Massacres of Azerbaijanis in Armenia in 1917–1921

Massacres of Azerbaijanis in Armenia in 1917–1921 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is a neologism built on original research and is also partly a fork of Deportation of Azerbaijanis from Armenia.

The article relies on unreliable sources such as a Turkish tourism website and genocide deniers like Justin McCarthy and Maxime Gauin. The Soviet historiography can be disregarded entirely as outdated propaganda, because the Bolsheviks were opponents of the ARF and the ARF was banned in the Soviet Union (source). This is proven by the Taner Akçam source declaring these "massacres" to be exaggerated or outright fabrications. Akcam is a modern and esteemed scholar, and has more due weight.

And the few sources that are reliable don't support the idea of a 4 year ethnic cleansing campaign of Azerbaijanis. In fact, it seems various sources don't even confirm what they are cited for. Page 75 of the Thomas de Waal source doesn't say anything that could be interpreted as "ethnic cleansing was caused by the loyalty and favour of the Azerbaijanis to the Ottoman Turks". This closest thing the citation may be referring to is this: "In their place, Armenian refugees and peasants were immediately settled in the abandoned houses and land. In this way, Azerbaijanis became the collateral victims of the Young Turks' genocidal policies of 1915." The idea that Azerbaijanis were ever ethnic cleansed for their "loyalty and favour" is unsourced and entirely made up. Dallavid (talk) 23:50, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Discrimination, History, Armenia, and Azerbaijan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:06, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per the following points:

• The article relies on unreliable sources such as a Turkish tourism website and genocide deniers like Justin McCarthy and Maxime Gauin

All three of those sources have since been removed since bringing them to my attention, and the tourism website and McCarthy source were not even on the article at the same time, contrary to your implication.

• The Soviet historiography can be disregarded entirely as outdated propaganda, because the Bolsheviks were opponents of the ARF and the ARF was banned in the Soviet Union

Dismissing the historiography of the state which Armenia was a part of for most the 20th century because you perceive it to be "propaganda" is rash and baseless – the Soviet sources cited are by historians who have conducted detailed investigations into the ethnographic situation and changes in Armenia, even on a village-by-village level as in the case of Zaven Korkotyan's work (which is the source of historical village populations in the official index of settlements published by the Armenian government, see page 4).

• This is proven by the Taner Akçam source declaring these "massacres" to be exaggerated or outright fabrications.

It's not "proven", rather, contended by Akçam (incase you didn't notice, I even made a mention of Akçam's perspective so as to give due weight to all relevant historiography about the massacres of Azerbaijanis).

• And the few sources that are reliable don't support the idea of a 4 year ethnic cleansing campaign of Azerbaijanis.

I think you should re-read the article because that's definitely not the case: reliable authors such as Jörg Baberowski attest to the destruction of 199 villages and expulsion of 100,000 by the Russian army and Armenian volunteers between August 1917 and March 1918. As for the massacres lasting until 1921, Thomas de Waal writes that Armenian partisan commander and Nazi-collaborator Garegin Nzhdeh drove "out the last of its (Syunik's) Azerbaijani population" in 1921. The example you cited that was unsourced has also since been removed as I have misplaced its relevant citation and mistakenly put the wrong author/page, in any case, one sentence with a wrong citation is not grounds to delete an entire article which has been written according to Wikipedia standards. – Olympian ^loquere 09:24, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I took a closer look at the third party sources that are allegedly cited for "massacres". Broers(p.4) doesn't mentioned Andranik, Nzhdeh, "re-Armenianization", Zangezur, or any massacre of Azeris at all. De Waal(p.129) only mentions expelling. Zakharov(pp. 105–106) just says expulsion, not massacre. This is a recurring issue with all the credible sources you've gathered: none of them support your thesis statement that "Azerbaijanis in Armenia were ethnically cleansed on a large scale throughout 1917–1921"; at best they refer to the Deportation of Azerbaijanis from Armenia, which I've already explained that this article is a fork of. Which is probably why the sources generally refer to destruction of villages, not people. But you cited these authors just before several Azeri and genocide denier sources claiming thousands of Azeris were massacred, falsely portraying these sources to make the same claim. I've also read the whole Ovsepyan source, no mention of "widespread massacres of Muslims in Armenia". Kaufman(58) makes no mention of Ottoman Armenians, Muslims in Armenia, or "widespread massacres". Just a brief mention of an "era of massacres" for both people, without mentioning specific dates or locations.

