Talk:Shusha massacre/Archive 2

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


 * This is the original version of the article, created by User:Hu1lee, a sock of the banned user: All the edits prior to this version are by this user. As one can see, this text is verbatim copy from another website,  i.e. copyvio. Grandmaster (talk) 08:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Grandmaster, I even not going to check your "site", as for me its a reality that the most part of the article is written by me (maybe then used by any site I dont care) and the most part is sourced by me. The unsourced part can be deleted by the time. And pls stop attack Armenian sites as partisan (when you need it) and then use the only Armenian historian as a reliable source (for a pogrom denial policy). Mind WP:SOAP. You never cited anything from the Great Soviet Enc.. You can do it as I find nothing on Shusha pogrom there. And note that Huntington and all other encyclopdeias are unreliable (secondary) sources related to the events of historical serious researches (they say nothing about 15000 Azeris). Andranikpasha (talk) 15:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

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

THE “SHUSHI REVIVAL” FUND website:

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

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

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

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


 * Grandmaster, is it your words "most of the text in the article is copyvio"? Surely the texts you represented (they are right now different, but remember its about ONE EVENT, we can reword, never hope we will rewrite facts to have a "copirighted story"...) are not the real most part greated by me. So pls be more carefull during your discussions. Just differ most part and little part, majority views and minority views, etc. its not hard to do. (PS- Pls answer to other questions too if you're interested). Andranikpasha (talk) 10:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The text that I quoted is absolutely identical, the variations are very minor. Moreover, many references are copied from that website too. So if you agree that the quoted parts are copyvio, they should be removed. The text that was not copied from that website can remain, but whatever is copied should go. Grandmaster (talk) 10:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you cite what the reference was copied from the sites you marked? If the represented parts are looks too much alike we can do some copyedit (Ill do it as Hu1lee was blocked) no any reason to delete. I prefer if you assume a little more good faith as we both know a user who used to copy and past to Wiki whole articles:) So why do not try to show a little more tolerancy to others? Andranikpasha (talk) 11:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I have many times asked for the quotes or scans of this source:


 * Нагорный Карабах в 1918—1923 гг.: сборник документов и материалов. Ереван, 1992.


 * Now see how many times it was used here and it is the same source quoted here:


 * It was simply copied from there, and apparently you never read it. If you had, you would have provided the quotes. Grandmaster (talk) 11:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * No, Grandmaster, sorry, but again you're not right. At first, the marked book is not referenced, but included in Bibliography (among many other materials). Also admin Jayvdb (who supports the Azerbaijani user's view's here) already asked at the same talk page and were answered. why to not read the talk at first? Here the full quote from the discussion:

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

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

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


 * This book is online, so you can check it!Andranikpasha (talk) 12:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The sources that you cite are not the same book as used in references. If you use a source, you must be able to provide the exact quote on first demand according to the rules. You haven't done so. And copying text from other websites is not acceptable either. Grandmaster (talk) 12:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * As for Azerbaijani and Armenian websites and sources, will you be happy if I start using sources like these:     If you are going to rely on the Armenian sources, I will have no problem using Azerbaijani ones. But I think it is better to rely on neutral ones, which have no bias in this issue. Grandmaster (talk) 12:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Really? But you're already citing ArmeniaFund site as a reliable one despite my protests. Andranikpasha (talk) 14:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * That's different. I cite it as an interview source. They would not distort the words of US congressman, as they have no bias against Cox, on the contrary, they love her. In this case they have a strong bias as one of the sides of the conflct. Grandmaster (talk) 18:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Grandmaster, you can use the ArmenianFund site as an... interview source(?) if you like (or a source by a journalist as the most reliable historical research, etc.) its your decision. In fact its a material on an event issued by Armenia Fund site. Never breake the terms of agreement and then hope to not have a symmetric answer! If you're citing the wording by an ArmeniaFund material on an Armenia-Azerbaijan related person, just cuz they "love her", in that case why to not use the same sources for any city, as they surely love it too! what you say sounds like "when its me its justified anyhow, when its anyone else, its not allowed". Andranikpasha (talk) 20:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Why do you keep bringing up Cox? That issue was resolved at BLP board, and you were explained that there were no problems there. Just let it go already. With regard to this article, there are many sources on Azerbaijani side as well, which can be used as well. Here's another one: They are as good as the ones representing the Armenian position. But my personal opinion is that preference should be given to third party sources, as there are conflicting views on this issue and the sides of the conflict portray them differently. Grandmaster (talk) 08:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Btw, here's precise diff of copyvio being added to the article by the banned user: Grandmaster (talk) 12:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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


 * We have already discussed this "journalist" thing many times. Please show me the rule that does not allow using journalists as sources. De Waal is the author of a critically acclaimed book, and is notable. Stop removing him from the intro. And the tags should remain until the disputes are resolved. Grandmaster (talk) 18:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

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


 * There are plenty of things that are disputed, including the article title, sources used, the description of events, etc. There's an archive full of explanation of what is disputed. So please do not remove any source or tag without consensus. Also, if you think that sources like www.armarchives.am are reliable, we can use Azerbaijani archives too. There are plenty of interesting sources there. Grandmaster (talk) 18:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Also note that per WP:SOURCES the articles should rely on third party sources: Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Is www.armarchives.am a third party published source? Grandmaster (talk) 18:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, you criticize de Waal for being a journalist, but look at the sources you use yourself: Cox, Zubov, NESL, etc. None of them are professional historians. Grandmaster (talk) 18:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

