Talk:Khojaly massacre/Archive 8
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Khojaly massacre. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 |
Number of civilians affected
The 613 figure is ONLY given by the government of Azerbaijan and is clearly POV along with being original research. A citation is need from a third party it should be deleted. Human Rights Watch noted a death figure of 161 or more. That is the only credible figure available.--68.119.138.205 (talk) 19:41, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- I believe the article makes an accurate attribution of this figure. Grandmaster 22:44, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
- While it may make an accurate attribution, the figure is only claimed in one document by the Charge d'affaires a.i. of the Permanent Mission of Azerbaijan to the United Nations Office. This is clearly POV. There is no third source backing up such a figure.--Urartu TH
- The article does not say whether this figure is accurate or not. We cannot make such assertions. The article only says that this is the death toll provided by the Azerbaijani authorities, which is true, and this is the figure that the Azerbaijani government cites. The positions of governments cannot be neutral, they are POV, and notable POVs need to be properly attributed, which has been done here. See WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. And HRW figure of 161 is not the only estimate provided by that organization, their later reports provide a higher death toll. We cannot only mention one estimate, when there are more. We should quote all existing figures provided by third party observers and investigators. Grandmaster 12:08, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- While it may make an accurate attribution, the figure is only claimed in one document by the Charge d'affaires a.i. of the Permanent Mission of Azerbaijan to the United Nations Office. This is clearly POV. There is no third source backing up such a figure.--Urartu TH
Adding the 1000 figure to the infobox is highly controversial and only going to lead to readers assuming that this was some sort of mass murder of "thousands of people" which plays in to hte hands of POV anti-Armenian hysteria of those trying to push this as a large massacre. Such claims are NOT being made on the Sumgait Pogrom, Kirovabad Pogrom, Maragha Massacre or Baku Pogrom of Armenians pages, so let's not make them here.--Urartu TH
- What Grnadmaster is saying is the Human Rights Watch, which the figures are quoted from, says:
- There are no exact figures for the number of Azeri civilians killed because Karabakh Armenian forces gained control of the area after the massacre. While it is widely accepted that 200 hundred Azeris were murdered, as many as 500-1,000 may have died. (http://www.hrw.org/reports/pdfs/a/azerbjn/azerbaij94d.pdf) bottom of page 24
- That is why he the 1000 figure should stay. Ninetoyadome (talk) 00:57, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- Karabakh Armenian forces gained control of the area after the massacre" How did Chingiz Mustafayev videotape the bodies, if it was under Armenian control? This 1000 claim seems highly dubious, and considering it says "may have", I'm in favor not including the said figure. Antelope Hunter (talk) 16:19, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- What Grnadmaster is saying is the Human Rights Watch, which the figures are quoted from, says:
- "While it is widely accepted that 200 hundred Azeris were murdered, as many as 500-1,000 may have died" - What does it mean? 200*100=20000 Azeris were murdered? Divot (talk) 01:17, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- It just means the accepted number is 200 but the number could range from 500-1000. I dont know what you mean by multiplying 200 with 100. Ninetoyadome (talk) 06:11, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- Not even the Azerbaijani government quotes such a high number as 1000; and they have an agenda here. I disagree with 1000 figure for the reasons I stated above.--Urartu TH
- Ninetoyadome, "200 hundred" means 20000, 200 = 2 hundred. Divot (talk) 10:01, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- Divot, i see what you mean, there was a typo on the document, its just 200. Urartu, that is a good point that the Azeri govt doesnt even go up to 1000. It's up to you guys and Grandmaster whether that figure should stay or not. Ninetoyadome (talk) 17:36, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- It just means the accepted number is 200 but the number could range from 500-1000. I dont know what you mean by multiplying 200 with 100. Ninetoyadome (talk) 06:11, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- "While it is widely accepted that 200 hundred Azeris were murdered, as many as 500-1,000 may have died" - What does it mean? 200*100=20000 Azeris were murdered? Divot (talk) 01:17, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
