Talk:Sumgait pogrom/Archive 2

Mest Butilation
Konstantin Pkhakadze, a Georgian who lived in Sumgait at the time and attended the rallies, cited that the described methods, such as mutilation of the breasts, were unusual actions to be prescribed to Armenians who are Christain (Azeris are predominantly Shia Muslim). One of these refugees, for example, was later identified not as the "peaceful resident of [sic] Kafan he made himself out to be; instead he was a convicted recidivist, now a sponger, with no permanent address...and no family whatsoever."

I've removed this, as it seems irrelevant to the article and contains original research. Don't add it back in. - FrancisTyers · 13:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

According to the refugees who had fled from Kapan and arrived in Sumgait, Armenians had killed and raped women and sliced their breasts off. Similar acts were also said to have been occurring to Azeris in Nagorno-Karabakh itself. However, some of these allegations were discounted by witnesses as fabrications, charging the speechmakers as provocateurs.

I've removed this because it is unsourced and only tangentially relevant. - FrancisTyers · 13:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

According to several Armenian witnesses and later on several Soviet military personnel, alcohol and anasha, an Azeri term referring to narcotics such as opium, were also reported to have been brought in trucks and distributed to the Azeri crowds...

How is this relevant, what point is it trying to make? - FrancisTyers · 13:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The refugees from Kapan and Masis is an integral part of how the pogrom began. You can find those claims in more than a plethora of books, coming from Black Garden, Sumgait Tragedy, the Armenian Tragedy, Modern Hatreds, etc. etc. The line that cites Yuri Rost's book Armenian Tragedy includes the line of how an Azerbaijani poet discounted those claims, considering them false and of course in the witnesses' tome from Sumgait Tragedy. There was a report from TASS that later said the rioters were acting under "false rumors", most probably an allusion to the Kapan refugees' stories (not the deaths of the two Azerbaijani youths reported by Katusev).


 * Right, suggest alternative wordings below. - FrancisTyers · 18:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The second block quote is self-explanatory and perspicuous. Obviously people do not suddenly go out on a binge rape, murder, vandalism tour and set the town into overall chaos without some underlying reasons or provocations. The witnesses in the the tome said they saw alcohol and drugs being handed out which puts things more in context to the riot . Its much simpler to blame the rioters for being under the influence of alcohol and drugs if you think about it (although most media reports never mentioned this, which of course makes sense considering the political implications [many Soviet citizens and and later on leaders blamed the goverment for the media blackout] that would impact the government). Can we at least include the report by Socialist Industry which stated that one of the refugees was indeed a provacteur?--MarshallBagramyan 17:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * What I don't understand is why they would give them narcotics if they wanted them to go on a rampage, from Narcotic, "Narcotic use is associated with a variety of effects including drowsiness, itching, sleeplessness, inability to concentrate, apathy, lessened physical activity, constriction of the pupils, dilation of the subcutaneous blood vessels causing flushing of the face and neck, constipation, nausea, vomiting and, most significantly, respiratory depression." &mdash; most of those are not what you would expect to find in a bloodthirsty mob. Regarding the Socialist Industry, put it below and we'll see. - FrancisTyers · 18:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The term was actually the definition given in the back of the tome so there might be some translation error (from the original Russian) or misconception on what it really is. Some of the witnesses in the book even admitted that they had used it before. The term, according to the book, is used collectively to refer to narcotics. Additionally, from dictionary.com's definition narcotics can "alter mood and behavior" so I guess its not entirely something that will someone go asleep. Fadix is an knowledgable on drugs and the like, I'll ask him whenever I can if he's familiar with it. You could also ask GM if he knows what it does and its effects. Alcohol, judging from Mel Gibson's latest foray into conspiracy theories, I think is safe enough factor. On the quote from Socialist Industry, you already listed in the first block quote.--MarshallBagramyan 19:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I know what opiates do ;) If you wanted a bloodthirsty mob, it is more likely that they would have given them PCP, Amphetamines or other stimulants, like Cocaine. Agree regarding alcohol. But considering they are both depressants, I'm not sure how much rioting someone whacked out on booze and skag would be capable of doing :) I looked at the quote regarding SI, and I don't think we should include it to say that he is a provocateur. It says that he is "a convicted recidivist, now a sponger, with no permanent address...and no family whatsoever.", none of these words mean "provocateur". - FrancisTyers · 19:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Still, wouldn't that finding implicate him as a provacteur since if he was not a refugee, in a logical sense, making those comments only stoked tensions? Or does that constitute original research also?--MarshallBagramyan 21:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * That would be original research. - FrancisTyers · 21:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Gotcha. While still on topic of the drugs, could they have had the opposite role of enraging and instead outright callousness? There was a video I was watching of the event which showed one of the military troops arresting one of the rioters whom they said was under the influence of (not specified) and he looked out of touch with reality as if he had no cognizance of his deeds (again, borderline OR). I'd try to capture a clip of it for you but I doubt you would be able to make anything out of it (resolution is too small). The SI quote was partial, I'll try to find its more complete version if it included anything more significant.--MarshallBagramyan 22:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * There are drugs that would do that, indeed in high dosages many would do that. If I saw the video I might be able to have more of a clue. - FrancisTyers · 22:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Also in response to GM, you cannot plagiarize a person's work, word for word. That's a big no-no and something you learn when writing compositions or essays with sources. You're essetially taking someone else's work and saying its your own (even though you cite it). --MarshallBagramyan 19:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Francis, the narcotics could be given to impair the judgment of the mobs. Now, I understand you don't think it's the best way to agitate mobs. However, this information is sourced--and the threshold of including info is verifiability, not truth. Even if we as editors think that information is not accurate, it would be original research to exclude it based on our beliefs. If it does sound unbelievable, let the readers judge so.

Regarding the deleted passages by you--they are the opposing view in response to the Azeri allegations. Since it is alleged that Armenian violence was the cause of the Sumgait massacre, we need to include the opposing view--that's the basis of NPOV. And whether we like or dislike the wording of the opinion--it's not our wording, that's how the authors worded them--if it's a position held by the opposition, then we state it, even if we find their opinion offensive. Under NPOV, we never suppress opinions that are offensive (as evident from pages on Nazism, Hitler etc). If the position is silly, then the readers will judge so. But NPOV requires us not to suppress one side of the issue, when we have the other (i.e. the Azeri allegations). In light of that, I don't see what is wrong with the following deleted paragraph:

''However, some of these allegations were discounted by witnesses as fabrications, charging the speechmakers as provocateurs. Konstantin Pkhakadze, a Georgian who lived in Sumgait at the time and attended the rallies, cited that the described methods, such as mutilation of the breasts, were unusual actions to be prescribed to Armenians who are Christain (Azeris are predominantly Shia Muslim). Pkhakadze and the other witnesses attending the rallies commented that the speeches made by the refugees from Kapan appeared "like a whole performance." Their initial skepticism may also have stemmed from events of the Hamidian massacres and Armenian Genocide where Armenian women were known to have been subjected to such acts by the Muslim Turks of the Ottoman Empire. One of these refugees, for example, was later identified not as the "peaceful resident of [sic] Kafan he made himself out to be; instead he was a convicted recidivist, now a sponger, with no permanent address...and no family whatsoever."''

