Talk:Sumgait pogrom/Archive 1

Comments

A couple of comments. First of, not all the attackers were ethnic Azeris, at least one of them, Eduard Grigorian, was an ethnic Armenian. Further, it is important to note that Sumgait had a very high percentage of people with criminal past, in Soviet times people released from the penitentiary institutions were not allowed to settle in the capitals of the Soviet republics and they were usually settled in one of industrial suburbs, in case of Azerbaijan it was Sumgait. According to de Waal, every fifth Sumgait citizen had previous convictions.

Средний возраст горожан составлял двадцать пять лет, причем каждый пятый житель Сумгаита имел судимость. В период между 1981 и 1988 годами в Сумгаит вернулось более двух тысяч вышедших на свободу заключенных.

Also no mention of Azeri refugees from Kaphan district of Armenia, who arrived to the town just before the riots. This should be corrected. Grandmaster 19:25, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

All in good timing. This article is far from finished and far from perfect. How valid is the claim of the deaths of the two Azeris? I read that a Soviet military chief in the unit refute the claims which were presented originally by TASS. I'm not sure how well we can rely on the numbers provided by TASS and Pravda either since they had habit of being shoddy on details and concealing the damage done in humiliating cases; afterall we only found out about Chernobyl when we tuned into Turkish television. By the way the term is "in the Soviet 'era'" not times. --MarshallBagramyan 00:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

According to the rules, if you have an authoritative source to back up a certain statement, you include it to the article with reference to such a source. The death of two Azeris near Askeran is confirmed by a number of sources, I can provide you the links. Grandmaster 05:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

No, the deaths of those young men appear to be substanitated well enough in media sources. However, I was refering to the death count of the Armenian dead after the pogrom, according to Russian sources. I was explaining that since they always had a habit of either not reporting or under-reporting the news, the casualty account could also be grossly understated. I'll post more sources after this. --MarshallBagramyan 03:17, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Like Grandmaster said why is there no mentioning about the Azeri refugees from Kaphan district of Armenia, who arrived to the town just before the riots? This should be added. And why arent the number of deaths no added here? 26 Armenians and 6 Azeris, this should also be added. Baku87 15:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)Baku87

This article isn't finished, there is a reason why its titled a "stub". I'll add more on to it and finish up within the next few days/weeks. I'm looking into their testimonies in regards to Azeris who came from Kapan and Masis, I don't know what their presense in the city has anything to do with the riots themselves. There was a testimony by a Georgian living in the city who claimed that many of the statements of alleged torture, rape, coming from those regions were direct provocations in order to encourage the riots to form. I'll check if there is any reason that we should the refugee exodus.--MarshallBagramyan 21:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Quote:

Forewarnings by Azeris sympathetic to their Armenian neighbors instructed them to leave their lights on that night; those who shut it off were assumed to be Armenian.

I think for accusation like this you need a better and more neutral source than Samvel Shamuratian. Grandmaster 17:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Well its not Samvel who is saying all this. Its part of a witness testimony. If you want, I can specify that as a footnote and give the exact wording and page number, the story is corroborated by several other witnesses also.--MarshallBagramyan 21:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

There’s too much speculation in those testimonies (or their presentation). I read some of them saying very dubious things, for example that the chief of local communist party organization led the gangs, while in fact he was trying to prevent the pogrom and tried to lead the crowd towards the boulevard away from the city center, but failed. I understand the state of people who gave those testimonies and that it is very hard to neutrally evaluate the events after what happened to them, so it is advisable to use the neutral sources only. For instance, there are a number of books, published in Baku, which presented the testimonies of Khojaly survivors, but I don’t think you would want me to include them into the article about Khojaly. Grandmaster 20:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

From what I understood from the witnesses' testimonies regarding that the First Secretary's role (his name was Muslimzade) was that he was carrying the Azerbaijan flag in the middle. Even so, his attempt to "lead the crowd in a different direction" doesn't really seem plausible nor feasible. Other reports said that he even directed where the gangs to go. When recieving a plea for help by some Armenians held up in a school he promised to send soldiers to help evacuate them. Two hours later the "soldiers" (in plain clothes) arrived with clubs, axes, and armature shafts saying they were their to escort them out of the school. An Azeri guard with the Armenians told the crowd that there were no Armenians and the roving riot moved in a direction the guard pointed out to them; showing that they were sent by Muslimzade himself. Not to mention that this account with leading the crowd is confirmed by others' testimonies including Georgians and Azeris who saw Muslimzade with the flag. The former adding that he saw Muslimzade subtly announcing in a speech that the government would look the other way; he later claims to see that Musilmzade was in a rioting crowd who were harassing two Armenians.

