Talk:Shusha massacre

Massacre victims number

@Olympian: Why did you remove the "killed in one night" part when the is exactly what the Russian source says? The Welt source says "at least several hundred were killed"; it's not the total. Dallavid (talk) 18:44, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm happy to answer when being addressed by another editor. To answer your question, the pogrom occurred over 3 days as described by sources such as Arsene Saparov in From Conflict to Autonomy in the Caucasus: "… on the morning of March 23 the Azerbaijani garrison and Turkic population of Shusha attacked and burned down the Armenian part of the town in a three-day pogrom." Therefore, it would be inaccurate to say that the killing occurred in "one night". I'm not sure what exactly you mean by your second point, I didn't imply that it's a total, it's just a bit of information that can be used to furnish the death toll section as exact numbers are scarce. – Olympian ^loquere 11:13, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

The Baberovski source is the source for 8,000 killed in one night, not Saparov. It's right next to the 8,000 number in the article. The pogrom being for 3 days doesn't invalidate the number killed in a single night, which Jörg states. Here's the quote from page 171 translated: "The Armenian quarter in Shusha was literally wiped off the face of the earth: out of 1,700 houses, only 25 survived. In just one night, 8,000 Armenian city residents were killed." I'll be restoring this sourced information. --Dallavid (talk) 22:21, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary to explain that a pogrom is defined as "the organized killing of large numbers of people, because of their race or religion" according to the Oxford dictionary, therefore, if one source says there was a "three-day pogrom", that clearly implies that the killings continued over the course of 3 days. Because of the sources providing different time-estimates, I've amended the wording to include both.

P.S. I added the Baberovski-sourced sentence to the article after having read and translated it, though thank you anyway for providing a translation for others. – Olympian ^loquere 05:10, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Interpreting with a dictionary is WP:OR. 8,000 people being killed in one night doesn't contradict the other source, because the death estimates are higher than 8,000. However, your "one night or three-days" change is original research, because those sources are not disputing how long to massacre took place. --Dallavid (talk) 22:32, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Problems with this article

It's embarrassing that we have to revisit this article every few months to discuss the same old issues, but it has to be stressed that aside from Richard Hovannisian's volume (which is on Armenia, and not even the massacre) very few studies on this important subject exist. While it was a watershed moment in this city's history, you can't just cite every single source that mentions the massacre and think that it passes scholarly muster. This article's integrity has to be maintained and it can't be done when a speech made in a parliament in the present-day is being presented as valid as an investigation that was carried out at the time by a government commission. The above discussion has shown some editors appearing very stubborn to accept the basic fact that the number of deaths was most probably significantly less than what non-specialist authors 70-90 years later after the event would have you believe. Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 20:04, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Smele is a wildely published historian and a reliable source – nothing has been shown to the contrary. This was already discussed extensively in the above talk discussion. Estimates are there for a reason and there hasn't been any compelling argument to omit the 20K number provided by a reliable sources, along with other estimates. Also please take a look at WP:DROPTHESTICK, you're essentially reviving a long ended discussion and unreasonably reverting the stable article version. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 20:59, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Smele is no doubt an established historian. But you're citing a historical dictionary he authored, i.e., a reference work, not something that he necessarily dedicated countless hours of his time to read the relevant primary sources on this subject (like Hovannisian and Baberovski did). The 20,000 figure simply rose higher and higher in the years following the massacre, but that doesn't make it any less suspect. The question you always want to ask each time you see the number is, "well how do you know that?" If the authors are not citing specific sources, then already you have a problem. My reviving the issue similarly doesn't make it any less relevant when I see these problems persisting, and I'm not the only editor who thinks this way, as is clear above. The subject matter deserves better, and bloating the death toll does not at all do it any favors. Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 21:23, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

@MarshallBagramyan: We have already had this discussion and arrived to the conclusion that Smele is a perfectly acceptable reliable specialist source. Your decision to exclude the full range of the estimates is based on your own original research that you think the 20,000 estimate is “bloated” and can’t possibly be true, thats your opinion, im sure you know that Wikipedia does not work like that. Unless you have a proper source that says the 20,000 claim comes ONLY from the Armenian government and is indeed bloated, please respect the work of your fellow editors. Thank you. TagaworShah (talk) 21:55, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

