Talk:Quba mass grave

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Untitled

I want to ask if its possible to add another section to this article talking about some info i recently read about stating the skeletons weren't Azeris but Armenians. How when they found the mass grave they automatically figured it out that those skeletons belonged to Azeris and they had been killed by Armenians, how foreign experts never studied the skeletons, how there is actually no records of Armenians killing Azeris in Guba but there are records of a few hundred Armenians being transfered there in 1918. Korganov stated in a telegram "В конце апреля 1918г. комиссар города и области Губа Геловани направил председателю Военно-революционного комитета Корганову телеграмму следующего содержания: "Сегодня, 24 апреля, я освободил 115 армян, которые были заключены в губинской тюрьме. Они все лишились своего имущества. Я предпринял меры для возврата их собственности. Они просят денежной помощи от Армянского национального совета. Как можно скорее вышлите на мой адрес. Материальное состояние критическое… кроме города Губа в других местах тоже есть плененные армяне. Предпринимаю меры для их освобождения".

here is a section that talks about the supposed Stepan Shahumyan letter: Позабыв об обещании представить общественности результаты анализа почвы и привлечь зарубежных специалистов, Агаев выступил с очередным ошеломляющим заявлением. По его словам, делать выводы о том, чти именно армяне стоят за убийством захороненных в Губе останков, "позволяют как исторические факты, так и результаты исследования найденных в захоронении черепов". И конкретизировал: "Среди архивных материалов есть письмо Степана Шаумяна Амазаспу. В нем отмечается, что "основной целью вашего прибытия в Азербайджан является распространение большевизма. Но это – второй вопрос. Основной же ваш долг – уничтожение местных турок. Это – национальный долг". Еще смешнее: Г.Агаев утверждает, что "исследования показали, что резня произошла с 3 по 10 мая…" (воистину научное достижение, оказавшееся под силу только азербайджанским ученым). И далее: "Результаты исследования черепов, найденных в захоронении, также свидетельствуют о том, что геноцид произошел 90 лет назад, Люди, чьи тела мы обнаружили, были убиты в других местах и захоронены здесь…В ходе исследований выяснилось, что эти люди были раздеты и зверски убиты с использованием острых предметов… а на некоторых скелетах черепа оторваны от туловища".

Отметим, что загадочное и скорее всего несуществующее письмо Шаумяна до сих пор не было опубликовано ни в одном азербайджанском сборнике архивных документов.

so can a section be added to talk about these or not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ninetoyadome (talk • contribs) 03:16, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to start by translating all that. Whatever new information is to be added, needs a reference. Good luck. Boneyard90 (talk) 03:43, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a google translate of the above post:
"In late April 1918. Commissioner of the city and region Guba Gelovani to the Chairman of the Military Revolutionary Committee Korganova telegram read:" Today, 24 April, I delivered 115 of the Armenians who were imprisoned in Guba prison. They all lost their property. I made arrangements to return their property. They ask for monetary help from the Armenian National Council. As soon as possible send to my mail. Material condition of critical ... but Guba city in other places, too, is captured by Armenians. Taking steps to secure their release. "
There is a section that talks about the supposed Stepan Shahumyan letter: Forgetting the promise to provide the public an analysis of the soil and to attract foreign experts, Agayev spoke with another stunning statement. According to him, to draw conclusions about, honor just behind the murder of Armenians in Guba buried the remains, "how can the historical facts and findings found in the burial of skulls." And elaborated: "Among the archives is a letter of Stepan Shahumyan Hamazasp. It notes that" the main purpose of your arrival in Azerbaijan is the spread of Bolshevism. But this - the second question. The basic is your duty - the destruction of the local Turks. This - the national debt. "Even funnier: G. Aghayev claims that" studies have shown that the massacre took place from 3 to 10 May ... "(a truly scientific achievement, which proved only by Azerbaijani scientist). And further:" The study of skulls, found in the grave, also show that the genocide took place 90 years ago, people whose bodies we found were killed elsewhere and dumped there ... The study found that these men were stripped and brutally killed with sharp objects ... and on some skeletons skull torn from his body. "
Note that a mysterious and probably non-existent letter Shaumian still not been published in any collection of archival documents Azerbaijan.[1]Ninetoyadome (talk) 19:21, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ninetoyadome makes a pretty good point. The fact that Azerbaijani authorities naturally assumed that these skeletons were those belonging to Azerbaijanis is somewhat reminiscent of how every now and then authorities in Turkey claim that the skeletons unearthed in the cities in the eastern provinces belong to those of Turks, and not the Armenians who were massacred there in 1915. No forensic evidence is carried out and it's obvious that such proclamations are political in nature. The same seems to apply to this article, which is sourced by Azerbaijani newspapers that are so propagandistic in tone and letter that their claims are almost certainly questionable. Not a single third-party source is given and the reader is told to believe what sources closely oriented to the government want their audiences to believe, which was why I added the tag.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:30, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any information presented as "fact" in Wikipedia should be grounded on reliable sources. I wonder of there are any for this particular instance. -- Ashot  (talk) 12:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's sources: [2], [3] Victoria46 (talk) 07:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First source: where do you read about Armenians there?
Second source: seems to be self-published (xlibris.com) and not in compliance with WP:RS. -- Ashot  (talk) 08:33, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
According to rules self-published material can be used in certain circumstances. If you like to make selections, we could be selective in all Armenian articles as well. Should we do it together? Victoria46 (talk) 12:14, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You can go to particular articles and raise questions there. I encourage you to do so as that is the correct thing to do when one notices something wrong. And if something is wrong somewhere, it still doesn't mean it should be replicated in other places too.
As pertaining to this particular talkpage, you have to unveil those certain circumstances in order to be able to use that self-published source. -- Ashot  (talk) 14:48, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That was sort of a Question of irony. You come here demanding sources, which have been sufficiently supplied in the article by the way, but ignore the fact that half of Armenian articles base the text of articles on Armenian sources. If an editor of good faith, why don't you question those first and then come asking me that? The fact of the massacre is undeniable. A whole investigation commission produced results, foreign officials and journalists have visited the site and nobody has questioned what Armenian Dashnaks and Russian bolsheviks did here, but yet you are here questioning it :) how funny. Victoria46 (talk) 06:19, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The funny thing is that you fill the talkpage with useless text, but fail to answer my simple question about certain circumstances. Without good grounds the self-published source cannot be considered reliable. -- Ashot  (talk) 06:48, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What good grounds?!! Go look at the main page to see the good grounds, pictures, information about commission. If a herd of terrorists massacred civilians and concealed the fact for decades and now the commission has performed analysis including DNA to find people of certain ethnicities in the grave, what other grounds are you looking for? I'll add more sources soon as I find them. Don't you worry. Victoria46 (talk) 11:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you possibly tell us how exactly the Azerbaijani government determined that the remains belonged to those of Azerbaijanis and Jews? Was any forensic evidence carried out or did it automatically assume that since there was a massive pile of bones then the only culprits could be Armenians? Like I wrote above, something smells fishy here, and this not only because of the fact that the Turkish government regularly does this in sites in eastern Turkey where Armenians were massacred wholesale. This article has no neutral sources to verify anything that has been coming out of Baku. For all we know, these could be the remains of massacred Armenians...--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 16:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, this article needs to be totally rewritten. I wonder if we have any reliable sources on the matter. -- Ashot  (talk) 18:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is not much is known about what happened. The letter i posted above shows Armenians as the victims while no tests have been done on the skeletons. Azeris cant figure it out:1.) Outside of Azerbaijan, Azeris claim those remains are of Jews killed by Armenians, 2.) Inside Azerbaijan they say its Azeris killed by Armenians: "These documents prove us that the Jews of Cuba during these events are not affected. The events of March is our tragedy, and the use of lies in covering them is unacceptable," - he quotes the employee of ANAS, doctor of historical sciences, Solmaz Rustamov Togidi.
Here is the interesting thing, Azeris claim they did tests and this is what they found out: "Anthropological studies have confirmed that these people - the Muslims." [4]Ninetoyadome (talk) 19:52, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Ninetoyadome on this one. It seems that a conclusion was reached regarding the identity of these victims victims before any forensic examinations were even carried out. That decision seems to have been made for politically-motivated reasons and Ninetoyadome's introduction of new evidence to suggest that the victims may have been Armenian is highly significant. The fact that Azerbaijan is providing conflict reports - that on the one hand these victims were Jews, while on the other, Muslims - is further reason to treat most of their claims as suspicious.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:47, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hayk Demoyan in leader

