azeri.ru [32], Bakupages [33], [34], etc. Just search to not continue this OR here or ask to any other Russian speaker. All the Shushi-s in Russian is regarding to the existence of Armenian Shushi name, nothing more. Andranikpasha 23:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I do have tremendous respect for the ability of people to learn languages despite the difficulties they face. Yet I find it appropriate to correct your grammar in this case: in Russian, "шы" ("shy") does not exist. It is not allowed under any circumstance to use the letter ы after ш or ж. Ironically, it is a grammatical rule that students learn in a form of a nursery rhyme in grade one. The sound produced by ы after those two consonants is represented in writing by и and only by и. Hence, душа – души (not душы), груша – груши (not грушы), Саша – Саши (not Сашы), etc. The violation of this rule is merely an example of low quality translation. Parishan 03:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Parishan is absolutely right, none of those Russian sources use the spelling of "Shushi", plus this is English wikipedia where English sources prevail, and the original English version of de Waal's book uses only the spelling of "Shusha". Here's what the English text says:

The ruins of the Armenian quarter of Shusha stood, ghostly and untouched, for more than forty years.

As you can see, only the spelling of "Shusha" was used by de Waal. Grandmaster 06:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I asked many times for using sourced material, as anyone of us (included you) is not a respected teacher of Russian here. I marked even a citation from the Russian translation of de Waal (de Waal knows Russian very well and surely he checked this translation), also I added so much Azeri famous papers used also "Шушы", whats the problem? Grandmaster and Parishan, is your Russian is better, than de Waal's translator's, cited Russian and Azeri newspaper's, and my Russian? And whats the meaning of this linguistical original research if below I translated de Waal's text as "Terrible pogrom's took place in Shusha in 1920". Sometimes I cant understand what you need to prove here: is it a sourced, relevant discussion or a simple attack with OR usings? Andranikpasha 11:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

You don't need to translate de Waal, his book is available in English, and he spells the name of the city as "Shusha". And other Russian texts don't matter either, this is an English wikipedia. You need to prove that the prevalent English spelling is "Shushi", and not "Shusha". So far you have failed to do that. Grandmaster 12:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Grandmaster, once again and I hope for the last time: all the marked by me sources are calling the name of the city as Shushi, while they're describing the tragic events in 1920. its the prevalent naming for the event name! as for town Shushi/Shusha, it is the topic for the article dedicated to the town, go to discuss it there. As I see currently the both namings for the city are used there. If the name of Yerevan is prevailed, it never means we will rename an article for Erebouni dancing ansamble or that for Erebuni cigarettes. Sorry but the questions you're asking here are mostly unrelevant to the topic: they are for "Armenian-Azerbaijani War" article, "Shushi" or "Shusha" article etc., here we discussing reliable (not modern journalistic biased "quotations") sources related to Shushi Massacres and all events which took part during the events and its remembring. other researches are off the topic! Andranikpasha 13:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Parishan explained in much detail above that none of those sources spell the name of the city like you do. Moreover, the name of Shusha massacres is not a name commonly used in English language to describe these events. Therefore the current title needs to be changed. Grandmaster 18:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion! Ill answer below to your detailed question. Andranikpasha 19:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

WIKI criterias for the name

The current name Shushi Massacres is OK with objective criterias:

Is the name in common usage in English? (check Google, other reference works, websites of media, government and international organisations). I searched Google for Shushi Massacres (578 results [35]), Shusha Massacres (5 results, [36]), Ethnic clashes in Shusha (3 results, [37]) Battle of Shusha (1040 results, all of them are related to Capture of Shusha in 1992, so its not a correct name [38]), Revolt in Shusha (no results, its an OR), Shusha revolt (no results), Uprising of Shusha, Shuhsa uprising, Uprising of Shusha Armenians (no results).

other reference works, websites of media, government and international organisations - you can find them in the article, Ill mark just more important official references (I dont mark Armenian and Karabakh officials): French state commision of refugees, British parliament's vice-speaker Baroness Caroline Cox's speech at British parliament, The Public International Law & Policy Group and the New England Center for International Law & Policy, I dont mark the sources by other users. I dont know if there is any other official documents (even partisan) calling the events by any other name.