We do not pick what to include from the source, and what not. If the source says "as many as 500-1,000 may have died", then this is what we write. Anyone's personal opinion on whether this might be true or not is irrelevant here, as it is WP:OR, and we only go with what the source says. See WP:STICKTOSOURCE. So the number of 1000 as the highest estimate remains, obviously with proper attribution. Grandmaster 18:17, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- On page 24 of the reports, HRW states "More than 200 civilians were killed in the attack, the largest massacre to date in the conflict". Per this statement, the 200 figure is a definite term. The 500-1000 figure is given in a footnote on page 24 which states, "There are no exact figures for the number of Azeri civilians killed because Karabakh Armenian forces gained control of the area after the massacre. While it is widely accepted that 200 hundred Azeris were murdered, as many as 500-1,000 may have died". Once again we see that 200 is the accepted figure, while someone is merely speculating that more could have died. Adding the 500-1000 figure to the infobox equates it to the "widely accepted" figure of 200; this will surely be confusing to readers. As I mentioned above, such wild/offhand figures are not added to the Sumgait Pogrom, Kirovabad Pogrom, Maragha Massacre or Baku Pogrom of Armenians pages, so let's not add them here.--Urartu TH
- HRW does not say that any figure is definite. It says that there are no exact figures, so I don't see how you can claim that any figure is definite. More than 200 could be 500 or 1000, so I don't see how this figure makes impossible higher numbers. HRW provides a range of possible number of casualties, which is between 200-1000. We cannot engage in original research and pick what we like in a source, and what we don't. If HRW says that "as many as 500-1,000 may have died", this is what we write in the article. Remember, we must stick to sources, according to the rules. When you put into infobox the number of 200, it creates a false illusion that this is the number that HRW supports, while HRW makes it perfectly clear that the higher death toll is possible. As a compromise, I propose to amend the part in question as "161+, or 200 - possibly up to 500 - 1,000", making it close to HRW statement. Grandmaster 08:42, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- I disagree. Not even Azerbaijan uses a figure more than 613 and their figure is certainly POV. If we used every wild figure that may be speculated in a footnote then we'd have an obscure/confusing infobox for all of the massacres of the Karabakh conflict. I propose we amend the infobox to state: "more than 200" or "200+". Urartu TH 20:36, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- We cannot do that, it is against the rules. We should stick to the source, and write what the source says. No original research, and your personal beliefs as to whether any number could be true or not cannot be a basis for selectively quoting a source. Grandmaster 10:03, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why you continue to ignore the trhust of my point, which is that the 500-100 figure is merely in ONE footnote by one official who was not on the ground. The statement is not made using any empirical evidence and statistical data. Not even the Azerbaijani government quotes a figure of 1000 and they were certainly biased. If you want, include the 500-1000 figure in the body and note that it is only mentioned in a FOOTNOTE in one document by someone who is not verified as having been on the ground; otherwise you are misleading readers by equating that figure with the widely accepted one of "more than 200." Urartu TH 20:12, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- It does not matter whether it is a footnote or not, it is in the document, and that is the only thing that matters. This number is already in the text of the article, and there's no reason why it should not be in the infobox. I have already explained you the rules many times, and you still haven't provided any valid reason why we should violate the rules and omit information contained in the reliable source. All you said was your personal opinion on why you believe that the number is no good, but personal opinions have no relevance here. We only refer to sources, and we do not interpret or alter them. Grandmaster 22:57, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- I'm glad you've noticed that the figure from the footnote, 500-1000, is mentioned in the article. A mention in the body is different from the infobox. Placing it into the infobox gives it the validity and weight that it does NOT have. This is the point you keep ignoring. This is the reason it hasn't been in the infobox for years; you are the one pushing this POV and controversial change to the infobox. We should certainly mention that the 500-1000 figure is noted as an unsubstantiated guess/possibility in the footnote of ONE single document by one person, but including it in the infobox is ridiculous. Context is key here; what you are proposing is confusing to readers. We should not change the status quo. Urartu TH 11:34, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- I don't see how mention in the body is different from mention in the infobox. If it is in the text, it should be in the infobox as well. Show me the rule that does not allow inclusion of the info from the text of the article into infobox. The rest is your original research. Again, the source mentions this number, and as it is a sourced info, it should be included. I don't want to waste the community's time by taking