Hayk Demoyan in the lead topic adds more balance to a neutral point of view. All sources are basically from Azerbaijani, or pro-Azerbaijani about the grave, and adding Hayk in the topic balances the articles views. Nocturnal781 (talk) 06:46, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you can put just one opinion in the lead. The opinions must be in the text, if they are notable. Grandmaster 19:19, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hayk Demoyan should be in reaction sections not in header! User Yerevanci has been ignoring this topic and doing what he thinks best.--NovaSkola (talk) 17:45, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you contradict yourself? If you should be in the reaction section then why are you removing it from the article?
User Yerevanci has been ignoring this topic and doing what he thinks best I don't think it's appropriate for you to put the blame on other than you just removed a sourced information of a respected scholar, just because you! don't like it dear friend. --Երևանցի talk 18:02, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't contradict myself, in fact, I've been requested WP:AE based on WP:ARBAA2 which clearly violated not only article laws but I've involved by one of users sockpuppets in direct attack. I hope admins will fix situations--NovaSkola (talk) 18:39, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How would you explain the fact that you just deleted a sourced information? I won't comment on the rest. --Երևանցի talk 18:57, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you removed sourced information before me, so stop blaming me. --NovaSkola (talk) 19:31, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, let me put it this way. Where is Dr. Demoyan's statement? --Երևանցի talk 19:33, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
NovaSkola, your sources dont mention anything about Azerbaijan, Armenia or Guba.
http://www.icty.org/x/cases/krstic/trans/en/000719it.htm (does not mention any of the above)
http://www.icty.org/x/cases/popovic/trans/en/061107ED.htm (does not mention any of the above)
Ka Hon Chu, Sandra, and Anne-Marie de Brouwer. "the MEN who KILLED me." Herizons 22, no. 4 (Spring2009 2009): 16. EBSCOhost, MasterFILE Premier p16 (Has no mention to the above)
How are these relevant to the article? You have a problem with listening to the other side of the events. You did the same with Huseynov, you're doing it now with this article. I'll just go and remove the part in the Sumgait pogrom where the Azerbaijani side is stated as i dont like it and apparently we dont need a good reason to remove cited information. Ninetoyadome (talk) 20:36, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit to Article

After the page is unprotected i want to make some changes that NovaSkola made for the following reasons. 1.) I want to remove "Amnesty International" from the line

It's estimated by Amnesty International and Azerbaijani foreignsic scientists more than 3000 Mountain Jews were killed by Armenian Dashnaks during March Days events.

The sources put by Novaskola have nothing to do with Armenia or Azerbaijan. The links are about the International Court Tribunal for Yugoslavia. 1 and 2

2.) I want to remove the section about rape as again the book Novaskola is referencing to has nothing to do with Armenia or Azerbaijan, it has to do with the Rwandan Genocide. 3 That is page 16 of the book which Novaskola claims contains a section talking about how Armenians raped people in Guba.

3.) I want to add the Armenian side back as it was before Novaskola removed it without giving a reason for it. It will be placed in the reactions section and not the leader section.

If you disagree with any of these changes please state which ones and why.

Ninetoyadome (talk) 18:28, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Ninetoyadome. The page is now unprotected. It is best to revert all the recent changes added to the article which cost the user his topic ban. Obviously, adding the information with a reliable source is fine with me. This is not to say the information was right or wrong but as long as the information is displayed in a more neutral tone and encyclopedic manner, we can work on it from there. Proudbolsahye (talk) 19:19, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The person, whomever he is, who added unrelated references should be reported and banned from here. It is a deliberate action, I just removed a sentence with two references. I don't know what he was thinking by providing two sources which precede the alleged discovery. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JediXmaster (talk • contribs) 23:55, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The user who added the bogus references and claims was NovaSkola who has already been banned from editing Armenian-Azerbaijani related articles due to edit warring and removing sections from articles which he did not like. You can see he added the bogus references and claims herehere here here. When told about the links being irrelevant the user just ignored them and reverted edits here. Ninetoyadome (talk) 02:08, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Forensic "scientists"

"It's estimated by the Azerbaijani forensic scientists that more than 3,000 Mountain Jews were killed by Dashnaks during March Days events."

