Talk:Quba mass grave

Untitled

I want to ask if its possible to add another section to this article talking about some info i recently read about stating the skeletons weren't Azeris but Armenians. How when they found the mass grave they automatically figured it out that those skeletons belonged to Azeris and they had been killed by Armenians, how foreign experts never studied the skeletons, how there is actually no records of Armenians killing Azeris in Guba but there are records of a few hundred Armenians being transfered there in 1918. Korganov stated in a telegram "В конце апреля 1918г. комиссар города и области Губа Геловани направил председателю Военно-революционного комитета Корганову телеграмму следующего содержания: "Сегодня, 24 апреля, я освободил 115 армян, которые были заключены в губинской тюрьме. Они все лишились своего имущества. Я предпринял меры для возврата их собственности. Они просят денежной помощи от Армянского национального совета. Как можно скорее вышлите на мой адрес. Материальное состояние критическое… кроме города Губа в других местах тоже есть плененные армяне. Предпринимаю меры для их освобождения".

here is a section that talks about the supposed Stepan Shahumyan letter: Позабыв об обещании представить общественности результаты анализа почвы и привлечь зарубежных специалистов, Агаев выступил с очередным ошеломляющим заявлением. По его словам, делать выводы о том, чти именно армяне стоят за убийством захороненных в Губе останков, "позволяют как исторические факты, так и результаты исследования найденных в захоронении черепов". И конкретизировал: "Среди архивных материалов есть письмо Степана Шаумяна Амазаспу. В нем отмечается, что "основной целью вашего прибытия в Азербайджан является распространение большевизма. Но это – второй вопрос. Основной же ваш долг – уничтожение местных турок. Это – национальный долг". Еще смешнее: Г.Агаев утверждает, что "исследования показали, что резня произошла с 3 по 10 мая…" (воистину научное достижение, оказавшееся под силу только азербайджанским ученым). И далее: "Результаты исследования черепов, найденных в захоронении, также свидетельствуют о том, что геноцид произошел 90 лет назад, Люди, чьи тела мы обнаружили, были убиты в других местах и захоронены здесь…В ходе исследований выяснилось, что эти люди были раздеты и зверски убиты с использованием острых предметов… а на некоторых скелетах черепа оторваны от туловища".

Отметим, что загадочное и скорее всего несуществующее письмо Шаумяна до сих пор не было опубликовано ни в одном азербайджанском сборнике архивных документов.

so can a section be added to talk about these or not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ninetoyadome (talk • contribs) 03:16, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

You might want to start by translating all that. Whatever new information is to be added, needs a reference. Good luck. Boneyard90 (talk) 03:43, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Here is a google translate of the above post:

"In late April 1918. Commissioner of the city and region Guba Gelovani to the Chairman of the Military Revolutionary Committee Korganova telegram read:" Today, 24 April, I delivered 115 of the Armenians who were imprisoned in Guba prison. They all lost their property. I made arrangements to return their property. They ask for monetary help from the Armenian National Council. As soon as possible send to my mail. Material condition of critical ... but Guba city in other places, too, is captured by Armenians. Taking steps to secure their release. "

There is a section that talks about the supposed Stepan Shahumyan letter: Forgetting the promise to provide the public an analysis of the soil and to attract foreign experts, Agayev spoke with another stunning statement. According to him, to draw conclusions about, honor just behind the murder of Armenians in Guba buried the remains, "how can the historical facts and findings found in the burial of skulls." And elaborated: "Among the archives is a letter of Stepan Shahumyan Hamazasp. It notes that" the main purpose of your arrival in Azerbaijan is the spread of Bolshevism. But this - the second question. The basic is your duty - the destruction of the local Turks. This - the national debt. "Even funnier: G. Aghayev claims that" studies have shown that the massacre took place from 3 to 10 May ... "(a truly scientific achievement, which proved only by Azerbaijani scientist). And further:" The study of skulls, found in the grave, also show that the genocide took place 90 years ago, people whose bodies we found were killed elsewhere and dumped there ... The study found that these men were stripped and brutally killed with sharp objects ... and on some skeletons skull torn from his body. "