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


 * All the sources that you used are Armenian. nkr.am and similar sources are not reliable. They have a strong bias in this issue. The rules require using third party sources, so please find such sources. Grandmaster (talk) 05:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Please provide the quote from this source (which is in Russian) supporting the claims that you added to the article:


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


 * What does it actually say? I've been asking for it for many months already. Grandmaster (talk) 06:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, why tag is added to the line:


 * when Azerbaijani soldiers suppressed an Armenian revolt[10][11][dubious – discuss] in the town of Shusha


 * Does anyone actually deny that the was an Armenian revolt there? Even nkr.am, which is an extreme nationalist source, says so:


 * Proceeding from this being the circumstances, the Karabaghi Armenians decided to prepare for defense. On the night from March 22-23 they rose in an armed revolt in Nagorno-Karabagh. Heavy fighting continued from March 22 till April 13.


 * So even according to Armenian sources there was “heavy fighting”. Then why is this article called “pogrom”, and why dubious tag is attached to the aforementioned line? Here’s another source about fighting:


 * In an attempt to combat the Armenian uprising in Nagorno-Karabakh, Azerbaijan shifted the bulk of its military forces to the mountainous region in late March 1920, where it fought numerous engagements and laid waste eventually to the Armenian stronghold of Shusha. Seeing a virtually undefended border before them, the Bolsheviks seized the opportunity to gain a foothold in Azerbaijan. The Eleventh Red Army entered Baku unopposed on 27 April, and Azerbaijan became the first Soviet Socialist Republic (SSR) of Transcaucasia the next day.


 * Michael P. Croissant. The Armenia-Azerbaijan Conflict: Causes and Implications. ISBN 0275962415


 * I added it to the article. Grandmaster (talk) 06:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Grandmaster, pls be civil. NKR.am which you called "extreme nationalist" source is the Official site of Nagornk-Karabakh Republic Foreign Affairs Ministry. Before attacking foreign ministries as extreme nationalist, why to not say the same about your native one? That will be more civil and less controversional! Try to not attack foreign governments if even you disagree with them. Andranikpasha (talk) 14:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * nkr.am is a representation of a separatist movement. There's nothing incivil with stating this, considering that PACE also refers to them as separatists. I suggest we stick to third party sources, as I don't think the use of Azerbaijani sources will be acceptable for you. I treat both sides equally, and Azerbaijani sources are POV too. So neutral sources are preferable. Grandmaster (talk) 16:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

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


 * No, Meowy, Walker calls Sultanov pan-Turkist while qualifying his activities in Shusha and Karabakh. In this case its more than important as Grandmaster denies that Turkish connections and Turkish generals were involved in massacres. I suggest to include 1919 massacres as a first period for Shusha pogroms, as now it become obvious that 600-700 Armenians were killed during that period and these events have strong connections to the 1920 March massacres. So I prefer if you return NYTimes reliable quote too! Andranikpasha (talk) 22:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The purpose if this article is to provide the reader with information, presented in an encyclopedic way, about the Shusha pogrom. It's purpose isn't to oppose Grandmaster! The NY Times article was being misused in earlier versions of this article, it probably wasn't deliberate misuse but was due to lazyness. The nurses' letter clearly did not (and could not) refer to a massacre in August 1919 (the same misinformation is repeated in the Shusha entry, btw). Isn't it more likely to be connected to events in June 1919? Meowy 22:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe use "summer of 1919" to be more correct and avoid of mistakes? Andranikpasha (talk) 00:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe just leave it as it is for now: not giving it a date but placing it in the article beside the June 1919 events. To be more precise is inviting conflict. Meowy  01:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree. Andranikpasha (talk) 01:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I've added the NY Times info, but I have removed the Walker quote and moved it to the Remembering section: honestly, his comments are just plain stupid. Its removal also means that the final paragraph of the Background section is setting the scene nicely for the start of the Pogrom section. Meowy 23:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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


 * I did not write the sentence which has that reference next to it. Meowy 16:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Then why did you reinsert it? That source was simply copied from the copyvio article, and there's no way to verify it. I don't think it was a right thing to do. Grandmaster (talk) 17:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * "copied from the copyvio article"? what article you mean?Andranikpasha (talk) 17:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm asking you once again, can you quote this source:


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


 * It is the same source mentioned here: I have already asked you many times to quote this source, so far yoy have not done so. Grandmaster (talk) 17:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Already answered by me (three times) and by Meowy once! I have nothing to add, see the archive and answer pls what the article is copyvio? Andranikpasha (talk) 18:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think Grandmaster means that the source mentioned is actually one being cited within another source (the copyvio article one). That is not forbidden under Wikipedia rules, but in its current form the reference is incorrect: the reference should actually say something like "source xxx, cited in source yyy". However, since exactly the same information appears in Walker's book, why not remove the mention of the Russian-language source and just have the "Armenia: The Survival of a Nation" as the source? Meowy 21:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The alternative is to just rewrite the reference. NB; since the Walker source corraborates the Russian source, the dubious-discuss tag is, arguably, no longer valid. Meowy 21:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Convenience break 1
I will be removing the reference from Hutchinson Encyclopedia, the Karabakh entry is nowhere near accurate. There are so many obvious mistakes in that article that I will be using my editorial judgement. First the population statistics while it seem right for the 1997, the relative population distribution represents those of prior to 1990. There were no 23% Azeris in 1997. The article claims the capital to be Xankandi, while it is true that NK is still officially recognized as part of Azerbaijan, the renaming of the capital has no official international recognition. And Grandmaster, I am getting really tired of your double standards, presenting the 15,000 figure as an absolute truth and sourcing it by one single source which contains positions which you mostly reject and which contains mistakes that you agree that they’re mistakes. Check the figures of NK war casualties, they even inverted the Armenian and Azeri casualty numbers. If you agree with this article, maybe you’d let me add the inverted casualty numbers in other articles? Neither the 30,000 Armenian figure, neither 15,000 Azeri figure make sense. And it’s interesting that the 15,000 represents Aliyev's figures for Shusha for the Azeris prior to the war, while according to him they were all ethnically cleansed. The article seems to have taken that and transposed it to the Shushi pogrom. Would you agree if I wrote for the NK: The region formed part of Armenia until the 7th century? as it says in the article, and most of the rest on history and the declaration of independence? It’s a badly written article which is contradicted by so many sources. There were no 30,000 Armenians in Shushi, 15,000 represents about all the Azeris in Shushi at the time. No matter what one source says, it’s nonsense. See also how you conveniently present a range for the Armenians and this figure for the Azeris, which again is based on one source and contains many obvious mistakes. So far I stayed away and said nothing, hopping that you would improve it, but you remained there with this obviously wrong info. As for the Soviet encyclopedia, you are assuming it is talking about figures from both sides but you haven't quoted anything from it yet.

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

The fate of Bishop Vartan
On page 30 of the 1993 book "Ethnic Cleansing in Progress", it is stated that in Shusha on April 4th 1920: "Half the town's residents were murdered. The heads of Bishop Vartan and other prominent Karabakhi Armenians were paraded on spikes in celebration of the Azeri-Turk triumph". No source is given in thebook for this information about the fate of Bishop Vartan. Does anyone know of a source? Meowy 00:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * A Member of House of Lords, Lord Hylton wrote that Bisop Vartan was murdered during the Shusha Pogrom (Lord Hylton, House of Lords, Appendices to the Minutes of Evidence).Andranikpasha (talk) 00:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * But there has to be an older source somewhere - otherwise it could be said that that appendix just got the info from the "Ethnic Cleansing in Progress" book. Once we locate a suitable source, this information should be included in the article. Meowy 01:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Other source I have is in Armenian (a written protest by Armenian organizations from 1920). So Ill also look for a source. Andranikpasha (talk) 01:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, Meowy, why did you removed from the intro referenced statement about Armenian revolt in Shusha? All Armenian sources support this fact, and you removed a number of third party references that I added. Such selective use of sources is not acceptable. Grandmaster (talk) 07:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC) Btw, you removed 4 references about the Armenian revolt that I added to the intro, including 2 that I added yesterday. So it is a revert, and I'm informing you about that beforehand. Grandmaster (talk) 07:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Armenian revolt is an obvious POV by 3 sources, while all others says nothing about it and even another source cited by you says about fightings between bands. So its not for the lead. There were revolts during the genocides and notable massacres, we're not going to describe them as "N people were massacred because a revolt was supressed" (?). You can create separate article on "Denial of Shusha pogrom" and have all the info on revolts, fightings, etc there. And about the Armenian sources: I can provide some (included renowned historian John Kirakosian) if you're interested and agree to use them without any national discrimination. Andranikpasha (talk) 16:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Meowy removed the info supported by 4 third party sources, in addition to the fact that every Armenian sources agrees that there was a revolt. As for sources, will Azerbaijani sources be acceptable for you? I showed you some examples above? It is not discrimination, I treat both sides equally. I only want to maintain neutrality here. Grandmaster (talk) 17:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