You're being deliberately obtuse. Please tell us what research he specifically conducted on this subject that makes him qualified on the level of Hovannisian or Baberovski. His list of publications deal with the Russian Revolution more than the events in the South Caucasus. Some of us editors are more able and discerning than others and so we can always aim for better sources and clarification. And as far as the above discussions go, it looks like both sides arrived at a stalemate. But you and the other editors, crucially, have been unable to offer a single study by an author working on this period who would be able to back up where they produced the 20,000 figure. At least we know Hovannisian arrived at 500 because that is what the Armenian government at the time found. Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 23:52, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

@MarshallBagramyan: I expected more from a seasoned editor like yourself than resorting to personal attacks but, alas here we are. Smele is a specialist on areas in the Russian sphere of influence during this time period, which both Azerbaijan and Armenia belonged to. He cites varying estimates given by historians regarding the matter, he has the authority to discern which estimates should be included or not, you don’t. If you don’t have the sources to back up your claims that the 20,000 number was made up in a parliamentary address, then it is nothing more than a conspiracy theory. The fact is, reliable sources present 500-20,000 as the range presented by historians, if you do not have a source that directly contests that, we are done here. And in the future, please refrain from speaking negatively on my, our any of my fellow editors, personal abilities to analyze sources, it’s not good practice. TagaworShah (talk) 02:06, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

It's because I followed the above discussion and realized that the detractors of the 20,000 figure had a point - and that at no time were you or anyone else able to demonstrate when that 20,000 figure first emerged and why we should treat it seriously. Again, Smele knows his stuff, but nothing in his scholarly profile points to him having consulted the relevant primary sources to allow us to say that he believes that it represents a true figure. As someone who's been here for almost 20 years, I think have some say in the matter of what to include and how much weight to attribute to it. And the onus is on you, to demonstrate to us why the 20,000 figure should be treated with any degree of seriousness over the most realistic numbers given by Hovannisian and Baberovski. I do not need to tell you that a random lawyer, or a random politician speaking at a parliament, or some other non-specialist who doesn't work on this period cannot in any way shape or form be considered a reliable source when compared to actual historians and scholars who study this period. This article deserves better, and you're not doing it any favors at all with this kind of stonewalling. Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 04:03, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Our role is not to speculate on the accuracy of this number, but rather to use sources that confirm it. The article contains such sources, which support the validity of this information. I would be happy to provide more sources. Ulrike Ziemer, B.A., M.A., Ph.D., "studied Russian, Politics, and Sociology at the universities of Bath and Birmingham" mentions the number of 20,000 deaths in her book Ethnic Belonging, Gender, and Cultural Practices page 107. Nocturnal781 (talk) 04:30, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

@MarshallBagramyan: No Marshall, editing for however many years does not give you any sort of authority on what should be included in the article or not, we are all equal as editors and only reliable sources can speak for inclusion. I have already fulfilled the onus with the sourcing i’ve provided, there is no wikipedia guideline that states I have to find exactly where an estimate first came from over a century ago, that is not our job as editors. Just because you personally feel an estimate is “unrealistic” without any sourcing to back that up, does not mean you get to delete sourced content from the article. The onus is on you to prove that a widely cited estimate that is backed by reliable sources is not suitable. You’re not doing the article any favors by excluding estimates based on your own suspicions and original research. TagaworShah (talk) 05:31, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Ulrike was already proved to be inaccurate. You should review previous discussions where every other source was reviewed in details. Ulrike is not historian, but Senior Lecturer in Sociology in the Department for Applied Social Sciences, Forensics and Politics. Ulrike did not conduct specific research on the Shusha events. Ulrike makes passing mention of the Shusha events. Even that passing mention is inaccurate, because it claims that 20,000 Armenians were killed during two years, rather than one day: "As such, Sumgait activated the historical memory of the genocide as well as of the mass killings of 20,000 Armenians by Azeris in Shushi, Karabakh in 1918–1920". A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 06:11, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I can't waste my time repeating myself. Again, the earlier discussions show that this subject is desperate for more scholarly study. All the sources you are pulling out are proof of that, and what is more, have already been addressed above and now here that they're not reliable. We can work on writing a better article and the only way to do that is strip it of all the references found on Google Books and sticking with the scholarly sources.Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 13:47, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