Interesting. There's only one "forensic scientist" in that source and he just so happens to be the only one interviewed. How is this a proper justification to say that Azerbaijani forensic scientists claim what he claims? Mr. Rovshan Mustafayev may have his opinion. But that's not significant enough to have it kept in the lead. The source is not reliable as well. For one, it is littered with grammatical errors that make it hardly comprehensible. And two, today.az is entirely biased and certainly not neutral. It's marred with content that portrays Armenians as aggressors, disturbers, provocateurs, or that the Armenian Genocide is a myth [5]. See for yourself here: [6][7]. It's almost hysterical; these news-articles seem to be something out of The Onion. We should be dismissing any source that portrays the other side of the conflict in this light outright. To solve this, we need reliable third-party sources for a matter this controversial. I also want to add that Mr. Mustafayev was no stranger for making outrageous claims that Armenians are terrorists or bandits. He wrote an entire book on it. He claimed that Armenia is engaging in "covert state terrorism" [8]. The organization he was a head of called "Armenia a country pursuing terror policy" [9]. He has long argued that Armenians should not be treated "not as a nation, but as an organization". Further more, he has called the Armenian Genocide a "myth" [10]. How is this "forensic scientist" in anyway credible? I shall remove the sentence entirely if there are not objections. Étienne Dolet (talk) 04:17, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are no non-azeri sources to add so we just left it. We can change it to "According to Azeri sources, an Azeri forensic scientist claims...". Also I had asked a while ago to add a Russian telegram stating that it is possible the dead are Armenians but apparently the others did not want it added. The text is above on this talk page.Ninetoyadome (talk) 04:51, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well the opinion of some "forensic scientist" who happens to publish books on Armenia being a covert terrorist state shouldn't be neither in the lead nor in the article. Étienne Dolet (talk) 08:17, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I came here after seeing the link in the Shusha massacre afd. regardless of the source's author, why is this "It's estimated by the Azerbaijani forensic scientists that more than 3,000 Mountain Jews were killed by Dashnaks during March Days events." claim in the lead section at all? The lead is just meant to sumarise the article, yet there is no content in the article that even mentions "Mountain Jews". Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:58, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is the thing, outside of Azerbaijan they say the bones belong to Mountain Jews while in Azerbaijan they say they are Azerbaijanis. They don't even know, the first conclusion they arrived at when they located the skeletons was "The Armenians did this." I posted above this statement: "These documents prove us that the Jews of Guba during these events are not affected. The events of March is our tragedy, and the use of lies in covering them is unacceptable," - he quotes the employee of ANAS, doctor of historical sciences, Solmaz Rustamov Togidi. And then we have websites where they claim they are Mountain Jews: http://www.visions.az/topical,138/ Ninetoyadome (talk) 20:13, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It's garbage. It needs to be removed entirely. Étienne Dolet (talk) 17:22, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, a far more legitimate reason to removed it is that it is obvious OR. The claim comes from an article written in 2006, but the grave site was only discovered in April 2007. So it is 0riginal Research for an editor to present something written in 2006 as a comment about the subject of this article. I have gone ahead and deleted it. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:59, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section

User User:Ninetoyadome, the leads of articles are meant to give some clue to what the article is about, the information "1918" is essential to indicate not more recent. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:34, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The lead talks about the grave site and where and when it was found, the background section talks about the date of the incident and what could have occurred. Ninetoyadome (talk) 07:18, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User:Ninetoyadome, is this site claimed to relate to killings in 1918 yes or no? In ictu oculi (talk) 16:27, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The function of the lead section is just to summarize the content, so I agree with In ictu oculi that a mention needs to be made of what Azeri official sources claim the mass grave is. However, the content of the article is really not satisfactory at the moment, mostly because the sources that make the claims are so propagandistic, and the claims themselves are impossibly specific (for example: "besides ethnic Azerbaijanis, there were also Jews and Lezgis" - really? On what scientific basis was this ethnicity proven, on what scientific basis could such a claim ever be proven?). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have deleted this "besides ethnic Azerbaijanis, there were also Jews and Lezgis" nonsense - it is not possible for anyone to have identified "ethnic Azerbaijanis" (whatever that is), "Jews", and "Lezgis" from a pile of bones. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:10, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not direct citations

The two citations concerning the French senator (www.parisguardian.com and www.europesun.com) are actually links to the same article here. You can even find other mirror sites here. I don't know why this information is written here. Senator Nathalie Goulet is a member of the Turkia-France friendship group and the Caucasia-France friendship group. I don't think that this information is relevant here. The goal is probably to create a feeling of international acknowledgment of a genocide while the exact historical facts are not definitely established due to an unstable geopolitical circumstances. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.49.145.49 (talk) 23:28, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have correct the source issue in the article, added the correct citation and removed the fake ones. I wonder what the purpose behind sites like parisguardian.com and www.europesun.com is, other than to gain advertising hits. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:55, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Guba mass grave. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:21, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Naming convention

I think this should be renamed Quba, per Quba 21:39, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Hayk Demoyan reaction