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

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


 * Meowy, you claim you rewrote the introduction, when in fact you deleted a huge chunk of information backed up by 11 sources and replaced it with unsourced statements that seem like a personal view on the issue. I don't think this is acceptable. Parishan (talk) 06:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Please do not edit a page unless you know how to do it - your edit repeats, almost verbatim, information that was already in the article in the following paragraph! Your edit was so badly executed that it amounts to vandalism, and for that reason I am justified in reverting it. Meowy 16:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * And as for what Parishan claims, the exact opposite is true. I did not delete "a huge chunk of material" - in fact, it is Parishan who has deleted material. The text he removed contained 72 words, the text he replaced it with contained only 46 words when the duplicated words are discounted. Parishan's edit also had the POV phrase "when Azerbaijani soldiers suppressed an Armenian revolt" (complete with its "dubious-discuss" tag). I had replaced that sentence with the neutral and factually correct "had as its background a conflict over competing claims of ownership of the region by Armenia and Azerbaijan". My edit is clearly better. Parishan does not seem understand what the function of an article's introduction should be. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS, verdana, sans serif; color:#0088BB;">Meowy 17:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The line "when Azerbaijani soldiers suppressed an Armenian revolt" is factually accurate and is supported by every Armenian source that you referred to, and it had 4 third party sources as a reference. So your edit only introduces POV and removes factually accurate info that is not disputed by anyone. I don't think it is acceptable. Grandmaster (talk) 17:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The purpose of editing an article should be to improve it. A phrase like "when Azerbaijani soldiers suppressed an Armenian revolt" is POV, and is always going to have a "dubious-discuss" tag. There should be no place in the very first part of any article for a phrase that is going to attract such a tag. There is not a single POV word in my "had as its background a conflict over competing claims of ownership of the region by Armenia and Azerbaijan" and it is factually 100% accurate. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS, verdana, sans serif; color:#0088BB;">Meowy 20:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Parishan's long-term work on this article surely contains elements of bad edit's. Parishan just reverts here without any significant contribution or real interest to the topic. Grandmaster, once again: pls stop this misinterpretation (disputed by noone?) with "Armenian sources". As I know you're not fluent in Armenian, so what do you know about "every Armenian source"? To stop this misinterpretation of Armenian sources, find pls anything about revolt: Not John Kirakosian, nor Parseghian or Mikoyan, nor the majority of neutral sources and the archive materials, deleted by you, support this POV. So pls stop it. Andranikpasha (talk) 18:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * an official Armenian source
 * article from "Voice of Armenia", look also Armenian sites on Shushi Massacres
 * Parishan's edit was bad from a content point-of-view, but I reverted it because it was technically bad - about 2/3rds of the text he added simply repeated word for word the content of the paragraph that followed on from his edited paragraph. Vandalism was probably too strong a word for me to use to describe it, but he should pay more attention to what he is copypasting, and should use the "show preview" button when editing text with a lot of code within it. If he wants its return (minus the duplicated material of course), then I hope he will first discuss it and argue the case for it here. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS, verdana, sans serif; color:#0088BB;">Meowy 20:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Meowy, there is really no need to remove so much sourced material as you did here. Let's try to discuss such major changes before you make reverts removing major chunks of sources texts. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 07:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Atabek's behaviour must be noticed too! Looks like Parishan is not the only user who reverts not only without any interest to the topic research but even without previewing if the revert is good. Andranikpasha (talk) 11:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The revert was good. There's no justification for removal of a fact supported by 4 third party sources, which is what Meowy did. If he wants to rewrite the intro, let him propose his version on talk, so that we can discuss it. But deletion of sourced info is not acceptable. Grandmaster (talk) 12:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the edit made by Atabeg because the edit amounts to vandalism. Atabeg has returned the page to the version made by Parishan. As I have pointed out above, 2/3rds of Parishan's addition simply repeated what was said in the paragraph that followed on from it. This was probably just due to an editing mistake by Parishan. However, Atabeg does not have this excuse because the flaw in Parishan's edit has been clearly pointed out. By ignoring what has been written here, and simply returning to Parishan's edit without bothering to correcting its flaw, he has vandalised the article. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS, verdana, sans serif; color:#0088BB;">Meowy 15:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You did so in violation of your parole, moreover take a look at your edit again, you're removing large portion of sourced material, including references to Thomas de Waal, and then claiming that I am vandalizing the page. I only added those neutral sources back to the text. Your activity on this page and comments made above symbolize a severe violation of WP:AGF. Assume good faith. Atabek (talk) 23:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I did not remove a "large portion of sourced material" and I did not remove the reference to de Waal, it is still there! How can you continue to justify your edit when I have pointed out its flaw? I'll repeat it, in bold, maybe you will read it this time: 2/3rds of your edit repeated, almost word for word, what was already in the paragraph that followed on from it. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS, verdana, sans serif; color:#0088BB;">Meowy 02:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * They are not repeated, you removed the mention of the fact that the events started with the Armenian revolt in the city along with 4 third party sources supporting the fact. There's no justification for that and it is a clear violation of your parole. Grandmaster (talk) 07:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Go back and read your edits again. Meowy did remove reference to "revolt" and 4 sources, but that is not what you and Atabek restored.  You instead restored a different part of the intro resulting in text and references/footnotes that exactly duplicated the end of the previous paragraph. Thatcher 02:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

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

No sources on 15,000 "killed" Azeris
No source, except for Hutchinson Encyclopedia, did not notify Azeris killed and about massacre of Azerbaijanis. All the sources describing the events, according to claim that it was not mutual destruction. This was precisely the massacre of Armenians is, the Armenian quarters were burned, and it forced the Armenian population. Sfrandzi (talk) 14:48, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * We haven't checked all the sources on this planet to say that Hutchinson Encyclopedia is the only source to provide the Azeri death toll. And even Armenian sources attest that the fighting in the city started after the Armenian forces attacked the Azerbaijani garrison in the city. Grand  master  06:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Btw, most sources used in this article are simply a joke. 99% of them are not professional historians, but rather some obscure politologists and law schools. But even historians quoted are no good at all. For instance, some Andrei Zubov writes:

''Британская администрация почему-то передала населенные армянами уезды Елизаветпольской губернии под юрисдикцию Азербайджана. 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. Англичане пытались разъединить армянские и азербайджанские войска. Когда же они ушли из региона, азербайджанская армия была в начале ноября 1919 года полностью разгромлена армянами. Только вмешательство англичан смогло предотвратить поход армянских войск на Елизаветполь и Шемаху.''