I realize you are upset over the archived discussions, but we need to stick with the NPOV rules of inclusion of positions.--TigranTheGreat 22:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

We don't need to quote the Georgian. I really see no need to include this in so much detail. Something along the lines of: However, some of these allegations were discounted by witnesses as fabrications, charging the speechmakers as provocateurs, at least one individual was falsely identified as being a refugee.

- FrancisTyers · 22:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The fact that a Georgian refuted the allegations is clearly important--this wasn't just the biased Armenians who disbelieved the allegations. And the details of the response are important as well--it tells what was wrong with the accusations, i.e. they said that "the whole thing looked like a performance." It's an opinion. Since when are we excluding opinions just because we dislike them?--TigranTheGreat 23:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * A single Georgian. Give me a break. Georgians are christians, perhaps he had a point to score. Quoting a single non-notable guy is a no-no. Find a way of shortening it and re-wording it. - FrancisTyers · 23:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps he did, perhaps he didn't. Why not include the opinion, and let the readers judge? He is a witness--I am not sure he is non-notable. I don't think we reword opinions on Wiki, that's unheard of--we report them.--TigranTheGreat 23:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Fine, leave it out then. And that isn't all we do on Wikipedia. We don't have "according to Adolf Hitler, erstwhile tyrant and instigator of the Holocaust, 'the Jew is a blight upon the Ayran race'" in the Holocaust or Jewish people article. You can write this without saying in effect "Azerbaijani and Turkish muslims like to mutilate breasts", and we can write it without saying "Azerbaijanis accused Armenians of mutilating breasts". We can say something more general, and you can work it out :) By the way, looking at the article it would benefit from a couple of maps if you have them to hand. - FrancisTyers · 00:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The Georgians haven't been on the best of terms with us Armenians, Francis. If anything their relations with Azerbaijan are very close and cordial despite the religous difference. I'm not sure about other Armenians living elsewhere, but calling the Georgians our "Christian brothers" in Armenia was viewed as a joke. Most of the witnesses in the book said they didn't believe that was happening but its ok, we'll reword it and will add a map of the city's blocks.--MarshallBagramyan 00:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Precisely, the fact that a Georgian is making that statement is even more important. Religion has NEVER been a factor in the Azeri-Armenian conflict and Geoorgia has always been more pro-Azeri not because they are anti-Armenian but because it's in their best interest.--Eupator 03:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Update:How's the quote by SI now?--MarshallBagramyan 00:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I don’t find reliable any quote from a propaganda book, released by Armenian authors. It is not a reliable source by wiki rules. According to the rules, the sources should have no bias, or the info should be verified by sources who have their biases at cross-purposes, i.e. if Armenian and Azeri sources agree on something, such info can be included. The way those quotes are presented shows that they have no reliability whatsoever. Obvious racist quote by a “Georgian” witness, who I doubt ever existed, truckloads with alcohol and drugs, etc, the whole point of this collection of “witness” testimonies is anti-Azeri propaganda. Therefore all the incredible stories can be found there. I suggest removing any references to Shahmuratian book, otherwise the article will have no credibility. The same goes for Caroline Cox, a notable Armenian lobbyist in British parliament. The article should be based on really independent and reliable sources. Grandmaster 05:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Once again, Shahmuratian’s book is compiled by Zorian institute, and the way they advertise the book speaks for itself. Quote: These events marked the beginning of a premeditated plan to depopulate Azerbaijan of Armenians, and eventually of Russians and Jews. It is a common knowledge that currently hundreds of thousands of Russians and Jews live in Azerbaijan, so it is a deliberate lie. And how there could be any premeditated plan in 1988, within the Soviet Union, when conflict began just a few days before? This source is a propaganda tool, and cannot be used in this article. Grandmaster 05:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Tigran and Marshall keep changing the quote from Svate Sornell and replace it with a following line: In the month before, it was reported that Azerbaijanis were already leaving Armenia. This is not acceptable, as the wording is weasel, and it creates an illusion that there were no refugees, and only rumors about them, while the source they refer to (de Waal) makes it clear that there were indeed refugees from Armenia, and many of them settled in Sumgait. Cornell and Gorbachev foundation say the same. Despite this, the quote is being changed to some weasel wording. Also, Marhsal, the rules say nothing about unacceptability of verbatim quoting, it is not a plagiarism, as you cite your source, and don’t attribute it to yourself, and there’s nothing wrong with directly quoting a line or two from a reliable source. Grandmaster 07:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Verbatim copy is copyright violation. It also violates NPOV rules--the article seems to adopt all the hidden and unhidden POV's of the words in the author's statement. As to Cornell, we already included information from better 2 sources--Gorby and De Waal, and they are less pro-azeri then cornell. We don't need to keep adding on the Kapan events--otherwise this article is becoming about Kapan than Sumgait. What it says about Kapan is enough--unless you want us to put extensive discussion of Sumgait or Maragha on the Khojalu page.--TigranTheGreat 07:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Marshall distorted both de Waal and Gorby, and changed them to weasel phrasing. And show me the exact rule that prohibits verbatim quoting. Cornell is a lot more neutral that Shahmuratian or Cox. Grandmaster 09:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Marshall, the article looks much better. Thanks. Regarding the sources, it would be better if you didn't use the Shahmuratian book, but I don't have the time to convince you. - FrancisTyers · 08:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Relax GM, you sound as if you're stepping off the boundaries of a map here. The acts of Sumgait reminisced and paralleled the Armenian Genocide which is the reason why the ZI gives the somewhat hyperbolic summary. In any case, most of the statements by the Sumgait witnesses are backed by the Soviet depositions during the hearings of autumn 1988, by newspaper reports that went beyond the regurgitative mess repeated by the government, by investigative journalists and government leaders written in their books, and hence this provides much more unique insight than anyone else could have. If we trotted down the line like GM's, we wouldn't have a very helpful article at all. Furthermore, despite the fact of how many minorities live in Azerbaijan now, the situation was tense after Sumgait, especially between Russians and Azerbaijanis as evidenced by journalists immediately after the event as Glasnost writer Andrei Shilkov noted:


 * "Shilkov said he noticed that tensions between Azerbaijanis and ethnic Russians were so high in the city that members of the two nationalities stood in separate lines at stores and bus stops." Washington Post, March 12 1988


