Talk:Armenian–Tatar massacres of 1905–1907/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Deletion

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)

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

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)

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is cited extensively on an Armenian genocide denying website, which would indicate say he is unreliable at worst or outdated at best.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)

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 So it is not outdated or biased.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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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)