This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Artsakh B‑class Low‑importance Shusha massacre is within the scope of WikiProject Artsakh, an attempt to improve and better organize information in articles related or pertaining to Artsakh and Artsakhians. If you would like to contribute or collaborate, you could edit the article attached to this page or visit the project page for further information.ArtsakhWikipedia:WikiProject ArtsakhTemplate:WikiProject ArtsakhArtsakh B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Armenia B‑class Low‑importance Shusha massacre is within the scope of WikiProject Armenia, an attempt to improve and better organize information in articles related or pertaining to Armenia and Armenians. If you would like to contribute or collaborate, you could edit the article attached to this page or visit the project page for further information.ArmeniaWikipedia:WikiProject ArmeniaTemplate:WikiProject ArmeniaArmenian B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Azerbaijan B‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Azerbaijan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Azerbaijan-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AzerbaijanWikipedia:WikiProject AzerbaijanTemplate:WikiProject AzerbaijanAzerbaijan B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Death B‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Russian & Soviet B‑class This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history B This article has been rated as B-class on the project's quality scale. Associated task forces: /  Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force

• Hi all. The enormous number of 20,000 deaths is supported by the weak source "The Nagorno-Karabagh Crisis: A Blueprint for Resolution" by Public International Law & Policy Group. To begin, Public International Law is a law organization; It is not an peer reviewed historical research organization or a subject area specialist. Second, the mentioned "The Nagorno-Karabagh Crisis: A Blueprint for Resolution" is a Memorandum, which only makes a casual reference to Shusha events, lacks evidence to back up extraordinary assertions, and is focused on other parts of the conflict rather than historical accuracy.

Furthermore, such extraordinary assertions contradict facts published by peer-reviewed and reputable historians. For example Hovannisian, an Armenian American historian and professor emeritus at the University of California, places the death toll of the massacre at 500 Armenians. Jörg Baberowski, German historian and Professor of Eastern European History at the Humboldt University of Berlin, talks about 8,000. Cory Welt, Associate Director and Associate Research Professor of International Affairs at the Institute for European, Russian and Eurasian Studies (IERES), in his article talks about several hundred.

Moreover, allegations of 20,000 or more deaths contradict the Shusha municipal census of that time. According to the closest censuses, the city's Armenian population was 23,396 in 1916. Considering the reports that many Armenians were exiled but not killed, 20,000 is unrealistic number.