this to the appropriate forum, but I will if you keep on insisting on your original research. Grandmaster 15:43, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- You are the one quoting "rules" and not showing us which rules actually support your controversial and POV changes to an infobox that hasn't had that 500-1000 footnote figure ever (including years). You've conveniently not responded to any of the community' concerns on this talk page, including mine just above; your viewpoint is clearly in the minority here amongst Antelope Hunter, Divot, and myself. Urartu TH 21:41, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- I responded to everything. But I do not engage in a discussion about the validity of HRW estimates, because it not our task to do so, and it is a violation of WP:OR. Otherwise, I explained to you that we only write what the reliable sources say, and if they say that the death toll could have been as high as 500 - 1000, then we just write that. It is not up to us to decide whether this number is reliable or not. And your argument is a good example of Wikipedia:I just don't like it. And finally, the disputes here are not resolved by majority of opinions. Grandmaster 09:49, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- You are the one quoting "rules" and not showing us which rules actually support your controversial and POV changes to an infobox that hasn't had that 500-1000 footnote figure ever (including years). You've conveniently not responded to any of the community' concerns on this talk page, including mine just above; your viewpoint is clearly in the minority here amongst Antelope Hunter, Divot, and myself. Urartu TH 21:41, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- I don't see how mention in the body is different from mention in the infobox. If it is in the text, it should be in the infobox as well. Show me the rule that does not allow inclusion of the info from the text of the article into infobox. The rest is your original research. Again, the source mentions this number, and as it is a sourced info, it should be included. I don't want to waste the community's time by taking this to the appropriate forum, but I will if you keep on insisting on your original research. Grandmaster 15:43, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- I'm glad you've noticed that the figure from the footnote, 500-1000, is mentioned in the article. A mention in the body is different from the infobox. Placing it into the infobox gives it the validity and weight that it does NOT have. This is the point you keep ignoring. This is the reason it hasn't been in the infobox for years; you are the one pushing this POV and controversial change to the infobox. We should certainly mention that the 500-1000 figure is noted as an unsubstantiated guess/possibility in the footnote of ONE single document by one person, but including it in the infobox is ridiculous. Context is key here; what you are proposing is confusing to readers. We should not change the status quo. Urartu TH 11:34, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- It does not matter whether it is a footnote or not, it is in the document, and that is the only thing that matters. This number is already in the text of the article, and there's no reason why it should not be in the infobox. I have already explained you the rules many times, and you still haven't provided any valid reason why we should violate the rules and omit information contained in the reliable source. All you said was your personal opinion on why you believe that the number is no good, but personal opinions have no relevance here. We only refer to sources, and we do not interpret or alter them. Grandmaster 22:57, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why you continue to ignore the trhust of my point, which is that the 500-100 figure is merely in ONE footnote by one official who was not on the ground. The statement is not made using any empirical evidence and statistical data. Not even the Azerbaijani government quotes a figure of 1000 and they were certainly biased. If you want, include the 500-1000 figure in the body and note that it is only mentioned in a FOOTNOTE in one document by someone who is not verified as having been on the ground; otherwise you are misleading readers by equating that figure with the widely accepted one of "more than 200." Urartu TH 20:12, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- We cannot do that, it is against the rules. We should stick to the source, and write what the source says. No original research, and your personal beliefs as to whether any number could be true or not cannot be a basis for selectively quoting a source. Grandmaster 10:03, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- I disagree. Not even Azerbaijan uses a figure more than 613 and their figure is certainly POV. If we used every wild figure that may be speculated in a footnote then we'd have an obscure/confusing infobox for all of the massacres of the Karabakh conflict. I propose we amend the infobox to state: "more than 200" or "200+". Urartu TH 20:36, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- HRW does not say that any figure is definite. It says that there are no exact figures, so I don't see how you can claim that any figure is