Note that a mysterious and probably non-existent letter Shaumian still not been published in any collection of archival documents Azerbaijan.[1]Ninetoyadome (talk) 19:21, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Ninetoyadome makes a pretty good point. The fact that Azerbaijani authorities naturally assumed that these skeletons were those belonging to Azerbaijanis is somewhat reminiscent of how every now and then authorities in Turkey claim that the skeletons unearthed in the cities in the eastern provinces belong to those of Turks, and not the Armenians who were massacred there in 1915. No forensic evidence is carried out and it's obvious that such proclamations are political in nature. The same seems to apply to this article, which is sourced by Azerbaijani newspapers that are so propagandistic in tone and letter that their claims are almost certainly questionable. Not a single third-party source is given and the reader is told to believe what sources closely oriented to the government want their audiences to believe, which was why I added the tag.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:30, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Any information presented as "fact" in Wikipedia should be grounded on reliable sources. I wonder of there are any for this particular instance. -- Ashot  ^(talk) 12:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Here's sources: [2], [3] Victoria46 (talk) 07:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

First source: where do you read about Armenians there?

Second source: seems to be self-published (xlibris.com) and not in compliance with WP:RS. -- Ashot  ^(talk) 08:33, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

According to rules self-published material can be used in certain circumstances. If you like to make selections, we could be selective in all Armenian articles as well. Should we do it together? Victoria46 (talk) 12:14, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

You can go to particular articles and raise questions there. I encourage you to do so as that is the correct thing to do when one notices something wrong. And if something is wrong somewhere, it still doesn't mean it should be replicated in other places too.

As pertaining to this particular talkpage, you have to unveil those certain circumstances in order to be able to use that self-published source. -- Ashot  ^(talk) 14:48, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

That was sort of a Question of irony. You come here demanding sources, which have been sufficiently supplied in the article by the way, but ignore the fact that half of Armenian articles base the text of articles on Armenian sources. If an editor of good faith, why don't you question those first and then come asking me that? The fact of the massacre is undeniable. A whole investigation commission produced results, foreign officials and journalists have visited the site and nobody has questioned what Armenian Dashnaks and Russian bolsheviks did here, but yet you are here questioning it :) how funny. Victoria46 (talk) 06:19, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The funny thing is that you fill the talkpage with useless text, but fail to answer my simple question about certain circumstances. Without good grounds the self-published source cannot be considered reliable. -- Ashot  ^(talk) 06:48, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

What good grounds?!! Go look at the main page to see the good grounds, pictures, information about commission. If a herd of terrorists massacred civilians and concealed the fact for decades and now the commission has performed analysis including DNA to find people of certain ethnicities in the grave, what other grounds are you looking for? I'll add more sources soon as I find them. Don't you worry. Victoria46 (talk) 11:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Can you possibly tell us how exactly the Azerbaijani government determined that the remains belonged to those of Azerbaijanis and Jews? Was any forensic evidence carried out or did it automatically assume that since there was a massive pile of bones then the only culprits could be Armenians? Like I wrote above, something smells fishy here, and this not only because of the fact that the Turkish government regularly does this in sites in eastern Turkey where Armenians were massacred wholesale. This article has no neutral sources to verify anything that has been coming out of Baku. For all we know, these could be the remains of massacred Armenians...--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 16:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Obviously, this article needs to be totally rewritten. I wonder if we have any reliable sources on the matter. -- Ashot  ^(talk) 18:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The problem is not much is known about what happened. The letter i posted above shows Armenians as the victims while no tests have been done on the skeletons. Azeris cant figure it out:1.) Outside of Azerbaijan, Azeris claim those remains are of Jews killed by Armenians, 2.) Inside Azerbaijan they say its Azeris killed by Armenians: "These documents prove us that the Jews of Cuba during these events are not affected. The events of March is our tragedy, and the use of lies in covering them is unacceptable," - he quotes the employee of ANAS, doctor of historical sciences, Solmaz Rustamov Togidi.