 * But that's besides the point, much of the information comes corrborated by non-Armenians and I just find it funny that you even now you question the witnesses' existence. Sorry to say, but just because you reject the use of a source doesn't mean we have to. If more than 3-4 sources say the same thing (lets leave aside the alcohol and drugs since none of that is ever said to be true, just alleged, big difference) then we cannot reject the source just because you claim its not credible. Francis, the source is more than aptly qualified to be used on Wikipedia, the publishers have nothing to do with writing the book, the editor provides a 10 page summary in the beginning and we don't seem him after the show either, its not like this was a publication by the Reich Ministry Inc. on "Jews who slaughtered Germans in the quiet little villa town of Stuttgart".--MarshallBagramyan 18:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * This line is simply fantastic in its incredibility:


 * Forewarnings by Azerbaijanis sympathetic to their Armenian neighbors instructed them to leave their lights on the night of the 27th; those who shut it off were assumed to be Armenian. According to several Armenian witnesses and later on several Soviet military personnel, alcohol and anasha, an Azeri term referring to narcotics such as opium, were also reported to have been brought in trucks and distributed to the Azeri crowds however, such accounts remained unconfirmed by media reports.


 * In the beginning of the article it says that the city had more than 200 000 population. How is it possible to identify Armenians by such methods? This means that every Azeri was an accomplice of the attackers and hundreds of thousands people left the lights on to reveal Armenians?! Truckloads of narcotics and alcohol is another fairy tale by Shahmuratian. There should have been a really large narcoindustry in the USSR to have narcotics delivered in truckloads. But as a person who grew up in the USSR I know very well that Soviets severely punished for possession of even a very small amount of drugs. Where did they grow them and how did they transport them on the roads full of police and military? Obviously, Shahmuratian’s witness testimonies have an apparent purpose to demonstrate that the attacks were organized by local authorities and therefore all those incredible stories were invented. Grandmaster 12:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If you have problems with the witness accounts, you need to provide a source that rebukes them, nopbody will object to that. Your personal opinion is irrelevant and inappropriate.--Eupator 14:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I could introduce many experiences I had in the USSR but I don't include them in article's because that's borderline original research. Your saying so that you never encountered such things or that it would seem unlikely to happen in the USSR doesn't necessarily disprove them. And again, the editor of the work includes his opinion on the piece but the burden of proof lies upon you when you begin accusing him of not only being an author of the witness accounts, but also adulterating them to "spice things up". This was originally published in 1989 in Russian in the Soviet Union. It seems illogical that if they wanted to fool somebody that they would immediately target the very people who knew how their country worked and operated. Doesn't make sense to conjure up seemingly implausible stories when the majority of them are not even going to believe it.--MarshallBagramyan 18:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Armenians were identified, among other ways, by making them pronounce Azeri words (which they did with an accent). Even De Waal mentions this.--TigranTheGreat 00:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Archive
I archived the page because the cultural intolerance and borderline ethnic hatred were making me upset. Please keep it off Wikipedia. - FrancisTyers · 13:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Protected
I've fully protected this. Talk everything out here. Yank sox  05:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm just waiting for GM to substantiate his claims with sources. Constantly referencing to his life in the USSR and then talking about probabilities of what may or not have happend back then is not enough to place the label if sources do not back up his arguments. His arguments against using two of the books are twofold: 1)when referencing to Sumgait Tragedy he claims that the editor had some hand in adulterating the witnesses' entries and to back this up he uses the above argument 2)any circumstances that seem extremely unlikely are treated as allegations not facts and 3)all arguments against using Caroline Cox's book are rendered moot as their statements are backed up by a plethora of sources: statements given by government officials and prosecutors, by witnesses depositories to the Soviet Supreme Court hearings on trial for the men, by journalists who traveled to the region, by major and reputable newspapers and other media, and by several other books. I'm waiting for refutations besides confusing an editor with an author and calling a book a "propaganda work" based solely off the summary given by its publishers. --MarshallBagramyan 21:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You know that according to the rules the sources should have no bias, or you can include information, agreed upon by the sources that have their biases at cross-purposes. Shahmuratian and Cox are not neutral sources, and you cannot rely on them as a source of info for this article and claim neutrality. With regard to Cox I posted some very interesting info on Khojaly massacre talk. I will repost it here to give the reader an understanding of who this person is. She’s very well known as a Christian fundamentalist, lobbying the interests of Armenia in the British parliament. Here's another prominent Armenian lobbyist US congressman Frank Pallone praising his colleague at a party, organized by the Armenian diaspora and attended by the leader of NK separatists Arkady Ghoukassian:


 * 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 Karabagh, and paid tribute to Baroness Cox as a "true Armenian nationalist who would give her life for Armenia and Karabagh."


 * It should also be noted that Cox is “Honorary Citizen of Karabagh”, head of Armenian-British Friendship Group in British parliament (lobbying certain interests), and she said at the same meeting that “Karabagh is holy Armenian land”, etc. Doesn’t sound too neutral, does it?


 * Here's more about her neutrality:


 * She is also quite islamophobic: "Islam is not inherently a religion of peace," Caroline Cox said. Nonetheless, "we have to give the hand of friendship to moderate Muslims."


 * Now if you think that “true Armenian nationalist” Cox is a good source for such a controversial topic, I beg to differ. The article should rely on unbiased authoritative sources, until that is not done, you cannot claim that it is neutral. Grandmaster 07:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You're misconstruing the rules GM. If every source used on Wikipedia was not supposed to have "bias" (a nearly impossible feat someone cannot even claim) you would find completely empty articles, unsourced articles because very few books are written without having an adherence to one side. "Biased" sources are used throughout Wikipedia in more articles than I care to count. Furthermore, CSI (because it was the organization that wrote this book, not solely Cox and Eibner, another misrepresentation on your part) most probably founded that excerpt in a media report since no one besides Soviet journalists were able to travel to the town and only brief conversations were held with the Western media. It was well known what was being done to women in Sumgait as also reported in the Soviet Supreme Court trials in November 1988. Are you now not only disputing the source but also the facts (that were confirmed by not only journalists and witnesses but also government leaders and even Katusev himself)?