Having said that, I am leaning toward changing the human toll to 500-8000. Any suggestions or considerations? A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 11:17, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Generally, I would agree; such a disparity between the 500 and 20,000 number warrants a discussion, especially on a topic important in the history of Nagorno-Karabakh/Artsakh. If we are to weigh these sources carefully based on their reliability and practical accuracy (as you pointed out, Shusha's Armenian population was just over 20,000 four years prior), it does seem unrealistic to claim that 20,000 perished, especially when sources tell us that refugees from Shusha gathered in Khankendy (present-day Stepanakert) and that Armenians were already leaving Shusha in the days/months leading up to the massacre. Therefore, I think it's reasonable to remove the weak source and its inflated figure and stick with the numbers supported by reliable sources (Baberovski and Hovannisian). — Olympian ^loquere 11:37, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia editors evaluating a death count based on primary census data would be WP:OR. It does seem that there are a wide variety of estimated death counts which definitely does warrant an in-depth analysis of the sources. For example, Italian-Russian historian Giovanni Guaita places the count at around 30,000 Armenians, while Tim Potier cites the number given by the Great Soviet Encyclopedia which is 2,096 Armenians. We should organize the sources available on the death count here and see the most appropriate range considering this very large scale difference in estimates. TagaworShah (talk) 17:16, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I disagree that it's "WP:OR" to weigh sources based on their practical accuracy; we need to compare sources to see which numbers are reliably supported. The source by Giovanni Guaita claiming 30,000 were massacred (on page 130) is unacceptable for Wikipedia usage considering the fact that it doesn't cite any sources (there are no footnotes whatsoever), therefore, most of the contents of the book may as well be the author's fiction for all we know. However, I'm in favour of listing reliably sourced numbers such as Potier and the "2,096" figure. – Olympian ^loquere 00:45, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Public International Law & Policy Group is not an expert source on history and should be removed. Lawyers cannot be used as sources in the articles about history. And sources that claim death toll exceeding the actual population of the town cannot be considered reliable either. Giovanni Guaita is a priest and philologist who researches the history of Eastern Christianity. He is not a historian by education, and only makes a following passing remark about events in Shusha: "In March, 1920 a terrible pogrom took place in Shushi, carried out by local Azerbaijanis with the support of Turkish troops. The Azerbaijani and Soviet authorities would for decades persistently deny and hush up the massacre of about 30,000 Armenians; but the Russian poet Mandelstam in 1931 wrote a poem dedicated to this tragedy." Not only his death toll significantly exceeds the actual number of the Armenian population of Shusha, but he also claims involvement of Turkish army that left Azerbaijan in November 1918 in accordance with Mudros Armistice. As was mentioned above, the last Russian imperial statistical data (Caucasus Calendar of 1917, based on figures of 1916) puts the number of Armenian population of Shusha at 23,396. I think we should only use specialist sources such as Hovannisian. The death toll range of 500 to 30,000 is impossible, the discrepancy is huge, and the inflated numbers come from sources that do not specialize in the history of the region, and this particular incident. Grandmaster 00:45, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that the New England Law group is not an authoritative academic source. However, it is not the only source that establishes the death count at 20,000 Armenians. I have replaced the source with one published by the very reliable academic publisher Palgrave Macmillan by professor and expert in International politics Deon Geldenhuys[1] whose authoritative work “Contested States in World Politics” has been cited 308 times by other reliable sources, and he does cite his sources in the work as well. In addition, this death count can also be found in an official report published by Volume 581 of the House of Lords official report in 1997, page 155 “ the massacre of 20,000 Armenians in the ancient Armenian city of Shushi in 1920.”[2]. Upon further review of the sources available, I say we leave the current range. TagaworShah (talk) 02:35, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The source Geldenhuys cites for the 20,000 number is the very same that you said is "not an authoritative academic source". – Olympian ^loquere 09:38, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Speeches in parliament are not academic sources, and cannot be used in the articles about history. The speech was made by Caroline Cox, who is not a historian. The full text of her speech is available here: [3] And as Olympian pointed out, Geldenhuys refers to the same group of lawyers, who we agree are not a reliable source on history. I don't think we have any reliable source for 20,000 figure yet. Grandmaster 10:11, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Then the source is worth reconsidering if it is cited in a reliable source by a well established professional of international relations and published by Palgrave Macmillan, of which his book was cited 308 times by other reliable sources. If a source is being cited by other reliable sources then that is a sign of reliability per WP:RS. I take back my agreement on the reliability of the original source as it seems to be more authoritative than it might originally seem. TagaworShah (talk) 13:56, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think that a non-specialist source making a passing remark on the subject could be an RS, even if it is cited by an academic source. Geldenhuys himself makes a passing remark on the subject, and he never did a specific research on this event. Grandmaster 14:15, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• That doesn’t change the fact that he used the previous source, even a passing remark in a highly authoritative work such as his, needs to be reliably sourced to be published, all sources were evaluated by him before being added which does in fact show the reliability of the original source being discussed. In addition, Khachig Tölölyan, an academic from Wesleyan University specializing in Armenian Studies[4] published in the peer reviewed academic journal “Nationalism and Ethnic Politics” journal, provides the same count of “the Azeri burning of Shushi/a and the massacre of some 20,000 Armenians on 23 March 1920.”[5] TagaworShah (talk) 14:36, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Tagawor, they're bad sources. It doesn't matter if they're otherwise good academics. I've made the point elsewhere that unless they personally undertook research in archives and libraries and evaluated the relevant primary sources, then they can be safely excluded. Twenty thousand dead in a span of a few days is in any case a fantastic number. Five hundred to perhaps a couple thousand sound more grounded. You can't simply just appeal to authority here and insist on inclusion. Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 15:46, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Marshal, how exactly are the sources bad? They pass all the required WP:RS guidelines, you can’t just assume that people like Khachig Toloyan didn’t do their due research into primary sources for their work, that is purely an assumption on your part. These academics are not taking this estimate out of thin air, it has clearly been repeated multiple times in reliable sources and comes from primary research as do all the estimates. Even Levon Chorbajian states in his work that most of Shusha’s Armenian population was killed during the massacre. There is clearly not an agreement by reliable sources on the death count, even 500, 2096, 8000 etc. show great ranges of variability with the estimates. It’d be premature to just disregard an estimate based on assumptions of that amount of research they did and not actually evaluate where the estimate comes from. TagaworShah (talk) 16:34, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Neither Deon Geldenhuys, nor Khachig Tölölyan are professional historians. Geldenhuys is a political scientist and emeritus professor of politics at the University of Johannesburg. [6] Tölölyan studied Molecular Biology, and has a PhD in Literature. He was a Professor of English and Letters at Wesleyan University, with main interest in diaspora studies. None of them did a specific research on this particular topic. Regarding estimates, one can understand a discrepancy of a few hundred and even thousand, but not tens of thousands. It is highly implausible. Grandmaster 16:55, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Toloyan has many focuses, nationalism being one of them, and the one he has been cited for the most, this most certainly falls under that umbrella. The 20,000 estimate has been repeated by numerous reliable sources for decades. Even in the 1941 volume 3 of the highly influential “U.S.S.R Speaks for Itself” publication it is said “In the Caucasus a whole town, Shusha, was razed to the ground and most of its inhabitants— about 20,000 people — slaughtered as the result. (page 24)” Moreover, in the book “The Pursuit of International Criminal Justice A World Study on Conflicts, Victimization, and Post-conflict Justice, Volume 2” published by Intersentia [7] and edited by M. Cherif Bassiouni this estimate is also repeated on page 839 “In the regional capital of Shusha - one of the largest cities of Transcaucasia of that time - more than 20,000 Armenians were killed in March 1920.” Clearly, there are multiple reliable sources backing up this estimate. TagaworShah (talk) 17:02, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Bassiouni is another lawyer, non-specialist source. And I don't know who wrote “U.S.S.R Speaks for Itself”, but the text reads as follows: "In the Caucasus a whole town, Shusha, was razed to the ground and most of its inhabitants— about 20,000 people — slaughtered as the result of a bloody massacre instigated by the tsarist government authorities." It makes no sense whatsoever. Shusha's population was not 20,000, it was over 40,000 at that time. And the massacre was in 1920, and the Russian empire ceased to exist in 1917. Tsarist authorities clearly could not have been involved in the events of 1920. Grandmaster 17:08, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• That’s the editor. And this is a matter of a war crime and violation of international Law, hence why so many academics specializing in Law are covering it. Nevertheless, it’s a reliable source that repeats the estimate. TagaworShah (talk) 17:12, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• If we write an article on history, we must refer to specialist sources on the subject, i.e. historians. Grandmaster 17:19, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Toloyan’s work falls under the umbrella of historical scholarship as defined by wp:HISTRS, he does research with primary sources in a specific domain of history, primarily diaspora studies and Armenian studies which both are subjects of history. In addition, a lot of these sources are repeating the 20,000 estimate figure that has been established by historians, unfortunately I don’t have access to all the citations in their books but, they are not pulling these estimates out of thin air, they have existed for a while. This definitely needs a deeper analysis of where the estimate originated from. TagaworShah (talk) 17:27, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• It's a claim that begins as a snowball that then turns into an avalanche as it gains and momentum going downhill. Just because a claim is uncritically accepted by others doesn't mean that we can't scrutinize years later. And lest anyone misunderstands me, that is a principle I uphold everywhere, and I expect others too as well; this shouldn't just be an opportunistic moment to knock down Armenians. I had similar conversation recently on the Garegin Nzhdeh talk page and argued the same thing. Tololyan is a specialist in the Armenian diaspora, not Soviet/Caucasian history. If they haven't done the proper level of research (which given the state of studies in the field until quite recently) then we can look elsewhere for better sources. Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:45, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• While that may be a possibility, we cannot rule out an estimate that is repeated in multiple reliable sources as unreliable just because of the assumption of the possibility that it may come from an unreliable source. It’s inclusion in these sources at the very least merits an analysis on where the estimate originated from and the reliability of that source. Also, Toloyan has a focus on nationalism as well, which definitely encompasses the Shusha Massacre and historical research on how nationalism affected Karabakh. I don’t see how you are assessing the proper degree of research in relation to Toloyan, what metric is there on how much research he did on the subject area? TagaworShah (talk) 18:09, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The Armenian Fact Investigation Platform which "studied the composition of the population of Shushi since the 19th century" to fact-check some of PM Pashinyan's claims, says that on March 23-26, 1920 "several hundred Armenians were killed and the rest of the Armenian population was forced to leave the city". This is more in line with Hovannisian's figure of 500. From that point of view the 20,000 figure is about 40 times higher which is a suspicious difference. Perhaps we can identify chronologically the first source mentioning the 20,000 figure and whether all later sources simply repeat it without critical assessment. Brandmeister^talk 22:28, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The fact checking platform seems to just be repeating the conservative estimate that is already established in this article, nobody is really arguing for its exclusion, so that’s not really relevant. As for the second part of your comment, I agree, that’s what I am saying, we should analyze the origin of the 20,000 estimate as clearly it’s been around since at least 1941 and repeated many times, and see if that is where these reliable sources get it from and if that original source is from reliable primary data. TagaworShah (talk) 01:12, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The sources you cited were written by individuals who are not historians, but rather lawyers, priests, biologists, literature or political professors. Neither of them are experts on a specialized topic of historiography. The events of the Shusha massacre era are not the subject of their works; rather, they focus on other issues while making passing reference to the Shusha events, which means that neither of them conducted specific research on the topic. As other editors have already pointed out, there is no proof that those writers undertook any research; rather, they give no reference or, in some cases, reference to each other while discarding counter-evidences from actual historians without scholarly consideration. Furthermore, the sources you provided contain a lot of absurd errors or inaccuracies, such as the "bloody massacre instigated by the tsarist government authorities," which is not true since Russian Empire not existed since 1917.