It depends on what the Khojaly survivors claimed. There are some books written by Armenians explaining the situation of Khojaly quite frankly and its a useful source. I'd suggest you to read Monte Melkonian's biography written by his brother Markar, called My Brother's Road who describes what went on in Khojaly and who committed what. If you want, I can even scan and send several of the pages for you.--MarshallBagramyan 22:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

You see, this is what I’m talking about. See de Waals book, it says something different about the role of Muslimzade. He was trying to take the crowd out of the city center to the seaside, this is confirmed by other sources too. He failed, but he had nothing to do with pogroms other than he was carrying the flag of Azerbaijan SSR. Grandmaster 10:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The Azerbaijani refugees from Kaphan should be added and also the number of deaths on both sides (26 Armenians and 6 Azeris, if Im correct) Baku87 17:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)Baku87

Unfortunately De Waal was unable to interview Muslimzade who, according to De Waal, is now a successful businessman in Azerbaijan; declining due to emotional problems related to Sumgait. I'll still add the reference as a speculation seen by eyewitnesses.

And yes, 32-34 was the official statistic given by Soviet government.--MarshallBagramyan 22:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

You can say that Armenian sources accuse him of leading the attack, while other sources don’t support the claim. If you look at it from a logical point of view, why would he want to lead the attack on Armenians? He had a successful career in the Communist party, he was the chief of komsomol of Azerbaijan SSR, and when he grew out of komsomol age, he was appointed a mayor of Sumgait. Some saw him as a possible future leader of Azerbaijan’s communist party. When the meetings started in Sumgait, he was at one of Russian resorts, and was ordered to return only after situation was out of control. After he arrived, he was immediately surrounded by the crowd, who gave him a flag and put him in front of the column. He was never known for his nationalistic views, neither before, nor after Sumgait. Sumgait ruined his career, I don’t think he would have ever really wanted that to happen. Grandmaster 05:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Well which sources don't support their claims? I mean the logic also doesn't fit in thinking that a popular figure of the Azeri government who is carrying the flag of Azerbaijan at the front of the line is going to be able to not only direct but also to take an armed, angry crowd in another direction. Do you find that plausible? Instead of taking the flag, according to you, wouldn't it be more realistic to at least attempt to litigate the crowd? And if that failed and the crowd charged, hurry back to Party headquarters and call for government support instead of mingling in with the crowd as they went on the rampage? Sumgait changed and exposed previously unknown attitudes in both Armenians and Azeris. Many Armenians were shocked that their own best friends, people they went to school or work with, who conversed with each other everyday, would ever partake in the events themselves.--MarshallBagramyan 02:23, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Marshal, but your article now has very serious POV issues. It’s based completely on Armenian sources. What is this, for example?

They cited that the described methods, such as mutilating the breasts, would normally be prescribed to Muslims (Armenians are predominantly Christian, whereas most Azeris are Shia Muslim).

This method was very popular with Andranik, Armenian guerilla leader, who was responsible for extermination of many Azeri villages in the beginning of the century, and he was not a Muslim. As for Muslimzade, he was alone in the middle of a crowd, he tried to calm the people down, which did not work, and then tried to lead the people away from the city center. Not very smart, but that was his intention. See de Waal’s book: [1]

According to the same source, the rallies started as a protest to deportation of Azeris from Armenia. The refugees started to arrive to Azerbaijan on 25th January, I’ve got a number of sources to attest that. Another quote:

According to several Armenian witnesses, vodka and anasha, an Azeri term referring to narcotics such as opium, were also brought in truckloads and distributed to the numerically growing crowd.

This is all just hearsay and speculations. How could anyone bring narcotics in truckloads in Soviet times? So I attach a tag until the POV issues are addressed. Grandmaster 06:47, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Andranik would go around and mutilate the breasts of women? And who says this exactly? De Waal? It was the Muslim Ottoman Turks during the 1915 massacres that would grow infamous for carring out such deeds. But I never read if he had a source for that matter and that's why I dislike De Waal's habit of constantly attempting to balance out his book for our sakes, by only mildly criticizing the other side,always evening it out 50-50, and always consoling us that whatever one side did, the other one also did of equal or surpassed magnitude. I only rely on his sources in regards to the war itself, rather than the small, sparking incidents that are always mired in controversy. I appreciate De Waal's attempt to enter this foray and bring an unbiased look into it, but I don't like his style and I feel it hinders the progress of the book and raises more questions than answers.

