Talk:Massacres of Azerbaijanis in Armenia (1917–1921)

Sources

Hi, check on p.7 of the French source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LikesBanana (talk • contribs) 02:53, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

More,

"He also mentions Vladimir Stankevich's 1921 book titled The Fate of the Peoples of Russia (Судьба народов России) whereby Stankevich writes that the "angry and defeated" Russian army was "robbing and pillaging the Muslim population" and that as a result, 200 Muslim villages had been destroyed. Hasanli also writes of a 1922 memoir by Boris Baykov who wrote that Muslim villages were exclusively targeted during these events.[13] Mustafa Kemal, the leader of the Turkish National Movement, in justifying an invasion of Armenia, stated that reportedly nearly 200 villages were burned by Armenians and most of their 135,000 inhabitants were "eliminated"."

See Hasanli, Foreign Policy of the Republic of Azerbaijan: The Difficult Road to Western Integration, 1918-1920. pp. 18-19

"In January 1918, a bloody conflict with heavy casualties took place at Shamkhor Station between Russian soldiers and government forces. Stepan Shaumian made an attempt to relate the events that took place from the ninth to the January to counterrevolutionary activity by Musavat party. However, the actual situation was very different. Having taken into consideration that the Russian army, moving toward Baku, would serve the Bolsheviks, or at least would provide them arms and military supplies, the South Caucasian Commissariat considered it necessary to disarm them, and it passed as resolution ordering the disarmament of Russian soldiers. The Azerbaijani population was suffering the most from the return of the Russian army. Vladimir Stankevich, in his work The Fate of the Peoples of Russia, wrote that the retreating Russian army, angry and defeated was robbing and pillaging the Muslim population. According to reports, 200 Muslim villages were destroyed in the course of this operation."

Unrelated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LikesBanana (talk • contribs) 02:58, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Hasanli clearly states "The Azerbaijani population was suffering the most from the return of the Russian army" before mentioning the destruction of 200 villages, I can't see how it's not relevant to the article as it falls within the period of massacres/deportations (from 1917 to 1921). – Olympian ^loquere 03:05, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Unless those 200 villages were within the region this article cover, it is outside of the scope of the article. You worded it, as if those 200 villages were within the region.

There is more:

The article stats: "The British Chief Commissioner of Transcaucasia, Oliver Wardrop, wrote in a report that "Armenians had destroyed sixty Muslim villages in New Bayazit, Alexandropol, and Erivan provinces"."

But check p. 268 of Hasanli book

"As the completion of the withdrawal of British troops from the Caucasus drew near, at the end of August, a mission consisting of White, Malligan, Grandy, and one more person under the leadership of Mr. Wardrop came to Tiflis. The decision of the Minister of Foreign Affairs on appointment of Mr. Wardrop as British High Commissioner to the South Caucasus was delivered to the government of Azerbaijan on August 22.

Thus, a new stage for Azerbaijan, a new and fundamentally different Caucasus, began. After starting his work in Tiflis, on September 27, Wardrop left for Baku accompanied by White, the member of the British mission; Fariz Bey Vakilov, diplomatic representative of Azerbaijan to Georgia; and G. Alshibaya, diplomatic representative of Georgia to Azerbaijan. On September 28, he was met at Baku railway station by Hammad Yusif Jafarov, Minister of Foreign Affairs, and other official persons. During his visit, Wardrop met with Nasib Usubbeyov, Prime Minister; Jafarov, Minister of Foreign Affairs; Khudadat Bey Malik-Aslanov, Minister of Roads; General Ali Agha Shikhlinski, Deputy Defense Minister; Mammad Sadikh Aghabeyov, Deputy Minister of Internal Affairs; and other officials. In his report on his visit to Baku sent to London on October 2, Wardrop wrote:

The people and government of this country hold Great Britain in high esteem, unlike any other. The prime minister’s position is quite firm. If we would help them, they will cooperate with Britain. I have a high opinion of the frankness of Mr. Usubbeyov and his ability to control the policy of his country. We both have strong hope in the future development of our relations.

During his visit to Baku, the British High Commissioner was fully informed about the brutalities committed by Armenians in Azerbaijan and the entire South Caucasus. In his report to London, he wrote, “Azerbaijanis have reported that with help of Bolsheviks, local Armenians have killed a great number of the Muslim population.” According to them, Shaumian was a “false Bolshevic.” In his report, Wardrop added that just recently Armenians had destroyed sixty Muslim villages in New Bayazit, Alexandropol, and Erivan provinces."

Check the difference in wording of what Hansanli writes and his quoting of Wardrop (Azerbaijanis have reported).

Fin a proper wording, because the article wording is misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LikesBanana (talk • contribs) 03:19, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

" In dealing with "troublesome" Muslim bands in Etchmiadzin, Armenian militias looted Muslim villages along the railway, forcing their inhabitants to flee across the Aras river—in an instance of this, the men of six Muslim villages were massacred and the women distributed to the "Armenian warriors"."

Hi, perhaps, wrong edition? I don't find it at the said page, here: https://dspace.nplg.gov.ge/bitstream/1234/228216/1/The_Republic_Of_Armenia_Volume_II.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by LikesBanana (talk • contribs) 14:31, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out, it's been fixed. The relevant passage is on page 180 of the second volume which you've linked:

It had just been learned, for example, that the men of six villages had been massacred and their womenfolk distributed to the “Armenian warriors.” Azerbaijan could no longer tolerate such atrocities or acquiesce in the loss of a part of its land and people.

Regards, – Olympian ^loquere 23:18, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, there is still the problem of the scope of the article. In the casualties section you included a list consisting of Erivan Governorate, Surmalu uezd, Kars Oblast, Zangezur uezd, however the map provided on that section includes only the current Armenian border. I don't know how this consistency issue could be dealth with, unless either the scope of the article or the title are changed. The text starts with Azerbaijanis in Armenia that links to another article about Azerbaijanis inhabiting the region now part of Armenia. However this article convers currently just more than the Republic border, unlike what the title asserts. It's cynical, to include Kars-Surmalu, where Muslim refugees returned, while Armenians did not, in fact, about half of the Armenians in the Surmalu uezd perished of starvation. LikesBanana (talk) 01:19, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Armenia was significantly truncated (the losses of Kars and Surmalu to Turkey and Sharur–Nakhichevan to Azerbaijan) since the ethnic cleansing and massacres occurred, so the best maps available (as included in the article) only indicate the territory of present-day Armenia, or rather, the Armenian SSR. There's not much that can be done to rectify this unless an editor experienced in the subject draws up another map that shows the ethnography all concerned regions, not just present-day Armenia. I don't think it's reasonable to reduce the scope of the article based on the availability of maps – I'm sure most would agree that in the case of Wikipedia, reliable sources are paramount in deciding the article's scope. Regards, – Olympian ^loquere 02:19, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Part about Nakhchivan

Hi User:Olympian, I think this sentence needs reworking:

• Nakhchivan, which was allotted to the Azerbaijan SSR, was "literally depopulated and turned into a desert" and "almost a third of the Muslim population" fled to Iran

This creates the false impression that Nakhchivan had been depopulated solely due to the massacre and flight of the Muslim population. The massacre of the Armenian population of Nakhchivan in the same period either needs to be mentioned here (for example, "Nakhchivan, where both the Armenian and Azerbaijani populations had been subjected to massacres, was "literally depopulated and turned into a desert"...) or it should be put differently. Revolution Saga (talk) 03:11, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree, thank you for the suggestion. I liked your wording so I added something like that, and I believe page 4 of the Broers source will be sufficient to reference the facts that Armenians in Nakhchivan were ethnically cleansed:

"Reliable numbers are elusive, but Ottoman Turkish–Azerbaijani forces killed or drove out many thousands of Armenians from Nakhichevan …"

Regards, – Olympian ^loquere 03:18, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

The Map: Distribution of Azerbaijanis in modern borders of Armenia

The map in this article has the title: "Own work based on the map of A. Tsutsiyev (2004) (АТЛАС ЭТНОПОЛИТИЧЕСКОЙ ИСТОРИИ КАВКАЗА, Цуциев А.А, Москва: Издательство «Европа», 2007)"

It does not seem possible to reconstruct this map from the linked source (where the URL goes). Wikipedia is not the place for original research. Humanatbest (talk) 15:07, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Update: I did some more investigation. The second map can be recreated more-or-less (PS: very cool map and article, I had no idea about these events and I love old maps), but the maps are not a faithful reproduction for two reasons:

A) what the the user @Interfase labeled as Azeribaijani is actually in the original "Татары крымские" which translates to "Crimean Tatar". I understand there is some inconsistent use of the word "Tatar" (it's polysemic) but Crimean Tatar is distinct from Caucasian Tatar (older term, which generally but refers to Azeribaijanis). Can someone please verify that this is pointing to the same group of people? Somewhere else in the text?