definite. More than 200 could be 500 or 1000, so I don't see how this figure makes impossible higher numbers. HRW provides a range of possible number of casualties, which is between 200-1000. We cannot engage in original research and pick what we like in a source, and what we don't. If HRW says that "as many as 500-1,000 may have died", this is what we write in the article. Remember, we must stick to sources, according to the rules. When you put into infobox the number of 200, it creates a false illusion that this is the number that HRW supports, while HRW makes it perfectly clear that the higher death toll is possible. As a compromise, I propose to amend the part in question as "161+, or 200 - possibly up to 500 - 1,000", making it close to HRW statement. Grandmaster 08:42, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Thomas de Waal. Существуют разные оценки числа убитых азербайджанцев в Ходжалы или в его окрестностях. Пожалуй, наиболее правдоподобная цифра - та, которая была получена в ходе официального расследования, предпринятого азербайджанским парламентом. По этим данным, число погибших составило 485 человек. Divot (talk) 23:07, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- Ok, but what is the point of this quote? I never said that any number is more reliable than the other. All I said was that reliable estimates should be included in the infobox, and this one could be included as well. Grandmaster 09:49, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
I filed a request at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Let's ask the community help in resolving this dispute. This also serves as a notification to everyone involved. Grandmaster 10:18, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- It may or may not be actually so, but HRW's upper bound of 1,000 is also quoted in Markar Melkonian's My brother's road: "Humans Rights Watch/Helsinki investigators who visited the site in 1994 estimated that the Armenian attackers had killed more than 200 civilians, and perhaps as many as 1,000". As long as that upper bound has the proper direct attribution to HRW source, it is acceptable per WP:V and WP:RS. Brandmeistertalk 21:45, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- For the body of the article yes but for the infobox it violates WP:UNDUE, is a controversial change of the status quo consensus and is a higher figure than even that provided by the obviously biased Azerbaijani government. The citation from the book you provided merely quotes the footnote on page 24 of HRW document; it is not itself a source. Therefore it doesn't change the fact that hte 500-1000 figure is only cited in on unsubstantiated manner on one single document in a footnote. --Urartu TH (talk) 21:56, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Fringe theories
The sentence "Culpability for the civilian deaths has been clouded in uncertainty, with Azerbaijani journalists such as Eynulla Fatullayev and Chingiz Mustafayev alongside former President of Azerbaijan, Ayaz Mutalibov, citing Azerbaijani forces as having committed some or all of the killings" is not quite true. The HRW and other sources pinpoint the culprits, the version of Fatullayev and the likes constitute WP:FRINGE. Per MOS:INTRO, "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points", not fringe thoughts. They are already mentioned in the article's body below. Brandmeistertalk 16:59, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- Exactly. Minority views cannot be given equal weight with what is generally accepted by the third party sources. Fatullayev etc are not reliable third party sources either. Grandmaster 21:40, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- I would not even dignify this with the term "minority view". Neither Fatullayev, nor Mutallibov, nor any other source in their right mind ever accused Azerbaijani troops of committing the killings. This is really something you can only find on Armenian websites of rather dubious nature. Even the Radio Liberty article (shown here as a reference) does not state anything of that sort. Quite a bizarre conclusion coming from a user, who has gone out of his way in affirming that propaganda has no place in Wikipedia. Parishan (talk) 00:30, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Considering the controversy and sensitivity of this topic, I think we should take heed in allowing for a broader debate on what is "fringe", especially considering the fact that the sources I provided are Azerbaijani--2 journalists and the former President of the country. HRW does mention that some Armenian forces caused some of the deaths, but it is NOT conclusive about all of the actions that were involved. That's where the Committe to Protect Journalists, the two journalists mentioned and the former President come in. I don't see any convincing argument against including this well-sourced information about this tragic event during the Karabakh invasion.--Urartu TH (talk) 01:42, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