This is not hearsay, this is eyewitness testimony. Do you have reasonable cause to discount it? De Waal was never in Sumgait to know what happend and even he uses this book as his source. So far, I have one Russian source and two citations by an Armenian published book. Some of the testimonies are from Georgians and Russians and the account on the drugs comes from the adjutant of the commander of the goverment troops; who reportedly said he saw "a panel truck drove up and distributed hashish, disposable syringes, and cases of vodka near the bus station" and were subsequently attacked by the mob when attempting to disperse the crowd. Other accounts attested hearing gunfire from the crowds. How many civilians owned sidearm pistols back then in the Soviet Union? Virtually none and yet government troops still confiscated several of them. If you have some sources that prove them wrong, then by all means introduce them and I'll remove the inaccurate POV. There were many anomalies that we say normally would never happen in the USSR but pointing out that just because it wasn't prevalent in the Soviet Union before doesn't necessarly mean it couldn't happen nor disprove it entirely. --MarshallBagramyan 17:47, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Those wordings are NPOV, and Bagarmyan contribution is exceptionally non-POV. If those are POV wordings, there are much worst wordings, wordings that you won't even find in the Armenian Genocide articles in the Khojali article. So spare us all this. Besides, you just provided another example of why De Waal is not a credible autor. The mutilation of breasts is a known method used against the Armenians, once massivly used during the Hamidian massacre and extended during the Armenian genocide which clearly preceded Antranik, and yes the mutilation of women breast and clytoris has been considered as a Muslim social structural forced male 'supremacy' used also during conflicts in some society. As for the mutilation of ears and other parts, De Waal lose any credibility left to him when he wrote: 'Both sides revived the practice of early 1900s employed by the Armenian guerrilla commander Andranik: chopping off the ears of enemy dead as war trophies. This is one of the examples of de Waal total ignorance and fabrication. And I hope he does find my words in Wikipedia since he has some explanation to do. The cutting of ears as trophy has first been recorded as a massive used with the Mongols who were cutting ears of their victims and presenting them as trophies and using them to count the number of people they have killed. This method was used by some psychopat paramilitary murderers recruted by Abdhul Hamid II, to count the numbers of Armenians they have killed, which was not enough because they will even cut the heads as trophies. This savagery was brought in the region by nomadic tribs and was widely used during the Armenian genocide. While De Waal doesn't back his fabrication (like many other of his), the mutilation of Armenians unlike his claims of Andranik who takes the credit, is documented in German, Austrian, American records. No wonder you use this single book, you can't find much of other references. Fad (ix) 18:16, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Eyewitness testimonies could be biased too, same as those who collected them. Again, your source is not neutral and cannot be considered reliable. I suggest using neutral sources only, otherwise I will have to use the same approach and include information from Azeri sources. I intentionally refrained from using Azeri sources in the articles about this conflict, as I want the articles I contribute to have some credibility. It is up to you, but I will keep the tag on, as the article has POV issues. All the stories about truckloads of narcotics, leaving the light on, or mutilating of bodies committed by Muslims only are not credible. As for Andranik and his guerillas, their crimes are very well documented in Azerbaijani archives, and those sources are as good as Shamuratian. De Waal does not say that Andranik first ever employed the practice of cutting ears, as Fadix suggests, he says that he employed that practice at a certain period of time in a certain region, i.e. in the Caucasus. And do you have any neutral sources to attest that guns were confiscated in Sumgait, or it is the same source? By the way, though not directly related to this topic, the same de Waal’s book contains very interesting testimony by none other than Igor Muradian, who told de Waal in an interview that they started arming people in Karabakh back in 1986. You may like or dislike de Waal’s book, but that’s Muradian’s own words, and not journalist’s fantasy:

По словам Мурадяна, летом 1986 года карабахцы с помощью дашнаков получили первую партию легкого стрелкового оружия из-за рубежа. Впоследствии поставки оружия стали осуществляться регулярно, причем "почему-то было много оружия чешского производства". Это оружие шло главным образом в Нагорный Карабах. "Все организации в Карабахе были вооружены. Все местные комсомольцы имели личное оружие". Это удивительное признание свидетельствует, что по крайней мере один армянский активист был уверен, что спор между двумя республиками мог перерасти в вооруженный конфликт. [2] Grandmaster 06:03, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