Is it the official current name of the subject? (It is official current name used by Armenian authorities [39]),
Is it the name used by the subject to describe itself or themselves? - surely. The name Shushi is commonly accepted Armenian name for that period (while the commonly accepted Azerbaijani name was Shusha), and this name marks that massacreed part were Armenians and Armenian quarter was burned, and Massacres describe itselvs, as what happened in 1905 in Shushi is commonly accepted as clashes, and what hapened in 1992 was Capture of Shusha (Battle of Shusha). Everything seems to be ideal! So please while to start oppose these facts also mark sources, not OR. And you can choose any other name for the events and compare by the same criterias. I welcome it! PS- Surely no need to mark that Shushi Massacres is more short, surely similar variant for "Massacres in Shushi" in more official using, anyways i see no problem to change the name to Massacres in Shushi if it seems to be something different than Shushi Massacres... Andranikpasha 20:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The name that Armenians use now for this event is not important, even by the government as it is biased to using the current local name. Google results are also terrible for something like this. They are easily skewed by the squeaky wheel. Unless a respected translator can back up the name "Shushi" as being name of the town at the time that these events occurred, it would appear that you are on your own. John Vandenberg 08:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

You cannot rely on those results for a simple reason. Shusha is an internationally recognized name for the city and the only official name that was ever recorded. It was an official name in Persia and Karabakh khanate, it was an official name in Russian empire and USSR. So using the name of Shushi is OR. Clearly, all the sources in google referring to the event by the name of "Shushi" are Armenian, as no one else uses that name. I don’t see any neutral source using that name, and Cox is an Armenian lobbyist, so not neutral either. The name of “Shushi massacres” is not officially accepted anywhere outside of Armenia, and the article cannot go by what the Armenian governments says. And we saw that the name of Shushi massacres is not commonly accepted in the scholarly sources. The name should be neutral. Grandmaster 08:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, google search is not the main criteria for names in Wikipedia. See this: Wikipedia:Search engine test. Its says that "On Wikipedia, neutrality trumps popularity". Grandmaster 08:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

"Clearly, all the sources in google referring to the event by the name of "Shushi" are Armenian, as no one else uses that name. I don’t see any neutral source using that name, and Cox is an Armenian lobbyist, so not neutral either." Sorry, Grandmaster, you're repeating your words without looking up to the article. The name of article is based on the multinational neutral sources! If you dont see Guaita, Zubov, French Refugee Committee, V. Boudras-Chapon, the Public International Law & Policy Group and the New England Center for International Law & Policy, I. Babanov and K. Voevodsky, or think they are also Armenian "lobbyist" scolars as you call the Vice-speaker of British parliament Baronesse Cox, what can I do else? Andranikpasha 17:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

John, Shushi is not the "name that Armenians use now for this event". Armenian name of Shushi is for the town and it is elder than events. Im asking about the using of the Armenian name of city while describing the tragic events (massacres), and many foreign scolars use it: A. Zubov (in Russian) А.Зубов Политическое будущее Кавказа: опыт ретроспективно-сравнительного анализа, журнал "Знамья", 2000, #4, [40], Kalli Raptis, [41], Giovanni Guaita [42]]

even the French official and foreighn independent organizations [43] [44], I. Babanov and K. Voevodsky, etc. I think the scolars while describing the events gave a respect to the Armenian name of city (and maybe want to mark that the Armenian part was destroyed), I see nothing political here. But I donot see any problem for Shusha name, Im agree to add it as a compromiss if you think the Wiki rules asks so. PS- I found 2 more sources calling the events "Massacres in Shushi" (two Russian historians; and a modern well-known Russian journalist, who I think is not OK to use for historiography here, but you decide). Andranikpasha 17:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Sadly, I don't trust your command of the Russian language because it appears to me that you believe you understand it better than you really do. That is just how it appears to me; you strongly push your understanding of the grammar, yet those who are native Russians reject it and nobody has agreed with you. As a result, I need to defer to others to verify anything Russian you bring to the discussion. Do you trust the Russian translation skills of Grandmaster and Parishan ? If not, I will find a trusted Wikipedian who is also a native speaker of Russian, so that they can independently verify this. John Vandenberg 18:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

