This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Armenia Start‑class Low‑importance Armenian–Tatar massacres of 1905–1907 is within the scope of WikiProject Armenia, an attempt to improve and better organize information in articles related or pertaining to Armenia and Armenians. If you would like to contribute or collaborate, you could edit the article attached to this page or visit the project page for further information.ArmeniaWikipedia:WikiProject ArmeniaTemplate:WikiProject ArmeniaArmenian articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Azerbaijan Start‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Azerbaijan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Azerbaijan-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AzerbaijanWikipedia:WikiProject AzerbaijanTemplate:WikiProject AzerbaijanAzerbaijan articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Crime and Criminal Biography Start‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Death Start‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Disaster management Start‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Law Enforcement Start‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Law Enforcement. Please Join, Create, and Assess.Law EnforcementWikipedia:WikiProject Law EnforcementTemplate:WikiProject Law EnforcementLaw enforcement articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. Law Start‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Russian & Soviet C‑class This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles C This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale. Associated task forces: /  Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force Russia: History Start‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the history of Russia task force. Sociology Start‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

I would strongly advise the fans of Firuz Kazemzadeh not to give undue weight to his citations in this and other AA articles. He was a USA university professor, but he came from ethnic background not impartial to the subject and his non-mainstream views are used by revisionist apologetic pro Turkish pro-Azeri websites like this one by Turkish Coalition of America... https://www.tc-america.org/scholar/kazemzadeh.html

Hello, Steverci. Firuz Kazimzadeh was born in Russia, his father is Iranian and his mother is Russian. In addition, his work is one of the main sources recommended for this period in prestigious universities. We should not be rooted in the ethnic origin of the people. There is also a reference to an Armenian source. This is not a problem for me, if the source is from a reliable university and a publishing house, it should not be a problem. See also: Wikipedia:Reliable sources--Qızılbaş (talk) 13:57, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kazimzadeh is citing the claims of Turkish historian Salahi Sonyel. It's not his personal evaluation. --Steverci (talk) 16:56, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Steverci, Why do you constantly emphasize the ethnic origin of people?

Most importantly, Firuz Kazimzade did not refer to Salahi Sonyel (https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sal%C3%A2hi_R._Sonyel)in this work. Salahi Sonyel was born in 1932 and this work was written in 1951. Salahi Sonyel was 19 at the time. For my additions, the author referred to the Russian Caucasus Viceroy Vorontsov-Dashkov. See: Vsepoddonneishii otchet za vosem let upravleniia Kavkazom. St. Petersburg, Gasudarstvennia typography.

You are deleting my attachments unreasonably. If this happens again, I will complain from you. Remember, this book was published by a prestigious university publishing house.--Qızılbaş (talk) 20:15, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The quote you added comes word for word from a genocide denying source. Kazemzadeh's books is cited extensively on an Armenian genocide denying website, which would indicate say he is unreliable at worst or outdated at best. He had never been to the South Caucasus and his resources would've been very limited in the 1950s. This review by Michael Karpovich shows that even during Kazemzadeh's time, Struggle for Transcaucasia was known to contain false information and to be stepping out of his area of expertise. Karpovich notes that Kazemzadeh researched two Azeri sources and no Armenian sources, and that Kazemzadeh was "well aware of Turkish [and Persian] points of view". --Steverci (talk) 21:46, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but you are wrong, again.

- It is one of the most cited works on the history of the South Caucasus (1917-1920), perhaps the first. So it is not outdated or biased. You can see and reah theese articles and books from this link - https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=related:vN_KzV1uMCYJ:scholar.google.com/&scioq=&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5 - Michael Karpovich noted that Armenian and Georgian authors wrote mainly in Russian, French and German. So he was used Armenian authors' books from Western languages. For example, Devderiani, Press Bureauo Armenian National Union of America, Ishkhanian, Minakhorian, Tchalkhouchian, Turabian, Khachapuridze, Suren and Stepan Shaumuian, Avalov, Borian and others. Let me note that these sources are only part of the general Armenian sources. On the contrary, Azerbaijani resources were rarely used. But this does not affect the academic quality of the book. - Most importantly, the reference to my attachments is neither, as you say, Salahi Sonyel (he was only 19 at the time :)), nor an Azerbaijani source. It is the report of the person who was the successor of the Caucasus at that time. This report is still kept in St. Petersburg. I also mentioned the location, you can go and buy and check.--Qızılbaş (talk) 10:37, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The exact same quote is in this Sonyel source. It completely contradicts Kazemzadeh's above quote that "it is impossible to pin the blame for the massacres on either side" is uses typical genocide-denial speech such as the term "bands". Make a complaint if you want, you'll be told the source is WP:UNDUE and doesn't belong on Wikipedia. --Steverci (talk) 20:47, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Steverci, this article is not related with Armenian Genocide. This article is about 1905-1907 massacres. And author 's source is russian viceroy Vorontsov-Dashkov. I gave you source, please at first, read my comments the write reply.

