Talk:Sumgait pogrom/Archive 3

Conspiracy theories
I don't believe that adding this section is informative but it is nationalist POV pushing to promote the other sides agenedas. --Namsos (talk) 06:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject and nature of massacre
First of all, so called Wikiproject Karabakh no longer exists and was removed per this decision. Secondly, there is no proof that pogrom in Sumgait was Azeri-led, as those caught and prosecuted by Soviet authorities for these riots included Armenians. Atabek (talk) 22:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * There's about sixty citations that say it was. I'm surprised how you can insist on so stupid and idiotic a notion. The arrest of one or two Armenians does not it in any way dispeel or disprove that almost all the participants were Azeris. Please don't cry about maintaing "good faith" either, your most recent edits are just more evidence for me to use that your edits are wholly ill-intentioned in nature.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 00:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Brandmeister
Can you please explain why you're removing the causes listed by DeWaal, such as the economic conditions of the city as well as the transfer of Azeri cirminals? Askeran clash should be mentioned among the rest. Yoko Hirose is not exactly a reliable source, Stuart Kaufmam links Askeran to Sumgait as well. There weren't any Dashnaks anywhere near Karabakh at the time, much less armed ones.--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 18:00, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, I was already about to start this thread. The info about population and relocation may stay, but the economic conditions and geography were not immediate causes and are redundant. The main article should certainly point to the Askeran clash, solely or together with NK. Almost all third-party sources here are valuable as the events remain murky. Replacing the referenced info with unsourced one is not the best solution. Brand[t] 21:10, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Grigoryan
Marshall, is there a specific reason you want to conceal the fact that an ethnic Armenian participated in the gang rapes? Open the page 43 and re-read the lines about Grigoryan and then come back to the article and re-read the lines about Grigoryan that I added. Does that say anything about Armenian instigation? It just mentions the person who was part of the mass attacks and was sentenced to 12 years. Now, what part of it do you not understand? One more thing, go back to infobox and fix Azerbaijans to Azerbaijanis. You know quite well it's spelled Azerbaijanis. Tuscumbia ( talk ) 19:21, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for correcting my typo. But you're trying to create an issue where there is none. De Waal says that Grigoryan was brought up by his Russian mother following the early death of his Armenian father. Consequently, whatever notion of him being an Armenian was negligible. As De Waal himself says that Grigoryan was "pogromshchik, a thuggish young man, of indeterminate nationality with a criminal past, seeking violence for its own sake." There is no reason to believe that him being an Armenian made any difference on his choice to participate in the violence and he is no more special than the other participants. While your proposed wording does not explicitly say anything, what it implies is obvious. Individuals like Ziya Bunyadov, and you yourself just recently on Quantum666's talk page, have used his participation as proof that Sumgait was a pre-staged event, launched by the Armenians, in order to garner support for the Armenian cause and to defame Azerbaijanis. If that is not a convoluted enough conspiracy theory, I don't know what is.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 19:30, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not creating an issue here. He was one of the leaders during the attacks and the documentary about the events where he's interrogated, Armenian witnesses and victims testify against him is a good proof. As far as the inclusion of the line to the article goes, it does not say anything more or less. It just says what the source says. Period. And your explanation as to why you want to keep it deleted from the article is unsatisfactory.  Tuscumbia  ( talk ) 19:38, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * You're introducing a documentary produced by a guy who thinks that Sumgait was a jointconspiracy between the Armenians, the KGB and the CIA to defame Azerbaijan as a serious source? Good luck with that. Grigoryan's ethnic identity, to repeat for the third time, is irrelevant. You have yet to provide a convincing a reason as to why he deserves special mention over the other pogromshchiki. But since Bunyadov and others use him to support the above-mentioned conspiracy theory, my imagination does not have to travel far to speculate why it is being argued so strenuously to include him. Please re-read the conspiracy theory section. Thanks.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 20:22, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That "guy" provided plenty of evidence in the documentary as proof that the Sumgait events were organized. It's not even in writing. It's on plain TV screen where you can see and hear Grigoryan speaking of his crimes and see and hear Armenian witnesses testifying against him. Let's leave the whole documentary thing aside. The question is why you try to avoid adding tha line about Grigoryan into the article. After all, there are some names of Azerbaijanis mentioned such as Tale Ismailov. So, how is Grigoryan different from Ismailov? Care to explain? Tuscumbia  ( talk ) 20:30, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Their names were important enough to be mentioned in newspapers as the first people to be convicted and sentenced. A total of 84 people were put on trial. Of them 82 were Azeris, one was Russian and the other Armenian. Your insistence that we include the sole Armenian who was charged among the dozens who participated and your edit describing Grigoryan as an "ethnic Armenian" only fuels the belief that you are subtly trying to bolster Bunyadov's and Imanov's unhinged theories by including mention of some indistinguishable nobody who is only there because his last name ends in "yan".--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 20:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but your insistence to remove a line about a criminal sentenced to 12 years for mass attacks and rape of Armenians and Azerbaijanis in Sumgayit confirms your intentions. I will ask one more time. What is the real reason for you to delete the line when it is backed up by a valid source which half of this article is based on. Tuscumbia  ( talk ) 21:00, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * You're the one who is trying to add him - the burden lies upon you on why he deserves special mention. 86 people were charged. Only one of them was an Armenian (Grigoryan). How is Grigoryan any more unique than the others who were charged that he must be mentioned, along with his (partial) Armenian ancestry? Ask for a third opinion if you still insist.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 21:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I am adding him as much as you keep removing the information about other ethnicities who took part in Sumgait events. He's not unique. He's just one of the mentioned criminals who took part in these events. If Tale Ismilov is mentioned what makes Grigoryan so special not to be mentioned? Oh goodness, don't mention his ethnicity. Call him Azerbaijani but add the line with his name to the article. Tuscumbia  ( talk ) 21:45, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * You have given no justification for his inclusion - that is why I have removed him. When I added that information, it wasn't done to make a point. I was looking through sources on who was punished for the violence and this is was the information that one article included. Why you are so bent on mentioning Grigoryan, who was the only ethnic Armenian to participate in the riots, and not the only Russian or other Azeris is something I can ask only so many times (although your comments here reveal enough) You have not shown any convincing reasons to argue for his inclusion. If you wish, ask for a third opinion because, clearly, the discussion has led nowhere and has ran in circles several times over. Enjoy your day.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 23:13, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I returned the original version (September 8) before the dispute is resolved. I don't think edit warring is a good way to improve the article. --Quantum666 (talk) 09:08, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