OK! I have nothing against this idea, I even agree to represent here the direct quotes which we need to translate. "yet those who are native Russians reject it"- sorry? who are that native Russians? And what about the English and French sources? Andranikpasha 21:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

here are the Russian texts and my translations for the article:

"British administrator of Karabakh colonel Chatelword didnt empede the discrimination of Armenians by Tatarian administration of governor Saltanov. The national clashes ended by the terrible massacres in which the most of Armenians in Shushi town perished. The Parliament in Baku refused even condemn the accomplishers of the massacres in Shushi and the war was started in Karabakh. Британский администратор Карабаха полковник Шательворт не препятствовал притеснениям армян, чинимым татарской администрацией губернатора Салтанова. Межнациональные трения завершились страшной резней , в которой погибла большая часть армян города Шуши . Бакинский парламент отказался даже осудить свершителей Шушинской резни и в Карабахе вспыхнула война. А.Зубов ПОЛИТИЧЕСКОЕ БУДУЩЕЕ КАВКАЗА: ОПЫТ РЕТРОСПЕКТИВНО-СРАВНИТЕЛЬНОГО АНАЛИЗА, Znamia journal, 2000, #4, http://magazines.russ.ru/znamia/2000/4/zubov.html).
"A month ago after the massacres of Shushi, in April 19, 1920, prime-minsters of England, France and Italy with participation of the representatives of Japan and USA collected in San-Remo... Месяц спустя после резни в Шуши , 19 апреля 1920 года, премьер-министры Англии, Франции и Италии при участии представителей Японии и США собираются в Сан-Ремо для рассмотрения ситуации в связи с Турцией и принимают решение о создании армянского государства в составе провинций Ван, Эрзерум, Трапезунд и Битлис. Giovanni Guaita, Джованни ГУАЙТА, Армения между кемалистским молотом и большевистской наковальней // «ГРАЖДАНИН», M., # 4, 2004 http://www.grazhdanin.com/grazhdanin.phtml?var=Vipuski/2004/4/statya17&number=%B94)". Andranikpasha 23:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Note that I did not say native Russians - I said native speakers of the Russian language. Do not put words in my mouth. User:Parishan has made it quite clear you don't have a good command of the Russian language. And again you push the name Shushi as if it was fact. This French document does not say "Shushi"; it uses "Chouchi" and "Choucha" and "Shusha". Chouchi is not the same as Shushi - you must realise that a translation from Russian->French->English is not a good way to demonstrate that "Shushi" is the correct English translation of a place that was the sovereign territory of Russian/Azer at the time. This an another example of you obstinately misrepresented the facts in order to stone-wall a discussion. If you dont know something, you should qualify your opinion with your uncertainty. That is the only way to avoid being considered a POV pusher. Unless you have researched something thoroughly, you should defer to the good judgement of others.

The French document then goes on to say "In this document the Armenian orthography was preferred because the applicants are of Armenian origin". They are clearly choosing to prefer Chouchi as opposed to Choucha because of the preference of the people they are representing. That is not a learned opinion; it is a conflicted opinion.

Also, this document provided by New England School of Law and written by Public International Law & Policy Group and the New England Center for International Law & Policy is written by a bunch of lawyers, again representing Armenians.

I suggest that you go to nyt.com and compare Shusha and Shushi. Prior to 1940, you will see Shushi is only used twice, compared to many more results for Shusha.