It does not matter if someone refers to Firuz Kazimzade in any of his works. The source is credible.--Qızılbaş (talk) 11:23, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But when multiple quotes from Kazimzadeh's quote are being used by Armenian genocide deniers, that's a good indication that the book is either undue or outdated or both. There's also the issue that the exact same quote is attributed to Sonyel by Michael Gunter. --Steverci (talk) 02:18, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Steverci, I see that you are determined to continue what you said from the beginning (doesnt matter for you that theese all wrong). You make the problem worse with your wrong arguments. This book is one of the most cited books on the history of the South Caucasus, and we are not talking about the Armenian genocide. Therefore, I will ask Jr8825 to help resolve this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qızılbaş (talk • contribs)

@Qızılbaş you're edit-warring and using WP:UNDUE book, and quotes from genocide denier, clear conflict of interest. You failed to address talk points previously and now when the user you had disagreement with is tbanned for a completely different article, you're here again disrupting the page with no consensus additions. One more disruption from you and failure to discuss, and you'll be reported. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 16:32, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yale University professor Firuz Kazemzadeh is a reliable source, in fact, he is a top expert on the subject. I suggest you take this to WP:DRN, or ask for WP:3O. Grandmaster 16:54, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Any RS calling him a "top expert on the subject" or we're just going with WP:OR characterizations again? There is already a comment above regarding him. He was a US university professor, but he came from an ethnic background not impartial to the subject, and his non-mainstream views are used by revisionist apologetic pro-Turkish/Azeri websites like this one: Turkish Coalition of America. Kazemzadeh is even listed in their website [1]. His quotes are being used by extreme partisans and genocide deniers, that is a good indication of the book being UNDUE or outdated as already said. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 17:34, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

None of that makes him unreliable. People can use his works for any purpose. That does not mean that there is a problem with his scholarship, just that some authors would use selectively his work. His work is referred by many top scholars, ethnic Armenians too, like for example Ronald Suny. Reviews for his work are generally very good. And he was ethnically Persian, Bahai by religion. I don't see how that makes him impartial. Also note that the work in question earned Dr Kazemzadeh a PhD in Harvard. That speaks for itself. Grandmaster 18:09, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While looking for ethnic Armenian historians citing Kazemzadeh you might have missed the fact that Ronald Suny's views on Armenian Genocide are very controversial rather than mainstream. Hence the argument "Suny cites Kazemzadeh"="Kazemzadeh would not revise the history of events surrounding Armenian Genocide in an anti-Armenian way" is false. "Harvard PhD" = "whatever Kazemzadeh says we have to swallow without looking" is false as well, Holocaust denier David Irving studied at Imperial College London and University College London, those are prestigious institutions but it does not make Irving a reliable source. Moreover, Akçam stated the Turkish government was offering money to academics in the US for denial of the genocide and Hovannisian says books denying the genocide are published because of flaws in peer review leading to "a strong linkage among several mutually sympathetic reviewers" without submitting the books to academics who would point out errors. So, no, it is not as black and white as some may want it to be. --Armatura (talk) 19:43, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What does Kazemzadeh have to do with genocide? It is not his specialization, he never wrote anything about it. And if Suny is criticized, it is the problem of those who criticize, as they are unable to accept any minor deviation from their preferred narrative. I read some of the criticism, he and other diaspora scholars are attacked by crazy nationalist types like Ayvazyan. I know that Suny is a respected scholar, he wrote an article about Azerbaijan for encyclopedia Britannica, and used Kazemzadeh as a reference. I also checked reviews on Kazemzadeh's works, all positive, criticism is minor, and not a single one that would not recommend Kazemzadeh as a good read on the subject. We can take it to WP:RSN, but I don't think it is worth our time. I don't think the community will be impressed with the arguments against Kazemzadeh presented here. Grandmaster 20:05, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He has enough to for his works to be cited by Turkish Coalition of America, in their coordinated attempt of giving academic air to Armenian Genocide denial. Marc Mamigonian from Tufts University writes that