Here is the interesting thing, Azeris claim they did tests and this is what they found out: "Anthropological studies have confirmed that these people - the Muslims." [4]Ninetoyadome (talk) 19:52, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I concur with Ninetoyadome on this one. It seems that a conclusion was reached regarding the identity of these victims victims before any forensic examinations were even carried out. That decision seems to have been made for politically-motivated reasons and Ninetoyadome's introduction of new evidence to suggest that the victims may have been Armenian is highly significant. The fact that Azerbaijan is providing conflict reports - that on the one hand these victims were Jews, while on the other, Muslims - is further reason to treat most of their claims as suspicious.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:47, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Hayk Demoyan in leader

Hayk Demoyan in the lead topic adds more balance to a neutral point of view. All sources are basically from Azerbaijani, or pro-Azerbaijani about the grave, and adding Hayk in the topic balances the articles views. Nocturnal781 (talk) 06:46, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you can put just one opinion in the lead. The opinions must be in the text, if they are notable. Grandmaster 19:19, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Hayk Demoyan should be in reaction sections not in header! User Yerevanci has been ignoring this topic and doing what he thinks best.--NovaSkola (talk) 17:45, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Don't you contradict yourself? If you should be in the reaction section then why are you removing it from the article?

User Yerevanci has been ignoring this topic and doing what he thinks best I don't think it's appropriate for you to put the blame on other than you just removed a sourced information of a respected scholar, just because you! don't like it dear friend. --Երևանցի ^talk 18:02, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't contradict myself, in fact, I've been requested WP:AE based on WP:ARBAA2 which clearly violated not only article laws but I've involved by one of users sockpuppets in direct attack. I hope admins will fix situations--NovaSkola (talk) 18:39, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

How would you explain the fact that you just deleted a sourced information? I won't comment on the rest. --Երևանցի ^talk 18:57, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually, you removed sourced information before me, so stop blaming me. --NovaSkola (talk) 19:31, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, let me put it this way. Where is Dr. Demoyan's statement? --Երևանցի ^talk 19:33, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

NovaSkola, your sources dont mention anything about Azerbaijan, Armenia or Guba.

http://www.icty.org/x/cases/krstic/trans/en/000719it.htm (does not mention any of the above)

http://www.icty.org/x/cases/popovic/trans/en/061107ED.htm (does not mention any of the above)

Ka Hon Chu, Sandra, and Anne-Marie de Brouwer. "the MEN who KILLED me." Herizons 22, no. 4 (Spring2009 2009): 16. EBSCOhost, MasterFILE Premier p16 (Has no mention to the above)

How are these relevant to the article? You have a problem with listening to the other side of the events. You did the same with Huseynov, you're doing it now with this article. I'll just go and remove the part in the Sumgait pogrom where the Azerbaijani side is stated as i dont like it and apparently we dont need a good reason to remove cited information. Ninetoyadome (talk) 20:36, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit to Article

After the page is unprotected i want to make some changes that NovaSkola made for the following reasons. 1.) I want to remove "Amnesty International" from the line

It's estimated by Amnesty International and Azerbaijani foreignsic scientists more than 3000 Mountain Jews were killed by Armenian Dashnaks during March Days events.

The sources put by Novaskola have nothing to do with Armenia or Azerbaijan. The links are about the International Court Tribunal for Yugoslavia. 1 and 2

2.) I want to remove the section about rape as again the book Novaskola is referencing to has nothing to do with Armenia or Azerbaijan, it has to do with the Rwandan Genocide. 3 That is page 16 of the book which Novaskola claims contains a section talking about how Armenians raped people in Guba.

3.) I want to add the Armenian side back as it was before Novaskola removed it without giving a reason for it. It will be placed in the reactions section and not the leader section.

If you disagree with any of these changes please state which ones and why.