• Given that the 20,000 death toll is an extraordinary and not objective claim that contradicts research published by respected historian scholarships the provided sources written by non-historians that make only passing mention of the events are insufficient. A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 06:31, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Abravagl, all of that has already been addressed in the discussion above. Gautia and Toloyan are actually Historians in the wikipedia definition of what counts as a historian and the others are well respected academics who are citing figures from historians in their reliable sources, the task at hand is finding out where these figures originate from, I don’t see the point in repeating the same old arguments for the millionth time and not just looking for the source of the estimate, can we at least agree on that? The inclusion of the estimate in multiple reliable sources, which are peer reviewed and published academically, at the very least warrants an analysis of the origin of the estimate. Also, I don’t know why you are bringing up the reliability of the 1941 source again, it was only used to show the length of this estimate being used and was already agreed upon to not be reliable. TagaworShah (talk) 08:13, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Neither Guaita, nor Tololyan have a special training in the field of history. One is a monk and philologist, and the other is a biologist and literature professor. Neither of them cites any sources for their extraordinary numbers, and Guaita even claims a death toll that greatly exceeds the actual number of Armenian population of Shusha at that time, which shows that he did not bother to check official Russian imperial statistics. The same goes for politologist Geldenhuys. As was noted above, all these sources made no specific research on the topic of this article, and only made passing one or two line remarks about it. I don't think that these are good quality sources for this particular topic. They might be good sources for use in their area of specialization, but certainly not here. Grandmaster 10:01, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I think at this point we have a rough consensus not to include unrealistic estimates from weak and non-specialist sources. I see that at least 5 editors object to their inclusion, and only 1 supports it. Grandmaster 09:52, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Grandmaster, let’s not jump the gun, consensus isn’t achieved by the number of editors but by their use of wikipedia guidelines. The sources currently used in the article to support the 20,000 estimate do fit WP:RS guidelines, and if anything we have reached a consensus to review the origin of the estimate and see if it does in fact come from an unreliable source, anything else would just be OR based on the assumption that these academics did not do their due diligence in research, which is highly unlikely given that they were published by peer reviewed academic publishers, and just to make it abundantly clear, the sources being used are Geldenhuys/Law Group, Toloyan (He is also a historian focusing on Nationalism and Armenian studies), and Bassiouni(not the author, but the editor).TagaworShah (talk) 15:02, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see any editor other than you to find them to be acceptable. In fact, multiple editors found those sources to be weak. Yet you included them in the article without consensus. If you think there is a consensus to review the origin of the estimate, then it should be done before inclusion of that estimate in the article. Grandmaster 16:33, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Improving the sourcing of challenged content is standard practice, I didn’t add the estimate, just improved the sourcing. The estimate was already included in the article and has been for years. The only consensus established here is that the origin of the estimate should be analyzed further. Removing the estimate without proper analysis is premature, and again consensus is not reached by the amount of editors, but the substance of their arguments, which besides a few false aspersions cast on the authors of the sources and un-backed assumptions on their level of research, has not yielded any solid arguments to why these sources do not fit the reliable sourcing guidelines of Wikipedia. It looks like we have reached consensus on how to evaluate these otherwise reliable sources, and now the matter at hand is analyzing the origin of the estimate, anything else is premature. TagaworShah (talk) 18:09, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, I have found two more sources that repeat this estimate, Ulrike Ziemer[8] in her book published by Columbia University Press “the mass killings of 20,000 Armenians by Azeris in Shushi, Karabakh in 1918-1920” cites Kurkchiyan 2005: 153-154[9] as a source for the estimate. Also Armenian Historian Shahen Mkrtchyan also cites this estimate “in March of 1920 7,000 Armenian homes were destroyed and burnt and over 20,000 people were slain.” TagaworShah (talk) 18:30, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• No one here is casting false aspersions on the authors or making un-backed assumptions. While consensus is not a vote, five editors disagreeing with you suggests that there is something wrong. Ignoring their comments and telling them that they are all casting "false aspersions" and making "un-backed assumptions" is at the very least, not polite. The sources you listed were authored by non-historians, and they won't become historians no matter how many times we repeat it. Furthermore, neither of the sources you provided are actual studies on the subject. All of them only make passing mentions, and all of them disregard conflicting evidences from actual historians who specifically studied the event. Lets go over one by one:

*Giovanni Guaita

Giovanni Guaita is a priest and philologist who researches the history of Eastern Christianity. He is not a historian by education, and only makes a following passing remark about events in Shusha: "In March, 1920 a terrible pogrom took place in Shushi, carried out by local Azerbaijanis with the support of Turkish troops. The Azerbaijani and Soviet authorities would for decades persistently deny and hush up the massacre of about 30,000 Armenians; but the Russian poet Mandelstam in 1931 wrote a poem dedicated to this tragedy." Not only his death toll significantly exceeds the actual number of the Armenian population of Shusha, but he also claims involvement of Turkish army that left Azerbaijan in November 1918 in accordance with Mudros Armistice. Giovanni also disregards counter-evidences from historians without scholarly consideration, and that is what objective historians should not do.