The TCA, formed in 2007 with $30 million from Turkish-American businessman Yalcin Ayasli has made the“academic controversy”project a major focus, funding publications that attempt to undermine the historicity of the Armenian Genocide, supporting a major project at the University of Utah (the Turkish Studies Project), and re-peating the existence of a scholarly debate. A section of its website is headlined,“The Ottoman Armenian Tragedy Is a Genuine Historic Controversy / Many Reputable Scholars Challenge the Conventional, One-Sided Anti-Turkish Narrative and/or Refrainfrom Alleging the Crime of Genocide.” and that “The notion that the one-sided Armenian narrative is settled history does not reflect the truth and must be utterly rejected.”  Excerpts from the writings of some 34 scholars meant to illustrate this point are provided. 

The citations for this excerpt are

• “Firuz Kazemzadeh,”Turkish Coalition of America, http://www.tc-america.org/scholar/kazemzadeh.html (accessed 10 Dec 2014).
• Firuz Kazemzadeh, “The Slaughter of the Armenians,” New York Times Book Review, 25 April 1993,13.

Not surprising for a genocide denier to use “The Slaughter" instead of "Genocide" --Armatura (talk) 20:37, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• That has nothing to do with Kazemzadeh. It does not make him unreliable source in any way. Authors can refer to any sources and selectively quote them to suit their narrative. That site uses quotes from many scholars, but the quotes from Kazamzadeh are about political situation in the Caucasus in 1918-1920. And again, what does Kazemzadeh have to do with genocide? Is there any criticism of his book on Transcaucasia that says he is not recommended as a source on the topic? Did he display any obvious bias or involved in a controversy on the topics of Armenia-Azerbaijan? Grandmaster 09:02, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to Suny, another Armenian historian, George Burnutyan, also referred to him. In general, any source written about this period contains references to Kazimzade. In that case, How can it be considered outdated, ZaniGiovanni?--Qızılbaş (talk) 18:49, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly does he cite, can you bring an example that would show that George Bournoutian endorses Kazemzadeh's views? Anybody who published papers in academic journals (I did) knows that citing and endorsing are two very different animals. --Armatura (talk) 19:43, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How can it be considered outdated, ZaniGiovanni? – sources making occasional undue claims are not good enough to include the claims, hence me calling it WP:UNDUE. Moreover, outdated means the source is 70yr old, and WP:AGEMATTERS applies here. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 20:03, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If he is still referred to, then his work is not outdated. The most recent scholarly works refer to him. Grandmaster 20:11, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you understand this part. I have page 19 PDF, which the edit was based on. Apparently Kazemzadeh is citing some papers Vorontsov-Dashkov wrote in 1907, see link. That's the definition of WP:PRIMARY and WP:AGEMATTERS. Claiming they annihilated entire villages without naming any is too heavy of a claim to base on some very old papers source, so it's also WP:UNDUE. Closing thoughts: these claims are based on some papers from 1907. These claims are heavy claims with no specifications, not pointing out any villages. These claims in turn are based on WP:AGEMATTERS and WP:PRIMARY papers from 1907, and in turn they're WP:UNDUE. Focus on what's in hand, we discuss what Kazemzadeh is basing his heavy claims on, and again, looking at the context it's certainly UNDUE. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 09:22, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Of course they are based on papers from 1907. It is a historical research, what else should they be based on? Wiki rules do not apply to historians, they can and must use and interpret historical sources in their publications, because that is their profession. Grandmaster 15:43, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those aren't even "papers" tho. It's says Записка Vorontsiva-Dashkova, which means Notes of Vorontsiva-Dashkova. And we absolutely look at what authors base their research on, what does that even mean? If your research is based on some brief non-specific notes, making huge claims based on it which doesn't even include any specificities like naming villages/etc., then it's WP:UNDUE. If your book is already 70yr old and that note is more than 100yr old, and what seems like no other book/source confirming its exceptional claims, then again, it is AGEMATTERS and UNDUE. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 07:57, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't understand what's wrong with using official documents, such as reports of Illarion Vorontsov-Dashkov, who was Russian imperial Governor General of the Caucasus Viceroyalty. That's exactly how historical research works, you take original documents from hundreds of years ago and use them in your research. You cannot research history on the basis of modern documents. And as I said, Kazemzadeh's book is still a top source on the history of the Caucasus, therefore it is still relevant. The age of publication is not the only factor. Grandmaster 09:10, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I took it to RSN, this isn't going to become another endless back and forth. We'll see what 3rd party editors think. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 07:16, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is good, thanks. Grandmaster 10:45, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you are writing an academic article (if you are writing, I'm sure it's not about history), you should know that if a work on a topic is repeatedly referred to, it is not outdated or biased. Make a list of those who deny the genocide (I think Kazimzade is not one of those who deny the genocide) and their works. And say that you cannot refer to these works, even on non-genocide topics. Sounds very absurd, doesn't it?

