Talk:Sumgait pogrom/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Victor Krivopuskov

I don't think Krivopuskov could be considered a reliable third party source. First, he was not in Sumgait during the events, so how does he know anything about what happened there? Second, he has very close connections with the Armenian side, so he is not neutral. He is the head of the committee for Russo-Armenian friendship, [1], and openly supports the Armenian side of the conflict: [2] Grandmaster 10:06, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

You can add that he is the head of that committee. Your second point would be original research unless referenced by a neutral source.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 11:36, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

It is obvious from the links that I provided. Grandmaster 21:11, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't make the rules.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 07:50, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

No one says that you do. I explained why exactly Krivopuskov is unreliable. The sources on his bias have been provided too. Also, what Krivopuskov says is illogical too. Elsewhere in the text other Armenian sources claim that alcohol and narcotics were brought in trucks and distributed to the crowds, while this guy claims that the attackers were some sort of Muslim fundamentalists. As you probably know, Muslim fundamentalists do not consume alcohol and drugs, that is against the teachings of Islam. But if you trust everything that is said in the article, the pogromshiks were alcoholic fundamentalists. No logic. Grandmaster 20:55, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

That's what I understood he was saying from the text (end of page 187). And what someone says in theory does not mean it applies to logic. There are many injunctions against this or that practice in Islam (forced conversion, for example) and yet that has not only stopped Muslims from implementing or adopting them but also not at all put a damper on their identity as pious Muslims. Contradictions abound everywhere and that can be applied to almost any people of any for faith for that matter. And saying that Karabakh belongs to Armenians does not necessarily negate the veracity of the facts someone reports. I thought this would have been clear by now.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 21:59, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't really understand how can anyone be a pious Muslim and at the same time violate the main postulates of their faith. There's no injunction in Islam for that. And if a person openly supports one of the sides of the conflict, he can hardly be considered unbiased. Also, I don't see why this source is so important. It does not add anything to the story, other than trying to somehow involve religion, in contradiction to all other accounts. Plus, he was not even in Sumgait during the events, how his account could be considered reliable? Krivopuskov claims to know very well Muslimzade, but he did not even get Muslimzade's name right, he calls him Arif throughout the text, while the actual name was Jahangir. If the purpose is to create an objective and unbiased account of the events, and not a propaganda piece, I believe it is much better to refer to unbiased sources. Grandmaster 19:29, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Video links

I notice some editors keep on adding video links. Read Wikipedia:Video links before doing so, to understand the reason why they are not usually allowed in Wikipedia, specially content coming from user generated websites. --92slim (talk) 04:43, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sumgait pogrom/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: JohnGormleyJG (talk · contribs) 16:32, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I will review this next. -- JohnGormleyJG (✉) 16:32, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Main Review

Overview

The entire article is well referenced to reliable sources. These sources are fully cited to the correct way as should be according to WP:FNNR. The images are appropriate to the article in their correct sections. The content is well written and explained well. The article is very well presented altogether with good grammar and spelling.

Infobox

• Good Infobox
  

The infobox is very good. It contains the key information. It is well referenced correctly.

• Good Image
  

The image featured is a good encyclopedic image for the article's infobox. It contains a suitable caption.

Lead Paragraph

• Well Written
  

The entire lead section is well written with good grammar and spelling.

• Well explained
  

This explains the main points quite quickly as is what the lead is suppose to do.

• Well Referenced
  

The sections points are referenced to reliable sources and avoiding self research. The references are cited correctly.

• Overall
  

This is an excellent lead section, it entices the reader for more detail, as the main points are summarized. The section is not too big. Very well referenced.

Background

• Well Written
  

The section is well written. Contains detailed information in dept that is explained well and easy to read

• Well Referenced
  

All the information is backed up by a reference from a reliable source. All references are fully sited.

• Good Images

The images featured are very good as they explain the text featured. The map and diagram are both used for encyclopedic use.

• Overall

This is a very good section in the article, very good images, linked to other articles for more information, well referenced and written.

Pogroms

• Well Written
  

As per rest of the article this is still very well written, whilst using a neutral point of view in the text.

• Well Referenced
  

Very good referencing in this article throught. Referenced to reliable sources correctly obliging the Manual of Style WP:FNNR.

• Good Image
  

The image is appropriate to the information in the section, containing a caption explaining the image.

• Overall
  

This is another well done section, it is referenced very well, a good image, presented very well containing the quote box rather than using the quote marks (“.....”). The quote box stands out better to the reader, only should be used for bigger quotes / statements as is in the article. The paragraphs are a good size each making it more engaging for the reader. Instead of having a big chunk of text. It makes it easier to view and find the info you are looking for.

Government Reaction

• Well Written
  

This section is well written as is the whole article.

• Well Explained
  

The sections content is explained well.

• Well Presented
  

The content is presented well, especially the quote box being present.</>br

• Well Referenced
  

The section is fully cited and referenced.

• Overall
  

Everything is fine here, there is nothing wrong with this section. It is well written, referenced, explained and presented.

Aftermath

Good Section

Criminal Proceedings

Good section everything fine

Rest of Article

Well Referenced
Well Written
Everything Fine

Overall Review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A.Yes this article is very well written.

   B. The layout is correct.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   AYes the whole article is very well referenced, and correctly referenced.