*Marina Kurkchiyan

Marina does not provide any estimate numbers in her book: "In retribution, the Azerbaijani forces burned the city of Shushi, hanged its bishop, and massacred many of its inhabitants."

*Ulrike Ziemer

Ulrike is not historian, but Senior Lecturer in Sociology in the Department for Applied Social Sciences, Forensics and Politics. Ulrike did not conduct specific research on the Shusha events. Ulrike makes passing mention of the Shusha events. Even that passing mention is inaccurate, because it claims that 20,000 Armenians were killed during two years: "As such, Sumgait activated the historical memory of the genocide as well as of the mass killings of 20,000 Armenians by Azeris in Shushi, Karabakh in 1918–1920".

*Deon Geldenhuys

Deon is not historian, but Professor of Politics. Shusha events are not the topic of Deons research, Deon makes just passing mention about Shusha events, and refers only to source written by Public International Law & Policy Group, while disregarding counter-evidences from actual historians.

*Public International Law & Policy Group

Public International Law is a law organization; It is not an peer reviewed historical research organization or a subject area specialist. Second, the mentioned "The Nagorno-Karabagh Crisis: A Blueprint for Resolution" is a Memorandum, which only makes a casual reference to Shusha events, lacks evidence to back up extraordinary assertions, and is focused on other parts of the conflict rather than historical accuracy.

*Shahen Mkrtchyan

I could not find much about Shahen neither about their work, their Wikipedia page is available only on Armenian. This source is questionable, as from Shahen’s Wiki page, I am pretty sure that hey have direct conflict of interest. Also, considering that Shahen is not notable enough to have EN Wiki page, I doubt that their work was peer reviewed and considered reliably by historian scholarship.

*Khachig Tölölyan

Is not historian, Khachig studied Molecular Biology, and has a PhD in Literature. Khachig did not conduct specific research on this particular topic, rather Khachig makes passing by mention about the Shusha events. As well as others mentioned previously, Khachig disregards counter-evidences from actual historians without scholarly consideration.

Conclusion: The only historians, who conducted actual historical analysis and investigation of ideas, primary sources and facts related to this topic are Baberovski, Yorg and Hovannisian, Richard, and therefore I still stand on my initial proposal of death toll of 500-8000. 20,000 is ridiculously unrealistic number. Adalian, Rouben Paul in Historical Dictionary of Armenia states: "Stepanakert acquired its Armenian population after the Azeris torched the Armenian quarters of the city of Shushi in March 1920", after which Armenian population of Stepanakert becomes majority. Now that can not be a case if claim that almost whole Armenian population of the Shusha city, 20,000, was killed is true, doesn't it? A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 21:36, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Shahen Mkrtchyan was a graduate of Yerevan Pedagogical Institute, one of the activists of secession movement in Nagorno-Karabakh, and he wrote such works as "Nagorno-Karabakh: Anatomy of the Genocide Committed by Azerbaijan: (1920-1988)", published in Stepanakert in 2003. [10] I think the partisan title of his book speaks for itself. The source for claim on 20,000 causalities is Mkrtchyan's book called "Shoushi: The City of Tragic Fate". Here's what Mkrtchyan writes, quote:

Over 20 thousand Armenian residents of Shoushy fell victim to manslaughter. Only a few managed to escape and find refuge in the adjourning villages. The terrible massacre started on March 22, 1920 - the day of the Islamic holiday of Navruz Bayram - and became a "holiday present" to the fanatical and bloodthirsty followers of Allah. [11]

I don't think any serious scholarly source would make such racist remarks, calling Muslims "bloodthirsty followers of Allah". And I don't think we can use a source like that in Wikipedia. And Novruz is not an Islamic holiday either. Grandmaster 00:18, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Repeatedly calling a historian and professor on Orthodox Christianity just a “priest”, reducing distinguished academics and professors of international relations, politics and law to just “lawyers”, and calling someone who very much does fit the wikipedia definition of a historian in the field of nationalism and armenian studies, a biologist just because of their undergraduate degree is what casting false asbersions on the authors to try and somehow reduce their perceived credibility is, and is at the very least not polite, nor is calling me impolite for pointing that out. As for Shahen Mkrtchyan, he is a historian, that has been discussed in the AA2 area many times, and his work has been cited in reliable works such as by Ronald Suny[12], conflict of interest is highly unlikely given that he was not born when this happened, biased yes, consensus is usually to use attribution for his work in AA2 areas but his bias in his works does not make it automatically unreliable per WP:Biasedsources. Also, I made it clear that the sources I am putting forward are Toloyan, Law Group/Geldenhuys, and Bassiouni (which has not yet been addressed, if anyone can find the citation they used), so I don’t see the point in bringing up people like Gautia again? I don’t have full access to Kurkichyan source to see if the citation matched up with the estimate so thank you for confirming, but as i’ve been saying throughout this whole discussion, the inclusion of this estimate in so many reliable sources should at the very least warrant an analysis on where it originates from. As for Adalian, what he said does not contradict the estimate, even 2,000 Armenians fleeing to Stepanakert would make them the majority given how small it was and people like Levon Chorbajian say that most of the population of Shusha was killed. And that’s just WP:OR we go by what the sources say, not what you personally deem plausible. For now, there are plenty of reliable sources who repeat that estimate WP:USEBYOTHERS, including specialists on Armenian history such as Toloyan and Mkrtchyan, and i’ll try and do some analysis on where the estimate originates from. TagaworShah (talk) 00:36, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, Jon Smele[13] a historian specializing in the Russian revolutionary periods which includes Shusha during this time writes in his book Historical Dictionary of the Russian Civil Wars, 1916-1926[14] that “local Azerís attacked the Armenian community at Shusha, the number of deaths resulting remaining a matter of bitter dispute (with estimates ranging from 500 to 20,000).” This range given in this article is also given by Smele, clearly this is a matter of debate among historians and all views should be accounted for, especially one included in so many reliable sources. TagaworShah (talk) 01:09, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Smele is the only descent source so far, but he also does not explain where 20,000 comes from. No footnotes, references, etc. He mentions Shusha twice, first time mentioning "at least 500":

On 22-23 March 1920, Armenian militias simultaneously attacked Azeri garrisons at Shusha, Askeran, and Terter. The attacks failed, however, and in revenge the Azeri army, supported by civilian militias, set about massacring the Armenian population and destroying their property in the center of Shusha, which was laid almost entirely to waste. At least 500 Armenians were killed in Shusha itself, while some Armenian sources cite figures as high as 30,000 for the number of deaths across the region over the following days.