There are enough neutral reliable sources saying that the killings of the people from Khojaly were committed by Armenian troops. Fatullayev and Mutallibov, and especially Mustafayev never claimed that the killings were committed by Azerbaijanis. This information is a part of Armenian propaganda against Azerbaijan coming from non-reliable sources. I recommend not to use information from such websites. There are no any reliable and neutral sources (including Radio Liberty) saying that. --Interfase (talk) 05:28, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- You are flat out wrong. You obviously haven't looked at the sources I had posted. Please don't comment unconstrutively, especially if you haven't taken a look at the citations. I have cited to numerous sources: the European Court of Human Rights and Radio Liberty for Fatullayev, the Committee to Protect Journalists for Mustafayev (already in the body), and Radio Liberty and the Council of Europe for President Mutallibov (already in the body). Furthermore, even De Waal has stated: "the tragedy in Khojaly was a result of a chaotic situation, and not a "deliberately planned" action by the Armenians." The fact remains that these killings were not an organized massacre as the Sumgait Massacre for example, but a result of killing during the Battle of Khojaly. Some sources show that some civilians were in fact killed by Azerbaijanis. POV rhetoric is not helpful, but I understand that I am currently discussing this with four other people who are all Azerbaijani so I guess I get it.--Urartu TH (talk) 07:24, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- You are wrong. I have looked at the sources you put. You also wrongly interpreted the sources. Neither this source not that one don't say that the killings were committed by Azerbaijani forces. Asbarez is not reliable and neutral source. The truth is that the killings of the population of Khojaly was committed by the Armenian and, partially, by CIS armed forces. Even current president of Armenia Serj Sarkisyan recognize that: "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." --Interfase (talk) 10:07, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- Why didnt you finish the Sarkisyan quote? "Although I think that is still very much exaggerated, very much. Azerbaijanis needed an excuse to equate a place to Sumgait, but they can not be compared." How is that Sarkisyan recognizing it? The Meshketian Turks were even saying how the Armenians treated them better than the Azerbaijanis' did.Ninetoyadome (talk) 17:10, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- Mutalibov denies accusing Azerbaijanis of committing the massacre, how can you ascribe to him the claims that he denies? If anything, that is also a BLP violation. The Committee to Protect Journalists does not say that the killing was committed by the Azerbaijanis either. Please read carefully the source that you are quoting. It says that "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". But we do not present allegations as facts, and it is unclear how an Armenian attack could be a provocation by PFA, even allegedly. Did PFA provoke Armenians to attack, or what, and who makes the allegations? Regardless, it still mentions the Armenian attack, makes no mention if Mustafayev found any info to support the allegations, and is too vague and uncertain to make any claims on its basis. Fatullayev said to the European court that he only quoted one Armenian person, but never made any claims personally. In any case, neither of these persons is a third party reliable source, and they made too many contradictory statements to be taken seriously. The fact remains that the majority of third party reliable sources, including HRW and Memorial, which conducted thorough investigations of the tragedy, lay the blame with the Armenian side. That is a generally accepted version, and it should be given a priority, and fringe theories cannot be given equal weight with the majority view. Grandmaster 23:14, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- From one of the citations I had provided:"However, Fatullayev continues, “… part of the Khojaly inhabitants had been fired upon by our own [Azerbaijani troops]… Whether it was done intentionally or not is to be determined by investigators … [They were killed] not by [some] mysterious [shooters], but by provocateurs from the National Front of Azerbaijan’s battalions … [The corpses] had been mutilated by our own …”." He made these same statements to the European Court--which is in the cite I gave. If you want to consider this a "minority view" that is fine, but we will need to incorporate into a new section in the article. Furthermore, the 613 figure is also a "minority view", "fringe" etc. in comparison and should be removed from the infobox.--Urartu TH (talk) 23:36, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- I think you should read his statement to the European court. There he says that he only quoted the Armenian side, in particular one person whom he talked to in Nagorno-Karabakh. Grandmaster 23:56, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- From one of the citations I had provided:"However, Fatullayev continues, “… part of the Khojaly inhabitants had been fired upon by our own [Azerbaijani troops]… Whether it was done intentionally or not is to be determined by investigators … [They were killed] not by [some] mysterious [shooters], but by provocateurs from the National Front of Azerbaijan’s battalions … [The corpses] had been mutilated by our own …”." He made these same statements to the European Court--which is in the cite I gave. If you want to consider this a "minority view" that is fine, but we will need to incorporate into a new section in the article. Furthermore, the 613 figure is also a "minority view", "fringe" etc. in comparison and should be removed from the infobox.