No, absolutely not, sources are evaluated based on their author, publisher, etc. not based on their availability on “google books.” Shaming your fellow editors for using google books when it is a great tool to provide accessibility to reliable sources to editors that may not have access to them, is not good practice. Smele is a scholarly source, we are sticking with what he presents as the range of estimates for the massacre given by Historians. Your personal qualifications for the strength of a source and estimate, is just that, yours. You have to be willing to work with other editors and follow the guidelines, they exist for a reason, precisely for situations like these where the question of what sources can be used is presented. The only way to make a better article is to not exclude widely cited information because of your own personal suspicions, I will not repeat myself again on that. TagaworShah (talk) 14:52, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

You're still dodging my points. You're trying to shift the onus on to all the other editors who disagree with you (and who have brought up convincing objections to all the secondary authors you have found) and making up your own rules as you go along. I'm not opposed to citing Smele to inform readers that estimates as high as 20,000 have been given; what I am opposed to is to give it undue weight and pretend that it's a realistic figure. That's bad history. You can't make unwarranted demands against me and the other editors, as right now your voice is in the extreme minority and is frustrating attempts to bring some integrity to this article. Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 15:52, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

@MarshallBagramyan: Smele does not present 20,000 as unrealistic at all, he provides it as a perfectly acceptable estimate given by historians in the widely varying range of estimates. You want to insert your own original research that such estimates are “unrealistic” without a SOURCE, you cannot just say an estimate is unrealistic because you feel like it, this is not how wikipedia works. You cannot just add statements like saying the 20,000 estimate is “unrealistic,” “bloated” or only given by non-specialist authors without a source, you can’t. And if you continue to add unsourced content, that is not in line with what Smele or any of the authors cited say, without providing a single source, I will have to take this to the administrators. Adding unsourced content because you feel strongly against a certain sourced estimate is a threat to Wikipedia’s integrity as a whole. TagaworShah (talk) 16:55, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Additional analysis:

According to a census taken two years before the tragic events, the Armenian population of Shusha was 23000, hence any figure higher, such as 30,000, is completely unrealistic.

Moreover, according Melkumian report, which referenced by Hovannisian, at least 8000 Armenians escaped the city. Likewise the Armenian Fact Investigation Platform which investigated the composition of the population of Shushi since the 19th century states that on March 23-26, 1920 "several hundred Armenians were killed and the rest of the Armenian population was forced to leave the city". Smele in his dictionary does not claim figure 20,000 to be true, but rather say that the number of deaths resulting remaining a matter of bitter dispute (with estimates ranging from 500 to 20,000). Yet, neither Smele nor others reference a credible source citing a death toll of 20,000. As a result, 20,000 is very unrealistic figure, and we still don't understand where it originated from.

Looks like the earliest source mentioning 20,000 figure is "The Nagorno-Karabagh Crisis: A Blueprint for Resolution (2000) by Public International Law & Policy Group and the New England Center for International Law & Policy", and possible that others just simply repeat it without critical assessment.

Public International Law & Policy Group and the New England Center for International Law & Policy are not an peer reviewed historical research organizations or a subject area specialists. Moreover, the mentioned "The Nagorno-Karabagh Crisis: A Blueprint for Resolution" is a Memorandum, which only makes a casual reference to Shusha events, lacks evidence to back up extraordinary assertions, and is focused on other parts of the conflict rather than historical accuracy. A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 18:09, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

There are no Wikipedia guidelines that a reliable source must include footnotes. Smele is widely and reliably published historian. If the source is reliable, from a historian, has an academic background, is modern, and nothing has been shown to deem him as non RS – then I don't see a reason why it shouldn't stay along with other estimates. The article doesn't claim one estimate to be true over the other, it provides available estimates based on reliable sources and that's our job as Wikipedia editors to do. At this point, I see no compelling argument to omit Smele and it just goes full circle like the previous concluded discussion. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 18:41, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm perfectly happy with asking for third-party intervention. If you like to get the ball rolling, please go on right ahead. And regarding authors and their sources: we can judge an author's familiarity with the subject matter by looking at his works cited. If there are no footnotes or precise sources, then we can call into question how well acquainted he is with his subject matter. In this case, we're talking about an astronomical discrepancy between 500 dead (as cited by contemporary reports) and 20,000 - based on who? What methodology? There's a difference between saying there's a possibility that Shakespeare's plays were co-written by others and then claiming that he didn't write anything himself. Providing undue weight to a figure that so far has a completely untraceable provenance is problematic and I assure you a third-party editor or administrator will agree will agree with that view. Asserting your views by going against all the other editors' objections is not unproductive, to say the least. Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 19:12, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