 * Shahmuratian may not be "neutral" but he certainly is, and I repeating this for the nth time, not the author of this work, he's the editor, the compiler, the spell-checker, the tidiness monitor of the accounts. Editors usually contribute next to nothing when writing a book, that's why you see the demarcation "Ed." after his name in the "References" section, they may include a blurb such as their opinions of the work they are presenting but you have got to differentiate the difference between "editor" and "author". I have no doubt Shahmuratian has one side he particularly adheres to. But I'm not quoting Shahmuratian's words GM, I'm quoting what the witnesses whom Shahmuratian probably never even met and most of whom never even heard of him. You're confusing an author of a work with an editor. Unless you want to start poking more holes in the witnesses' testimonies, you can cease exaggerating Shahmuratian's role in the book.--MarshallBagramyan 18:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Completely agree, sources don't have to be neutral, providing they are properly attributed. However, saying this, on controversial articles, non-partisan sources should be preferred where possible, and over reliance on a partisan source could lead to the accusation of "Undue weight". - FrancisTyers · 18:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * See: Reliable sources - FrancisTyers · 18:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I wholeheartedly agree with you Francis and that's why the accounts that were reported in the news and by journalists who went there (rioting, murder, rape, physical damage done to buildings, inactivity by the police) are referenced with even more detailed accounts that the Soviet media was forbidden to divulge. The Sumgait Tragedy is being used primarily to give more in depth details about the attacks.--MarshallBagramyan 22:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, what is the Azerbaijani government position on this matter. Their point of view should probably be heard too. I presume they have some kind of denialist thing going, like the Armenians with Khojaly. - FrancisTyers · 22:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not entirely sure of how things are currently but, for example, 6-7 months after Sumgait, this reaction was gauged by The New York Times in August 31:


 * "The older Armenian men who used to outnumber Azerbaijanis at the spirited backgammon game in the city park that overlooks the Caspian sea no longer come, said the men assembled there this Sunday.


 * These events cost me half my Armenian friends, said Khilal Verdiyev, 63, a teacher at the local chemical institute. ''Some of them were frightened away. Some just feel ashamed to show their faces because they know the trouble was provoked by the Armenian side.


 * It is accepted wisdom among Sumgait's Azerbaijani majority that the riots Feb. 27, 28 and 29 were deliberately contrived by Armenian extremists in order to discredit Azerbaijan in the battle for the world's sympathy." From "Riot's Legacy of Distrust Quietly Stalks a Soviet City" NY Times, August 31, 1988.


 * Its not entirely a denialist position but more or less, a "he started it". And conspiracy theories range from everything between full-orchestrated genocide (a view held by some Armenians) to an attempt made by the KGB to discredit Gorbachev's perestroika reforms and similar allegations that the CIA was behind it. The former was actually quite plausible since the Soviet government attempted to curb the nationalist movement in Latvia in 1989 by doing such a thing by using provacateurs to foment anger against the nationalists there.--MarshallBagramyan 00:17, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The notable and verifiable views in this camp should probably be included. - FrancisTyers · 08:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the above points by Francis and Marshall. All sources have bias--there is no rule to exclude them. As for Shahmuratyan, he is relied upon for the statements of the Armenian victims, so it should be allowable.

A few more points. Yes, it's preferable to rely on non-partisan sources rather than partisan ones (like Armenian and Azeri sources), but Cox is not a partisan source. Despite GM's attempts to paint Cox a Christian Fundamentalist (which is new), she is a notable human rights defender (in addition to being a prominent member of the British parliament--actually last time I heard she was the head of the House of Lords). Just because she assists repressed Christians doesn't make her an agent of Armenia. GM's last link about Cox' "islamophobia" is taken from a comment by some individual contributor, so it can't be taken reliably. The first source has several layers of reliability issues--it is taken from an Armenian website which GM would never use, the statements further are the statements of a US politician, whose interpretation is not fact. Calling someone "Armenian nationalist" could be a compliment in recognition of her attempts to defend the rights of an oppressed nationality. And the middle link provided by GM merely shows that Armenia's president gave an award to Cox in recognition of her contributions to British-Armenian relations and and her contributions to assist the humanitarian needs of oppressed minority (i.e. NK Armenians). Again, she is a philanthropist and a human rights activist, and that doesn't make her a partisan of the Armenian side.

By the way, Cornell, whom GM tried to use, has received awards from the Azeri government, and has connections with Turkey and Azerbaijan. Yet, GM claimed that those thigns do not make him pro-Azeri. It's odd that he now changes his logic when applied to Cox. Here is more on Cornell:


 * "He also holds a B.Sc. with High Honor in International Relations from the Middle East Technical University in Ankara, Turkey. Prior to that, he obtained his Baccalaureat from the Lycee Charles de Gaulle in Ankara, Turkey. His research on the Caucasus was recognized in 1999 by the Behmenyar Institute of Law and Philosophy of the National Academy of Sciences of Azerbaijan, which awarded him an honorary Doctoral Degree. Previously, Dr. Cornell taught at the Royal Swedish Military Academy and in 2002-2003 served as the Course Chair of Caucasus Area Studies at the Foreign Service Institute of the U.S. Department of State. He is fluent in Swedish, English, French, Turkish, and Azeri"

His biography also shows strong interest in issues of Caspian oil and connections with the oil industry.--TigranTheGreat 00:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It is one thing to present Armenian and Azeri views on this issue, which definitely should be done, and another thing to base the article on the view of one if the sides only. The article in general should be based on neutral sources, which have no bias and take no sides in the dispute. I agree with Francis that it is a more preferable approach. And a millionth time I have to repeat that we cannot use Shahmuratian and Cox as sources for this article. We can’t rely on Shahmuratian rendition of witness testimonies, as his book was complied solely for propaganda purposes, it is enough to see the advertisement of the institution he represents. If the testimonies are collected by someone like HRW or Memorial, they would be a lot more reliable, as those organizations have no interest in misrepresenting the facts. But even in that case one should bear in mind that witnesses tend to exaggerate the things and present their fantasies as facts. Even if assume that Shahmuratian’s rendition of testimonies is correct, they contain so many incredible and outright stupid or racist claims, that they cannot be taken seriously. So it is better to rely on the opinion of someone who analyzed those testimonies and passed his own judgment on what indeed happened. And also check this one: Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence and this one: Check multiple sources.


 * As for Cox, why she never ever traveled to Azerbaijan and never received any awards from the Azerbaijani government, if she's only a philantropist who helps victims of the conflict? Why she’s not an “honorary citizen” of Baku? And if someone says that “Islam is not inherently a religion of peace”, she obviously has an anti-Muslim bias. Plus, the fact that this person was referred to as a “true Armenian nationalist” at a meeting, attended only by the Armenian Diaspora and Armenian lobbyists and received a standing ovation for that speaks for itself. She did not even try to deny it. Such a person or organization headed by her cannot be presented as neutral sources.