--Urartu TH (talk) 23:36, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- Mutalibov denies accusing Azerbaijanis of committing the massacre, how can you ascribe to him the claims that he denies? If anything, that is also a BLP violation. The Committee to Protect Journalists does not say that the killing was committed by the Azerbaijanis either. Please read carefully the source that you are quoting. It says that "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". But we do not present allegations as facts, and it is unclear how an Armenian attack could be a provocation by PFA, even allegedly. Did PFA provoke Armenians to attack, or what, and who makes the allegations? Regardless, it still mentions the Armenian attack, makes no mention if Mustafayev found any info to support the allegations, and is too vague and uncertain to make any claims on its basis. Fatullayev said to the European court that he only quoted one Armenian person, but never made any claims personally. In any case, neither of these persons is a third party reliable source, and they made too many contradictory statements to be taken seriously. The fact remains that the majority of third party reliable sources, including HRW and Memorial, which conducted thorough investigations of the tragedy, lay the blame with the Armenian side. That is a generally accepted version, and it should be given a priority, and fringe theories cannot be given equal weight with the majority view. Grandmaster 23:14, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- Why didnt you finish the Sarkisyan quote? "Although I think that is still very much exaggerated, very much. Azerbaijanis needed an excuse to equate a place to Sumgait, but they can not be compared." How is that Sarkisyan recognizing it? The Meshketian Turks were even saying how the Armenians treated them better than the Azerbaijanis' did.Ninetoyadome (talk) 17:10, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- You are wrong. I have looked at the sources you put. You also wrongly interpreted the sources. Neither this source not that one don't say that the killings were committed by Azerbaijani forces. Asbarez is not reliable and neutral source. The truth is that the killings of the population of Khojaly was committed by the Armenian and, partially, by CIS armed forces. Even current president of Armenia Serj Sarkisyan recognize that: "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." --Interfase (talk) 10:07, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Lead changes
Currently, the second paragraph of the lead has some issues. The excerpt reads: "At Nakhichevanik Armenians and troops of the CIS 366th regiment opened fire on the retreating OMON militia and the fleeing residents. All Azerbaijanis interviewed who were in this group reported that the militia, still in uniform and some still carrying their guns, were interspersed with the masses of civilians. For example, Hijran Alekper[ov]a... described a mass of civilians who moved along "surrounded by a ring of defenders. They tried to defend us." Per the same source, this was just one of the several fleeing groups, so no need to attach the excuse that they "may have been the reason why Armenian troops fired upon them" and place it into the lead. Also, don't remove the official Azerbaijani claim as it's a vital part of the data. Brandmeistertalk 22:36, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- Some of the civilian deaths during the Battle of Khojaly, took place during this frantic retreat by Azerbaijani forces. This is why some make the argument that Azerbaijani civilians were used as human shields in violation of Article 28 of the 4th Geneva Convention[1]. This information must be in the lede so as to give readers a full synopsis of events rather one-sided POV.--Urartu TH (talk) 00:32, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- Incorrect. Azerbaijani troupes were nowhere in the vicinity of Khojaly, this is why the town was said to be sieged. The closest Azerbaijani position was around the village of Gülablı in Agdam. In any case, please cite your sources for bold statements such as this (that the militia used the people "as human shields"), otherwise see Wikipedia:NOT A FORUM. Parishan (talk) 01:32, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- Yes. The wording "may have been" suggests it's merely an assumption. This doesn't look like one of the most important points per WP:MOSINTRO and also compromises the relative emphasis, that's why I've put it to the article's body. Brandmeistertalk 19:00, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- It would be good to discuss any changes to the intro here before making them. Clearly, HRW says nothing about "the reason why Armenian troops fired". It is a personal interpretation and as such it is an OR. We can only quote the sources, but not interpret them. And this info does not belong to the lead anyway, as it is an assumption. Grandmaster 20:30, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- It's not HRW, it's from Helsinki Watch. Everyone please take a look at the document cited. The information is listed under the "Khojaly" subsection. These are events that took place during the battle, albeit while Azerbaijani forces were retreating alongside civilians. The cite provides one of the central arguments from the Armenian side on this issue. We can't simply blanket this information or bury it in the middle of the article. Thanks and Happy Nowruz.