I am looking for a learned basis for using "Shushi" and that requires someone with a competent understanding of the Russian language. If you cant provide that, then please stop stone-walling the attempt to rename this article. John Vandenberg 09:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

First source does not spell the name of the city as Shushi, only second one does. Both sources are very proarmenian, though. Grandmaster 05:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, Andranik, do you agree that Shusha was the only official name that the city had throughout its history, i.e. while being a part of Persia, Russia and USSR? --Grandmaster 05:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

John, if youre a mediator here, pls try to be more correct to me, OK? We are discussiong something we're not in a court! Noone puts "words in your mouth": here is a direct citation from you- "That is just how it appears to me; you strongly push your understanding of the grammar, yet those who are native Russians reject it and nobody has agreed with you." Parishan is not a native Russian, nothing more! Pls try to be more neutral! "Chouchi is not the same as Shushi - you must realise that a translation from Russian->French->English is not a good way to demonstrate that "Shushi" is the correct English translation of a place that was the sovereign territory (any fact??-Andranikpasha) of Russian/Azer at the time." - so what we are discussing all the time? then why all this biased (based on Parishan's words) attacks on my Russian? I marked my opinion on the Shushi/Shusha and sorry I prefer to see a result based on Wiki rules nothing more! I (I dont know about other users) have nothing against the name of Shusha so if you prove anyhow its the "learned" name for these events, change it! It seems Wiki hadnt rules according to that and what we're doing is a permanent discussions without any based on wiki rules basis. Andranikpasha 09:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not trying to mediate -- I dont care who says what unless they have damn good reasoning that makes me think. Wikipedia is not a creche (see WP:CLUE) I was trying to change the name of this article because I personally think it is an inappropriate article name, both the word "Shushi" which doesnt appear rooted in any firm rationale, and the word "Massacres" which is uppercase which makes it look like a proper noun; "massacres" is also silly because as far as I can tell there is only a single event that is being discussed on the article (March 22/23, 1920) so it shouldnt be plural, and even "massacre" is inappropriate because that title is overstating things, as some of the key facts are disputed and there is not a lot of academic material justifying that name.

In regards to Russian vs Russian language, you are correct - I did use "Russian" as well - my apologies to Parishan.

Finally, this discussion has gone on endlessly and needs to end - there has been ample time for you or others to provide good reasoning why "Shushi" should remain as the name of the article, and I havent seen it, so it is now changed. I have called it a pogrom because the article does lean towards the retribution by the Azers being very harsh and directed at only Armenians, and maybe it was pre-planned. John Vandenberg 10:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Note that both of the instances of "Shushi" in the NYT archive are about a different Shushi related to the Siege of Port Arthur. See s:New York Times/Nogi and Stoessel meet. John Vandenberg 11:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Can we have a redirect from Shushi pogrom (1920) as a consensus (as we have redirect from Shushi to Shusha)? Andranikpasha 15:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I dont have a problem with that redirect, provided that it is not used; I have kept "Shushi" in the text of this article so the reader is not confused. John Vandenberg 17:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The current title spells the name of Shusha properly, in accordance with the official name it had throughout the history, which is good, as the article about the city is called Shusha as well. But I don't think that "pogrom" is a correct description of what happened either, as there was a fighting initiated by the Armenian militants, which resulted in many casualties and destruction in the city. The title using the word "pogrom" obscures this fact and is not neutral. Note that the article about the preceding massacre in March 1918 in Baku is called March days, and not March massacre or March pogrom, i.e. preference was given to a neutral title. Also, we have established that the events in Shusha do not have a common title, by which they are referred in the historical literature, therefore we need to pick a title ourselves and it should be a neutral one. Grandmaster 08:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

No Grandmaster it seems to be a good strategy at first to change the name of city than add an OR description! Even this name is a weak consensus and Im tired to ask other users why I agreed with it. March Days is a different case (you know why) and its why we have also September Days. According to such a logics we will change the names for "Khojaly massacrs", "Kirovabad pogrom" etc. and if you're not going to accept this consensus and delete the tag pls just ask me to decide if I need to return to the previous one to continue our discussions until a full consensus! Andranikpasha 09:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Can we all please just move on.