It is not his fault that Kazimzade's works are used in the works of genocide denialists. He wrote his work with academic sources and methods, and this is an issue that should interest us. Whoever speculates is not the problem here. Armenian Genocide is not discussed here, Armatura. --Qızılbaş (talk) 22:43, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are some mistakes in your thinking about the methodology of history. If a historian writes a scientific work about the beginning of the twentieth century, he must refer to the sources of that period. Otherwise, how are thoughts about history formed, ZaniGiovanni ?--Qızılbaş (talk) 22:42, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kazemzadeh's source dates to 1951. Are there any newer sources which reiterate his stance? Are there any sources which debunk his explanation? - LouisAragon (talk) 00:44, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another source that confirm the violent role of Dashnaks in the events of 1905. Dashnaks were the main terrorist organization in the Caucasus before the Russian revolution of 1917:

While in the Russian capitals and large provincial centers the PSR was the party most actively involved in terrorist practices, in the Caucasus the Armenian Revolutionary Party "Dashnaktsutiun" (Union), was responsible for the overwhelming majority of terrorist attacks. This organization, founded in the region in 1890, and operating under the motto "Freedom or death," had acquired significant strength and sympathy among the local population by 1903, largely because of its nationalist orientation. Initially, its primary efforts were directed toward liberation of the Armenians living under Turkish rule. The party enjoyed the support of the central Russian administration in this goal, which was fully in accord with tsarist foreign policy directed against Turkey. But following St. Petersburg's 12 June 1903 edict bringing Armenian church property under imperial control, and thus undermining the economic foundation of the Armenian nationalist forces led by the Dashnaktsutiun, the party leadership assumed a militantly anti-Russian stand.

The party's position as a unifying force for the oppressed and divided nation was responsible for its enormous popularity among various patriotic elements across the entire territory of Russian Armenia. The Dashnaktsutiun was able to organize numerous well-armed combat forces composed primarily of thousands of Armenian refugees from Turkey - young, homeless, propertyless vagabonds with no family ties-who had been permitted in 1901 to settle in various cities of Russian Transcaucasia. Most of them were not trained in any trade and knew only how to use their knives. At the same time, the organization acquired enormous funds as a result of voluntary and forced donations from the Armenian population for its war against the Muslims - contributions that became particularly generous after the beginning of virtual civil war between the Armenians and the Tatars in the Caucasus in 1905.

The outbreak of the revolutionary upheaval in the same year led to a split in the Dashnkatsutiun movement. While many rightist elements in the party still emphasized the old goals of combating the Turks and unifying the Armenians under the protection of the Russian government, the leftists, influenced by Russian Socialist-Revolutionary ideology and tactics, joined other radical forces in their war against the autocracy. Their primary socioeconomic and political demands included self-determination for the entire Armenian nation. It was these Dashnaki revolutionaries, hardened by their bloody struggles with the Turks and the Tatars, who for the time being dominated the decisionmaking process in the party, simultaneously using relentless violence to establish control over various localities in the Caucasus.

Anna Geifman, Thou Shalt Kill: Revolutionary Terrorism in Russia, 1894–1917. Princeton University Press, 1993

Grandmaster 10:44, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the author not having any expertise, nothing she wrote especially blames Armenians for the massacres. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 08:12, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly history professor Anna Geifman has no expertise? And she writes that Dashnaks used "relentless violence to establish control over various localities in the Caucasus". Grandmaster 08:41, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

She wrote an article advocating for stronger ties between Azerbaijan and Israel. She even talks hostilely toward Armenia for being Iran’s trading partner. She actually further proves that Kazemzadeh had personal biases. Her work regarding the subject or at least in relation to Armenia seems to be partisan and unreliable. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 08:49, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ZaniGiovanni, You do not accept what historians say\write. At least, accept the official state sources of that time. "The Russian Tsar's envoy in the Caucasus, Vorontsov-Dashkov, reported that the ARF bore a major portion of responsibilities for perpetrating the massacres." - source - )«Всеподданейшая записка по управлению кавказским краем генерала адьютанта графа Воронцова-Дашкова», СПб.: Государственная Тип., 1907, p.12