   B. All references are to reliable sources.

   C. Contains no original research.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Yes. It addresses the main aspects of the topic

   B.Yes all information is valid to the article.

4. Is it neutral?

   Yes article is not biased it contains neutral point of view

5. Is it stable?

   Yes article is stable

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged

   B. Images are relevant to the topic

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

This is an excellent article very well done to all the frequent contributors here, keeping this article in control very good article definitely approves to be a good article. Good job. -- JohnGormleyJG (✉) 18:18, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Note to JohnGormleyJG: it is an extremely rare article that has nothing wrong with it: no typos, no grammatical flubs, no other issues. This article was not immune, and these issues should be fixed before the GA is awarded. For example, the second sentence in the Radio broadcast subsection of the Background section is not only a run-on, with more commas than necessary, but the final period is missing. I also see close paraphrasing, if not copyvio, in the final sentence of Asseessments and consequences, even to the structure of the original, which is quite concerning since the review doesn't mention copyvio/close paraphrasing being checked. I must also confess that your closing comment worries me: "keeping this article in control very good article definitely approves to be a good article" is not even comprehensible. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:13, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I could not come across any typos of such when I read this? Is there something that I missed, if so please tell me. Thanks -- JohnGormleyJG (✉) 19:25, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Sumgait pogrom/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

This article has several problems relative to the GA criteria:

• Close paraphrasing: for example, compare "called these pogroms "a real threat of extermination" to the indigenous Armenian community within Azerbaijan and in the autonomous region of Mountainous Karabagh with 80 percent of Armenian population" with "these pogroms constitute “a real threat of extermination” to the indigenous Armenian community in Azerbaijan and in the autonomous region of Mountainous Karabagh, whose inhabitants are 80 percent Armenian"
• Verifiability: some material is lacking sources while other sections are not supported by the given sources. For example, "Meanwhile, on the previous day, two battalions from the MVD, troops mainly equipped with truncheons and riot gear (those troops who were armed with firearms were armed with blanks and not given the permission to open fire), arrived in Sumgait in buses and armored personnel carriers" is cited to Kaufman 64, which says only that "Soldiers were introduced into the city by the 29th but were reportedly not given orders to shoot until later"
• WP:W2W/WP:NPOV: includes terms like "renowned" and takes a clear editorial position on some aspects of the story
• Grammar: article needs general copy-editing
• Images: too many non-free images with inadequate rationales. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:25, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: you may want to delist this article now, as there has been practically zero improvement since the beginning of the reassessment. sst✈^discuss 14:08, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality?

why is the intentional massacre and rape of armenians described as a "progrom" while the unintentional killing of azeris in khojaly is a "massacre"? can we get some neutrality in these articles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.49.6.225 (talk) 08:46, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

This was not an organized or official program. The word is pogrom, which means a violent riot/massacre/persecution towards an ethnic people. It also tends to mean that many people in the area didn't seem to care about the people who were being hurt or killed, so it describes the situation better than just massacre. —PC-XT+ 09:16, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

armenians aren't jews- isn't this similar to the word "antisemitism" inasmuch as it generally refers to a specific group of semites? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.49.6.225 (talk) 08:23, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Consparicy theories?

In what content exactly did Thomas the wall call the theories "consparicy"? I find it very un neutral and weird to call those content "consparicy" theories. It's like you want the reader to believe these are "lies". DavidThomson1997 (talk) 22:37, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

He has a section in his book "Black Garden" titled 'Plots and Conspiracies' and he talks about Sumgait. It is on page 41 of his book.

"On the Azerbaijani side even wilder conspiracy theories emerged, which tried to exonerate Azerbaijanis of the crimes. One persistent story was that outside conspirators had put cameras in place waiting for the pogroms to begin and that the footage they show was immediately distributed round the world - yet no one has ever set eyes on this film."

He calls the involvement of the KGB a conspiracy theory as well.Ninetoyadome (talk) 00:07, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

but still, was the armenian provocation theory also consparicy? And do what do you think of calling these theories consparicy? I think it shows un neutrality.. @Ninetoyadome — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidThomson1997 (talk • contribs) 13:28, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it was included in that section.

In May 1989, the historian Ziya Buniatov, who was then president of the Academy of Sciences and Azerbaijan’s foremost Armenophobe, came up with the most complete work of denial yet. In an article entitled “Why Sumgait?” he concluded that the Sumgait pogroms had been planned by the Armenians themselves in order to discredit Azerbaijan and boost the Armenian nationalist cause. “The Sumgait tragedy was carefully prepared by the Armenian nationalists,” Buniatov wrote. “Several hours before it began, Armenian photographers and TV journalists secretly entered the city where they waited in readiness. The first crime was committed by a certain Grigorian who pretended to be Azerbaijani and who killed five Armenians in Sumgait.”

Right after that De Waal wrote:

In one sense, the conspiracy theorists are posing the wrong question.

So he is calling everything he spoke about in that section a conspiracy and the people who came up with those theories as conspiracy theorists.Ninetoyadome (talk) 19:33, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

• Note: DavidThomson1997 is topic banned from this article (and all articles relating to the Nagorno-Karabakh War) due to discretionary sanctions. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:22, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

A definite article with "Kremlin leaders"

"appealed to Kremlin leaders to dispatch Soviet troops"
Should it be "the Kremlin leaders"? Or not?--Adûnâi (talk) 21:40, 13 June 2019 (UTC)