MarshallBagramyan, Grigoryan's ethnicity does matter, as this article is about an ethnic conflict; and more so, involving people of Grigoryan's ethnicity. Parishan (talk) 11:09, 14 November 2010 (UTC)


 * How does did his ethnicity play a role in the Sumgait massacre? This conversation just continues to spin in circles. Grigoryan was brought up by his Russian mother - his Armenian father died when he was young and it's impossible to determine what, if anything, of his "Armenianness" he was able to impart to his son. Read Thomas de Waal's quotation again: Grigoryan was a "pogromshchik, a thuggish young man, of indeterminate nationality with a criminal past, seeking violence for its own sake." It means that he was participating in the massacre because of his personal inclination towards violence, not because he was Armenian. Out of the 86 people who were arrested, 84 were Azerbaijanis. To continue to claim that the Armenian community of Sumgait somehow played a direct role in instigating its own destruction is absolutely absurd and it's unsustainable to simply use Grigoryan as your only card in this argument. With no reliable sources to back up such an assertion, such comments are highly duplicitous in nature and are otherwise original research. -Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 19:00, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Marshall, if the identity of one of the attackers is known and is specified, it should be noted in the article. Tale Ismailov was and if there was more information on 82 arrested individuals available you would have added that information too, but for some reason you're hesitating to include Grigoryan. Tuscumbia  ( talk ) 14:57, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

You still have not rescued your argument of the flaws I outlined above. While I don't find it appropriate on you commenting on what I would have done had I more information at my disposal, I would not have listed what punishment each and every individual was sentenced with but would have summarized it with a line or two. That you're gunning so hard for Grigoryan's inclusion only serves to reinforce my belief that, by adding him, there is something more nefarious afoot. At this point, I think this discussion has runs its course. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:58, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Marshall, let me repeat the question. State one more time why one criminal (Tale Ismailov) has to be added to the article and the other one (Eduard Grigorian) can't? Tuscumbia  ( talk ) 19:30, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Marshall, how are made up of ethnic Azeris and other ethnicities a POV and Azeri led NPOV? Care to explain? There is a whole section dedicated to Grigoryan and a Russian which are other ethnicities and you still keep pushing your POV. Tuscumbia  ( talk ) 22:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

It's probably impossible to ascertain the identities of all the individuals who participated in the rioting in those days. But be that as it may, you cannot sincerely sustain your argument on the basis of two non-Azerbaijanis who took part in the rioting and then try to include the wording "and other ethnicities". Based on all the literature that we have at our disposal, it is quite clear that the Azerbaijanis of Sumgait were spurred on to commit violence because of their ill-disposed attitude towards the city's Armenians. That others joined in for the sake of partaking in violence is besides the point.

