Talk:April 9 tragedy

Untitled

I don't know anything about this event, but the wording in the opening paragraph seems a bit strong, so I'm wondering whether there's a POV problem here. - dcljr (talk) 03:48, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

copy edit and pov

As mentioned above, this article needs a little tweaking POV wise, the over use of the term "massacare" and "THE killings" suggests a slightly anti-Soviet skew, plus there is no section on the Russia side of things. Also the sentence structure needs work, the english is not of any great quality in places and the sentences don't really flow in certain areas. SGGH 20:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem with terms like massacre is that, while you can come up with NPOV definitions, the term still sounds POV, and sometimes the exact situation is unsure.

A massacre is the mass murder of individuals with no means of defense, mass murder being the killing of at least four people at the same time. But how much defense do they need? And also, for an issue like this, which is still a major issue for many people, it's a good idea to stay away from terms like massacre, even when they would be applicable, because it is a "hot" word which gets people incited. Crispus 01:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Exactly my point, one particular instance that seems iffy is the image caption that reads "....the massacare" and that sounds POV to me, and the heading: "THE Killings" also seems a tad POV, but if this article had a section on events from a Soviet point of view as well possibly these other POV issues would be less of a problem. It's just that with only the one side of the story being told, other POV are highlighted. SGGH 07:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I have changed the heading mentioned above, and tagged a couple of places that need citing. There is no Soviet perspective, for instance "soldiers began attacking the demonstrators"... what, just like that? Why and how? More information from the Russian side is needed to balance the article out. Also, of course, external links are not references, so some of those are needed also SGGH 07:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I am just reading about April 9 Tragedy in Rossens book and also compiled many sources. Please give me time to insert them. There are far more info about the topic. Euskera 20:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

"It was also reported that toxic gas was used against the demonstrators resulting in vomiting, respiratory problems and sudden paralyses of the nervous system were reported."

This is a fact, my wife was exposed to the nerve gas as a 9 year old child and spent several months in hospital, she is still officially registered disabled as a result of this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.40.43.94 (talk) 14:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Page move

The title "April 9 tragedy" is both vague and POV. Should the article be moved so that it has a more specific, and neutral, title? --Bowlhover (talk) 04:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

It should; I usually remove "tragedy" and "tragic" on sight. As best I can tell, "Day of National Unity" is the only other usable term. Deltabeignet (talk) 20:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The Day of National Unity is teh day of remembrance. It is not a suitable title for the article about the historical event. The mainstream media and scholarly sources refer to it as "April tragedy", "Tbilisi killings", "Tbilisi massacre", etc. "April 9 tragedy" is NPOV, imo.--Kober^Talk 21:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

User:DonaldDuck has recently subjected the article to significant modification (read vandalism), removing the sentences which describe the participation of Soviet tanks in suppressing the demonstration. Instead, he inserted a biased claim recapitulating the old Soviet/Russian nationalistic version that the peacefully rallying Georgians attacked fully armed Russian soldiers. This is one of the most disguisting manifestation of Soviet apology I have ever encountered. Sobchak's fact-finding group as well as several human rights organizations have described how Soviet tanks and soldiers armed with spades moved on to massacre the demonstrators. --93.177.151.101 (talk) 11:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Sobchak made serious unsubstantiated claims but he did not prove any of his claims.DonaldDuck (talk) 12:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

That's not up to you to criticize Sobchak. If you find Rodionov and his butchers more credible sources, that's actually your problem. Again, you are not the right person to decide whether Sobchak was correct or wrong. And please stop vandalising the article. My uncle was chased by bloodthirsty soldiers for an hour through the streets in downtown Tbilisi and now you dare to claim that Sobchak was wrong and the Georgian teenagers attacked tanks and armed soldiers?--93.177.151.101 (talk) 12:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Soldiers were unarmed, they had no bullets, while Georgian thugs were armed with stones, clubs and metal rods. In fact what I am writing is partly based on the [ report] of the Sobchak investigation team.DonaldDuck (talk) 12:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) DonaldDuck (talk) 12:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

No, Sobchak's report does not mention such things. Russian soldiers used batons and metal shovels; they were followed by tanks and used prohibited gases. I know it is fashionable in modern Russia to whitewhash the current regime's Soviet predecessors in order to justify new violent efforts at empire-building, but you cannot erase history. Don't delete sourced text and provide sources for your own changes. (Personal attack removed) --93.177.151.101 (talk) 12:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Huh! Perhaps I have also to ask my uncle and aunt if they "trampled down the women". If I'd be an admin, I'd have blocked this guy for these words only.--Kober^Talk 05:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Sobchak's report indicates that all deaths resulted from asphyxiation due to compression of chest - they were crushed by the mob.DonaldDuck (talk) 05:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Not true. There were mostly wounds inflicted by metal shovels. Please stop edit warring or you are going to be reported for 3RR violation and vandalism.--Kober^Talk 05:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

According to Sobchak's report there were 21 injuries by metal shovels but not a single death.DonaldDuck (talk) 05:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Article title

While I'm not going to engage in a NPOV debate just now (although I can't fail to notice that the English and the Russian articles are completely different and there might indeed be a POV problem with BOTH), I do think that "April 9 tragedy" is too harsh a term for the article namespace. Please provide sources that historians or mainstream media referencing those events indeed use the terms "massacre" or "tragedy". Should such sources not exist, I propose a move to something like "9 April 1989 Tbilisi events". Vargher (talk) 23:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Results from Google Books

• “Tbilisi tragedy” (41 hits)
• “April tragedy” Tbilisi (9)
• “April 9 tragedy” (32)
• “Tragedy of April 9” (16)
• "Tragedy of 9 April" (9)

• "Tbilisi massacre" (182)
• "massacre in Tbilisi" (63)
• "April 9 massacre" Georgia (14)
• "9 April massacre" Georgia (4)
• "April massacre" Georgia (13)

In fact, "massacre" is more commonly used in scholarly literature, with "Tbilisi massacre" being the most frequent description of the event. However, I prefer "tragedy" as a more neutral one. --Kober^Talk 04:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Can't argue with solid empirical data. Sources definitely satisfactorily. Consider my proposal scrapped. There seem to be heavy POV issues on RuWiki indeed... Vargher (talk) 21:44, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

It comes to no surprise to me. --Kober^Talk 05:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I took the liberty to add the alternative names for the event referring to Kober's sources above. In the meantime, shouldn't there also be an infobox? Tuscumbia (talk) 18:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to argue with your findings, I would just like to point out that it may not necessarily be ru.wikipedia's fault. Since Wikipedia's policy is to follow most common usage in the language of the Wikipedia, if a certain POV is very prevalent in a society's discourse, Wikipedia may be forced to adopt that POV in the title for the article. Consider the Armenian Genocide. It is not called that way on the Turkish Wikipedia, instead they use Ermeni Kırımı, which is probably the most used designation in Turkish, so Turkish wikipedia doesn't have much of a choice. At least, that's how I understand Wikipedia policy. sephia karta | di mi 21:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

How many deaths? How many were women?

In the opening paragraph it says "resulting in 20 deaths". In Section 2.1 paragraph 3 it says "The stampede following the attack resulted in the death of 19 people, among them 17 women." In paragraph 7, "Georgian TV showed the bodies of the 19 women violently killed" and "The Soviet government blamed the demonstrators for the death of the 20 people"

I thought that maybe it was saying that the stampede resulted in the death of 19 people, among them 17 women and therefore 2 males. However, if the total number is 20 and 19 of them are women, then what happened to the other male that died in the stampede? Or was it 17 women and 2 girls? Sambowlby (talk) 06:02, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

thats not masscare