However, following the withdrawal of British forces from the region, fighting broke out once more on 21-22 March 1920, as Armenians in Kara­bakh revolted and again demanded union with Armenia (which sent military support). In response, local Azeris attacked the Armenian community at Susha, the number of deaths resulting remaining a matter of bitter dispute (with estimates ranging from 500 to 20,000).

Grandmaster 14:55, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• That’s how all the historical dictionaries in the series work, same goes for Adalian’s Historical Dictionary of Armenia which was cited above without any issues or concern, and also used in good articles like Stepanakert. Point is, Smele is a widely published Historian with a subject-matter specialization confirming that the range of estimates goes from 500 to 20,000, that clearly shows that such a range is not “extraordinary” as claimed here, and that 20,000 is actually the upper range of estimates given by historians, so I don’t see any other argument for its exclusion. TagaworShah (talk) 15:38, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Olympian: Why did you remove the "killed in one night" part when the is exactly what the Russian source says? The Welt source says "at least several hundred were killed"; it's not the total. Dallavid (talk) 18:44, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to answer when being addressed by another editor. To answer your question, the pogrom occurred over 3 days as described by sources such as Arsene Saparov in From Conflict to Autonomy in the Caucasus: "… on the morning of March 23 the Azerbaijani garrison and Turkic population of Shusha attacked and burned down the Armenian part of the town in a three-day pogrom." Therefore, it would be inaccurate to say that the killing occurred in "one night". I'm not sure what exactly you mean by your second point, I didn't imply that it's a total, it's just a bit of information that can be used to furnish the death toll section as exact numbers are scarce. – Olympian ^loquere 11:13, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Baberovski source is the source for 8,000 killed in one night, not Saparov. It's right next to the 8,000 number in the article. The pogrom being for 3 days doesn't invalidate the number killed in a single night, which Jörg states. Here's the quote from page 171 translated: "The Armenian quarter in Shusha was literally wiped off the face of the earth: out of 1,700 houses, only 25 survived. In just one night, 8,000 Armenian city residents were killed." I'll be restoring this sourced information. --Dallavid (talk) 22:21, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's necessary to explain that a pogrom is defined as "the organized killing of large numbers of people, because of their race or religion" according to the Oxford dictionary, therefore, if one source says there was a "three-day pogrom", that clearly implies that the killings continued over the course of 3 days. Because of the sources providing different time-estimates, I've amended the wording to include both.

P.S. I added the Baberovski-sourced sentence to the article after having read and translated it, though thank you anyway for providing a translation for others. – Olympian ^loquere 05:10, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Interpreting with a dictionary is WP:OR. 8,000 people being killed in one night doesn't contradict the other source, because the death estimates are higher than 8,000. However, your "one night or three-days" change is original research, because those sources are not disputing how long to massacre took place. --Dallavid (talk) 22:32, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken the liberty of checking every source mentioned in the extraordinary number discussion separately to see, as @TagaworShah requested, where this 20,000 deaths claim originates from and whether it's sourced:

1. История Армении и ее Церкви (2002) by Giovanni Guaita, on page 130: Всего за один день, 22 марта 1920 года, тюркская ярость разрушила тысячи армянских домов, церквей, библиотек, типографий; ее жертвами пали более 30 000 человек. Так кемалисты повторили в Шуши то, что младотурки содеяли в Баку. – unreferenced
2. The Nagorno-Karabagh Crisis: A Blueprint for Resolution (2000) by Public International Law & Policy Group and the New England Center for International Law & Policy, on page 3: This culminated in March 1920 with the Azerbaijanis' massacre of Armenians in Karabagh's former capital, Shusha, in which it is estimated that more than 20,000 Armenians were killed. – unreferenced
3. Contested States in World Politics (2009) by Deon Geldenhuys, on pages 96–97: In the wake of the massacre of 20,000 Armenians in Shushi in March 1920, in which Azerbaijanis participated, the Karabagh Assembly nullified the treaty and instead proclaimed union with Armenia. – references source 2
4. National self‐determination and the limits of sovereignty: Armenia, Azerbaijan and the secession of Nagorno‐Karabagh (1995) by Khachig Tölölyan, on page 95: This hesitation, in turn, led to a seesaw of military struggle that culminated in the Azeri burning of Shushi/a and the massacre of some 20,000 Armenians on 23 March 1920. – unreferenced
5. Historical Dictionary of the Russian Civil Wars, 1916-1926 (2015) by Jonathan Smele, on page 137 & 1037: … local Azeris attacked the Armenian community at Shusha, the number of deaths resulting remaining a matter of bitter dispute (with estimates ranging from 500 to 20,000). … At least 500 Armenians were killed in Shusha itself, while some Armenian sources cite figures as high as 30,000 for the number of deaths across the region over the following days. – unreferenced
6. Shoushi: The City of Tragic Fate (2008) by Shahen Mkrtchʻyan, on page 42: Over 20 thousand Armenian residents of Shoushy fell victim to manslaughter. Only a few managed to escape and find refuge in the adjourning villages. The terrible massacre started on March 22, 1920 - the day of the Islamic holiday of Navruz Bayram - and became a ‘holiday present’ to the fanatical and bloodthirsty followers of Allah. – unreferenced
7. U.S.S.R Speaks for Itself. Volume 3 (1941), on page 24: In the Caucasus a whole town, Shusha, was razed to the ground and most of its inhabitants—about 20,000 people—slaughtered as the result. – unreferenced – moreover, the book discusses Shusha in tsarist Russia times, not in 1918–1920
8. Ethnic Belonging, Gender, and Cultural Practices (2014) by Ulrike Ziemer, on page 104: As such, Sumgait activated the historical memory of the genocide as well as of the mass killings of 20,000 Armenians by Azeris in Shushi, Karabakh in 1918-1920. – unreferenced