 * As for Cornell, his bias is not evident, and the quote that I included is supported by de Waal and Gorbachev foundation. Despite this, certain editors tried to replace the quote by some weasel wording. I will present on Monday a full quote from de Waal about refugees from Kafan. If you are not happy with Cornell, use de Waal instead. You can quote Gorby foundation verbatim as well, without weaseling its words. Grandmaster 19:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The article in general should be based on neutral sources, which have no bias and take no sides in the dispute. Its virtually impossible to find such sources on any wide array of subjects. The Iraq War, stem cells, the Israeli-Lebanon conflict all have sources that are biased in some way. Nearly every person who writes a book, a news article, or a report has some bias no matter how "unbiased" their wording sounds. Francis never said that the sources should be neutral and unbiased but stipulated that we shouldn't rely on one definitive source for everything, which I am not doing because I am cross-referencing details with other sources before presenting them as facts. Looking through the article, it seems most things (rape, murder, massive rallies, attacks against troops, inactivity of police, presented as facts, not allegations) used from Shahmuratian's book is confirmed from individual accounts, news reports, government officials, and other sources. He stated: "Completely agree, sources don't have to be neutral, providing they are properly attributed. However, saying this, on controversial articles, non-partisan sources should be preferred where possible, and over reliance on a partisan source could lead to the accusation of "Undue weight"." Very big difference between what you're saying and what Francis is saying. And once again, the main investigator of the book was not Cox, but the organization Christian Solidarity Worldwide, which went to the region after the USSR broke up.


 * But even in that case one should bear in mind that witnesses tend to exaggerate the things and present their fantasies as facts. Using that wisdom, we can easily discredit everything said by the witnesses at Khojaly, at Jenin (even though that was discredited), at Qana (1996 and 2006), etc. etc. because there is of course, after all, the possibility that they simply "exaggerated" the details to HRW, AI, or Memorial. If we're going to measure everything with your yardstick, we might as well begin from Khojaly.


 * Even if assume that Shahmuratian’s rendition of testimonies is correct, they contain so many incredible and outright stupid or racist claims, that they cannot be taken seriously. That's your own interpretation and opinion which has no place on Wikipedia. Present the facts to discredit the witnesses' claims, otherwise that claim cannot be said to have been true everywhere else. If racism was really pronounced in the book, all mention, literally all mention of the "kind khnamis" who sheltered the Armenians would have been removed and anything nice being said about them would not be in the book.


 *  As for Cornell, his bias is not evident. You're playing a game of double standards by using sources that suit your own needs. If we had an American with similar credentials who could speak Armenian and hold honorary degrees from Armenian universities, you would instantly label him as someone who is "pro-Armenian" and thus unusable.--MarshallBagramyan 02:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * How can organization called Christian Solidarity be an unbiased observer in this conflict, especially considering that it is headed by a “true Armenian nationalist”? As for witness accounts, I did not use them at Khojaly massacre article. But still there’s a big difference between HRW and Memorial and partisan sources like Cox and Shahmuratian. HRW and other similar organizations work on both sides of the conflict, something you cannot say about Cox and CSI. Therefore the conclusions they make are based on the analysis of both sides of the story, which makes them a lot more credible than partisan sources like Cox. Grandmaster 09:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Good points. Plus, the allegations of GM about Cox are taken from unreliable sources (i.e. sources that he otherwise wouldn't use--an Armenian website, private postings by individuals etc), so right now they are not worthy of discussion. When he finds reliable sources to support his accusations against Cox, then we will discuss why they don't matter. --TigranTheGreat 03:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Red Cross is also known as Red Crescent, but Christian Solidarity is not also known as Muslim Solidarity. Big difference. They never worked on the Azerbaijani side, while HRW and Memorial worked on both sides. And if you consider that CSI is headed by a “true Armenian nationalist”, then what credibility can such an organization have? Now whatever you want to include in the article should come from a reliable source, and partisan sources like Shahmuratian and Cox cannot be considered such. You say that certain information is confirmed by other sources, if it is so, then why don’t you use them instead of Shahmuratian and Cox? It creates an impression that you have a certain purpose in using partisan sources. Use sources with no bias, and you’ll have a more reliable report. I could also use in the article about Khojaly witness testimonies published in Baku, but you wouldn’t like that, would you? Grandmaster 04:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Working in Azerbaijan or not does not make it one of the prerequisites of being allowed on to the article. I don't use other sources because while they affirm the facts, they do not dwell any deeper into the matter. They don't have any knowledge of the city, of the chaotic situation on the streets, of what happend minute by minute because they were never allowed to travel to Sumgait like HRW and Memorial were at Khojaly. I use Shahmuratian's book because the aforementioned facts listed above are explained in greater and more precise detail and provide the reader a much more compelling version of the events than the media's boring, casual and nonchalant tone which usually stated: "31 die in seaside city in USSR". That doesn't tell a reader anything and creates a misleading tone on what was actually occuring. Furthermore, if I was to use De Waal's book for example, would you be more content if I simply substituted what the Armenians said with the book despite the fact that his very own citations come straight from Sumgait Tragedy? Or is that where double standards begin? Numerous other books which you might initially consider as neutral also use citations from Sumgait Tragedy, if I do decide to use them will you accept me using their citations or will you oppose it?


 * Khojaly was presented in the media in a much more graphic manner because journalists were free to visit there and reported the accounts verbatim. Using the witnesses' statements would become a moot point because I found dozens of newspaper articles that said same thing that you say was published in Baku. Where do you think I found the quotes of scalping, mutilation, burns on the NK War page? From only newspapers? Right now, a reader would gain a better understanding reading the NK War page, the position of the Armenian government, and context on Khojaly than the article itself.


 * Being completely unbiased was never a prerequisite to qualifying on Wikipedia, you know that. Instead of constantly labeling the book one name after another, present sources to dispute the testimonies. I just listed all the controversial going ons of the event and they are more than amply verified which give even more credence to using Sumgait Tragedy. This is a needlessly tedious debate that's been going around in circles.--MarshallBagramyan 06:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You know that another requirement is that exceptional claims need exceptional evidence and you are advised to cross-reference the claims from various sources. In that case it is highly doubtful you could include incredible claims about truckloads of dope in the article. And by cross-reference I don’t mean cross-referencing Shahmuratian to Cox, but to someone indeed credible. Even the rules say that “Sometimes it is better to have no information at all than to have information without sources”. Reliable sources. If you used credible references, we would not have this debate at all. Grandmaster 07:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * That's why you should check above, the mentioning of drugs are not presented as facts but allegations, they come from some witnesses in Sumgait Tragedy and some Armenian sources which probably quote them. Seeing how it is not presented as a fact but just something (that I even said was unconfirmed in the media) mentioned by witnesses, there's little need for argument here. Other articles explore and present in equal value different and sometimes outrageous theories behind controversial events; for example, on the the September 11 and John F. Kennedy pages, why should this one be any different and why should we exclude the information? The source is there.--MarshallBagramyan 17:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Because we should make a credible article, it concerns Armenian - Azeri troubled relations. Allegations should also have some credibilty. Also, the main problem here is that your article relies for the most part on partisan sources, which is not acceptable. Grandmaster 05:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, you still skirted behind my question. If I was to use De Waal or some other author who relies on Sumgait Tragedy as a source for their citations about the pogrom, would you accept them as valid sources despite that fact? that even though, when reading the book, their their authors would be considered "neutral" and "impartial"? So far its only you who considers the book as unreliabe and adulterated. If many authors are using Sumgait Tragedy as sources in their books, then what else is left to argue over here? The publication is widely credible and as far as I know, none of the testimonies have been tampered with so as to embellish and sensationalize the accuracy of the accounts. Otherwise, the burden of proof falls upon you to prove that the allegations were false. Citing your past experience in the USSR isn't enough. Given the secret nature of the USSR and the manner it managed news, I wouldn't be surprised, and as many authors stated, if details were explicitly omitted by the government.