It would be best to clarify here exactly why this source material is being repeatedly removed. As it looks like the reversion looks like WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. The text is there as it is a notable response that is sourced. I don't think it is necessary for me to email Hayk Demoyan a report by Andrey Fomich Novatski (a prosecutor of the Ganja District court), as has been said in the edit summary, for me to edit this page. Maidyouneed (talk) 07:00, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with Demoyan's statement is that it's not only reaction, but also a false claim, which can mislead readers. Also the official Armenian reaction is already reflected in the article. 89MsHm (talk) 09:11, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response. Do you have the justification for it being misleading? You had provided a report by the Ganja court prosecutor and had commented on the alleged "foreign experts" in an earlier edit summary. Was there are part of that report that demonstrated reliably that "The grave has been assessed by foreign experts" counter to Demoyan? Maidyouneed (talk) 05:19, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To add: When you say Yepiskoposyan et al, is the official Armenian reaction, these are rather prominent scholars who are Armenian; They are not official representatives of the Republic of Armenia. There is no requirement that only one perspective from a particular nation's positions be present. After all different scholars can have different positions. And each response of Yepiskoposyan et al, and Demoyan, are meaningfully different. The prior is asking for a joint investigation with Azerbaijan and Armenia. However Demoyan is much sharper challenging the Azerbaijani perspective directly, Removing this Demoyan perspective from Demoyan, make it appears the only reaction is of wanting joint investigation. Maidyouneed (talk) 05:41, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
According to news at least one of the mass graves hasn't been opened and remained for foreign experts. I will contact the Institute of Archeology and Ethnography for details. The fact that the massacre has been documented at its time already proves Demoyan's claim's falseness and is enough to remove it. Wikipedia is not a place to fill with politically motivated and biased claims. Thanks. 89MsHm (talk) 09:10, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"According to news at least one of the mass graves hasn't been opened and remained for foreign experts" Do you mean to say there is a grave that hasn't been open, and hasn't been examined by foreign experts? How does this contradict Demoyans' claim of "no foreign experts have examined the human remains". Do you have the news source?
I understand that it is the Azerbaijan position that Demoyan's claims are false. Conversely it is Demoyan's position that Azerbaijan's claims are false. Whatever your own position Demoyan's reaction is still noteworthy. I note also that Armenian-Azerbaijan relations makes this topic more challenging, as many of the sources on this article are "closely associated with the subject". Maidyouneed (talk) 06:28, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The news is several years old and needs clarity. Again half of Demoyan's claim is false, and the half needs verification. False claim has no place in Wikipedia. 89MsHm (talk) 14:25, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't have a source reliably demonstrating Demoyan's claim as false, the reasonable action is to place Demoyan's reaction back in to the article. When you do have a new source reliably challenging Demoyan this can be revisited. Do you agree with this? Maidyouneed (talk) 10:40, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Novatsky's Report is a reliable documentation and a strong proof that the mass killings were committed by Armenians. Novatsky is a foreign expert who studied the tragedy right after it happened on its place. Demoyan's claim is false. 89MsHm (talk) 09:25, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Novatsky's Report is not a reliable source. It is a source by a prosecutor of a local court (State Archive of the Republic of Azerbaijan, fund 1061, list 1, case 95, page 3 which you can see in the third quote in az:Azərbaycan_Xalq_Cümhuriyyətinin_Fövqəladə_Təhqiqat_Komissiyası#Fövqəladə_Təhqiqat_Komissiyasının_yaradılması_haqqında_Azərbaycan_Hökumətinin_Qərarları) . It is source by an author closely related to the subject, as part of a government initiated investigation (the Azərbaycan Xalq Cümhuriyyətinin Fövqəladə Təhqiqat Komissiyası), within the context of poor Armenian-Azerbaijani relations ([[11]]). Adding this source whilst this discussion is still occurring, whilst it's reliability and neutrality is disputed, is not appropriate. The report still does not challenge Demoyan's claim that their has been no international independent expert assessment.
Given that Novatksy is neither an international foreigner, nor an expert, nor independent it is reasonable to at least revert to Demoyan's reaction as they existed before. Maidyouneed (talk) 06:17, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Letting you know that I posted on WP:3O Maidyouneed (talk) 06:25, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Demoyan claim is that there's no documentation. I proved that there's documentation and even reports of eyewitnesses. Novatsky isn't Azerbaijani and perhaps even wasn't born in Azerbaijan. He studied the tragedy at its place and talked to survivors. Demoyan is Armenian, he approaches the events from the present-day political agenda and his claims and denial are clearly politically motivated. P.S. If you are so objective then apply your logic to "Armenian genocide" article and remove all Armenian sources. We can assume that they are all biased.89MsHm (talk) 10:11, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated the quote to better match the source. Relevant source quote is " Следует добавить, что до сих пор азербайджанские историки не опубликовали ни одного исторического или архивного документа, доказывающего факт массового убийства мусульманского населения в Губе или же содержащего конкретную информацию о захоронении. ". Novatsky has created a document, or specifically a new report, but it isn't a historical document in this context.
The reaction section is a statement of opinion (Wikipedia:RSOPINION) and the text describes it as such.
I've given evidence that Novatsky is neither an international foreigner, nor an expert, nor independent. Simply guessing his identity and background otherwise, as you are, isn't appropriate. The addition of his work is not an improvement to this page, it is undue, it is not a reliable source and further degrades the "rely excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject" issue
If you see Demoyan as politically motivated, this is the charge that can also be placed on the Azerbaijani sources, of which this article relies on heavily. This event has been used by the Azerbaijani government politicly, the same government that initiated the Novatsky report (Anti-Armenian_sentiment_in_Azerbaijan#Statements_by_President_Ilham_Aliyev)
The Armenian Genocide is supported through scholarly consensus. You are free to raise any complaints on the "Armenian Genocide" page if you feel they are outstanding. Maidyouneed (talk) 23:19, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I note Demoyan's reaction has already been discussed, where the issue was where to place the reaction (Talk:Guba_mass_grave#Hayk_Demoyan_in_leader). The result was to put it in the reaction section. Previously it was in the leader Maidyouneed (talk) 00:24, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

