Talk:Sumgait pogrom/Archive 4

Victor Krivopuskov
I don't think Krivopuskov could be considered a reliable third party source. First, he was not in Sumgait during the events, so how does he know anything about what happened there? Second, he has very close connections with the Armenian side, so he is not neutral. He is the head of the committee for Russo-Armenian friendship,, and openly supports the Armenian side of the conflict:  Grand  master  10:06, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You can add that he is the head of that committee. Your second point would be original research unless referenced by a neutral source.--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 11:36, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It is obvious from the links that I provided. Grand  master  21:11, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't make the rules.--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 07:50, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No one says that you do. I explained why exactly Krivopuskov is unreliable. The sources on his bias have been provided too. Also, what Krivopuskov says is illogical too. Elsewhere in the text other Armenian sources claim that alcohol and narcotics were brought in trucks and distributed to the crowds, while this guy claims that the attackers were some sort of Muslim fundamentalists. As you probably know, Muslim fundamentalists do not consume alcohol and drugs, that is against the teachings of Islam. But if you trust everything that is said in the article, the pogromshiks were alcoholic fundamentalists. No logic. Grand  master  20:55, 2 March 2014 (UTC)


 * That's what I understood he was saying from the text (end of page 187). And what someone says in theory does not mean it applies to logic. There are many injunctions against this or that practice in Islam (forced conversion, for example) and yet that has not only stopped Muslims from implementing or adopting them but also not at all put a damper on their identity as pious Muslims. Contradictions abound everywhere and that can be applied to almost any people of any for faith for that matter. And saying that Karabakh belongs to Armenians does not necessarily negate the veracity of the facts someone reports. I thought this would have been clear by now.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 21:59, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't really understand how can anyone be a pious Muslim and at the same time violate the main postulates of their faith. There's no injunction in Islam for that. And if a person openly supports one of the sides of the conflict, he can hardly be considered unbiased. Also, I don't see why this source is so important. It does not add anything to the story, other than trying to somehow involve religion, in contradiction to all other accounts. Plus, he was not even in Sumgait during the events, how his account could be considered reliable? Krivopuskov claims to know very well Muslimzade, but he did not even get Muslimzade's name right, he calls him Arif throughout the text, while the actual name was Jahangir. If the purpose is to create an objective and unbiased account of the events, and not a propaganda piece, I believe it is much better to refer to unbiased sources. Grand  master  19:29, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Video links
I notice some editors keep on adding video links. Read Video links before doing so, to understand the reason why they are not usually allowed in Wikipedia, specially content coming from user generated websites. --92slim (talk) 04:43, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality?
why is the intentional massacre and rape of armenians described as a "progrom" while the unintentional killing of azeris in khojaly is a "massacre"? can we get some neutrality in these articles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.49.6.225 (talk) 08:46, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * This was not an organized or official program. The word is pogrom, which means a violent riot/massacre/persecution towards an ethnic people. It also tends to mean that many people in the area didn't seem to care about the people who were being hurt or killed, so it describes the situation better than just massacre. —PC-XT+ 09:16, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

armenians aren't jews- isn't this similar to the word "antisemitism" inasmuch as it generally refers to a specific group of semites? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.49.6.225 (talk) 08:23, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Consparicy theories?
In what content exactly did Thomas the wall call the theories "consparicy"? I find it very un neutral and weird to call those content "consparicy" theories. It's like you want the reader to believe these are "lies". DavidThomson1997 (talk) 22:37, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * He has a section in his book "Black Garden" titled 'Plots and Conspiracies' and he talks about Sumgait. It is on page 41 of his book.
 * "On the Azerbaijani side even wilder conspiracy theories emerged, which tried to exonerate Azerbaijanis of the crimes. One persistent story was that outside conspirators had put cameras in place waiting for the pogroms to begin and that the footage they show was immediately distributed round the world - yet no one has ever set eyes on this film."
 * He calls the involvement of the KGB a conspiracy theory as well.Ninetoyadome (talk) 00:07, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

but still, was the armenian provocation theory also consparicy? And do what do you think of calling these theories consparicy? I think it shows un neutrality.. @Ninetoyadome — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidThomson1997 (talk • contribs) 13:28, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was included in that section.
 * In May 1989, the historian Ziya Buniatov, who was then president of the Academy of Sciences and Azerbaijan’s foremost Armenophobe, came up with the most complete work of denial yet. In an article entitled “Why Sumgait?” he concluded that the Sumgait pogroms had been planned by the Armenians themselves in order to discredit Azerbaijan and boost the Armenian nationalist cause. “The Sumgait tragedy was carefully prepared by the Armenian nationalists,” Buniatov wrote. “Several hours before it began, Armenian photographers and TV journalists secretly entered the city where they waited in readiness. The first crime was committed by a certain Grigorian who pretended to be Azerbaijani and who killed five Armenians in Sumgait.”
 * Right after that De Waal wrote:
 * In one sense, the conspiracy theorists are posing the wrong question.
 * So he is calling everything he spoke about in that section a conspiracy and the people who came up with those theories as conspiracy theorists.Ninetoyadome (talk) 19:33, 13 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Note: DavidThomson1997 is topic banned from this article (and all articles relating to the Nagorno-Karabakh War) due to discretionary sanctions. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:22, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

A definite article with "Kremlin leaders"
"appealed to Kremlin leaders to dispatch Soviet troops" Should it be "the Kremlin leaders"? Or not?--Adûnâi (talk) 21:40, 13 June 2019 (UTC)