You are making the rules again. You don't still understand what NPOV is. He clearly stat the sources, one does not add a factuality disputed tag because he considers the source as not being the truth. As for testimonies of people, they can be presented in any articles. Neither MarshallBagramyan, neither I have opposed to them to the contrary. I was the one that requested testimonies of victims of Khojali be also included and you had problems with those I have presented and interpreted them yourself. Those are De Waal words: Both sides revived the practice of early 1900s employed by the Armenian guerrilla commander Andranik: chopping off the ears of enemy dead as war trophies. This is a clear exemple of dishonesty and total fabrication, an autor that write something such when there are reports, not in Armenia's national archive, but reports in German and Austrian archives (Ottoman allies at that time) and American archives of mutilations of the worst kind like cutting ears of Armenians by the thousands and thousands preceding Antranik during the Armenian genocide. As for the crimes perpetrated by Antranik, they are nothing compared to what happened to Armenians when Karabekir planned the destruction of an Armenia by penetrating the region with his army, or when General Halil decided to help the Tartars and as he write in his memoirs, tried to eradicate the Armenians to the last individual. It takes some face from De Waal part, which would disgust anyone knowing the history of the period to say something such.

If the article is based on a biased source, its factual accuracy should be disputed. I always suggested to use neutral sources and always adhered to this practice myself. As for Andranik, de Waal does not say that he was first ever person to employ this practice, but apparently he means that Andranik employed this practice in the Caucasus back in early 1900s. Indeed, he and his guerillas imported to the region practices they used elsewhere and which were uncommon for the region. Anyway, if you have problems with it, you should get in contact with him, but I don’t see any dishonesty here. And I don’t think that phrases like: They cited that the described methods, such as mutilating the breasts, would normally be prescribed to Muslims (Armenians are predominantly Christian, whereas most Azeris are Shia Muslim) comply with NPOV rules. So the tag remains for the time being. Grandmaster 15:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

NO! Using what you consider as a biased source does not qualify as factually questionable. Questioning the factuality of an article is not when someone interpret a source as being factually wrong. If that was the cases, every articles on Wikipedia will have this tag because someone will find one of the positions presented as being wrong. This tag is used when there is a misrepresentation of the source. If for example I say that Source A says B, and that it actually says C, then there is a dispute on the factuality of the article. As long as there is a cited source, the 'according to this this this and that happened' and that it really is an ' according to this' you can not use the tag. You still have a misconception on how Wikipedia works. But HERE AGAIN, I will not be the one reverting to the archaeic and childish stage by edit waring. I'll leave this to you. But then, don't go crying when another person has the same erronous representation of what Wikipedia is and start adding such tags in articles you think owning. The Khojali article has more serious issues but you haven't seen me obstinently adding back that tag. MarshallBagramyan is amazingly NPOV in his tones and has a clear understanding of Wikipedia policies. Many Azeris and Armenian contributors have a lot to learn from him. Comming to Antranik, Grandmaster, how much you think you know about the Azeri-Armenian conflict, don't bring me there, that period I master it to a T. You have no clue of what you are talking about believe me. Mutilation in the Caucasus was NOT brought by Andranik, in fact, the most rutless Pan-Turanist ideologists were Tartar immigrants who engaged in the worst types of excess and were recruted by the Ottoman army draged in the special organization and who signed their names by the number of people they have mutilated. The Kurds even have a song of praise for Andranik titled: 'Ustraneh Andranik Pasa' because he prevented the excess and prevented the massacres of thousands of Kurds. An important part of the stories of Antranik mutilation crimes have originated from people like Hassan Arfa and placed as neutral sources, when Hassan Arfa who passed as an Iranian General was a Tartar who had a role in the destruction of various Kurdish communities and was tanked by Ataturk himself who granted him Iranian Ambassadorship in Turkey. He even wrote a book about the Kurds in which he call them as savages and moraly inferiors to the Azeri and revert his role in the destruction of the Kurdish communities by accusing the Armenians and place Antranik as the responsable, when the Kurds praised that man for quite the opposit. Those are the sort of BS one find in the archive you keep talking about or Kazemzadeh who tried justifying the destruction of thousands of Armenians by creating stories of excess from bottom to top. While the claim of De Waal about Antranik isen't much sources the mutilation of Armenians, and YES even the Caucasus (The Ottoman had even gone as far as penetrating North Ouest Persia and commited the worst types of excess against the Armenians in as soon as 1915 and were helped by many fanatic Tartars). The entrance in Persia is documented in Western Press of that time too. So when De Waal claims something not much documented while skip what is much documented and official history, his selectivity gives him away. Fad (ix) 16:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)