Conversely, here are what sources that actually reference their number reference:

1. Враг есть везде. Сталинизм на Кавказе (2010) by Jörg Baberowski, on page 171: Всего за одну ночь были убиты 8 000 городских жителей из армян. – РГАСПИ. Ф. 17. Оп. ИЗ. Д. 756. Л. 26
2. The Republic of Armenia, Vol. III: From London to Sèvres, February–August 1920 (1996) by Richard G. Hovannisian, on page 152: The chief of police, … and many intellectuals, … were among the 500 Armenian victims.' – Dashnaktsutiun Archives, File 1649, Stepanian report, pp. 14–15; Balayan and Yolian report, pp. 34–35; "Gords Arsen Mikayeliani."

If somebody owns or has access to a copy of The Pursuit of International Criminal Justice A World Study on Conflicts, Victimization, and Post-conflict Justice, Volume 2 edited by M. Cherif Bassiouni, it'd be useful to know what source is referenced for the 20,000 number on page 839: In 1918–1920 20 percent of the region’s residents perished as a result of Turkish-Azerbaijani aggression. In the regional capital of Shusha – one of the largest cities of Transcaucasia of that time – more than 20,000 Armenians were killed in March 1920.

With this last source, we should be able to ascertain the origin of the 20,000 claim and determine whether it can be reliably cited on this article – Olympian ^loquere 20:01, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That appears to support my suspicion that the 20,000 number is a later one. Contemporary accounts by historian Leo ([15]) and by Marietta Shaginyan ([16]) do not mention that figure, reporting several thousands at most. Brandmeister^talk 22:11, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately, someone at Resource Request was able to provide a PDF of the relevant page of The Pursuit of International Criminal Justice A World Study on Conflicts, Victimization, and Post-conflict Justice, Volume 2. It appears as though the source doesn't use footnotes, therefore, it seemingly doesn't reference its claim that 20,000 Armenians were killed. The source of the 20,000 figure remains elusive.

@TagaworShah are there any other sources that attest to the 20,000 figure with a proper reference? – Olympian ^loquere 22:18, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't see that there was any original source for 20,000. It is not clear what this estimate is based on, and it used by sources who did not conduct their own dedicated research on the subject. As for M. Cherif Bassiouni edited book, I checked the file that you provided, and could not find who wrote the chapter dedicated to Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict, but it refers to some unidentified "Armenian sources". Quote:

According to Armenian sources, in 1918 the number of Armenians of historical Nagorny Karabakh reached 300-330,000 people. The total Armenian population in the region is thought to have been 700-800,000 people by 1988. In 1918-1920 20 percent of the region's residents perished as a result of Turkish-­Azerbaijani aggression. In the regional capital of Shusha - one of the largest cities of Transcaucasia of that time - more than 20,000 Armenians were killed in March 1920.