WP:PRIMARY and WP:AGE MATTERS, if the only reliable source from the past half century mentioning what the Soviet historiography claimed is also declaring it to be fabrications, then it likely is. As WP:WEIGHT says, if something was largely accepted as true, it would be easy to find many reliable sources confirming it. But it seems you couldn't find any better than genocide deniers.

Jörg Baberowski is a Clean Wehrmacht revisionist and is known for physically attacking his colleagues,[1] where did you get the idea he is reliable? Did you even read the criticism section of the article you linked? This further proves the article was built on crackpot unreliable sources, in addition to citations that just fail verification. --Dallavid (talk) 20:28, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a recurring issue with all the credible sources you've gathered: none of them support your thesis statement that "Azerbaijanis in Armenia were ethnically cleansed on a large scale throughout 1917–1921"

I urge you to re-read the sources you claimed to have taken a "closer look at". Broers source, page 4:

"Reliable numbers are elusive, but Ottoman Turkish–Azerbaijani forces killed or drove out many thousands of Armenians from Nakhichevan, while Armenian militias visited a similar fate upon Azerbaijani Muslims in Zangezur."

The de Waal source (which you say only mentions expelled) is used to implicate Andranik (per source) and to support the sentence "expulsion of tens of thousands", pages 80 & 128:

"In 1918–1920, tens of thousands of Azerbaijanis were expelled from Zangezur … In Zangezur, across the mountains to the east, the ferocious Armenian guerrilla commander known as Andranik swept through the region, burning Azerbaijani villages and expelling their inhabitants"

Zakharov very clearly references ethnic cleansing, thereby supporting the content it is cited for; page 105–106:

"'Njdeh … led the defence of Zangezur, in 1921, which led to the cleansing and expulsion of the region’s local Azeri minority'"

… falsely portraying these sources to make the same claim

Another baseless accusation – the sources each individually and directly point to the fact that the Azerbaijani population was eradicated from Armenia enmasse, consisting of the destruction of hundreds of villages, the deportation of tens of thousands, and the massacre of thousands.

I've also read the whole Ovsepyan source, no mention of "widespread massacres of Muslims in Armenia".

This is a Russian-language source; meaning no offence, but in past discussions, you've demonstrated a poor ability to sufficiently interpret Russian (it seems as though you're relying solely on an automated translator such as Yandex or Google), so I'll quote and translate the relevant part for you:

Original: "При дашнакском владычестве в Армении он дашнакским правительством использовался по военной линии, т. е. возглавлял военное дело в Зангезуре, сперва по усмирению местных азербайджанцев, скорее, по очищению территории от азербайджанцев …"

Translated: "During the Dashnakutyun's rule over Armenia, he [Nzhdeh] was tasked by the Dashnak government in a military capacity to command the military affairs in Zangezur, initially to pacify the local Azerbaijanis, instead, clearing the territory [Zangezur] from Azerbaijanis …"

Kaufman(58) makes no mention of Ottoman Armenians, Muslims in Armenia, or "widespread massacres".

Contrary to your claim, Kaufman very clearly explains the state of Azerbaijanis in Armenia and references their massacres at the hands of Armenians, page 58:

"Thus Azerbaijanis were a threatened and oppressed minority in Armenia and Mountainous Karabagh—the "era of massacres" included massacres of Azerbaijanis by Armenians"

WP:PRIMARY and WP:AGE MATTERS, if the only reliable source from the past half century mentioning what the Soviet historiography claimed is also declaring it to be fabrications, then it likely is.

That is an absolute misrepresentation of the facts, recent sources you've mentioned such as de Waal, Broers, Zakharov, Ovsepyan, et al all support the idea of an ethnic cleansing campaign against Azerbaijanis in Armenia, particularly in Zangezur as I've exhaustively and comprehensively quoted above.