B) the areas labeled as Crimean Tatar (or maybe Azeri... if it isn't an error) are inflated. See my comparison with the pseudo-original snippet and the green boxes [I would post the whole comparison, but I'm worried about a copyright violation]. You can see the red is generally much larger than the yellow (pseudo-original). There's also a spot of Hemshin people ("Хемшилы") within the Crimean Tatar that is missing making the Crimean Tatar populated area much larger.

I think point B is mostly minor. The relative size of the red is good enough to keep this map but point A is important.

Can someone please verify that "Татары крымские" (Crimean Tatar) refers *actually* to Caucasian Tatar (~Azeri) in the original map? Somewhere else in the text maybe (any russian speakers here)? i don't speak Russian so it's hard for me to go through it all).

Pinging the other active editors I see on this page: @Interfase @Olympian @Dallavid @Buidhe @LouisAragon Humanatbest (talk) 12:07, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

@Humanatbest Thanks for sharing your investigation. I believe you may have misread the label: There would have been something along the lines of Кавказские татары, 'Caucasian Tatars'. This was the common designation of Azerbaijanis by the authorities of the Russian Empire. See the following sources to support this:

1. “The term Tatar was customarily used by Russians to refer to various Turkic speaking peoples of Russia. As a misnomer with regard to the Azerbaijanis, it will be put hereafter in quotation marks.” – Russian Azerbaijan, 1905-1920 The Shaping of a National Identity in a Muslim Community, page 6
2. “The people who make up Azerbaijan‘s majority population have in the past century gone by many names. Under the czars they were referred to simply as Muslims, or by the generic term ―Tatar, which indicated a Turkic-speaking Muslim. Later, in the early Soviet era, they were referred to as Turks, which turned into Azerbaijanis after 1937.” – Azerbaijan Since Independence, page 258
3. “Before, the Azerbaijani Turks had lacked a distinct national identity and had been called ‘Caucasian Muslims’ or ‘Tatars.’” – Secular nationalist revolution and the construction of the Azerbaijani identity, nation and state, abstract
4. “Speaking on behalf of the Azerbaijanis (Tatars) …” – British Foreign Policy in Azerbaijan, 1918-1920, page 95
5. “Furthermore, Tatar was the official designation used by the Russian state for settled urban Turkish speakers.” – The Azerbaijani Turks, page 28
6. “In imperial Russia, Azerbaijanis were referred to as Tatars or Turks.” – Foreign Policy of the Republic of Azerbaijan The Difficult Road to Western Integration, 1918-1920, Note on translation
7. “… warm admiration for the Tatars (Azerbaijanis) …” – The Republic of Armenia: Volume II, page 32
8. “With the end of tsarist rule, a low-level conflict had resumed between Armenians and Azerbaijanis, the Turkic-speaking Muslims, then known by outsiders mainly as ‘Tatars.’” – Great Catastrophe, page 68
9. “Russian sources refer to all Turkish-speaking Muslims in the region as Tatars. Those living in the eastern parts of South Caucasus, after the creation of the Azerbaijan Republic in 1918, and especially after Sovietization, became identified as Azeris.” – Demographic Changes in the Southwest Caucasus, 1604–1830 The Case of Historical Eastern Armenia, footnote 14
10. “Turkic-speaking Tatars, or Azeris (to give them their modern name) …” – Armenia The Survival of a Nation, page 48
11. “… including the confiscation of Armenian Church properties in 1903–5, the stoking of Armenian–Tatar (Azerbaijani) hostilities in 1905–7 …” – The Armenians Past and Present in the Making of National Identity, page 90
12. “… with Persianized Azerbaijani Turks (known to Russian imperialists as Tatars) …” – Rediscovering Armenia, page 2

In regards to point B, you're welcome to edit the map and fix its inaccuracies as I'm not its creator. Regards, – Olympian ^loquere 12:27, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply!

But the map specifically mentions Татары крымские not Кавказские татары.

See the yellow square in the legend (between number 45 and 46) here in the original map: https://www.iriston.com/books/cuciev_-_etno_atlas/maps/map12.jpg

Crimean Tatars are distinct from Caucasian Tatars.This is why I asked for clarification, is this just an error on the part of the Russian authors? Or did Crimean Tatars originally extend into the Armenian Highlands? Humanatbest (talk) 12:40, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I believe there may be a misunderstanding here: On the map you linked, the yellow colour in Armenia is represented by the number 40 (which is labelled on the colour abundantly) – in the legend in the top-right, number 40 represents Азербайджанские татары (Azerbaijani Tatars in English). I hope that answers your query. – Olympian ^loquere 12:50, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

thank you for clarifying that!! yes I misinterpreted the legend. The color coating scheme is a bit strange. But they double-coded it with numbers which now I see in hind-sight. Thanks!! Humanatbest (talk) 13:11, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Issues

I made comments on the Good article nominations page (current #25 in World history) concerning issues that include grammatical errors and stability. The article fails several points, not only for consideration of GA but a premature assessment of B-class. Title: Currently: Massacres of Azerbaijanis in Armenia in 1917–1921. When using a single year "in" 1917 would be proper. When using multiple years "from" 1917–1921 would be more correct; as in Massacres of Azerbaijanis in Armenia from 1917–1921. Otr500 (talk) 06:32, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Otr500, I couldn't find your comment on the Good Article nominations page, would you mind linking them, please? I'd also be useful to know what points the article fails on as the grammar in the article is seemingly sound and the article title itself was already fixed on 30 December (the years were moved into parenthesis: [1]). Regards, – Olympian ^loquere 07:51, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I added it here, and a bot removed it a little over two hours later. -- Otr500 (talk) 10:52, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

@Otr500 you wrote that the article fails the criteria of being well-written and verifiable with no original research. Could you please clarify exactly what in the article is poorly written and what parts are original research? The only evidence to support the latter was one poorly-worded sentence which was immediately deleted – everything else in the article is carefully sourced and I'm willing to stand by that should anyone like to attempt to verify it. Regards, – Olympian ^loquere 11:36, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I will need some patience. My gaming laptop went down and I am on an old Windows 7 likely built for Fred Flintstone.

I have full intentions of listing issues that I consider needing attention. I get slowed down by health issues and running across things like the opening sentence of the background section: "Following the Russian annexation of Iranian Armenia...". The link is to the Treaty of Turkmenchay, and the "Terms" section begins; "The terms of the Treaty of Turkmenchay can be found in here. as the following text is an unreliable abstract that can be edited by different biased sources: This is clear editorial bias, and I am pretty sure original research, that should be fixed as linking to it degrades an article.

I have not gone through the sourcing so that is not at issue ("everything else in the article is carefully sourced...") with me at this time. The mention of original research {#2 on the criteria) was actually for verifiability which would include quotes and WP:inline citations. The bot removed comments on the GA nomination were This article is not ready for a GA review failing criteria #1, #2, and #5. There are numerous sentence structural and grammatical errors, issues at an AFD shows referencing issues, and recent changes are evidence of instability. The article title could use grammatical improvements. This article was likely prematurely elevated to "B-class" failing #1 and #4. Any that have been rectified please ignore and the corrected title is good.

Weasel wording (Unsupported attributions): The third paragraph of the lead starts: "Soviet historians estimate",

The "Aftermath" section includes "According to British reports" (again "which"),

The "Soviet historiography" (2nd to last sentence) uses "A Soviet Armenian source writes". I didn't follow the source but unless written recently it is likely past tense. Clarity would suggest naming the source and including quotes with in-text_attribution.

In the "Erivan Governorate and Kars Oblast" section (3rd to last sentence): The Central Muslim National Committee of the South-West Caucasus in Kars on August 1919 writes that Armenian forces put to fire 38 villages in Surmalu, affecting 3,500 people and leaving 40,000 homeless. This is converted to Wikipedia language, "writes" is present tense, and something from 1919 would dictate past-tense.