Viceroy Vorontsov-Dashkov was not Azerbaijani|Turkish|Turkic and even Muslim. He was a Russian Empire's viceory in Caucasus during massacres. And Tadeusz Swietochowski wrote (soruce - Russian Azerbaijan, 1905–1920. The Shaping of a National Identity in a Muslim Community. Cambridge University Press. pp. 43. ISBN 978-0-521-52245-8.) that He was closer to the Armenians and logically would not have lied in this report.--Qızılbaş (talk) 17:48, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ZaniGiovanni, You do not accept what historians say\write. At least, accept the official state sources of that time. – These kinds of mini rants are entertaining, but I have low tolerance to them. Consider this a last warning of WP:NPA. Regarding Voronstsov, you also don't seem to comprehend what WP:PRIMARY and WP:AGEMATTERS mean. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 08:42, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ZaniGiovanni,This was not a personal attack. If you take it as an attack, it will not happen again. The author quoted by Firuz Kazimzade is a Russian viceroy and is considered a third party. Why don't you accept this as a source?--Qızılbaş (talk) 11:57, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like you don't understand what constitutes a personal attack either. I'd suggest you drop this, and closely read the guidelines I mentioned to you. Next time, try not to comment on the contributer, especially when I'm explaining my rationale pretty clearly. Once more, "official state source" as you said yourself is first and foremost WP:PRIMARY source, and secondly, more than 100yrs old (WP:AGEMATTERS). But you wouldn't have asked the same question if you actually paid more attention to my comment instead of ranting about how your personal attack somehow isn't one. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 13:00, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The work of a historian should include an academic record of periods and events in archival documents (along with other sources). It does not matter the age of the official state document at the time of writing. For example, when we study the events of 400 years ago, we use documents from that period. And, of course, these documents date back to 400 years ago, because the event itself dates back to 400 years ago. This does not reduce the cost of the source.

For example, is it possible not to use official archival documents when writing an academic book on Russia's policy in the Caucasus? I think that an article written by a professor who has a PhD at Harvard and worked as a historian at Yale University should be included, citing an official government document. I think some third party will say the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qızılbaş (talk • contribs)

See WP:PRIMARY, we cannot determine the reliability of contemporary sources. The community is currently deciding if Kazemzadeh is a suitable source or not. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 13:57, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think we will not get results with such a discussion. What is your suggestion,ZaniGiovanni?--Qızılbaş (talk) 16:14, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ZaniGiovanni, ???--Qızılbaş (talk) 14:16, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stop pinging me to this page. I already expressed my opinion and don't plan to restate it further. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 20:31, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ZaniGiovanni, Is that all? Does this prevent new information from being added to the article? No consensus was reached. Discussions should continue, or a neutral person should be invited to find a common solution.--Qızılbaş (talk) 17:51, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tadeusz Swietochowski was a historian with strong ties to Azerbaijan period. It is not appropriate to portray him as neutral if he has a clear bias. Period. P.S., your names are almost the same - and you edit in the same ways on the same article - maybe you two are socks, or Grandmaster?--217.149.166.11 (talk) 19:28, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh! What a queer idea! Could it possibly be true? I feel such a chump for not spotting it before now. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:25, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Being awarded an honorary title does not mean to have any connection, or to be biased. It is just a sign of appreciation of his efforts in that country. Swietochowski's work received very good reviews from other scholars, including even Armenian ones. He is considered a top international expert on modern history of Azerbaijan. Adding irrelevant content does not improve the article. Also, please do not make personal comments about other users, mind WP:NPA. If you believe that I use sock accounts, you are free to file a WP:CU request on me. I would not object. Grandmaster 23:13, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"received very good reviews from other scholars" - who?

"considered a top international expert on modern history of Azerbaijan" - by whom?