Ninetoyadome (talk) 18:28, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Ninetoyadome. The page is now unprotected. It is best to revert all the recent changes added to the article which cost the user his topic ban. Obviously, adding the information with a reliable source is fine with me. This is not to say the information was right or wrong but as long as the information is displayed in a more neutral tone and encyclopedic manner, we can work on it from there. Proudbolsahye (talk) 19:19, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

The person, whomever he is, who added unrelated references should be reported and banned from here. It is a deliberate action, I just removed a sentence with two references. I don't know what he was thinking by providing two sources which precede the alleged discovery. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JediXmaster (talk • contribs) 23:55, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

The user who added the bogus references and claims was NovaSkola who has already been banned from editing Armenian-Azerbaijani related articles due to edit warring and removing sections from articles which he did not like. You can see he added the bogus references and claims herehere here here. When told about the links being irrelevant the user just ignored them and reverted edits here. Ninetoyadome (talk) 02:08, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Forensic "scientists"

"It's estimated by the Azerbaijani forensic scientists that more than 3,000 Mountain Jews were killed by Dashnaks during March Days events."

Interesting. There's only one "forensic scientist" in that source and he just so happens to be the only one interviewed. How is this a proper justification to say that Azerbaijani forensic scientists claim what he claims? Mr. Rovshan Mustafayev may have his opinion. But that's not significant enough to have it kept in the lead. The source is not reliable as well. For one, it is littered with grammatical errors that make it hardly comprehensible. And two, today.az is entirely biased and certainly not neutral. It's marred with content that portrays Armenians as aggressors, disturbers, provocateurs, or that the Armenian Genocide is a myth [5]. See for yourself here: [6][7]. It's almost hysterical; these news-articles seem to be something out of The Onion. We should be dismissing any source that portrays the other side of the conflict in this light outright. To solve this, we need reliable third-party sources for a matter this controversial. I also want to add that Mr. Mustafayev was no stranger for making outrageous claims that Armenians are terrorists or bandits. He wrote an entire book on it. He claimed that Armenia is engaging in "covert state terrorism" [8]. The organization he was a head of called "Armenia a country pursuing terror policy" [9]. He has long argued that Armenians should not be treated "not as a nation, but as an organization". Further more, he has called the Armenian Genocide a "myth" [10]. How is this "forensic scientist" in anyway credible? I shall remove the sentence entirely if there are not objections. Étienne Dolet (talk) 04:17, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

There are no non-azeri sources to add so we just left it. We can change it to "According to Azeri sources, an Azeri forensic scientist claims...". Also I had asked a while ago to add a Russian telegram stating that it is possible the dead are Armenians but apparently the others did not want it added. The text is above on this talk page.Ninetoyadome (talk) 04:51, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Well the opinion of some "forensic scientist" who happens to publish books on Armenia being a covert terrorist state shouldn't be neither in the lead nor in the article. Étienne Dolet (talk) 08:17, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I came here after seeing the link in the Shusha massacre afd. regardless of the source's author, why is this "It's estimated by the Azerbaijani forensic scientists that more than 3,000 Mountain Jews were killed by Dashnaks during March Days events." claim in the lead section at all? The lead is just meant to sumarise the article, yet there is no content in the article that even mentions "Mountain Jews". Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:58, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

That is the thing, outside of Azerbaijan they say the bones belong to Mountain Jews while in Azerbaijan they say they are Azerbaijanis. They don't even know, the first conclusion they arrived at when they located the skeletons was "The Armenians did this." I posted above this statement: "These documents prove us that the Jews of Guba during these events are not affected. The events of March is our tragedy, and the use of lies in covering them is unacceptable," - he quotes the employee of ANAS, doctor of historical sciences, Solmaz Rustamov Togidi. And then we have websites where they claim they are Mountain Jews: http://www.visions.az/topical,138/ Ninetoyadome (talk) 20:13, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree. It's garbage. It needs to be removed entirely. Étienne Dolet (talk) 17:22, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually, a far more legitimate reason to removed it is that it is obvious OR. The claim comes from an article written in 2006, but the grave site was only discovered in April 2007. So it is 0riginal Research for an editor to present something written in 2006 as a comment about the subject of this article. I have gone ahead and deleted it. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:59, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section

User User:Ninetoyadome, the leads of articles are meant to give some clue to what the article is about, the information "1918" is essential to indicate not more recent. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:34, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