The definite article (the) should be used for sentence flow and I am pretty sure I saw where it is missing in places. I will go over this and add any I find that is missing. The above comments is what I noticed on a first and fast read. Other than simple sentence corrections I will try to abstain from in-depth editing. Thanks for asking clarification. I have a double PE, off work, and on medication. If I make a questionable statement just continue to ask for clarification. -- Otr500 (talk) 13:08, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I stripped the article of primary and fringe sources pointed out in the AFD discussion. Per WP:ONUS, the reliability of sources needs to be established first. And given the multiple incidents of failed verification for sources in this article, we should establish what is reliable and what isn't before including it in the article. --Dallavid (talk) 19:56, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Just checked the Devastation book for the "killing spree" claim, Levene literally uses McCarthy as a source in the citation (203) for this. The article continues to fall apart with the smallest amount of verifying.

Levene also leaves a comment in his footnote for the McCarthy book that "though with the unfortunate corollary that McCarthy radically downplays the specifically Armenian catastrophe". There are other genocide deniers in the footnotes as well, such as Stanford J. Shaw and Guenter Lewy. Levene in general is very apologetic to Armenian genocide deniers in this book. --Dallavid (talk) 22:00, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

@Dallavid If you have a problem with any of the sources used in the article, you're welcome to take it to WP:RSN. I couldn't have known about the origin of the Levene claim as I wasn't the one to add it originally—it came from Azerbaijanis in Armenia article [2] which I partially worked on before moving its content into this article. In any case, it's been removed [3], thanks for pointing it out. – Olympian ^loquere 01:23, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@Olympian, I can not understand why you removed the source. Mark Levene is a well-known and respected historian. "Devastation: The European Rimlands 1912–1938" is published by Oxford University Press, which fact-checks its content and is peer reviewed. If some of its material is sourced from McCarthy, then it means that that specific part of McCarthy's research has been examined and found to be accurate by Levene and Oxford Press team. Any user who wants to challenge this Oxford-published reputable historian's book solely for the reason that the book references McCarthy should take the source to the RSN. A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 14:18, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@Abrvagl, you may restore the Levene source and content if you wish, but if Dallavid challenges the source in RSN, I won't be defending it. – Olympian ^loquere 09:35, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

@Olympian "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content". Other users in the AFD agreed with my concerns about these sources. --Dallavid (talk) 20:16, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@Dallavid, in the edit summary where you deleted over 10,000 bytes of content, you vaguely cited the two policies of WP:FRINGE and WP:PRIMARY. In order to facilitate a constructive discussion, could you please individually list every source you deleted [4] and outline your reasoning for deleting them? As far as I can see from the edit diff, you deleted the Baberovski and Hasanli sources from the bibliography, but also deleted content that referenced sources authored by Kaufman, Ovsepyan, Hovannisian (1982), Mammadov & Musayev, Coyle, Aharonian, La Temps, Tarasov, Volkova, Korkotyan, and Kazemzadeh (see the pre-revision version for the names of the sources by these authors: [5]) Moreover, you added the Taner Akçam source which was revealed in the AfD to be irrelevant to the scope of this article, please share your reasoning for adding that. If I haven't miscounted, there are 14 sources whose deletions/addition we'd like to see an explanation for. – Olympian ^loquere 12:30, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

This was all explained in detail in the AFD but I will summarize it here as well. Baberovski and Hasanli are genocide deniers. I didn't remove Kaufman, I just changed the attributed text to reflect what the source actually says. Ovsepyan doesn't refer to massacres, just deportations, similar to most credible sources. Hovannisian mentioned something an Azeri politician claimed at the Paris Peace Conference, and you made it appear as if Hovannisian himself was making the claim. I removed the undue parts of the Mammadov/Musayev source, because there are no reliable neutral sources providing a death toll. Coyle is a pro-Azerbaijan activist that committed academic dishonesty.[6] Aharonian is a primary source. La Temps is a primary source, a 1920 French newspaper that is not even accessible and I assume you found it from genocide denier Maxime Gauin's anti-Armenian blog that you originally cited.[7] Tarasov, Volkova, and Korkotyan are all primary sources and Soviet histography would've been full of anti-ARF propaganda; if their claims had any due weight it would be easy to find modern reliable sources making the same claims. Kazemzadeh's The Struggle for Transcaucasia has been recognized as a fringe/outdated/biased source that stepped outside his area of expertise. --Dallavid (talk) 19:39, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

The only reasoning I agree with from your points are about Ovsepyan (who can instead be referenced appropriately in the Zangezur section) and Aharonian. In regards to the rest:

1. You haven't provided any evidence that Baberovski and Hasanli are genocide deniers, and you're conflating the two when you (erroneously) imply that Baberovski denies the Holocaust whilst Hasanli denies the Armenian genocide.
2. Kaufman clearly supports the claim that Azerbaijanis were massacred in the First Republic of Armenia as evident on page 58.
3. Why is that not suitable for inclusion in an article about the massacre of Azerbaijanis in Armenia if it's included in Hovannisian's publication? We can add an attribution to Topchubashov to address your concern.
4. The Balayev source supports the 7,729 death toll number (he references the findings of a commission in the Soviet archives), and you also failed to address the reason for deleting him.
5. You're going to have to do a lot more than just one tweet to dismiss an entire work by James Coyle. I suggest taking your concerns to WP:RSN.
6. How is Le Temps a primary source? Per WP:PRIMARY: Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. Le Temps is a French newspaper that had no involvement with the events it published. Since you commented on the accessibility of the newspaper, here it is in original form for you to verify the claim yourself, albeit from Le Radical, which is the newspaper that La Temps was quoting: Les musulmans persécutés en Arménie
7. That is an insufficient reason to omit the extensive historiography performed by Soviet historians. By that logic, should Wikipedia omit all historiography published in the Soviet Union because they were fundamentally anti-capitalist/democratic?
8. There was no consensus to recognise Kazemzahdeh's source as you described; it was only stated by ZaniGiovanni and Armatura. I'm curious why you've misrepresented it as such or how you even know about it, deep in the RSN archives?

– Olympian ^loquere 13:20, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

1. You're still trying to dispute they are genocide deniers even though you quoted one of them denying the genocide? And why should denying a different genocide make a source less unreliable?
2. Kaufman just has one brief sentence saying that both Armenians and Azeris were massacred, as I've pointed out several times already, and that's the only mention in the whole book.
3. Because a contentious claim that has only ever been made by one person over a hundred years ago is exactly what the fringe and undue guidelines are meant to exclude.
4. I didn't delete him entirely, just the part with an undue claim.
5. A tweet by a PhD student and visit scholar at a famous university. I just flipped open Coyle's book and he doesn't get past the introduction without promoting the Azerbaijani historiography of Caucasian Albania (meant to erase Armenians from history) as being true.
6. How is a 1920 newspaper reporting current events a primary source? You're joking, right?
7. Censorship in the Soviet Union is certainly a good reason to.
8. FOARP acknowledged that Kazemzadeh made fringe theories where the overwhelming majority of modern historical analysis is against him, and LouisAragon agreed that some of Kazemzadeh's material has been debunked and is now outdated. And I simply searched "Kazemzadeh" in the RSN archive search bar, and it was the only result.

--Dallavid (talk) 22:13, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

1. As I said on the quoted diff, I found it to be a "strange" exercpt, and I don't know if it outright denies the existence of Armenian genocide due to the fact that it originates from Routledge-published source. Have you known Routledge to publish unreliable/denialist material before? Secondly, there's not a shred of proof that Baberovski denies the Holocaust.
2. And one sentence is sufficient to be referenced, we don't require an entire book written about the subject to be able to reference its information.
3. Hovannisian included it in his book, meaning that it is relevant from 1982, not "over a hundred years ago".
4. You deleted a sentence where Balayev outlines the findings of the commission, i.e. how many men, woman, and children were killed; you also removed the sentence attributing Balayev with the death toll without any valid reasoning.
5. We don't rely on Tweets to decide whether or not to cite a source on Wikipedia, there's a process whereby a person challenging the validity of a source posts about it on RSN and gains consensus before acting on it.
6. Newspapers can be considered secondary sources.
7. Please provide a link of a consensus on Wikipedia that tells that we mustn't cite any Soviet historiography.
8. You still haven't supplied a link showing a consensus to not cite Kazemzadeh, just your own views/interpretation.