And in your words - please do not make personal comments about other users, mind WP:NPA. If you believe that I use sock accounts, you are free to file a WP:CU request on me - oh wait, it was rejected because you did not have sufficient evidence. Now please stop pushing your conspiracy theories because you want me banned--217.149.166.11 (talk) 04:46, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wrong with your admiration for Swietochowski, Grandmaster, but you have provided no evidence or logic for what you are arguing for - that disclosing his conflict of interest is "irrelevant" here. Somebody writing on a conflict, having received honoraria, or award or degree or anything of a sort from one side of a conflict, has conflict of interest and it has to be disclosed so the casual reader who does not know Swietochowski as deeply as you do, takes what he has written with that COI in mind, with a pinch of salt. Academics and lecturers do disclose their COI on the second slide of their presentations, just after the title slide, if you are questioning the importance of such disclosure. The rest is WP:IJDLI I am afraid. If still no convinced, you are welcome to take it to RfC, your deletion is not unanimously accepted and re-deleting, as I am sure you well know, does not help much in Wikipedia. --Armatura (talk) 23:32, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

a similar example is Justin McCarthy, nobody gives him a shred of reliability when it comes to Armenian issues. I can't believe an established editor is wasting everyone's time to convince (convince is the mildest word I'll use) people that Swietochowski is fully reliable for this subject. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 00:13, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any criticism of Swietochowski's work by any reliable source? I see that his works received mostly positive reviews. Grandmaster 00:22, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"received mostly positive reviews" - again, by whom? Baku State University and Khazar University?--217.149.166.11 (talk) 04:47, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, by top Western scholars. Please do some research and check the reviews of his works, you'll see that they are praised even by Armenian scholars. You cannot just slap a tag on a respected scholar with no sources to back up you claims. Grandmaster 09:22, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with Armatura, don’t see a reason for omitting info about the author when it can indicate bias or COI. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 03:09, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brandmeister you are invited to participate in the discussion as well, instead of keeping removing the sentence. --Armatura (talk) 12:55, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Grandmaster can you please stay on the topic? It doesn’t matter how respected by “top scholars” is an academic that you are fond of, top academics still disclose their conflict of interest when presenting something even remotely / tangentiallly touching the subject of that conflict of interest, and it’s only natural to mention that conflict of interest here, where an academic with ties to Azerbaijani universities publishes things about Armenian-Tatar conflict and puts responsibility primarily on Armenians, contradicting other renown academics in the field. Removing that disclosure hand in hand with Brandmeister as “irrelevant” doesn’t serve any constructive purpose. --Armatura (talk)

There are various issues imo. First, a Swedish scholar holding senior positions at Stockholm-based Institute for Security and Development Policy, Central Asia-Caucasus Institute & Silk Road Studies Program (CACI) and American Foreign Policy Council, in his "Small nations and great powers: a study of ethnopolitical conflict in the Caucasus". Is this for real? Is this about "Armenian–Tatar massacres" or about the Swedish scholar, where the sentence follows as provides various sources that give conflicting accounts on the Baku events. So what's he telling? I didn't learn anything from it. Should be removed completely. Same applies for (the author of Armenia: The Survival of a Nation,[11], an Austrian producer of films of Austrian-German-Turkish co-production and a denier of Armenian genocide[14], a Baku-based Dutch correspondent known for stressing the need to obtain insight in “the other side of the story”, and the recent edit warring. This is not how it's should be. Anyone can enter their wiki page and see their views. This page is not about them, but about the information they provide. So that's not a gravedance @Armatura:. Beshogur (talk) 22:08, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This thread is about deleting credentials of Tadeusz Swietochowski Beshogur, I suggest sticking to it. Swedish scholar's credentials are mentioned per the same principle - attribute appropriate weight to the statement and disclose any possible conflict of interest if any. Same about the denier of Armenian genocide, Baku-based Dutch correspondent. If there is a any possibility of conflict of interest in this already very controversial topic, it should be made crystal clear, as simple as that. Genocide denier's opinions should not be served to a casual reader who does not know this authors as neutral point of view of emotionally uninvolved scholars. It is absolutely appropriate and necessary to mention who David Irving is (a Holocaust denier) when citing his views in articles about Jews or World War II. And my comment criticising WP:GRAVEDANCING was about Brandmeister's deletion of Swietochowski's ties to Azerbaijan justified as "removing blocked IP's edit", you may not be aware of this but removing somebody's edits just because they have been blocked if frowned upon in Wikipedia, and Swietochowski's credentials were added by myself, not by the blocked user, hence the comment was misleading even without a gravedance. Best wishes. --Armatura (talk) 23:42, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think relevant honorary titles summarized in half a sentence shouldn't be mentioned? Also, it's funny how some of the editors here literally voted Oppose to trimming down non-encyclopedic looting details from the History the History section of Lachin, but now you see, half a sentence of his honorary titles from Azeri state universities that clearly can indicate bias and COI are too much or "not relevant" apparently. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 00:14, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is a WP:OR, and irrelevant to the topic, while looting and burning of Lachin has a direct relation. If you have problems with the source, you know what to do. Take it to WP:RSN. Adding information that has no relation to the topic is not acceptable. Honorary titles are not credentials, being a university professor or research fellow certainly are. But why do we need to copy his whole biography here? Grandmaster 10:11, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, If you have problems with the source, you know what to do. Take it to WP:RSN. - stop this and read what I'm actually saying. Not once I talked about the source's reliablity which you don't see for some reason, I'm asking about his honors to be mentioned that's not the same as saying "I want this to go to RSN" or "source isn't RS".