The lead talks about the grave site and where and when it was found, the background section talks about the date of the incident and what could have occurred. Ninetoyadome (talk) 07:18, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Ninetoyadome, is this site claimed to relate to killings in 1918 yes or no? In ictu oculi (talk) 16:27, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

The function of the lead section is just to summarize the content, so I agree with In ictu oculi that a mention needs to be made of what Azeri official sources claim the mass grave is. However, the content of the article is really not satisfactory at the moment, mostly because the sources that make the claims are so propagandistic, and the claims themselves are impossibly specific (for example: "besides ethnic Azerbaijanis, there were also Jews and Lezgis" - really? On what scientific basis was this ethnicity proven, on what scientific basis could such a claim ever be proven?). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I have deleted this "besides ethnic Azerbaijanis, there were also Jews and Lezgis" nonsense - it is not possible for anyone to have identified "ethnic Azerbaijanis" (whatever that is), "Jews", and "Lezgis" from a pile of bones. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:10, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Not direct citations

The two citations concerning the French senator (www.parisguardian.com and www.europesun.com) are actually links to the same article here. You can even find other mirror sites here. I don't know why this information is written here. Senator Nathalie Goulet is a member of the Turkia-France friendship group and the Caucasia-France friendship group. I don't think that this information is relevant here. The goal is probably to create a feeling of international acknowledgment of a genocide while the exact historical facts are not definitely established due to an unstable geopolitical circumstances. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.49.145.49 (talk) 23:28, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I have correct the source issue in the article, added the correct citation and removed the fake ones. I wonder what the purpose behind sites like parisguardian.com and www.europesun.com is, other than to gain advertising hits. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:55, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Guba mass grave. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160310115048/http://www.visions.az/topical%2C138 to http://www.visions.az/topical%2C138/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:21, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Naming convention

I think this should be renamed Quba, per Quba 21:39, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Hayk Demoyan reaction

It would be best to clarify here exactly why this source material is being repeatedly removed. As it looks like the reversion looks like WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. The text is there as it is a notable response that is sourced. I don't think it is necessary for me to email Hayk Demoyan a report by Andrey Fomich Novatski (a prosecutor of the Ganja District court), as has been said in the edit summary, for me to edit this page. Maidyouneed (talk) 07:00, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

The problem with Demoyan's statement is that it's not only reaction, but also a false claim, which can mislead readers. Also the official Armenian reaction is already reflected in the article. 89MsHm (talk) 09:11, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Do you have the justification for it being misleading? You had provided a report by the Ganja court prosecutor and had commented on the alleged "foreign experts" in an earlier edit summary. Was there are part of that report that demonstrated reliably that "The grave has been assessed by foreign experts" counter to Demoyan? Maidyouneed (talk) 05:19, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

To add: When you say Yepiskoposyan et al, is the official Armenian reaction, these are rather prominent scholars who are Armenian; They are not official representatives of the Republic of Armenia. There is no requirement that only one perspective from a particular nation's positions be present. After all different scholars can have different positions. And each response of Yepiskoposyan et al, and Demoyan, are meaningfully different. The prior is asking for a joint investigation with Azerbaijan and Armenia. However Demoyan is much sharper challenging the Azerbaijani perspective directly, Removing this Demoyan perspective from Demoyan, make it appears the only reaction is of wanting joint investigation. Maidyouneed (talk) 05:41, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

According to news at least one of the mass graves hasn't been opened and remained for foreign experts. I will contact the Institute of Archeology and Ethnography for details. The fact that the massacre has been documented at its time already proves Demoyan's claim's falseness and is enough to remove it. Wikipedia is not a place to fill with politically motivated and biased claims. Thanks. 89MsHm (talk) 09:10, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

"According to news at least one of the mass graves hasn't been opened and remained for foreign experts" Do you mean to say there is a grave that hasn't been open, and hasn't been examined by foreign experts? How does this contradict Demoyans' claim of "no foreign experts have examined the human remains". Do you have the news source?