By the way, did you notice that Abrvagl and Alalche uncovered (and added to the article) that in Akçam's book (a source that you and ZaniGiovanni labelled as "reliable", "modern RS", and by a "reliable author") contains multiple sentences supporting the claims of Baberovski and other authors that Azerbaijani villages were destroyed by Russian soldiers, that the Armenian government set its army and militias against the Muslim population, and that the "Armenian state was itself attempting to establish an ethnically homogenous nation", amongst other claims?

Seeing as we aren't able to come to a consensus regarding your deletion of 10 kilobytes of the article, I'm referring our content dispute to WP:DRN. – Olympian ^loquere 09:20, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

@Abrvagl @Alalch E. @Dallavid @ZaniGiovanni: Please be aware of the DRN discussion concerning this content dispute. – Olympian ^loquere 09:50, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

1. Justin McCarthy has had books published in university presses before, so a book having a reputable publisher does not automatically mean that it is reliable and not fringe.
2. Yes but the text needs to actually match what the reference says.
3. Do we know the names of these six villages that were supposedly massacred? Surely another source would've mentioned them during the past century if what that delegate said was true.
4. If it has not been confirmed by any sources outside of Azerbaijan, than it is undue.
5. Okay, since you're the one that wants to use Coyle as a source, why don't you make an RSN thread for him?
6. What information does the newspaper have that was originally presented elsewhere? And this is saying nothing of how the newspaper is obviously very WP:AGE MATTERS.
7. I provided you with a source that the Soviet Union was hostile to the ARF and banned it in the AFD,[8] which means that it is biased and not credible on its own.
8. The RSN clearly came to a consensus that Kazemzadeh is a problematic source.

All of that information from the Akcam source is consistent with subject of the Deportations article and does nothing to support the credibility of this article. --Dallavid (talk) 21:56, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

• I missed this AfD but I don't see why this article topic should be separate from deportation of Azerbaijanis from Armenia. It would make no more sense to have separate articles for deportation of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire 1915–1917 and massacres of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire 1915–1917. Additionally, the article title should be avoided as POV if there is any serious dispute that massacres occurred. (t · c) buidhe 05:37, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

  @Buidhe, the topic of this article is notable on its own outside of just the general deportations as is evident by the fact that this article is longer than the Deportation of Azerbaijanis from Armenia article itself. Moreover, the article mainly deals with killings and ethnic cleansing, not just deportations (which is the scope/focus of the "Deportation of Azerbaijanis from Armenia" article). – Olympian ^loquere 10:52, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

  I don't have a strong opinion what article title is best, having not examined the sources. I am just saying that an event that involved murder on a much larger scale than this one still does not make sense to separate out "massacres" from "deportation" and claim they are separate topics. (t · c) buidhe 17:52, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

  These are completely different topics. Deportation of Azerbaijanis from Armenia article is about the population transfer during the Soviet Union, and mainly talks about deportations during and immediately after the Soviet Union's collapse. Whereas this article is about massacres, not just deportations, that happened before the Soviet Union. A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 18:19, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

  @Buidhe, as mentioned by others, the deportation of Azerbaijanis article has a completely different scope to this article—it focuses on deportation of Azeris since the late 40s and late 80s. On the other hand, this article is about the extermination of the Azeri, and by extension, Muslim populations of the First Republic of Armenia (which existed in the post-WW1 period, i.e. late 1910s). – Olympian ^loquere 11:10, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

  The deportation article currently covers multiple time periods including events during the First Republic of Armenia. (t · c) buidhe 18:25, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

  @Buidhe, the deportations article barely covers the First Republic of Armenia, its content is overwhelmingly focused on the aforementioned 40s and 80s deportations.

  Moreover, this article relates to massacres of Azeris and Muslims, not just deportations of Azeris. Applying your logic, would you support merging an article about a massacre of Jews in Palestine (1929 Hebron massacre) to an article about the expulsion of Jews from the Middle-East (Jewish exodus from the Muslim world)?

  Also, I think it's worth considering Wikipedia's Merge Test:

  1. Will a merge result in an article that violates article size guidelines?
  2. Will a merge require the removal of encyclopedic content?

  In a nutshell, "If a merge will result in an article too large to comfortably read or the deletion of encyclopedic content, it should not occur", which is also what WP:NOMERGE states: "Merging should be avoided if the resulting article would be too long or "clunky"". So, I don't see how a merge in this case improves Wikipedia. – Olympian ^loquere 08:03, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

  The merge result would not violate the article size guideline (WP:TOOBIG), because the readable prose of the combined article would be ~18kB (Deportation of Azerbaijanis from Armenia is 11kB and this article is ~7kB). Even if the content Dallavid removed was restored, and everything in both articles was kept without any condensation due to overlapping/superseded content, it would still be under 60kB, which is when merger stops looking like a good idea due to size concerns. Jewish exodus from the Muslim world already has 80kB in readable prose so nothing should be merged to it.

  To continue, let's take how content about the SSR period deportations is organized on Wikipedia. The following section: Deportation of Azerbaijanis from Armenia#Relocation from the Armenian SSR -- for which Deportation of Azerbaijanis from Armenia (1947-1950) is the main article (i.e. daughter article to the parent article) -- is about the same length as the daughter article. The parent article would need to contain the information in a significantly more WP:SUMMARIZEd form to justify two levels of coverage. But it can't because if the content of 'Deportation of Azerbaijanis from Armenia' was significantly shorter (in order to differentiate it in level of detail relative to the daughter article), it would become too short, and wouldn't serve any purpose at all. (So to justify a separate page for the SSR period, there would need to be at least a proposition of significant and forthcoming expansion of the daughter article.) In principle, covering things together whereby more context is provided is good; comprehensiveness is an encyclopedic virtue. This is why 'Deportation of Azerbaijanis from Armenia (1947-1950)' should really be merged to the parent article.

  Same goes for this here article. It is similar in length to said parent article section, and also to the SSR period article. Its content would fit very appealingly in the parent article. There would be two core sections similar in length, for the two distinct but interrelated epochs. Right now there is a disbalance: the content about the pre-Soviet period is too short in the parent article, when it could be just as long, seeing how an approximately equal amount of unique content exists on both periods on Wikipedia -- the title "Deportation of Azerbaijanis from Armenia" does not prioritize the later period. In terms of pure organization the merger proposal seems excellent to me. —Alalch E. 20:31, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

User:Alalch E. Check out the Azeri version of Deportation of Azerbaijanis from Armenia (1947-1950), 138k size, with a lot of Western sources. This means that, again, the topic itself is noteworthy of a separate article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.134.55.62 (talk) 04:54, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

• I agree. There is no reason to believe that "killings and ethnic cleansing" are noteworthy enough to merit their own article. We do not even have a reliable source for a total death amount; on the contrary we have a source confirming said figures were exaggerated or fabricated. Reliable sources mainly refer to displacement and refugees, not massacres. --Dallavid (talk) 20:16, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

User:buidhe, this article covers the massacres carried out by the First Armenian Republic. The article on deportation covers the ethnic cleansing carried out by the Armenian SSR, and then the post-1991 Armenia, and Artsakh. These are completely different things and failing to see this shocks me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.134.55.146 (talk) 23:15, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Taner Akçam clearly refers to the Caucasus regarding fabrications and exaggerations while also bringing up an example Erzurum. One doesn't negate the other. Hence I reverted the OR and BLP violating disruptive edit and restored Akcam, and will provide the quote below from his book:

• Certain considerations bear emphasizing. It is important that we do not equate these events with the Armenian genocide. It is a frequent mistake to "equate" or "balance" the massacres in the Caucasus with the genocide, an error often made in Turkish histories, which cite acts of Armenian revenge as proof that the murders of 1915 were not genocide. Previous massacres are never a justification for subsequent massacres. Or, in the Turkish case, subsequent massacres can never justify earlier genocide. The second problem is the reliability of the sources. Most of the figures cited are freely invented by the authors. For example, one study of the Vilayet of Erzurum puts the number of massacred Muslims in the spring of 1918 as 25,000. After examining Turkish military publications, Dadrian claims that "the number ... as a compilation of various statistical data embedded in the wartime records of the Ottoman Third Army, reveals that altogether some 5,000-5,500 victims are involved. German sources also refer to these exaggerations.

Nuri Pasa (Enver's brother) claimed that more than thirty villages were destroyed in one such massacre. General Kress claimed that Nuri had greatly exaggerated the figures, as the events in question had not affected more than ten villages or so, and some of these could hardly be classified as villages, containing as they did no more than four or five inhabitants. Such reports were systematically exaggerated or outright fabrications, delivered in order to reinforce the image of the "Armenian peril."