Secondly, I didn't say anything about relation, I said you supported non-encyclopedic details in a History section despite even 3rd party editor disagreeing with it and suggesting trimming it down, and here, half a sentence of historian's honors which can indicate biased or COI are “irrelevant”? Who says attributing a historian has to be relevant to the article, what kind of logic is that? And even by that logic, I can argue that it is relevant as it can show personal bias or COI to one side of the conflict, and the article is about Armeno-Tatar massacres.

But why do we need to copy his whole biography here? - Who said this, why are you being intentionally hyperbolic? What I and others are saying is crystal clear and shouldn't be hard to understand. Also, please revert yourself, as this seems to be WP:CRUSH with unreasonable explanations for your reverts. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 12:24, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We will have to copy his biography, because his main credentials include being a university professor, and a fellow at prestigious think-tanks, why not mention those more important facts of his biography? His honorary (or any other) titles are irrelevant to the topic of this article, if you want to include them to show his alleged and unsupported by any reliable source bias, then it would be tendentious. Please keep the article to the topic. Anyone can click a link to scholar's biography and check his titles. But there is no need to overload the article with details that have no relevance to the topic of the article. Also, you may wish to start an RFC on how to present Swietochowski in the article. Grandmaster 12:50, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Grandmaster you removed that half a sentence many times now, first edit warring with the IP, and continuing same behaviour now. You well know that it doesn’t have to be 3 reverts within 24 hours to be considered edit warring, it’s the attitude. You are well aware of lower threshold of sanctions in Armenia Azerbaijan topic. You keep saying “irrelevant” without providing any sound logic that would convince others. You started deleting it which initiated edit war. This ONUS is on you - the persistent deleter, to justify your delete and take it to whatever noticeboard you like. I’m not saying “unreliable”, I’m saying bias / conflict of uninteresting should highlighted, please do not change what I’m trying to say. I’m afraid IJDLI-ism makes you to repetitively delete that phrase that a few editors including myself consider very relevant, and you fail to see that just by keeping reverting it while the discussion is ongoing you’re only worsening the problem. You’re not the owner of this article, neither Brandmeister or another editor is. Please revert yourself, and do not modify anything related to the Polish historian with ties to Azeri university till a consensus is reached either here or on noticeboard or somewhere else. If you’re busy, I’ll take it to RfC or a noticeboard in a day or two, but till that please undo your changes, otherwise you may get reported for edit warring and article owning, there will be no second warning. --Armatura (talk) 10:45, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is needed to include something in the article, and you see that there is no such consensus. I already wrote that the way to establish a consensus on reliability of a source is to take it to WP:RSN. So you are welcome to do so, if you have doubts about it. But honorary titles have no relation to the topic of this article. Grandmaster 10:55, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, you should note that 2 works of Swietochowski on Azerbaijan were written in 1985 and 1995. Back in 1985 Azerbaijan was a part of the USSR, and in early 1995 Azerbaijan just broke up from the USSR and was a poor country flooded with refugees. Both books were published in the west by prestigious publishing houses, Cambridge University Press and Columbia University Press, and received positive reviews from other scholars. To accuse a respected scholar of bias, you need something more than a personal belief. Which reliable source challenged neutrality or quality of Swietochowski's research? I have already asked that, but received no response. Swietochowski is not some obscure author, he is considered a top authority on modern history of Azerbaijan, and many other scholars refer to him. Grandmaster 11:08, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kevo327, could you please explain this revert, and restoration of the tag inserted by the banned user? Why is this tag valid, and why do we need a source better than the best source on the modern history of Azerbaijan, a scholar with international acclaim? Grandmaster 09:50, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