There has to be a well-defined justification to use the wording you are proposing. If half the people who were convincted were Armenians or Russians, I would say you would have a point. But considering that 98% of those who were convicted were Azerbaijanis, then it only suggests that you're trying to distort the true nature of the massacre. I think my use of the word "largely" is an appropriate qualifer since it does not deny that other ethnicities took part in the pogrom but does not negate the notion that it was spurred on by enmity for another ethnic group. Like I said, if you're still dissatisfied, ask for a third opinion.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 22:39, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Exactly, you can't ascertain the identities of all individuals who took part in the attacks, especially considering that the victims were not only Armenian. You can't ascertain that it wasn't KGB led either. So, the previous version sounded a lot better. One more thing, it's not their "ill-disposed attitude towards Armenians", it is the reaction of ill disposed attitude of Armenians towards Azerbaijanis in Armenian SSR and their subsequent forced migration which triggered the conflict. I am changing it the line about Azeri-led to previous version (you put largely by Azeris anyway thus mentioning it twice in the same paragraph anyway) and adding Grigorian's sentence to the list. Tuscumbia  ( talk ) 13:50, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

There are no reliable sources which state that this pogrom was provoked by the KGB - not a single historian or journalist who has studied the Sumgait massacre has lent credence to that theory so you are being disingenuous. By all indications, those who participated in this pogrom were long-time residents of Sumgait and you are now going against the grain of all the sources that are available to us. Are you seriously disputing the fact that this was a massacre led largely by Azerbaijanis against Armenians? That is, are you disputing the assertions of historians, journalists, and others who have studied this issue?

The burden lies upon you to justify your inclusion of Grigoryan, and since multiple authors have stated that he is used by other authors to justify the massacre that was perpetrated against the Armenians, then it only raises suspicions on why you absolutely insist on including mention of his crimes. You have yet to introduce a single credible source to backup your claims and have, after all this time, refused to even ask for an outside opinion. If the discussion has dragged on this long, the least you can do is ask for a third opinion and present your cases to a neutral editor.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I never said a firm statement has to be included saying this was a KGB-instigated event. Journalists have studied it and have reached out to KGB with questions, but that's irrelevant because I am not talking about KGB. First of all, you already put that the mobs made up largely of ethnic Azeris, so there is no need for Azeri led. After all, the investigations also claim it was led by Grigorian. And I am not even saying we should include that information either. But, the information on Grigorian being a factory worker and his sentencing stays. The latest line I added Eduard Grigorian, a factory worker who took part in the mass attacks and rapes was sentenced to 12 years does not even mention he's an Armenian. It just says he's a factory worker and indicates the number of years he was sentenced to and it is sourced from the book half of this article is sourced from. I'm not sure what it is that you're disputing. In any case you can watch the documentary where Grigorian speaks for himself and Armenian victims point to the criminal (Grigorian) who raped them. Эхо Сумгаита. Tuscumbia  ( talk ) 18:24, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Your edits are extremely disappointing. No one side has come to a conclusion and you have managed to force your opinion without asking for consensus. I have asked for a third opinion.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not forcing my opinion. It only makes sense to include information on both criminals. And, please don't be twisting things around saying I did not try to reach consensus. I didn't see you reaching for consensus before your POV edits after which this discussion started. Great, thanks for asking for third opinion. Tuscumbia  ( talk ) 18:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit War/ArbCom Notice: I happened onto this dispute through an opinion request at the Third Opinion project. Though the three-revert rule may or may not have been violated, what's going on here is pretty clearly an edit war in violation of the Armenia-Azerbaijan ArbCom remedies. I have reported the matter to an uninvolved administrator for further consideration. In the interim, I would respectfully suggest that all reverting ought to stop. —  T RANSPORTER M AN  ( TALK ) 22:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * While there is indeed a difference in opinion here, the situation is not as fatal or as serious as you present it. Our edits are a result of differing interpretations on what the precise bone of contention is - should the controversial information remain while we are discussing it or should it stay out until some sort of agreement is reached? Both of us have made changes to this article to reflect a version which we think should remain until the discussion comes to a conclusion. It has been going on (nowhere, admittedly) for a week and it was only today that one of us acted upon on the suggestion to look towards outside mediation. I would think that would be viewed as an encouraging sign that both sides are ready to submit to some form of mediation.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 02:25, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * MarshallBagramyan, consider the case of Khojaly Massacre. Despite a whole page in Monte Melkonyan's diary dedicated to Armenian responsibility and details such as Arabo and Aramo militants stabbing Azeri civilians, the official Armenian version claims that Azeris were shooting and massacring their own. Yet the mentioned Wiki article still does not claim it an Armenian-led massacre, although the fact is already established by Human Rights Watch, dozens of independent news reports, international organizations, and even authoritative Armenian sources like Melkonyan and president Serzh Sargsyan.
 * So Sumgait Pogrom was definitely not an "Azeri-led" massacre simply because it was a riot, in which both Azeris and Armenians participated, both Azeris and Armenians were killed and/or convicted by Soviet authorities.Atabəy (talk) 23:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