The third issue is how to evaluate the events between 1917 and 1922, whether the terms "acts of revenge" or "continuation of the genocide" are accurate. There is no doubt that the events in Caucasus were part of a historical continuity in the region. source. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 13:29, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Alalch E. I quoted the text from the book in the AFD and ZaniGiovanni has also posted the text above. Akcam says he considers the events in the Caucasus as part of the continuity of the Armenian genocide in Western Armenia. The Erzurum numbers are just one example he gave. --Dallavid (talk) 22:13, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

It was already explained in the very same AFD, that last two sentences are cut from the other paragraph and unrelated to the previous paragraph. Here is the continuation:

There is no doubt that the events in Caucasus were part of a historical continuity in the region. However, while there is continuity of the actors, there are significant changes to the context in which these events took place. The decline of empires and rise of new nation-states changed the nature of the events in very important ways that negate a description of Muslim deaths during this period as simply “acts of revenge.” The newly formed Armenian state was itself attempting to establish an ethnically homogenous nation. After the suppression of a Bolshevik uprising in May 1920 in Yerevan, “the government … turned the regular army and Western Armenian detachments against the constantly defiant Muslim-populated districts.…”157 .

That, actually, makes it clear that Taner Akçam implies that there were ethnic cleansings of Muslims in the Caucasus Armenia. A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 07:03, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I quoted Akçam in the article. —Alalch E. 09:36, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

He also criticzed the death figures in primary sources for often being "freely invented by the authors" and exaggerations of "destroyed villages" referring to settlements of 4-5 inhabitants. - this part is still unrelated to the topic article though. As it is visible from the quotation, when it comes to "freely invented by the authors" Akcham refers to Ottoman empire, rather than to Caucasus. P.S. I can share source with you if you interested. A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 09:47, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Moreover, about the exaggerations of "destroyed villages" referring to settlements of 4-5 inhabitants - this is claim of General Kress, not Akcham. Also, Turkish-German historian Taner Akçam criticized Azerbaijani/Turkish efforts to equate these events with the previous Armenian genocide. - a bit of original research here, Akcham clearly does not talk about any Azerbaijani efforts. A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 09:52, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I removed "Azerbaijani efforts". I'm unsure about the rest of what you are saying and need more time to think about it. —Alalch E. 10:47, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Cont.

Moved from User talk:Alalch E.

 – —Alalch E. 23:01, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello and good day to you! I saw your edit summary on the Massacres of Azerbaijanis in Armenia (1917-1921) page and thought I'd give some context. All of the verifiability concerns raised in the discussion were already addressed. In terms of WP:BRD policy, the editor who removed the content failed to meet it, because referring to well-established and highly reputable sources like "Hovannisian, Richard G.: The Republic of Armenia: From Versailles to London" published by University of California Press as "WP:FRINGE / WP:PRIMARY" and literally deleting 1/3 of article without proper explanation is not being BOLD, but reckless. Moreover, the onus is on the editor who wants to delete already existing content to prove why they should be deleted, therefore BRD doesn't apply here. Considering this, would you please undo your edit? A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 18:36, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello! Thanks for the feedback. This article was created by Olympian from scratch. It was then nominated for deletion. During the month long AfD it was not seriously edited by other editors, who dispute its content based on a premise that it should be deleted (there were some minor attemps which were reverted), and was therefore in a suspended state in terms of its status regarding formation of consensus. The collaborative process hadn't started in full, and something like WP:EDITCON hasn't solidified at all.

Adding all this content to the encyclopedia was a bold move that is disputed and is effectively subject to reverts, which come from concerns that need to be resolved on the talk page. It may ultimately be shown that some or all of the concerns are unfounded (in theory), but there is no reason to defend a particular version of the article during this period. When starting from a place of certainty in the validity of one's position it is better, and will have more long-lasting good effects, to, for example, use some dispute resolution venue like mediation, and reintroduce content that was disputed afterwards, than to defend a pre-written article on the grounds of "existing content".

The rationales of objectors must be defeated not by defending "existing content" as if that is a value in itself (it is not), but by defeating their arguments through discussion (leading to a consensus), or by finding a compromise (also consensus). That's how I see it at least. —Alalch E. 23:01, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I identify the reasoning behind this edit as being located here. It doesn't look like these concerns were addressed. (What does Dallavid think about that?) Clearly the issue is with Baberowski and Hasanli. The edit removed practically all claims that depend on these authors' work. I suppose that it shouldn't be hard to isolate this issue for the time being in order to form the specific consensus regarding these sources. —Alalch E. 23:51, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

How did the false claim that Azeris were targeted for the Armenian genocide make it back into the article? That was one of the earliest examples of OR that Olympian had to remove. --Dallavid (talk) 22:10, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

How is the claim that Azeris were targeted for the Armenian genocide considered OR? Thomas de Waal states: Azerbaijanis were universally regarded as Turkish fifth columnists and bore the brunt of Armenian anger … Azerbaijanis became the collateral victims of the Young Turks’ genocidal policies of 1915. on page 75 of Great Catastrophe: Armenians and Turks in the Shadow of Genocide. – Olympian ^loquere 00:29, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

"Collateral victims", if you had quoted the whole page, of being forced to leave and Armenian refugees being moved into their place. Yet another source that is actually referring to deportations, not massacres. --Dallavid (talk) 22:01, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Some more points that need to be addressed at some point, IMO:

• Title "Massacres of Azerbaijanis in Armenia (1917–1921)". The Azerbaijan Democratic Republic was founded in 1918, marking the very first time that the word "Azerbaijan" was used officially for a territory to the north of the Aras river (see also Azerbaijan (toponym)). It would still take some years for the word also being used as a synonym for the Turkic Muslims of the Republic, with the word "Turks" in fact being the common word to designate said populace until the Republic's demise. In short; the title is not fitting IMO, as no such country or ethnicity existed with that name in 1917.
• The lede states: "While a significant portion of the Muslim population (also identified as Tatars[a])". The word "Muslims" never equalled to "Tatars"; it encompassed a much larger group that also, depending on territory in Transcaucasia, included peoples such as Kurds. The note, citing Bournoutian, doesn't cover said statement either. For the record; I can quote more references from Bournoutian that literally contradict it.
• In the article's body: "Despite this, the 1897 Russian Empire Census indicated there to be over 240 thousand Muslims on the territory of present-day Armenia, mostly ethnic Azerbaijanis as indicated by previous censuses (forming over 30 percent of the population).[5]" -- The results of the 1897 Russian Empire Census don't show mention of the word "Azerbaijani" (or variants thereof) on a single occassion. Should be changed to "Tatar (later known as Azerbaijani)".
• Image with the caption: "Azerbaijanis in Erivan (present-day Yerevan)". Whoever added this decided to use "Erivan", i.e. the contemporaneous spelling for Yerevan, yet decided to use the anachronistic word "Azerbaijani" in the very same sentence. The title of the image file reads the same, so I understand if they copied that, but its still incorect. As we know, Azerbaijani became an ethnic designation only post 1918, with its use cemented under Stalin's rule. Perhaps "Tatars (later known as Azerbaijanis) in Erivan (present-day Erivan)" would be a better fit.
• " As a result of rising nationalism in the South Caucasus, ethnic clashes erupted between Armenians and Azerbaijanis in the Russian Empire between 1905 and 1907, resulting in massacres of thousands[6] and the destruction of 128 and 158 Armenian and Tatar villages, respectively.[7]" -- idem here. In the first part of the sentence it uses the anachronistic word "Azerbaijani" regarding a time period when the word wasn't in common parlance, yet in the second part of the sentence it uses the contemporaneous designation "Tatars".
• "Ter Minassian, displeased with the fact that Azerbaijanis in Armenia lived on fertile lands, waged at least three campaigns aimed at cleansing Azerbaijanis from 20 villages outside Erivan, as well as in the south of the country." -- idem.
• "During the 1921 anti-Soviet revolt known as the Republic of Mountainous Armenia, Nzhdeh in taking control of Zangezur drove "out the last of its Azerbaijani population".[21]" -- cited to Thomas de Waal, who, although a popular expert on the region and a bestselling author, is a journalist by profession.
• "In April 1920, the archbishop of Yerevan, Khoren I of Armenia, admitted that "a few Tatar villages under the Armenian Government have suffered" while also justifying it by stating that "they [Azerbaijanis] were the aggressors, either they actually attacked us, or they were being organised by the Azerbaijan agents and official representatives to rise against the Armenian Government."[34]" -- Starts with Tatar, then switches to Azerbaijani. Was that an editorial?
• "Historical ethnic composition of Armenian Zangezur" -- in this table, it uses once again the term "Azerbaijani" in relation to the 1897 figures. Yet when one clicks on the reference, it doesn't mention the word even once.