Grandmaster, I agree with you that this name still has POV in it, but we need to improve the article content and return to the naming when the article has been expanded.

Andranikpasha, the tag remains. As you can see the name is still disputed, and I suspect the content is also disputed. The article is very vague, using partisan sources, so we all need to disregard the name for a while, and get back to editing the article.

John Vandenberg 09:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

John what means it still contains POV! Why you're putting here such POV names? If you think your name is not good enough than revert it, discuss the text and than we will have the common picture! Otherwise Im not agree with a POV name and this is not a consesnsus but seems to be a double game by three steps (to change the half of the name, then chenge the text and in the finish ask the name is disputted, its partisan pro-Armenian lets find a consesnus, despite this name is not pro-Armenian but rather a unsourced non-historical POV which can be keeped only as a consensus). PS- Lets clarify also one thing: you asked you're not a mediator here then pls give us an opportunty to find one as your words on my Russian knowledge and other steps not show neutrality we (I) need. Im waiting for the neutral Russian speaker if your Shusha was justified. Lets be more open to each other, no double games! Andranikpasha 11:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry this response is belated; I have been very busy on a different Wikimedia Foundation project, and tried to limit my involvement in these Arm/Azer articles during that time.

The old name was technically invalid, using "Massacres" as a proper noun, without being supported by quality sources. After much debate, I eventually changed it to a name that at least did not have that problem.

Your dissenting view was discounted because it was intermingled with justification based on your own Russian translation (which was refuted without question). The topic of "Shusha" vs "Shushi" does not stay open until you find a translator - it stays closed until you find a trusted translator that disagrees with the two translators that have already provided their input.

I do not understand why you continue to claim I am biased. The objection raised by Grandmaster was also ignored because the title has been discussed to death without consensus, so I wanted a cooling off period. I am personally concerned about using the word "pogrom" in this title, because I cant see sufficient reliable sources to justify it, but there are some sources, and you thought pogrom was appropriate, which was good enough for me to put aside my own reservations.

As a result, the POV title issues have not been resolved. I only resolved the technical language problems with "Shushi" and "Massacres". John Vandenberg (talk) 14:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Dubious claims

The article contains this paragraph:

The documented 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) [30]. 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

The first line is referenced to some source published in Yerevan, which is not a third party publication and cannot be verified by anyone. (ref # 30) Second one uses as a reference these:

"For example, also in the 1920s, Azeris brutally massacred and evicted Armenians from the town of Shushi, which had been a famous and historic centre of Armenian culture." Nagorno Karabakh: forgotten people in a forgotten war, Contemporary Review, Jan, 1997 by Caroline Cox. See also: "Fighting broke out in 1920 over whether Shusha would be part of the newly declared republics of Armenia or Azerbaijan. Thousands died and the Armenian population fled the city." Jerusalem of Karabakh" at the heart of Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict, by Michael Mainville, Agence France Presse, 7/25/07

Cox is not a reliable source, plus, neither of the sources says anything about "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". I think this should be removed in accordance with WP:NPOV. --Grandmaster 06:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Common standards for Wiki

Grnadmaster, according to this your adding: "do not redirect the page until consensus is reached" [45] ther're only 2 variants:

to move this article to the prev name before consensus,
to delete pov-title tag as if we accepted its changing so its a consensus also by you! Thanks in advance! Andranikpasha (talk) 15:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