The articles I cited above you use sources that sometimes don't even have little to no credibility yet they exist merely to present the claims. Its obvious us bickering here has done little to solve the issues and that's why I have been asking for 3rd party participation since Francis left. --MarshallBagramyan 17:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Once again, Grandmaster makes up rules that aren't there. There is no requirement for allegations to be credible--that's the point of attributing them to witnesses (be it Armenian or Azeri). The threshold in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth--we there is evidence against the witness testimonies, we include that evidence, instead of excluding the allegation. Ironically, GM himself hasn't used a single credible source to back his accusations against Cox. Which makes any debate over his accuations meaningless, until he comes up with credible sources.--TigranTheGreat 03:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok...
Sorry for coming here late, I didn't see the message on my talk. Look, let's (again, just for a new clarified discussion) list sections and segments that we disagree on and see if we can reach a compromise on it. Yank sox  20:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, your presence is always helpful since we've been caught in a deadlock for weeks now. I cut a sizeable chunk from several posts above of what is basically an "issues list". Essentially, it contains the most important facts/points in the article:


 * Issue:Murder
 * Corroboration:Sumgait Tragedy (as in witnesses), media reports, contemporary articles and journals, books, Black Garden, government officials, books on Soviet Union, official hearings of accused men in Soviet Supreme Court, CSI (Christian Solidarity Intl.)
 * Presented in article as: Fact


 * Issue: Rape/Sexual abuse
 * Corroboration: Sumgait Tragedy, media reports, contemporary articles and journals, Black Garden, government officials, books on Soviet Union, official hearings of accused men in Soviet Supreme Court, CSI
 * Presented in article as: Fact


 * Issue: Vandalism, looting, physical property damage, breaking in houses, destroying cars
 * Corroboration: Sumgait Tragedy, media reports, Black Garden, government officials, Soviet journalists, books about the Soviet Union, official hearings of accused men in Soviet Supreme Court, CSI
 * Presented in article as: Fact


 * Issue: Distribution of alcohol, drugs
 * Corroboration: Sumgait Tragedy, Armenian related sources
 * Presented in article as: Allegation (widely unconfirmed)


 * Issue: Sharp, metal instruments used in attacks
 * Corroboration: Sumgait Tragedy, Black Garden, official hearings of accused men in Soviet Supreme Court, books about the Soviet Union
 * Presented in article as: Fact


 * Issue: Soldiers being attacked, Soviet military vehicles attacked/destroyed, chaos unable to be harnessed by troops initially
 * Corroboration: Sumgait Tragedy, Black Garden, Soviet journalist reports, books about the Soviet Union, government leaders
 * Presented in article as: Fact


 * Issue: Kapan refugees arriving in Sumgait
 * Corroboration: Black Garden, Gorby Foundation, Svante
 * Presented in article as: not presented, grounded enough by other sources to be so as fact


 * Issue: Stories of mutilation of Kapan refugees
 * Corroboration: As per above
 * Presented in article as: presented as allegation, but refuted by Soviet media and witnesses


 * Issue: Shoddiness of Soviet media / limited coverage
 * Corroboration:Black Garden, books about the Soviet Union, generally well-known, common sense fact, analyses on USSR by other authors
 * Presented in article as: Fact


 * The main point that Grandmaster argues against is the book The Sumgait Tragedy which is more of a collection of depositions that give in depth, detailed accounts of the attacks that most books and media sources failed to dwell on. The book itself has been used numerous times as a reference source for the event including very extensively in one of the books that's used in the article (Black Garden, De Waal, Thomas) and which oddly enough, Grandmaster has no objections to using. He says the book is not credible despite the fact that other books written about the event have also, similarly, heavily relied on the witnsses' testimonies.


 * The editor of the book is Armenian although Grandmaster misconstrues this to mean that he wrote the book which is obviously something an editor does not do. The publisher of the book (again, not an author) offers a somewhat hyperbolic summary on its webpage although this has more to to with an antecedant that took place several decades ago rather than an intentional, sensationalistic headline. I can most probably work around GM's protestations against using CSI but his calls for removing Sumgait Tragedy as propaganda book suffers from 1)a lack of evidence to prove it and 2)defeats itself when seeing how extensively and heavily its been used by reputable authors.--MarshallBagramyan 00:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The main problem with this article is that it relies on partisan sources, such as Shahmuratian and Cox. That clearly contradicts the rules. So I suggested using reliable sources, which the arguing party is reluctant to do. Grandmaster 05:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You're making up your own rules GM. Those "partisan" sources are backed up by more than enough evidence to counter any claims made against them. Again, you have adduced virtually nothing to otherwise disprove their claims which is why these talks have largely stalled. The Sumgait Tragedy has been used in many books and its credibility has been well grounded. I have asked you repeatedly, again, would you continue to ask for "impartial" books on the event even if they cited Sumgait Tragedy in their works cited list? Would you be more complacent if I replaced several of the ST citations in the article with De Waal's book despite the fact he uses ST several times in his works cited? Again, we keep running in circles over superficial, petty complaints held up by just one person.--MarshallBagramyan 06:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't see "Hamidan massacres" or truckloads of narcotics being backed by any neutral sources. You can quote de Waal, as he's neutral, but not partisan sources you rely on. At least de Waal did not repeat any incredible claims from Shahmuratian that you included in the article. Even Francis reccomended you not to use this book, but you still keep on insisting that you should use it. Grandmaster 07:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