There's definitely content in this page that merits inclusion on Wikipedia, but it needs some proper care (regardless of whether the content it gets moved to a different page or not). - LouisAragon (talk) 01:21, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

LouisAragon, please suggest a specific change to the lead sentence that contains the note about Tatars vis-a-vis your second bullet. —Alalch E. 17:56, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

LouisAragon, Otr500, Buidhe Something worth mentioning is that the closest thing to this article in interwikis such as Russian Wikipedia is titled: Ethnic cleansing and pogroms during the Armenian-Azerbaijani war (1918-1920), and even in Azerbaijani Wikipedia: Ethnic cleansing and massacres during the Armenian-Azerbaijani war (1918-1920). Both treat the clashes, massacres and ethnic cleansing from both sides. Why is the en-wiki version POV I'm not sure.

And the four regions cited, namely: Erivan Governorate, Surmalu uezd, Kars Oblast, Zangezur uezd include lands that aren't even part of the current republic, and for those regions, what happened to the Armenian population wasn't in any way different.

I think the article should be merged with Deportation of Azerbaijanis from Armenia, this is probably the optimal solution. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 14:51, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

@ZaniGiovanni The scope of the article are massacres that occurred on the territory of the First Republic of Armenia, not the modern Republic of Armenia (1991–present), therefore, the massacres in the regions you mentioned are fully within the scope of the article. Moreover, the massacres broadly affected all Muslims in Armenia, including Kurds, Anatolian Turks, and chiefly, Azerbaijanis, so the rationale for merging isn't sufficient in multiple parameters. – Olympian ^loquere 22:28, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Hovannessian starts his section on Turco-Tatar Minority in Armenia (p. 178) with [t]he interracial warfare accompanying the Turkish invasion in 1918 had ravaged the Surmalu and Etchmiadzin uezds, expelled the Armenians from Sharur-Nakhichevan, and driven many Muslims from Daralagiaz and the southwestern side of Lake Sevan. Although most of the Armenian refugees from these districts had been repatriated by mid-1919, they were again forced to flee during the Muslim insurrection in July and August. But nearly a third of the 350,000 Muslims of the Erevan guberniya had also become homeless, living in misery along the Ottoman frontier, in the abandoned Armenian villages of Sharur and Nakhichevan, and in the environs of the Armenian capital. The government’s announcement in the spring that all refugees could return to their native districts had been ineffectual, since little had been done to dispossess and relocate the Western Armenian squatters. And unwelcome burden in the less imperiled Muslim centers in Armenia, many Tatar refugees wanted to emigrate to Azerbaijan.

Seems, given this account, then, to me Russian and Azeri version of the article accurately portray these events. I also previously pointed that it was cynical to include regions like Surmalu (or Kars), where there are no Armenians remaining to speak of, without covering their demise (and this would require a detailed account comparable to those of the Azeri).

There are ways to check if the scope of the article is sound. Like taking citations used (currently references 1 to 37), and check if this current title could be assumed from what the citations stat. Currently the title cannot alone be assumed from the references used. LikesBanana (talk) 17:02, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Please see the change I made to the article, and reverted myself. Would anyone disagree if I reinstate it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LikesBanana (talk • contribs) 21:29, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

I think "Casualties" is a more concise heading for presenting its information than the one you proposed, so I'm opposed to changing it for now. – Olympian ^loquere 02:47, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't see any casualty figures on that table. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LikesBanana (talk • contribs) 22:13, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Article classification

The article survived an AFD but there were issues noted there, as well as some in the "Issues" section above, that indicates this article fails B-class assessment. During the AFD the title was changed (considered inappropriate) and the parenthetical dates are questionable. This needs resolution to preclude a possible merger discussion. -- Otr500 (talk) 12:19, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

It's worth pointing out that the "1917–1921" dates come from the removed source by genocide denier Justin McCarthy. There is not a single reliable source supporting a "large scale" massacre during this period. --Dallavid (talk) 19:40, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

There seems to be a lot of pushing one way or the other. The article was apparently created 2022-12-01 and in a very short time was promoted to B-class, obviously prematurely, with sources that have been questioned. I note that two editors has provided the bulk, one editor has contributed 29.6% and another editor 28% all in a very short time. The title is extremely controversial and unless there is clear evidence that sources refer to the time as "massacres" the article is clearly using the wrong title.

There has been a land ownership issue in South Africa for a good while. A movement has been started to seize land (expropriation) from white owners, without payment (there has been a program, willing seller, willing buyer for white owners to sell their land) and incidences where white owners have been killed. A proposed constitutional amendment, to right a great wrong, that started in 1913 (referred to as the original sin) and continued to the end of apartheid is supported by the ANC, the Economic Freedom Fighters and others. According to the article South African farm attacks there have been "between 58 and 74 murders on farms annually in the period 2015–2017". Some have called this genocide (Australian Senator Fraser Anning and Ian Cameron, community safety head at AfriForum, the same organization that in 2017 agreed with the South African government, that the main purpose of the attacks was robbery and AfriForum stated they did not believe there was racial motive associated with all attacks. From the article: "The South African Police Service declared in 1998 that there had been no evidence at the time of systematic organised attacks, although the matter was being looked into by special investigators." Apparently an update is needed. A tweet and another tweet, likely not reliable sources) stated "Over 74,000 since 1984!! white children and mothers killed" and used the term "slaughter of white farmers".

I mention this because a few sources can be found [9] Reuters] (a "toxic legacy" with content stating "white commercial farmers go as far as to brand the farm killings a genocide."), A BBC report titled "South Africa: The groups playing on the fears of a 'white genocide'" give some credibility to the word "genocide" but other sources claim it is not. At any rate there does not seem to be justification enough to use such a controversial term in the title. I submit that the current title seems to violate WP:NDESC as it does not avoid "judgmental and non-neutral words".

The article has been subjected to discretionary sanctions so that is my cue to limit my involvement and just provide some of my thoughts and opinions. Have a great day and Happy New Year, -- Otr500 (talk) 02:23, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Happy New Year to you as well! --Dallavid (talk) 22:16, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement

I semi-protected the page for 3 months as arbitration enforcement. Ymblanter (talk) 22:56, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Post-DRN

The discussion on the dispute resolution noticeboard has been closed as failed. The reviewer closed the discussion right after I had pointed out the Hovannisian source is being misrepresented, and they never supported any particular wording for attributing it. Here is the text from the Hovannisian book I presented in the discussion that shows, while he is including the claims of Topchubashov and other Turkish sources, he also discredits them afterwards:

Khondkarian’s pointed questioning was frequently cited in Azerbaijani sources as proof of Armenian culpability. Incorporating this evidence in a formal protest on September 22, Foreign Minister Jafarov charged that the recent pogroms had devastated some fifty Muslim settlements. Public opinion in Azerbaijan was incensed, and the government, revolted by these atrocities, demanded strong measures to ensure the safety of Muslims. The Armenian Dashnakist press retorted that Azerbaijani wails rose to a high pitch whenever the conspirators were trying to divert attention from their own acts of aggression. Was it not curious that Azerbaijani spokesmen, while bemoaning the fate of the "peaceful Muslims" in Armenia, were preaching subversion throughout Erevan and Kars and inviting Mustafa Kemal and Rauf Bey to send their irregular chete bands over the frontier into Karaurgan and Kars? And had they forgotten that repeated appeals for a pacific resolution of all disputes had been answered with an insurrection which had cost another 10,000 Armenian lives, had displaced thousands of newly repatriated people, and had been intended to destroy the Armenian democracy?
The official Armenian reply to Jafarov in October claimed that a mixed Armeno-Muslim commission had gathered information from local Muslim notables showing that responsibility for the disturbances rested upon alien agents, who asserted their authority over villages and partisan groups and then intimidated and punished all those who refused to join the rebellion. The action against Djanfida and Kiarim-arkh had been necessary because those villages harbored the murderers of Armenian peasants and militiamen and served as rebel centers. In that incident sixteen partisans had been killed after they opened fire on the Armenian militia and the villagers had been driven across the Araxes, but that was the extent of the so-called Armenian excesses.

