Talk:Armeno-Georgian War

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Armenia Low‑importance Armeno-Georgian War 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 articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Georgia (country) Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Georgia (country), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Georgia and Georgians 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.Georgia (country)Wikipedia:WikiProject Georgia (country)Template:WikiProject Georgia (country)Georgia (country) articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Russian & Soviet / World War I C‑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 articles C This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale. This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force World War I task force Russia: History Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the history of Russia task force. Caucasia (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Caucasia, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.CaucasiaWikipedia:WikiProject CaucasiaTemplate:WikiProject CaucasiaCaucasia articles

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Is this the same war that is discussed on article linked here? [1]

This article is not concordant with any sources I have. All the sources I have mentions that the war happened after the Turkish invasion of Gyumri(Alxendripole), and from it Javakh was taken away from Armenia. Akhalkalak, from the sources I have was part of Armenia, and is inculsive with European maps of historic Armenia, while the article quote the place as a historic province of Georgia. Is there any non-Georgian map, or non-Georgian, non-Turkish/Azeris map that show this? In fact, the Alxendripole investigation was done in the proximities of the region, where a cite of massacre happened, and as a result Armenia lost it, when the Georgians allied with the Turks to end the war. Letter Javakh was annexed to Georgia, and Karabakh to Azerbaijan as part of this policy of destroying Armenia from the Turkish part comploting with the Soviet with false promesses of joining the federation. Those are pretty much accepted versions of events, while here in this article the position is quite different. Fadix 20:30, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first time I have ever posted any text on any forum. The disgraceful comment made by one of "Armenian historian" has sickened me to such an extent that now I have to write down a response.

The Georgian-Armenian War was described as it truly was and two main important points have been made by an author: 1. It was provoked by Armenians by their invasion of a sovereign country; 2. The war did alter the image of South Caucasian countries to the world.

The territory itself was settled by some Armenians after Turks forced them out of Turkey's eastern provinces, apparently some in Armenian government had assumed that Javakheti was Armenian as some folk there were ethnically Armenian. After defeating the foreign invader, Georgians, unlike Turks, didn't retaliate toward their own people of an Armenian origin.

Only geographical convenience lies behind many Armenians reshaping and brutally redrawing the maps of its neighbors; otherwise the Southern California would have been long reshaped and colored the same color as Armenians use to color their country.

The best way to end such frequent biases by Armenian users of wikipedia, is by creating a search category named something like: "Armenian dreams", "Armenian chauvinism", "Armenian lies". I am absolutely positive, that this kind of category will prove one simple point - many Armenians use lies and biases as an instrument of their chauvinistic propaganda. It's just pity that their unimaginable, confusing, cowardly interferences harm the image of the region as a whole.

So, with all my respect to Armenian historians and their "maps", please, use them as a substitute to a toilet paper.

I hope this will be my last post on a forum.

Wash your mouth, you may keep such a durty language at home but here in Wikipedia we have rules. As for my "fictif" Armenian lies.

Here, this from Britannica Volume V01, Page 456 (1911)

Pop. (1897) 15,387, of whom many were Armenians, as against 15,977 in 1867. From 1579 to 1828 Akhaltsikh was the capital of Turkish Armenia.

The rest of the population were also Muslim. The Armenian population there didn't appeared after 1915. Maybe then, probably you should check the maps that you are using as toilet paper. Regards. Fad (ix) 04:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uhh, I see, our "historian" gets little emotional and liked the idea of utilizing their maps more efficiently...very good, very good, I like quick learners. Very impressed with your knowledge and references! You know, I am going to quit arguing with you. My final advice - try to learn Georgian, and then you will understand what "Akhalkhikhe" and what "Akhalkalaki" means; I really can't go on and try to prove something that is as clear as their name says.

War of 1918 on Wikipedia you've decided to have remakres made on was based on pure unbisaed factual information; but our little "historian" didn't like it. So good luck to you and keep going with your pointless propaganda, but one friendly advice - throwing trash at your neighbours (and not only Georgia) is not smart... it is harming you tremendously already... and why you let things deteriorate to such an extent? and why you think that your neigbours are your enemies? I don't know, it's really your problem... I know you really wish all southern Georgia to be yours, but you do know the reality too - you need to have good relationship with Georgia as you've already managed to antagonize eastern and western neighbours... and why? Cause someone like you, didn't use those "maps" where they belong... you guessed it right - in a toilet... :)

For next post, I'll be waiting for your at least 25 references, no less! And I am waiting for amernian encyclopidea of 1932, or 1933, ok, as an exception, I'll let you use 1945 edition... but please, no maps, I mean toilet paper; they are too rough, if you know what I mean :) (Only applicable to Armenian arses)

1- I do not live in Armenia, never have set a foot there.

2- Wikipedia does not require 25 sources, you claimed Armenians appeared there in 1915, while Britanica of 1911 says otherwise.

3- The name of a region doesn't say much about its population.

And lastly, continue with this tone and it won't take much time for you to be banned, I have posted few links about Wikipedia policies on your talk page you should read them. Since you are a newbie this time I will close my eyes and pretend as if there was nothing wrong in your behavour. Regards. Fad (ix) 18:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. A didn't say all Armenians have appeared there in the 20th century; but many have 2. The "rest of muslims" you mention citing britanica, were Georgians, whose religion was muslim (later deported by Stalin) 3. It's OK for a country to have other nationalities living on it's territory, doesn't mean though those nationalities reshape historic borders of the country they live in. 4. I've never said you live in Armenia, I just said your arse is Armenian; any doubts on that? :)

How about you stop with the saucy insults? The antagonistic behavior has been from you. Fadix has provided concrete information. Try to respond with some decorum, don't allow bigotry and paranoia to get in the way. Hakob 21:58, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is obviousoy taken out of context and cannot stay in the stub text. Furthermore, the quote is from an Armenian source and is POV. There are plenty of Georgian authors who would claim just opposite and describe the war as Armenia's attempt to oust the Muslim Georgian population from the region. Let's keep the text as neutral as possible. --Kober^Talk 07:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

“

Armenian-Georgian tensions finally exploded into open war in December of 1918. Full-scale military clashes followed attempts by Georgian forces to repress an Armenian uprising in Lori protesting against Georgian misrule and abuse. Taking the form of a popular peoples' war, Armenian forces initially registered significant gains particularly under the leadership of General Dro. Rapidly however their fortunes dipped. Armenian positions were undermined by Georgian control of sea, road and rail routes essential for Armenian supplies and reinforcements. Georgia also received significant direct and indirect support from Turkish and Azeri forces. In disputed regions where political and military control changed hands regularly Georgia was not averse to Turkish conquests hoping these would drive out Armenian populations fearful of renewed Turkish slaughter. Once they retook possession of these areas, in an indirect form of ethnic cleansing, they proceeded to erect barriers to returning Armenian refuges thus beginning a hoped for demographic transformation of Lori and Akhalkalak.The Armenian-Georgian War of 1918 By Eddie Arnavoudian

”

Thats fine thanks. --Vonones 07:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have beefed up the article using material from Christopher Walker and Andrew Andersen. I have also added "Armenian Phyrric victory" to the result (WP:BOLD) because land that was previously under Georgian administration became joint administration. Also if you look at one of Andersens maps, they show that part of the territory that was previously Georgian administration was put under complete Armenian administration. That's this map, see Sanain and everything south of there. Pocopocopocopoco 02:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After a considerable success, Armenians suffered a defeat on Dec. 14. The mutual administration was the result of the British-brokered truce, not the war. Georgia and Armenia had to fight the nascent Islamic state in SW Caucasus. Therefore, they chose to make peace and agreed to the British-proposed compromise.--Kober^Talk 05:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a good thing to add in the article that the nascent islamic state was a motivation to end hostilities. If you have a source of course. Pocopocopocopoco 00:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We need a source for these recent additions as I can't find it in the website link in that section. Also, although I used Andersen myself to expand this article I have some concerns about the reliability of this source. Please see the discussion at Talk:Qazakh and the discussion at Talk:Qazakh/archive if what Mikka says is true then we might have to reconsider using Andersen throughout wikipedia. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 16:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The previous version inaccurately stated that Armenians evacuated Sanahin on December 14. Georgian counteroffensive did not actually reach that village and it remained under Armenian control at the moment of Dec 31 ceasefire. The December 14 battle took place at Shulaveri and the hostilities ended at Sadakhlo. I have not actually read Andersen's article. My sources are David Marshall Lang, Christopher Walker, and Firuz Kazemzadeh. I'll try to expand the article if I have enough time and energy. --Kober^Talk 16:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've got Walker and I haven't found anything about Sadakhlo and Shulaveri. It must be in the other sources you mentioned. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 17:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I rechecked it and you appear to be right. Walker does not provide these details, but two other authors do. Do you have any specific reason to doubt the historicity of these battles? --Kober^Talk 17:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I never said I doubted it, it just needs to be sourced as it is inconsistent with what Andersen has on his site. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 17:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DM Lang, History of Modern Georgia, Chapter X, p. 217. Kazemzadeh goes into further details but I don't have his book at hand right now. We can ask our Azerbaijani colleagues to fill the gap as I remember they once cited him somewhere.--Kober^Talk 17:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 15:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Georgian armored trains played alongside with the artillery units an interesting role by preventing further Armenian surprise attacks in that region. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.196.56.25 (talk) 00:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What statements in the background section are sourced from Walker book? Alæxis_¿question? 10:54, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What are the sources that the League of Nations "asserted" or "ratified" Georgian borders as shown on the map? In fact the League of Nations did not accept Georgia as its member: (this is a quote from Tbilisi University article)

“

At the session of the League of Nations the voting on Georgia’s membership showed the following results: 10 countries voted for Georgia, 10 - against it and 4 - refrained from voting. Georgia needed 16 votes, but the results showed the failure.

”

Alæxis_¿question? 12:37, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It definitely shouldn't be used if it doesn't have any other countries for context. CMD (talk) 21:38, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alæxis вот и ваши [2] sources. This map is 80% similar to the previous map, different are only borders. So I don't understand what do You want? Frankly speaking You don't like that Georgia looks bigger, than in previous map, do You ? --Balakhadze 22:01, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia can be as big as it pleases. This map should however have borders for neighbouring states (like the non-wiki example you give).

In the end, neither map is really that useful for this article; they're intended to show the difference between Georgia's 1921 borders and Georgia's present borders, which isn't the topic of this article. In the long term, a map showing the Georgian and Armenia of 1918 is what is needed. CMD (talk) 22:10, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The maps you've given links to cannot serve as reliable sources. Apart from the fact they seem to be created in Georgia and thus might show Georgian bias, the basic problem with them is that we do not know who, where and when published them. The references should be to scholarly sources like books and articles. Ideally they should come from some neutral source (not Georgian or Armenian when we want to prove that League of Nations ratified a particular border between these countries). Alæxis_¿question? 22:26, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This map scanned from Georgian Historical Atlas. I have that atlas, I can even tell on which page is this map, it is on 15th. Prepared for edition by NGO Education and New Technologies and approved by the Education Ministry of Georgia --Balakhadze 22:44, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The scholarly sources contradict the claim that the borders shown on the map were ratified or in any way asserted by League of Nations. See for example a book State Building and Conflict Resolution in the Caucasus by Charlotte Mathilde Louise Hille, p. 92, where the San Remo conference is described. Georgia and Armenia both claimed the city of Batumi and the railway to it (deep within the "ratified" territory per the map in question). The League of Nations refused to make a decision and instead advised Armenians and Georgians to settle their disputes bilaterally. Again, League of Nationw rejected the Georgian membership request.

The map should not include such controversial information. Let's stick with the old map until it's established beyond doubt that the new one is more correct. Alæxis_¿question? 14:28, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It means nothing, that the League of Nations rejected the Georgian membership request, we are speaking about borders and not about membership. --Balakhadze 17:37, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is factually wrong with the old map? If any border lines are drawn incorrectly or legend is wrong, let's change it. My point is that contentious claims should not be "inserted" into a map as a legend because then there's no easy way to change them, add references and in general put it in the correct context. Alæxis_¿question? 04:41, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed some disagreement regarding the inclusion of a large amount of text, with a couple inclusions and deletions. I've taken the liberty of copy-editing and sourcing statements more clearly. I believe some of the text may be rather closely linked to the Andersen & Partskhaladze source so do feel free to edit the paraphrasing or order if you see benefit in doing so. In terms of source quality I was somewhat concerned but after doing some digging I've discovered that Andrew Andersen is an academic at the Centre for Military & Strategic Studies at the University of Calgary, so in my view the source is acceptable in principal but some editing is still needed to ensure there is no copyvio.--Labattblueboy (talk) 17:37, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• First crack at background sections complete. Footnotes and biblio detail inserted.--Labattblueboy (talk) 18:10, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for copyediting! Alæxis_¿question? 19:22, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• A number of images are now inserted. If anyone knows of a repository of further images do please advise. I've also set all images to thumb, with the exception of two, which are set to 250. I've separately deleted a couple a couple images because the sourcing is incomplete and copy-right status is not at all verifiable.--Labattblueboy (talk) 18:57, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Anyone have a source for the change of town name from Uzunlar to Odzun sometime around 1967.--Labattblueboy (talk) 18:33, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since another edit was made without any discussion involved, this time on the strenght and casualty figures, it would be better to actualy use the information provided in the sources.

There is a reason why certain edits are made.

There are two main sources that give clear numbers and estimates on the strenght of the opposing forces: Hovannisian claims that the regular Armenian force consisted of a total of 28 companies of infantry and four squadrons of cavalry, equipped with a total of 26 machine guns and seven mountain cannons.^[1] They were additionaly supported and reinforced thousands of local Armenian residents of Lori referred to him as partisans and insurgents. He further claims that the initial Armenian army forces were fewer in men, ammunition and supplies contradicting the Andersen stating the opposite as of theatre of action - thus leaving the impression the Armenians beat back a force superior in numbers, which is evidently not the case - far from it and that is mainly due to the lack of description and detail in his brief overview of events on that conflict. It's a fact acknowledged by both sources that the Georgians only managed to mobilise a force considerable enough ( around 3,500 men^[2][3] ) for a general offensive not earlier than at Shulaveri. Prior to that Mazniashvili had far less men to attack the Armenians defending Shulaveri which wasn't succesfull and all earlier major counterattacks from the Georgian side were carried out with no more than a few hundred^[4] or at very best a thousand men at a time.^[5] The claim that the Georgians were superior in numbers factualy doesn't add up and is self-contradicting, especialy with the Armenian army being supported by the local Armenian residents. Hovannian also fails or avoids to deliver actual figures on the casualties of the Armenians throughout his work, stating only they were heavy at Sadakhlu^[2] and absolutly no information on all the back and forth between the two armies - with the only exception of 200 Armenian losses during Mazniev's final assault and capture of Shulaveri and surrounding villages.^[2] Ultimately he states the Armenians statisticaly had suffered fewer casualties. That may be true to some extent, especialy regarding prisoners, but the total number of a "thousand" POW is highly overbloated given the forces involved and also contradicts his earlier figures taken from single engagements that amount to a total of 790 KIA, WIA and POW on the Georgian side.^[5] Again something that doesn't add up and he refs solely one other Armenian source on that = one sided. Same with the claim that supposedly hundreds of POWs taken by the Georgian side were merely people arrested after the conflict - stating also Yerevan's POV on that which is not a credible basis for providing evidence. Same with a Tiflis' based POV and opposition POV and POVs in general. Either provide the casualty figures claimed by BOTH sides and not just limited to one side or stop continuesly deleting information from a more detailed source. Andersen does state that the Georgians during the Armenian first offensive lost hundreds of POW^[6] and he also refs Hovannisian on the 500 losses at Airum.^[5] However the operations around Ekhatarinenfeld for instance aren't mentioned at all, whereas Andersen goes more in depth and states the Georgians lost 100 while the Armenians around 200 before it even came to the Shulaveri operation.^[7] The Armenians were alos kicked out of several other villages and one of their army groups dispersed by Georgian cavalry when trying to regroup.^[3], not counting unsuccesful counterattacks mentioned by both authors. The most notable one with an actual figure in the Akhalkalaki theatre where the Armenians supposedly lost 100 men KIA in a single attack.^[8] With not even Andersen providing all the casualty figures and both sources have a number of dubious information and POV, it's plausible to keep the casualties "unknown" but at least use the numbers on troops provided and those of Andersen are actual numbers.^[9] TheMightyGeneral (talk) 13:02, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@TheMightyGeneral:, I've undone your edit with the casualty figure. This is not necessarily because I believe them to be incorrect, or final, but because they are not cited. I believe the cited figures should remain for the moment and the best end result is to fully disclose the spectrum of figures.--Labattblueboy (talk) 15:00, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Labattblueboy: Hey, I've reverted your edit but cited the figures this time. Those figures are cited in the article itself. I'm not holding back on using Hovannisian as source even though his work has some inconsistencies and partialy dubious POV or at least up to debate and better, more neutral research. Some of the figures from the two different major sources also match with one another. Only one provides more detailed information than the other and actual numbers on the troops part. TheMightyGeneral (talk) 00:52, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@TheMightyGeneral:No issue with you reverting my edit as I notice that it now contains citations, which was the primary concern all along. I haven't read into the sources sufficiently to provide a reasonably informed position one way or the other but what is there presently seem like a reasonable and comprehensive starting point.--Labattblueboy (talk) 15:34, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The 3,500 figure is given just for one battle, not the entire amount of Georgian troops deployed. The 1,000 Georgians isn't described as being "far less" than the Armenians. Page 13 doesn't mention 790 KIA, WIA and POW or 500. It seems you're distorting sources to suit your own narrative again. You're dead set that Hovannisian must be unreliable and biased because he's an Armenian, although he's an anti-nationalist. The fact he met the critera for a Wikipedia article makes him by far the most notable. Andersen had his article deleted because he wasn't notable, and I cannot even find any information on Partsakhaladze. --Oatitonimly (talk) 01:27, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry Oatitonimly, but your behaviour is unreasonably POV and become increasingly desperate. There are two sources describing the events, one more briefly than the other and stating that exact number and while Hovannisian does clearly not provide detail but just general information, Andersen gives a more detailed overview on the troop strenght of both parties and actual numbers. I also explicitly wrote ""More than 3,500 National Guard and People's Guard troops during the final stages of the war."" in the strenght section, that does not only cover one battle - an actual figure that can be found in both sources - maybe read them for once. There is nothing hard to understand, nor is anything equivocal. You just bluntly delete the relevant and also cited figures, including those of Hovannisian and I am "distorting sources" .... ? how does that work Oatitonimly ? "Page 13 doesn't mention ...." that is the total number of casualties from the entire extract of the read when you simply sum them up. Basic math. I just did that to show the inconsistency and contradiction and lack of information - thus it seems a better idea to keep it generalised, what I did. I also didn't exclude Hovannisian's claims on the casualty figure as you can clearly read. So, your edit and complaint on that point has no value. Again the "where is the 500 .... ?" - bringing up the same question over and over again I am now almost 100% convinced that you have not actualy read either of the sources. I don't pull those figures out of my bottom you see, I've cited them right in the article and right here. You just keep claiming things. Read Hovannisian, "The Republic of Armenia, Vol. I: The First Year, 1918-1919" page 113. Andersen, "Armeno-Georgian War of 1918 and Armeno-Georgian Territorial Issue in the 20th Century", page 29 Why do you keep deleting those information ? Now about Hovannisian. I don't think you seem to understand. It's about vague claims and lack of information / detail and he also just provides a personal POV on the result of the war, read page 119 and sorry your argument is completly invalid. First of all it's not about him being nationalist or not, citing only one sources and from one side is just simply one-sided and needs additional sources or better sources to either validate, discuss or put the information togheter, which I did respectively in the strenght and casualty section - again making your edit invalid. Secondly you've also repeatedly deleted information provided by Lang who is another well known historian specificaly on the Caucasus who meets the "criteria for a Wikipedia article" as you like to claim, being a noted academician. Which isn't the real issue in the first place. Further just because something doesn't suite your personal view - which is POV - doesn't make other source less valuable, especialy when they cite other work and in the basis agree with one another. Read and compare. Finaly, your edits in general seem highly POV driven as you keep ignoring and deleting cited figures without valid explanation and I do not accept your POV on this general topic. How many times do I have to provide and cite information from those sources until you understand it .... ? lastly, another thing you don't seem to understand: I don't do these edits to upset you or anyone, but eliminate ambiguities and keep it neutral. TheMightyGeneral (talk) 08:28, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed a large number of issues with this article, which I have resolved. Over half of the citations seemed to be from a self-published article written by Andrew Andersen and George Partskhaladze. Andersen formerly had a Wikipedia article that was deleted because he was deemed not to meet WP:PROF and WP:GNG, in a bizarre AFD that had over a dozen sock puppets appear to try preventing his article from being deleted. Partskhaladze apparently teaches "mashinery engineering" and is otherwise not a notable figure at all. Thus, this source is not reliable.

Another issue with this article was that there had no mention of the persecution of Armenians in Lori by invading Georgian troops before the war and persecution of Armenians in Georgia during and after the war. What's really odd is that Andersen and Partskhaladze would've known about this if they had read the Hovannisian source they are citing, but for some reason they decided it didn't merit any mention at all.

I rewrote the article and added more reliable sources by credible publishers, not something free from peer review where anyone can write whatever they want. --Steverci (talk) 03:03, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't resolve but bring the discussion back to the initial problem, namely the lack of impartial sources and as result having a very one sided article. The Georgians as well as Hovannisian and representatives of the Armenian government at the time are pushing their respective narratives, virtualy dismissing eachothers version of events entirely. If we took Hovannisian for instance, the irony of their description of the war is that it reads exactly like a triumphant against all odds victory of the opressed Armenians over numberless Georgian evil doers. The exact victory language they ridicule the Georgians for. I disagree with using Hovannisian and Armenian government officials that are consistently being referenced ( Djamalian ) in their work, especialy in relation to controversies like the ill treatment of Armenians ( which are heavy accusations ), as undisputed sources on this topic without any counterweight. Objectivity is completly gone out the window that way. Instead we should try to also find better Georgian sources as well as more impartial ones, before removing chunks of information and sources. This is a greater issue in my eyes. TheMightyGeneral (talk) 14:03, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all for finding a wide range of sources, however we should not use garbage sources just to get a view from a certain side. Andersen and Partskhaladze article, as far as I can see, is a preprint that isn't published anywhere. Partskhaladze himself is not a historian. Andersen's site has been used for very questionable claims on wiki which in the end were not confirmed by reliable sources. Hohvanissian's book (in spite of all his biases) is published by University of California Press. Let's attribute Hohvanissian's claims which are contested and let's try to find other reliable sources. Alaexis_¿question? 14:12, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with using better sources and it's not just Georgian. Hovannisian is expressing his personal views and recycling claims made by Armenian officials at the time, which aren't exactly reliable sources either. I'm still for digging those up first before making substantial edits using partial ones, especialy on particularily sensitive topics like repression.

What i noticed shifting through other sources like Troebst & Sikierski, is that they quote Hovannisian, some Andersen and Partskhaladze and leave it at that. This requires more in depth research I am willing to do and spend money on as most of the literature fully or partialy accessible on the internet offer only brief mention of the conflict. I just think it's inappropriate to give any conflict party narrative preference, which is exactly what would be the case. I agree that at the very least controversial claims should be attributed to whomever expressed them if I understand your correctly, and also avoid using different sources that just recycle the same ref.

Another reason is that I noticed the deletion of academic references Mikaberidze, Macfie, Smele and others in preference of leaving only Hovannisian and Chalabian as primary reference points to the whole article, which seems comicaly partial and one sided. TheMightyGeneral (talk) 16:49, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TheMightyGeneral Why did you remove the cv-revdel template? Those edits contained copyright violations and need to be revdelled under RD1 criteria. I'm on mobile otherwise i would, but can you please restore that? Sennecaster (Chat) 22:19, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sennecaster Hey yeah, reverted the whole article that‘s why. Sure will insert that back for admin review. Currently at work but its me.

TheMightyGeneral, what are the books or articles that you haven't been able to find? I might be able to help. Alaexis_¿question? 05:35, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've read Georgian sources have a very different account of the subject. Keep in mind that this is over a hundred years ago and should've now been researched to the point where we no longer need to simultaneously present two conflicting narratives as equal.

As Alaexis pointed out, Hovannisian's book was published in a third-party university. That probably makes it the most reliable source we have. I also understand it is tempting to call Hovannisian biased because his family name ends with "-ian" but he actually tries to give an even perspective of the war. He analyzes both of the Armenian and Georgian claims for winning and comes to the conclusion neither is accurate. If someone were familiar with Hovannisian and his family, like his son Raffi, they would know he actually has very anti-nationalist views.

For what I've heard Georgians say, I get the impression that Georgian sources claim they would've captured Yerevan if not for the British, which seems to be trying to revision the reality of Armenian forces being outside Tbilisi.

I provided a British source C. E. Bechhofer Roberts who supports the viewpoint the war was an Armenian victory obstructed by the British and French. This would support the "Armenian version" being closer to reality.

So while I agree more Georgian sources would ideally be good, it seems that the account in Armenian sources has a stronger due weight. Naturally, since Georgian historians want to claim victory was stolen by the British but the war never even left their pre-war borders.

Georgia had twice the population of Armenia at this time. I don't see why Georgia having numeric advantage is contestable.

I would also like to see a third party source claiming the persecution of Armenians in Georgia was exaggerated, if it is to either be removed or presented as a allegation.

Walker is not Armenian and confirms that Armenians in Lori and Georgia were being persecuted before the war. Ronald Grigor Suny is another source that confirms this, and Suny wrote a book on Georgian history that was well received.

If Georgian sources either call these persecutions exaggerations or ignore them completely, that speaks for their (lack of) reliability more than anything else.

Even Thomas de Waal, a very anti-Armenian source, confirms rising Georgian nationalism and persecution of non-Georgians, which he attributes to a cause of the war. He also cites Roberts, who confirms this as well. --Steverci (talk) 17:20, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Such as ? if you have or know of more Georgian sources about this conflict, please be so kind and mention or add them to the discussion. Sources disagreeing with certain versions of events or specific details is no reason to simply disregard them entirely like that, and then go on to quote mostly one faction narrative throughout the whole article. That's not how this should be done.

When you take a closer look, Hovannisian is referencing Armenian officials of that period, who supported what is considered a war of aggression from Georgian POV. That is very unreliable in terms of objectivity. Naturaly their official narrative will favour Armenia in any circumstance except for hard facts like third party intervention.

Here is the issue with that reasoning and your opinon that they somehow carried more weight: first of all a party can remain within their own borders to win a war. It's not a precondition to push them back all the way to their capital. The Armenians launched an offensive on disputed territory and the Georgians objective was to first of all repulse them. Fact remains, the conflict ceased due third party intervention and absolutely nobody knows how it would have progressed, as both sides claimed some successes in the last days of the conflict. However according to Hovannisian the Armenian offensive was exhausted by the point the Georgians mobilized enmasse and pushed them back with some 3,500 men. If the Armenian army was in such bad shape, sick and couldn't rely neither on local support nor supply anymore against an enemy that was gaining momentum and manpower, such assumptions become rather unlogical and unrealistic. From that POV it seems more likely that the Georgians would have eventualy outnumbered the Armenians in that theatre and potentialy beaten them back at least into the contested territories. Which probably wouldn't have been too difficult given the supposedly poor shape of the Armenian forces by that time. Unless that claim of a sick, tired Armenian army was untrue. Now, suddenly with those circumstances in mind, the Georgians threatening to advance further doesn't sound too far fetched.

"For what I've heard Georgians say, I get the impression that Georgian sources claim they would've captured Yerevan if not for the British, which seems to be trying to revision the reality of Armenian forces being outside Tbilisi."

- What people say and hearsay in general really has no bearing. If a source, preferably academic one concludes that the Georgian counterattack in the final days had such potential, than it is just as reliable as an Armenian source claiming victory. Preference should not be given.

Armenian forces resting several dozen kilometers near Tbilisi before the Georgians organized a large counterattack, is not disputed as far as I can tell. But neither is that the Armenians got pushed out of Shulaveri to Sadakhlo by a Georgian force that wasn't all too sizable either.

"he actually tries to give an even perspective of the war."

- Hovannisian is somewhat fair to the Georgians in some aspect of his analysis, namely when it comes down to exact numbers involved and when it can't be helped but to acknowledge when Armenians were rolled back and Georgians made gains. But Armenians keep making substantial gains even during their retreat, fighting typhus and being decicively outnumbered. Maybe all of that's true, maybe just half of it. It is an Armenian perspective no matter how we twist it. I also have nothing against that, but then where is the Georgian one ? we can't simply ignore it.

"Georgia had twice the population of Armenia at this time. I don't see why Georgia having numeric advantage is contestable."

Population size ≠ army size. A country's population is often not reflected in the size of it's military. Today 1 million more ppl live in Georgia than in Armenia, yet the Armenian army is quite larger. Something to consider.

Hovannisian claims the Armenian regular force for the offensive consisted of 28 infantry companies and 4 cavalry squadrons. No concrete number. Companies can range from 80 to 250 men. Add to that the active local support of the Armenian population in the Lori district, suddenly Georgian forces seem badly outnumbered until the fight eventualy enters Georgia proper, where the Armenians are outnumbered and cease to receive militia support. Only concrete numbers we got for Georgians were 1,000 and 3,500.

"If Georgian sources either call these persecutions exaggerations or ignore them completely, that speaks for their (lack of) reliability more than anything else."

That's quite the POV. If a source claims they were exaggerated and there was little to no evidence to support serious, more serious accusations or any to begin with, just statements, then those are valid objections and should be mentioned as well. My suggestion would be to insert a sub section under "Aftermath" titled "Persecution of Armenians" that deals speficialy with those events, and also include positions from both war parties and attribute their claims.

"Thomas de Waal"

- Thomas de Waal is a reporter, known for his controversial loaded statements and not exactly the prime candidate for historicaly accurate information as you probably know. If you're unhappy with his position and comments on certain events involving Armenia, then why do you think he was trustworthy commenting anything about Georgia ? just a couple lines above, he claims Georgians killed "thousands" of Ossetians. The Ossetians themselves state in a 2007 parliamentary assessment, that of the 5279 people who persished in that conflict, only some 669 died at the hands of Georgians. It goes vice versa with the sources you know. Plus contributed or "helped" doesn't necessarily equal caused. It is an odd statement to begin with since seizing those territories was in the interest of both countries and patriots. While Georgians moved to secure it based on their claims, the Armenians were the ones who actualy went to war over it. TheMightyGeneral (talk) 13:37, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can't read Georgian so I can't access any sources written in it, I'm just assuming what Georgians must be taught in school based on the similar claims I have seen many of them make. I see no reason to doubt Armenian sources of the period when they are more consistent with third-party accounts like that of the British. Since non-Armenians like Christopher J. Walker and C. E. Bechhofer Roberts confirm that Armenian civilians were being persecuted, and you haven't even provided a source to suggest this is even POV, there's no reason to doubt it.

And please learn how to use indentation. --Steverci (talk) 02:30, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be assuming quite a lot of things about Georgians, which first of all is quite the bias against a whole people, secondly has absolutely no relevance here to begin with and finaly raises the suspicion of purely POV driven edits. You have clear tendency to unconditionaly support the Armenian narrative in this and remove any source that even remotely supports the Georgian position. Including absolutely valid academic ones. On the matter of persecution I already made twice the suggestion to include the topic in this article. TheMightyGeneral (talk) 05:37, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted it back because your edits seem POV than anything else at this point. However I moved the article as I agree with the title change. I also re-added your "Persecution of Armenians in Georgia" and the Aftermath edits, with some adjustments, because you seem to completely disregard anything that even remotely gives the Georgian side a bone, including statements made by Hovannisian in the quoted paragraphs. Hovannisian himself suggests the conflict ended in a stalemate as both parties didn't reach their objectives. That conclusion is virtualy the most important part of his final breakdown, not the claim of who suffered fewer casaulties. Without it, this can in fact be read as an Armenian victory, something even your most reliable source as you put it, literaly disagrees with. Journalist opinon is completely irrelevant to academic research. It is also misinformation. Roberts claims the Georgians were routed and Armenians would have captured Tbilisi if the British didn't intervene. That is objectively false and unsupported speculation since the Georgians were only routed from Lori and had already counterattacked and pushed the Armenians back from Shulaveri all the way to Sadakhlo gaining a "considerable distance southwest of it" in just a few days before the ceasefire, according to Hovannisian himself. Regardless of a Georgian perspective, even Armenian academicians attribute the Georgian side some successes in their analysis of the conflict and don't declare it an Armenian victory, because the war factualy ended in a stalemate. TheMightyGeneral (talk) 06:15, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In any case it'll take a lot of time to improve this article. There are two possible starting points:

1. Start from Steverci's version, add back Mikaberidze, Macfie, Smele and then add sources representing the Georgian perspective.
2. Start from the current version, tag all contentious claims sourced to Andersen and then go one by one trying to find better sources.

I'm not an expert so I don't know which option is better. I repeat my offer of help with regards to locating sources. Alaexis_¿question? 16:50, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not for rash changes and the one narrative solution. I think it would be better to keep the current version as starting point and begin with adding "Persecution of Armenians" in the Aftermath section since that issue was raised, also because this version retains the aforementioned academic sources. From there, we can work on improving the article with more and better sourced material. That is my position.

On the matter of locating sources Alaexis, thank you very much for the offer. I think if we all contributed to this conscientiously, it will turn out great. I'll search, consolidate and share whatever worthwhile material I can find on the topic and contact you when I need help. TheMightyGeneral (talk) 17:55, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's definitely no reason to go back to the Andersen-Partskhaladze version because the article was largely built on a self-published source be unreliable authors. I tried to find a place for the Mikaberidze, Macfie, and Smele sources but they were all used for background info that doesn't really have much to do with the war. I've also since added a lot of information about the war that was previously missing such as the pillaging and arrest of Armenian civilians, as confirmed by outside sources. By all means, anyone is free to add more sources for a Georgian perspective as long as the sources are reliable. --Steverci (talk) 02:30, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

False. The article was built using all the sources mentioned, including Hovannisian and the other academic sources you removed again for no valid reason. They clearly contradict the Armenian narrative that Georgians didn't even try to use diplomacy, which now seems blatantly partial at this junction. Your edits also remove information from Hovannisian about force composition of the two warring parties for no good reason. You also try to support the Armenian narrative with hit pieces from journalists that contradict even Armenian academic conclusions. I'm genuinely starting to doubt your motives here. If you wanted this to be a well researched, netural article, it wouldn't be even remotely partial. All you've done so far is remove chunks of sourced information supporting a neutral narrative, replaced them with quotes and conclusions from Hovannisian and Chalabian, which represent a purely Armenian perspective, and conveniently cherry picked statements in favour of just Armenia. This is not an Armenian forum, it's an encyclopedia.TheMightyGeneral (talk) 05:34, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop edit warring on the article. It was agreed that Andersen and Partskhaladze are not reliable sources, so that old version of the article (largely edited by you) is no longer good. If you find reliable sources for anything on the previous version, feel free cite it. And please do not use language like "According to the Armenian side" for things that are confirmed by both reliable Armenian sources and non-Armenian sources, and which you still haven't even given any source to suggest that this information should be doubted at all. --Steverci (talk) 03:54, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Be my guest and stop. We have neither agreed that any academicaly sourced information should be removed, which you did regardless, nor did we come to a real consensus on Andersen and Partskhaladze. Virtualy only two people including myself offered compromises. However you still keep removing sourced information, including academic ones despite lenient changes, that support factualy mostly the Armenian perspective on certain events of the conflict. Virtualy with only Armenian sources and third party ones referencing almost exclusively them on those specific topics. Reverting the entire article back to a heavily partial version like that and ignoring recent edits, goes first of all completely against NPOV policy and secondly is Wikipedia:Edit warring as you do so without any consensus or compromise.

Another issue with your edits is that you remove not only potentially unreliable sources, but also academic ones, taking some heavy liberty in what you like to be left and what you quote. Due and undue weight is something to consider when editing articles, regardless of personal feelings and opinions. This is not the case with your edits, since you also remove academicaly sourced information that is not lenient with a purely Armenian position.

You also expressed personal POV and bias against Georgians, which puts your behaviour further in doubt.

We also seem to confuse "according to", which is perfectly in line with WP:WORDS neutral language, with an actual allegation MOS:ALLEGED, which is obviously not the case.

"In some types of writing, repeated usage of said is considered tedious, and writers are encouraged to employ synonyms (see elegant variation). However, on Wikipedia, it is more important to avoid language that makes undue implications."

"Said, stated, described, wrote, commented, and according to are almost always neutral and accurate. Extra care is needed with more loaded terms. For example, to write that a person clarified, explained, exposed, found, pointed out, or revealed something can imply it is true, instead of simply conveying the fact that it was said. To write that someone insisted, noted, observed, speculated, or surmised can suggest the degree of the person's carefulness, resoluteness, or access to evidence, even when such things are unverifiable."

"To write that someone asserted or claimed something can call their statement's credibility into question, by emphasizing any potential contradiction or implying a disregard for evidence. Similarly, be judicious in the use of admit, confess, reveal, and deny, particularly for living people, because these verbs can inappropriately imply culpability."

It is pointing out the Armenian position, as those claims are factualy origninating and quoted from two Armenian sources Hovannisian and Chalabian. No issue with that.

Here is another compromise suggestion: instead of completely reverting it back to a POV edit, the current article and academicaly sourced information from Mikaberidze, Macfie, Lang, Hille, Smele etc. should remain as they are. Only sections that require improvement, where we think a particular source may be unreliable and replacable, should be subjected to changes. Those are the diplomacy and war sections. From there, this article can be further expanded with NPOV in mind.TheMightyGeneral (talk) 09:05, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What irritates most is that when reading through Hovannisian, even he acknowledges the faults of both parties and shared responsibility in the escalation, despite him leaning heavily towards the Armenian narrative on more sensitive topics like persecution. You seem to want to leave those details out entirely. Like Armenian partisans and suspected army units attacking Georgian troops and formenting unrests. What is the purpose of only mentioning the transgressions committed by Georgian troops, which are claimed reactionary by the Georgian side ? these are all important details from Hovannisian's work. He literaly reproduces the position of both parties and states on p.104 that there was "doubtless validity to both claims." Again, don't try to turn this into a partisan article and respect NPOV. TheMightyGeneral (talk) 18:26, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edited the opening of hostilities with just Hovannisian as reference. He utilizes both sides views and arguments in this, so cease further revetrts and let's keep improving it this way step by step. TheMightyGeneral (talk) 19:40, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Steverci:, please stop reverting the article back to your POV edit. It is WP:DISRUPTIVE at this point, as you are removing improvements and refuse to further engage in the discussion. Your edits left out any position by the Georgians from the very academic source you reference and consider to be the most reliable. That is blatant POV. Recent changes address that issue and are in agreement with wiki policies. So cease. Your complaint is completely invalid at this point. Instead of thinking how to further intimidate fellow editors, take part in this discussion and make conscientious contributions. TheMightyGeneral (talk) 04:59, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let's try to fix the issues arising from the usage of Andersen & Partskhaladze (henceforth, AP) one by one:

“

The terms of the Armistice of Mudros between the Ottoman Empire and the Allies required the Ottomans pull their troops out of the Transcaucasus. The departure of the Ottomans created a power vacuum in the border area, in particular that between Armenia and Georgia. Armenia and Georgia began bilateral talks in November 1918, with Georgia sending a special envoy to Yerevan.[26] Simultaneously, Georgia invited the recently independent governments of the Caucasus to Tbilisi for a conference with the principal aim of addressing boundary delimitation and issues of common concern.[26] The general idea of a conference was well received by the Armenian government, however, the Armenia government took exception to the scope and quick timelines of the conference.[26] In particular, Armenia was not interested in discussing border issues at a conference.[26]

”

“

Armenia indicated it would participate, recognizing the rapidly changing political environment following World War I, but reemphasized that they would not discuss the issues of delimitation.[26][27] In general, however, Georgia was of the position that the border with Armenia should be inline with the border of the former Russian imperial Tiflis Province; whereas, Armenia was of the position that the border should correspond to ethnic composition or more historical boundaries.[28] The conference began in Tbilisi on 10 November with only the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic and the Mountainous Republic of the Northern Caucasus in attendance.[29]

”

“

The Armenia delegation initially stated that they were unable to attend due to poor rail service between Yerevan and Tbilisi.[30] The Georgian delegation suggested that the conference start be postponed until 13 November to accommodate, but Armenia declined for several reasons, including the lack or readiness and clarity on several issues.[30] The Armenian delegation continued to postpone, and in order to accommodate the Armenians, Georgia first postponed the start of the conference to 20 November and then to 30 November.[30] After the final delay, the conference fell apart, and five days later, on 5 December, the Georgian mission headed by Simon Mdivani left Yerevan.[30] Georgia subsequently informed Armenia of its willingness to exclude the discussion of boundary disputes from a conference program but Armenia once again delayed a response, allegedly due to sabotage of telegraph lines.[30]

”

The first and third sections are wholly based on AP. It does make Armenia look unreasonably obstructionist, so let's find better sources for it. The conference itself seems relevant to the article topic and there are other sources covering it so I don't agree with not mentioning it at all. Alaexis_¿question? 18:45, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Alaexis. I agree. I am currently working on replacing all dubious Andersen & Partskhaladze statements with more reliably sourced material as this issue was raised. I don't have time to do it all at once, but already cleaned up quite a bit using just Hovannisian for now with the difference that both positions are represented from their work. I think this is the proper discussion format for proceeding with the process. Steverci apparently refuses to take further part in it and has decided to resort to intimidation tactics, mentioning the issue already twice in a single day on the Administrator's noticeboard, the first time even with false accusations. I honestly doubt his intentions here. I agree that better sources than Andersen & Partskhaladze are needed, but at this point his other complaints are unsubstantiated.

I also don't see any reason why the other sections, that are not covered by Andersen & Partskhaladze should be touched, let alone removed entirely. They are all properly sourced.TheMightyGeneral (talk) 19:32, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the version with unreliable sources doesn't get to remain up while you look for more reliable ones confirming the same information (which is likely contradictory). --Steverci (talk) 22:13, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am genuinely trying to be fair with you, but you keep providing invalid arguments for your reverts. I am literaly using just Hovannisian in my recent improvements and properly quoting him. You leave out chunks of essential details provided in their work, that mention the position of both warring parties, and the fact they conclude that there was without doubt some truth in both. Those are Hovannisian's own words. That is blatant POV on your part. I will consequently add further third party sources after the clean-up. But if you care for proper editing according to guidelines, that is the only way to go about it. Your complete reverts remove vital background information, recent NPOV improvements and also figures, all provided by academic sources, including Hovannisian. Until you cease that disruptive editing, we won't reach a compromise.TheMightyGeneral (talk) 02:37, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TheMightyGeneral your latest revert includes (by my count) 7 references to A&P. You can't simultaneously accept they aren't a reliable source while reverting edits that remove them on that basis. It may well be that those edits also throw some of the baby out with the bathwater, but the bath can always be refilled. I'm going to undo your edit on that basis, but will continue to engage with you here. St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:56, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to ping Kober here too, as my edit effectively undid his also. From what I can see, there is plenty of good content in that edit. Though it might be frustrating, that content will need to be separated from the "bad" content that is sourced to A&P, and then re-added piece-by-piece. I know that represents a lot of work but any content here must be based on reliable sources and there is broad consensus that A&P are not a reliable source. St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:05, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stalwart111, that is a fair point. I will add them seperately without reverting it back to a version with A&P references. TheMightyGeneral (talk) 03:38, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TheMightyGeneral, well I would wait until you have WP:CONSENSUS here. Edit-warring to include your preferred version of content might be considered a breach of the bright-line WP:3RR rule. There's no rush. Just slow down for a bit. St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:49, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TheMightyGeneral, okay, never mind you've already edited again. Given you were the one who added the content originally, and you have reverted removal, and then re-added some of the content, that could probably been seen as WP:3RR, which is why I suggested you slow down. This doesn't have to be resolved today. St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:57, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stalwart111 noted, you are right. I will refrain from further edits for now per WP:3RR, however I hope Steverci accepts a compromise and ceases to bluntly revert everything to push their POV, because those changes are accurate and in accordance to what is actualy written in that very same academic source. TheMightyGeneral (talk) 04:05, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TheMightyGeneral, good idea. I don't think Steverci's edits were "blunt" per se, as they sought to remove content that relied entirely on sources that consensus agreed were not reliable. I wouldn't describe mine as blunt either, and it was substantially the same. But I believe you will have addressed some of his concerns by accepting that the content should not be added back in. As to whether the other part of your substantive edit should remain, that is a matter for discussion here. I should point out that while WP:BOLD encourages material to be added to an article, anything controversial should be discussed. That doesn't mean making edits you think are good, and forcing the community to keep them until you have managed to convince them. You convince them first, establish consensus for your edits, and then make changes to the article. So a good-faith version of this process would be to revert your own latest edits yourself and start a thread to discuss their inclusion. At a minimum, I would start a thread to discuss their inclusion. St★lwart¹¹¹ 04:17, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stalwart111 I advocate that as well and it applies vice versa, so I also expect that from Steverci. The actual problem is, not only content that relied on per consensus unreliable sources was removed, but also a lot of content with reliable ones. The other major issue is the use of Hovannisian quotes, which focused solely on statements of one of the warring parties, while excluding the position of the other, as well as other important details and conclusions from the very same academic source. My edits in "initial clashes" and "War" for example are reproducing those, nothing else. Why should either position and other key details be excluded ? it's not that I want the article to be more NPOV without any reason. The source, which mostly represents one side of the conflict, literaly supports those edits on the mentioned pages. TheMightyGeneral (talk) 04:52, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TheMightyGeneral arguably this discussion should have started after this edit by Steverci a few days ago; the first to the article in 4 months. In the few days since, you've both come dangerously close to WP:3RR. Unfortunately, TMG, you find yourself on the wrong side of consensus because his edits (whether he had agreement for them or not) removed problematic sources that everybody broadly agrees should not have been there in the first place. Would it have been more convenient if Steverci's "article overhaul" only dealt with those sources? Probably. But while others are always going to take a dim view of edit-warring, they will take a dimmer view of edit-warring that seeks to add unreliable sources. St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:37, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stalwart111 It wouldn't have just been more convenient, but also a far less problematic way to go on about it. Not only unreliably sourced material, but also quite a lot of well sourced content was removed entirely and again, with POV editing. To their credit, Steverci has started to re-add some of the recent changes, but still tends to exclude initial status-quo non-problematic ones, and alsocontent from the very same source they use to make it seem more partial. Anyway, like I said, for now I'll cease further edits on the article itself and listen to your suggestion to open an additional discussion section. TheMightyGeneral (talk) 08:59, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You say I'm "bluntly [reverting] everything to push [my] POV", but when Stalwart111 points out you keep restoring edits that you admit are not reliable, as I've been telling you this whole time, suddenly you say "that is a fair point". --Steverci (talk) 23:53, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because that is exactly what happened. While I admit the complete reverts on my part were also wrong as they restored the unreliably sourced content, I did so because you removed whole sections that were not problematic at all and left out important details from Hovannisian himself so that only the Armenian position was supported. You know that very well, since you finally agreed with adding the missing information as well. I also didn't do that with ill intent as I was improving the problematic sections and would have removed A&P form the equation entirely. So from here, I hope it continues like that, no bias, no POV and proper quotig from either of us. Do we have an agreement ? TheMightyGeneral (talk) 05:26, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Steverci:, first of all I appreciate that we are getting to some comrpromise and you included some of the suggested changes. However, why do you keep removing the following information quoted from Hovannisian:

(1)Intercepted orders from Yerevan revealed that the Armenians had planned a military offensive all the way up to the river Khrami in Georgia.^[1] On 14 December this was confirmed, when Armenian forces under the command of general Kanayan, launched a major assault.

However, their goal had been to seize land up to the Khram River, which captured Armenian documents had subsequently revealed in detail.^[2]

(2)The north, south, and east of Sadakhlu were controlled by the Armenians, while the Georgians had advanced a considerable distance southwest of the village.^[3]

(3) .... particularily those from the territories controlled by Armenian forces, were heavily persecuted and many were arrested throughout the war.^[4]

(4)The Georgian force lead by Mazniashvili (Mazniev) didn't just "begin a counterattack", they pushed the Armenians back from Shulaveri all the way to Sadakhlo and again, as Hovannisian states on p.119, "a considerable distance southwest of the village". The village Sadakhlo lies at the border of Lori. Considerable distance southwest of it would imply that the Georgians also pushed back into Lori, but I won't go there as Hovannisian doesn't specify the Georgian advances from that point.

(5) when you quote Hovannisian and he uses words like "occupied", why do you change it to "gained control of".

“

General Halil Pasha apparently kept the Armenian military better informed of the evacuation timetable than he did Georgian officials, and on October 18, Armenian companies attached to Dro's headquarters at Dilijan rapidly rapidly occupied southern Lori... (p.73)

”

Control can be gained under various circumstances that don't even have to involve force. Hovannisian makes it very clear that the Armenian took initiative when the Turks withdrew and "rapidly occupied" the southern part of contested territory.

Finally, "Adding "According to" is not MOS:ALLEGED. You have already brought that issue to the Administration board and it was deemed a non-violation.

I won't touch the content in question for now because seeing how we don't resort to complete reverts anymore, I have faith that we can find further comrpromise regarding those specific changes. However those quoting issus do remain and I trust that you adress them yourself. TheMightyGeneral (talk) 06:36, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1). Hovannisian describes the Khram information differently on page 108, seemingly that it was already public knowledge: "Also on the thirteenth, according to Mdivani, Dro revealed he had received orders to occupy all the Borchalu uzed south of the Khram River; preliminary activities were scheduled to begin in a few hours. It seems odd, at the very least, that Dro would have disclosed such top-secret information, but there were so many unusual facets to the episode that the account cannot be dismissed."

2). I updated the article.

3). What does this even mean? It makes it sound like Armenian forces were the ones persecuting Armenian civilians. The Hovannisian page being cited says this mostly took place in Tbilisi.

4). What is your proposed change?

5). Because by the definition of military occupation, the Ottomans were the occupiers, and the Armenians were just returning to territory they previously controlled. The quote you provided proves the area was held by nobody during the brief period before Armenian forces established control of it.

Nobody said it's not alleged, they just said it's a content issue that didn't justify admin intervention. It's not just Armenian sources, it's also British sources like Roberts and Walker, and even the Georgian investigation in Uzunlar confirms this. --Steverci (talk) 22:53, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alaexis This is a watered-down, overly simplistic narrative that does indeed make it appear the kind diplomatic Georgians are so eager to welcome everyone into their humble home to discuss things peacefully, but those devious Armenians kept delaying for reasons implied to be not genuine ("allegedly due to sabotage of telegraph lines").

The Hovannisian source provides a completely different picture on pages 93-99, and unlike A&P, actually provides details and substance:

The Republic of Georgia, in a conciliatory gesture, sent Simeon Gurgenovich Mdivani, a member of Parliament, to Erevan for negotiations. Yet at the same time the Georgian government initiated a diplomatic episode that gave affront to Armenia and evoked Armenian charges that Georgia was aspiring to hegemony over all Transcaucasia. (93)

This invitation was not intended, the interpretation of several authors aside, to give offense; yet so it did. Without preliminary consultation Georgia had dictated the time, place, participants, and agenda of the conference even though representatives of the other governments were then in Tiflis. A prominent non-Menshevik Georgian statesman has likened the invitation to "a circular of the Ministry of Internal Affairs" rather than an international communication. With the recent trouble in Lori fresh in mind, the Armenians found it most difficult to regard the Georgian maneuver as a gesture of goodwill. (94)

Still, [Djamalian] could not but regret that the Tiflis government had not thought it wise to conduct preparatory discussions regarding the organization of the conference. As it was, even if Armenia had actually been willing, she could not have selected and dispatched a delegation by November 3. In fact, because of communication and transportation difficulties, only on November 7, four days after the conference was to have opened, did a copy of the Georgian note reach Erevan. (95)

Nor did Armenia desire to recognize the anomalous confederative republic of Mountaineers, where Nuri Pasha and other Turkish officers still held sway. The lands of the Terek and Daghestan were not integral to Transcaucasia proper, yet the inclusion of the Mountaineer representatives at the proposed conference would serve to augment Muslim power throughout the region. (95)

On November 8, the day after Ramishvili's communique was received in Erevan, the Khorhurd of Armenia denounced the tactless Georgian proposal. Especially vociferous were the Social Democrat legislators, who hitherto had staunchly defended their Georgian comrades. Menshevik Ahraham Malkhasian now vilified the "dictatorial aspirations" of Zhordania's cabinet and termed its action "a violation of the principle of equality and evidence that one government is attempting to impose its will upon another." (96)

Also the last paragraph of that section which isn't included here claims: "Armenia indicated a readiness to give up claims in Akhalkalaki and Borchalo if the Georgians would help them in either retaking Karabakh or assist with historical territorial claims within Western Armenia". This is highly doubtful. The end of the paragraph includes citations by Hovannisian and A&P, but it is not included on the Hovannisian page cited (or entire book). --Steverci (talk) 22:13, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Admittedly, I know very little about this topic area, in fact with a bit of work I might be able to find some of these places on a map. So I come here with the sole purpose of trying to see if a resolution can be found. I will say that there is a bit of a logical fallacy woven through some of the previous threads in that editors have suggested that the existence of a Wikipedia article (or not) for a source is an indication of their reliability. Conversely, having a article here and then having it deleted (because the subject is not notable) isn't an indication that the subject is not a reliable source. Nor is retention or deletion a form of commentary (in Wikipedia's voice) on the use of that subject as a reliable source. That said, there seems to be broad agreement that the A&P source is not reliable for other reasons. By default, then, any material in the article that relies on that source should be removed until an alternate (reliable) source can be found. Are we in agreement there, or is that in dispute? St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:42, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stalwart111 That is correct. Principaly there is no disagreement in regards to A&P. While academic sources are referenced in their work, they seem to take some liberty in quoting them, particularily when it comes to some figures. I simply didn't care to remove them entirely because I was focused on the step by step improvement of the sections relying partialy or mostly on A&P. The greater issue is POV editing. While I generally have nothing against replacing A&P with better sources, {{u|Steverci]]s edit, instead of improving the material in question, removes whole sections that are academicaly sourced and have absolutely nothing to do with A&P, with the poor argument that it was too much background information. Their edits are also very cherry picky, as in quoting solely details and statements from their preferred source, to support the position of one warring party, when in reality said source ascribes credibility to both factions on the mentioned military events. Those edits also leave out vital details on the lead up to the war and intercepted Armenian invasion orders, which is all information from the same source they use to push their POV. TheMightyGeneral (talk) 03:13, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so that being the case, that content has to go, entirely. Your reverts re-included those admittedly bad references on the basis that you "didn't care to" separate good from bad. Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. As I said at WP:ANI, content can be made good, sources cannot. If you agree the sources are bad, the content that relies on them has to go. And they shouldn't be added back in because the edit you are reverting happens to also include some good content. If other sources are also bad, those should be dealt with too.

Importantly, though, that portion of the content that is good can be reintroduced if good sources can be found (per WP:RS and WP:V). It may well be that POV editing is the greater issue, in which case we should work on resolving that issue with better quality content that relies on better quality sources. St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:42, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stalwart111 I know, I agree with that and I acknowledge my mistake in that regard. I made the most recent changes without including A&P. Better sources will be consequently added. I think the A&P issue is resolved at this junction. You also make another good point. While A&P may have been poor in itself, they did quote academic sources that need to be looked into, which I will do TheMightyGeneral (talk) 03:52, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stalwart111 The criteria for which Anderson's article was deleted showed that he is at the very least not a good source, but it's true that alone doesn't necessarily make him unreliable. However, he's also a controversial figure that has pushed a lot of political agendas on his website. Which, by the way, is the primary source of his work, not a university or anything. Everything he has written is free from academic review and he basically got to write whatever he wanted. And if that isn't enough to convince you, his narrative of the war is very suspicious and leaves out many details seemingly to Georgia's benefit, as I have already pointed out. He makes no mention of the persecutions of Armenian civilians in land recently occupied by Georgia at all, leaving the reader with the impression the war was caused by Armenia invading Georgia out of some imperial ambition. He also leaves out many details of the conference Georgia tried to propose that would've been suicidal to Armenia's basic interests, leaving the reader with the impression Georgia was trying to create peace but Armenia was preventing them for shady reasons. What's really important to note is that Anderson and Partskhaladze cited Hovannisian's book several times, which means they were fully aware of all of this, and intentionally chose to make no mention of it.

Not sure who I'm replying to here. Regardless of why his article was deleted (or that it was deleted at all), his reliability as a source is a totally different issue. A professor can be a reliable source, but not one who has been published about to be considered notable here. Likewise, a very controversial professor might be notable because they meet WP:GNG, but their WP:FRINGE views might make them an unreliable source. Existence, notability, and reliability are completely unrelated concepts. There are also things written by academics and not subject to peer review (like in newspapers, journals, and other publications) that would still be considered reliable sources. That can be because of the publication in which it appears, or because the community here has judged that their particular method of publication might not be the same as an academic journal, but it is none the less subject to enough editorial oversight that we still consider it a reliable source. I understood your question to be rhetorical, but you don't have to convince me. You need to secure consensus from the community for your edits. It's as simple as that. St★lwart¹¹¹ 11:37, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While there are several references to AP, I don't see anything particularly problematic here. Am I missing something? Alaexis_¿question? 18:48, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The events described actually took place in November and early December before the war started. TheMightyGeneral seems to have written many things out of order and selectively cited partially to create completely different narratives. For example, the A&P version claims the war started with "the Armenian occupation of southern Lori in October 1918", giving the impression Armenia invaded Georgia, when it is actually referring to Armenian troops capturing territory formerly occupied by the Turks months before the war started. So it didn't involve Georgia at all.

And "changed hands several times until the Georgians ultimately retook it" very different from how the Hovannisian page being cited describes it as hardly having any fighting: "almost without challenge" (102). That page describes it as a "crisis" instead.

And of course the A&P version has no mention of what the crisis was caused by:

Armenian officials scoffed at the claim that the residents of Akhalkalak were Georgian subjects. Were this the case, why had Georgia sealed the borders to her own people and permitted thousands of them to perish? Only when the opportunity had come to annex Akhalkalak did Georgia suddenly discover that these unfortunate victims were actually Georgian citizens! (101)

The A&P version, in addition to being mostly built on unreliable sources, is very poorly structured. My update is much more better written. That is why I ask to keep in mind that the parts of the A&P version that are salvageable be moved to the new version, but the A&P version itself is too much of a mess to bother keeping.

It also puts too much weight on background information that isn't really important to this war that lasted less than a month, such as the Russo-Turkish War (1877–1878), Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, Russian Revolution, and so on. --Steverci (talk) 22:13, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To have a more accurate and complete picture, as well as mention of both parties positions, I think at very least the following details from Hovannisian's "The Republic of Armenia: The first year, 1918-1919," should be added. TheMightyGeneral (talk) 08:02, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strenght of the Armenian army

In Lori:
Three infantry regiments
(28 infantry companies) & four cavalry squadrons^[5]
Support from the local Armenian population and partisans^[6]
In Georgia proper:
12 infantry companies at Sadakhlo^[6]

Strenght of the Georgian army

In Lori:
Fewer, two armoured trains^[5]
In Georgia proper:
Two infantry regiments^[5]
1,000 troops and 1 armoured train at Sadakhlo^[5]
3,500 troops at Shulaveri^[6]

Commentary: the figures are mentioned on the respective pages.

Armenian casaulties

Heavy^[7]
Less than 100 taken prisoner
(Hovannisian^[2])

Georgian casaulties

Heavy^[7]
About 1,000 taken prisoner
(Hovannisian^[2])

Commentary: besides concrete numbers for the Georgians, Hovannisian also mentions heavy losses on the Armenian side, pp.113–119.

“

Other units raided Sadakhlu, but, as they came within range of the armored train, the Armenian troops for the first time sustained heavy losses. ... On the twenty-second the Armenians struck again and captured Sadakhlu station and the outskirts of the village, but were then hurled back once more by the Georgian troops and armored train. (p.113)

”

“

On the twenty-eight however, General Mazniev ordered a 3,500-men battle group to a full-scale attack and by nightfall had retrieved Shulaver and several smaller villages and had inflicted nearly two hundred casaulties upon the Armenians. (p.118)

”

Despite incomplete data on Armenian losses and the claim they suffered fewer casaulties in total, particularily the contrast of POWs taken, it is implied that both sides sustained heavy casaulties. TheMightyGeneral (talk) 08:26, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about mentioning heavy casualties in the infobox for both sides. If all we have is the two excerpts you quoted, the most that can be said is that Armenian casualties numbered at least two hundred. In the first quote, the words "heavy losses" are used to describe the outcome of one raid. What might be considered as heavy losses in that context does not automatically mean that the total losses can be described as such. Alaexis_¿question? 20:05, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From Hovannisian's side, yes. He mentions only few details on the combat, almost no concrete figures for the Armenian side. Kober provided me some Georgian sources that go more in debth on the military aspects of the conflict, that I need to sort out. They indicate that casaulties were in fact heavy on both sides and provide conrete numbers. I can already put Stevercis fears of an unbalanced narrative to rest, because most of those sources are very objective and balanced, netural in their description of the event. TheMightyGeneral (talk) 08:26, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, let's add those. Alaexis_¿question? 11:56, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think that just saying "heavy" is very vague and subjective. I think only real figures should be included. And also, going by the Mamatsashvili source, the only source Kober gave you I can read because it's not written in Georgian, it's definitely not objective or balanced: "They had been conditioned by the colonial policy of the Russian Empire and it was not the result of the natural development of these parts of the country." I will try translating the others later. --Steverci (talk) 22:53, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, Kober provided me several Georgian sources and also two international ones that I plan to sort out, it's a lot of material and right now I have other matters to attend as well. I didn't say all but most of them were fairly objective. I am not sure what you expect. Just as some Armenian sources are very dramatic and subjective in their language, statements and conclusions regarding this conflict, naturaly contradicting positions from some of the Georgian sources are to be expected too. Hovannisian's analysis isn't exactly the most objective source either, but we still use him as the primary one regarding military events and I am Okay with that. However it is lacking quite a bit of depth. My primary focus on this topic is the subject of warfare. If there are further details from the Georgian side, those should be included as well. There is a reason I take my time for this, so not to include subjective nonsense and journalist hit pieces ... and besides, since we are getting to some compromises I also don't see a reason to rush anything. TheMightyGeneral (talk) 11:57, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of the entire section "Russian revolution"

After the February Revolution, the Russian Provisional Government installed the Special Transcaucasian Committee to govern the area.^[8] However, following the October Revolution, the Special Transcaucasian Committee was replaced on 11 November 1917 by the Transcaucasian Commissariat centered in Tbilisi.^[9] The Commissariat concluded the Armistice of Erzincan with the Ottoman Empire on 5 December 1917, ending localized armed conflict with the Ottoman Empire.^[10] The Commissariat actively sought to suppress Bolshevik influence while concurrently pursuing a path towards Transcaucasian independence from Bolshevik Russia. This included establishing a legislative body, the Transcaucasian Sejm, to which the Commissariat surrendered its authority on 23 January 1918, following the dispersal of the Russian Constituent Assembly by the Bolsheviks.^[9] The secessionist and anti-Bolshevik agenda eventfully brought Transcaucasian into conflict with the central government. On 3 March, the Russians signed the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk marking Russia's exit from World War I.^[11] In the treaty, Russia agreed to return territory gained during the Russo-Turkish War (1877–1878), giving little care to the fact that this territory was under the effective control of Armenian and Georgian forces.^[11] The Trebizond Peace Conference, between the Ottoman Empire and the Sejm, began on 4 March and continued until April.^[12] The Ottomans offered to surrender all the Empire's ambitions in the Caucasus in return for recognition of the re-acquisition of the east Anatolian provinces awarded at Brest-Litovsk.^[13]

By this point, leading Georgian politicians viewed an alliance with Germany as the only way to prevent Georgia from being occupied by the Ottoman Empire.^[14] Consequently, the Georgian National Council declared the independence of the Democratic Republic of Georgia on 24 May and two days later signed the Treaty of Poti with Germany, placing itself under German protection.^[15][14] The following day, the Muslim National Council announced the establishment of the Democratic Republic of Azerbaijan.^[16] Having been largely abandoned by its allies, the Armenian National Council declared its independence on May 28.^[17] On 4 June, the Ottoman Empire signed the Treaty of Batum with each of the three Transcaucasus states, bringing the conflict with the Ottoman Empire to an end.^[18] The treaty awarded the southern half of the ethnically-Armenia Lori Province and Akhalkalaki district to the Ottomans but did not firmly delineate the borders between the new Transcaucasus states.^[19] In response, and to deny the Ottomans a direct route to Tbilisi, Georgian units supported by German officers took possession of northern Lori and established outposts along the Dzoraget River.^[19]

Commentary: important background information sourced with various third party academic material.

Inclusion of the entire section "Initial clashes"

In early October 1918, the Ottomans pulled back from southern Lori, which eliminated the territorial buffer between Armenia and Georgia.^[20] The Armenian military quickly filled the void by taking control of much of southern Lori on 18 October and in the absence of any resistance probed further north.^[21] The first incident between Armenia and Georgia occurred the same day when an Armenian army detachment seized the railway station in the village of Kober near Tumanyan, refusing a subsequent demand from the Germans that they withdraw.^[22] Another village Korinj was also seized. The Armenians withdrew when Georgia sent a detachment to confront them, but later returned to Korinj and also occupied Tsater.^[22] Armenia's ambassador to Tbilisi, Arshak Djamalian insisted that Armenian claims over Lori were indisputable, but his government wished and amicable solution "in the name of the century's-long brotherly relations of the two peoples".^[23]. The Georgian government agreed with a peaceful settlement in principal. However Armenian troops had to leave recently occupied villages and further operations within the Tiflis Governorate would be considered an act of war.^[23] The commander of the German military expedition reminded Djamalian that Germany was obliged to defend its protectorate. On October 24 the Georgian government declared martial law in Lori and deployed general Tsulukidze, ordering him to deal with armed formations behind Georgian lines. He was however instructed to avoid direct confrontation with Armenian troops that were occupying Korinj and Tsater.^[23] On October 26 the invading Armenian forces were ordered to return and left the two villages amidst the deployment of a Georgian contingent in the area.^[24]

Commentary: filling in important details of military activities and diplomacy before the imminent outbreak of war, according to Hovannisian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMightyGeneral (talk • contribs)

I agree that this is relevant background information. Alaexis_¿question? 21:19, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Changes in the section "Lori unrest"

In response to the Armenian occupation of southern Lori in October 1918, the Georgian side bolstered it's garrison in the northern parts.^[25] The local populace was required to provide quarters and supplies for Georgian troops and became subject to searches and undisciplined behaviour by the soldiers. In Uzunlar, the Armenian peasantry resisted the excessive search operations. In response, Georgian troops beat the village commissar and killed an official.^[25] A Georgian military investigation confirmed the Georgian soldiers had been the instigators and requested replacement of troops, but concluded that due to the organised nature of resistance, Uzunlar was to be searched and neutralized.^[25]

Commentary on the changes: The Turkish withdrawal would already be mentioned in section "Initial clashes". Hovannisian writes the Armenians occupied southern Lori on p.103, there is also no mention of the establishment of a state border on that page.

Changes in the section "Armenian offensive"

Intercepted orders from Yerevan revealed that the Armenians had planned a military offensive all the way up to the river Khrami in Georgia.^[1] On 14 December this was confirmed, when Armenian forces under the command of general Kanayan, launched a major assault. Their force consisted of 28 infantry companies, four cavalry squadrons, including reserves and was equipped with 26 machine guns and seven mountain cannons.^[1] Armenia had fewer men, provisions, and ammunition than Georgia, however their troops held the decicive advantige of penetrating into friendly territory, and enjoyed support from the local Armenian population and partisans.^[26] Armenian forces quickly made substantial gains. The 4th, 5th, and 6th Regiments advanced in three columns under Colonels Ter-Nikoghosian, Nesterovskii, and Korolkov, towards the line of villages, Vorontsovka-Privolnoye-Opret-Hairum.^[1] That afternoon, the Armenians had captured Haghpat, and General Varden Tsulukidze had been forced to evacuate from the Georgian headquarters at Sanahin. By 15 December, the Armenian army captured Vorontsovka, Privolnoye, Sanahin, Mikhayelovka, Alaverdi, and the heights between Haghpat and Akhova.^[1] The Georgians had left behind their dead and wounded. The Armenians had already captured almost a hundred Georgian soldiers, as well as many cavalry mounts, fifty freight cars, a locomotive, and several machine guns and mountain cannons.^[27]

Commentary on the changes Hovannisian mentions the fact that captured documents revealed detailed Armenian plans to seize territory in Georgia up to the River Khram, which is an important detail that confirms the planning and preparation of a hostile incursion, or invasion.

“

Captured Armenian documents subsequently published by the Georgian government indicate that Erevan had made detailed plans for seizure of the land up to Khram River, and Armenian military activity would seem to verify the authenticity of those documents. (p.111)

”

Another important detail on p.111 is Hovannisian's statement, that while the Armenian army had fewer men, provisions and ammunition, they had the decicive advantige of striking into friendly territory. There is also mention of the Armenian populace assisting the invaders. On p.118 Hovannisian states that the Armenian army had partisan support until they advanced beyond Lori, he also uses the word insurgents for them.

“

The Armenians had fewer men, provisions and ammunition than the Georgians, but they held the decicive advantige of striking into friendly territory. ... On the afternoon of December 14 General Tsulukidze reported that the Armenians had forced him to evacuate the Georgian headquarters at Sanahin and had surrounded Haghpat, where the inhabitants were assisting the invaders. (p.111)

”

“

Moreover, once the front had moved beyond the Armenian villages of Lori into the adjacent plain to the north, partisan bands had no longer advanced alongside the regulars. Instead the Armenian insurgents of Lori returned to their native villages, content with their victory and convinced that their land would be annexed to Armenia. (p.118)

”

I've finally come around to start looking through the sources ( partialy updated as of 2022 ) provided to me by Kober, in order to add more information and details from academic Georgian and other sources. Particularily and in the first place on military events, which I am interested in most. I will eventually, probably, look into the other sections as well, because some of them are plagued by the same issue. Lacking other or non-one-sided assortment of sources. For now though, it's all about the armies and battles. I've added a sub section and changed some headers, because the detail, complexity and scale, turns out to be much greater than I initially thought, about such a largely obscure and forgotten event. I'm dealing with over a thousand pages and more. So it will take some time.

Most of the sources I am currently using are unfortunately only in Georgian, but they can be easily viewed and simply translated.
https://dspace.nplg.gov.ge/bitstream/1234/389841/1/Somkhet_Saqartvelos_Omi_Nawili-I.pdf
https://openscience.ge/bitstream/1/946/1/MA%20Thesis.%20Pichikyan%20%20nac.pdf
https://digitallibrary.tsu.ge/book/2019/wignebi/sakartvelos-damoukidebeli-respublikis-entsiklopedia.pdf
I'll also look into Eric Lee's "The Experiment Georgia's Forgotten Revolution 1918-1921" that partialy covers the war.
TheMightyGeneral (talk) 17:58, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I've added info on the Armenian and Georgian armies. Will focus on descriptions of the battles next. I won't touch Hovannisians and other Armenian claims, but if available, will include information and figures provided by the Georgian side, seperately from them, so that NPOV is preserved.TheMightyGeneral (talk) 15:57, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Both Georgians and Armenians consider this war as their own victory, but a neutral point of view is needed in English Wikipedia.Since this article is constantly being edited, I ask you to protect it. 5.152.106.148 (talk) 14:37, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kober 5.152.106.148 (talk) 14:41, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a protection is warranted at the moment. It would help if you could find sources - ideally not associated with the sides of the conflict - that discuss the outcome and describe it as inconclusive. Alaexis_¿question? 21:34, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I take the same view as Alaexis. The use of any protections for the purpose of advancing a particular viewpoint isn't appropriate. The talk page exists to facilitate constructive resolution.-Labattblueboy (talk) 02:17, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Someone please explain why it is labeled as "both sides claim victory." Peachy1621 (talk) 05:05, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]