Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ghaibalishen Massacre


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   keep. The arguments for deletion mainly argue that the principal source, a work by Richard G. Hovannisian, is unreliable or partisan, but considering that it has been written by an academic historian whose article makes no reference to any academic controversies about his work, and that the book was published by the reputable academic publisher University of California Press, such arguments would need to go substantially beyond mere allegations of partisanship to be convincing.  Sandstein  05:56, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Ghaibalishen Massacre

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

The article is based on one single source, which seems too partisan for an article making such a claim. The only link to a non-partisan source (de Waal) contains no reference whatsoever to the event or the place where it allegedly occured. A quick web inquiry shows that there are no academic sources supporting the accuracy of this article. Furthermore, the article was contributed by a user who has been blocked indefinitely. Parishan (talk) 09:56, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2012 April 19.  Snotbot   t &bull; c &raquo;  10:18, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete as per nominator. The allegation is based on one-sided source with no third party source attesting this event ever took place Ladytimide (talk) 12:02, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep : Hovannisian is an extremely recognised scholar. On top, it's not difficult to find other sources. Sardur (talk) 23:15, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I tried. Perhaps you can help? Parishan (talk) 08:02, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Per Sardur. Hovannisian is a respected scholar from UCLA and, knowing his works, he usually bases himself on multiple sources. Whether or not this article was created by an editor who is now indefinitely blocked is irrelevant and has no bearing on the quality of the article. I would ask that Parishan in future to desist from putting up such ill-faith nominations.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 23:23, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep This article needs more references, that is the only issue I see. We can add a template to improve its referencing quality but deleting isn't really the solution.Nocturnal781 (talk) 03:33, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - While it seems like this event may not be known by this precise name in the literature, it is clearly worthy of encyclopedic inclusion and in its current state is single-sourced well enough that it should be retained. Hopefully and presumably additional sourcing will emerge. I suspect there is another name for the event. Carrite (talk) 03:45, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * First of all, an author using exclusively one-sided terminology such as "Shushi" which in fact has never been the name for the town of Shusha can hardly be considered impartial. Second of all, single-sourcing does not mean proper sourcing. Even if Hovannisian considered apt, the reference to Hovannisian is as dubious as that on de Waal. In the book shown, Hovannisian simply talks about a battle between "2,000 Tatar-Kurdish irregulars" and "armed villagers" in a place called Khaibalikend (sic). There are no mentions of any massacre or civilian deaths. The section of the article dealing with the so-called massacre quotes Hovannisian on page 181, which does not mention Geybali or any other village, or any "innocent civilians" who supposedly died. All the other references to a massacre in Hovannisian have to do with the Shusha pogrom rather than with Geybali. Parishan (talk) 08:00, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That is a deceptive and weasel-worded summary of what the source says. It is in a subsection titled "Bloodshed in Karabagh", which has the phrase "carnage in June of 1919" in the section introduction. On pages 176-177 the source talks about "2000 Tartar-Kurdish irregulars" attacking the village of Kaibalikend (i.e. Geybali), whose population were able initially to repulse the assault because they were armed, but when regular Azeri armed forces joined in the attack the village was looted, burned, and many villagers killed. Then the same attackers went on to attack three nearby Armenian villages, again looting and burning them and killing their inhabitants. The sources says 600 villagers lay dead after the attacks. In a footnote, the source mentions a British report of June 11 1919 in which a British officer on the scenne reported that of Kaibalikend 700 inhabitants, only 11 men and 87 women had survived. If that is not a massacre, what is? Meowy 23:10, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No reliable source uses the POV Armenian terminology such as 'Ghaibalishen' and no one calls it a massacre. Your own interpretation of Hovannisian cannot serve as basis for using this rather powerful term. This is precisely the reason why this article has been nominated: we do not have enough sources to even determine what it was that happened in Geybali. Calling a massacre something that was, more than anything, a military episode of a bigger ethnic conflict based on one dubious source is a bit far-fetched. Not to mention the fact that 80 per cent of the article deals with issues around the Shusha pogrom than with what happened in Geybali. It almost seems like the author worked hard at lugging in everything possible to bring about this highly controversial article. Parishan (talk) 16:02, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete This is an article based on one-sided source. To find reliable sources to verify it has failed--Melikov Memmed (talk) 10:36, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * keep - needs more references. not deletion.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * And if reliable references cannot be found to verify that it even happened? - The Bushranger One ping only 21:37, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - Wikipedia policy stands against single-sourced articles; secondly, as described, the sourcing available, what litle there is, indicates that the event as described in the article cannot be verified as taking place. Therefore, this article fails Wikipedia policy and cannot be kept, meaning that it should be deleted. Also, describing the nomination as "ill-faith" is a failure to assume good faith itself, and the statement that "Hovannisian...usually bases himself on multiple sources" has no bearing here; assuming that he did based on his other works is WP:OR. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:37, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe, before giving your opinion and displaying ignorance about the subject, you should have done some minimal research on the work being used as the source and on the time-period in which the events described in the article took place. The nominator's statement is full of ill-faith wording: he gives as a reason for deletion the fact that the creator of the article has been blocked. However, this block had nothing to do with either this article or any content added to any other article by that editor. The nominator of course knows this, revealing ill-faith. His description of the source as "partisan" with the claim that "there are no academic sources supporting the accuracy of this article" also reveals ill-faith, because the source is a well-known academic work, and its author is a highly regarded academic. Meowy 23:29, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * May I remind you, Meowy, that this article falls in the scope of WP:AA2, and its creator was banned exactly for displaying blatant bad faith in editing articles in the authority of this particular arbitration case. So it does matter in this case. Parishan (talk) 16:10, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