I understand that it is the Azerbaijan position that Demoyan's claims are false. Conversely it is Demoyan's position that Azerbaijan's claims are false. Whatever your own position Demoyan's reaction is still noteworthy. I note also that Armenian-Azerbaijan relations makes this topic more challenging, as many of the sources on this article are "closely associated with the subject". Maidyouneed (talk) 06:28, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

The news is several years old and needs clarity. Again half of Demoyan's claim is false, and the half needs verification. False claim has no place in Wikipedia. 89MsHm (talk) 14:25, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

If you don't have a source reliably demonstrating Demoyan's claim as false, the reasonable action is to place Demoyan's reaction back in to the article. When you do have a new source reliably challenging Demoyan this can be revisited. Do you agree with this? Maidyouneed (talk) 10:40, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Novatsky's Report is a reliable documentation and a strong proof that the mass killings were committed by Armenians. Novatsky is a foreign expert who studied the tragedy right after it happened on its place. Demoyan's claim is false. 89MsHm (talk) 09:25, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Novatsky's Report is not a reliable source. It is a source by a prosecutor of a local court (State Archive of the Republic of Azerbaijan, fund 1061, list 1, case 95, page 3 which you can see in the third quote in az:Azərbaycan_Xalq_Cümhuriyyətinin_Fövqəladə_Təhqiqat_Komissiyası#Fövqəladə_Təhqiqat_Komissiyasının_yaradılması_haqqında_Azərbaycan_Hökumətinin_Qərarları) . It is source by an author closely related to the subject, as part of a government initiated investigation (the Azərbaycan Xalq Cümhuriyyətinin Fövqəladə Təhqiqat Komissiyası), within the context of poor Armenian-Azerbaijani relations ([[11]]). Adding this source whilst this discussion is still occurring, whilst it's reliability and neutrality is disputed, is not appropriate. The report still does not challenge Demoyan's claim that their has been no international independent expert assessment.

Given that Novatksy is neither an international foreigner, nor an expert, nor independent it is reasonable to at least revert to Demoyan's reaction as they existed before. Maidyouneed (talk) 06:17, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Letting you know that I posted on WP:3O Maidyouneed (talk) 06:25, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Demoyan claim is that there's no documentation. I proved that there's documentation and even reports of eyewitnesses. Novatsky isn't Azerbaijani and perhaps even wasn't born in Azerbaijan. He studied the tragedy at its place and talked to survivors. Demoyan is Armenian, he approaches the events from the present-day political agenda and his claims and denial are clearly politically motivated. P.S. If you are so objective then apply your logic to "Armenian genocide" article and remove all Armenian sources. We can assume that they are all biased.89MsHm (talk) 10:11, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I've updated the quote to better match the source. Relevant source quote is " Следует добавить, что до сих пор азербайджанские историки не опубликовали ни одного исторического или архивного документа, доказывающего факт массового убийства мусульманского населения в Губе или же содержащего конкретную информацию о захоронении. ". Novatsky has created a document, or specifically a new report, but it isn't a historical document in this context.

The reaction section is a statement of opinion (Wikipedia:RSOPINION) and the text describes it as such.

I've given evidence that Novatsky is neither an international foreigner, nor an expert, nor independent. Simply guessing his identity and background otherwise, as you are, isn't appropriate. The addition of his work is not an improvement to this page, it is undue, it is not a reliable source and further degrades the "rely excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject" issue

If you see Demoyan as politically motivated, this is the charge that can also be placed on the Azerbaijani sources, of which this article relies on heavily. This event has been used by the Azerbaijani government politicly, the same government that initiated the Novatsky report (Anti-Armenian_sentiment_in_Azerbaijan#Statements_by_President_Ilham_Aliyev)

The Armenian Genocide is supported through scholarly consensus. You are free to raise any complaints on the "Armenian Genocide" page if you feel they are outstanding. Maidyouneed (talk) 23:19, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I note Demoyan's reaction has already been discussed, where the issue was where to place the reaction (Talk:Guba_mass_grave#Hayk_Demoyan_in_leader). The result was to put it in the reaction section. Previously it was in the leader Maidyouneed (talk) 00:24, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