500 is only the most conservative estimate, it seems you are forgetting that other estimates exist like Babervoski says 8,000 deaths, Shahinyan says that more than 12,000 deaths were possible, the great soviet encyclopedia cites over 2,000 deaths, we cannot just go based on Hovannisian’s conservative estimate, if you take into account the other estimates than the 20,000 estimate is no more “extraordinary” than the 500 estimate. And it’s ridiculous to suggest that I am the only editor that agrees in the inclusion of the 20,000 estimate within the range, there are at least 2 other editors in this discussion alone that have also stated the same. Also equally ridiculous is the claim that this figure comes from an American law group from 2000 when in the previous discussion, multiple sources from decades before that was published cited the figure as well. Footnotes are by no means required in Wikipedia for a source to be accurate. TagaworShah (talk) 19:46, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

multiple sources from decades before that was published cited the figure as well. - Can you list them please? A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 19:57, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

@Abrvagl: Sure. Here are three sources from before that report was published that cite the 20,000 estimate:

National self‐determination and the limits of sovereignty: Armenia, Azerbaijan and the secession of Nagorno‐Karabagh (1995) by Khachig Tölölyan, on page 95: “This hesitation, in turn, led to a seesaw of military struggle that culminated in the Azeri burning of Shushi/a and the massacre of some 20,000 Armenians on 23 March 1920”

U.S.S.R Speaks for Itself. Volume 3 (1941), on page 24: “In the Caucasus a whole town, Shusha, was razed to the ground and most of its inhabitants—about 20,000 people—slaughtered as the result”

Caroline Cox’s parliamentary address 1997: “the massacre of 20,000 Armenians in the ancient Armenian city of Shushi”

You can say what you want about the reliability of these sources and their information, but the fact stands that they clearly show that the 20,000 estimate was used far before a report prepared in the year 2000. TagaworShah (talk) 20:19, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, but where did they get their information from? Baberovski is citing an archival document - fantastic! That's a good source to go by. We can cite him because we can trace his statement to the source. But Caroline Cox and Khatchig Toloyan and the "USSR Speaks for Itself" fall way, way short of indicating to us where they got their information from and my hunch, which is saying a lot, is they simply did not do any research and are just repeating a number they heard from somewhere. A throwaway line does not equate to them doing the kind of legwork Hovannisian and Baberovski have done. You can't put on the same playing field. I am absolutely baffled as to how you still cannot comprehend this very basic fact. Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 20:43, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

They were asked to list sources that the 20K estimate appeared prior to the 2000 Law group, and they did exactly that. The rest of your comment is irrelevant to obvious academic RS such as Smele or the question asked. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 20:50, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Marshall, as I literally said above, those sources are simply to show that the estimate was cited before an investigation in the year 2000 by an American Law Group that another editor claimed is where the estimate originated from. I did not say to use those sources in the article. TagaworShah (talk) 20:53, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Why you even bring Caroline Fox’s speech at Parliament debates, it is obviously unreliable. U.S.S.R Speaks for Itself. Volume 3 (1941) in the other hand was already proven unreliable in this talk. It does not mention dates , but claims that massacre was done by Tsarits Russia. Tsarits Russia did not exist at the time of Shusha massacre. Did not find much about the Tatolyan, but is appears to be 1-2 page essay ([1]).

With all due respect, but when I asked to list, I ment to list sources, not anyone said anything anywhere. A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 21:23, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Abrvagl, you claimed that the 20,000 estimate was created in 2000 by an American law group, I showed you instances were it was used before that, we already have the sourcing for the article in Smele, this was just to disprove your recent claim. I literally said at the end, that you can contest the reliability of the sources because they are not there to be reliable, they are there simply to show you that your claim is wrong. Also the Toloyan source is a legitimate reliable source published in a peer reviewed journal, once may argue he’s not a “specialist” but he’s not “anyone said anything” either. TagaworShah (talk) 21:31, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

@Olympian What is the point of adding all the sources from the talk page into the article? It is major citation overkill that impacts the readability of the section and many of the sources have already been deemed unreliable. Also citing both Geldenhuys and the law group is a circular reference. Let’s stick to the sources we all agreed upon in the talk page. TagaworShah (talk) 12:59, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Ottoman army?