!Third opinion
I just saw that someone relisted this on 3O. Can someone explain, very briefly, what the issue is here? Neither this page nor the article page has been touched in eight days, so I'm curious what's going on. Also, just as a customary reminder, discretionary sanctions may be placed on this article. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 20:12, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi HelloAnnyong, the basic disagreement is about the inclusion of this line Eduard Grigorian, a factory worker who took part in the mass attacks and rapes was sentenced to 12 years. .

Background to disagreement:

 * Eduard Grigorian is half Armenian as described in the source who took part in killing and raping members of his own ethnicity during the Sumgait pogroms.
 * I added the line from the source, indicating Eduard Grigorian as another criminal mentioned after Tale Ismailov (ethnic Azerbaijani) on whom information was already included in the article: Soviet authorities arrested 400 men in the aftermath of the massacre, and prepared criminal charges for 84, 82 Azerbaijanis, one Russian and an Armenian, of them. Tale Ismailov, a pipe-fitter from one of Sumgait's industrial plants, was charged with premeditated murder and was the first to be tried by the Soviet Supreme Court in Moscow in May 1988.
 * User MarshallBagramyan opposed inclusion of Eduard Grigorian for reasons that I still do not understand. I guess he implied that there is some hidden agenda behind including an ethnic Armenian's name in the article about pogroms where 26 Armenians and 6 Azerbaijanis died.
 * I compromised removing the words stating his ethnicity (Armenian) and just limited with information about him being a factory worker and being sentenced to a certain amount of time in prison. My take is that criminal is a criminal. If Tale Ismailov is mentioned, why should we suppress information about another criminal, Eduard Grigorian? Tuscumbia  ( talk ) 21:04, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The basic gist of the matter is whether we should include the name of a certain individual on this article, Eduard Grigoryan, among the list of people who were arrested and eventually charged and sentenced for their participation in the killings and looting of the massacre. Sounds pretty mundane, right? But there is a special reason why editor Tuscumbia has went to extraordinary lengths to include this figure: in Azerbaijan, it is almost universally believed that the Sumgait Massacre was deliberately provoked by the Armenians (of Sumgait presumably) in order to defame the public image of Azerbaijans and to gain sympathy throughout the world. Following this line of reasoning, historians and documentary-makers in Azerbaijan have introduced the fact that of the 86 people who were arrested for their part in the pogrom, one of them was Eduard Grigoryan, a man born to a Russian mother and an Armenian father, (who died very soon after Grigoryan's birth) and, accordingly, his presence testifies to the fact that the massacre was, after all, a plot hatched by the Armenians (!).


 * But numerous authors have discounted this theory: in a line I have quoted twice now, the journalist Thomas de Waal explicitly unravels the upturned logic that is hinged to support the theory: Grigoryan was a "pogromshchik, a thuggish young man, of indeterminate nationality with a criminal past, seeking violence for its own sake." (De Waal, Thomas. Black garden: Armenia and Azerbaijan Through Peace and War. New York: New York University Press, 2003, p. 43.) In other words, in the grander scheme of the massacre, his ethnic identity was irrelevant. It it impossible to give him a precise ethnic identity and his violent past was one of the reasons why he probably chose to participate in the killings.