3O Response: Since this disagreement seems to revolve more or less entirely around the reliability of the references in question, that question should be raised at the reliable sources noticeboard with regards to said references. Once reliability has been evaluated, I believe you will be a lot closer to resolving this. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:53, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Seraphimblade. I've raised it on the noticeboard and will see how it progresses. The issue is also that, reliable or not, the reference does not contradict the claim of Demoyan that foreign experts have not examined the remains. The challenge provided by 89MsHm is that Domatksy, the author of the report, is himself the foreign expert, whilst I posit that he is neither a foreigner nor an expert (for which I provided the State Archive of the Republic of Azerbaijan source). Reliability does not at least resolve this particular claim. It is not clear either that Novatski's report challenges the other claim of Demoyan that "that no historical documentation or archival evidence has been presented proving a massacre of Muslims by Armenians having taken place in Guba" Maidyouneed (talk) 21:50, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Novatsky's documentation is the most reliable source. Demoyan is not even an expert on this matter. His claim is politically motivated. The sources I have provided gives a very detailed description of the events, and includes testimonies of witnesses and survivors. All facts prove Demoyan's claim about documentation is baseless. Novatsky's report is both historical and archive document. An official document of 1918 is of course an archive. If you don't know what is an archive document, that's not my problem.89MsHm (talk) 09:27, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I also call on everybody who is interested to pay attention to the collection of documents on Guba massacre provided in the article. The Azerbaijani government has presented the archive documents on the matter and the publication also includes photos of documents, photos of victims and witnesses and even No's of dossiers. The documentation is quite serious and strong. P.S.There's always someone who doesn't like the truth. Despite our personal opinions or beliefs we must stay committed to Wikipedia's principles of truth and objectivity. 89MsHm (talk) 09:48, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone here wants to have a strong article supported by strong reliable sources. This is the challenge with this article; There aren't any good reliable independent sources. See some discussion on this: Talk:Guba_mass_grave#Untitled.Note an archival document has been provided of Armenians being killed in Guba in that talk section. This situation isn't helped by removing reactions or statements of opinion from one perspective.
Responding to your last statements. On Demoyan own credentials:Hayk Demoyan's educational/professional background is in history, he holds a Doctorate, has published, lectures internationally, and he holds a notable position. On Novatksy's report being "both historical and archive document": Novatsky's report itself is merely stating a description of events, recently written.
Do you have still have an issue with Demoyan's claim that no foreign experts have examined the human remains?Maidyouneed (talk) 07:06, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
1. The previous discussions obviously lacked information. If you read the archives you'll see that there was an armed incident between Gelovani's troops and Lezgis from neighbor villages who didn't accept Soviet rule. Both sides had losses. Some Azerbaijanis even helped Armenian soldiers to hide in their homes. However, there's no evidence to claim that Armenian civilians were harmed during that incident. However, there're hundreds of skulls belonging to women and children. The man who hid an Armenian in his home, later was attacked by Amazasp's troops and family members were killed. Amazasp (or Hamazasp) attacked on civilians, burned and looted villages. However, the Lezgis only fought soviet troops and armed men.
2. History is a broad term and time period. Demoyan hasn't studied Guba massacre. His comments on the matter are merely political statements.
3. How do you learn history? Through archives. Archives are there. It is ridiculous to not trust the man who lived in that period and personally met witnesses and survivors, instead believe someone who lives in the 21st century and makes statements about a historical event that he hasn't even studied. 89MsHm (talk) 13:00, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I posted this in the header, Azeri users complained and said it did not deserve to be in the header. I put it in the body, and now you're claiming it does not belong in the body. Why do you not want a counter argument? Should i delete the Armenian Genocide Denial page, because there are archival documents proving the Armenian Genocide. Should i remove the Sumgait Pogrom conspiracies section, where Azeris blame Armenians for the massacre? Just because you dont like the cited paragraph, doesnt mean you can remove it. What you are doing is considered vandalism. Ninetoyadome (talk) 06:48, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The cited paragraph wrongfully claims that Azerbaijani government hasn't presented documents proving the massacre against Muslims committed by Armenians. However, the Azerbaijani government has presented loads of archive documents that prove that the massacre was committed by Amazasp's troops of Armenians. Demoyan's claim is misleading. At least a part of it must be removed.89MsHm (talk) 17:31, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Demoyan is saying no Foreign Experts have observed the site, which is accurate. All you've shown is Azerbaijan says the massacre took place and they have evidence.Ninetoyadome (talk) 23:24, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No. Archive documents prove that Armenians killed Azerbaijanis in Guba region. If you have decided to intervene this topic, please study it carefully.89MsHm (talk) 09:18, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So again, you're admitting the statement is accurate and no Foreign Experts have observed the site. Due to the Anti-Armenian propaganda in Azerbaijan, Armenia is blamed for everything that happens. As soon as the grave was found, Azerbaijan immediately proclaimed Armenia was responsible. Lets not forget how Azerbaijan also had evidence a Georgian Armenian baker was responsible for the Baku Oil Academy Shooting. Ninetoyadome (talk) 19:07, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I say that part of Demoyan's claim is false and the other part needs verification. The questionable part can be kept, but the wrong and misleading part must be removed. That is the fair and objective resolution of the situation. 89MsHm (talk) 09:48, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You've removed two parts. "no historical documentation or archival evidence has been presented proving a massacre of Muslims by Armenians having taken place in Guba" and ", or specific information about the burial" . Do you have a reliable source for each justifying their removal that we can all agree on? These reactions should be kept as they are presenting as statement of opinions Wikipedia:RSOPINION Maidyouneed (talk) 21:56, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The original documents, archive documents presented in the sources are more than enough to prove that a massacre of Muslims by Armenians having taken place in Guba. That part of the claim shouldn't be in Wikipedia. Your "I just don't wanna believe" attitude towards undeniable facts (you still haven't been able to put counter documents and archives) is unacceptable. I don't know what he means by "specific information about the burial", but keeping that part makes the sentence confusing and weird. 89MsHm (talk) 10:10, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Novatski report (Documentation section)