Jörg Baberowski is a Clean Wehrmacht revisionist and is known for physically attacking his colleagues

So because an author reacted poorly to harassment and supports a certain notion regarding the German army, we should immediately dismiss all his works regarding the Caucasus? you're going to have to provide a more sufficient line of reasoning than that to not cite his works.

This further proves the article was built on crackpot unreliable sources, in addition to citations that just fail verification

Throughout your reply you've utterly misrepresented the cited content to make it seem as though this is the case, contrary to what I have just proven that every source supports the content it is cited for. So instead of saying this is a "recurring issue" you need to read more carefully before making these allegations, because evidently you haven't and therefore your accusations are unsubstantiated. The article cannot be a "fork" due to the reasoning I explained to ZaniGiovanni: "due to the enormous amount of information available on these particular massacres, I believe it easily passes the threshold for notability insofar-as meriting its own article", moreover, the article supports the idea of massacres being involved, not just deportations. – Olympian ^loquere 00:36, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for proving me correct in that the Broers, De Waal, Zakharov, and Ovsepyan sources only mention expulsions and, more importantly, none of them endorse the "through the massacre of 7,729–10,000 Azerbaijani Muslims" claim that you cited them for. Yes the Kaufman source uses the M-word, but this one throw-away sentence is all there is in the entire book; there is no mention of years (such as "1917-1921"), locations, or really any context. And that means "the influx of Ottoman Armenian refugees resulted in widespread massacres of Muslims in Armenia" bit you cited it for is entirely original research.

"recent sources you've mentioned such as de Waal, Broers, Zakharov, Ovsepyan, et al all support the idea of an ethnic cleansing campaign against Azerbaijanis in Armenia"

None of those sources use the terms "ethnic cleansing" or "campaign", that is more original research. As I've said several times already, the Deportation of Azerbaijanis from Armenia is what these events are describing.

"So because an author reacted poorly to harassment and supports a certain notion regarding the German army, we should immediately dismiss all his works regarding the Caucasus?"

"Certain notion regarding the German army" is a funny way to describe Holocaust denial. And even overlooking that, Baberowski making outlandish claims that only Armenian genocide deniers make is good enough reason not to cite him

"due to the enormous amount of information available on these particular massacres"

So far you have only provided 1 decent source using the term "massacre": one sentence in an entire book that makes no mention of time or place. And keep in mind that the reliable source going into the greatest detail on this subject also confirms that it's largely a fabrication. --Dallavid (talk) 00:47, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for proving me correct

You're mistaken, I corrected you, not proved you correct. For the third time, I advise you to read the article and see that there are numerous sources that attest to massacre: For example, the 1990 Balayev source that cites its 7,729 number from the Soviet archives.

As I've said several times already, the Deportation of Azerbaijanis from Armenia is what these events are describing.

And what I've explained to you "several times already" is that these were not just deportations, but also massacres, see the above point.

"Certain notion regarding the German army" is a funny way to describe Holocaust denial.

I think you should read the very content that you wikilinked, Clean Wehrmacht, which you allege Baberovski supports, refers to a "notion" that the German army was uninvolved in the Holocaust, not that the Holocaust didn't occur. At this point it's hard to tell if you're intentionally misrepresenting facts or you're just jumping to type the first unfiltered thought in your head.

And keep in mind that the reliable source going into the greatest detail on this subject also confirms that it's largely a fabrication.

You need to go back to the Taner Akçam source and read that when he states “exaggerated or outright fabrications”, it's in reference to reports by Ottoman commanders of massacres against Turks in Erzurum (i.e. Western Armenia) which is entirely irrelevant to the massacres of Azerbaijanis in Armenia. Therefore, your point that Akçam's perspective somehow prevails over the other sources is redundant. – Olympian ^loquere 08:30, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For example, the 1990 Balayev source that cites its 7,729 number from the Soviet archives.