But this is not a specialist source on history, it provides a general overview of the conflict, making a passing remark about events in Shusha in 1920. And it is not clear where the 20,000 figure comes from. Grandmaster 22:46, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are no Wikipedia guidelines that a reliable source must include footnotes. Jonathan Smele is a subject matter expert and a widely published historian and the historical dictionaries published by Rowman and Littlefield are used widely throughout Wikipedia without issues, including in good articles. Whether the estimate is “recent” or not, or if the source mentioning it uses footnotes, are not valid reasons to question a sources reliability per WP:RS. In fact, Wikipedia actually encourages "recent" scholarship in history due to the better access we have to sources and research. Smele provides what is known as a historiography of the Shusha massacre, meaning that he provided the range given by historians on the death count. While it would be great to see where the 20,000 estimate originates from, I see no reason to question Smele’s historiography. In addition, new sources added, such as the “Stepanakert” source by Bagdasaryan are even more problematic, he is a newspaper editor with a degree in linguistics who references primary sources, at best that is WP:Primary, I don’t understand how he would be a reliable source but people like Khachig Toloyan or “The pursuit of International Criminal Justice” would not be? TagaworShah (talk) 07:35, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's embarrassing that we have to revisit this article every few months to discuss the same old issues, but it has to be stressed that aside from Richard Hovannisian's volume (which is on Armenia, and not even the massacre) very few studies on this important subject exist. While it was a watershed moment in this city's history, you can't just cite every single source that mentions the massacre and think that it passes scholarly muster. This article's integrity has to be maintained and it can't be done when a speech made in a parliament in the present-day is being presented as valid as an investigation that was carried out at the time by a government commission. The above discussion has shown some editors appearing very stubborn to accept the basic fact that the number of deaths was most probably significantly less than what non-specialist authors 70-90 years later after the event would have you believe. Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 20:04, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Smele is a wildely published historian and a reliable source – nothing has been shown to the contrary. This was already discussed extensively in the above talk discussion. Estimates are there for a reason and there hasn't been any compelling argument to omit the 20K number provided by a reliable sources, along with other estimates. Also please take a look at WP:DROPTHESTICK, you're essentially reviving a long ended discussion and unreasonably reverting the stable article version. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 20:59, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Smele is no doubt an established historian. But you're citing a historical dictionary he authored, i.e., a reference work, not something that he necessarily dedicated countless hours of his time to read the relevant primary sources on this subject (like Hovannisian and Baberovski did). The 20,000 figure simply rose higher and higher in the years following the massacre, but that doesn't make it any less suspect. The question you always want to ask each time you see the number is, "well how do you know that?" If the authors are not citing specific sources, then already you have a problem. My reviving the issue similarly doesn't make it any less relevant when I see these problems persisting, and I'm not the only editor who thinks this way, as is clear above. The subject matter deserves better, and bloating the death toll does not at all do it any favors. Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 21:23, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MarshallBagramyan: We have already had this discussion and arrived to the conclusion that Smele is a perfectly acceptable reliable specialist source. Your decision to exclude the full range of the estimates is based on your own original research that you think the 20,000 estimate is “bloated” and can’t possibly be true, thats your opinion, im sure you know that Wikipedia does not work like that. Unless you have a proper source that says the 20,000 claim comes ONLY from the Armenian government and is indeed bloated, please respect the work of your fellow editors. Thank you. TagaworShah (talk) 21:55, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're being deliberately obtuse. Please tell us what research he specifically conducted on this subject that makes him qualified on the level of Hovannisian or Baberovski. His list of publications deal with the Russian Revolution more than the events in the South Caucasus. Some of us editors are more able and discerning than others and so we can always aim for better sources and clarification. And as far as the above discussions go, it looks like both sides arrived at a stalemate. But you and the other editors, crucially, have been unable to offer a single study by an author working on this period who would be able to back up where they produced the 20,000 figure. At least we know Hovannisian arrived at 500 because that is what the Armenian government at the time found. Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 23:52, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MarshallBagramyan: I expected more from a seasoned editor like yourself than resorting to personal attacks but, alas here we are. Smele is a specialist on areas in the Russian sphere of influence during this time period, which both Azerbaijan and Armenia belonged to. He cites varying estimates given by historians regarding the matter, he has the authority to discern which estimates should be included or not, you don’t. If you don’t have the sources to back up your claims that the 20,000 number was made up in a parliamentary address, then it is nothing more than a conspiracy theory. The fact is, reliable sources present 500-20,000 as the range presented by historians, if you do not have a source that directly contests that, we are done here. And in the future, please refrain from speaking negatively on my, our any of my fellow editors, personal abilities to analyze sources, it’s not good practice. TagaworShah (talk) 02:06, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's because I followed the above discussion and realized that the detractors of the 20,000 figure had a point - and that at no time were you or anyone else able to demonstrate when that 20,000 figure first emerged and why we should treat it seriously. Again, Smele knows his stuff, but nothing in his scholarly profile points to him having consulted the relevant primary sources to allow us to say that he believes that it represents a true figure. As someone who's been here for almost 20 years, I think have some say in the matter of what to include and how much weight to attribute to it. And the onus is on you, to demonstrate to us why the 20,000 figure should be treated with any degree of seriousness over the most realistic numbers given by Hovannisian and Baberovski. I do not need to tell you that a random lawyer, or a random politician speaking at a parliament, or some other non-specialist who doesn't work on this period cannot in any way shape or form be considered a reliable source when compared to actual historians and scholars who study this period. This article deserves better, and you're not doing it any favors at all with this kind of stonewalling. Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 04:03, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Our role is not to speculate on the accuracy of this number, but rather to use sources that confirm it. The article contains such sources, which support the validity of this information. I would be happy to provide more sources. Ulrike Ziemer, B.A., M.A., Ph.D., "studied Russian, Politics, and Sociology at the universities of Bath and Birmingham" mentions the number of 20,000 deaths in her book Ethnic Belonging, Gender, and Cultural Practices page 107. Nocturnal781 (talk) 04:30, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MarshallBagramyan: No Marshall, editing for however many years does not give you any sort of authority on what should be included in the article or not, we are all equal as editors and only reliable sources can speak for inclusion. I have already fulfilled the onus with the sourcing i’ve provided, there is no wikipedia guideline that states I have to find exactly where an estimate first came from over a century ago, that is not our job as editors. Just because you personally feel an estimate is “unrealistic” without any sourcing to back that up, does not mean you get to delete sourced content from the article. The onus is on you to prove that a widely cited estimate that is backed by reliable sources is not suitable. You’re not doing the article any favors by excluding estimates based on your own suspicions and original research. TagaworShah (talk) 05:31, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ulrike was already proved to be inaccurate. You should review previous discussions where every other source was reviewed in details. Ulrike is not historian, but Senior Lecturer in Sociology in the Department for Applied Social Sciences, Forensics and Politics. Ulrike did not conduct specific research on the Shusha events. Ulrike makes passing mention of the Shusha events. Even that passing mention is inaccurate, because it claims that 20,000 Armenians were killed during two years, rather than one day: "As such, Sumgait activated the historical memory of the genocide as well as of the mass killings of 20,000 Armenians by Azeris in Shushi, Karabakh in 1918–1920". A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 06:11, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can't waste my time repeating myself. Again, the earlier discussions show that this subject is desperate for more scholarly study. All the sources you are pulling out are proof of that, and what is more, have already been addressed above and now here that they're not reliable. We can work on writing a better article and the only way to do that is strip it of all the references found on Google Books and sticking with the scholarly sources.Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 13:47, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, absolutely not, sources are evaluated based on their author, publisher, etc. not based on their availability on “google books.” Shaming your fellow editors for using google books when it is a great tool to provide accessibility to reliable sources to editors that may not have access to them, is not good practice. Smele is a scholarly source, we are sticking with what he presents as the range of estimates for the massacre given by Historians. Your personal qualifications for the strength of a source and estimate, is just that, yours. You have to be willing to work with other editors and follow the guidelines, they exist for a reason, precisely for situations like these where the question of what sources can be used is presented. The only way to make a better article is to not exclude widely cited information because of your own personal suspicions, I will not repeat myself again on that. TagaworShah (talk) 14:52, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're still dodging my points. You're trying to shift the onus on to all the other editors who disagree with you (and who have brought up convincing objections to all the secondary authors you have found) and making up your own rules as you go along. I'm not opposed to citing Smele to inform readers that estimates as high as 20,000 have been given; what I am opposed to is to give it undue weight and pretend that it's a realistic figure. That's bad history. You can't make unwarranted demands against me and the other editors, as right now your voice is in the extreme minority and is frustrating attempts to bring some integrity to this article. Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 15:52, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MarshallBagramyan: Smele does not present 20,000 as unrealistic at all, he provides it as a perfectly acceptable estimate given by historians in the widely varying range of estimates. You want to insert your own original research that such estimates are “unrealistic” without a SOURCE, you cannot just say an estimate is unrealistic because you feel like it, this is not how wikipedia works. You cannot just add statements like saying the 20,000 estimate is “unrealistic,” “bloated” or only given by non-specialist authors without a source, you can’t. And if you continue to add unsourced content, that is not in line with what Smele or any of the authors cited say, without providing a single source, I will have to take this to the administrators. Adding unsourced content because you feel strongly against a certain sourced estimate is a threat to Wikipedia’s integrity as a whole. TagaworShah (talk) 16:55, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Additional analysis:

According to a census taken two years before the tragic events, the Armenian population of Shusha was 23000, hence any figure higher, such as 30,000, is completely unrealistic.