This report was created prior to the finding of the grave. Are we assuming the events are linked to the grave, or do we have a reliable source? How can the Novatski source itself be considered a reliable source given it was created by local court prosecutor, at the behest of the government under the Foreign Ministry (a self-published source in this context Wikipedia:USESPS), during the active time of war against it's enemy (Armenian–Azerbaijani_War) (breaking WP:BIASED). (http://www.milliarxiv.gov.az/en/fovqelade-tehqiqat-komissiyasi) Maidyouneed (talk) 06:13, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fed up with your "It's not reliable, because its Azerbaijani source" mindset, which is highly biased. Who else could study the tragedy? At that time there was no modern system of international cooperation and expertise. Your logic undermines all local sources and archives of all countries created throughout centuries. Stop pushing your point of view and removing sources. This is vandalism! 89MsHm (talk) 09:22, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've provided the justification as to why the source is not a reliable un-biased source, and it is not a matter of simply being "Azerbaijani". Maidyouneed (talk) 06:11, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also take note that the sources provided in the article do not rely solely on Novatski's report. The archive documents also include testimonies of witnesses and reports of local authorities. 89MsHm (talk) 14:22, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In that case can we remove the Novatski report since there are other sources? The Novatski report is still not a reliable un-biased source either wayMaidyouneed (talk) 11:23, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No. Novatski's report is an official document and there's no other official document that can be put against his report. 89MsHm (talk) 09:14, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Novatski's report is still unreliable and biased as I've justified in the first comment. We shouldn't keep it simply because there are no other official documents. Maidyouneed (talk) 06:37, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There's no evidence to claim that Novatski's report is biased. The report matches numerous testimonies of eyewitnesses and reports of local authorities. Also the fact that it's an archive document and it has been published in a scholarly work makes it a reliable source by Wikipedia standards. I call on you to stop pushing your personal views, or I will add more and more facts and documents confirming Novatski's report, which you won't probably be happy about it. Thanks. 89MsHm (talk) 09:14, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you say now there are other sources that are reliable, which Novatski matches, why are we relying on Novatski. It being an old document still does not challenge the original issues I've raised. Within which scholarly work are you referring to? Please don't threaten to get your way. Maidyouneed (talk) 05:26, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The source where Novatski's report is published is a scientific work by a prominent historian. If you look at the source, you'll see that it's not only a collection of documents, but they have been analyzed, explained and cited by the author. Novatski's report is important, because it brings separate facts together and gives the overall description of the situation. It is reliable, because it is based on testimonies of witnesses, signed and sealed and official documents, which you can see in the source and compare by yourself. Your asking "which scholarly work?" demonstrates that you're questioning the sources that you haven't even bothered to take a look at. This is very irresponsible and harming. 89MsHm (talk) 08:55, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also it is ridiculous to call Novatski's report a "self-published work". It has nothing to do with Wikipedia:USESPS. The source where Novatski's report is reflected wasn't published by Novatski himself, but by a scholar after many decades of his death. Second, Armenian-Azerbaijani relations at that period wasn't as bad as today. Armenians participated in political life of the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic (1918-1920). There were 2 Armenian fractions in the Parliament of Azerbaijan: 1) Armenian fraction of 5 members; 2) Dashnaksutyun fraction of 6 members. https://az.wikipedia.org/wiki/Az%C9%99rbaycan_Xalq_C%C3%BCmhuriyy%C9%99ti_Parlamentind%C9%99_erm%C9%99ni_fraksiyas%C4%B1#cite_note-3 Azerbaijani government showed goodwill towards Armenians and Armenia by giving Iravan as a capital to the Armenians so they could also have their own state. In such atmosphere Novatski (who was of Polish descent) didn't have a motivation to be biased. Your arguments against the report are baseless. 89MsHm (talk) 10:40, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Novatski report self-published as it was the government who both commissioned/created and published the work themselves. That makes it self-published. That it is being republished in collections under the Heydar Aliyev Foundation, under the vice-president/first-lady of Azerbaijan, doesn't change this. It is still the government both creating and publishing the work. You say Armenian-Azerbaijan relations are bad today, I agree. Thus any more recent publications, particularly those under the auspices of the vice-president, should have their bias considered.
The original report was created around the time of the Armenian–Azerbaijani_War, around the time of massacres of Armenians Anti-Armenian_sentiment_in_Azerbaijan#Early_period. "The Armenian presence is strongly felt by Azeris traditionally, the Azeri elite have regarded the Armenians as rivals. Before and during the Revolution this anti-Armenianism was the basis of Azeri nationalism, and under the Soviet regime Armenians remain the scapegoats who are responsible for every failure." [12]. Maidyouneed (talk) 21:51, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you pay attention to where those Armenian-Azerbaijani clashes took place and in the context of WW1 events, you'll realize that the failure of Armenians to create an Armenian state in Eastern Anatolia encouraged them to direct their efforts to create a state on Azerbaijani territories. That's why such clashes and ethnic cleansing against Azerbaijani locals of Erivan, Karabakh, etc. took place. Occupation of Nagorno-Karabakh which is recognized as part of Azerbaijan by the UN and expelling off all Azerbaijanis from the region is part of such clean and capture policy.
If you think that the Azerbaijani government is biased because of the current Armenia-Azerbaijan relations, then all present-day Armenian reactions, including Demoyan's claims are also biased. Secondly, no matter what the current atmosphere is, you can't make up those original documents with original handwriting and signatures and seals. You still haven't put any historical or archive documents against those you don't want to accept. We talk here with facts, not with assumptions. 89MsHm (talk) 10:23, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As you say the time of the Novatski report was a time of conflict and ethnic cleansing between Armenia and Azerbaijan. This is part of why a Foreign Ministry conducted report at the time was not a reliable un-biased source.
The criticism I am placing at this time is on the Novatski report itself as reliable relevant source. I am not criticising some other original documents at this time here.
Demoyan is presented as a statement of opinion and reaction only; It's inclusion has been discussed, with the then consensus to include it in a reaction section Maidyouneed (talk) 09:36, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Again, Novatski's report is based on testimonies of witnesses and reports of local authorities. Novatski's report matches other archive documents, which confirms reliability of the report. Instead of filling the article with hundreds of separate cases, it is more logical to give overall description, for which the report is a good source.
Also you blame Novatski's report for being published by the government, however don't forget that Demoyan demanded that the government (not any other institutions) to present the document and his demand has been fulfilled. Again, in 2010 Demoyan said that the Azerbaijani government hadn't presented any documents. In 2010 and 2013 the government presented them with their translations into English and Russian. The claim has been fulfilled and lost its importance. This is not about reaction, this is about correctness of a claim. If there's another Armenian reaction which is also correct, you can replace it with Demoyan's. Thanks 89MsHm (talk) 09:10, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Again if there are reliable sources, that corroborate with Novatski, we should be using those reliable sources instead. I asked in the original comment: Are we just assuming the events are linked to the grave, or do we have a reliable source? Do we know for example Haji Dadashbala Gasim is buried there? I've reverted your additions until we can find a consensus. Apologies I did not do this earlier in line with Wikipedia:BRD Maidyouneed (talk) 10:11, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have already confirmed reliability of Novatsky's report. You're just turning this talk section into meaningless word war. Again if you have a reliable source to put against the sources in the article bring it. I'm waiting. Otherwise you don't have a right to remove sourced material. 89MsHm (talk) 08:51, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not informed enough to make a decision on this topic, but as a Wikipedian, I believe you guys should invite WP:3O because it doesn't seem like both of you are able to reach consensus and I don't think you should implement changes without coming to a consensus as Maidyouneed did here — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 11:45, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for you input CuriousGolden. The Documentation section was added without consensus by 89MsHm, and was reverted with the hope of resolution with discussion in line with WP:BRD. I am mindful of not edit-warring so I will refrain at this time to revert. I've placed a 3O request
The reliability of Novatski source has not yet been confirmed. The stated position is that despite all the reliability issues with Novatski source there are other reliable documents that Novatski apparently matches; However these other reliable sources have not been provided. I've also asked in the original comment which still hasn't been answered: Are we just assuming the events are linked to the grave, or do we have a reliable source? For example do we know for example Haji Dadashbala Gasim is buried in this site? If so we should provide the reliable source for Haji Dadashbala Gasim's burial. Maidyouneed (talk) 12:10, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Again, Novatsky's report is a summary of hundreds of cases archived in the documents provided in the sources in the article. I can fill the article with dozens of eyewitness testimonies and official reports of local authorities. But I don't think it is necessary, readers can learn about each cases from the sources provided in the article. The graves are mass burials, there are no names or dates. This happens when massive killings in a community takes place and there's no relatives alive or enough people to bury each victim separately. This is similar to mass graves belonging to Jews in various parts of Europe.
For example, we don't know where exactly Anne Frank was buried, but that doesn't deny the fact that she was a victim of Holocaust.89MsHm (talk) 17:13, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I understand you are not providing the supporting reliable sources that corroborate the Novatski report. Nor are you providing the reliable source that links the incidents within the Novatski report to the remains at the grave site.
If we don't know where Anne Frank was buried, we don't then put her specific story on a specific grave without a reliable source. This is the same standard we should be holding here. Maidyouneed (talk) 14:07, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The supporting reliable sources are the archive documents, reports of eyewitnesses and local authorities provided in the sources in the article. Just take a look and you'll see. Second, Guba mass grave is composed of several wells and we don't know exactly in which well the person you named was buried. Just like in Anne Frank's case we know when and where he was killed and approximate place of his burial. Memorial of Anne Frank is also situated in an approximate place where her body might be lying. 89MsHm (talk) 09:03, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Which reliable source exactly are you referring to that corroborate the Novatski report. The sources in the section all refer to the Novatski report, or are otherwise produced/collected by Novatski. You still aren't providing a reliable source that justifies the Novatski report, or the Documentation section.
We don't know if the people referred to in the Novatski report are at this grave site at all. You still aren't providing a reliable source on this either.
Please provide the necessary reliable sources in your next comment/edit. Maidyouneed (talk) 05:30, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
1. The sources provided in the article are relevant to Wikipedia's rules on reliable sources: WP:PSTS, WP:SECONDARY. 2. They include photos of original handwriting of eyewitnesses with signatures and seals. Novatsky is a person who collected most of testimonies and documents, which were written and prepared by others - locals residents and local authorities. He wrote his report based on those collected testimonies and documents. The photos of original documents, photos of witnesses, etc are all there in the sources provided in the article. You haven't brought any document or a reliable source that can be put against those documents. My arguments rely on sources and documents. All your arguments are based on your personal and often contradicting logic. Sorry, we can't rely on your personal assumptions on historical events.
The citation below confirms the fact that victims were buried in mass graves in Guba and the found grave is only one of them: "In this respect, the document submitted to the AHIC by the town’s police superintendents in response to the request regarding murdered, wounded and maimed persons is of high importance indeed. The document reads: “The number of Guba residents who passed away out of fear caused by advancing Armenian and Bolshevik units is above 100. Besides this around 300 persons were unidentified outsiders also murdered by the Armenians and Bolsheviks. Their dead bodies were buried in Guba, fifty per each grave”. (169) (https://www.academia.edu/36012151/Guba_April_May_1918_Documented_Pogroms_of_the_Muslims_Roustamova_Tohidi_Solmaz_Guba_April_May_1918_Documented_Pogroms_of_the_Muslims_Baku_2013_292_pages, page 59).
The documents, the graves, testimonies, everything matches and confirms one another. If you have anything against them, bring your FACTS and DOCUMENTS. I won't accept word game. 89MsHm (talk) 09:51, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We've already covered the reliability issues with the Novatski report. Your position was that the Novatski report is corroborated by other sources that are reliable. I am trying and failing to get you to tell me specifically what reliable sources you are using to corroborate.
Looking through the current Documentation section sources the only "written" images are in the source [[13]] p502 which don't indicate that these themselves are the recorded testimonies. They aren't even readable. This section is preceded by images of the skulls from 2007 on p496 which doesn't help corroborate the Novatski report. Are these what you are referring to? Neither of these are supportive of the section. I hate to say but it is not on me to find out and discover from 100s of pages over multiple copies what you might be talking about. It is on you to provide the specific reliable source you are referring to and the page number (especially for works 500+ pages long). If you are still persisting on this please provide the necessary reliable sources in your next comment/edit; It will be a lot more helpful.
I still note we don't know if the people referred to in the Novatski report are at the grave site at all. You still aren't providing a reliable source on this either. If you are still persisting on this please provide the necessary reliable sources in your next comment/edit.
Note a source does not become reliable because of a supposed lack of contradicting sources. Note both reactions' sources posit different possible explanations.Maidyouneed (talk) 06:55, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article talks about Guba mass grave and the documents confirm mass burials in Guba. The found grave is confirmation of documents and existence of such graves. Guba Memorial Complex was also built to remember all victims, not only those who found in one grave. The names in the report are examples to describe the tragedy that took place in Guba, and there's no doubt that they were all buried in Guba, not in another city or country. Also I have provided the page of the citation, read carefully. Again, you put only words against facts and sources. 89MsHm (talk) 11:06, 18 September 2020 (UTC