--Urartu TH (talk) 21:20, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- HRW and Helsinli Watch are the same organization. They clearly say that Armenians deliberatively killed civilians, and that the mass killing cannot be excused by anything. From their report, right after the part that you quoted: "the attacking party [i.e., Karabakh Armenian forces] 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." So why quoting the source selectively, while it makes no excuses for the Armenian soldiers murdering Azerbaijani civilians? That whole argument does not belong to the lead, otherwise we should explain that HRW does not find the presence of armed people in the refugee columns to be a justification to the mass murder, and places the responsibility exclusively with the Armenian side. It is clearly said in their documents: "we place direct responsibility for the civilian deaths with Karabakh Armenian forces". Grandmaster 22:55, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- Your accusations are troubling. Helsinki Watch doesn't emphasize "mass murder" or "murder". Murder is defined as "the unlawful killing, with malice aforethought, of another human, and generally this premeditated state of mind." Civilians deaths during a battle are not murder. I'm quoting the portion of the report that notes the facts on the ground that support the Armenian argument. In any case, if you wish to censor the Armenian side here, then perhaps you should refer this to arbitration. Also, note that HRW used to be called Helsinki Watch. My point was that this is a separate document then the one generally referred to as that of HRW.--Urartu TH (talk) 23:14, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- Helsinki Watch became HRW in 1988, so in 1992 it was already HRW. HRW calls this a massacre, which is a mass killing. Also, quoting only the parts which you believe support the Armenian argument is not in line with WP:NPOV, we should quote also the parts that place direct blame with Armenian forces. But if we are going to include in the lead everything various sources said, it will become unreadable. Right now it does not make much sense after your recent edits, because it talks about armed people among the refugees, yet it makes no mention why these people became refugees and under which circumstances they were murdered. And adding all that info would simply duplicate the whole article in the lead, which is not something that we should do. The lead should be kept brief and only say what this event was, who committed it, and when. All other details must be in the main body of the article, because different quotes in the lead do not explain what happened as they lack the details found in the main text, and space in the lead is too limited to describe all the circumstances. Grandmaster 23:42, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- The information you're trying to delete is not deemed speculative by the document and is corroborated by an Azerbaijani civilian at the scene as noted in the document. If you need any more corroboration, then see the Shelling of Stepanakert article. Mass killings are defined as mass murder. As already explained, murder requires premeditation. These deaths occurred during "chaos" while the Battle of Khojaly was being faught. It is very tragic, but not murder.--Urartu TH (talk) 04:14, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- It is speculative, as it is presented not as a fact, but as a version provided by the unnamed Armenian soldiers. We do not include versions in the lead, only facts. As for an Azerbaijani civilian, first, I could not find any testimony that supported the Armenian version, and second, even if there's such a testimony, it is a primary source, and thus is not reliable. We should base the article on secondary sources. As for the mass killings, this is how this event is described by HRW, Memorial and de Waal. You may think otherwise, but that is your personal opinion, which we cannot include in the article. I see no further point in discussing whether this was or was not a mass killing. If the third party reliable sources say that it was, then this is what we write, and keep our personal opinions to ourselves. Grandmaster 10:13, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- Third party sources refer to the events ranging anywhere from "battle for khojaly" to "khojaly massacre". They never imply premeditated murder. You keep intending on ignoring the basic definition of murder. There is no point in the continuing that part of the discussion. This was not mass murder. For mass murder, take a look at Sumgait Massacre. As Helsinki Watch document that mentions Armenian claims of having warned the Azerbaijanis to stop their killings of civilians in Stepanakert or else they would attack, this is a well known fact of the battle for Khojaly. It is in the report and corroborated by the Azerbaijani witness according to Helsinki Watch. If this does not fit your viewpoint, then too bad it must stay in order to portray the other side of this highly controversial article about the Battle for Khojaly. The 613 figure on the other hand is PURE speculation and a propaganda tool of the Azerbaijani dictatorship. It's inclusion in the lede is preposterous; only established facts on the ground are to be included. It is an established fact that Armenian soldiers say that they warned the Azerbaijanis of a possible retaliation.--Urartu TH (talk) 08:41, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