When will you understand, Shahmuratian didn't write the book. I conceded to remove that piece and reword it after Francis asked me to but the remark on the shipment of drugs will remain, and will be represented as an allegation. Furthermore, while his recommendation is valued, it doesn't necessarily mean I cannot use it. This is what is so confusing and contradictory, you are alrite with using De Waal (and other authors' books) despite him using Sumgait Tragedy as a source simply because he does not repeat some claims (which hardly means anything) yet at the same exact time, you ask for the removal of the book entirely. The double standards and the contradictory statements is what has entirely stopped any progress being made on this article. You repeatedly fail to present sources to counter their claims which does not give credence to attaching a fact tag on it. --MarshallBagramyan 17:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't have to present anything. It is your responsibility to come up with reputable sources. Shahmuratian is not such a source, de Waal is. Did you manage to cross-reference truckloads of drugs from any other source? If not, why such claims should be included in the article, even as allegations? Grandmaster 07:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Uh, yes you do. So far, its only you who has been contesting what the witnesses have said yet at the same time not providing any sources to back up the argument. Just because other sources omit any mention of drugs or alcohol for that matter, that is if there were any, doesn't necessarily disprove it. The logic itself is a fallacy, I am not making these claims without a source but repeating what the witnesses said (and keep in mind, "without credence" and "unreputable" have so far been your unsupported opinions on the book, many authors have used it as a source for the events, some for example, concluding the event was "systematic" and the casualties much higher). If you find it so compellingly untruthful, then by all means, prove them wrong by showing the sources; the burden of proof is on you.--MarshallBagramyan 20:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Mediation?
Hi all. Marshall asked if I could check out this page, and since I didn't really have anything better to do...well, anyways, can someone explain to me what the main problems here are? Apparently it has to do with sources being biased. As Francis said, the sources don't necessarily have to be neutral as long as they are attributed properly. My idea is that for the disputed parts of this article we say something like, "according to Armenian sources..." and then have the next sentence provide the Azerbaijani point of view (or vice versa). I don't care what the sources are as long as they are verifiable.

Anyways, perhaps someone could tell me what the main issues are. &mdash; Khoikhoi 04:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Khoi, thanks for being here. Scroll up to the section that follows the "issues, corroboration, presented in article format" just below Yank's comments .--MarshallBagramyan 04:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Alright, I've read it over. Let's begin with the first issue, "Murder". I suggest that the parts taken from Sumgait Tragedy be rephrased to "according to Sumgait Tragedy...". Are there any other problems with the murder issue? &mdash; Khoikhoi 04:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well its not quite the book per se that's saying this but the witnesses themselves. I don't think I used any witnesses talking about murder but namely: the riots, the belatedness of police and hospitals, the breaking into homes, and the MVD having difficulting containing the riots. Otherwise including murder does not need much reference since its the most well known fact of the event.--MarshallBagramyan 06:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Are the witnesses Armenian, Azeri, or both? Notice in the Great Fire of Smyrna article (before it got messed up) that it has referenes to witnesses such as George Horton, who said the Turks started the fire. Also mentioned in the article is a missionary that said it was the Armenians' fault. &mdash; Khoikhoi 19:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * A majority of them are Armenians from Sumgait but they also include several Russians and at least one Georgian (I haven't checked for any Azeri-sounding names). I think there is an overall consensus of who started the pogrom, how and what they did, and how it ended. Newspapers interviewing Azeris in the city several months later said they felt that Armenians brought the violence upon themselves (namely, the claims for Karabakh). At least one Armenian (half-Armenian) was said (not sure if he was indicted) to have participated in the attacks although his role is largely said to have had nothing to do with the Armenians but more or less likened to the acts of a recidivist.--MarshallBagramyan 20:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * So, what I think is that the ethnicity of the witnesses should be specified, as as I said earlier, they should be Armenian and Azeri (and the Georgian person might be interesting). As the article stands, I can't seem to find anything about the Azeri witnesses in the city. Did I miss it? &mdash; Khoikhoi 20:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't there is any denial syndrome amongst Azeris on what happend. I have a book that records two accounts of Azerbaijanis speaking during the Soviet Supreme Court hearings detailing the violence but I'm thinking of using them later on in the article. I think most of them are specified prior to reading the block quotes but asides from listing their obviously Armenian names in the footnotes, I wouldn't have any problem with that. About the Georgian, he was actually mentioned in the article (although I added some info that Francis said constituted OR) but GM said that not only was his testimony not reliable but that he thought he was a " racist...who I doubt ever existed". :( --MarshallBagramyan 20:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, to avoid getting into too much trouble I think having just Armenian & Azeri witnesses will do. We should probably wait for GM now... &mdash; Khoikhoi 21:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, I'll go along with that.--MarshallBagramyan 22:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, Khoikhoi, there are no Azeri witness testimonies. This was a crime committed by Azeris against Armenians, so it's clear that almost all testimonies are going to be from Armenians. Just because lack of Azeri witness testimonies, we shouldn't exclude the Armenian testomonies. The Khojalu article has no testimony from the Armenian side. The fact here is that facts mentioned by Armenian witnesses are confirmed by non-Armenian secondary sources (which Marshall thoroughly listed). The only problem is that Armenian testimonies provide much greater detail, which is needed for a good encyclopedic article.--TigranTheGreat 03:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, but the Azeri view doesn't have to be presented via the Azeri witnesses (that don't exist), it can be presented in a different form. Take your pick. &mdash; Khoikhoi 03:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm just curious what sort of view from the Azeris are you looking for? --MarshallBagramyan 21:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * What do you mean? Their view on the massacre, of course. Isn't the issue here about (alleged) bias in the sources? I recall GM saying that this article mostly depends on Armenian sources. For the murder, I reccomend something like:


 * "Armenian witnesses claim that ____. Azeri sources reject this, and assert that ___. &mdash; Khoikhoi 04:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is about bias but still, I don't think there is any denial amongst Azeris that those crimes did take place. The worst form of any denial comes through some historians who claim that the event was provoked by Armenians to garner intl. sympathy. The stories of rape, murder, and pillaging was widely covered by both the Soviet and intl. press. There is only one Armenian source used in the article and their stories pretty much corroborate was reported by the media. Many Azeris, Russians, and even Lezgins took part in rescuing or hiding Armenians. The only claim I attributed to Armenian witnesses was that there were drugs and alcohol present during the riots but their claims were never confirmed and remained allegations. I do include a tidbit that the Soviet media usually "softened" up which would explain why it wasn't covered but it remains an allegation nonetheless.--MarshallBagramyan 05:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The problem with the article is that it is based on what the Armenians said. Armenians (or was that the “Georgian” guy?) said that Christians don’t commit certain types of crimes, and that was included in the article, despite the claim being stupid and outright racist. In the end after a long debate that part was removed by Francis. Armenians said that narcotics were brought in and distributed in truckloads, and that is also in the article, though it is said that it is an allegation. How can an article that claims neutrality present rumors (even as allegations) from the Armenian sources, which cannot be verified from any neutral or Azeri source? The rules of wikipedia recommend to cross-reference the info from different sources:


 * With any source, multiple independent confirmation is one good guideline to reliability, if several sources have independently checked a fact or assertion, then it is more reliable than one which is not checked.