Dallavid (talk) 00:26, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

This passage, citing the retort of the "Dashnakist press" (the organ of the party that orchestrated the ethnic cleansing against Azeris) doesn't prejudice including the claims of Azeri politicians at the time; to focus only on one perspective/pattern of events, i.e. the Armenian one, would be giving undue weight to it. Moreover, in a separate paragraph and in an authoritative voice, Hovannisian confirms that "the most vulnerable Muslim settlements" were exposed to retribution by Armenian "militiamen and irregulars" (page 180), something directly relevant to the scope of this article. Also, the "official Armenian reply to Jafarov" confirms "action" against Azeri villages, thus validating the claims of Azeri politicians. Also, you haven't addressed why the Turkish Nationalist's claims (from Volume 4) should be excluded, as they also directly relate to the scope of this article and are also notable enough to be written about by Hovannisian, in-detail.

What I stated in my ES was that the majority of involved editors in DRN (namely Abrvagl, Alalch E., and I) agreed with the proposed (and implemented) rewording of the Hovannisian-referenced sentences, whilst you and Zani (who scarcely commented), in the minority, dissented. In summary, providing a wall of quotation without picking it apart nor explaining your reasoning isn't sufficient to defend the deletion of 3 carefully-worded and attributed sentences. – Olympian ^loquere 01:03, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

(Note: I commented at the RSN and on my user talk page.)

In this revert, three sentences:

1. During the Paris Peace Conference, Azerbaijani diplomat Alimardan bey Topchubashov accused the Armenians of massacring the men of six villages and distributing their women. Hovannisian states that "the most vulnerable Muslim settlements" were exposed to retribution by Armenian "militiamen and irregulars".
2. The Government of the Grand National Assembly in justifying an invasion of Armenia stated that reportedly nearly 200 villages were burned by Armenians and most of their 135 thousand inhabitants were "eliminated".
3. In 1919, Ottoman commander Halil Bey in a letter to Turkish revolutionary Kâzım Karabekir wrote that 24 villages in Surmalu had been razed by Armenians.

My thoughts on that: If Topchubashov's accusations against the Armenians at the Paris Peace Conference were WP:DUE for inclusion in this article, multiple scholars in the last 100 years who wrote about AA 1917-1921 would have mentioned it, not just Hovannisian, and probably multiple scholars writing in the 21st century, or at least after 1982. If so, cite them, and then you don't have to worry about Hovannisian's 1982 book. Same for the Government of the Grand National Assembly's statement about 200 villages/135k inhabitants. Same for Bey's letter about 24 villages.

If Hovannisian's views about Topchubashov's accusations, or the GGNA's statement, or Bey's letter, or "most vulnerable Muslim settlements", or anything else, were WP:DUE for inclusion in this article, multiple scholars would be writing about Hovannisian's views. If so, we should attribute the views to Hovannisian ("According to Hovannisian..." or something like that), and cite the scholars who are discussing Hovannisian's views.

If the only person who writes about something is Hovannisian in 1982/1996, and nobody since then has written about that thing, or about Hovannisian's views about that thing, then that thing is probably not WP:DUE for inclusion (see also WP:PROPORTION). Levivich (talk) 05:52, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, @Levivich. While I agree with you on many points, it's worth stating that there is a pitiful scarcity of sources on the topic of the First Republic of Armenia; it's also worth stating that Hovannisian's 4 volume series is considered the best English-language academia on the subject, having the most depth and level of research, as evidenced by 3/4 of the mentioned article's footnotes citing Hovannisian (full disclosure, I rewrote that article). Moreover, the source by Hasanli (2015) and the plethora of sources that Dallavid deleted (which led to the DRN) support Hovannisian's points regarding the destruction of hundreds of Muslim/Azeri villages in Armenia (see Balayev, Baberovski, etc) – so the claims can't be considered undue when a variety of sources state the same/similar content. Regards, – Olympian ^loquere 08:49, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

The sentence literally preceding the Topchubashov quote is "In Paris, too, the Azerbaijani delegation launched a propaganda campaign to change the image of the Armenians as a helpless, victimized people and to point out what could be expected in areas placed under their domination." Hovannisian is clearly not supporting Topchubashov's claims. Hovannisian disproves Jafarov's claims with the commission on the next page. I do not see where anyone agreed to any kind of Hovannisian word, just agreements that Hovannisian is a reliable source, when the actual dispute was that Hovannisian's book was being misinterpreted. --Dallavid (talk) 20:39, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I didn't explicitly say that Hovannisian is "supporting" Topchubashov's claim, I said that the following paragraphs (re the "action" against Muslim villages) give, at minimum partial, credence to it (pp.181–182). Based on this, I think it's fair to provide the reader of the article with the accusations of the Azerbaijani side to contextualise the events and help them reach their own conclusion. Moreover, what's the reasoning for omitting the letter from Halil Bey to Karabekir re the razing of 24 settlements? Hovannisian authoritatively states that Western Armenian militiamen "put the torch" to Muslim villages in Surmalu as they pursued Kurdo-Tatar raiders (p.105). If you're still opposed to restoring either of the sentences, would you be open to an RfC? – Olympian ^loquere 23:27, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

It only gives credence if you ignore that commission disproving it that Hovannisian wrote about on the next page. That seems to be Hovannisian's writing style. Letting the reader "reach their own conclusion" is not how Wikipedia works. If something has no due weight, it doesn't belong here, as Levivich explained. Torching villages says nothing of massacres or killings, and is likely yet another example that's actually referring to deportations.--Dallavid (talk) 20:06, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Letting the reader "reach their own conclusion" is not how Wikipedia works.

WP:DECISION & WP:MORALIZE

Torching villages says nothing of massacres or killings, and is likely yet another example that's actually referring to deportations.

Indeed, yet it perfectly fits the content/substance of the article (see the content referencing Hasanli) as it also covers the deportations in the context of the killings. Again, would you be open to a RfC regarding these Hovannisian-referenced sentences? I'm willing to compromise on the first sentence by mentioning the commission that supposedly refutes the Azerbaijani claim, so as to give the reader due weight of the official Azerbaijani, and its respective Armenian claims. Thanks, – Olympian ^loquere 23:22, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

I meant letting readers reach their own conclusion about sources with vastly different WP:WEIGHT, when fringe sources aren't even supposed to be included. I agree with Levivich's thoughts that had these accusations been truthful, there would be a great deal more sources mentioning them. Instead they seem to fall under the systematically exaggerated outright fabrications that Akcam mentions. --Dallavid (talk) 22:57, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

References

hundreds of Muslim/Azeri villages in Armenia (which Armenia???) You still keep repeating this (when most of those lands are not even in today's Armenia), while your first version of the article linked in the introduction to the Azeri in Armenia (the borders of the current republic, a map crafted after the current republic is still included in the article). I believe you had sufficient time to clarify on the scope of the article. You are including all those regions that are not even part of the republic of Armenia, where Armenians (unlike the Turk-Azeri) eviction (which also included massacres) was permanent.

Also, check Hovannissian background on p. 178, he provides context before even discussing about anything else. Don't you think the background, as presented by him, should be included in the background of this article? LikesBanana (talk) 17:09, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't think Hovannissian's integrity as a scholar is disputed by any user. What is being disputed is what he actually says.

I would add to Dallavid quotation, Hovannessian introduction of his section on Turco-Tatar Minority in Armenia (p. 178):

The interracial warfare accompanying the Turkish invasion in 1918 had ravaged the Surmalu and Etchmiadzin uezds, expelled the Armenians from Sharur-Nakhichevan, and driven many Muslims from Daralagiaz and the southwestern side of Lake Sevan. Although most of the Armenian refugees from these districts had been repatriated by mid-1919, they were again forced to flee during the Muslim insurrection in July and August. But nearly a third of the 350,000 Muslims of the Erevan guberniya had also become homeless, living in misery along the Ottoman frontier, in the abandoned Armenian villages of Sharur and Nakhichevan, and in the environs of the Armenian capital. The government’s announcement in the spring that all refugees could return to their native districts had been ineffectual, since little had been done to dispossess and relocate the Western Armenian squatters. And unwelcome burden in the less imperiled Muslim centers in Armenia, many Tatar refugees wanted to emigrate to Azerbaijan.