3O Response: Since this disagreement seems to revolve more or less entirely around the reliability of the references in question, that question should be raised at the reliable sources noticeboard with regards to said references. Once reliability has been evaluated, I believe you will be a lot closer to resolving this. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:53, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Seraphimblade. I've raised it on the noticeboard and will see how it progresses. The issue is also that, reliable or not, the reference does not contradict the claim of Demoyan that foreign experts have not examined the remains. The challenge provided by 89MsHm is that Domatksy, the author of the report, is himself the foreign expert, whilst I posit that he is neither a foreigner nor an expert (for which I provided the State Archive of the Republic of Azerbaijan source). Reliability does not at least resolve this particular claim. It is not clear either that Novatski's report challenges the other claim of Demoyan that "that no historical documentation or archival evidence has been presented proving a massacre of Muslims by Armenians having taken place in Guba" Maidyouneed (talk) 21:50, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Novatsky's documentation is the most reliable source. Demoyan is not even an expert on this matter. His claim is politically motivated. The sources I have provided gives a very detailed description of the events, and includes testimonies of witnesses and survivors. All facts prove Demoyan's claim about documentation is baseless. Novatsky's report is both historical and archive document. An official document of 1918 is of course an archive. If you don't know what is an archive document, that's not my problem.89MsHm (talk) 09:27, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I also call on everybody who is interested to pay attention to the collection of documents on Guba massacre provided in the article. The Azerbaijani government has presented the archive documents on the matter and the publication also includes photos of documents, photos of victims and witnesses and even No's of dossiers. The documentation is quite serious and strong. P.S.There's always someone who doesn't like the truth. Despite our personal opinions or beliefs we must stay committed to Wikipedia's principles of truth and objectivity. 89MsHm (talk) 09:48, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Everyone here wants to have a strong article supported by strong reliable sources. This is the challenge with this article; There aren't any good reliable independent sources. See some discussion on this: Talk:Guba_mass_grave#Untitled.Note an archival document has been provided of Armenians being killed in Guba in that talk section. This situation isn't helped by removing reactions or statements of opinion from one perspective.

Responding to your last statements. On Demoyan own credentials:Hayk Demoyan's educational/professional background is in history, he holds a Doctorate, has published, lectures internationally, and he holds a notable position. On Novatksy's report being "both historical and archive document": Novatsky's report itself is merely stating a description of events, recently written.

Do you have still have an issue with Demoyan's claim that no foreign experts have examined the human remains?Maidyouneed (talk) 07:06, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

1. The previous discussions obviously lacked information. If you read the archives you'll see that there was an armed incident between Gelovani's troops and Lezgis from neighbor villages who didn't accept Soviet rule. Both sides had losses. Some Azerbaijanis even helped Armenian soldiers to hide in their homes. However, there's no evidence to claim that Armenian civilians were harmed during that incident. However, there're hundreds of skulls belonging to women and children. The man who hid an Armenian in his home, later was attacked by Amazasp's troops and family members were killed. Amazasp (or Hamazasp) attacked on civilians, burned and looted villages. However, the Lezgis only fought soviet troops and armed men.

2. History is a broad term and time period. Demoyan hasn't studied Guba massacre. His comments on the matter are merely political statements.

3. How do you learn history? Through archives. Archives are there. It is ridiculous to not trust the man who lived in that period and personally met witnesses and survivors, instead believe someone who lives in the 21st century and makes statements about a historical event that he hasn't even studied. 89MsHm (talk) 13:00, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I posted this in the header, Azeri users complained and said it did not deserve to be in the header. I put it in the body, and now you're claiming it does not belong in the body. Why do you not want a counter argument? Should i delete the Armenian Genocide Denial page, because there are archival documents proving the Armenian Genocide. Should i remove the Sumgait Pogrom conspiracies section, where Azeris blame Armenians for the massacre? Just because you dont like the cited paragraph, doesnt mean you can remove it. What you are doing is considered vandalism. Ninetoyadome (talk) 06:48, 27 August 2020 (UTC)