My copyedits

Hello all. I was asked to copyedit this article and look at its NPOV. I have done this to the best of my ability, hopefully helping this article achieve better neutrality. I do not at all think that these edits are infallible, so, please change them in keeping with the spirit of collaboration, civility, and NPOV. I do think that the grammar of the article is much better now, hopefully, that will make working on the actual content easier. Regards, Keilana 20:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you vey much, Keilana! For us, who edits this article for a long time and have some biased views such a first-time participant's copyedits are surely helpful for future work! PS- Just one of "fact" tags (related to the monument in Shusha/Shushi) is related to the next sentence's source so if you're agree Ill delete that one "fact" tag. Thank you again and always welcome to participate at our discussions! Andranikpasha (talk) 21:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Keilana, and thanks for joining. This article is in a very bad shape. It uses unreliable sources and ignores those sources that do not support a certain point. I raised a number of issues above, please see for example section called "Dubious claims" above. None of my concerns have been addressed so far. I also restored the tag on the article tag, as I don't think it should be called pogrom either. I would appreciate your help in making this article POV free and factually accurate. Grandmaster (talk) 06:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you all, just drop me a note if something's urgent; I'm going to try to stay out of the dispute so I can be an unbiased eye. I do think that it's less egregiously biased now, but it's definitely got a way to go. Good luck to you all; I'll keep an eye on the article and pop by periodically to do some revising. Regards, Keilana 16:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Keilana! We will be glad if you make more (more and more, I have nothing against it) NPOVing and a kind of mediation between both sides of users of course if you have time. I think only a neutral eye can help us to find a consensus and finish this long-time disagreement. Kind regards, Andranikpasha (talk) 16:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your contribution, Keilana. I hope you will remain involved with this article. Grandmaster (talk) 05:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

NPOV and references needed tags

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! Thanks in advance. Andranikpasha (talk) 23:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Grandmaster, surely you know for changing the lead we need a consensus (especially as de Waal is not a historian)! Pls also answer here to justify your tags or thay should be deleted. Lets assume good faith! Thank you! Andranikpasha (talk) 08:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Andranik, you cannot remove neutrality and reference tags without discussion, consensus and/or sources. Please, provide references and discuss the changes to achieve consensus and then edit. And also please, provide explanation why are you removing number 500 from the third party neutral source of Tom de Waal? Thanks. Atabek (talk) 08:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Atabek, de Waal is not a historian but a modern journalist. Here he's an absolute minority view and the number of 500 is quite unrelieble, as it is even less than the massacred 700 Christians in the prev. year. to not make editwarrings we need a consensus what text and where to add!Andranikpasha (talk) 08:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Also I think we can add a quote by de Waal related to the pogroms anywhere in the text we just need to mark he's a modern journalist (his numbers and other text on Shusha pogroms are not sourced anyhow). Andranikpasha (talk) 08:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

And how many sources from the ones you have used come from professional historians and were published in 1920 (i.e. are not modern)? Parishan (talk) 08:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, since when the Armenian lobbyist Cox is a historian? Very strange argument, considering that 99% of sources used in the article are not professional historians. And the number of 500 is supported by the Armenian author Hovanissian, who is a historian. Grandmaster (talk) 09:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, Wikipedia rules don't say that the sources should be historians only. If there's such a rule, please show me. Now that Hakob is back to his old tactic of never taking part in any discussion but reverting the articles nonetheless, I think it is a very good time to ask for the admin investigation. Grandmaster (talk) 13:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I stated the reason for my revert. Assume good faith. Hakob (talk) 22:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

All the sources are reliable! Cox is a social sciences specialist, respected vice-speaker of British parliament. She's not the only source. Andranikpasha (talk) 11:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Please explain now why did you delete de Waal again? He is a lot better than "Armenian nationalist" Cox (in the words of Frank Pallone), at least he wrote a critically acclaimed book about the Karabakh conflict. Grandmaster (talk) 12:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I second. Thomas de Waal quote has to remain. I do not know of any third party sources claiming that got a bribe from the Azerbaijani Government or is a corrupt scholar. Actually he is acknoledged as no. 1 expert in the historiography of the conlfict by all sides. --Aynabend (talk) 18:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