Seems that Hovannisian describes those events differently (and in different context) than this article here. LikesBanana (talk) 16:49, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Article sources

Please verify the tags Ive added to the article. Please make sure they are reliable and third party. Nothing in this article has direct references to the article. Nocturnal781 (talk) 03:20, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

POV

POV tag is added because no reliable sources can even attest to the information in the article. It looks as if someone scribbled up their thoughts on certain things that happened during a war. Nocturnal781 (talk) 03:34, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Please read WP:LEAD, the lead paragraph is supposed to summarise the article's content and is not supposed to be footnoted, the article content itself should be footnoted (and it is). – Olympian ^loquere 03:45, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

This article is supposed to be about massacres yet barely any information exists on massacres directly happening during the time mentioned. Also the only few I saw are not reliable nor third party. Nocturnal781 (talk) 04:46, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Sources

So this whole article that claims a massacre occurred based off one citation by Coyle? where he recently published context. In the previous 100 years no other sources were known. Can someone provide more reliable independent sources that a massacre occurred? Nocturnal781 (talk) 03:03, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Hasanli not neutral

Hasanli has a conflict of interest and cannot be considered a reliable source or an independent one for this topic. I removed his claims of deaths per Wikipedia polices:WP:INDY Nocturnal781 (talk) 04:20, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

On what basis do you assert that Hasanli has a conflict of interest? I mean that the book you removed is was published by well-established reliable scholarship such as Routledge, and it was published 2 years after Hasanli joined the opposition, so he had no governmental ties when the book was published. A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 05:24, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Hasanli served two terms in the parliament of Azerbaijan 2000-2010. Also because him being Azerbaijani is a conflict of interest. It is widely known the conflicts of interest on history of Armenia/Azerbaijan we should only use third party reliable sources to accurately reflect data. Nocturnal781 (talk) 18:29, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

None of what you wrote is adequate to suggest that Hasanli has a conflict of interest, especially because the book you removed was published by a well-established reputable scholarship such as Routledge, which fact-checks and is peer reviewed. I will not address the claim which literally implies that any Azerbaijani author is unreliable because of their ethnicity/nationality, because it is inappropriate, and I strongly advise to refrain from making such comments. A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 06:11, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

It is not his ethnicity or nationality I am pointing it out its the fact that Hasanli has worked for the government of Azerbaijan. We do not use government related sources on Wikipedia other than to directly cite what the government says. He’s not an independent, reliable source. Nocturnal781 (talk) 19:14, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

It is not his ethnicity or nationality - You did write this "Also because him being Azerbaijani is a conflict of interest", didn't you? Hasanli has worked for the government of Azerbaijan. - I addressed this one, by this: "it was published 2 years after Hasanli joined the opposition". We do not use government related sources on Wikipedia other than to directly cite what the government says - Hasanli is not a governmental source, hence this statement of yours is irrelevant. He’s not an independent, reliable source. - so far, you haven't brought any solid arguments why a fact-checked and peer-reviewed book that's published by reputable scholarship is not reliable. A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 04:25, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

The biggest issue with Hasanli is he openly denies the Armenian Genocide. He also calls it “fake”. This is a huge issue to use him as a reference on Wikipedia it goes against all our policies. Here is the link: [10] Nocturnal781 (talk) 20:00, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

• Chairman of the National Council, historian professor Jamil Hasanli prepared an extensive article proving with evidence how the claim of "Armenian genocide" is fake. We present the article he sent to "Azadlig" newspaper in parts. The parts are numbered and the newest part is placed last.[11]

Given the above, it's evident that Hasanli is a Armenian genocide denier; his fringe denialism such as sending articles to Azadliq 'proving' that the genocide is 'fake' show his despicable views which couldn't have been more clear. He shouldn't be used to make contentious claims against Armenia or anything Armenia related. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 22:08, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I've trimmed all content referenced by Hasanli due to his genocide denialism. – Olympian ^loquere 01:49, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Recent content

Nocturnal781 Thank you for your edits but I don't believe some of them are constructive, firstly:

The Karabakh people rejected demands of Azerbaijani sovereignty over the region that was set forward by Nuri Pasha, commander in chief of Ottoman forces in Caucasus.

This is outside the scope of the article and more relevant to an article about Nagorno-Karabakh or the Karabakh Council; secondly:

The Armenian percentage has been cited as somewhat smaller before the First World War but that figure took in several lowland districts and even so had always shown a clear Armenian majority.

The 1897 census data for Zangezur is already excluding the "lowland districts" and includes the districts making up the present-day Syunik province, see how in 1897, modern-day Syunik had a population of 87,252, whilst the entirety of Zangezur was 137,871.

Thirdly, the onus is on you to gain a consensus to remove pre-existing content, such as the death toll, so please do not remove it until a consensus has been achieved. – Olympian ^loquere 00:44, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

The first section literally is about the whole situation that happened in the article it is referenced and reliable. Also seemingly you are asking me to gain a consensus before removing information but you are removing referenced information I have added?? Nocturnal781 (talk) 01:40, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

As another user on this page has pointed out, "the onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content", be that adding or deleting content, please read the policy before making further edits, otherwise, you may be reported for edit warring. Thank you, – Olympian ^loquere 02:40, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

FYI, I kept two sentences that you added, I moved them to a more appropriate paragraph; I only removed the sentence regarding the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh which as previously stated is irrelevant to the article. – Olympian ^loquere 02:55, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, I overlooked that edit. Nocturnal781 (talk) 03:44, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Top tagging

@Nocturnal781: I removed your POV tag (see the rationale in the edit summary). This type of tagging during a running dispute can easily be seen as tendentious. A POV tag requires full support from editors – it is meant to notify editors that a POV problem has been identified and seek their help in resolving it. It's a maintenance tag, not a "dispute resolution tag". When editors are in a dispute around there being a POV problem in the first place, the tag serves no purpose as the dispute needs to be resolved first to see what if anything will be done with respect to resolving an (alleged) POV problem. If you want to invite others to help resolve the dispute, the correct mechanisms are the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution mechanisms (such as an RfC, for example). —Alalch E. 18:52, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Nocturnal781 (talk) 18:55, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

You're welcome! —Alalch E. 18:55, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Regarding Changes in Ethnic Composition and Zangezur ethnic data section

These sections do not seem to be referring to the massacres using cause-effect logic, their relevance as "Aftermath" of the massacres needs to be supported with reliable sources. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 15:18, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree. The article also includes census data from the late 1800s. This is not relevant to the article given that this article is about the Massacres/Deportations of Tatars/Azeris between 1917-1921. In the interim period was the Armenian–Tatar massacres of 1905–1907 - Wikipedia, World War I, and other conflicts which reduced the population. I have since removed that line as it suggests that the decrease in population between 1897 and 1922 was exclusively due to the Massacres/Deportations that occurred between 1917 and 1921 which is not supported by any citation and there are articles even on Wikipedia which show deaths due to the massacres of 1905 and 1907. R.Lemkin (talk) 20:21, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Original research and lack of citations

One year later, this article still remains a incoherent mess of original research complied with unreliable sources and parts of sources that are interpreted very liberally. There are still no actual citations specifically written about an organized a massacre of Azerbaijanis taking place between 1917 and 1921, besides the book written by genocide denier Justin McCarthy. Most of the sources are for deportations (Deportation of Azerbaijanis from Armenia) and only make brief mentions of mutual massacres of both Armenians and Azerbaijanis. I have removed Coyle's claim of 10,000 Azerbaijanis being massacred, if a massacre of 10,000 people had taken place in a single area there would be hundreds of other reliable sources to chose from. Instead we only have an "analyst" with no real notability besides writing hostile articles about Armenia,[12], promotional articles about Azerbaijan,[13] and being paid by the Azerbaijani Consulate General in Los Angeles.[14] KhndzorUtogh (talk) 23:58, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 1 January 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. There is no consensus to move at this time. (closed by non-admin page mover) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:26, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

---

Massacres of Azerbaijanis in Armenia (1917–1921) → Ethnic cleansing of Azerbaijanis in Armenia (1917–1921) – I see that a lot of the article is talking about forced displacements of people rather than straight-up massacre. For this reason I think the proposed title might be better as it covers both massacres and expulsions. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 19:16, 1 January 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BegbertBiggs (talk) 14:12, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose It appears that other sources on both sides refer these murders as massacres and not ethnic cleansings. It might be nice to get some sort of guidance at WP:PUMP for what to call these kinds of articles since there are a lot of them (particularly in the early 20th century). Dr vulpes (Talk) 00:20, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.