Talk:Khojaly massacre/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 9

Greek help ?

In the table titled "Important people, places, countries, and events of the Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict", and in the column titled "Military aid: To Armenia and NKR", Greece is named as one of the countries which provided military assistance to Armenia and the NKR. On what evidence is this claim made ? The Gnome 23:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Photograph

I've removed the photograph as it does not come from a reliable, third-party source. Please do not re-add it. - Francis Tyers · 06:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I have rephrased the deleted info to clarify the "relevance." The fact that the declaration was drafted by a Turkish official, the fact that 20 out of 30 signatories were Turko-Azeri, and the fact that it coincided with the Armenian Genocide draft, all suggest that 1) the declaration, rather than reflecting the truth, was a political ploy by the Turko-Azeri alliance; 2) that the purpose of the ploy was to kill two birds with one stone--a) propaganda against Armenia and b) eclypsing and then squashing an Armenian Genocide draft. These two points, coupled with the draft's contradiction with Azeri claims, would further suggest that the imaginary "Khojali Massacre" was more of a fiction than reality. I think the relevance is not just existing--it's glaring. And sense the info is not readily apparent to the reader, its deletion would be criminal.--TigranTheGreat 19:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Statement is full POV we dont have personal interpretation here.--Dacy69 20:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

imaginary "Khojali Massacre"? Are you serious? Grandmaster 20:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

You two can drop it aswell, stop rising to the bait. - Francis Tyers · 22:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tigran, drop it. You know you are in the wrong. This is probably the best article on the NK conflict precisely because we don't have the childish sniping that marks the rest of them. It isn't going in. If you add useless cruft, they'll want to add useless cruft, but you won't like their useless cruft and they won't like yours, then you'll remove theirs and they'll remove yours, and we'll find ourselves in one of those exceptionally tedious conflicts, that could be avoided by spending your time more productively elsewhere. - Francis Tyers · 22:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Dacy you have again disrespected the arbitration ruling, the arbcom ruling requires explanation and not blunt claims like the above. Every bit of information was accurate, 20 of the 30 people who signed were either from Azerbaijan or Turkey. PACE documents provide the person having drafted the declaration, and all those informations are on the page from the official website linked already on the page. Either provide any example of POV in the addition or quit this revert warring.VartanM 23:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Very courageous, manly, ballsy attitude, Francis. "Screw what's relevant, let's just label unwanted information as 'cruft' and exclude it." If only we could find that brave, ballsy, masculine energy in you while Grandmaster was adding his useless verbatim quotes to the NK article. Now, Francis, how do we channel this new-found courage to remove all the cruft in the NK article?

And no, I don't know I am in the wrong, because I am not. If you judge the value of an article on the "shut-the-mouth" scale, a significant portion of the very badly written articles are in such a category, and the "shut-the-mouth" is due of fear of another conflict rather than approval. I am not adding anything new, I am adding more information on something which is already there. How the person who prepared the draft is not relevent given that he is on the top of the list of Turkish officials in Europe who are the most active in the denying of the genocide. Explain how that most who signed the draft are either from Azerbaijan or Turkey is not relevent? Those informations are relevent as in any other articles. You know that some draft by a political activist would be deleted as it has no historic value, but here it became OK. The written declaration isn't even about Khojali, it is about an "Azerbaijani genocide," something which you have yourself claimed to be trash if you remember. So explain me now, how the clarification that even the Azerbaijani autorities do not make claims included in that draft is not relevent?

Do you think just because I don't edit this article anymore it means in any way that I think it is fine, I find this article to be one of the worst of its kind, I just don't touch it because we know that Grandmaster and the other editors will charge all together and turn this once more into a battleground. Because believe me, I do have sources from other organizations dismissing the information like Dan Sneider a correspondant etc., but I know that I can't add anything at all, because here only vocal users make their point accross. This is also basically why I don't edit much anymore.--TigranTheGreat 00:47, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Good, because you're in no position to judge what is bad and not. - Francis Tyers · 11:04, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Ugh, what a mess the NK page has become. We need to remove those ridiculous quotes. And please, do not assume just because I have not commented it means I'm supporting Grandmaster. He can be as absurd as you. - Francis Tyers · 11:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Francis, you removed from the NK article any mention of Resolution 1416, adopted by the PACE. I don't think it is a right thing to do. We can shorten the quote or provide a summary, but this is an important international document on the subject, which should be mentioned. And NK article has recently been edited mostly by anons, as acitve editors refrained from editing this article. Grandmaster 11:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Shorten it so that we give equal time to both sides, and don't use {{quotation}}. - Francis Tyers · 11:50, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The other side is basically Armenia, as no country in the world recognizes independence of Karabakh. There was a short description in the older versions of the article, someone decided to add more quotes from this document. Grandmaster 16:16, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Francis, I second Tigran and I request a second opinion, your brute reply above was unwarranted. 20 of the 30 persons who signed it were either from Turkey or Azerbaijan. This draft won't make it in any other article and you know it. Some of the 10 non-Turkish or Azerbaijani members are from cocuses working for the incorporation of Turkey in the EU, who took the bait after the Armenian draft was presented. This includes Tadeusz Iwinski [1], Younal Said Loutfi from Bulgaria, who has studied in Turkey. [2]

The draft/trash is the following:

Genocide became an integral part of the Azeri history starting from the partition of the Azeri lands with the treaties of Gulustan in 1813 and Turkmenchay in 1828. The Armenians carried out massacres against the Azeris in 1905-1907 in order to achieve "the Greater Armenia". In March 1918 the Armenians purged the Azeris from Baku, Shamakhy, Guba, Garabakh, Zangezur, Nakhchivan, Lankaran and other regions of Azerbaijan. With the help of the Soviet regime, Armenia annexed Zangezur and other Azeri lands in 1920. The Communist regime deported the Azeri population from their historical lands in Armenia to Azerbaijan from 1948-1953. From the beginning of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict in 1988 hundreds of thousands of Azeris were deported from their historical lands. On 26 February 1992, Armenians massacred the whole population of Khodjaly and fully destroyed the city. Armenian separatism in Nagorno-Karabakh and the ongoing Armenian occupation of 20 per cent of the Azeri territory has resulted in thousands of deaths and more than a million refugees. The undersigned, members of the Assembly, appeal to all the members of the Parliamentary Assembly to take the necessary steps to recognize the genocide perpetrated by the Armenians against the Azeri population from the beginning of the 19th Century.

No political draft like this will ever make in any other articles. It is even not about Khojaly, either we delete it, either we clarify about it, you decide, because if we ask a third party editor he'll agree. The draft was a counter measure to this. [3]

Can you tell me where the POV is? That most who signed it were either from Azerbaijan or Turkey? That even Azeri officials do not make those claims about Khojaly? That there are no other records making those charges about Khojaly? That it was prepared by a high official of the Turkish republic a day after the Armenian genocide draft was prepared on the day of the Armenian genocide commemoration?

Tell me which one of those is a personal interpretation? Which is a position? Which are not facts which are not substantiated? Francis, do we start a request for comment? Ask Grandmaster the last time he had a conflict on whatever or not include advocate organizations what a third party editor told him? This matter isn't even about advocacy. I advise you to read Tigrans proposition one more time and trace which information is POV and discuss. VartanM 20:20, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The draft is published by a reliable source. Your interpretation (that it was a response to the Armenian Genocide) draft is not. If you would feel more comfortable, and in the spirit of compromise, we can list the precise numbers of delegates from each country which signed it. On another note, people reading this page will notice the difference between the official death toll and the one in the declaration, we do not need to spell it out for them (as doing so would be original research). - Francis Tyers · 13:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Francis, it does not qualify as a third party source, there is no peer review and no fact checking, there is a message on the draft which says that only those who signed it support it. If there is a Palestinian deputee from a European state, he could submit such a draft claiming a genocide against the Palestinians. Therefor everything could be printed, the reliability of the source only applies that its published as is and that there was no fact checking. You claimed yourself that we should use neutral sources, how is it neutral to use the draft of a Turkish official who is activly denying the Armenian Genocide? It's fine, you do not want a clarification, so I will submit this article to RFC and I am sure that third party editors will agree of its deletion. VartanM 22:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

It qualifies as a third party source because it is published on a third party website... the PACE site. We do not say that "all of them were killed", we say that "these deputies signed a resolution that said..." which is verifiable, attributed and neutral. If you think that PACE is not relevant then we can remove it from all articles, but I think they are notable enough to be included. You're right, a resolution could be published describing a Palestinian genocide, and I would support it being included on the appropriate articles... providing it was attributed and sourced. If you have a declaration, or resolution published by the Armenian government (or supra-national authority) that takes a denialist stance, that should also be included. - Francis Tyers · 11:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

You mean deletion of the whole article? --Grandmaster 09:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

No he means deletion of the draft. - Francis Tyers · 11:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• The photograph survived a deletion review and will stay, and there is nothing wrong with the source, there is no consensus for removal, do not remove it again Bleh999 01:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no consensus actually for the addition of this OR. The question of Armenian massacres in Ottoman Empire has absolutely no relation to Khojaly Massacre in 1992 in Azerbaijan. So attempts to link the two are nothing but disrespect towards the victims of this massacre and/or use them for the political purposes. There is more than sufficient evidence recorded in various forms, showing that Khojaly massacre was committed by the Armenian forces. Atabek 07:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

You Tube

VartanM, you removed the YouTube video link commenting to see WP:YOUTUBE, which says:

"There is no blanket ban on linking to these sites as long as the links abide by the guidelines on this page (which would be infrequent). See also Wikipedia:Copyrights for the prohibition on linking to pages that violate intellectual property rights."

This is a video(!), which evidences the massacre, which is already documented by reliable media and scholarly sources. But since you choose to refer to the not-well-defined policy, perhaps, we should also ask, what's the authenticity of [4] and [5]. Also, I am not an expert on spiritual or moral matters, but what's your opinion on deliberate removal of evidence, link or reference to blinding, maiming and brutal murder of a 3-4-year old child by as you would call it "heroes", "liberators" or "fedayins", relating to the topic of this article. Is this also WP:SOAP? Atabek 16:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Atabek, the reason the video was removed was because it violated WP:Youtube. "Wikipedia:Copyrights for the prohibition on linking to pages that violate intellectual property rights." I'm not here to express my opinions, just trying to keep the article within Wikipedia policies. You have to apply your non expert abilities on someone else. As for the pictures of the Armenian Genocide you should follow what you preach and stop the WP:SOAP --VartanM 01:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Parishan, that video may not be copyrighted by PEH TV, but by someone else. From my past experience, I know that generally, Youtube videos are to be avoided. Also just a side note ,The Armenian radio communication and the English subtitles don't correspond with one another. VartanM 01:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

VartanM, I don't see a reason for your attacks above, saying: "You have to apply your non expert abilities on someone else". Please, assume good faith and answer the simple question, if YouTube videos do not qualify for addition (which was not true, as I brought the whole reference above, which says "there is no blanket ban"), then how would the images indicated establish an authenticity [6] and [7] of being related to Armenian massacres in Anatolia. Can you please, answer this question without absolutely unnecessary attacks. Thanks. Atabek 23:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Atabek, I don't see any attacks, you yourself said that you're not an expert, I only repeated what you said. And your report to arbcom was an assumption of bad faith. The pictures you mention are in public domain, while the video is not. The person who uploaded that video is violating the copyright law and linking to that video is not allowed per WP:Youtube. Here is the rest of that policy, I'm bolding it, because I don't want to repeat myself again

"See also Wikipedia:Copyrights for the prohibition on linking to pages that violate intellectual property rights." VartanM 03:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

VartanM, please maintain civility, your "advise" statement above to apply my "non-expert abilities on someone else", is incivil. You have been warned now. Can you provide us with evidence that the pictures there are in public domain? But the most important, I would like to see how [8] and [9] actually related to Armenian massacres in Anatolia?

Also, Khojaly.net owns the copyright on whatever it posts, so I don't see how linking to its page would violate Wikipedia:Copyrights, when Khojaly.net is not hosted on Wikipedia. But the most important question is, what's your moral stance removing images or videos of Khojaly Massacre while at the same time supporting the recognition of Armenian massacres as genocide? Do you think the extreme savagery, with which those innocent children on pictures or videos were murdered, should not be made public because those children were Azeri? Atabek 16:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Atabek, was that comment civil when you made it yourself? You need to assume good faith and stop soapboxing this talkpage with Armenian Genocide pictures, which are in public domain in the US and are sourced accordingly. About my moral stance I will repeat what I said before. I'm not here to give my moral stance I'm only trying to keep this article according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

Here are a few I'm aware of

WP: What Wikipedia is not

WP: Reliable sources

WP: Verifiability

WP: Neutral Point of View

WP: Assume Good Faith

There would be less hostility if we all followed them. VartanM 18:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

VartanM again you're assuming bad faith, asking for verifiability of one set of publicly available pictures while failing to answer the verifiability of the other set. Same as the images of "Armenian Genocide", Khojaly Massacre pictures are also a public domain. So what's the point you're making? And how does your point actually fall into NPOV? The fact is, there were two massacres of human beings, you try to remove the pictures and videos of one, while also insisting that the second one is genocide and use another set of pictures to prove your point. Apart from moral side of the issue, and clearly point taken along national lines, I don't see how NPOV such position would be. Atabek 21:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Atabek, all of my edits were justified by wikipedia policies. You on the other hand are breaking WP:AGF, WP:NPA and WP:SOAP. Atabek stop accusing me of bad faith while you yourself haven't done so yourself, stop the personal attacks and discuss the subject of the article not the contributor, Stop bringing up Armenian Genocide, the two are not connected and have nothing in common.VartanM 21:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

VartanM, Your removal of EXTERNAL links to videos violates WP:NPOV and WP:POINT. Because you can't claim Wikipedia:Copyright violation for an EXTERNAL link to the website that's not on Wikipedia servers, you can't prove copyright violation by that external source either. Hence external links were legitimate, and your attempted removal of them is nothing other than engagement in sensitive conflict along national lines. And yes, Khojaly massacre in 1992 is not any different from Armenian massacres in early 20th century, I don't see why one should be treated more favorably than the other. And I haven't attacked you personally, so calm down and WP:AGF, especially since you can't substantiate such claim. Atabek 22:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Atabek, unlike you I'm very calm. I did not remove External links. The only link I removed was the Youtube video, which in fact did violate WP:Youtube and WP:Copyright. I refuse to answer the rest of your SOAP. VartanM 22:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

You haven't provided sufficient argument how that particular YouTube video, showing the report by Russian NTV, violated the copyright in Wikipedia. Assume good faith, and calm down. I am not concerned whether you answer or not. Thanks. Atabek 22:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The video was a news report by Russian PEH TV not NTV, not that it makes any difference. As for my argument see Wikipedia:Copyrights for the prohibition on linking to pages that violate intellectual property rights. The video is copyrighted to PEH TV and YouTube is violating intellectual property rights by hosting it. If Wikipedia links to the video it will indirectly be in violation of copyright as well. VartanM 23:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

If YouTube, obviously did not violate the IP rights, by hosting a fragment of PEH TV report, I don't see how Wikipedia would be violating it by EXTERNALLY(!) linking to the report, not copying video file on its servers. Your position is not well substantiated, most importantly, because the video report is already in public domain through YouTube, so how could Wikipedia be violating copyright by showing link to what exists anyway? Even if PEH TV copyright would apply in this YouTube video, the link to YouTube website is not copyrighted. Atabek 00:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Er, YouTube can and will remove videos if they are alerted that some stuff violates copyrights. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 03:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Atabek, I'm not the one who made the rules. which clearly say that linking to sites that violate copyright laws are prohibited. That video is copyrighted by PEH TV and YouYube violates copyright laws by hosting it. Wikipedia prohibits linking to the pages that violate copyright laws. It's that simple, and I'm getting tired of repeating myself. VartanM 00:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with VartanM on this. The external link policy prohibits linking to external sites that violate copyright. (However note that some YouTube videos may be acceptable if the uploader has permission.) Unless the uploader received permission from the Russian TV network to post the video, then it can not be linked to. If you have the air date of the broadcast and other necessary details, you can of course use it as a reference, since references do not have to be accessible on line. Thatcher131 12:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Whether to include the photo

The photo appears to have a valid Fair Use rationale. If you want to delete the photo or disallow it on copyright grounds, you should pursue that at Images for deletion and allow users not involved in the dispute to review the copyright claim. The argument you should make on this page is that the image should be included or excluded as an editorial decision based on its content in relation to Wikipedia:Image use policy. Thatcher131 02:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

TAGs added

I wasn't removing the photo due to copyright issue but because it came from unreliable sources. Administrator user:Francis Tyers removed it for the same reason in July but it was restored due to the faulty logic that it survived deletion due to copyright issues. User:Iberieli's edit warring (I think he's upset that I nominated one of his articles for deletion) has forced me to add tags. Iberieli has actually done good due to wrong reasons as it's forced me to look at the article more closely and I believe that the article has more wrong with it than just the images, so the POV tag will stay until neutrality can be added to the article. The article does not sufficiently present the view of the Karabakh forces that took Khojali, there are plenty of neutral sources out there that do. Also, the article uses a PACE resolution that borders on racism and historical revisionism and this should be mentioned in the article. I could go on. Pocopocopocopoco 04:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Tags are not justified. This article is based on neutral sources only and does not reflect POV of one of the sides of the conflict. Grandmaster 05:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The "Massacre by Armenians Being Reported" (officially from NYT) firstly cited in the article: "Fresh evidence emerged today of a massacre of civilians by Armenian militants in Nagorno-Karabakh, a predominantly Armenian enclave of Azerbaijan. The Azerbaijani press agency Azerinform reported renewed Armenian missile fire on the Azerbaijani-populated town of Shusha on Sunday night. It said several people had been wounded in another attack". Is the Azerinfo a reliable source and even were they witnesses (were the Azerinfo journalists in Khojaly in the marked days)?

UPD: The second source by "Time" :

"While the details are disputed"- is this a reliable article? I must add that author is from Moscow, is he a witness?

"this much is plain: something grim and unconscionable happened in the Azerbaijani town of Khojaly two weeks ago"- they didnt use the term of massacre in the text!

How that 2 sources (rather not reliable) prove this text: "According to the Azerbaijani side, as well as Memorial Human Rights Center, Human Rights Watch and other international observers,[1][2] the massacre was committed by the ethnic Armenian armed forces"?... Andranikpasha 22:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

NYT says that the massacre was committed by Armenians. Azerinform is not the only source used in the article. HRW and Memorial also say that the massacre was committed by Armenians. The same say Thomas de Waal and even Armenian Markar Melkonian and Serge Sarkisian. There are more than enough sources, so the tags are not justified. Grandmaster 09:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Is there any citation for HRW, Memorial, Melkonian or Sarkisian in the NTY? And what about "Time"? Andranikpasha 09:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

You can find all the quotes on this talkpage or archives. It has been discussed many times. Grandmaster 10:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but how can I be sure? I cant find anything more. Just what I represented. if there are quotations why you dont represent it in the referneces for the article (to be easily find and check if it is a reliable one). And please answer about Time. I dont think if its a good source! Andranikpasha 10:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Massacre in Khojaly

The blood feud between Armenians and Azerbaijanis claims 200 civilians

By JILL SMOLOWE

Mar. 16, 1992

While the details are disputed, this much is plain: something grim and unconscionable happened in the Azerbaijani town of Khojaly two weeks ago. So far, some 200 dead Azerbaijanis, many of them mutilated, have been transported out of the town tucked inside the Armenian-dominated enclave of Nagorno- Karabakh for burial in neighboring Azerbaijan. The total number of dead -- the Azerbaijanis claim 1,324 civilians were slaughtered, most of them women and children -- is unknown. But the facile explanation offered by the attacking Armenians, who insist that no innocents were deliberately killed, is hardly convincing. [10] Grandmaster 13:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Note the last line, the author does not find convincing the claim of the Armenian side that they did not deliberately kill civilians. Also note the title of the article. Grandmaster 14:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Grandmaster note that your engaged in WP:OR Titles are used to sell newspapers. note that the text itself never uses the word "massacre"VartanM 15:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Removed Adil Baguirovs site from the external links. For obvious reasons.VartanM 15:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Time calls it "Massacre in Khojaly". Pretty clear and obvious. Grandmaster 10:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Human Rights Watch take on the incident

From this source:

Whichever side held the strategic advantage in Nagorno Karabakh at any given moment was the one that most egregiously violated the rules of war. While Azerbaijani forces held outposts in Shusha and Khojaly, they pounded the capital of Nagorno Karabakh, Stepanakert, and other Armenian towns and villages with shells and grenades. The indiscriminate shelling and sniper shooting killed or maimed hundreds of civilians, destroyed homes, hospitals and other objects that are not legitimate military targets, and generally terrorized the civilian population. During the winter of 1992, Armenian forces went on the offensive, forcing almost the entire Azerbaijani population of the enclave to flee, and committing unconscionable acts of violence against civilians as they fled. The most notorious of these attacks occurred on February 25 in the village of Khojaly. A large column of residents, accompanied by a few dozen retreating fighters, fled the city as it fell to Armenian forces. As they approached the border with Azerbaijan, they came across an Armenian military post and were cruelly fired upon. At least 161 civilians are known to have been murdered in this incident, although Azerbaijani officials estimate that about 800 perished. Armenian forces killed unarmed civilians and soldiers who were hors de combat, and looted and sometimes burned homes. In its counter offensive, launched in the summer, Azerbaijani forces indiscriminately bombarded Armenian towns and villages from SU-25 aircraft and ground-launched missiles. The Armenian government does not categorize civilian casualties according to the circumstances of their death or injury. Based on interviews conducted in November with more than 50 civilians who were witnesses to or casualties of indiscriminate air bombings, Helsinki Watch estimates that at least 56 civilians were killed as a result of these attacks in August and September alone.

So what we get from the source above:

1) Azerbaijan was using Khojaly to pound Stepankert with shells and grenades
2) Armenian forces then went on the offensive and forced the population of Khojaly to flee
3) A group of civilians accompanied by soldiers came across an Armenian military post, were fired apon and killed.

This should be reflected in the article. Pocopocopocopoco 16:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Off course, especially when HRW cited not by an article in NYT (untill now we hadnt the quotation proving that...) but by its official site!Andranikpasha 16:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I have added some information about Azerbaijanis and journalists doubting the official story presented by Baku. All of it is from nkrusa.org who in turn has in-line citations showing from where it got all its information (7 different sources), most of them Azerbaijani newspapers. - Fedayee 21:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

There are many facts about this imaginary "massacre" that have been omitted from the article for some reason. Including the fact that the overwhelming majority of civilians were killed right on the boundary between the Azeri and Armenian forces, miles away from Khojalu. --TigranTheGreat 01:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

nkrusa.org is not a reliable source, it is a partisan source with an obvious agenda. All the info from that source should be removed. Note that we never used any Azeri source here. And the quote attributed to Cornell is actually from the pro-Armenian author Christopher Walker. Cornell quotes Walker and criticizes him for being an apologist for the Armenian side. However the quote was taken out of context and attributed to Cornell, while Cornell blames Armenians for the massacre. Such misrepresentation of sources is not acceptable. Grandmaster 10:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

And this is the actual quote from Cornell:

The shock of Khojaly

The attack was ostensibly carried out as a response to artillery fire from the town on the Karabakh Armenian capital of Stepanakert, only seven kilometres away. However the events that followed showed another side of the conquest. Khojaly was the victim of ethnic cleansing of the worst kind. A significant part of the civilian population of the town, numbering 7,000 before the attack, was mutilated and killed, and the remaining population was forced to flee eastwards to Agdam to seek refuge. As is the case in most instances of ethnic cleansing, the atrocities carried out by the aggressor served a double purpose: they forced the population to flee and never to return, as well as intimidating inhabitants of nearby villages, causing them to fear similar actions. The death toll at Khojaly is debated; Armenians, naturally, tend to understate estimating the number of dead civilians at less than a hundred; furthermore Armenian sources, in the rare cases where they mention the event, blame the Azeris for using Khojaly as a base for rocket attacks on Stepanakert. Moreover, they blame the Azeris for using the Khojaly residents as human shields, and claim that the civilians were caught in cross-fire rather than massacred. Other authors, including experts on the region close to the Armenian position, embark on an emotion-laden defence of the Armenian side's ethnic cleansing policies, seeming to have difficulty in comprehending that both sides to a conflict commit atrocities and that no one side is totally blameless. A quotation from Christopher Walker, a well-known expert and author of several books on Armenia, is enlightening:

“ In a controversial action, the Armenians took control of Khojalu in February 1992. Allegations of a massacre of civilian population of the town were made, but several events surrounding its capture were not widely reported: first, the Armenians warned the people of Khojalu that they were planning to take the town, and told them to quit... Secondly, a week after the capture of the town the Armenians invited the Azerbaijanis to claim their dead. Neither of these open actions is characteristic or a group seeking to carry out a massacre. ”

Walker seems to defend the view that warning a population of a forthcoming invasion voids any blame for future atrocities. In a way, this amounts to implying that as the inhabitants of the town did not “quit” – in itself a rather peculiar way of describing a refugee forced to leave his home – they only had themselves to blame if they were brutalized. This in turn is nothing but a justification of ethnic cleansing and the military conquest of land. Despite the claims of Armenians and their proxies, it is beyond doubt that a massacre of civilians did take place.

Svante Cornell. Small Nations and Great Powers: A Study of Ethnopolitical Conflict in the Caucasus.

So I suggest we use a proper quote from Cornell. --Grandmaster 12:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Background Section

The background section now looks a bit messy and things were recently moved to it that shouldn't have been moved. Let's keep it as a background i.e. things that happened before the event. Also, I think this is a good section to describe the military value of the operation, I assume that Khojaly is the only airfield in Stepanakert and that Khojaly was being used to shell Stepanakert. Pocopocopocopoco 02:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, in the background section. Hugh Pope, "Sons of the conquerors: the rise of the Turkic world" is used as a source to describe the town being out of electricity and gas for several months. I'm not disputing this but is this book the best source we can give? Pocopocopocopoco 02:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I have moved the stuff that shouldn't have been in the background section out of the background section. The passage about Memorial and HRW I've moved into "The Massacre" section. It use to be at the very beginning of the article but it looks like there isn't a consensus on putting in the beginning of the article and it definitely doesn't belong in the background section so the Massacre section is just as if not more appropriate. The other quote that was in the background section that was improperly attributed to Cornell I've also added it to the Massacre section as it doesn't belong in the background section and I've properly attributed it to Walker and wikified it. I hope this resolves the dispute. Pocopocopocopoco 01:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Why were all my changes completely reverted? The Walker addition is notable and was source. If my wording had POV or OR than change the wording. Pocopocopocopoco 13:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

If we add Walker, we need to add Cornell's comment about him as well. Grandmaster 13:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it's sort of already there. However, the way that I had worded it I wasn't excusing the killings just saying that they weren't premeditated. Pocopocopocopoco 13:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Background section proposal

In 1988 the town had about 2,000 inhabitants. This grew to 6,000 in 1991 due to the resettlement of refugees from 
Armenia and Central Asia. The town of Khojali was located on the road that connected Stepanakert and Agdam and was
the base for the region's only airport. According to reports [[from Human Rights Watch]], Khojaly was used as a 
base for Azerbaijani forces shelling the city of Stepanakert, and in turn was shelled by Armenian forces.<ref>Human 
Rights Watch. Bloodshed in the Caucasus: Escalation of the Armed Conflict in Nagorno Karabakh. 
ISBN 1564320812</ref>

In October 1991, the Armenian militants cut the road connecting Khojali and Aghdam, so that the only way to reach 
the town was in a helicopter. The town was defended by the local OMON forces under the command of Alif Hajiev, 
which numbered about 160 or so lightly armed men.<ref>Thomas De Waal. Black Garden: Armenia and Azerbaijan through
Peace and War, NYU Press, 2004. ISBN 0-8147-1945-7.</ref> Prior to the attack, the town had been without electricity and gas for several months.<ref>Hugh Pope, "Sons of the conquerors: the rise of the Turkic world", New
York: The Overlook Press, 2006, p. 59, ISBN-10 1-58567-804-X</ref>

First bash at an overview for the background section. - Francis Tyers · 17:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a good start. I've copied the entire article to my sandbox, I added the above, modified it and added additional background regarding sumgait and ring. I also readded the Christopher Walker stuff because there was no explanation for reversion. Please see User:Pocopocopocopoco/sandbox/Khojaly_massacre and feel free to edit it. Pocopocopocopoco 00:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, please explain why you are opposed to stating that the massacre occurred outside the town? Pocopocopocopoco 01:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Massacre occured both in and outside the town. We have sources to attest to that. Walker should go together with Cornell. Sumgait and Ring have their own articles, and those events are not relevant here. Grandmaster 10:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

According to all the sources so far, it occurred mostly outside the town. user:Atabek's posts below reinforce this because they all talk about Nakhechivanik as the site. Also, Walker is being used to provide the information that the Khojaly Massacre was likely not premeditated. Cornell's passage is irrelevant in proving or disproving this. I believe that Ring and Sumgait are as much notable in the Background as the Azeri Refugees from Armenia are notable in the background of Sumgait Massacre specifically here "At the end of January of 1988 many Azerbaijani refugees from Armenia reached Baku, and most refugees were relocated to Sumgait's already overcrowded slums. Before the end of February, two more waves of refugees were to reach Baku." Pocopocopocopoco 01:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

So is the Background from my sandbox good enough to move to the article? Pocopocopocopoco 04:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Francis’s version is better. Refugees from Armenia are relevant to Sumgait article for a simple reason that their arrival triggered the riots. And you added irrelevant info to your version. Grandmaster 06:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't want to include Sumgait, because then we'll have to include the suggestions that the massacre was "revenge" for Sumgait. And I think that those allegations/suggestions are a bit specious and distract from the article. - Francis Tyers · 11:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Those allegations are already in the article "At the same time, some Armenian sources admitted the guilt of the Armenian side. According to Markar Melkonian, the brother of the Armenian military leader Monte Melkonian, "Khojaly had been a strategic goal, but it had also been an act of revenge." The date of the massacre in Khojaly had a special significance: it was the run-up to the fourth anniversary of the anti-Armenian pogrom in the city of Sumgait which was the Sumgait Massacre. Melkonian particularly mentions the role of the fighters of two Armenian military detachments called the Arabo and Aramo, who stabbed to death many Azeri civilians.[12]" Additional relevance is that it fits in with the whole downward spiral of violence at the time. Pocopocopocopoco 15:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Neither of the Melkonian brothers was an eyewitness. Markar was in the US and Monte was in Shahumyan. I don't see how this is relevant to the article. The date, I agree its close to the date of Sumgait. But as for the statement that Arabo and Aramo were stabbing people to death isn't really close to what the eyewitnesses say. Who say that they were fired upon from all directions. VartanM 16:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Monte was one of the leaders of Armenian militants and he was well aware of what was going on the Armenian side of front. His opinion is relevant here. Grandmaster 17:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Not at that time he wasn't. He was merely a volunteer from diaspora and was far away. I find your selective sourcing inappropriate, what happened to the partisan sourcing? VartanM 17:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

So let's keep the Melkonian stuff out of the article as well as the Sumgait and Ring stuff out of the background? They both use the same source. Pocopocopocopoco 21:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I've made the change to the article in the sandbox, I suggest moving the background from my sandbox to this article and removing the Melkonian paragraph. - Pocopocopocopoco 01:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Melkonian is used in every article about Karabakh war, and I see no reason why he cannot be quoted here. If we quote Mutalibov, we might as well quote Melkonian. Grandmaster 05:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

If you have concerns about Melkonian source in other articles raise them there. Nether of the Melkonian brothers were no where near Khojaly. Mutalibov was the president of Azerbaijan and was forced to resign because of Khojaly. He is very relevant to this article while Melkonian is not. VartanM 05:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Melkonian was in Karabakh at the time and was aware of what was going on on the Armenian side. Mutalibov also did not travel to Khojaly, but we quote him here. Grandmaster 10:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

How do you know what he was aware of or not? He was in Shahumyan and was not a military commander yet. Melkonian was a volunteer soldier fighting in a village in Shahumyan Mutalibov was the president of Azerbaijan. VartanM 16:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Khojaly being an act of revenge is a major peice of information and you need a better source than "My Brother's Road". That book might be used elsewhere in wikipedia but a search has revealed that it's either for the Melkonian articles or its fluffy irrelevant stuff like in the Battle of Shushi saying that it's the greatest battle. Pocopocopocopoco 22:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Markar Melkonian said that Monte travelled to the place of the massacre and personally saw the victims. Khojaly being an act of revenge is supported by de Waal as well. Grandmaster 07:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The fact that Monte travelled and spoke to the victims has very little relevance as to whether we can reasonably say he knew about any organized plot to commit the massacre. De Waal, quoting Sargsian doesn't say anything about any organized plot but merely the fact that some of the ethnic Armenians fighting at Khojaly were victims of what happened at Sumgait and Baku. Pocopocopocopoco 00:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

No, this is the complete quote from de Waal:

Asked about the taking of Khojali, the Armenian military leader Serzh Sarkisian said carefully, "We don't speak loudly about these things. “A lot was exaggerated” in the casualties, and the fleeing Azerbaijanis had put up armed resistance, he claimed. Sarkisian's summation of what had happened, however, was more honest and more brutal: “But I think the main point is something different. Before Khojali, the Azerbaijanis thought that they were joking with us, they thought that the Armenians were people who could not raise their hand against the civilian population. We were able to break that [stereotype]. And that's what happened. And we should also take into account that amongst those boys were people who had fled from Baku and Sumgait”. Sarkisian's account throws a different light on the worst massacre of the Karabakh war, suggesting that the killings may, at least in part, have been a deliberate act of mass killing as intimidation.

Grandmaster 09:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

That still doesn't suggest that they were planned by the Nagorno Karabakh forces as a whole. Anyhow, if you want to include Melkonian and the Sarkisian quote then Ring and Sumgait should go in the Background. Pocopocopocopoco 01:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

If we are to include quotes from Sarkisyan then we should find the direct full interview. So far, all I found was the same quote, all of which were on Azeri websites. This makes me question its integrity. Grandmaster do you know when the interview was taken and who was the interviewer? Was it De Waal? --VartanM 02:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, interview was taken by de Waal, he is a third party verifiable source. No problems there. I also wanted to add de Waal’s comment to the article, but Francis objected. I still believe the comment should be included in the article. Grandmaster 05:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Consensus on Background?

As per above, if Melkonian's and Sarkisian's are to be left in the article then Sumgait and Ring should be in the background. I also added Black January as I understand that this is referred to as the Baku Pogrom in some circles. Please approve moving the background section from my sandbox article to this article. Pocopocopocopoco 02:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how all those events are relevant to this one. And Melkonian and Sarkisian are relevant to this article, while those events are not, so you cannot connect those quotes with your proposed edits. Also, how about some neutrality? Why in your proposed edit nothing is said about deportation of the entire Azerbaijani population from Armenia and massacres committed in the process, such as in Gugark? How about deportation of Azerbaijani population from NK, which actually has relevance to this article, because people deported from Azerbaijani villages in NK settled in Khojaly? HRW says so. Grandmaster 10:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Because, as we discussed above and I thought we agreed, the Melkonian and Sarkisian quotes both mention Sumgait and Baku and tie it into this incident hence it is worthwhile to have Sumgait, Baku, and Ring in the background. My version already mentions population exchanges between Azerbaijan and Armenia as well as Azeri refugees from central asia, if you have a suggestion for a different wording let me know. You seem to want the background to reflect an equal amount of violence between Azeris and Armenians in order for it to be neutral however everything I've read says that up to Khojaly, most of the violence was Azeri on Armenian. The sources that I've read say that the Azeri population wasn't deported from Armenian but that they left from the belief that things were going to get ugly and had sufficent time to get there affairs in order ie sell property etc. If you want to add something about Azeri's fleeing towns in Nagorno Karabakh to settle in Khojaly, feel free to add it to my version as long as it's cited. Pocopocopocopoco 01:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

No, not accurate. Azerbaijani population fled Armenia because of pogroms, this is covered by both de Waal and other sources. Also, it is hard to say where there was more violence, each major case needs it's own article. Sarkisian's opinion that Khojaly was a revenge for Sumgait is included in the article. But if we gonna get deep into what was before Khojaly we will end up with much larger dispute than the one we have here. We've been thru this on NK article. --Grandmaster 09:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Would you be kind as to provide me with a link to the discussion in the NK article on this as there are 100 some odd archives. Alternatively, if you know the approximate dates this was discussed I could look them up. Pocopocopocopoco 01:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

See the main article about Nagorno-Karabakh, it contains the info about background, even though it was shortened for some reason. --Grandmaster 10:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

IMHO, the background section should necessarily outline the history of Khojaly during the NK war, and include the information about the population of the town as well as about its strategic importance. All these things are extensively discussed here. --Kober^Talk 10:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with that, and Francis' draft above pretty much covers it. Grandmaster 10:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Investigation Section

That's great. I'd also welcome the Investigation section about the two investigation by Azerbaijani authorities and an independent one conducted by the Memorial organization. Also, I think several outdoor protests in Turkey in response to the massacre should also be mentioned in the International Reaction section. I've also read somewhere that this tragedy marked the final disappointment in Iran's mediating efforts. I'll try to find some sources for that. --Kober^Talk 11:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits

You're not going to get the article the way you want by strength of numbers. Please discuss any substantive changes to this extraordinarily controversial article on the talk page, and get consensus before making them. I am in agreement that the "Background" section needs to be expanded, so lets do that first folks! Suggestions below: - Francis Tyers · 11:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

While I agree with most of your reverts, I don't agree with reverting the text that clarified that the killings were done as the civilians escaped the town. On first reading this article, I was under the impression that the ethnic Armenian forces took the town and started indescriminately killing people in their homes. On reading the text from HRW above, it sounds like this was not the case and that the killings were of a group of mixed soldiers and civilians that were approaching the border between Nagorno Karabakh and Azerbaijan proper. This needs to be reflected in the article. Pocopocopocopoco 16:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Banned users websites are not welcome in Wikipedia, also I removed the weasel wording from lead and made it more factually correct. VartanM 16:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

You are not going to keep the article the way you like by trying to OWN it. Please refrain from blank reverts and discuss objections to changes.--TigranTheGreat 18:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

As I said above, nkrusa.org is not a reliable source. Please refrain from inserting dubious info into the article. Grandmaster 18:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Grandmaster can you tell me which one of these sources you consider unreliable.

1. "Nezavisimaya gazeta" newspaper, February 1993

2. "Ogonek" magazine, Nos. 14-15, 1992

3. "Nezavisimaya gazeta" newspaper, 2 April 1992

4. "Novoye vremya" magazine, 6 March 2001

5. "Zerkalo" newspaper, July 1992

6. "Mukhalifat" newspaper, 28 April 199

7. "Megapolis-Express", No. 17, 1992

This are the sources used for the nkrusa.org article. VartanM 19:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

If you have read these articles, please provide full citations including authors, page references, publishers and article titles. Then they can be considered. - Francis Tyers · 10:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

These are the sources of the entire article and does not mean that all or any of them support the theme of the article you use to justify your POV.

--Aynabend 19:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm asking him before I do any further research on finding the texts of the said sources. I don't want to waste my time, if a any of the above sources is going to be claimed unreliable. Thanks VartanM 19:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Ayanbend this article is work in progress, you reverting to a previous version is simply unacceptable. If you are disputing any of the information please discuss instead of a wholesale revert. VartanM 19:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

If you have read these articles, please provide full citations including authors, page references, publishers and article titles. Then they can be considered. - Francis Tyers · 10:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back to Wikipedia Aynabend. The article on nkrusa.org does not use the 7 sources generally to cover the entire article but uses them as inline citations. Each fact presented or quote has a specific source and it is on the site if you check carefully. - Fedayee 21:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

All those sources are taken from nkrusa.org. You haven’t personally read any of them. If you have, please provide scans of the relevant articles. Nkrusa is a partisan cite, and info from that website cannot be used here. --Grandmaster 04:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

By the way, User:Aynabend and User:Ulvi_I. are one and same person: [11]. And as previously, Ulvi/Aynabend almost exclusively acts as a meatpuppet for other users, laying dormant and reappearing: [12]. As such, he is covered under the rulings of the last ArbCom.--TigranTheGreat 00:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Links

I've removed the links to the Armenian side and the Azerbaijani side. The Armenian side for being hysterical, and the Azerbaijani side (the Geocities site) for being both hysterical and copyright infringing (per WP:EL). - Francis Tyers · 10:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

What means "be hysterical"? Is there any rule of WIKI which determines this term and let to anyone delete them? And how your adds like "Large number" refers to the explanation you represent here? Andranikpasha 12:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Did you read the links? - Francis Tyers · 17:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

My (and anyones) POV if that links are "hysterical" surely is not important for Wiki! We need to keep Wiki rules nothing more!! please answer what I wrote below and lets discuss it before make changes. Your regulary revert is not only related to the links (no any rules in WIki reffering to the "hysteryc"-type links) but some other changes without explanation- "large number", deletion of "nkrusa" site etc. Andranikpasha 17:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about man? The sites were inappropriate, for the relevant guidlines please see Wikipedia:External links. If you can't work out which ones apply, just ask. - Francis Tyers · 19:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Please do not revert all the adds you dont like (especially in your talk page) without explanation! Really I cant find any point here Wikipedia:External links related what is "hysterical" site and how to describe it? And if you think this sites are not OK for the article, is it right to add also some deleted content like "large number" (any explanation?), "nkrusa" (its only a collection of third-part sources) etc? Why we had to discuss here every word if you directly make any edits you think is OK sometimes even without explanation? Andranikpasha 20:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

You only had to ask... from the section "Links normally to be avoided":

• Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article.
• Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority.

Then from the section "Avoid undue weight on particular points of view":

• On articles with multiple points of view, the number of links dedicated to one point of view should not overwhelm the number dedicated to other equal points of view, nor give undue weight to minority views. Add comments to these links informing the reader of their point of view. If one point of view dominates informed opinion, that should be represented first. For more information, see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view—in particular, Wikipedia's guidelines on undue weight.

We have one link on the Azerbaijani side, we have one link on the Armenian side, which seems to be equal weight to both opinions. Any addition of a link on the Armenian side should be met with an addition on the Azerbaijani side, I welcome you to make suggestions for such a link. Regarding your final question, the answer may be found in the state of the article before I resumed my most recent editing. - Francis Tyers · 09:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Some HRW Witness Accounts and Conclusions on Khojaly

Rachel Denber, Robert Kogod Goldman, Bloodshed in the Caucasus: Escalation of the Armed Conflict in Nagorno Karabakh, Human Rights Watch, 1992, ISBN 1564320812:

Page 22: "Thirty-three-year old Nigar Azizova, who worked in a vegetable store, told Helsinki Watch that when the crowd started falling over bodies, they turned back and fled in different direction:

• The crowd was about sixty meters long. I was in the middle and people in the front were mostly killed. At Nakhichevanik we saw that people in front were falling. They shouted and fell. I recognized their faces. I could see their faces as we stepped over them. We covered children's eyes so they wouldn't see

Mrs. Azizova listed eight people whose bodies she had to step over, and claimed that they had no guns."

• Page 22: "Fifty-one-year-old Balaolgan Allakhiarov said:

• We got to Nakhichevanik at 8:00AM, and were in the middle of the field when they began to fire. They were shooting only from one direction - the forest. Then we ran off the field toward a canyon, where my wife and daughter-in-law were shot. They were shot from about twenty meters. My daughter-in-law was struck three times - through the skull, in her stomach and in her leg. My wife was hit from behind. The Armenians took off their rings"

Page 23: "At about 8:00A.M. Nazile Khetemova received a gunshot wound in her left leg:

• We were all crawling. Whoever stood up got wounded. I stood up to rest my legs and was wounded. I saw many people get shot, and we had to leave them as we crawled along. After I was wounded, I didn't see many people pass me; they hid in the forest. I stayed in the snow until 7:00P.M. Members of the Popular Front came and helped me escape."

Page24 summary:

"Although retreating combatants and civilians who assume a combatant's role while fleeing are subject to direct individualized attack, the attacking party is still obliged to take precautionary measures to avoid or minimize civilian casualties. In particular, the party must suspend an attack if it becomes apparent that the attack may be expected to cause civilian casualties that are excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.

The circumstances surrounding the attack at Nakhichevanik on those fleeing Khojaly indicate that Armenian forces and the troops of the 366th CIS regiment (who were not apparently acting on orders from their commanders) deliberately disregarded this customary law restraint on attacks. Nagorno-Karabakh officials and fighters clearly expected the inhabitants of Khojaly to flee since they claim to have informed the town that a corridor would be left open to allow for their safe passage. No witnesses interviewed by Helsinki Watch, however, said that they knew beforehand of such a corridor. In addition, although witnesses and victims gave varying testimony on the precise time the shooting began at Nakhichevanik, they all indicated that there was sufficient light to allow for reasonable visibility and thus, for the attackers to distinguish unarmed civilians from those persons who were armed and/or using weapons. Further, despite conflicting testimony about the direction from which the fire was coming, the evidence suggests that the attackers indiscriminately directed their fire at all fleeing persons. Under these circumstances, the killing of fleeing combatants could not justify the foreseeably large number of civilian casualties."

Hope this information will be helpful in future editing of the article. Atabek 22:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

We won't need the eye-witness accounts. - Francis Tyers · 00:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course, we may not have to incorporate these in the body of the article, I was just posting it for informative purposes in editing the article. However, these witness accounts recorded by Helsinki Watch establish further strong basis for the claim of massacre. I will pull out magnitude of other references for further neutral editing of the article. Thanks. Atabek 00:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe the correct word here is WP:SOAP VartanM 23:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

U.S. Congress Publication on Khojaly

U.S. Congress, "Implementation of the Helsinki Accords: Hearing Before the Commission Security and Cooperation in Europe", 1993, ISBN 0160411955, p. 64:

"Russian troops were also involved in the worst atrocity to take place in this conflict. The 1992 massacre by Armenian militants of about 1,000 Azerbaijani civilians from the town of Khojaly".

Here is another useful reference. Atabek 23:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

We already have the death toll in the article. - Francis Tyers · 00:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Francis, sorry for confusion with highlighting. My intent was not to highlight the figure, but to clarify as to which party of the conflict was sought responsible for the massacre despite very few references questioning this fact. Thanks. Atabek 00:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Atabek, this is what the page 81 of the said document says.

"Amids heavy losses on the battlefield and with major Azerbaijani strongholds in Nagorno Karabakh threatened , Azeri sources alleged that Armenian and Russian forces massacred more then 1000 civilians during the take over of Khojaly. Western media largely quoting Azari sources reprinted stories of alleged Armenian atrocities. However after investigation, Nagorno Karabakh parliament and other sources denied the charges of atrocities stating that about 200 Azeri combatants and civilians were killed during the battle and subsequent flight from the town. Civilians suffered casualties when Azeris reinforcements counter attacked from Aghdam, attempting to reach encircled Khojaly, and exposed those fleeing to cross fire. To date an invitation from the Nagorno Karabakh parliament to the international community to conduct an impartial investigation of the Khojaly events has remained an answered and the facts remain disputed. Nonetheless unnecessary violence was committed against civilians which is unequivocally deplorable. However, the Khojaly tragedy must be viewed withing the context of an inevitably escalating cycle of violence generated by a five year old conflict with repeated anti-Armenian violence, pogroms and deportations carried out with impunity, to which Azerbaijani and Soviet authorities as well as the international community have responded with conspicuus reticence."

Unless I'm looking at a totality different document, but I highly doubt it. What are the odds of two Helsinki Accords documents from the same year having the same information about Khojaly on the same page (81). I'm eagerly waiting for your response. VartanM 03:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

My apologies for the wrong page citation, here is the direct link [13], it's page 64: "Russian troops were also involved in the worst atrocity to take place in this conflict: the 1992 massacre by Armenian militants of about 1,000 Azerbaijani civilians from the town of Khojaly". Atabek 07:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

From what I can see this is a hearing in the US congress. Apparently you quote speeches of different reporters, not the same one. And each referred to different sources. The one quoted by you refers to separatist authorities. I wonder who made that speech. Grandmaster 06:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Atabek, Grandmaster is right this report is a collection of statements made by Armenians and Azeris and the statement you quote is made by Hafiz Pasayev the Ambassador of Republic of Azerbaijan, mine was made by Hrair Balian a representative of HRAVartanM 08:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Hrair Balian, a member of California State Bar (p. 79), is not only representative of HRA, but also former head of Executive Council associated with Armenian Church and the Armenian Revolutionary Federation (Dashnaktsutiun) - see here. Atabek 08:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the additional information. VartanM 16:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

This document should not be used. Its full title is Implementation of the Helsinki Accords. Hearing before the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe. It reperesents views of the opposing parties. Grandmaster 11:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Map at nkrusa.org

Does anyone dispute this map]? Pocopocopocopoco 01:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

It comes from a partisan source. --Grandmaster 05:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you dispute anything else besides where it comes from? Or do you know of a map that isn't from a partisan source. --VartanM 05:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

How can I be sure that it points to correct locations? This source has an extreme bias in this issue. And I don't know of a map from a non-partisan source. Grandmaster 05:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

From what I can see its accurate, I don't know about its inclusion in the article, it is kind of amateurish. VartanM 16:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Pocopocopocopoco, I oppose this map for the following reasons:

• 1. Map shows "NKR", an entity which legally does not exist - hence it's not encyclopedic to include such a map here and it violates NPOV. After all, we do not use Osama Bin Laden's tapes or Al Qaeda maps in Wikipedia articles on 9/11, etc. Including NKRusa.org maps on Khojaly page would be equivalent.
• 2. It comes from a website of separatists. I think a good example to follow on this is Chechnya page, where Kavkaz-Center, etc. appear in External links section with clear marking Separatist websites, while no maps from Kavkaz-Center or other separatist websites are used in the body of the article;

Thanks. Atabek 02:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Atabek, would you have a problem with a user created map that didn't came from a separatist site, and didn't use a POV wording. But was based on that map. Do you dispute its accuracy. VartanM 04:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

VartanM, first of all no such entity exists as NKR. Secondly, the map violates NPOV, because it has arbitrary lines drawn by god knows who. The bodies were found near the village of Nakhchivanik, by flying journalists in a helicopter to behind the contact frontline, this is a fact confirmed by HRW as well. So drawing of arbitrary lines on a map by separatists, attempting to portray as if bodies were found inside Azeri zone, is absolutely not neutral and obviously not acceptable for encyclopedia. Witness accounts above brought from HRW confirm the opposite to this map as well. Atabek 05:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Folks, let me remind you that our job is to report the facts not to investigate. The article, as it is now, just reports the fact that PACE, US Congress, HRW and Memorial recognize the event as massacre committed by one of the parties in the conflict. This is the majority view properly referenced in accordance to Wikipedia’s policy. Although the evidence marshaled by these organizations is quite compelling, no full-scale international investigation has ever been carried out into this tragedy. Therefore, any map (especially the one in question) illustrating the massacre can not be regarded as NPOV.--Kober^Talk 19:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The map actually doesn't dispute what these organizations say about the events in question. It merely reinforces the fact that:

1) An escape route was provided.

2) The killing was done outside Khojaly.

The international organizations say the same thing but I believe that this isn't highlighted enough in the article. The map also provides the useful information of the line of contact at the time of the hostilities. However, since there isn't a consensus on adding the map, I'm not going to push for its addition to the article. Pocopocopocopoco 00:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

This map cannot be a proof of anything because it comes from a partisan source. Grandmaster 09:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Memorial and HRW passage

Would anyone other than Francis have a problem with this passage being moved elsewhere in the article. I particularly don't care where it is as long as it's cited properly. I'm just trying to resolve a dispute. If you oppose moving, is there a compromise we can work out where part of it gets moved and part of it stays in the summary at the top? Pocopocopocopoco 01:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Pocopocopocopoco, it should stay in the summary at the top. Both Memorial and HRW are properly cited in the current version of the page, you can check the reference section as well as the extensive information from HRW on this talk page, right above. So, I think citation tags in your version can be replaced with references. Also, the massacre was committed by Armenian forces according to U.S. Congress reference above, Memorial as well as HRW Helsinki Watch. So that needs to be reflected in the introduction as it is now. Atabek 02:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Atabek the lead is suppose to give general overview of the article not site Azerbaijan governments views. Because then an Armenian can rightly claim that Armenian governments view should also be included. In turn it will turn the lead will turn into a mess. VartanM 16:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

VartanM, I don't think HRW or Memorial are Azerbaijani government organizations. Atabek 02:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Edit Request

I was going to hold off on this but it seems that getting a consensus is going to take longer than I anticipated please add:

1) the {{Protected}} tag so that people know it is protected.
2) Please put the following tag {{Missing information|The article does not sufficiently reflect the fact that a humanitarian corridor was given to the fleeing civilians and that most of the killing was done near the line of contact when the civilians were using the humanitarian corridor. The article also does not sufficiently provide a background to the events}} - Pocopocopocopoco 02:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

A tag should not be added, although the corridor should be mentioned. Regarding the killing zone, it should also be mentioned, but we'd need to see sources that state where it happened. At the moment you want to add a "Missing information" tag with no sources, which is pretty iffy.

• One possible source: "At Nakhichevanik Armenians and troops of the CIS 366th regiment opened fire on the retreating OMON militia and the fleeing residents."[14]
• From the same source: "The majority of Khojaly residents went along a route that took them across a shallow river, through the mountains, and, by about dawn, towards an open field near the village of Nakhichevanik, controlled then by Armenians. It was here that the most intense shooting took place. Other people fled along different routes that took them directly by Shelli, an Azerbaijani village near Agdam. A number of Khojaly survivors wandered through the forest for several days before finding their way to Agdam’s environs." (p. 21)

- Francis Tyers · 10:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Given that there is already one source in the article saying that the massacre occurred near the front line “a large column of residents, accompanied by a few dozen retreating fighters, fled the city as it fell to Armenian forces. As they approached the border with Azerbaijan, they came across an Armenian military post and were cruelly fired upon”. Plus the additional two sources you've just added, would you be kind to add the tags, and if you don't like the wording I've used you can reword it slightly. I think that the article vastly under-represents the fact that a humanitarian corridor was provided and that the killing of civilians occurred in the front line. I will work on incorporating the two new citations into my sandbox article. Pocopocopocopoco 01:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the edit request template. There still appears to be a disagreement over the content of the request. /Blaxthos 20:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

Please replace one of the important URLs in the article, i.e. please replace this link: http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5078/armenpress.html with the link to the official website of HRW: http://hrw.org/english/docs/1997/03/24/azerba16933.htm Thanks. --Grandmaster 09:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Both seem to have the same content. Find consensus to have the page unprotected, and then you will be able to edit things like this normally. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, both have identical content, but the present link is to a private website, and proposed one is to the official website of HRW. But no probs, I'll wait till the page is unprotected. Grandmaster 06:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Who commited Massacre?

Please provide your sources and opinions. There is ionformation that it was Azerbaijan troops that commit massacre against it's own people. The question why? War casualties can be one answer, the other is to represent those kilings as massacre by Armenians, the other can be revenge to those people as they left Khojaly. Please provide heer your sources. No edit wars please, lets put here both views and have it done in NPOV manner. WHoever can read russian read this article: [[15]]. Steelmate 20:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Who says that Azerbaijan troops committed the massacre? There are no independent sources to support this claim. Such claims are spread only by Armenian propaganda. Please check such notable third party sources as HRW and Memorial, they provide pretty detailed info about who and how committed the massacre. Grandmaster (talk) 06:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

A lot of sources says about it, Grandmaster. You're not right, there are also independent sources, f.e. well-known Yuri Girchenko: "In the some groups of deportees there were Azerbaijani OMON'ers and armed people from the city's gornizon. These armed jigits, when they saw Armenian frontier port, opened fire on them. Armenians answered them." В некоторых группах бегущих находились азербайджанские омоновцы и просто вооруженные люди из гарнизона города. Эти вооруженные джигиты, увидев армянские заставы, открыли по ним огонь... Армяне ответили тем же. (Юрий Викторович Гирченко, Армия Государства, которого нет // «Мы были на этих войнах». Свидетельства участников событий 1989-2000 годов.- СПб, Издательство журнала «Звезда», 2003.- с. 88)

Azerbaijani ex-president Mutalibov also supports this version, so if it is a propagand than maybe not Armenian but also Azeri propagand? Its just a neutral view. And Im agree that HRW and Memorial have detailed info its why you protested its adding to this article (see above our (your and mine) discussion). Andranikpasha (talk) 13:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Mutalibov says nothing of the kind. On the contrary, he says that the massacre was committed by Armenian forces. See [16] And Girchenko never traveled to Khojaly or conducted an investigation, like Memorial or HRW. He only says that it was Azerbaijani forces who started shooting, however it is not clear how he came to such a conclusion. He says many other interesting things, for instance he mentions that Armenians were beheading and scalping Azerbaijani prisoners in Khojaly. This can be used in the article, of course. Grandmaster (talk) 06:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Grandmaster, at first you said "There are no independent sources to support this claim." Is Girchenko independent source or no? He is well-known Karabakh war expert, who is commonly recognized and received awards for his books. And about Mutalibov: he marks here -А. Zverev, Ethnic conflicts in Caucasus, 1988-1994, Сontested borders in Caucasus, Мoscow, 1996, р. 32., that some Azeri forces was responsible for the first attack in Khojaly. Andranikpasha (talk) 07:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Does any of those sources say that the massacre was committed by Azerbaijani sources? I don't see any of them saying that. Grandmaster (talk) 11:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, what means "Azerbaijani sources"? According to Girchenko Azerbaijani special forces inicated the fightings while an open corridor existed. We should include this to the article. Andranikpasha (talk) 19:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Typo. Supposed to be "forces". Girchenko was not there, but if you want to use him, we can also use the info provided by him about atrocities committed by the Armenian militants. Grandmaster (talk) 06:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

He also says that the massacre was committed by Armenians:

Люди, идущие этим маршрутом, обходили Аскеран с правой стороны. Их тоже обстреливали армяне. Обстреливали так же, не выискивая среди бегущих вооруженных джигитов. Среди этого потока армяне брали заложников, при этом некоторых из них убивали на месте, а азербайджанским омоновцам топорами рубили головы. Кое-кому из заложников выкалывали глаза, отрезали уши, скальпировали, а потом уже убивали. Во, блин, индейцы хреновы! [17]

Grandmaster (talk) 06:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Who can write this article. Third party Wikipedian!

As this topic is matter of heated discussion, I belive non of Armenian or Azrbaijani users should be allowed to write it. Think it must be done by independent and well established Wikipedian(s). Please see if it makes sense and let's invite one and send him request to write this article. It should remain protected untill done and maybe later. Steelmate 20:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

user:FrancisTyers is the mediator for this article. I am neither Azerbaijani or Armenian and I believe in the good faith of everyone contributing to this article however I believe it represents strong Azerbaijani POV of the events in question. It use to be worse with photos taken from an Azerbaijani propaganda site in the article. I still believe it represents Azerbaijani POV for the following reasons:

1) Non-reliable sources are used to show that this event was an act of revenge.

2) Not enough weight is given to some of the events before the massacre such as the seige situation the Karabakh Armenians were in as well as the events such as Operation Ring.

3) Not enough weight is given to the possibility that this event was an accident. After all, civilains, escorted by soldiers approached a Karabakh Armenian army post by mistake and were fired upon.

I've tried discussing changes in talk that would add some neutrality to this article (see above) but every proposed change turns into a long debate. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

1) There is one mention of "revenge", this is in a quote from a book. The book is MARKAR MELKONIAN. MY BROTHER'S ROAD: AN AMERICAN'S FATEFUL JOURNEY TO ARMENIA. NEW YORK: I.B. TAURIS, 2005 ISBN 1-85043-635-5 The article does not say that this event was an act of revenge.

"My brothers road" is not a reliable source as Monte Melkonian wasn't involved with Khojaly and the information in that article is a second hand account of what happened. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

2) I agree that the background section needs to be expanded and have asked for people to suggest text here. No text has yet reached the necessary consensus to be included.

What's wrong with this, Grandmaster said that he wanted pogroms in Armenia against Azeris to be included if Sumgait and Ring were to be included but I see no evidence that Azeri's leaving Armenia was a pogrom and I fail to see the relevance. Sumgait and Ring are definitely relevant. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

3) Enough weight is given to the Armenian position, but the problem is finding reliable sources which reflect this (reports by human rights organisations for example). I notice that the article does not mention "accident", so if you would like to construct a sentence and can find a reliable source, we can put it where the Armenian position is:

"The Armenian side states that the killings occurred as a result of wartime military operations, and were in part caused by the prevention of the evacuation of town inhabitants by Azerbaijani forces. Armenian government officials asserted that the casualty count, though high, was due to the fact the fleeing civilians in Khojaly had mingled with the retreating defenders and when the Azeri troops shot back, Armenian forces fired upon them, killing both soldier and civilian alike."

- Francis Tyers · 08:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Francis please consider moving the second sentence of the article : "According to the Azerbaijani side, as well a..." to the section of The massacre so it won't be isolated from the other opinions by being in the header thus gaining uneven exposure in the section. There is no Armenian view of the events described in the header. Thanks. Steelmate (talk) 14:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Also the article doesn't stress the importance of Khojaly for the Azarbaijanian side, so that it put lots of efforts to enforce it with military and also it was willing to sacrifice lifes of their own citizens in the city by not evacuating them so that moral level of Azerbaijanian soldiers won't be affected. As otherwise the Azeri soldeirs would have less motivation to defned empty city. Let's say NO motivation. So basically Azerbaijan used lifes of citizen to reach military goals of the operation. And that all happened when Armneian side many times warned Azeri side about the operation. Considering small size of the village evacuation was technically an easy thing to do, but never was done. That view must have exposure in the article. Steelmate (talk) 15:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

If Armenians really wanted to make a massacre why even bother warning the other side about operation being prepared? Hitler never warned before attack, Turkish perpetrators of Armenian Genocide never warned, Azerbaijani perpetrators of Sumgait pogrom never warned - they all just did it.... On the contrary, Armenians were honest and did warn as they wanted to avoid citizen casualties, even though they knew that being open about attack will incur additional losses from Armenian side during attack. That should be in the article. Steelmate (talk) 15:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Why are you trying to convince me? I think we mostly agree. Find yourself some reliable sources, write a few sentences (brevity is your friend), and paste them here for discussion. The Armenian side is a very minority view and so does not need to be right there in the lead. Although looking at the Armenian genocide article, the Turkish view is represented in the lead there, so we could move the sentence "The Armenian side states that the killings occurred as a result of wartime military operations, and were in part caused by the prevention of the evacuation of town inhabitants by Azerbaijani forces." up to the end of the lead. - Francis Tyers · 15:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I also support putting this sentence in the lead section at the end of it. Please do it at your earliest convenience. Thanks. Steelmate (talk) 19:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Weasel words...

Isn't Large number is a weasel word? Woudn't it be more NPOV to replace it with either amount reported or remove it? Steelmate (talk) 19:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

We can replace "large number" with "hundreds". That would be more accurate. Grandmaster (talk) 06:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Causes of deaths.

Missing information is causes of deaths. Part of those deaths occured from people who got freezed to death when ran into mountains. Steelmate (talk) 13:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

That's correct. Grandmaster (talk) 06:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I made one correction to Poco's edit. Not just Armenians became victims to pogroms. By the time of Khojaly massacre the entire Azerbaijani population of Armenia was deported, many killed in pogroms, and the same happened to the Azerbaijani population of Stepanakert and other places in NK. If you need sources for my edit, there are plenty. Grandmaster (talk) 06:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I added de Waal as a source, but there are plenty more, for example Andrey Sakharov, who had strong pro-Armenian bias, also confirms the fact of killings of Azerbaijanis in Armenia:

На другой день я встретился с первым секретарем ЦК Армении Арутюняном. Он не стал обсуждать проект. Разговор шел о беженцах, о том, что якобы некоторые готовы вернуться (я отрицал это), о трудностях устройства их жизни в республике после землетрясения. Арутюнян также говорил об актах бесчинств и убийствах в районах, где проживают азербайджанцы, называл цифру 20 или 22 убитых азербайджанца, не считая 8 человек (целая семья с детьми), которые замерзли на перевале, так как шли без теплой одежды. Все эти эксцессы произошли в конце ноября, когда хлынул поток беженцев из Азербайджана. [18]

If translation is needed, please let me know. Grandmaster (talk) 11:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Citation required

Can you find a reliable source that says "the Armenians were the first to undergo pogroms against them during the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict"? I suppose it depends on your definition of the time frame of the conflict, and various other factors. But this is rather vague and requires a citation. It doesn't really add to the article anyway. - Francis Tyers · 07:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

That statement is not accurate. First refugees came from Kafan district of Armenia, and they were Azerbaijanis. They fled from attacks on them. Grandmaster (talk) 08:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Francis , first pogrom officially recorded in the conflict was Sumgait Pogrom - as it was against Armenians - therefore the statement - first Armenians then Azerbaijani. Grandmaster, can you please give more info on this, where in wikipedia it is described, or maybe you can give some reliable sources and when exactly it happened? Thanks. Steelmate (talk) 14:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Steelmate, actually the first clash in the conflict was Askeran clash, not Sumgait. The victims of Askeran clash were two Azerbaijanis, which essentially sparked the reaction in Sumgait. Atabek (talk) 16:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

And the myths continue, 2 people killed is not a started pogrom, the pogroms indeed started as described by Atabek, but they were a pogrom against the Armenian population. Two people killed during some unknown event is called a murder, many murders probably happened in the region, it happens everywhere in every single country. Some unknown Azerbaijani who was allegedly killed, which BTW was a fabrication and which led to barbaric mob of thousands to march toward NK “wreaking destruction en route.” This was not a pogrom, what happened in Sumgait is a pogrom, unless anyone here can provide a source of pogroms having happened before, the information in the article was accurate. VartanM (talk) 07:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The fact is that the first refugees came from Armenia, and they fled from attacks. No one leaves his property and runs away without serious risk to his life. And first victims of the conflict were 2 Azerbaijanis killed near Askeran. But why are we discussing this anyway, what does it have to do with Khojaly? It is absolutely irrelevant to this article. Grandmaster (talk) 07:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Seems like Francis requested a source for pogroms, you confused it with refugees, Steelmate corrected you, then Atabek confused the pogrom with clashes, then I corrected him, and now it seems like you're still confused. I suggest that both you and Atabek look up the word pogrom VartanM (talk) 07:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

How the whole discussed text is relevant to this article? Please explain. Grandmaster (talk) 08:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

VartanM, the first incident of the conflict was Askeran clash in which two Azeris were killed. And actually many of those who participated in Sumgait pogroms were Azeri refugees from Armenia which started arriving and being settled in Sumgait and Baku by that time. So it's absolutely inappropriate to claim that Armenians were the first victims. It's actually a fact that the recent wave of NK conflict, which led to a bloody war, started from demonstrations in Stepanakert, and on Theatrical Square in Yerevan, from the books of Zori Balayan, and from academician Agambegian's desires published in foreign press. It didn't start in Baku, neither did Azeris who lived with Armenians side-by-side for 70-80 years in Baku, Karabakh and other districts of Azerbaijan laid any claims on any part of Armenia to start a conflict. Atabek (talk) 08:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Can we come to consensus then that first act of ethnic cleansing was against Azeri in NK - therefore refugies, but first pogroms or massacres was done against Armenians in Sumgait? Steelmate (talk) 14:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Atabek, your belief system is not going to influence the course of events. The first pogroms happened against the Armenian population, you have yet to provide sources for pogroms against Azerbaijani population. And I don't know where Grandmaster has taken his claim that the first refugees were Azerbaijani, as the mass material about the first recorded mass refugee's concerned only the Armenians. Check the newspapers of the time, more particularly Sumgait, following with the attempted purge in NK, at the tim there were no mass Azerbaijani refugees, while a mass of Armenian refugees were on the frontier of Armenia. VartanM (talk) 18:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

VartanM, we are not discussing course of events :), we are discussing edits in encyclopedia. First refugee in-flow to Azerbaijan was from Armenia starting in 1988. I can provide references, but can you provide references to your claim "there were no mass Azerbaijani refugees, while a mass of Armenian refugees were on the frontier of Armenia"??, and preferably not from Armenian sources. Atabek (talk) 19:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Only talk, you mean De Waal? Leuw? Etc...? Azerbaijanis started leaving Armenia in 1987 by their own choice when the Soviet collapse was predictable and on the wake of the Armenian crises in Armenia. Many more left during the energetic crises. Over a million Armenians left from Armenia, were they refugees escaping Armenia's oppression? The fact is that you are not able to provide any pogrom or reported mass crime like the one in Sumgait etc preceding those pogroms against the Armenian population. The pogroms started with the Armenian population and I am talking about those reported not like the crap Adil and Jabid wrote which are taking precedence here in this article. Don't change the subject, provide the sources of those pogroms or else don't delete the material. VartanM (talk) 22:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

VartanM, [19] - ::*"already by the end of 1987, a small trickle of Azeri refugees from Armenia and from Nagorno-Karabakh had begun" (Annika Rabo, Bo Utas. The Role of the State in West Asia, ISBN 9186884131, 2005, p. 169).

I am yet to see your sources about Azeris leaving Armenia "by their own choice". As I was yet to see sources from you refuting Dowsett and Minorsky on Khachen or justification of "independence" of puppet creation of "NKR" on the relevant page. So far you presented only unsourced original research and POV. I wonder why Azeris would leave Armenia for Azerbaijan "by their own choice" when both were parts of Soviet Union and both were in equally economically degraded conditions. And who is "Adil and Jabid"? I am not quite sure what you mean, perhaps, you could provide some clarification to your statements. Atabek (talk) 23:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Puppet creation? Well, isn't Azerbaijan basically just that? Read carefully what I wrote above, I said refugees started in 1987 during the crises in Armenia and also a general trend toward leaving which was not related with the conflict particularly. It is not for me to prove that they left by choice, when we claim people left it is by choice unless someone provides a document that says that they were deported. It was known that in the 80's a return migration of nationals from outside borders happened, it was particularly true for Azerbaijani's. [20] But the point here is that the refugees migration from Nagono-Karabakh dates back to prior decades. The Armenians were discriminated for decades with various appeals. [21], the targets were Armenians as reported in the media before Khojali story. Armenians were targeted in the Kelbajar district, three were murdered in 1983-84 with the event leading with the attempt of poisoning a water reservoir in Armenia. [22] For a long time it was reported in the media as a one sided attack, before the event of Khojali and political correctness and the amnesia of the media that from then on will be presenting the conflict as two sided.

The fact is that Armenians in Sumgait were targeted with several open pogroms, which created a huge wave of migration from Azerbaijan. And as long as you can't provide any materials which predate the pogroms against the Armenians, the both side claim has to go, because Armenians were targeted long before. VartanM (talk) 01:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

VartanM, any conflict is always two-sided, so I fail to see the neutrality of your argument trying to emphasize Armenians as only victims. Ok, so March Days massacre of 12,000 Azeris predated September 1918 massacre massacre of 10,000 Armenians, now who is more guilty? There was a bus explosion in Baku in 1986, the bomber was Armenian, and these were just roots of Karabakh conflict. So you can't relay a blame on a single side and try to whitewash the other. I believe the purpose must be presenting an objective information rather than childish competitions, who was first, or continuing in perpetual edit conflicts. 26 people were killed in Sumgait, 400 died in Khojaly killed with extreme brutality. Both facts must be presented, but you can't outweigh someone's death over others, predate them to claim right or wrong. As you have been told, the Karabakh conflict was started not by Azeris but by Armenians wishing to take Karabakh from Azerbaijan, so if you're to make any ranking of right or wrong, we may have to start there. Atabek (talk) 02:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Atabek, I am here to talk history not mythologies, you were the one having started the who started it, the obvious point here is that the pogroms of the Armenian population was what created the refugee crises, and the several and various newspapers prior to Khojali covers this. As for March days, thats an article which should be edited, thanks for bringing it out, as it is apparent it uses the draft of Adil Baguirov and Javid Huseynov article on the event. The count of death was of 3 thousands not 12 thousands. In Khojali there was 150 deaths not 400, as most works which provide figures claim, including the official Azerbaijani authorities figure before it started throwing unsubstantiated figures supported by Thomas Goltz's crew of Turkish photographers and propagators.

The fact is that the main Azerbaijani journalist who documented Khojali claimed to have uncovered later evidences implicating not the Armenians but an Azerbaijani political group, he was then killed, his brother had the guts to lie and make up stories to dismiss the whole thing. Recently another Azerbaijani journalist provided the same explanations and the result was threats and being targeted. Not to forget the then Azerbaijani governments admission.

Face it, this article is one huge myth, a piece which manipulates available sources. And for your information, 26 killed were official claims, the US government figures are of above 100, this low figure was provided as a way to suppress information flowing, as it was common in the Soviet Union, I guess this was not the case with the Azerbaijani authorities who started multiplying figures.

It was not two sided as far as the press was covering the event, ridiculous how one event can change and turn reporters into amnesic zombies, when just days before they were covering several Armenian village shelling and NK refugees in Armenian reaching 160,000, even using terms such as genocide. It takes few lobbyists like Thomas Goltz to change events. VartanM (talk) 02:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Vartan, to my knowledge, there were 32 killed in Sumgait pogroms, 6 out of which were Azeris, 26 Armenians. It's pretty interesting though that a few Armenians who spoke fluent Azeri and led the massed in Sumgait, Edik Grigorian among them, were arrested and later freed in Moscow. The journalist you were talking about did not specifically state that Khojaly massacre was organized by Azeris. He's said to have talked about measures not being taken by then the ruling party in Azerbaijan. Does that mean though, that the 613 people, 2/3 of which were women, children and elderly were not murdered, and their bodies not mutilated by Armenian gunmen? Ehud (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 05:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Adil, if you wish to continue contributing here you should appeal to the arbitration committee. And for your information Lesar is Sephadric not Ashkenazi. If you don't mind I will ignore you as a banned user.VartanM (talk) 06:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

First of all, please assume good faith and don't attack other users without any evidence. Checkuser proved that Ehud is not related to Adil, so WP:AGF, please. As for the rest, what relevance do pogroms in Sumgait, Gugark and elsewhere have to this particular article? So far I received no explanation. I suggest to delete irrelevant statements, this article is about Khojaly, not Sumgait or other massacres. Let's keep it to the topic. Grandmaster (talk) 08:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Assuming good faith? Everyone knows it is Adil, it is his style, no Jew will call an event with few hundred deaths as a genocide (see his coment on NK) when Jews have difficultly comparing recognized genocides with millions of death with the Holocaust, or would he have reacted the way he did to Atabeks comment comparing Austwitch with Khojali. he supported Atabek and this is regardless of Atabeks continuous allusion to the NAZIs. Lesar is a Sephardic name not Ashkenazi, a Jew with an obvious Sephardic name like Lesar will never claim Ashkenazi ancestry. He should have at least used Cohen, which is both. Checkuser? It is so easy to escape a checkuser which you already know. That Ehud is Adil isn't even a secret to any contributor, he used another Jewish name which was registered the same month and only resumed using this account after the other was blocked. He always appears in controversial articles the same way as Adil. I won't have any problem requesting arbitration on him and let arbitrators decide if he is a genuine user. They have to answer to how Ehud has all the theories of Adil, which you never brought yourself. Like those about the Dashnaktsutsun and NK [23], or his falsified theory about Sevan which you never brought and were exclusive to Adil, like here. [24].

Assume good faith? He is a banned user, period, given that another user should have never been banned, it is unacceptable that Adil who turned the whole place into a battleground is allowed back just because a checkuser has been incapable of confirming anything. Had Adil been using one account like this one, I would not have any problem and will be ready to forget, but that he used parallel sockpuppets to revert war and push me and others who are not into restriction into one, I think is enough evidence that he did not change. The point is that while we know that various other new sockpuppets are Adil, lately Adil has been successful into escaping checkusers when we all know that it is Adil behind. So I hope you don't mind if I totally ignore Ehud. VartanM (talk) 18:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

VartanM, if you have suspicion that someone is Adil, why don't you file a checkuser, instead of just assuming bad faith against a contributor? And why do you think it's appropriate to attack Ehud's background without any facts? Before generalizing or assuming bad faith about Adil or Ehud, why, for the sake of neutrality, don't you ever look into this [25] - 34 confirmed socks! Before commenting next time, in a manner insulting someone's ethnicity or identity, think, perhaps, it's not a nice thing to do. As for my comment, I would think that a person or a group of individuals who pierce eyes or scalp children, as it was done during Khojaly Massacre listed on the main page, are not any better if not worse and thus perfectly comparable with Nazis, regardless of their ethnicity. Atabek (talk) 19:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Vartan, I swear to God, I really enjoy your "investigative" work :) This is really amusing for me. I am very glad to see other users such as Adil Bagirov, share the same views I do. But, you still have to admit that what you are saying above is rather childish. If one or other user shares the same views on Zangezur (Syunik) and Geycha (Sevan), that doesn't mean I have be one of them. There are Armenians that have the same views on the alleged genocide, Karabakh, Javakhetia, etc., and there are the ones that have different views. One Armenian may call it massacres, one may call it an "Armenian genocide", one will call Karabakh NKR, the other one Artsakh, one may call occupied Azerbaijani territories occupied, the rest "liberated". So if you're sharing same views with other potential Wiki users, does that mean you're the same person? I don't care if you're "ignoring" me or not, but I bet you're not because that why you're reading this line right here. I am not here to care about you. I care about the truth on this encyclopedia online. One more thing, since when are you going to tell me about my roots and what name or rather ethnic division I belong to? I know my ethnicity well enough. To use these baseless allegations is to show how low your position is. Please file a checkuser. Also, it would be a good idea for you to read more about Khojaly Genocide, where a group of armless Azeri civilians were surrounded, shot at, exterminated, and then their bodies mutilated by Armenian so called "defense army". One more important thing for you to jot down and do "investigations" on: Jews consider every civilian death a loss, when death in masses deliberately planned by another party: genocide. Good luck with your investigations --Ehud (talk) 01:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Dear Ehud Lesar, do you also condemn Turks that perpetrate Armenian Genocide by killing 1.5 millions of civilian Armenians? And why do you think Azerbaijan hasn't yet recognized the Armenian Genocide in Turkey but really wants everybody to recognize Khojaly as a genocide? I do condemn every act of murder myself but to label it so isn't it disgrace to the real victims of genocide, and I mean any genocide? Steelmate (talk) 05:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Steelmate, as a matter of fact, I condemn anyone who's committed atrocities, including those in Rwanda, Bosnia, Algeria, etc. What do you call "real victims of genocide"? Do you think the Azeri civilians who were exterminated as recently as 15 years ago are less of a victim than the Armenian or Turkish civilians nearly hundred years ago? To answer your question, I am not sure about condemning anyone "killing 1.5 million Armenian civilians" since the numbers and acts are a matter of debate between Armenians and Turks, but I do condemn any Turk who committed massacres of Armenian civilians as much as I condemn any Armenian who committed the same acts on Turkish civilians 100 years ago. --Ehud (talk) 08:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Ehud and Steelmate, the talk page is not for making statements about condemning massacres or recognizing events as acts of genocide, it's for discussion over the content of the main page articles. Please, review WP:SOAP and more than welcome to discuss your political views through other channels of correspondence. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 11:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

WIkiproject tag

Pocopocopocopoco, as you may have already noticed by the decision of administrator, the Wikiproject Artsakh is closed and forwards to WIkiproject Armenia. Since Khojaly massacre is relevant in context of conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan over Nagorno-Karabakh, I think Armenia tag is more appropriate and neutral in this talk page than Artsakh/Karabakh one. Please, refer to discussion at WP:AE for further clarifications. Atabek (talk) 21:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Pov title for the article

The title of this article is a biased POV: even the few non-Azeri sources calling these events massacres are citing the Azeri side reports, but the most part of reliable sources doesnt qualify these events as obvious massacres. So we need to have a neutral not biased title for this article (capture, battle of events but not massacres):

• the well-known center "Memorial" in his official report calls these events "capture and occupation of Khojaly" [http://www.memo.ru/hr/hotpoints/karabah/Hojaly/ ДОКЛАД ПРАВОЗАЩИТНОГО ЦЕНТРА «МЕМОРИАЛ»

О МАССОВЫХ НАРУШЕНИЯХ ПРАВ ЧЕЛОВЕКА, СВЯЗАННЫХ С ЗАНЯТИЕМ НАСЕЛЕННОГО ПУНКТА ХОДЖАЛЫ В НОЧЬ С 25 НА 26 ФЕВРАЛЯ 1992 г. ВООРУЖЕННЫМИ ФОРМИРОВАНИЯМИ]

• "On February 26, 1992, Armenians overran Khojaly, the second largest Azeri town in Karabakh. On March 6, public outrage over Khojaly led to the ouster of Azeri President Mutalibov". Armenia-Azerbaijan Conflict, December 3, 199, by Carol Migdalovitz, Foreign Affairs and National Defense Division
• The independent report of NYTimes: "The republic of Azerbaijan responded to the capture of Khojaly with a fierce rocket attack on Stepanakert, the capital of Nagorno-Karabakh, an Armenian center" New York Times, Armenians Gain in New Battle With Azerbaijanis, February 27, 1992

and 600 of killed people is not the only reported number by official Azerbaijan: the report by NYT says: Azerbaijan's Interior Minister, Tofik Kerimov, said that almost 100 Azerbaijanis had been killed in the battle for Khojaly and that 250 had been wounded Armenian officials gave far lower figures but no firm estimate. Independent corroboration was not available.(New York Times, Armenians Gain in New Battle With Azerbaijanis, February 27, 1992). The number of almost 100 should be represented too, as one of the two official Azerbaijani views (as no independent, third party tolls).Andranikpasha (talk) 20:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Thats utter rubbish regarding the name. - Francis Tyers · 22:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

We just need a new article called the Battle for Khojaly, as this article is only about the massacre near the city, actually on the border, but nothing is said about actually the battle for the city of Khojaly. Steelmate (talk) 22:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The massacre was both in the city and outside of it. Many people were killed in captivity. Grandmaster (talk) 06:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you know how many people died in the city vs out of the city? Also how many people dies in the city during war casualties and how many died because of as you say "massacre"? I would say this question has not been thorouly discussed, so it looks like according to article that Armenians made a massacre in the city. Steelmate (talk) 13:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Francis, the only remark "thats utter rubbish regarding the name" is not justify deletion of my explained and sourced addings. Pls assume good faith, discuss it in a non-aggressive manner and made a consensus here at first! You're not the only user here so by kind to accept other's sourced opinions too! Andranikpasha (talk) 12:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

There is consensus on the name. The consensus on the name has been developed over months of mediation. One user (you) showing up and putting an inappropriate tag on the article does not change consensus. None of the links you pasted deal with the Khojaly massacre. - Francis Tyers · 13:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Francis, the name is confusing as the massacre was near the city not in the city. That is something we need to discuss, and also, as a general rule, let's be polite to each other. Adminship doesn't give anybody right to be rude in Wikipedia. Steelmate (talk) 13:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an admin. - Francis Tyers · 14:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

This consensus became old. And Im not the only user, User Steelmate is also supports that this name is POV. And the POV tag is to make a civil consensus regarding to the sources represented by my (why they're dont deal with the topic??). If you continute to avoid of civil discussions and consensus, the moving due to lack of discussions will be justified. So decide! Andranikpasha (talk) 13:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Steelmate does not support that the name is POV. He states that the name is incorrect, because it happened outside of the city. This may or may not be true. It is irrelevant, under Wikipedia naming conventions, the most common name is used. The most common name is Khojaly massacre as any reasonable search will demonstrate. - Francis Tyers · 14:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

And why the number of 100 was deleted? is it also your own opinion I had to believe or you have sources asking this official number for NYT is not right? Andranikpasha (talk) 14:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you rephrase that please? - Francis Tyers · 15:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

To Steelmate: the facts are saying (see for example the marked NYT report) that the Khojaly events happened during the battle, not after. pls change wording. Andranikpasha (talk) 14:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Here is my understanding, chronologically:

• it was a battle for Khojaly city
• city fell under Armenian forces
• Azeri fled from the city
• Azeri raeched border of NK & Azerbaijan
• Killings of 600 or so Azeri civilians happened on the border which is widely recognized as Massacre

It looks like the massacre happened after the battle for the city of Khojaly... or did I miss anything? Steelmate (talk) 15:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

No, there isnt such a clear division between what happened in Khojaly and what happened near it. It was the continuation of the battle as some Azeri OMON'ers attacked Armenian post near Khojaly right during capture of Khojaly. See the material:

"Armenian forces overran an Azerbaijani town today in a new explosion of fighting in a disputed enclave in the southern Caucasus region, news reports said.

News agencies said Armenian forces had chased Azerbaijani units out of the town of Khojaly, leaving the city of Shusha as the only Azerbaijani stronghold inside the enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh.

The former Soviet republics of Armenia and Azerbaijan are in a bitter struggle for control of Nagorno-Karabakh, which lies within Azerbaijan but is populated mainly by Armenians.

The news agency Interfax quoted the nationalist Azerbaijani Popular Front as saying that much of the town of Khojaly was "in ashes," with dozens of houses destroyed and many civilians killed or injured. Independent news agencies said Armenian fighters had also consolidated their hold on Nagorno-Karabakh's main airport, which had been under Azerbaijan's control.

"It is a great victory for Armenians," a spokeswoman for the Armenian Parliament said from Yerevan, Armenia's capital.

Azerbaijan's Interior Minister, Tofik Kerimov, said that almost 100 Azerbaijanis had been killed in the battle for Khojaly and that 250 had been wounded Armenian officials gave far lower figures but no firm estimate. Independent corroboration was not available.

The republic of Azerbaijan responded to the capture of Khojaly with a fierce rocket attack on Stepanakert, the capital of Nagorno-Karabakh, an Armenian center. The Azerbaijanis used launchers taken from the former Soviet Army, news reports said. Armenians Gain in New Battle With Azerbaijanis, new York Times, February 27, 1992

Andranikpasha (talk) 15:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I see what you are saying. Let's say that, The Events encompass capturing of town (Khojaly) and then fight at the border and then massacre, right? So now where the word battle fits there? I would say The Events should be called The Battle as they strated as battle and ended as massacre, so we probably need a new article Khojaly Battle, which will include Khojaly Massacre events as part of the battle. What everybody thinks? Steelmate (talk) 16:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

First of all, no need to distort the sources. Memorial says refers to the event as "mass killing of civilians", which is equivalent to massacre. And second, killing occurred in different places. Many people were killed in the city, other killed in captivity or en route to Agdam. The place of largest killing was near the village of Nakhichevanik close to Askeran. But saying that killing occurred only in one location is inaccurate. Read Memorial report carefully. I'm rolling back undiscussed changes, this article was a result of long discussions and needs a consensus for significant alterations. Grandmaster (talk) 16:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's a need for another article about these events. This events are generally referred to as Khojaly massacre, so this article should cover all circumstances that led to the massacre. As for where people were killed, we may come up with better wording. There's a very simple solution, i.e. replacing "Azerbaijani civilians in the town of Khojaly" with "Azerbaijani civilians from the town of Khojaly". We can clarify the location of mass killings later in the text. I introduced that change, you can roll it back if you disagree. Grandmaster (talk) 16:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not rolling back your change as from is actually correct, vs in was incorrect. Also we need to make this article more clear chronologically, maybe by introducing sections, like capturing of town, or attack? Steelmate (talk) 16:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

This might be a good idea. We may need a new section called "Attack on Khojaly" or something to that effect. Grandmaster (talk) 16:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Grandmaster, why do you all the time replied to my sourced discussions by your own POV?? Pls stop this practics. Have you any sources? if yes, then cite, and discuss them. you said "This events are generally referred to as Khojaly massacre". Where are these "general sources"? The sources I represented are saying something different. Andranikpasha (talk) 17:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

They don't. If you search the archives, you will find plenty of sources about the massacre. You misquoted Memorial, which describes the event as mass killing of civilians, and the newspaper reports date before the details of the massacre became known to the public. Check later reports of the same NY Times, for example: [26] And that Girchenko quote is completely out of place, we have HRW quote about civilians being mixed with military, what's the point in another quote saying the same? It seems that the only purpose of that quote is to add the comments of that author about Azerbaijani soldiers, i.e. "jigit", which you translated as "brave mountainers" (?). I can remind you that the same source refers to Armenians as "freaking Indians" (индейцы хреновы) for scalping people, but are such quotes encyclopedic to be added to the article? I don't think so. Grandmaster (talk) 17:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

What means I do misquote? All quotes are direct and true, so what's the problem. At first, the mass killing is a mass killing (means Khojaly killings), not a massacre, and then they never say these events were obvious mass killings, thay call them capture and occupation of Khojaly. At least see the title (events during the occupation of Khojaly) to not ask this question. And NYT article is an Independent review, and other one is a hysterical report by "nationalists of NFA". Yes, according to them, "massacres took place". Why just massacres, nowdays official Azerbaijan reports it as a "genocide". Maybe you're going to cite them as more reliable then independent reviews by NYT, etc? "Brave mountainer"s is my translation, if you think itn not a right translation, you can delete it, but the text by Girchenko must remain as we need to represent the true story, not only Azeri official tolls (and only the highest ones!) and opinions. Mind WP:SOAP. Andranikpasha (talk) 17:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)