 * But Grigoryan's role has been magnified and nefariously distorted in Azerbaijan to support the conspiracy theory that I outlined above. Because of its wide-spread popularity there, certain users have edited the article to affect the notion that the Armenians of Sumgait had a hand in their own destruction. That this was perhaps the opinion user Tuscumbia shared was evidenced by his comments here. He has proceeded then to add his name, along with his ethnic identity, onto the article. I have asked him countless times above to demonstrate why Grigoryan deserves such special attention but have received less than direct, and in my opinion unsatisfactory, answers in return. When I felt our conversation was exhausted, I appealed for a third opinion (something which I had originally asked Tuscumbia to do if he wished), and we have waited all this time for someone to opine here. In the final edit of the article, Tuscumbia re-added Grigoryan's name (although this time with his ethnic identity omitted) but his sole presence in the article sticks out like a sore thumb (without any context) and is questionable because of how his role in the conspiracy theory has been abused to support an idea which carries no support outside of Azerbaijan.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 21:09, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Right, and the proof that Eduard Grigorian's involvement was deliberate is pictured in this documentary Эхо Сумгаита in Russian where he's interrogated by Soviet authorities and where Armenian victims recognize and point to him speaking of his crimes. I personally believe he had a special hand in the attacks as much as you believe he hasn't but that shouldn't matter since as a sign of consensus I removed his ethnicity from the article. It only states that he was a factory worker and was sentenced to a specific time in prison. So, that's where you should stop disputing the inclusion. Tuscumbia  ( talk ) 21:20, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Alright, let's back out a second. Grigorian is currently mentioned several other times - namely, the Criminal proceedings and Conspiracy theories sections. If you could both succinctly explain how you would change the current article, then I could get a sense of where you want to go with this. If you want to say "I would change 'xxx' to 'yyy'" that's fine, or if they're larger changes, maybe a user subpage would be fine. But again, short and to the point explanations of what changes you would make. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 22:22, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I would only want to keep Grigoryan in the Conspiracy Theories section for the reason mentioned above. Mentioning him there allows the reader to understand the context of the theories themselves and demonstrates what they are based on. There's no other reasonable location to put him in the article. The question must be definitively put: What did Grigoryan in particular do to earn a special mention? I don't find the argument that he participated in the killings as convincing enough reason to answer that question. It, furthermore, must be noted that Tuscumbia's above-mentioned documentary, The Echo of Sumgait, was made by the same individual mentioned in the conspiracy theories section, Davud Imanov. He concocted the theory that the Armenians were in cahoots with the KGB (and the CIA!), working to destabilize Azerbaijan. I don't know how such information could be taken without one falling off his chair, laughing. Again, De Waal:


 * And here is the entire section that De Waal lays out on Grigoryan, with important parts highlighted:


 * --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 01:10, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Your question above, Marshall, is quite amusing by itself: What did Grigoryan in particular do to earn a special mention? I'll tell you what he did. He gang raped and killed (or injured) several victims. Armenian victims, that is. That makes him a criminal. Whether he's a part of the conspiracy theories or not, the fact remains that he was convicted by Soviet authorities along with other criminals and was sentenced to 12 years in prison. So, he does need to be mentioned in the Criminal Proceedings section as well; otherwise that makes him a figment of someone's imaginations while he's not. He was a live person who took part in the pogroms and was subsequently convicted. I'm not sure how Marshall disregards him even after watching the Ekho Sumgaita documentary mentioned above. Yes, it was made by an ethnic Azerbaijani director but the interrogation tapes he acquired and made a part of the film are from Soviet archives. On them, Armenian victims of pogroms pinpoint to Eduard Grigorian who raped and/or severely injured them or their family members and he admits to the crimes himself. Tuscumbia  ( talk ) 14:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * First, this is not the place to grind your axe against someone. Wiki articles should not be used as a place to try to get revenge on people for what they did. Honestly, I too am having trouble understanding what the guy did that makes him more special than anyone else. Surely he was not the only person to do horrific things during this time - so why aren't we digging up dirt on every other person who committed some form of atrocity and listing their names here? Because it's not appropriate to a Wikipedia article.
 * Now then. Assuming the de Waal source is correct, and that Grigorian was only one of 84 people arrested, then I don't see a reason to specifically list him in the Criminal proceedings section. And as I described above, we're not going to list all eighty-four people and their arrests and sentences. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 14:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * HelloAnnyong, what revenge? Revenge for what? What are you talking about? First off, there is no information online about the whole group of 84 criminals. The only two the information is available on are Tale Ismailov (See Criminal proceedings section) and Eduard Grigorian. If the former is listed in that section since there is information about him, why shouldn't the latter be listed as well? If Grigorian is to be removed then Tale Ismailov should be as well. Tuscumbia  ( talk ) 15:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I still am not following. Are you implying that just because the name of a single convicted criminal is mentioned (who incidentally happens to be Azeri) in that section, we must then for some reason balance it by including a criminal who just so happened to be an Armenian? I'm sorry but I cannot help but agree with Annyong's comments. It cannot be mere coincidence that the one person you are insisting on including has played such a prominent role in the fabrication of a conspiracy theory that desperately wishes to place the blame on the victims themselves. As De Waal's writing above shows, you cannot continue to base your entire argument on a documentary whose sole objective is to portray the massacre as a plot hatched by foreign and domestic security services. That just doesn't fly. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:02, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but your statement does not make any sense. Let me follow you through, if you're confused. There are two options:
 * Option 1: If there is information on all criminals available online, we should add all, which I wouldn't like myself since I agree with HelloAnnyong about non-inclusion of all.
 * Option 2: If we're not including those on whom information is available online, then we should include both Tale Ismailov and Eduard Grigorian.
 * With your logic obvious from your last message, you mean to say Tale Ismailov was the mastermind of the crime when Grigorian is not? What di HE do to deserve to be named when the other criminal Eduard Grigorian is not? Tuscumbia  ( talk ) 18:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

To say that your arguments are convoluted would be an understatement. All that I can make out of the jumble is that you want to place Grigoryan side-by-side Ismailov to subtly mislead the reader into thinking that an equal number of Armenians took part in massacre. The fact that you have so strenuously advocated for the sole Armenian who was convicted (and not the 81 other Azeris and one Russian) cannot lead someone else to think otherwise. Besides, the only reason Ismailov was added was because he was the first individual to be convicted and sentenced for his crimes. It's something the journalist from the New York Times felt worth reporting.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 22:53, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You shouldn't be comparing yourself to any outside reader since your judgement is obviously blurry. I don't want to place Grigorian side by side with Ismailov to "mislead the reader". I want to place him there because he's one of the sentenced individuals who took an active part in raping and attacking victims. Very simple, he committed a crime as much as Tale Ismailov did and should be retained in the Criminal Proceedings section. Otherwise, the other criminal has to be removed as well.  Tuscumbia  ( talk ) 23:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Then maybe we should remove Ismailov. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 23:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Removing all mention of the individuals who were sentenced would be a pointless thing to do - readers are naturally going to ask "What happened to the perpetrators of the massacre?" A name or two is inevitably going to be mentioned. I'm just questioning the wisdom of inserting Grigoryan, the only individual out of the 86 people who were convicted who could just barely be said to be of Armenian identity, considering how nefariously his role in the riots has been abused and distorted. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 23:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I apologize for taking this step unilaterally but maybe I have come across a solution. Perhaps the problem here was that Grigoryan was being added in the wrong section. Since his prominence revolves around the fact that he is used as a major figure in the conspiracy theories, I have moved him to the conspiracy theories section in the article, with little, minor modifications. Thus, the reader has the appropriate context and it mentions Grigoryan's crimes without awkwardly sticking out. A compromise (I hope)?--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 03:37, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If you're happy with it, then I am too. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 04:37, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It's OK with me too. I just reworded the text a little adding a line from De Waal.  Tuscumbia  ( talk ) 14:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments
The following sentence – "The weekly Moskovskiye Novosti later reported that eight of the city's twenty ambulances had been destroyed by the mobs." is sourced in the footnotes as: (Russian) "Сумгаит, Один месяц поздно" ("Sumgait, One Month Later"). Moskovskiye Novosti. April 13, 1988. Один месяц поздно is a very crude word-for-word English-to-Russian translation of "one month later" (correct Russian: месяц спустя), and while I'm unable to check whether or not an article with the following factual claim was indeed published in Moskovskie novosti on that date, its original title most definitely could not have been "Sumgait, a Single Month is Late" as Footnote #25 currently suggests. 95.220.254.129 (talk) 03:49, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

