Talk:Black Garden

Proposed deletion

@Ahmetlii: The book definitely passes the notability requirements as it's one of the most famous books written about the conflict. I don't understand how and for what reason this page was nominated for deletion. — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 13:39, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@CuriousGolden: I looked from Internet and I couldn't found something about the book. If I missed something or you have more citations, please add to the page. Otherwise, it may not passes notability (because here's only a magazine news and a citation about the writer's biography). I have removed the tag, but I will add a "notability" tag. Thanks for reply. Ahmetlii (talk) 13:44, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

New review

@ZaniGiovanni: @Golden: @Abrvagl: @Archives908: Pinged the four of you as you are all active within this topic area. I added another review of de Waal's book, and selected what seems to have been the most important parts of the review. The part on Hakobyan's review is a bit long now, howeer, and although she's apparently written the only review (?) in a peer-reviewed journal currently listed with any sort of criticism (she praises it as well), I think we can reduce the length of the material at least a bit. Any suggestions? - LouisAragon (talk) 15:05, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

How about this:

−

Writing in ''[[Nationalities Papers]]'', Ruzan Hakobyan praises the book for being "one of the best and most comprehensive works not only on the Karabagh conflict but also on the region as a whole". However, in the same review she also explains that "an informed eye can detect certain drawbacks". Hakobyan lists two drawbacks, the first one being, according to her, the repeated assertion that the start of the conflict was unexpected for both Armenians and Azeris of Karabakh who lived peacefully and in good relations side-by-side, labeling this as "at the very least optimistic" . Within the context of providing an example, Hakobyan states: "For 70 years Armenians in Karabagh have been systematically subjected to a deliberate policy of discrimination and removal from their homeland and have made repeated attempts to rectify the situation". She then proceeds to list the gradual decrease and increase of the Karabakhi Armenia and Azerbaijani population, respectively, during Soviet rule by using Soviet censuses. Another drawback mentioned by Hakobyan: "one cannot help detecting is that in trying to be impartial the author sometimes slips into flatly equalizing the behaviours of the Armenians and the Azeris during the years of the conflict, thus undermining the historical reality. For instance, he [de Waal] repeatedly claims that the Azeri population that left Armenia in the first year of the conflict has undergone the same inhuman treatment from Armenians as the Armenian population in Sumgait and Baku. But he has no data on which to base this assertion. All he manages to produce are the unfounded assertions of the Azeri population itself, while the atrocities that Azeris had performed towards the Armenian population in Sumgait and Baku are thoroughly documented and widely known". She concludes the review by mentioning that ''Black Garden'', even with such drawbacks, remains of high quality and significance.

+

Writing in ''[[Nationalities Papers]]'', Ruzan Hakobyan praises the book for being "one of the best and most comprehensive works not only on the Karabagh conflict but also on the region as a whole". However, in the same review, she also cites two drawbacks of the book. First one being, according to her, the repeated assertion that the conflict was an unexpected event for Armenians and Azeris of Karabakh who had previously lived peacefully side-by-side, labeling this as "at the very least optimistic". Within the context of providing an example, she cites the gradual decrease and increase of the Karabakhi Armenian and Azerbaijani population, respectively, during the Soviet Union. Second drawback mentioned by Hakobyan is, according to her, the author trying to flatly equalize the behaviour of Armenians and Azeris during the years of the conflict in an effort to be impartial. She cites de Waal's assertion that the Azeri population that left Armenia in the first year of the conflict had undergone the same inhuman treatment from Armenians as the Armenian population in Sumgait and Baku, without providing any data, to be an example of this. She concludes the review by mentioning that ''Black Garden'', even with such drawbacks, remains of high quality and significance.

— Golden ^{call me maybe?} 15:27, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it is too wordy, I think the version proposed by @Golden is also too long, I would shorten it more:

Writing in Nationalities Papers, Ruzan Hakobyan praises the book for being "one of the best and most comprehensive works not only on the Karabagh conflict". However, in the same review, she also cites two drawbacks of the book. First one being, according to her, the assertion that the conflict was an unexpected event for Armenians and Azeris of Karabagh who had previously lived peacefully side-by-side, which Hakobyan labeled as "at the very least optimistic", while stating that Armenians have been systematically discriminated in Karabagh during the Soviet Union. Second drawback, according to Hakobyan, is the author trying to flatly equalize the behaviour of Armenians and Azeris during the years of the conflict in an effort to be impartial. She cites de Waal's assertion that the Azeri population that left Armenia in the first year of the conflict had undergone the same inhuman treatment from Armenians as the Armenian population in Sumgait and Baku, without providing any supporting data. She concludes the review by mentioning that Black Garden, even with such drawbacks, remains of high quality and significance.

P.S> I looked thru the history, and I think we should also ping Jr8825 who seems to be one who actively edited the article. Abrvagl (talk) 16:41, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

@LouisAragon, did some research about Ruzan Hakobyan. Apparently she is not uninvolved party and wrote just few published articles. However, I guess we still consider her as her review was reliably published.

We definitely should not maintain the existing version. Her review, as current, is larger than the entire article. It's clumsy, massive, and unreadable, and I believe we're giving it too much weight to it. Her review should be trimmed to the same length as other reviews while maintaining the meaning. So here is my final proposal:

Writing in Nationalities Papers, Ruzan Hakobyan praises the book for being "one of the best and most comprehensive works not only on the Karabagh conflict", but disagrees with conflict being unexpected, stating that Armenians in Karabakh were systematically discriminated in Soviet times, and believes that the author tries to flatly equalize the behaviour of Armenians and Azeris during the years of the conflict in an effort to be impartial.

Abrvagl (talk) 16:12, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

LouisAragon I think the current version is fine, certainly I don't think we should be removing the mention of Armenian population being reduced and Azeris being settled. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 14:30, 22 August 2022 (UTC)