Talk:Armenian–Tatar massacres of 1905–1907

Firuz Kazemzadeh

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

Brandmeister and Grandmaster

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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. [1]

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

Attribution

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

Qızılbaş

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)

Erich Feigl

I don’t believe he should be included in the article considering he has no academic background and denies the genocide. Goes against Wikipedia standards for referencing. Referring to this: “On the other hand, Erich Feigl, an Austrian producer of Austrian-German-Turkish films and a denier of Armenian genocide has said that the Dashnaks committed terrorist acts (similar to those orchestrated in the Ottoman Empire) against the Azeri majority in Shusha, Baku and Ganja, leading to the eruption of violence and elimination of most of the Azerbaijani leading stratum in Baku.” Nocturnal781 (talk) 23:23, 14 March 2023 (UTC)