i have edited almost 3 times the articles which are obviously handled by armenian users that spread false image about my nation - azeri people. I ask the wikipedia administration to take severe and serious measures on this issue as the ethnic matters are not a joke, but bring to the wars and death...in almost all so called "armenian projects" in wikipedia the clear intent is spreading the lie about Azerbaijan, creating an eternally suffering armenian nation image. I bet nobody from wikipedia have ever checked properly the sources used by the armenian users which support each other exchanging ridiculous "honors" between them, for example see the page of user Sardur: his fans are armenians, no matter if they live in france, lebanon or elsewhere... I could write a book accusing the armenians in all possible crimes and base my speeches around on that book, it wouldn't mean that all the written staff in that book is true...almost all the sources brought by the armenian users are written by the separators with doubtful image... I start to loose my confidence in wikipedia's credibility as a source. I ask wikipedia administration to block all articles on conflicted base which touch azeri-armenian issue. However is not possible to go on long time on lies, the armenian users must know it...also it ain't a deal to prepare ground for more hate and conflict between nations spreading such unilateral doubtful information. I have also edited the article which classifies people in azerbaijan in non existent clans. This article is ridiculous and is written by somebody which has no sense of reality and loyalty. The term "yeraz" is higly offensive and shouldn't be let go on wikipedia as something "normal"...if you don't understand the gravity of this offense i'd explain it this way: for us "yeraz" is equally offensive as the word "nigger" used to discriminate colored people... I will be waiting for the feedback of wikipedia administration. I'd like to understand also how to ask protection for single articles, I have read the instructions, but it say actually nothing and there is no link to be referred as the start point of protection request. thanks poster777

I removed a dubious source. An account in the Armenian Communist Party newspaper cannot be considered reliable, especially with regard to claims of genocide, etc. Grandmaster 09:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Right than give a explanation for the removal of the videos. You haven't given any sufficient evidence for the removal. --Hu1lee 17:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Removed the YouTube video external links, not acceptable per this thread and this conclusion. Thanks. Atabek 23:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Really? and who exactly copyrighted these videos? It wasn't TASS that was recording the footage during the violence but individuals. --Marshal Bagramyan 00:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * MarshallBagramyan, I provided the links above which make a conclusion on whether YouTube video qualifies for external link or not. I don't see how Sumgait pogrom video would qualify without violating Wikipedia:Copyright, while Khojaly videos would not. Assume good faith. Atabek 09:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * User:Urmenihte was identified and blocked as a sock of banned User:Artaxiad - . So I reverted his edits. Atabek 09:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I added tags in expectation of references that "narcotics were distributed to Azeri crowds". Such claims, including sentence after that, referencing a paragraph of OR without any author, book or article name, publication year, page number are simply original research. Also a number of other reference quotes at the bottom, are simply paragraphs of text without source information. So Original research tag must be inserted until all references are cleaned up. Atabek 23:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no need to label the entire article with a negative remark for a few fact-tags. Alot of articles contain fact-tags, and we would have to tag them all as 'OR's. Let's wait for the authors of the article to provide the required sources.--TigranTheGreat 09:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * MarshallBagramyan, is Shahmuratian a neutral reference on Sumgait? Atabek 12:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

That's a moot point; Shahmuratian is simply an editor, he just compiled all the testimonies together. Even so, his work is cited by dozens of sources that document the Sumgait massacre. So if you're trying to have him removed from this article, then you're in effect simultaneously removing other so-called "neutral" authors from the article.--Marshal Bagramyan 19:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The latest edit
While making the editing I haven't deleted the initial text (with the exception of several lines), I have simply incorporated it within the new, extended version. Let me know if there are any specific problems or issues concerning my edit.--Rosesandguns (talk) 18:32, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree with Rosesandguns that if MarshallBagramyan had any objections to the latest edit, he had better lay them out before doing any reverting. Since nobody disagrees that the edits were made in good faith, or has even alluded to what might be the problem, they should be restored for the time being. Shrigley (talk) 19:48, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * You have to admit, though, that 39,000 kilobits of information is far too large for a single edit. I realize there's merit in Rosesandguns' edit, but the information should be discussed and, if considered relevant and not to out of place for an article this size, be introduced piecemeal.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 21:28, 18 January 2013 (UTC)