Why is Ottoman army mentioned in the infobox? The vast majority of reliable sources make no mention of them, and it was impossible too, as the Ottoman army left the region in accordance with Mudros armistice in November 1918. Grandmaster 09:25, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I checked the cited source and it does not support claim that Ottoman army was involved. A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 18:11, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I suggest we remove Geldenhuys altogether. It is not a source on history, it is a source on politology, as discussed above. For this article, we need to use specialist sources that specialize on the the relevant time period of the regional history. Grandmaster 09:33, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

What is considered a specialist source? Nocturnal781 (talk) 05:04, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

A professional historian who did a research on the subject of the article. This person wrote a politological research, and made a passing mention of the topic of this article. Grandmaster 09:20, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying, but if we agreed to do something like this we would have to do it for all topics and references. It absolutely still goes by Wikipedia guidelines for sourcing. He is definitely a reliable figure it doesn’t take a specialist on the exact topic to see what happened in Shushi in 1920. If you feel it doesn’t belong in the intro we can comprise and figure out a different plan to restructure it. Nocturnal781 (talk) 18:03, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

We do (or at least try to) apply that standard for all articles on Wikipedia. I have never seen any other source mention that the Ottoman army was involved in the massacre...not least because aside from a handful of officers, the Ottoman army had withdrawn back to the pre-1914 borders following the signing of the Armistice of Moudros. Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 19:23, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I was speaking on the cultural de-Armenianization part my mistake for not pointing that out. But the Ottoman army looks like a mistake. Nocturnal781 (talk) 19:26, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

We should use best available sources. If a source makes a casual mention of the topic, without any in-depth research, it is unlikely to be reliable. So it is better to remove this one. Grandmaster 09:18, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

40,000 deaths

Olympian the source says 40,000 killed AND expelled. Nocturnal781 (talk) 04:59, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

The context is still misleading to the viewer. The section is for death tolls. If a viewer looks at it they see 40,000 deaths. It should be removed or specifically state deaths and expelled as the source you provided says otherwise it takes away from the accuracy of the content we provide. Nocturnal781 (talk) 05:10, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

As a matter of fact she is quoting the ex president who is not a reliable source. Nocturnal781 (talk) 05:17, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Nocturnal781 The point of this section is to demonstrate all the death tolls published through reliable scholarship and allow the reader reach their own conclusion, therefore, there's no reason to exclude an estimate published through a reliable, third-party journal such as Sfera Politicii – even so, it's good to contextualise for the reader the broad range of estimates for the massacre to demonstrate the lack of consensus. I will be restoring unless you have any arguments that prejudice citing Sfera Politicii. – Olympian ^loquere 05:39, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

You missed the part she is quoting the ex president’s speech. She says it in the context. We cannot use that in a encyclopedia. Nocturnal781 (talk) 05:45, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

In this case, it doesn't matter who is being quoted – the author has chosen to include that in the journal to contextualise the historical background of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. We have another footnote for the 20,000 figure that quotes a British parliamentarian which can be argued as appropriate for demonstrating to the reader the complete range of estimates throughout various sources. Again, we're not saying which estimate is right or wrong, we're simply providing an array for reliable sources to let the reader make their own conclusion. – Olympian ^loquere 06:03, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

The author is quoting the ex Armenian president during a speech and using it to describe how they felt by the words he used. Nowhere does it indicate she put it to give accurate data about these events. A president is not a reliable source for statistics especially in this case. Nocturnal781 (talk) 06:30, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

You're repeating the same arguments (WP:STONEWALLING) which I've already rebutted in my above replies. In essence, the content in reliable sources are sufficient to cite, and the fact that a reliable source quotes a president does not prejudice the content's inclusion – period. – Olympian ^loquere 07:25, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

The section is for the death toll and 40K is for expelled population as well so it shouldn't be in the section along with death estimates, and secondly, 40K violates WP:EXTRAORDINARY. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 09:33, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Would you be opposed to adding the 40K killed and expelled number in another section/paragraph? After all, this isn't some random source, it's the proper third-party journal, Sfera Politicii. – Olympian ^loquere 10:26, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I would oppose it, it's still extraordinary. And ofcourse it's extremely misleading to be added in the Death Toll section when 40K claim isn't just killed number but expulsion too, that goes without saying. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 01:17, 10 March 2023 (UTC)