Translation:

''For some reason the British administration placed the Armenian populated uyezds of Elizavetpol gubernia under the Azerbaijani jurisdiction. The British administrator of Karabakh colonel Shuttleworth did not prevent the discrimination of Armenians by the Tatar administration of governor Sultanov. Interethnic tensions resulted in a horrible massacre, in which most Armenians in the town of Shusha perished. Baku parliament refused even to condemn the perpetrators of the Shusha massacre, and the war started in Karabakh. English tried to interfere between the Armenian and Azerbaijani troops, but when they left the region, the Azerbaijani army was completely defeated by the Armenians in early November 1919. Only the interference of the English prevented the march of the Armenian troops to Elizavetpol and Shemakha.''

As one could see, this guy is totally clueless about what actually happened in the region, and when exactly. According to all sources, the fighting in Shusha took place in March 1920, when Azerbaijanis celebrated Novruz. Zubov says that the fighting between Armenians and Azerbaijanis started after the "massacre" in Shusha, and as result of that the Azerbaijanis were defeated in November 1919, i.e. according to him the "massacre" in Shusha was in 1919, not 1920. Moreover, he says that the British interfered to prevent the Armenian offensive towards Ganja, while in fact the British left Caucasus in August 1919. This guy has no idea what he is talking about. He does not know the basic facts, such as the date of the events in Shusha, the date when British left the region, etc. Zubov cannot be considered a reliable source due to his complete ignorance in this subject. -- Grand master  06:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Also among sources quoted are The Armenia, Armenia: about the country and the people from the biblical times to our days reference book, the Armenian nationalist Baroness Caroline Cox, Russian-Georgian writer Anaida Bestavashvili and her "The people and the monuments" publication, Azerbaijani communist Musaev (who?), Modern Russian politologist Timur Polyannikov (who?), Public International Law & Policy Group and the New England Center for International Law & Policy (why a law school should be a source on history?). As one could see, none of the above can be considered reliable sources about the history.-- Grand master  07:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Grandmaster, all you claim we already discussed. Hutchinson encyclopedia had a mistake and they corrected it in the text after I wrote tham a letter. So pleas be civil!Andranikpasha (talk) 09:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

And do not think if Im not active in WIkipedia for a while its the right time for POV pushing. We had so many discussions here, do not hope to brainwash anyone again or put your own understanding of sources. The translation is direct and correct. Andranikpasha (talk) 09:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I just checked Hutchinson, the figure of 15,000 is still there. What's the point in misleading people here? And please explain why Zubov is a valid source, when he has no clue when the events took place?-- Grand master  10:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Grandmaster, stop POV-pushing! See the artcile |here. If you see the figure of 15,000, please cite, otherwise no need for another editwarring. And your opinion on Zubov is just your opinion. I'd like to see an Azerbaijani user who likes and respects any renowned scholar of Armenian genocide or anti-Armenianism, if even it is Arnold Toynbee. Personally for you Farida Mamedova is surely much more respectable, so what? Andranikpasha (talk) 15:29, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I see it. It is there. What you do is an attempt to suppress sourced info. I'm afraid I will have to ask for the admin intervention.-- Grand master  15:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Off course, thats what I suggest! Just ask an admin that you have a hidden from other users citation on Azeri deaths and that I can not see the figure of 15,000 in the cited article |here while you see it there. Andranikpasha (talk) 15:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Hutchinson says: In 1920, inter-ethnic clashes in the Karabakh town of Shusha resulted in the deaths of 30000 Armenians and 15000 Azeris. If you don't see it, copy that line into google and run a search. You'll get the correct link to Hutchinson. The info is still there, nothing changed. As for Zubov, I took the issue here: Let's see what others say. Grand master  15:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It was there before I write them if they sure it is right information as no any other source mark it. After it the article at Hutchinson was corrected as you can see |here. Andranikpasha (talk) 16:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * No, it is still there. I can see it. They don't correct the info just because someone does not like it. Your link points to nowhere. It brings up the text: Word not found in the Dictionary and Encyclopedia. Please try the words separately. However the article on NK is still there and can be accessed from google. Just search for the line that I quoted in google. Grand  master  16:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You're not right. Try from here . Here is the whole part on this period: "This line of khans was overthrown in 1805 by the Russians, who created a province of the region in 1822. An autonomous protectorate following the Russian Revolution of 1917, Nagorno-Karabakh subsequently saw heavy fighting in the Civil War (1918–20), and was annexed to Azerbaijan in 1923 against the wishes of the largely Christian-Armenian population. From 1989, when the local council declared its intention to transfer control of the region to Armenia, the enclave was racked by fighting between local Armenian troops (reputedly backed by Armenia) and Azeri forces, both attempting to assert control." There is no such text there! It was a mistake and it is corrected. Andranikpasha (talk) 16:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * No, it was not a mistake, and the text is still there. The page that you cite says in red writing at the bottom: Only a portion of this article is shown. The entire article is available to subscribers. To see the entire article you must access it from google, or subscribe to Hutchinson. Stop removing sourced info, it is disruption.-- Grand master  16:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

It's you who is going to use an unexisted (virtual) secondary unreliable encyclopedia (that believes there were ... 23% Azeris in Karabakh in 1997 while there were 0-0.1% because of war) for an important description. It is a disruption and pov-pushing by your side. Andranikpasha (talk) 16:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I already demonstrated that the source exists. Please do not remove it. Grand  master  09:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

