Talk:Shusha massacre

message: Why is Ottoman army 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I suggest we remove Geldenhuys altogether. It is not a source on history, it is a source on politology, as discussed above. For this article, we need to use specialist sources that specialize on the the relevant time period of the regional history. Grandmaster 09:33, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: What is considered a specialist source? Nocturnal781 (talk) 05:04, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: A professional historian who did a research on the subject of the article. This person wrote a politological research, and made a passing mention of the topic of this article. Grandmaster 09:20, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand what you are saying, but if we agreed to do something like this we would have to do it for all topics and references. It absolutely still goes by Wikipedia guidelines for sourcing. He is definitely a reliable figure it doesn’t take a specialist on the exact topic to see what happened in Shushi in 1920. If you feel it doesn’t belong in the intro we can comprise and figure out a different plan to restructure it. Nocturnal781 (talk) 18:03, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: We do (or at least try to) apply that standard for all articles on Wikipedia. I have never seen any other source mention that the Ottoman army was involved in the massacre...not least because aside from a handful of officers, the Ottoman army had withdrawn back to the pre-1914 borders following the signing of the Armistice of Moudros. Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 19:23, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I was speaking on the cultural de-Armenianization part my mistake for not pointing that out. But the Ottoman army looks like a mistake. Nocturnal781 (talk) 19:26, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: We should use best available sources. If a source makes a casual mention of the topic, without any in-depth research, it is unlikely to be reliable. So it is better to remove this one. Grandmaster 09:18, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ottoman army? 

message: Olympian the source says 40,000 killed AND expelled. Nocturnal781 (talk) 04:59, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The context is still misleading to the viewer. The section is for death tolls. If a viewer looks at it they see 40,000 deaths. It should be removed or specifically state deaths and expelled as the source you provided says otherwise it takes away from the accuracy of the content we provide. Nocturnal781 (talk) 05:10, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: As a matter of fact she is quoting the ex president who is not a reliable source. Nocturnal781 (talk) 05:17, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  The point of this section is to demonstrate all the death tolls published through reliable scholarship and allow the reader reach their own conclusion, therefore, there's no reason to exclude an estimate published through a reliable, third-party journal such as Sfera Politicii – even so, it's good to contextualise for the reader the broad range of estimates for the massacre to demonstrate the lack of consensus. I will be restoring unless you have any arguments that prejudice citing Sfera Politicii. – Olympian loquere 05:39, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: You missed the part she is quoting the ex president’s speech. She says it in the context. We cannot use that in a encyclopedia. Nocturnal781 (talk) 05:45, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: In this case, it doesn't matter who is being quoted – the author has chosen to include that in the journal to contextualise the historical background of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. We have another footnote for the 20,000 figure that quotes a British parliamentarian which can be argued as appropriate for demonstrating to the reader the complete range of estimates throughout various sources. Again, we're not saying which estimate is right or wrong, we're simply providing an array for reliable sources to let the reader make their own conclusion. – Olympian loquere 06:03, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The author is quoting the ex Armenian president during a speech and using it to describe how they felt by the words he used. Nowhere does it indicate she put it to give accurate data about these events. A president is not a reliable source for statistics especially in this case. Nocturnal781 (talk) 06:30, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: You're repeating the same arguments (WP:STONEWALLING) which I've already rebutted in my above replies. In essence, the content in reliable sources are sufficient to cite, and the fact that a reliable source quotes a president does not prejudice the content's inclusion – period. – Olympian loquere 07:25, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The section is for the death toll and 40K is for expelled population as well so it shouldn't be in the section along with death estimates, and secondly, 40K violates WP:EXTRAORDINARY. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 09:33, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you be opposed to adding the 40K killed and expelled number in another section/paragraph? After all, this isn't some random source, it's the proper third-party journal, Sfera Politicii. – Olympian loquere 10:26, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I would oppose it, it's still extraordinary. And ofcourse it's extremely misleading to be added in the Death Toll section when 40K claim isn't just killed number but expulsion too, that goes without saying. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 01:17, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  40,000 deaths