I notice you've made an edit whilst I was still writing mine. Thank you for providing the source with regards to the grave on p59 of the source. Note these are reports from police superintendants at the time with no indication that this is the same site; Note this grave site was only recently discovered. If you are assuming that since someone is buried in Guba they must be buried here, that would not be justified.
This article does already note the memorial complex. It would be reasonable to add that this complex is dedicated to memory of victims of March Days. A summary of the Novatski report, along with specific family details, however is not useful. It still isn't justified as a reliable source nor as a relevant section.
The pages of Documentation section sources you've provided are all for the Novatski report itself, which I have challenged. Your position was that the Novatski report is corroborated by other sources that are reliable. I am trying and failing to get you to tell me specifically what reliable sources you are using to corroborate. Are you going to provide this or not? There is no use in playing coy with your sources.Maidyouneed (talk) 07:25, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This source (https://www.academia.edu/36012151/Guba_April_May_1918_Documented_Pogroms_of_the_Muslims_Roustamova_Tohidi_Solmaz_Guba_April_May_1918_Documented_Pogroms_of_the_Muslims_Baku_2013_292_pages) is full of documents not prepared by Novatsky. I brought the town’s police superintendents' response as just one example of them. And this source is a reliable source by Wikipedia standards
I have already answered all of your arguments against Novatsky's report, and your repeating your claims with a slightly different wording doesn't make them any stronger.
There're hundreds of bodies in the found wells in Guba mass grave and it's more likely that mentioned persons were buried there. Novatsky mentions them as an example of what happened. Also police superintendents' response is part of the documentation of the event which is logical to keep it in that section. 89MsHm (talk) 11:44, 18 September 2020 (UTC
As a solution I can create a Guba Genocide article and link Guba mass grave and Guba Genocide Memorial articles to it and can move some parts from Guba mass grave article to Guba genocide article. 89MsHm (talk) 11:44, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article does already note the memorial complex and it is already linked. My suggestion is to add that this complex is dedicated to memory of victims of March Days, which it is, and remove the Documentation section. This would be a resolution here. If we do this the Novatski reliability, at least for this section, is no longer relevant. If you also want to create a set of new articles then that is getting beyond the scope of this discussion here. Maidyouneed (talk) 22:35, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There has to be a root article explaining why and how the Mass grave and the Memorial emerged. There's no reliability issue with Novatsky's report. However I will remove the documentation section after I create a new article and move that part to it. I need some time to prepare and I promise that it won't happen later than this October. 89MsHm (talk) 12:28, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is now October; Whatever new articles you promised to create I leave in your hands. The Guba Genocide Memorial has been linked, and a reference has been made to the memorial "root article" Maidyouneed (talk) 01:42, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is now November, the time extended per your last edit comment. Whatever new articles you promised to create I leave in your hands. The Guba Genocide Memorial has been linked, and a reference has been made to the memorial "root article".Maidyouneed (talk) 04:41, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PageNum