NB: Hutchinson Encyclopedia immediately gives the mythical figure of the dead Armenians - 30 thousand, which is longer than the entire Armenian population of the city in 1917 (23 thousand, according to the "Caucasian Calendar"). Azerbaijanis living in the city 19,121 («Кавказский календарь» на 1917 год. Тифлис, 1916, с. 190—196). So, according to the encyclopedia, was killed almost all Azerbaijanis and more than all Armenians. Articles about Nagorno-Karabakh in the encyclopedia writing obviously not a historian, and he joined mythological figures, found them in the Armenian and Azeri sources, thinking that this is the truth. All sources, including contemporary developments Azerbaijani sources, unanimously speak of the destruction by Azeris Armenian quarters of Shusha, and nowhere refers to the destruction by the Armenians of the Muslim quarters of the city. Hovanisian writes about 100 Armenian militants attack on military barracks and the arrest of several of Azerbaijani officers - only. Sfrandzi (talk) 16:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I will add more info on population and estimates tomorrow. Grand  master  18:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

HE is not considered as a RS nor anyone of you provided a full citation (in the required format) to prove it even etists. Andranikpasha (talk) 03:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

On the numbers of dead
There is no accounting of those killed were not. Figures of those killed appeared controversial, speculative and largely just fantastic (the most common figure - 30,000 Armenians - even more than the entire Armenian population of the city). Therefore propose to delete the digital data from the preamble, and move in a special section where they can be compared and analyzed. Sfrandzi (talk) 17:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that the death toll figures should be removed from the lead, as they are all speculative. It is better to create a special section and provide there all existing estimates. Grand  master  18:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The Armenian death toll of 30,000 is in fact a forgery. The thing is that Shusha never had Armenian population of 30,000, so it is impossible that this many Armenians could have died there. This is what the Azerbaijani historian Arif Yunusov writes about it:

Basically, he quotes the statistics from the Caucasus calendar, which was the official statistical publication of the Russian viceroy of the Caucasus. According to the Caucasus calendar of 1917, the population of Shusha was 43.869, of which 23.396 (53 %) were Armenians, and 19.121 (44 %) Azerbaijanis (or Tatars). Thus, the figure of 30,000 of Armenian casualties is just a falsification. The figures of Yunusov are confirmed by the Armenian politologist Arsen Melik-Shahnazarov:

As one could see, both Armenian and Azerbaijani sources agree that the figure of 30,000 is blown out of any proportion and in fact exceeds the number of the Armenian population of Shusha. This shows that Guaita is not a reliable source, as he does not even know how many Armenians lived in Shusha at that time. Some Armenian sources went even further and now claim that 35,000 Armenian died there! I think this figure will keep on growing in nationalistic sources, but such figures have nothing to do with serious scholarly research. Grand master  10:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, looks like there is a consensus in reliable sources over Armenian casualties, which debunks martyrological claims. It is rather impossible that from 40,000 inhabitants at that time about 30,000 were killed. brandспойт 12:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If the Armenian population was 23,396, then the figure of 30,000 Armenians killed is a forgery. It is impossible that the number of Armenian casualties could exceed the number of Armenian people who actually lived in the city. -- Grand master  12:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Per discussion here, I moved the casualty estimates into a separate section. -- Grand master  14:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No, we cant merge reliable information with partisan POV's you trying to add. look at WP:NPOV. Andranikpasha (talk) 16:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It is not a partisan POV, because both sides agree with this info. It would be partisan if only one side of the conflict made a specific claim, but since it is shared by both sides, it is reliable info.-- Grand master  05:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Both sources are partisan, not reliable. We have two sources, not sides. For example do you think Shaginyan and Musaev represent the views of both sides? Andranikpasha (talk) 16:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Who is Musayev? Did that person actually exist? I highly doubt that. On the other hand, Caucasus calendar is a reality, and researchers on both sides agree that the figure of 30,000 is a forgery, as Shusha never had that much Armenian population. According to statistics, the Armenian population was 23.396, which makes the figure of 30,000 impossible, because the number of dead cannot exceed the number of people who actually lived in the city. Thus, the opinion of these 2 sources is notable, as they confirm the statistical data and make similar conclusions, despite representing completely opposite views on the subject.-- Grand master  19:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, the article refers to many partisan sources anyway, such as these:

Two prominent Armenian-Russian Communist activists, Anastas Mikoyan and Marietta Shaginyan, wrote about the pogroms in their memoirs.[38] Mikoyan, who was in the region, later remarked: "According to the reconnaissance information, at Azerbaijani Mousavatist government's disposal was army of 30-thousands, of whom 20 thousands deployed near the border of Armenia... The army of Azerbaijan shortly before that massacred the Armenians in Shusha, Karabakh."[39]