sources have to be preferably independent from the subject, as in not having any bias towards it, and someone who is an Honorary Doctor of Khazar University and Baku State University.[11] isn't independent from the issue, as well as being an expert in Azerbaijani history, not both Armenian and Azerbaijani history, which would also expose him to largely biased and one sided primary sources. This is discussed above, also the user was banned for edit warring, that doesn't automatically dismiss any valid point he made. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 16:53, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Being an honorary doctor is not an indicator of any bias, as it was explained before. British queen is also an honorary doctor in Azerbaijan, for example. The events discussed in this article took place in the territory of the modern day Azerbaijan, which is the area of Swietochowski expertise. Are you aware of any criticism of Dr. Swietochowski for his bias towards Azerbaijan? If no, then your personal beliefs are not sufficient to justify the tag. Swietochowski is a well known scholar in his field, and his works were published by peer-reviewed top scholarly publishing houses, such as Cambridge University Press and Columbia University Press, and received positive reviews from other scholars. There is no better source on the modern history of Azerbaijan than Swietochowski, so you cannot ask for better one. You are welcome to take it to WP:RSN, if you wish, to ask the community for their advice. Grandmaster 10:19, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

According to Swietochowski, 128 Armenian and 158 "Tatar" villages were destroyed. The typo in the article was the result of edits by someone. As we can see, Swietochowski provided accurate quotes, so there cannot be any doubts about the quality of his research. Grandmaster 10:07, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Swietochowski doesn’t have a say here, as he was simply citing Aknouni, and it’s better to provide the first hand source in academic tradition. I’m curious, who would that someone who made 128 into 28 villages, be, what was their motivation for reducing the number of pillaged Armenian villages 10 times? And how come it went unnoticed?--Armatura (talk) 06:53, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To add further proof Swietochowski is a WP:FRINGE source, here he is denying the Armenian genocide. The three other speakers are also infamous genocide deniers. --Dallavid (talk) 21:44, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Before I respond further, please provide a time stamp and a quotation from the YouTube video you brought to claim that Swietochowski is a genocide denier. A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 06:23, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At 10:00. At 14:30 he also justifies genocide. And throughout the video he claims lots of common Turkish falsifications, like Armenian presence in Eastern Armenia starting in the 19th century and the Ottoman Empire being a land of tolerance where oppression didn't exist. --Dallavid (talk) 18:59, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I had watched the video and also verified the times 10:00 and 14:30 minutes. Nowhere in the video does Swietochowski deny or justify genocide. His whole speech, including 10:00 and 14:30, is about the historical period preceding the Armenian genocide, and he neither rejects nor justifies it, nor does he even speak about it.

I do not think that you are entitled to label established historian Tadeusz Swietochowski as a genocide denier based on your rather incorrect interpretation of the unofficial Youtube video. Do you have anything else to prove that Tadeusz Swietochowski is a genocide denier? A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 19:45, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tadeusz Swietochowski was a prominent scholar whose book received positive reviews from other scholars. And engaging in original research to call someone a genocide denier is unacceptable. You need to bring reliable sources to support this claim. Your personal interpretation of a YouTube video is not a reliable source, plus YouTube videos are not accepted as sources. Grandmaster 09:20, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tadeusz Swietochowski is not reliable for topics related to Armenia especially contentious ones, he has also been criticized for Armenian genocide denial:

"The most serious problems with Swietochowski's book, and they are egregious, are found in his treatment of Armenian issues related to Azerbaijan. The contested territory of Nagorno-Karabagh has been the scene of armed struggle between Armenians and Azerbaijanis since 1989, and the war over it has cost in excess of 20,000 lives. Swietochowski describes the coerced acceptance of Azerbaijani rule by the Congress of Karabagh Armenians in 1919 as ". . . an act that recognized the realities of geography, economy, and transportation..." (p. 76). In fact, none of these three criteria, nor history and demography, could justify such a transfer of administrative authority to Azerbaijan. Elsewhere, Swietochowski contributes to genocide denial by citing the Shaw's tainted source, History of the Ottoman Empire and Modem Turkey, on the Armenian genocide. [2]

ZaniGiovanni (talk) 13:03, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It’s important to attribute with background about the author. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 12:45, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please make sure you are translating correctly when adding material in the English language. The referenced material does not make sense. Nocturnal781 (talk) 18:29, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]