In line with WP:PAGENUM can the page numbers for the newly added sources "Guba, April-May 1918 Documented Pogroms of the Muslims. Baku: 2013 ", "https://heydar-aliyev-foundation.org/uploads/pdfviewers/pdfviewer_330/files/assets/basic-html/page-1.html" "Куба. Апрель-май 1918 г. Мусульманские погромы в документах ". These are references with up to 500+ pages Maidyouneed (talk) 06:09, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These published sources are relevant to Wikipedia's rules on reliable sources. WP:PSTS, WP:SECONDARY Also I accept your notice and added page numbers of citation. 89MsHm (talk) 14:38, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. These are all repeating the same Novatski report already referenced in this section. See Wikipedia:Citation_overkill#Reprints Maidyouneed (talk) 11:19, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have piled up those multiple references for the same fact as it demands in Wikipedia:Citation_overkill#Reprints. Thanks. 89MsHm (talk) 09:54, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The policy asks to remove the duplicates. See "Another common form of citation overkill is to cite multiple reprintings of the same content in different publications — such as several different newspapers reprinting the same wire service article, or a newspaper or magazine article getting picked up by a news aggregator — as if they constituted distinct citations. Such duplicated citations may be piled up as multiple references for the same fact or they may be split up as distinct footnotes for different pieces of content, so watching out for this type of overkill may sometimes require special attention. This type of overkill should be resolved by merging all of the citations into a single one and stripping unhelpful repetitions" Maidyouneed (talk) 06:34, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For emphasis "This type of overkill should be resolved by merging all of the citations into a single one and stripping unhelpful repetitions" Maidyouneed (talk) 06:43, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The policy doesn't demand removal of sources, however, I combined them as one source. Thanks. 89MsHm (talk) 09:05, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is exactly what the policy intends. Having duplicates of the same source repeated many times hardly seems useful for the reader. I've left it mostly as is for now. Maidyouneed (talk) 05:28, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please maintain Wikipedia:Citation_overkill#Reprints. Each of the sources are all the Novatski report. References to the same Novatski report " should be resolved by merging all of the citations into a single one and stripping unhelpful repetitions"". Maidyouneed (talk) 21:59, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Investigations neutrality

Added POV template to the investigations sections, as it only sources Azerbaijani sources and includes not independently verified information, i.e. it was only investigated by Azerbaijani experts. Kevo327 (talk) 09:43, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Investigation findings

As asked by another wikipedian, I'm adding a discussion. While that content is sourced. Forensically speaking, how are the sources reliable? My two points of argument are:
1- "It has been established that along with Azerbaijanis the mass grave contains the remains of brutally murdered Lezgins, Jews, Tats and other ethnic groups living in Quba" how is this even possible? Forensics can differentiate between major racial groups, such as Africans from Asians or subgroups Like Arabs or Jews, but does it make sense that it can differentiate ethnic groups with common ancestry and intermarriage such as Tats and Lezgins and Azerbaijanis?
2-"The names of 81 massacred Jewish civilians were found and confirmed." How? How can you find and confirm names of 100 year old bones in a mass grave? Why were only jewish bones named? The fact that no independent or non-Azerbaijani experts were consulted or viewed the bones (not even jewish forensic experts) does give a sense of bias. 90.153.192.62 (talk) 11:23, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Quba_mass_grave&oldid=1212563576"