The article also quotes the Armenian nationalist Caroline Cox, pro-Armenian author Christopher Walker, some unknown guy Musayev, etc. How come that Yunusov and Melik-Shahnazarov are partisan, and all those sources are not? Grand master  19:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You're free to add the two last authors' views to the "Remebering" section. I have many Armenian sources I can add too if you think there is a need for a such kind sources. FYI if even you and Tall ArmenianTale site believe that Cox, Walker and Musaev are "radical natioanlists", but they are on sure not Armenians... Andranikpasha (talk) 17:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, Musayev most probably never existed, as the quote is from an Armenian source, and Walker and Cox are connected to the Armenian diaspora. If you insist on quoting Musayev, I will add the quote from another Azerbaijani witness, from this source, see Рассказ Мешади Абушбека Новрузова, очевидца четырех армяно-азербайджанских столкновений в городе Шуше. It is as good as Musayev, if not better. At least Novruzov was a notable citizen of Shusha. As for the Azerbaijani and Armenian researchers quoting the same figures, they must be included, and not in "remembering" section, but in the section about the death toll. Sfrandzi agreed to its creation, you are the only one objecting. -- Grand master  18:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * We need to edit according to Wiki rules, not our weak and false "agreements" (sorry I dont think Sfrandzi is agree with you). They are not Armenian and Azeri researchers but modern propagandists please feel the difference. Im not the person who added the citation by Musaev from an Armenian Archive official publication. You added Hovanisian, you can add Yunusov, some more Azeri memoirs and I probably will add some other views from Armenian authors we have special "Rememberings" section for that. But do not try to represent unreliable partisan interviews as prominent views. Andranikpasha (talk) 18:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I quoted those 2 researches and properly attributed their words to themselves. Their opinions were presented not as facts, but as opinions. If you are against using partisan sources, then let's remove them all, including Cox. Otherwise you cannot pick partisan views that you like and suppress those that you don't. -- Grand master  05:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect citation
The Author here tries to make impression that there was not an Armenian revolt in Karabakh, but an attack of Armenia to Azerbaijan. For this purpose he quotes the propagandistic Soviet encyclopaedia. But even the Soviet propagandistic encyclopaedia write that fights in Karabahe but only then they were threw to Nakhichevan and Gandzha at first have begun. Here the text:

Sfrandzi (talk) 18:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Armenian forces does not mean that the forces were from Armenia, it just means that they were ethnically Armenian. Btw, the Soviet statistics are close to those of Hovanissian, he also mentions 2000 buildings destroyed. Also, no offense, but your recent edits are in a very poor English, and are not understandable. I think it would be better if you refrained from adding material directly to the article and asked someone with better command of the language to help. Provide your sources at talk, and other editors can incorporate it into the article. Grand  master  05:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If you have a feeling something is wrong why to not edit and correct it. we need to support editors here not attack them. Sfrandzi adds sourced material and as we see he is open for discussions unlike other users. Andranikpasha (talk) 16:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't attack anyone, I'm just stating the obvious fact that the recent edits by this user are not readable. It would be better if he sought cooperation with someone who is more fluent in English. That's not an attack, just a friendly suggestion. -- Grand master  19:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Altstadt's source of allegations killing by the Armenian Azerbaijani police
Altstadt refers to correspondence of the Daily Telegraph from Baku. Sfrandzi (talk) 18:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The name "Shusha" vs Shushi
(Maybe almost) all the WP:RSs refer to the town as Shushi and not Shusha. The name was Shushi at the time of the described events and so naming it Shusha is not in accordance to WP:names. Any comments or suggestions or the article should be moved and the name changed? Please comment with the RSs being confirming your point mentioned. One more remark, that RSs after that period with changed names are not applicable due to the reference to it as a location and not a toponym of the place at the period. Aregakn (talk) 01:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The name of the town in the Russian empire was Shusha. It did not change after the collapse of the Russian empire, and was Shusha in the Soviet Union as well. The name Shushi never was official. Grand  master  15:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant, since Shushi massacre or Shusha pogrom refers to an event which most source use the term Shushi to discribe. Ionidasz (talk) 15:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Grandmaster, don't forget that there is wp:names and it doesn't support your argument. And I also remember the talk on Shushi page with postcards shown of that period proven to be "Shushi" written in them. Anyway, the most RSs are with Shushi and the name "Shusha" in this article is WP:UNDUE. Aregakn (talk) 06:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This was discussed many times. The article in Wikipedia is called Shusha, and not Shushi. Grand  master  13:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Andranikpasha (talk) 08:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It does not matter. I'm not referring to Wikipedia. We are just linking to the existing article about the city. And it was never officially called Shushi. How can we use a name that was never official? Grand  master  16:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

It could have been discussed a billion time, much like millions time it was discussed in the past that Earth is flat. Answer my argument please. Ionidasz (talk) 14:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * How do you know that most RS use the term Shushi? According to the rules, the claims of consensus must be sourced. If you think that most use this term, provide a source that confirms that. I don't see that most use this term, plus, the official name of the town has always been Shusha, we cannot use non-existent name in the title. Grand  master  05:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not claiming concensus, most sources which write about the event that someone can ever find use the term Shushi. You just have to type, massacre of Shusha and Shushi, and you will see that most which write about the event use the later. We are not debating about the name of the city, but the description of an event. Both are different. I will include them here, and unless you have any evidences of the contrary I will move this article. Ionidasz (talk) 14:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You cannot move the article to a non-existent name. Sorry, but that would be a disruptive behavior. Please either reach a consensus, or seek dispute resolution. Also, there's a procedure for renaming articles. You must nominate the article for rename, if you proposal gets no consensus. Grand  master  16:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