Moreover, according Melkumian report, which referenced by Hovannisian, at least 8000 Armenians escaped the city. Likewise the Armenian Fact Investigation Platform which investigated the composition of the population of Shushi since the 19th century states that on March 23-26, 1920 "several hundred Armenians were killed and the rest of the Armenian population was forced to leave the city". Smele in his dictionary does not claim figure 20,000 to be true, but rather say that the number of deaths resulting remaining a matter of bitter dispute (with estimates ranging from 500 to 20,000). Yet, neither Smele nor others reference a credible source citing a death toll of 20,000. As a result, 20,000 is very unrealistic figure, and we still don't understand where it originated from.

Looks like the earliest source mentioning 20,000 figure is "The Nagorno-Karabagh Crisis: A Blueprint for Resolution (2000) by Public International Law & Policy Group and the New England Center for International Law & Policy", and possible that others just simply repeat it without critical assessment.

Public International Law & Policy Group and the New England Center for International Law & Policy are not an peer reviewed historical research organizations or a subject area specialists. Moreover, the mentioned "The Nagorno-Karabagh Crisis: A Blueprint for Resolution" is a Memorandum, which only makes a casual reference to Shusha events, lacks evidence to back up extraordinary assertions, and is focused on other parts of the conflict rather than historical accuracy. A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 18:09, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are no Wikipedia guidelines that a reliable source must include footnotes. Smele is widely and reliably published historian. If the source is reliable, from a historian, has an academic background, is modern, and nothing has been shown to deem him as non RS – then I don't see a reason why it shouldn't stay along with other estimates. The article doesn't claim one estimate to be true over the other, it provides available estimates based on reliable sources and that's our job as Wikipedia editors to do. At this point, I see no compelling argument to omit Smele and it just goes full circle like the previous concluded discussion. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 18:41, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm perfectly happy with asking for third-party intervention. If you like to get the ball rolling, please go on right ahead. And regarding authors and their sources: we can judge an author's familiarity with the subject matter by looking at his works cited. If there are no footnotes or precise sources, then we can call into question how well acquainted he is with his subject matter. In this case, we're talking about an astronomical discrepancy between 500 dead (as cited by contemporary reports) and 20,000 - based on who? What methodology? There's a difference between saying there's a possibility that Shakespeare's plays were co-written by others and then claiming that he didn't write anything himself. Providing undue weight to a figure that so far has a completely untraceable provenance is problematic and I assure you a third-party editor or administrator will agree will agree with that view. Asserting your views by going against all the other editors' objections is not unproductive, to say the least. Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 19:12, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

500 is only the most conservative estimate, it seems you are forgetting that other estimates exist like Babervoski says 8,000 deaths, Shahinyan says that more than 12,000 deaths were possible, the great soviet encyclopedia cites over 2,000 deaths, we cannot just go based on Hovannisian’s conservative estimate, if you take into account the other estimates than the 20,000 estimate is no more “extraordinary” than the 500 estimate. And it’s ridiculous to suggest that I am the only editor that agrees in the inclusion of the 20,000 estimate within the range, there are at least 2 other editors in this discussion alone that have also stated the same. Also equally ridiculous is the claim that this figure comes from an American law group from 2000 when in the previous discussion, multiple sources from decades before that was published cited the figure as well. Footnotes are by no means required in Wikipedia for a source to be accurate. TagaworShah (talk) 19:46, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

multiple sources from decades before that was published cited the figure as well. - Can you list them please? A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 19:57, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Abrvagl: Sure. Here are three sources from before that report was published that cite the 20,000 estimate:

National self‐determination and the limits of sovereignty: Armenia, Azerbaijan and the secession of Nagorno‐Karabagh (1995) by Khachig Tölölyan, on page 95: “This hesitation, in turn, led to a seesaw of military struggle that culminated in the Azeri burning of Shushi/a and the massacre of some 20,000 Armenians on 23 March 1920”

U.S.S.R Speaks for Itself. Volume 3 (1941), on page 24: “In the Caucasus a whole town, Shusha, was razed to the ground and most of its inhabitants—about 20,000 people—slaughtered as the result”

Caroline Cox’s parliamentary address 1997: “the massacre of 20,000 Armenians in the ancient Armenian city of Shushi”

You can say what you want about the reliability of these sources and their information, but the fact stands that they clearly show that the 20,000 estimate was used far before a report prepared in the year 2000. TagaworShah (talk) 20:19, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but where did they get their information from? Baberovski is citing an archival document - fantastic! That's a good source to go by. We can cite him because we can trace his statement to the source. But Caroline Cox and Khatchig Toloyan and the "USSR Speaks for Itself" fall way, way short of indicating to us where they got their information from and my hunch, which is saying a lot, is they simply did not do any research and are just repeating a number they heard from somewhere. A throwaway line does not equate to them doing the kind of legwork Hovannisian and Baberovski have done. You can't put on the same playing field. I am absolutely baffled as to how you still cannot comprehend this very basic fact. Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 20:43, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They were asked to list sources that the 20K estimate appeared prior to the 2000 Law group, and they did exactly that. The rest of your comment is irrelevant to obvious academic RS such as Smele or the question asked. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 20:50, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Marshall, as I literally said above, those sources are simply to show that the estimate was cited before an investigation in the year 2000 by an American Law Group that another editor claimed is where the estimate originated from. I did not say to use those sources in the article. TagaworShah (talk) 20:53, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why you even bring Caroline Fox’s speech at Parliament debates, it is obviously unreliable. U.S.S.R Speaks for Itself. Volume 3 (1941) in the other hand was already proven unreliable in this talk. It does not mention dates , but claims that massacre was done by Tsarits Russia. Tsarits Russia did not exist at the time of Shusha massacre. Did not find much about the Tatolyan, but is appears to be 1-2 page essay ([17]).

With all due respect, but when I asked to list, I ment to list sources, not anyone said anything anywhere. A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 21:23, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Ottoman army is mentioned in the infobox? The vast majority of reliable sources make no mention of them, and it was impossible too, as the Ottoman army left the region in accordance with Mudros armistice in November 1918. Grandmaster 09:25, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the cited source and it does not support claim that Ottoman army was involved. A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 18:11, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]