He removed Cox as a compromise, so I don't see how you can in good faith add back De Waal and not Cox. De Waal is a journalist, not a historian, so his ridiculously low "500" number of deaths cannot be reliable.--TigranTheGreat (talk) 19:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Lets be careful and to not delete also other sourced info, Aynabend! And before reverts pls read more carefully modern journaist de Waal who supports the word of pogroms which "disputed" by you. And read the text on terrible situation after pogroms (why you're not using it as "reliable"). Is he really reliable for you? lets discuss his full text here at first, especially if you're going to add so much dubious and unreliable number directly to the lead of article! Lets to not use measures of political propagand on genocide denial, double standards and biased citations here. Andranikpasha (talk) 21:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Thomas de Waal is a critically acclaimed British author, who wrote the best book about the history of NK conflict. I do not agree to removal of the figures provided by him, they should remain in the article. There's no rule in wikipedia prohibiting using sources written by journalists. If there's such a rule, please show it to me. If you can prove that de Waal has any links with Azerbaijani side, as Cox has with Armenian, then please do it. But you cannot delete verifiable info, it is against the rules. Grandmaster (talk) 06:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Grandmaster, pls start to discuss and stop editwarrings! I said many-many times why this numbers are not reliable. I said personally to you why this journalist is biased pro-Azeri (advertised by Azeri.ru). I said he never uses any references. I said he uses the name which you're going to "disput" and some other info which you surely not going to add as its not supports any political propagand on simple denial. you own opinion if a journalist is the greatest historian is not enough. pls answer to my questions! Andranikpasha (talk) 14:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Also one thing: Grandmaster, you're required to explain your edits at talk first. So why you're deleting this source- "Armenia, Armenia: about the country and the people from the Biblical times to our days", a reference-book, by V. Krivopuskov, V. Osipov, V. Alyoshkin and others, ed. V.V. Krivopuskov, Third ed., revised and expanded. Moscow, Golos-Press, 2007. 136 p., p. 30-31, ISBN-978-5-7117-0179-8, is there a problem, and why you're added Cox, a source you call unreliable? Or does it depend of situation -what and where to use without any comments? Andranikpasha (talk) 15:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Andranikpasha, we cannot delete the numbers just because you think that they are unreliable. De Waal is neutral and reliable source, and it cannot be removed fro the article. Plus, Armenian source Hovanissian provides the same number, and it is a very nationalistic Armenian source. As for Cox, it is not a reliable source and should go. She is a modern politician with a very strong bias in this issue, and we do not use politicians as sources on historical issues. Unlike Cox, de Waal is the author of the critically acclaimed book on the history of NK conflict and as such should remain in the article. Grandmaster (talk) 06:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I made some corrections and despite dw Waal pushing by Grandmaster is not welcomed by me, I think we can have this journalist's opinion just to stop editwarrings. Andranikpasha (talk) 20:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Andranikpasha, why do you keep removing the reference to sourced material including number 500 from Tom De Waal. This material is deemed neutral by both sides of the conflict, hence his reference is quite valuable for encyclopedia. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 00:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

De Wall is not qualified in this article. He's a journalist not a historian. VartanM (talk) 00:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Atabek, I cant understand if the last editions by Grandmaster and you are because of lack of attention, or a special editwarring? If you read the article you will find deWaals quote both in the article and in my prev. post here! Pls remove your last POV-pushing and discuss if the repeating of deWaals text is justified! Andranikpasha (talk) 00:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

De Waal's figure should be in the intro, along with any other estimates. I don't understand your persistence in removing it. Leave it there, it provides the whole range of estimates and is a lot more realistic than the fantastic figures with many zeros. After all, even Armenian historian Hovanissian provides the same number as de Waal. Grandmaster (talk) 07:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I will say it again, De Waal is not qualified in this article[46]. VartanM (talk) 07:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

De Waal wrote a book on the history of the conflict, so he is different from Goltz, who was an eye witness to the modern phase of the conflict, but did not write about its history. Grandmaster (talk) 08:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how that supports your position, he's still a journalist and not a historian. VartanM (talk) 08:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

So what? He is an expert on the history of the conflict. Grandmaster (talk) 08:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

What happened in 1920 is not his specialty. VartanM (talk) 08:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Why? His book covers quite a large period of history, since the ancient times to modern era. Grandmaster (talk) 08:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