What would be a disruptive behavior is to refuse to provide evidences that the event which is discribed here is called by another name than how it is discribed in most sources. That's a disruptve behavior. I will check what most sources name the event and I will be renaming it such. If you find that disruptive, then you will have to report me. If you do, I will only provide all the references found for each term and say that you never addressed them but only requested concensus. The only concensus in such a case is to have users who are totally uninvolved to vote on it. If you agree on that, I have no problem with. Ionidasz (talk) 16:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * There's a procedure for renaming the articles. If you try to avoid it, I will have to ask for admin intervention. Grand  master  17:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If the procedure is about asking a bunch of editors vote, I have no problem with that as long as only uninvolved editors are voting. If you have a problem with that, then do report me to an admin. I am just claiming that the event described here use the term Shushi and this regardless of the name of the city. Ionidasz (talk) 17:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The city has always been known as Shusha, including during Persian and Russian rule. Changing it to Shushi is not only misleading but its also false fabrication of history. And another thing is that "Shushi" is unofficial the name doesnt excist. Every reliable and neutral source calls it "Shusha", so there really is no single reason to change the name. Neftchi (talk) 16:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You just have to read above and you will notice all by yourself that it's not about the name of the city by itself. Ionidasz (talk) 17:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If you want the name changed, do it according to the rules. Edit warring is pointless. Grand  master  17:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You mean, the rules about names, which includes naming something by what it is called the most? Sure, that's what I will be doing. I'm glad you agree. Thanks. Ionidasz (talk) 18:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Wait wait wait. Your voting, Grandmaster, is only a farse so stop this gaming here and now! I know because I readthem, unlike you, who tries to falsify them. Get the books in your hands or at least read them in the article first. Aregakn (talk) 20:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The policy is here: . It cannot be ignored. Grand  master  06:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I checked the history of the article and saw it was moved. I don't see this procedure having been used, which means that according to your words it was moved against policy, since it was a controversial move. So I should not have any problem by moving it back. Thanks again. -Ionidasz (talk) 15:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Page move wars will just lead to escalation of the issue. It is better to follow WP:DR. Grand  master  08:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, and not to start wars it is to be moved back, as it was moved by violation of rules. And then, if the wars occur due to some editors' behavior, start the WP:DR. This way of reverting is encourages by Wikipedia. I am wondering if the pro-Azeri "conspiracy group" of the Arbitration case will start those wars. Aregakn (talk) 12:39, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This name was stable for years. You cannot simply change it because you do not like it. I will have to report any edit warring, sorry. Start a discussion about the name, and get people to express their opinions. You can also start a WP:RFC. This is the way disputes are resolved in Wikipedia. Grand  master  06:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I know your tricks with 3O etc. No Grand, I am not telling I am changing it because I don't like it, but because it was changed braking the procedure. Are you advocating it? Aregakn (talk) 08:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * As I said, the article was stable at this title for years. There's a procedure for rename. Page move wars are against the rules. Grand  master  05:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a bit hypocritical of you to speak of rules, in fact. Now pls answer the question, if you are advocating the move of this article that was made against the rules or not. Aregakn (talk) 20:17, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well? PS. I see you commented other related articles. Aregakn (talk) 11:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not advocating any moves. There are procedures for dispute resolution, use them. Start an RFC, for instance. Referring to something in the past that you consider to be wrong is not a good argument. And edit warring will do no good. Grand  master  08:31, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Are we having a dispute about the wrong-doing, which is the move against the rules is to be reverted? Aregakn (talk) 18:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * We are not having any disputes about what was wrong or right. We are discussing the name that you propose for this article. Once again, the present name was stable for years. You cannot change the name of the article just because you disagree with something done in the past. Please follow WP:DR. Grand  master  05:35, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The current 'name' isnt stable! It was a pov-pushing by you and John, you never cited any sources just pushed this change with possible propagandistic reason. 'Shusha pogrom' is not stable nor correct term. It's a pro-azeri denialist pov never supported by RS's. Andranikpasha (talk) 06:42, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * And I am asking you, if you are arguing, that a move against the rules should be reverted. It's a simple question. Aregakn (talk) 11:53, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

This is a pointless discussion. I'm not gonna continue it. If you disagree with the present name, start a new discussion in accordance with WP:RM, provide your sources and ask one of admins to summarize it. That will put an end to this argument. Edit warring will do no good. And also, "Shusha pogrom" is not accurate either, the article should be called "Shusha uprising". See sources:


 * 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


 * 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 1920 Azerbaijanis had suppressed an Armenian uprising at Shusha and destroyed much of the Armenian town. Benjamin Lieberman. Terrible Fate: Ethnic Cleansing in the Making of Modern Europe. ISBN-10: 1566636469

Note that the above are all third party sources. Also note that they all call the town Shusha, and not Shushi. If you want dispute resolution, and not an edit war, let's provide sources ask one of previously uninvolved admins to decide on the title. Grand master  04:42, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The 3rd party sources are not discussed yet. Answer my question please! Are you against the name-move through violating the rules? Aregakn (talk) 17:33, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I already said that I'm against any pages moves, until we reach a consensus on the name. Now please let's proceed with DR. Grand  master  05:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This is not the answer to my question. Aregakn (talk) 18:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It is the answer. Now, let's stick to reliable third party sources. As you can see, they all use the name of Shusha, and they mention the Armenian revolt. Grand  master  05:53, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You're repeating the same POV for many years. You're not constructive as always! Andranikpasha (talk) 06:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)