 * I don’t see it being done anywhere in this article. Also see: Grandmaster 13:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * GM, we didn't need a Georgian to say that they didn't believe what the Kapan refugees were stating (Armenian and Russian witnesses expressed the same incredulity). His statements and other witnesses' statements were reaffirmed by the article from SI not to mention the allegations of "boxcars of Azeri corpses" supposedly arriving in the hundreds from Nagorno-Karabakh were enough to disbelieve the claims.


 * Armenians were the ones being attacked. Naturally, one would interview a victim first before they went up to the murderer and question them right after they killed someone. During the Supreme Court hearings, three such men on trial all claimed that they simply had seen the violent acts going on and simply ate supper and went to dinner after that. They were all found guilty of course and the Moscow News even berated the claims by Azerbaijanis on trial who claimed that they simply witnessed the crimes but did not take part in them. It is somewhat bizarre to think what sort of input could be added by them since many Azeris felt that Armenians "got what they deserved" after the pogrom. The mentality went "they started it and they got what was coming to them" according interviews with Azeris by Western newspapers months later.


 * And it is no surprise that the media obviously failed to mention and intentionally omitted several important facts, whether it being the body count or the presence of drugs. Since Sumgait was a special circumstance due to the fact that the Soviet media was forced to say whatever the government said, they didn't allow Soviet journalists to photograph the city nor even allow Western journalists to enter or speak to the witnesses. Shevardnadze confirmed this, and many writers confirmed and said the same thing. That's why I believe the use of statements in Sumgait Tragedy by the Armenian witnesses (or any nationality for that matter who said the same) that they saw drugs being used is well substantiated. So far, you have done little next to nothing to support your claims and that's why I am growing tired of your endless begging the question-like, circular debates.--MarshallBagramyan 17:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I just want to add to Marshall's comments that if we do use a response from the Azeri side, it cannot be given equal weight to the Armenian side in the fashion of "Armenian witnesses said ... then Azeris said ..."--the Wiki rules of Undue Weight prohibit this (WP:NPOV). Given that (as thoroughly proven by Marshall above) that the overwhelming majority supports the Armenian view that Armenians were massacred by Azeris, the majority has to prevail in the article.

As to GM's quote from the rules, again, it has little relevance--the rule merely says "the more source, the better"--it does not say "if only few sources say it, than it's out." When we have one source, say Armenian witness, saying a fact, then it can be clearly attributed (as it is in the article).--TigranTheGreat 07:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Indeed, the majority view, whatever that be, of historians/scholars must be given prescendence with the minority view earning some mention, and majority and minory view of the general relevant populations if notable enough. If scholars/historians do have consensus on what happened, then we should be able to find supporting views from more than just Armenians, perhaps Russian historians too. The same for the general public. AT any rate, "Undue wait" is only for over-representation of very minor views, wich I had to deal with when mediating the Neuro-linguistic programming page. Voice -of- All  00:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Exactly. I only ask for the neutral sources to be used for presentation of facts. If the majority view is certain, then there should be no difficulties in finding unbiased sources to support the claims. The views of the two sides can be presented as well, but the article in general cannot be based on partisan sources. Grandmaster 09:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed, though the issue is not really one of undue weight per say, more of a matter of getting a wider variety of sources. Regardless of who experienced the events and who was around to talk about, if we have a consensus by historians on what happened, then we ought to be able to find secondary sources for such. Therefore, thats what we should focus on for now, just finding additonal sources, so this should not be too big of a dispute. Voice -of- All  10:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Historians have not dwelled too far into the events but the source of this dispute - the use of the book The Sumgait Tragedy which is a collection of eyewitness testimonies - is the real undercurrent that needs to be solved not what occured during the events (much of what the eyewitnesses say has a broad consensus amongst historians, journalists, etc.). While Grandmaster has attempted to discredit the reputability of the book, he ignores the fact that it has indeed been used very extensively amongst Sovietologist historians and experts on ethnic disputes (for example, it is explicitly cited and much of the information corroborated in the books Black Garden: Armenia and Azerbaijan Through War and Peace, The New Russians and Modern Hatreds: The Symbolic Politics of Ethnic War). I have asked him numerous times if he would be content if I used those books to support the article despite the fact they use Sumgait Tragedy as a source but have yet to hear any response back. I can easily find additional media sources through Proquest but 80% of this dispute would be resolved in the use of sources; namelu the book The Sumgait Tragedy. --MarshallBagramyan 17:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I don’t understand your persistence in using that particular book, which is a partisan source. Why not using independent sources? The article will have a lot more credibility without the fantastic claims about truckloads of narcotics, etc, which are not confirmed by any independent sources. Even if you present such claims as allegations, they still have no place in a serious article, because by the same token I can also include many allegations from Azeri sources. What kind of article will it become then? The article should reflect established facts, which are confirmed by non-partisan sources. Wiki rules say that it is better to have no information at all rather than include unreliable statements. Grandmaster 06:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Then convince me otherwise GM. You have been unable to disprove much of what has been said in the book. The media sources are largely unhelpful in explaining anything in detail. While they all report and corroborate the same things, they do not elaborate much about how it was conducted or how the riot was able to proliferate so quickly. Any books that do go in depth to describe the events use The Sumgait Tragedy as a source. The truckloads reference is largely to alcohol which was always found in abundant quantities in the Soviet Union. The reference to drugs is merely the presence of drugs during the events. If you have nothing to back up your argument that they didn't exist, then we can postulate it as a theory. If authors don't include such a detail despite using the book, that doesn't necessarily mean it wasn't there.


 * If the book is good enough to use for De Waal, Stuart Kaufman, Hedrick Smith, Geoffrey Hosking then your protestations on this page become moot. If articles are supposed to be wholly non-partisan, then why do articles such as the Battle of Moscow rely primarily on the accounts of one Russian marshal and one German military leader? You are interpreting your own rules for Wikipedia. There is the consideration of undue weight on an article but there is no rule that specifically says that books like ST cannot be used. Most books that write on controversial issues have a bias and are used on Wikipedia simply to postulate a position held by an author, a group of people, etc.


 * I will be more than happy to include Azeri allegations (so long as they are something as ridiculous conjured up Buniatov, or how the KGB was the one supposedly the one behind the attacks). But if you have anything else to contest, provide sources to the contrary of the witness statements. I have been asking you for this since day one and you have provided me with nothing. Your position hardly adds anything to the advancement of the article and has contributed little next to nothing.--MarshallBagramyan 17:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Contrary to GM's claims, there is no requirement to include only established facts. We can include statements by witnesses since they are relevant, whether they are true or not (since threshold for inclusion is verifiability, and not truth). And since independent sources have confirmed numerous facts mentioned in Sumgait Tragedy, it is a credible source.--TigranTheGreat 00:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC)