Talk:Khojaly massacre/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Evacuation issue

The following part was deleted a couple of days ago:

Ramiz Fataliyev, Chairman of the investigative commission in Khojaly:

It was 4 days until the events in Khojaly. In the presence of the president, prime minister, chairman of the KBG (Committee for State Security) and others on 22 February a conference of the national security council took place. During the conference the decision was made not to evacuate the population of Khojaly. In other words, we even provoked to attack the Armenians. Even the members of the security council knew very well that the Armenians were not able to carry out any actions similar to a genocide.

This statement, which depicts the "Armenian point of view", is sourced with an Interview of Ramiz Fataliyev from an Azerbaijani news-website (http://www.azadliq.org/content/article/1818751.html). Using an Azerbaijani source for describing an "Armenian point of view" should not be called "partisan" and should be compliant to the rules, right? --Aghetrichter (talk) 04:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Translation is incorrect. That's not what he said. I presume you do not speak Azerbaijani. I explained above why this was deleted. Grandmaster 17:05, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

---

Ok, I will check the translation. On what explanation of yours are you refering to? --Aghetrichter (talk) 21:03, 28 February 2012 (UTC) I've checked the translation. You were right, it is incorrect. --Aghetrichter (talk) 22:27, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

There is no need to wrongly state what Mutalibov or Fataliyev said. You should study the sources before making additions such as ones you recently made, Aghetrichter.  Anastasia Bukhantseva  05:46, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I've corrected myself and confirmed what Grandmaster said about the wrong Fataliyev statement. So what exactly do you mean?--Aghetrichter (talk) 22:06, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

BTW, Mutalibov did not say what you wrote in the article. Any citation should be accurate. Grandmaster 16:30, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Which Mutalibov citation do you mean?--Aghetrichter (talk) 22:06, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

There's only one there. Mutalibov never used the word Azeri-Turks, which shows that you took his words from an Armenian or pro-Armenian source. And if you read his interview, he never openly accused anyone. His words were very vague. Grandmaster 10:43, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, Cox is not a good source to quote Mutalibov. She clearly distorts his words. Plus, there are tens of new interviews by Mutalibov, where he explains his position. I added another quote and fixed the one that was there. Grandmaster 11:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

My citation is accurate, based on Caroline Cox's and John Eibner's source, which is the one used for this citation.--Aghetrichter (talk) 15:13, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Cox is not providing correct citation. This are the actual words of Mutalibov: Я не думаю, чтобы армяне, очень четко и со знанием дела относящиеся к подобным ситуациям, могли позволить азербайджанцам получить разоблачающие их в фашистских действиях документы. You can find it on any Armenian website about this event. So please do not add inaccurate translation. I really wonder how Mutalibov could use the term Azeri-Turks, that's not his usual lexicon. Grandmaster 23:43, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Split article by point of views

I would like to suggest to split the article NOT based on affiliation of sources but based on the different point of views. This is more beneficial in order to have a better and more comprehensible structure of the information of each side (Armenian point of view, Azerbaijani point of view, International point of view). Of course the sources should not only exist of the corresponding side but should also contain third-party-sources. Arranging the article in chronological order is not a contradiction and also possible when splitting it into the different point of views.--Aghetrichter (talk) 15:29, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

It is pointless. Why create 3 different articles within one? That's not how the articles are written here. Grandmaster 23:37, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Khojaly and Lidice

"On March, 2010, head of Lidice municipality in Czech Republic, Josef Klima, said that one of newly-constructed streets in Lidice would be named Khojaly."

Vážený pane šéfredaktore,

děkuji za Váš mail a za zájem o dění v obci Lidice. Dohoda o spolupráci mezi obcí Chodžaly byla podepsána s Památníkem Lidice, což je příspěvková organizace Ministerstva kultury. V naší obci Lidice nebyla pojmenována ulice po ázerbajdžánské obci Chodžaly. V nové obci Lidice jsou ulice pojmenovány na památku v souvislosti s lidickou tragédií a II.světovou válkou.

S pozdravem Veronika Kellerová, starostka

Link. Divot (talk) 16:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I just read this

Lidice and Khojaly had never been sister cities. The Azeris have been denied the Czechs Azerbaijan continues to carry on the state level and to promote large-scale tragedy in Khojaly genocide. Expression of this was the television coverage of Azerbaijan organized in this year's events.

This issue has touched the Armenian daily newspaper "Azg", stressing that over the past few years have been significant films produced, and information booklets, which are to some extent, may be the answer to the Azerbaijani lie.

As in the past few years and this year the Union of Azerbaijan, Azer-Czech in Prague organized event on Khojaly, setting the table tents in the city center and along with propaganda leaflets to passers-by and handing out coffee, tea and cake.

At the same territory of the Armenian community representatives handed out leaflets and pamphlets refuting Azerbaijan's a lie. In fact, the usual Czech passer anyway, there is heard, most importantly - free coffee and cake. A booklet has ten meters from the stage proved in urns. And as the Azerbaijanis thought sunken event of the day, the next day they put a table on another empty square and repeated his campaign, speaking in front of themselves.

As always, the Azerbaijani ambassador to the Czech Republic, representatives of the community and a former resident of Khojaly, which is again compared with the Khojaly destroyed by the Nazis in 1942, the Czech village of Lidice. In general, Lidice has become a favorite topic of speculation Azerbaijanis. Everywhere they write that they are sister cities, the streets were opened.

"Everything is a lie," - writes "Azg." - In our new query whether this is true falsification of Azerbaijan, the mayor of the town of Lidice Kellerova Veronica replied that the town of Khojaly had no treaty was concluded, moreover, in Lidice no street by that name. Streets in the new Lidice named in memory of a human tragedy during World War II. A representative of the Khojaly signed a cooperation agreement only with the museum complex of Lidice.

By the way, the Azerbaijanis had planned to note the 20th anniversary of Khojaly in the Lidice museum complex, but were refused. "

/ Panorama.am /

http://voskanapat.info/blog/lidice_i_khodzhalu_nikogda_ne_byli_gorodami_pobratimami_azerbajdzhancy_poluchili_otkaz_chekhov/2012-03-01-9496 So i think we should remove that line that says there is a street named in Lidice about Khojaly.Ninetoyadome (talk)

Fatullayev

This page, to which the reference is made, at the very bottom contains a comment by Fatullayev, who said:

by: Eynulla Fatullayev

October 25, 2011 22:25

I certainly never told that Khojaly massacre was committed by Azeribaijanis! I simply quoted what Armenian villagers told me during my visit to Karabakh. Many Azerbaijani ex-government officials were imprisoned because they were accused of failing to protect the residents of Khojaly from massacre and not because they committed the crime. I certainly do not want my words to be used by Armenians to cover up one of the most horrific crimes committed during the NK conflict.

I think he makes pretty clear what he meant, and it is quite in line with his statements to the European court. Grandmaster 00:02, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Your basing that off a comment? How do you even know that's Eynulla Fatullayev and not someone pretending to be him and discredit what he said? Ninetoyadome (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:03, 2 March 2012 (UTC).

I totaly agree! It is a just a simple comment and could be anybody. --Aghetrichter (talk) 18:39, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Regarding Fatullayev, his opinion takes almost one third of the article. This needs to be shortened and summarized, like it was done with other sources. Considering that he was not present there when the massacre took place (he was just a kid back then), and did not conduct an investigation, but only made a passing remark about Khojaly, and even this remark contained exaggerated and provocative statements (according to the European court), we should not dedicate as much space to this person as we do to reliable international organizations that conducted real investigations. There are 2 large quotes from this journalist, and other statements related to him. All this needs to be summarized in one paragraph for brevity. See for instance how the information from Romanov (the real witness) was summarized. Grandmaster 09:57, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

The article contained the same quote by Fatullayev, but in different translation:

First is this: Having familiarised myself with the geographical area, I can say, fully convinced, that the conjectures that there had been no Armenian corridor are groundless. The corridor did indeed exist, otherwise the Khojaly inhabitants, fully surrounded [by the enemy troops] and isolated from the outside world, would not have been able to force their way out and escape the encirclement.

And second is this: After I have made myself familiar with the area, I can say with full conviction that the allegations about the lack of an Armenian humanitarian corridor are completely unfounded. The corridor indeed existed, but the inhabitants were completely prevented from breaking out. I've talked with hundreds of refugees and the presence of a humanitarian corridor has been confirmed and they assured, that thanks to this corridor they were able to cheat death and survive.

I removed the second instance, as there's no need to repeat the same quote twice, and second translation is simply bad. Grandmaster 16:28, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Victims

I've checked the entire reference stack about purported falsifications of victims' images. Almost none of the refs support the claim about photo deception. Those that do are all partisan and refer either to some Armenian Director of Information and PR Center Ara Saghatelyan or Armenian author Samvel Martirosian of similar notability. Brandmeister t 22:34, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Then please check it again and read carefully. Since it says "According to Bulgarian journalist..." the sources are ok. It is the same thing like "According to Azerbaijani news agencies in 2011, over a million signatures gathered in Netherlands and sent to county’s parliament to support recognition of Khojaly." In this case there is not even one single proof that such a collection of signatures exists except that one Azerbaijani source which is given that only mentions it and yet this statement is accpeted. In the case of the falsified photos there are in contrast different sources which directly refer to the existing evidence where the falsified photos can be seen, therefore the "partisan argumentation" is not relevant.--Aghetrichter (talk) 18:50, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Unverifiable - didn't find the phrase where Paskaleva says the images are falsified. One Armenian reference just mentions her on Khojaly issue. Brandmeister t 20:38, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

At a press conference Paskaleva said: "Azerbaijan is making up falsification and repeats it every day." --Aghetrichter (talk) 00:53, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Even if it's true that doesn't mean the images of Khojaly victims are being falsified. The reference itself contains nothing about that. Brandmeister t 02:02, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

It is actually not my task to copy and paste everything in here, but as you are obviously unwilling to read through the sources I do it and hope that you stop your vandalism! The following statements can be read In the mentioned sources, it is unbelievable that you really claim that nothing about falsified photos is said in the sources!

1. "Plus to that a great amount of materials not having any link to Karabakh has been customized for Khojali events – there are photos from Afghanistan, Kosovo. The impression is that in their aspiration to gain favor some activists of the Azeri propaganda were using whatever they got handy. It is by no accident that after the web-site began functioning, certain sound media and experts in Azerbaijan noted some photos and proofs, not having any relation to Khojali."
2. "The initiative participants and judicial experts found that the injured children so frequently distributed in Azerbaijani websites are victims of a bus blast, some photos presented as Khojalu events unveil Kosovo war episodes, etc."
3. “We’ve proven, for example, that Azerbaijanis are carrying posters of pictures depicting victims of the Kosovo war, when they gather at Armenia’s embassies in different countries to hold anti-Armenian rallies”
and so on… That should be enough to stop your vandalism. --Aghetrichter (talk) 17:01, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

And who are this European Center for Artsakh e.V Aghetrichter keeps referring to? It is clearly a partisan source owned by Armenian diaspora. We might as well refer to similar Azerbaijani sources, however we must rely on third party sources. Grandmaster 23:48, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Btw, some Armenian sources also presented photos of Khojaly victims as victims of Sumgait. But are such events notable enough for mention in the article? Grandmaster 23:52, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

This, if at all, belongs to "victims of Sumgait" (as you said yourself) and not to "victims of Khojaly", hence this is not proper for this particular article --Aghetrichter (talk) 19:12, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Not exactly, because the victims are of Khojaly. Plus, all of your sources are not reliable. Tsvetana is well known for her Armenian connections, others are very obscure. You still haven't explained who are European Center for Artsakh e.V. Just because they are registered in Germany does not make them third party, it is still an Armenian propaganda source. And every other source you refer to is Armenian, not neutral. I can also write a lot of things with reference to Azerbaijani sources, but that's not how we should write articles. Propaganda sources from both sides are not reliable. We should rely on third party sources. Grandmaster 21:23, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Xenophobia Prevention Initiative is an organization from Yerevan, Armenia. These are their contacts: [1] Why is this a reliable source? Grandmaster 21:34, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

You did not refer to the main arguments of mine at all and obviously don't really want to understand what the point is! But I will repeat it again: This article contains several statements which are only sourced with mostly one singel Azerbaijani news site and yet you do not complain about it. But now the same thing for the Armenian version (with even much more sources which are moreover provable as compared with the Azerbaijani statements), and you immediately delete it. This is not acceptable. You demanded fairness, so please stick to what you say. I will undo your changes and except them to not be deleted again, otherwise this would mean vandalism. As long as the circumstances do not change, refrain from deleting the section but discuss it before. This also refers to Brandmeister --Aghetrichter (talk) 00:53, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Show me what exactly is sourced to Azerbainjani sources. I don't see any important claim being sourced to Azerbaijani sources. If you think otherwise, show me examples, and we can fix that. Grandmaster 20:43, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, you still haven't explained to me why European Center for Artsakh e.V. and Xenophobia Prevention Initiative from Yerevan should be considered reliable sources. Anyone can create a website and post anything he likes there. The sources must be third party, and have reputation for fact checking and accuracy. I don't think any of your sources qualify. And as Brandmeister already said above, Paskaleva does not even mention Khojaly. Why do you keep pushing her into the article? Grandmaster 21:15, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Btw, if we are talking about falsified evidence, there is plenty of info in Azerbaijani sources about how Armenian sources present images of Khojaly victims as images of Armenians from Maragha and Sumgait. For instance, here: [2] The information in Azerbaijani sources is as good as that in Armenian sources. However I don't think that the actions of some irresponsible journalists on either side are notable enough to deserve a mention. Grandmaster 21:48, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Concerning your source "gulustan.ws": This is a private website/portal and belongs to "Self-published sources" which are largely not acceptable. WP:SPS

Btw, in the Azerbaijani case the falsified pictures are not the result of "some irresponsible journalists" but are part of Azerbaijani state politic as they can be seen on governmental websites, books, embassy booklets and in almost every Azerbaijani (and Turkish) campaign for years. Therefore, except for the not reliable source you've mentioned, one can not in any way compare the extent of the Azerbaijani falsification with what you have mentioned and is therefore not relevant at all. --Aghetrichter (talk) 01:49, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I have really explained this issue extensively and also mentioned the relevance of the phrase "According to..." which is clearly used to describe this part! See WP:RELIABLESOURCES:

1. "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered" (although you as your personal opinion describe the Armenian view allegedly as "minority", it is a "significant view" as it depicts the main opposite view) = IS RELIABLE

2. "News organizations: ...is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact... Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces are reliable for attributed statements as to the opinion of the author" (The sources used are News organizations and their statements are marked with the term "According to.." = "attributed statements as to the opinion of the author") = IS RELIABLE

3. "Statements of opinion: ... may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact without an inline qualifier like "(Author) says..." (in this case the tantamount inline "According to..." is used) = IS RELIABLE

The lesson is clear: The section about the falsified photos is clearly reliable based on the above mentioned rules of Wikipedia. Any further deleting of this section will lead to blocking you from editing. --Aghetrichter (talk) 01:20, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Stop threatening me, you are free to complain wherever you like. As it was said many times before, Paskaleva does not use the word Khojaly even once. What does she have to do with this article? And European Center for Artsakh e.V. and Xenophobia Prevention Initiative are both self-published sources, same as Gulistan.ws is. So Gulistan.ws is as good as your sources. Plus, here's a published Azerbaijani source about Armenian falsifications: [3] [4] [5] In English: [6] This one is self-published, but it is a translation of an article in 1news.az. There are more published Azerbaijani sources about that, and they can be used in this article, but since such sources from both sides are partisan, they are not reliable. Grandmaster 09:11, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, since you are citing the rules, please note that most of your sources fall into the category of Questionable sources: [7] The use is such sources is very limited here, and they should not be used to support contentious claims. Grandmaster 10:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not threatening you. You just still don't make the impression of beeing in any way objective and you just proved this again by again mentioning "Paskaleva" although she already has been removed from the text on 3 March 2012 (23:30), so already 4 days ago and you still mention her everytime. This shows that you do not read the texts that you persistently delete at all but directly delete them without any analysis just because they do not fit to your personal point of view and your idea of what this article should look like. Therefore I consider your behaviour to be vandalism!

Your accusation is incorrect. All sources that have been used contain a full contact address or editorial oversight or are registered Organizations and therefore can not be called "self-published/personal" or "Questionable sources" based on the rules of wikipedia. Gulistan.ws has none of them and thus is not comparable.--Aghetrichter (talk) 14:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for Paskaleva, but European Center for Artsakh e.V. and Xenophobia Prevention Initiative are both just websites, and not published sources. They are not notable, are clearly partisan, and if you insist on using them, I will add a bunch of Azerbaijani websites. They write quite interesting things about Armenian falsifications. The fact that sources used by you have an address or registration is not a proof that they have reputation for fact checking, and they are clearly expressing extreme bias. So they fall into the category of questionable sources, and they are self-published, because they are not news outlets, and their opinion is not published by a reliable third party source. If anything, gulistan.ws is as good as any of those sources. And why do you remove 1news.az? It is as good as panarmenian.net or any other Armenian propaganda source. That is not acceptable. Grandmaster 15:19, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

As for Paskaleva, here's your revert with incivil edit summary, which restored her back: [8]. So no, she was not removed 4 days ago, the last time you added her was today, which is why I mentioned her. Grandmaster 21:54, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Aghetrichter, the article of Helen Womack in The Independent can be found in the archives. You need to use a database like Lexis-Nexis, the website of the newspaper does not provide full access to all the articles published before 2003. In fact, it displays no articles at all for 5 March 1992: [9], or any other day that month. I have the full text of the article, and I can post it here, if you want. As for 1news,az, of course the links to the Armenian websites do not contain falsified pictures anymore, they removed them after the publication of the articles. But 1news.az made screenshots and included them, you can see them at the bottom of their articles. I see that you avoid discussion here at talk, and repeatedly remove the info from the article without any attempt to discuss. That is not acceptable. Grandmaster 10:23, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I have to tell you that is it getting extremely nerve-racking to discuss about every single word one is writing a hundred times and over and over again. This absolutely sensitive topic definitely needs a "Pending-changes protection" as it is for example in almost every German Wikipedia article. In this way an OBJECTIVE administrator can decide what is right and what not before making it public and we can save all this endless discussions which lead to absolutely no solution.

P.S.: Please provide at least a scan or something of Helen Womack, as this article can be found nowhere except on Azerbaijani websites --Aghetrichter (talk) 16:29, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't have a scan, as I said, I have the full text through Lexis-Nexis in an electronic form. I will post the article below in full for 1 day, and then remove it because of possible copyright issues. Here goes:

The Independent (London)

March 5, 1992, Thursday

Azeris hunted down and shot in the forest; Refugees and fresh graves confirm massacre by Armenians

Full text removed due to copyright.

Copyright 1992 Independent Print Ltd

So there's no reason to question the existence of the article. I cited my source, and I even provided here the full text. You can go to a library and check for yourself. Grandmaster 19:44, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Helen Womack & The Independent

There are 10 topics about Karabakh by Helen Womack in "The Independent" from 1992, but I can't find any news about Khojaly. Please, give any good source about topic. Divot (talk) 15:58, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I have already explained that the archive from 1992 is not available at the website of The Independent. Use Lexis-Nexis. The fact that it is not available on the website does not justify the tag. If you fail to find it in Lexis-Nexis, or in a major international library, let me know. We can ask the wikicommunity for help with verification, if you wish. I'm sure there are plenty of people here who have an access to Lexis-Nexis. Grandmaster 21:11, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability. If you can check an online database like Lexis-Nexis, check it, and say us about result. Divot (talk) 12:01, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I checked it, and the article is there. If you keep edit warring, you could be placed on an editing restriction. What makes you think that the article is not on Lexis-Nexis? Have you actually checked? If so, you should have found it easily. I copied the entire article from Lexis-Nexis and posted it in a thread above. So please stop edit warring, and go to a library. Grandmaster 19:35, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I posted a request at WP:REX. Hopefully someone will help us to do an independent verification. Grandmaster 19:58, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I found it in the Factiva database with the text you gave. Goodvac (see WP:REX) found it in Lexis-Nexis. So you can consider the existence and content of the article confirmed. But please remove the full text of the article from this page, it is a copyright violation. Zero^talk 23:05, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your help. I removed the full text. Grandmaster 23:11, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Hürriyet, correspondent of "Le Monde", etc.

Hürriyet, correspondent of "Le Monde", head of Turkish Parliament’s Human Rights Commission - reliable sources. They say about Istambul's march. This is no offtopic. Please, read Wikipedia:Content disclaimer. Divot (talk) 11:29, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Every has a right for such rallies. Nothing extraordinary happened apart from that "strong sense of nationalism", no one was killed or wounded. Brandmeister^talk 11:33, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

You are right about "killed or wounded". But we don't say that "someone was killed or wounded", we just say, after Hürriyet etc., that "The protest was heavy with ultranationalist sentiment" and "The head of Turkish Parliament’s Human Rights Commission, Ayhan Sefer Üstün, called on the country’s prosecutors...". This is an important information about such rallies. Divot (talk) 11:37, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

P.S. If you think "Nothing extraordinary happened", we can delete all information about such rallies. Are you agree? Divot (talk) 11:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Why it was "ultranationalist"? Unless something important happened, the inclusion of that is discouraged per WP:NPOV (and WP:WEIGHT), it's just an opinion, not an important info. Brandmeister^talk 12:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

"Why it was "ultranationalist"?" Because reliable source Hürriyet says "The protest was heavy with ultranationalist sentiment".

Of course, this is important information about the rally, because the few of first-class media, describing the event, notes the nationalist sentiment. Divot (talk) 12:21, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Like Plato said that :) The reliable sources do not automatically guarantee inclusion because they should be balanced against neutrality in particular. Brandmeister^talk 13:07, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Of course, but if the leading newspaper describe rally in the article "Racism mars Khojaly protest in Taksim", it means that this is "balanced neutrality". Divot (talk) 13:22, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

This is still should be balanced against Wikipedia's neutrality policy. The rally itself, as the articles say, was not an ultranationalist as a whole: "Some protesters, however, said they had no problems with Turkish-Armenians but added that they were marching to draw attention to the Khojaly Massacre". Brandmeister^talk 13:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I add oficial position of head of Turkish Parliament’s Human Rights Commission. 14:07, 1 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Divot (talk • contribs)

OR derived from an image

Parishan, to use content translated from the supposed screenshot of an email that is on the webpage at http://panorama.am/en/politics/2012/03/02/xocali-lidice-kellerova/ would be original research. Beyond questions about the veracity of any translation, we don't know anything about this email, whether it is the complete email, the only email, etc. The actual article does not contain any of the new content you inserted, but the article does contain the content that you deleted. Meowy 02:00, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Fair use candidate from Commons: File:Hocali anit.jpg

The file File:Hocali anit.jpg, used on this page, has been deleted from Wikimedia Commons and re-uploaded at File:Hocali anit.jpg. It should be reviewed to determine if it is compliant with this project's non-free content policy, or else should be deleted and removed from this page. Commons fair use upload bot (talk) 08:47, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Falsification of history

Today, a subsection on Falsification of History was added by me, but user brandmeister removed it. I was suggested to discuss it for the first and then get it back. So I'm ready for any questions related to the text [10]. Gazifikator (talk) 23:42, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I found no mention of Khojaly in Markedonov. Why did you try to include sources that do not support your assertions? Grandmaster 07:31, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

For a little peace of text 4 sources are used. If even Markedonov is problematic, according to your post, you agree others are reliable. I see no problem as a consensus to delete Markedonov's name and source. Hopefully you will not continue Brandmeister's line, time after time changing your attitude. Gazifikator (talk) 07:41, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

This source is about events in Guba: [11] Grandmaster 19:46, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Manipulations on Khojaly is a well known topic. This paragraph should be expanded. Sprutt (talk) 23:07, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Schnirelmann and Markedonov wrote nothing about the criticism of the word "genocide" in the provided references and do not even mention the massacre. Also, as I wrote previously in the edit summary, the sentence about Quban Jews is not relevant. And do not remove the official death toll by Azerbaijani authorities until consensus is reached to do so. So far there is no evidence against those figures. Brandmeister^talk 12:36, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

The edit by Sprutt violates neutrality policy and de Waal says nothing of falsification of history.Ladytimide (talk) 18:32, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

No, that's not right, both criticize the usage of "genocide" by Azerbaijan. Markedonov speaking about the theory of "genocide of Azerbaijanis"- "Whatever we spoke about the imperfection of the Azerbaijani arguments (and spoke mostly right) and the low quality of modern philosophy of history of Azerbaijan, no one will dispute its political effectiveness. With the help of the "theory of the victims' post-Soviet Azerbaijan is largely managed to escape the image of a country, encouraging Sumgait and Baku pogroms, as well as to present the conflict over Karabakh as a more complex confrontation, rather than a fight among the "Armenian Democrats" against the "Azerbaijani national communists. Given the extremely low awareness of Western public opinion in the history and specifics of inter-ethnic relations in Asia, the theory of genocide of Azerbaijanis was effective." The text by EAJC is not only about Quba Jews, but about Khojaly too, it is there, please read - "The Azerbaijani government strives to get the Jewish community involved in the policy of “Holocaustizing history” wherein they attempt to prove facts of mass killing of Quban Jews by Armenians in 1918-1919 in order to identify them with the Holocaust, like with the capture of Khodjali in 1992". Simple WP:Idontlikeit is not passing here, sorry. Find more serious arguments. Gazifikator (talk) 18:40, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Political manipulations about Khojaly in Azerbaijan is well known topic. This passage is deleted by Brand for the third time. Mind your attitude. Sprutt (talk) 19:23, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Violation of WP:Synth and WP:OR. Neither source uses the word "falsification", yet you included it into the heading. That alone is a rude violation of WP:NPOV. Markedonov does not even mention Khojaly, yet he is included here too. WP:Synth. EAJC is also very ambiguous, it is hard to understand how mass killing of Jews in Guba could be identified with Holocaust, like in Khojaly. Do they mean to say that the capture of Khojaly is identified with Holocaust, and someone tries to do the same in Guba? The source is written in very bad English, plus it is a fringe opinion anyway. You cannot construct a section based on it, especially considering that it allows different interpretations. Grandmaster 19:26, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

What you write, completely differs from your first opinion written here (mind WP:Idontlikeit). The source says what it says, both Markedonov and EAJC are reliable sources, do you have sources criticizing them as wrong? if no, then the section must be returned. Thank you. Gazifikator (talk) 03:29, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Show me where exactly this Markedonov guy mentions Khojaly. He never does, and his article has nothing to do with the topic of this article. It is completely irrelevant, and therefore a violation of WP:Synth. You cannot combine unrelated sources to advance a point. Grandmaster 04:32, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

What a question? He is speaking about the "Azerbaijani genocide". It is what criticized, surely not the Khojaly massacre as an event. You're asking wrong question so why you don't receive a right answer. And Markedonov is just one of many sources. Don't agree? ask for a third opinion. Gazifikator (talk) 13:57, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

How can you use here a source that does not even mention Khojaly? You cannot make WP:Synth. And no source uses the word "falsification" that you included in the heading. You cannot misinterpret sources like that. Grandmaster 14:55, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

The political manipulations and falsifications of the "khojali Masacre" incident by Azerbaijan are the only reasons the incident has notability. I'm not satisfied that the current additions are the best way of addressing this fact (and the subsection title as it curently stands is not suitable), but for now it is better than having nothing. So the content that some are repeatedly deleting should stay. Meowy 16:13, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

There is another source that need to be added to subsection: after Hrant Dink's assassination some Turk nationalists organized a demonstration with "“We are all Turks, We are all from Khojaly, We are all Mehmet." placards, and a group of Azerbaijanis called "Turkey Platform of Socialist Azerbaijanis" protested against them in Ankara and announced: "To take part in this game, to tolerate how the Khojaly Massacre has become a political tool for these circles, is, first and foremost, an example of disrespect to the memory of those people brutally murdered in the Khojaly Massacre; it is indifference against the grief of those from Khojaly. ". [12]. It was so much notable that was published by Hurriet (the announcement "should be recorded in history", Hurriet says). Gazifikator (talk) 17:45, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The removal of one info and insertion of contentious one again and again is not welcomed without a clear consensus. If you revert, at least provide convincing edit summary; none has been given so far. The section "Political Manipulations and Falsification of History in Azerbaijan" you repeatedly restore is explicitly POV-ridden (not to mention verifiability concerns mentioned above) and should be discussed further before addition. Thanks for understanding. Brandmeister^talk 12:02, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Brandmeister. None of the sources even uses the word "falsification", yet you included it in the heading. Some sources do not mention Khojaly at all, and others misinterpreted. This is absolutely unacceptable, and is contrary to a whole bunch of rules. Grandmaster 12:13, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

It seems after a long-long discussion you and Brandmeister have the full picture what really you dislike. Is it the time for you to ask for a third opinion, or you still see your opinions are completely baseless? Gazifikator (talk) 13:47, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't mind a third opinion. Let's get a third opinion, but until consensus is reached controversial edits should not be made. It is especially unacceptable to make changes using the terms that are not used in any of the sources used. Grandmaster 20:21, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

For the first, do not delete sourced materal but ask for third opinion. The vandalized subsection must be reverted back as the only reason for it's removal is your WP:Idontlikeit. Gazifikator (talk) 20:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

You cannot include this section without consensus. It violates a whole bunch of wiki rules, such as WP:NPOV, WP:SYNTH, WP:OR, etc. Ask for third opinion, and we'll see what the community says. I don't see a single third party source using the word "falsification" with regards to events described in the article. You cannot misinterpret the sources, alter the quotes, make synthesis, include the terms that are not contained there. Grandmaster 20:51, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

You're repeating myself, I was the first suggesting you to ask for a 3O. But I checked it is impossible, as more than 2 users are engaged. Consensus needed when you have sources criticizing other reliable sources, but you have completely nothing, but your WP:Idontlikeit. Everything is quoted, so no misinterprenantions. Otherwise please report. And please, stop the editwarring, it is useless. Gazifikator (talk) 04:10, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Grandmaster - you are editworring by removing sourced information. This is a typical WP:Idontlikeit. Gazificator - please learn how to preserve changes that develop the texts that you introduce. No WP:NPOV, no WP:SYNTH, no WP:OR. Sprutt (talk) 04:35, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Gazifikator, I think you should stop WP:IDONTHEARYOU behaviour since none of the concerns raised above was addressed. You cannot add unsourced contentious labels such as "retaliatory", remove figures by Azerbaijani authorities and repeatedly restore large portions with sources that are unverifiable. Keeping it that way is unproductive. Try further discussion. Brandmeister^talk

Please do not vandalize the page. It seems you even doesn't read it otherwise you will not ask me irrelevant questions. I never added any "sourced contentious labels such as "retaliatory"" as you're falsely claiming. What I'm adding is sourced by many reliable sources, everything is quoted so no consensus needed, especially per you aggressive editwarring by using vandal IP's and removing the whole secton just because you don't like it. Gazifikator (talk) 04:48, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

This disaster of an article

It is about time it was fixed. As a start, I am going to remove in its entirety the "recognition" section and all parts of the remembrance section that are not connected to the incident. By "connected" I mean remembrance by those who in some way see themselves as having a direct connection with those involved. I am guided in this by the lack of "recognition" sections or trivia-filled propagandistic "remembrance" sections in articles such as Bloody_Sunday, Sabra and Shatila massacre, My Lai Massacre, etc. If an editor wants this content reinserted, I expect them to justify why this article should be different from the articles I have mentioned. Meowy 02:00, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

well ... agree. Sprutt (talk) 04:35, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

The article should contain only reliable materials per WP:NPOV and not the freakish propaganda from nationalist hate sites. Sprutt (talk) 04:47, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with that section. It may require some clean up, but otherwise it is quite in line with the rules. And saying that other similar articles contain no such sections is wrong. See Lidice for example. Grandmaster 06:19, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

The Lidce "commemorations" are examples of what I said should be in this article: remembrance by those who in some way saw themselves as having a direct connection with those involved: i.e. contemporary events by WW2 allies, as well as mentions in notable films or by notable people. Meowy 15:02, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

My edit was reverted by NovaSkola, who chose not to give any reasoning for the revert here, even though one was specifically requested. That sort of pov-fueled blind reverting is exactly why this article is in the mess it is. Answer the points made, NovaSkola, or leave this article alone. Meowy 15:12, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I am going to revert your overly large deletion of material, if you have problems with certain sections you need to make individual arguments for each. A quick look at some of the material that you deleted was information about an entire nation recognizing the massacre (which is obviously notable) and an American state recognizing the massacre which is not only notable but was cited by pointing to their publicly available records (making it notable and verifiable). Your self-imposed criteria of limiting to "those who in some way see themselves as having a direct connection with those involved" is not a wiki-standard a fact which is observable by pointing to an article of a similar event that remains disputed which you can find under the name Armenian Genocide, and a sub-page that flies directly in the face of your self-imposed criteria Armenian Genocide recognition. Again, if you wish to delete certain sections you need to make individual arguments for each section, and of course such arguments would benefit from citing established wiki-standards. --Wowaconia (talk) 15:28, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

You have the bare-faced affrontery to state that the mass murder of 1.5 to 2.5 million people over a span of some four years, an event that changed the political direction and ethnic identity of Asia Minor and the Caucasus, is a "similar event" to a single incident that lasted for one day and that resulted in the death of some 600. You should hang your head in shame, you disgust me. Meowy 21:53, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and what exactly do you think should be in an article with "recognition" as its title, if you don't think examples of recognition should be there? I suppose I should let this propaganda article remain in the state it curently is in - it is so laughably OTT propagandistic. Meowy 22:28, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

1. You have not made any argument citing Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, I continue to invite you to do so.
2. I am not comparing tragedies, I am comparing material included on articles of disputed subjects, I cite that article and its sub-article as illustrative of encyclopedic style which I advocate should be used here.
3. While I understand you see the inclusion of this information as propaganda, others might see its removal as a cover-up - to resolve such disputes Wikipedia has several different methods. If you feel your position is not getting the consideration it should, you may wish to explore these options at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

Again I have not reviewed each section you sought to delete, perhaps some indeed do not live up to Wikipeida's standards and the article would be improved if they were removed. One would have to provide individual reasons for each segment that did not live up to wiki-standards - I invite you to pursue such a endeavor.

--Wowaconia (talk) 23:42, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the information about recognition should be deleted. It contains verifiable info, and passes the guidelines for notability. Removing such large section twice without consensus with other involved editors is not acceptable. I agree with Wowaconia that Meowy should make arguments for deletion of every section separately, to allow for discussion and consensus. Grandmaster 06:44, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Recent addition

The article is not about the protest, so the recently added description of the protest should be weighed against due weight (to avoid straying from topic) and neutral point of view before submitting. Brandmeister^talk 18:20, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I reverted those edits. I think the same way but cannot express myself as good as you. --E4024 (talk) 18:49, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

This is not about protest, this is about rally. According WP:RS "News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact". Of course, AFP and Today's Zaman is well-established news outlets, so we can use information about Anti-Armenian signs, becouse it's a fact about meeting. Once more, it is not a protest, it's a fact about rally. Divot (talk) 21:47, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Summarize. Not any clear objections, AFP and Today's Zaman - identifying reliable sources. I return information. Divot (talk) 08:38, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

• http://justiceforkhojaly.org - affiliated source
• http://www.aze.az - Said "maybe they can collect one million signatures". When they collect, then we'll talk.
• https://www.facebook.com/pages/Justice-for-Khojaly-Campaign/101823787520 - is this reliable source?
• http://www.lrytas.lt - dubious Lithuanian web-site

Divot (talk) 08:48, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Reliability does not guarantee inclusion as it should be balanced against WP:DUE. The article is not about the protest, so there is no need to describe them in detail. Brandmeister^talk 22:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

"The article is not about the protest" - do you want to delete all info about protest? if no, we need to describe this protest as in the media. Divot (talk) 23:18, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

One-two neutral sentences would suffice I think. Brandmeister^talk 10:50, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

"Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately...". Neutral sources, like AFP and NZZ, write a lot of about racist banners. Сan you propose here a version of the text? Divot (talk) 11:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Since "the protest reportedly had an ultranationalist undertone, with protesters carrying racist banners" and "the head of Turkish Parliament’s Human Rights Commission, Ayhan Sefer Üstün, called on the country’s prosecutors to take action against protesters who held up racist and discriminatory signs at the rally", it's redundant to repeat the info by reporting "You are all Armenians, You are all bastards” and “Today Taksim, Tomorrow Yerevan: We will descend upon you suddenly in the night" - it would disrupt neutral tone. Brandmeister^talk 15:01, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

"The protest reportedly had an ultranationalist undertone, with protesters carrying racist banners. The head of Turkish Parliament’s Human Rights Commission, Ayhan Sefer Üstün, called on the country’s prosecutors to take action against protesters who held up racist and discriminatory signs at the rally" - first sentence about rally, second sentence about the reaction of the Turkish authorities. Divot (talk) 23:19, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Terminology

I have discovered that all articles with "Azerbaijani victims" are titled "... massacre" whereas articles (concerning the same topic, namely the karabakh war) with "Armenian victims" are titled "... pogrom". The term "massacre" sounds obviously bigger than the term pogrom. But in most cases the death toll of the Azerbaijani victims is even smaller but yet called "massacre". As these tragic events have the same relation I suggest using the same terminology in order to prevent a manipulating interference in the search for consensus.

Examples:
- 1988 "Sumgait pogrom", 32-100 Armenian victims
- 1988 "Kirovabad pogrom", more than 130 Armenian victims
- 1990 "Pogrom of Armenians in Baku", at least 90 Armenian victims

- 1992 "Malibeyli and Gushchular Massacre", 8 Azerbaijani victims
- 1992 "Garadaghly Massacre", 70-90 Azerbaijani victims
- 1992 "Khojaly Massacre", 161-613 Azerbaijani victims
--Markus2685 (talk) 20:18, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

The terminology is based on what the majority of sources call the event. In case of Khojaly the term "massacre" prevails. In case of Sumgait the prevailing term is "pogrom". It has nothing to do with victims being Armenian or Azeri, there are also articles like Maraga Massacre. Grandmaster 21:03, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think so. The article about Malibeyli and Gushchular for example is, from a non-partisan source perspective, mainly based on the Helsinki Watch report which in no single word speaks of a "Malibeyli and Gushchular massacre". And even the hint on the article page says "The neutrality of this article is disputed. This article may rely excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject". The second article about Garadaghly Massacre has 18 references, but 16(!) out of this 18 references are Azerbaidjani (= partisan) sources which of course speak of a massacre. Therefore it is very obvious that the term "massacre" for the Azerbaijani tragedies was created by Azerbaijanis themselves. (Khojaly is a exception)--Markus2685 (talk) 16:47, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

The problems in other articles need to be addressed on talk of those articles. Grandmaster 21:07, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Sources

I have checked the sources used in this article and came to the following result. This article is based on…

27 Azerbaijani (partisan) sources
6 Armenian (partisan) sources
6 Turkish sources
6 Russian sources
6 Dead links

and the rest are sources like Thomas De Waal, Memorial, Human Rights Watch, parliamentary resolutions or sources that are listed twice and more. So to sum it all up... one third (or even more) of this article is based on Azerbaijani (partisan) and primary sources. The sections "Rememberance" and "Memorials" are almost purely based on Abzerbaijani/primary sources.--Markus2685 (talk) 02:04, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

The important core part of the article concerning the actual massacre is based exclusively on neutral sources. The partisan sources are used only in the section about remembrance and memorials, and those sources only state that such and such monument was erected in such and such place, or such and such resolution was adopted by such and such organization. You do not need a neutral source for the information about monuments, no one denies that those monuments exist. So the article is alright in terms of NPOV. You cannot find here a questionable claim referenced to a partisan source. If you look at Maraga Massacre for comparison, you'll see that Caroline Cox is the only source for that article, although sometimes quoted in other sources. So this article is sourced a lot better than any similar article about the region. Grandmaster 21:03, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you that the important core part is based on neurtral sources. Concerning Maraga Massacre… as far as I see the article is based not on one single Armenian source and besides Caroline Cox I also see sources like Amnesty International, Thomas De Waal, Human Rights Watch, BBC. So your sentence "you'll see that Caroline Cox is the only source for that article" is not really right. But that's not the point here. --Markus2685 (talk) 01:35, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Pogroms in "See also" section

I delete links to the articles about pogroms, because they are irrelevant. Don't revert back without discussion. Best, Konullu (talk) 23:48, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

"because they are irrelevant" - why? Divot (talk) 00:02, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

The article has references to other "massacres" during the war but no mention of the massacres committed against Armenians, why is it ok to put the Azeri ones but not the Armenian? Ninetoyadome (talk) 02:26, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

What about tortures?

According to this wiki page about Khojali (Hodjali) Genocide/Massacre, Armenian soldiers killed people including children and women fast & painless, but this is not all the truth. Maybe just for Armenian side. You have to include opinions of both sides and show pictures & documents about the event in the name of being objective. You have to add documents about tortures applied before killing those people including children and babies inside pregnant women.

And if there were any massacres against Armenian civilians you can give a link to an Armenian site easily, but I haven't heard any. So what if there aren't any massacres against Armenians? I understand from your answer to previous topic that you won't give links to sites including massacres/genocides against Azerians too, right? That's bad for Wiki. Obsteel (talk) 17:32, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

There were no tortures, there is no evidence of torture, there isnt even enough evidence to make Armenia the responsible party for what happened. Ninetoyadome (talk) 19:58, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

User Obsteel… you should use the right terminology. The term "Genocide" for Khojaly is created by Azerbaijanis and no one else with the only purpose to distract from the Armenian Genocide (which is internationally recognized as "genocide" by hundreds of historians and scholars worldwide). But there is not one single international organisation or historian who has classified Khojaly as "genocide". The only ones worldwide using the term "genocide" for Khojaly are Azerbaijanis and Turks… as said, for the only reason to distract from the internationally recognized Armenian Genocide. So please use the appropriate terminology when discussing this topic. --Markus2685 (talk) 12:59, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Importance of resolutions commemorating the Khojaly massacre/victims

In which way is it important for the understanding of the main topic and the article at all, to mention every single resolution which has been introduced by represantatives of parliaments commemorating the victims of the Khojaly Massacre? Where does this lead to? Adding every resolution which will consequently be introduced in the future on every anniversary of the massacre?

Wikipedia articles about the Holocaust, the Armenian Genocide, Srebrenica massacre etc. (with much more victims) also don't list every single resolution which in a way mentions or commemorates the victims. I therefore suggest to delete this section. This information is in no way relevant or important for the understanding of the topic. The section Recognition of the massacre, which basically only consists of mentioning resolutions, is almost longer than the indeed important section Background. Wikipedia:Relevance of content --Markus2685 (talk) 15:01, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think sections on Recognition and Remembrance should be deleted. The information there is verifiable and notable for inclusion. Sections similar to Remembrance section in this article exist in other articles, like for instance in Lidice. However I would support splitting those sections into separate articles, as was done for instance with Armenian Genocide recognition and List of Armenian Genocide memorials. Grandmaster 16:05, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I also don't meant deleting them completely from Wikipedia. But I don't think that the current solution is favourable for the quality of the article. Because as said, the section Recognition of the massacre but also Rememberance is much longer than the important section Background. The commeroration section of Lidice consists of a elaborate text. Whereas the text in the section Recognition of the massacre is just a list, on which date which parliament commemorated the victims. Therefore I think the right solution would be what you have suggested... create a seperate article like it's done for List of Armenian Genocide memorials and transfer the sections here to this new article.--Markus2685 (talk) 18:06, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Citation inactive

Can someone find the right page for references 86 and 87? thank you. Nocturnal781 (talk) 18:24, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Fatullayev

The quotes from Fatullayev take a large part of the article. But considering that he was neither a witness (he was a child when Khojaly massacre took place), nor conducted a proper investigation (which is impossible after so many years), and European Court of Human Rights concluded that he only made "passing remarks” about Khojaly massacre, and his article may have contained “exaggerated and provocative statements”, I think the references to this person need to be shortened at least by half. All the info about his criminal case could be moved to the article about this person. And adding more quotes from this person is pointless. His views already take up a large part of the article in violation of WP:Weight. He clearly cannot be placed on the same level as notable international human rights organizations HRW and Memorial, which conducted investigations on both sides of the front line at the time of the massacre. Grandmaster 20:01, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Also, Roses&guns, you should stop misquoting sources, it is a violation of the rules. Please be careful when referring to a source. You added a following line with the reference to HRW:

As reported by the Human Rights Watch, prior to launching an attack the Armenian fighters had issued an ultimatum warning that if the Azerbaijani side didn't stop the shelling of Stepanakert from Khojaly the Armenians would seize Khojaly.

Yet when checking a source that you are referring to, one can see that it says something completely different. Here's what it says:

Armenian fighters maintain that they sent ultimata to the Azerbaijani forces in Khojaly warning that unless missile attacks from that town on Stepanakert ceased, Armenian forces would attack. According to A.H., an Azerbaijani woman interviewed by Helsinki Watch in Baky,

After Armenians seized Malybeyli, they made an ultimatum to Khoja1y ... and that Khojaly people had better leave with a white flag. Alif Gajiev [the head of the militia in Khojaly] told us this on February 15, but this didn't frighten me or other people. We never believed they could occupy Khojaly.

According to nearly all of the twenty-two Azerbaijani witnesses of the Khojaly events interviewed by Helsinki Watch, the village had been shelled almost on a daily basis during the winter of 1991-92, and people had grown accustomed to spending nights in basements.

As you can see, nowhere does HRW say that Armenians issued an ultimatum, it is the claim of the Armenian side, not that of HRW, HRW merely reported their claim, without making any assertions about its accuracy. And HRW also mentions that all the Azerbaijani refugees maintained that Khojaly was shelled by Armenians on a daily basis, and people had to hide in basements. So HRW does not support your claim, and it is not Ok to misquote the source. Grandmaster 20:24, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Roses&guns, please stop making POV edits and misquoting the sources. If you continue such problematic editing, I will have to raise the issue at the relevant admin board. Once again you changed the line:

Armenian fighters claimed to HRW investigators that they sent ultimata to the Azerbaijani forces in Khojaly warning that unless missile attacks from that town on Stepanakert ceased, Armenian forces would attack

to

According to the reports of HRW and Memorial the Armenian fighters had sent ultimata to the Azerbaijani forces in Khojaly warning that unless missile attacks from that town on Stepanakert ceased

I provided the quote above, and the same is with Memorial. Neither organization asserts that the Armenians actually gave such an ultimatum. They only quote the position of the Armenian side, which needs to be properly attributed. If you restore this POV edit once again, I will have to draw the attention of the administrators to your behaviour. Also, please use talk to explain your edits before making them, as they are clearly contentious. Grandmaster 15:29, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

xocali.net

xocali.net is not a third party published source, it is a private nationalist website. WP:VERIFY holds: Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. xocali.net is not a reliable third party source, nor has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Roses&guns claims that it is not used as an RS, "only its existence is stated as an example to the previous sentence". If you include a link in the article, you do use it as a reference. And why should we mention the existence of some nationalist website anyway? What makes it notable? There are similar websites on Azerbaijani side as well, but they are not reliable sources either. Moreover, the arbcom strictly prohibited the use of such websites: Use of material from propagandistic nationalist sites is unacceptable. [13] Grandmaster 10:40, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok, the sentence about xocali.net is referenced by media sources (which are reliable sources); it clearly states that it is an Armenian website and it is mentioned as an example to the previous sentence; the word 'alleged' reflects neutrality; it is important information as hacker wars have been launched because of this website, about which articles have been written in the press.Roses&guns (talk) 13:26, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

A mention in Armenian media does not make a website notable. It is still a private website, and there are millions of other websites hacked every day. Also, the Armenian media is not a third party source, same as Azerbaijani, it was used in the article only to reflect their opinion. In general, I think the whole part about Azerbaijani and Armenian media misusing the images is inappropriate for this article. There are irresponsible journalists in both countries, but what does it have to do with this particular event? The article is about the massacre, not irresponsible journalism in South Caucasus. I suggest deleting the whole paragraph as irrelevant. Grandmaster 20:07, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Structuring the part "The massacre"

The Part "The massacre" in its current version is very long (which is not false) but this makes it very hard to get an overview as it is mainly one big long continuous text without any clear divisions. Therefore I suggest providing subcategories in order to achieve a better structuring of information and the topic itself. As an example one can take the German Wikipedia-article where the part "The massacre" consists of three subcategories making it very clear structured. When reading the English text "The massacre" it becomes clear that there are three main positions presented: An Azerbaijani view, An Armenian view and there are international Organisations like Human Rights Watch and Memorial. These three depictions at the moment are all mixed up, without any type of chronology or anything lese, making it hard to pick up the information.--Markus2685 (talk) 16:06, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think there's a mix up. Armenian denialist view does not coincide with what the rest of the world says, but that does not mean that there are 3 different views on the subject. After all, even the Armenian view is not uniform, the Armenian president does not support the denialist version. Grandmaster 21:57, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Btw, the exact same thing was proposed by Aghetrichter (talk · contribs), who was also a German speaker, and who later disappeared. [14] I don't know if you are the same person or not, but this proposal made no sense back then, and does not now. Grandmaster 22:10, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, than it seems that Aghetrichter (talk · contribs) has also read the German article and therefore came to this conclusion. Maybe this just makes no sense to you, but it obviously makes sense to Wikipedia Users in Germany. Maybe its a German habbit who like everything to be clearly structured and organised in a disciplined way ;)

Btw, I have never heard of an Armenian or have read an Armenian article which says that no people have been killed in Khojaly and that no massacre took place. What you refer to is, when an internationally recognized genocide is denied by almost all Azerbaijanis and Turks in the world with saying that no Genocide took place. This is called denial. As said, there is no Armenian saying "no massacre took place". So you have to be careful with the use of "Armenian denialist view". What you call "Armenian denialist views" in reality are the views and statements of Azerbaijanis like Yagub Mammadov, Eynulla Fatullayev, Chingiz Mustafayev, Heydar Aliyev, Ayaz Mutallibov, Arif Yunusov, Vagif Huseynov or Fahmin Hajiyev stating that part of the blame for the Khojaly massacre is to be placed on the Azerbaijani government.--Markus2685 (talk) 20:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I really laughed when I have read him use the denialist word. JediXmaster (talk) 21:07, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

It is also interesting that the account of Markus2685 was created 2 months after Aghetrichter left. But leaving that all aside, denialist view is mostly promoted by some Armenian media, who try to claim that the massacre was committed by Azerbaijanis, and not Armenians. That is a denialist position, as they try to deny that the perpetrators of the massacre were the Armenian military. As for the Azerbaijani politicians that you mentioned, none of them supports the Armenian denialist position. They all say that the massacre was committed by Armenians, and Armenian propaganda websites try to twist their words and attribute to them things they did not mean. Anyway, there are no 3 different views. Azerbaijani view and the view of the international organizations are identical, and the Armenian view is not uniform either. So it is better to leave everything as it is. Grandmaster 06:58, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

You should really get your facts straight. Your allegation "denialist view is mostly promoted by some Armenian media... and Armenian propaganda websites try to twist their words..." is absolutely incorrect. Here are the sources for my above mentioned depictions showing that there are, contrary to your claims, indeed different views provided by non-Armenian sources and organizations:

* Chingiz Fuad-ogly Mustafayev. DR-Press. Committee to Protect Journalists: Chingiz Mustafayev [...] had reportedly been gathering information alleging that the Armenian attack on civilians in Khojaly was a provocation by the Azerbaijani National Front to force the resignation of Azerbaijani president Ayaz Mutalibov

* Caroline Cox, John Eibner. Ethnic Cleansing in Progress - War in Nagorno Karabakh: The first President of Azerbaijan, Ayaz Mutalibov in April 1992, he declared that the massacre in Khojaly was “organized” by his political opponents to force his resignation. He found it doubtful that the Armenians would have allowed the Azeri-Turks to collect the bodies had the allegations of a massacre been true.

* State of Rhode Island, Senat Resolution in General Assembly 2013 -- S 0960: WHEREAS, Heydar Aliyev, then-incoming President of Azerbaijan, also acknowledged that the leadership of Azerbaijan was guilty for the tragedy and stated that "...the bloodshed will profit us. We should not interfere in the course of events"

* Zerkalo newspaper, July 1992: Arif Yunusov said The town and its citizens were deliberately made victims of the political goal – to prevent the Azerbaijani Popular Front’s coming to power

* Fatullayev: 'I'm Still Here -- Alive, Working, and Telling the Truth'. Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty: Look at Ayaz Mutalibov, the first president of Azerbaijan," he says. "He's still under criminal investigation, and for what? Complicity in the Khojaly events. Officially he is charged with failing to protect his citizens and exposing them to danger. Fahmin Hajiyev, the head of Azerbaijan's interior troops of the country, spent 11 years in prison because of the Khojaly events.

* Newspaper Ogoniok, N 14-15, 1992: Yakup Mammadov said I am well aware of who had the Khojaly tragedy on their conscience. And it was not the Armenian side — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markus2685 (talk • contribs) 13:32, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Those are just speculations by unreliable sources. Again attributing claims to Azerbaijani politicians which those politicians deny. Armenian denialist propaganda has just that, speculations around various things that Azerbaijani politicians allegedly said at various times, which means absolutely nothing. First, none of those politicians support the statements that are attributed to them, second, politicians often say things in order to promote their political agenda.

You take all the quotes from Armenian websites like this, but they distort the words of Azerbaijani politicians, referring to obscure sources that no one can check. For instance, Arif Yunusov, to whom you refer, clearly says that the massacre was committed by the Armenian military on the order of Serge Sarkissian: [15] So the references to Azerbaijani politicians, journalists, etc cannot be taken at the face value, and they mostly come from the propagandist websites. Yunusov is a good example of that.

Plus Cox is a well known Armenian proxy, and she refers to Mutallibov, who denies accusing NFA. Fatullayev said million different things, contradicting himself, Rhode Island resolution has never been passed, it was just proposed by a local parliamentarian, who has close ties to the Armenian community, but it is not a reliable source on these events anyway. I highly doubt she personally heard Aliyev saying those words, she obviously just copied them from some Armenian propaganda website. But in any case, a draft resolution in a US state legislative body is not a reliable source on a historical event in another part of the world. Committee to Protect Journalists does not say anything about who committed the massacre, it just claims that Mustafayev tried to prove something, but it contradicts to what is known about circumstances of his death.

This is not serious. If you can quote something on the level of HRW or Memorial, who conducted investigations during the event, that would be a different thing. Grandmaster 20:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Btw, I don't see how the above sources support your proposed structuring. You want to split the article into sections representing Azerbaijani, Armenian and international position as 3 different opinions. But as I said before, no one writes an article from 3 different points of view, the article should be written from the neutral point of view, according to the rules. But then if we look at your sources, they all are references to things that Azerbaijani politicians and journalists allegedly said. If we assume that they were quoted accurately (which is not the case, at least with Aliyev, Yunusov and Mamedov), it just means that there's no uniform Azerbaijani position, and no uniform international position, and as I mentioned above, considering that even the Armenian president admits that the massacre was committed by the Armenian forces, there's no uniform Armenian position either. If it is so, what is the point then in creating 3 sections about 3 different positions? There are actually only 2 positions here, the position of those who say that the massacre was committed by the Armenian forces (the majority view, supported by the international organizations like HRW and Memorial, experts like de Waal, international mass media, etc), and denialist view, supported by a minority in Armenia. Both positions are represented in the article according to their weight. Grandmaster 00:36, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Splitting the article would constitute WP:UNDUE, since most international sources covering the event concur with Azerbaijan's official viewpoint. In addition, of the supposedly "alternative" viewpoints listed here, sources like Caroline Cox and Rhode Island Senat cannot be taken seriously for obvious reasons. As for the rest (like Fatullayev), none of them clearly point any fingers, apart from saying that there was provocation; and it is noteworthy that none of them deny Armenian involvement. Whatever the viewpoint, it is almost unanimously agreed that the massacre was physically perpetrated by Armenian troops and their allies. There is in fact much more unanimity between mainstream and "alternative" Azerbaijani sources on one hand and international sources on the hand, than between Armenian sources, where opinions range from assuming responsibility for the event (like Serzh Sargsyan) to denying any Armenian involvement. Therefore there is no clear "Armenian view" on the event; it is just a compilation of contradictory statements. Parishan (talk) 21:12, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Commemoration

While the topic is too sensitive, mostly Azeri and Turkish sources are used in the section. Most of these so called 'recognitions' are not supported by the official sites or reliable sources. F.i. Columbian senate never released any doc recognizing Khojaly [16]. Only Azeri and Turkish papers claim this. Lkahd (talk) 08:45, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

"The Colombian Senate recognized the killings of Azerbaijani civilians in the village of Khojaly in 1992 as genocide, becoming the second country in Latin America after Mexico to do so" ([17], ... the Azerbaijani government has announced) - The Azerbaijani government is lying again. The site of the Senate of Colombia has not a word about the genocide (Azerbaiyán, Xocalı, Jodyalí). Divot (talk) 15:39, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

They probably just have not recorded that yet on their websites. Simply stating "The spokesman for the Azerbaijani Foreign Ministry Elman Abdullayev announced the Colombian Senate had issued a decision on the occupation of Azerbaijani territories and recognized the Khojaly Massacre as the genocide" is acceptable per WP:V. Brandmeister^talk 16:36, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Of course not. F.e. "Parliament of Bosnia and Herzegovina condems the perpetrators of Khojaly genocide". Now try to find "genocide" in RESOLUTION on the same news. So, Embassy of the Republic of Azerbaijan in Romania just lying. Divot (talk) 17:32, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

P.S. It is a standard practice of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Azerbaijan, to lie about the recognition of Khojaly as genocide. As long as there is no exact confirmation, it is just hearsay. Divot (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:36, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Any government risks very seriously if its actually lying in such cases. The opposite side may recall its ambassador or take other unpleasant or VERY unpleasant steps. As for the Bosnia and Herzegovina's resolution, the text at the website of Azeri embassy in that country is a sufficient proof. Brandmeister^talk 21:28, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Loooool. That resolution doesn't even talk about genocide. Have you actually read it?

Condemn mass murder of civilians on nationalist and ethnic motives, especially in the city of Khojaly, during the Armenian-Azerbaijani, Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, as crime against humanity and a threat to peaceful co-existence of nations, share deep sympathy with the victims of the tragic conflict and their families

It condemns ALL mass murders, and Khojaly is mentioned, since it was the largest one. And noone is blamed for that massacre, no perpetrator is mentioned. Feel the difference? Хаченци (talk) 22:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for resolution. As you can see, there are no word "genocide" in that resolution. Q.E.D.

So, the definition "Parliament of Bosnia and Herzegovina condems the perpetrators of Khojaly genocide" is a fake. Like all another "news" about "perpetrators of Khojaly genocide". Divot (talk) 00:15, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

That online source doesn't say the resolution CONTAINS the word "genocide". The source shows that the word "genocide" is just an opinion of Azerbaijani side. And, if you have a source, not your personal opinion, that all that is untrue, cite it, otherwise it's an WP:OR. Brandmeister^talk 07:19, 2 October 2013 (UTC)