The Balayev source is not credible on it's own, we need reliable third-party sources. And since Balayev is a supporter of the Caucasian Albanians revisionist theory, he isn't even a reliable source in general. As you will see further down, Akcam proved why these figures from WP:PRIMARY sources are often inventions and not credible.

And what I've explained to you "several times already" is that these were not just deportations, but also massacres, see the above point.

You have not provided a single reliable source calling them massacres, you're just repeating yourself at this point.

I think you should read the very content that you wikilinked, Clean Wehrmacht, which you allege Baberovski supports, refers to a "notion" that the German army was uninvolved in the Holocaust, not that the Holocaust didn't occur.

Baberovski is a defender of Ernst Nolte,[2] who has his own section on Holocaust denial. While they don't deny the Holocaust explicitly, they still promote a great deal of negationism, similar to how many Armenian genocide deniers do. But let me remind you that we're discussing why Baberovski is a fringe (and thus unreliable) source, not whether he's a Holocaust denier or not. And the Nolte defense proves that he promotes undue narratives.

You need to go back to the Taner Akçam source and read that when he states “exaggerated or outright fabrications”, it's in reference to reports by Ottoman commanders of massacres against Turks in Erzurum (i.e. Western Armenia) which is entirely irrelevant to the massacres of Azerbaijanis in Armenia.

I will include the whole quote, so that there's no doubt and also because there's another point Akcam made that you need to hear:

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

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

The third issue is how to evaluate the events between 1917 and 1922, whether the terms "acts of revenge" or "continuation of the genocide" are accurate. There is no doubt that the events in Caucasus were part of a historical continuity in the region.

There you have it, he was still referring to the Azeri fabrications, he had also just included one fabrication in Erzurum as another example, and the entire Casualties section reflects the "freely invented" figures he mentioned (unless you have a reliable third-party source for them, which is doubtful). But read Akcam's first point carefully. This article is exactly what he described Turkish/Azeri negationists often promoting, which is trying to invent their own "genocide" to use for propaganda purposes. That is why this article is extremely WP:UNDUE and should be deleted. --Dallavid (talk) 00:39, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have not provided a single reliable source calling them massacres, you're just repeating yourself at this point.

Sources by Hovannisian (1982: pp.239 & 283; 1996b: p.247), Kaufman (p.58), Chmaivsky (p.9), Balayev (p.43), Coyle (p.49), Mammadov & Musayev (p.33), Hasanli (pp.40 & 241), Aharonian (p.52), Baberovski (pp.163 & 166), and the Le Temps newspaper (p.4) all describe massacres of Azerbaijanis by Armenian soldiers, partisans, and/or volunteers.

There you have it, he was still referring to the Azeri fabrications

No, he's not. It's obvious that the last two sentences are the part of a new paragraph and unrelated to the statement of the previous paragraph (stating that the massacres against Turks in Erzurum are exaggerated), that's your own interpretation of the text. I won't be replying further until an admin engages. Regards, – Olympian ^loquere 04:22, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hovannisian is only referring to the invented figures in Turkish sources that Akcam was referring to, Kaufman has one vague sentence in his entire book saying 'both Armenians and Azeris massacred', Baberovski is a negationist, Coyle is a propagandist working for Azerbaijan,[3], and the rest are primary sources of the invented figures.

Do you have any modern reliable sources providing a estimate of how many Azeris were allegedly massacred? I do not believe you do, because you've only provided Turkish figures in primary sources that are obviously overblown, because there would be many easily accessible sources if there was any truth to them. If there are no reliable sources giving a death figure, that further shows the subject is too fringe to deserve an article.