He is a modern journalist. He is not a specialist on Armenian or Azerbaijani history, so he cannot be used as a reference. VartanM (talk) 08:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

He is a specialist on the history of NK conflict, so he is a good source. In fact, he is a much better source than the law school that Andranik uses as reference. Grandmaster (talk) 08:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

De Waal is a journalist. Show me his historical works, if there are any. VartanM (talk) 09:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Black Garden is a book on the history of NK conflict. We have no rules that do not allow us using journalists as sources. Also, if you are so picky about sources, how come NESL is used as a source, they are not even journalists, let alone scholars? De Waal is much more reliable than any other source used here, his book received much critical acclaim and is regarded the best source on the history of NK conflict. Grandmaster (talk) 10:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Anyone can write a book on history, its not mean we can use it like a serious reliable source (this journalist didnt even cite any source for 1920). Especially if all the other sources (they are too many, not only the NESL, a respected institution on Int'l Law: as I know you like to refer to Intl' and even the Soviet Law to prove anything related to NKR...) says about 20-30.000 deaths. de Waal is not more reliable, than the social scientist and human rights activist Caroline Cox which was deleted. And the "source" by Chrono is surely not reliable, its criticized many times here as obviously unreliable, anyways you done this POV-pushing which must be reverted. Andranikpasha (talk) 20:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

You are not allowed to revert sourced info. And why you added "dubious" to the line about Armenian revolt? Do you deny that there was one? Grandmaster (talk) 07:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Andranikpasha, Tom De Waal is an independent journalist working for Institute for War and Peace Reporting. While Caroline Cox is an activist of Christian Solidarity International and a cross-member of British House of Lords. Very "neutral" source in analyzing a conflict between Christian and Muslim peoples, indeed... Also according to "Caucasus Calendar" source used in Shusha article, the population of Shusha in 1916 was 43,864. So when claiming that 20,000 Armenians were killed there in 1920, you're essentially asserting that half of that population were Armenians (for which you do not have sources) and that all of that half was entirely destroyed (for which you do not present sources again). Atabek (talk) 01:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I am wondering, what is the notability of De Waal, to include him in a dozen (?) articles as the sole source for a claim. Has he written anything other than that work, in journals, or other peer reviewed publications about those specific years of history? So I concur with Vartan, and any neutral user can't do otherwise when De Waal has been used more than his notability would allow as sole source in countless articles. As he is a sole source, he can therefore be considered as having fringe position and removed unless Grandmaster or Atabek have any other works substantiating the personal opinions of De Waal who supports fringe positions in various issues including Shushi or the Armenian Genocide. The fact that he presents the Armenian Genocide as an Armenian position and compares it to a fabrication of the 60s of an alleged 2.5 million Azeri exterminated by Armenians alone would be enough to dismiss his position for that particular period of history. I'm afraid this time around, the adding of De Waal has reached the limit. This is not De Waal encyclopaedia to have his position on everything, especially when he is the sole source for the position he represents. - Fedayee (talk) 02:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

De Waal wrote the best and critically acclaimed book on the history of the conflict, and the figures provided by him are also supported by an Armenian source, Hovanissian. De Waal perfectly fits the criteria for a reliable source, and deleting it from the article is not an option. You can add any other figures that you like, but the figure cited by de Waal is to remain. I think this was discussed long enough, let's move on please. Grandmaster (talk) 06:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

If you like this modern journalist book on 1920 so much it also shows how much biased is this work, isnt it? and lets to not ask about additional statistics from a war period, and to not do other OR when we have too many reliable historians researches! And I will reccomend also to stop this anti-Christian biasement. It is obviously not a good behaviour, if even you have no any sources to prove anything. Imagine if according to Atabek we start to delete all the Christian and Muslim sources from the NK article... Andranikpasha (talk) 15:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I restored the tags that seemed to have been removed without any rationale, but rather as undiscussed part of another edit. Parishan (talk) 08:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Consistency

Which ethnonym should be used: Azerbaijanis, Azeris, or Caucasus Tatars? Hakob (talk) 22:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)