 * keep - Hovannisian's four-volume work "The Republic of Armenia" is still the standard authority for this time period. Nothing comes close to it in its level of detail. Meowy 21:41, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * A quick read of the Shusha Pogrom article reveals another source: "Armenia: The Survival of a Nation" by Christopher J. Walker. It is used as the source for the text in mid-June Azeri mounted "irregulars", about 2,000 strong, attacked, looted and burnt a large Armenian village, Khaibalikend, just outside Shusha, and approximately 600 Armenians lay dead. Khaibalikend is the Azeri version of Ghaibalishen. Meowy 21:56, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hovhannisian also mentions (in footnote 51, page 177) a British War Office report (WO class95/4880) in which a British officer on the scene reports finding only 11 male and 87 female survivors from Khaibalikend's 700 inhabitants. That should settle any question that the subject of the article cannot be verified as taking place. Meowy 23:19, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia defines 'massacre' as a general and unnecessary extermination of one group. If according to Hovannisian, armed Armenians of Geybali confronted those 2,000 irregulars, what massacre is there to talk about? Parishan (talk) 17:12, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - Keep the article since it tells the story based on the historical facts. Richard Hovhannisian, who is the most cited reference is a well-known and respected scholar with a very rich academic background. Moreover, the story refereed to non Armenian scholars as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sprutt (talk • contribs) 20:36, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - The article does not meet main Wiki criteria of WP:NOR, WP:V and WP:NPOV. The single source which was plagiarised for its creation, is partisan, non-verifiable with third-parties, and unreliable. The two other sources mentioned in the reflist do not support the allegations of this article at all. Angel670   talk  22:14, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * John Wright said ""a massacre of 600 Armenians took place centred on the Armenian village of Khaibalikend". The link provides the book where he says that so does Christopher Walker mention the massacre so how is this not valid?Nocturnal781 (talk) 03:34, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If Hovannisian is a respected scholar and he usually bases himself on multiple sources how he can write that “The massacre was organized by Azerbaijan's so-called Governor-General Khosrov bek Sultanov and took place under the direct supervision of his brothers, Pasha bek Sultanov and Sultan bek Sultanov.” Khosrov bek had no brother named Pasha bek. His brathers are Sultan bek, Rustem Bek and Isgender bek. Pasha bek is his father and died in 1915. Did the massacre take place under the direct supervision of a man who died 3 year before? --Melikov Memmed (talk) 05:54, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hovannisian wrote no such thing. He wrote (page 176) that the Governor-General (i.e. Khosrov Sultanov) "called forth his brother, Sultan bek Sultanov, the chief of nearly 2000 mounted Tatar-Kurdish irregulars. On the morning of June 5, this large band attacked Khaibalikend." Hovannisian also mentions that the eyewitness account by the British officer had stated that the massacre had been "fully visible from Sultanov's residence". I have edited the article to reflect what the source actually said. Meowy 21:18, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - there are sufficient references listed, though I think more should be sought. particularly where the Hovannisian source is relied upon. It appears some errors may be present in the text, but it  seems that participants are fixing them.Marikafragen (talk) 02:12, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.