Akcam clearly combines these three problems/issues into the same topic, so they are clearly related. --Dallavid (talk) 22:27, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to take a closer look at the extensively cited Jamil Hasanli book, and it turns out to be yet another source on this article denying the Armenian genocide: "Emory Niles's and Arthur Sutherland's "lost" reports brought to light just how subjective in character are the claims of Armenian genocide. Reports of attempted destruction of the Armenian race were shocking to Americans when published in New York in 918 by the U.S. Ambassador to Istanbul from 1913 to 1916, Henry Morgenthau, but they were unsubstantiated, being founded on information given only by Armenians." --Dallavid (talk) 19:45, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Archives908 (talk) 14:19, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article is thoroughly sourced by over 20 highly reliable sources, a few not so good sources here and there doesn't mean that it deserves to be deleted.--Nicat49 (talk) 21:01, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But the only one of those citations that is both reliable and actually refers to Azerbaijanis in Armenia being "ethnically cleansed on a large scale throughout 1917–1921" confirms that it is a fabrication. --Dallavid (talk) 20:29, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Personal belief that some sources are untrustworthy because they are soviet "outdated propaganda" or otherwise, and oddly selecting one error in sourcing in the article to imply that all other sources are also wrong are not sufficient grounds for considering the deletion of the article. I can't see this AfD request, which does not meet any of the 14 criteria for deletion, improving Wikipedia. It rather catastrophizing a well written and rigorously sourced article. A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 11:56, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - needs some work to replace some less than reliable sources (for example the journal Review of Armenian Studies which is a denialist journal) but not worthy of deletion. Revolution Saga (talk) 23:15, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as: 1) It’s a fork of the articles already present (Deportation of Azerbaijanis from Armenia / March Days / Muslim uprisings in Kars and Sharur–Nakhichevan); 2) It’s a neologism based on original compilation of sources – I cannot see coherent academic discourse in the provided sources to define these events as a single solid subject that deserves a stand-alone encyclopaedic entry. In fact, modern RS (which Wikipedia prioritizes) like Taner Akcam describes the massacres as exaggerated or outright fabrications [4]. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 12:11, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  This article has nothing to do with the March Days massacre, and it is only slightly related to the Muslim uprisings in Kars and Sharur–Nakhichevan. As for it being a "fork" of the deportation of Azerbaijanis article, due to the enormous amount of information available on these particular massacres, I believe it easily passes the threshold for notability insofar-as meriting its own article. Moreover, these massacres are discussed by various reliable authors, not just Akçam, so I don't see the grounds to focus entirely on his perspective. – Olympian ^loquere 22:27, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  As I explained to Dallavid, the part you're quoting from Akçam is in regards to reports of massacres of Turks in Erzurum, not Azerbaijanis in Armenia, so that point is irrelevant and redundant in this discussion. – Olympian ^loquere 08:34, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  As it was already pointed out above [5], the Casualties section reflects the "freely invented" figures Akcham mentioned. And from the book, he clearly refers to the Caucasus regarding fabrications while also bringing up an example Erzurum. One doesn't negate the other. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 14:59, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Well written and sourced. Grandmaster 19:10, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:56, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Clearly a POV fork intended to provide a non-WP:NPOV outlook on the clashes between Armenians and Azerbaijanis during 1918-1921. This can be evidenced by that fact that not a single one of the sources is specifically about the topic, it is not a notable topic by itself, all the sources mention it within the context of the mutual clashes and persecution of both Armenians and Azerbaijanis towards each other. In a topic area as contentious as AA2, we must be careful of these content forks that may appear reliable, however, only focuses on a specific pov, while the sources listed are all about a general time period and include the full context. The information on this page should be merged into the respective articles with the proper context, this topic is definitely not notable by itself, (I can’t find a single proper reliable source that uses the terminology “Massacres of Azerbaijanis in Armenia in 1917–1921” to describe the events of that time period as some sort of mass ethnic cleansing) it should rather be a subsection of Azerbaijanis in Armenia. TagaworShah (talk) 04:44, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Article is written with all details and links. I don't understand what is the problem. Maybe someone wants to remove this article because of their nationality?--Rəcəb Yaxşı (talk) 06:59, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I'm struggling to see this proposal to delete the article as anything other than an attempt to whitewash history. The article is well sourced and well written. Any individual problems can be resolved in the article's talk page. I also don't think it's very helpful to scrutinize every single source to try to discredit them in an attempt to get the article deleted. Sources don't need to be perfect, as long as they're published by a reliable author and a publisher, they're good enough. This isn't a featured article. RadomirZinovyev 07:01, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]