- If killing of hundreds of civilians is not a mass killing, then I don't know what is. But in any case, I see no point in discussing this here. You can stick to your opinion, and I to mine. As for the Armenian claim that they made an ultimatum, it is just a speculation, and I do not see why the Azerbaijani figure should be removed from the lead as speculative, but speculation of Armenian forces should be included instead. Don't you see a contradiction here? Grandmaster 19:47, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
- Friend, the Armenian notice of retaliation is mentioned in a third party document and also corroborated by an Azerbaijani witness. The Azerbaijani government claim is not backed up by any empirical source; it cannot be fact until proven whereas the Armenian notice is recorded from witnesses on the ground by a third party. Also, the 613 Azerbaijani claim is already in the infobox. Finally, the deaths of civilians during battle is very tragic and the blame can be placed on the Armenian side here to a greater extent than the Azerbaijani but that does not automatically make this mass murder. Examples of mass murder: Jewish Holocaust or Armenian Holocaust. Happy Nowruz.--Urartu TH (talk) 20:18, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
- The Armenian claim cannot be proven either. All that can be proven is that the claim was made. As for the figure of 613, as other editors pointed out above, it does not contradict HRW which says that up to 1000 could have been killed, and the Azerbaijani government's estimate was presented only as a notable POV with attribution, and not as a fact. You say that "It is an established fact that Armenian soldiers say that they warned the Azerbaijanis of a possible retaliation", but it is also an established fact that the Azerbaijani government provides this figure with the names and other personal details of each victim. We can remove all speculative claims from the lead, but all notable casualty estimates must remain in the infobox, as per outcome of WP:DRN. I hope that will resolve the dispute. Grandmaster 20:35, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
- The Armenian statements regarding the need for a defensive attack against Khojaly due to Azerbaijani shelling of Armenian villages and the killing of civilians is documented by Helsinki Watch. The 613 figure has absolutely zero third-party support or any evidential backing. Also, the 1000 footnote number is considered unreliable by the Wikipedia community per DR started by yourself, so let's not talk about it.--Urartu TH (talk) 19:42, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- The 1000 figure is also provided by HRW, I don't see why it is unreliable. The fact that the Armenian position was reported by HRW does not make it a fact. The intro must contain only the facts, and not speculations. Grandmaster 19:55, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
- The fact that Karabakh Armenians warned Azerbaijani troops in Khojaly to stop firing upon civilians in Stepanakert or face attack is noted in the Helsinki report and corroborated by an Azerbaijani witness in the report itself. This certainly gives it a ton more credence than the 613 Azerbaijani government propaganda figure currently in the infobox. The 613 should be removed as it is not fact but merely speculation. We should move it to the Azerbaijani perspective seciton.--Urartu TH (talk) 05:12, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
- Ultimatum is not a fact, just a claim. The lead should not contain speculations. And infobox is not the lead, it is a different section, and it just contains all notable estimates, as there's no precise figure. And as you were told many times, there's nothing incredible about the 613 figure, it is quite in line with HRW data. If anything, the Azerbaijani government provided names of each of 613 people killed by Armenian forces. Grandmaster 15:39, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
- Grandmaster, the communtiny has time and again struck down your notions of credibility. The 613, as noted by many other editors, is pure speculation. The 1000 figure is discounted as unreliable according to the community; please see the DR page that you yourself started. That issue will not be discussed any further. The 613 figured should be moved away from the top of the article. The facts on the ground--confirmed by Azerbaijani witnesses--of an Armenian warning must stay in the lede to maintain neutrality on this highly controversial and contentious topic.--Urartu TH (talk) 20:48, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
- The figure of 613 remains in the infobox, as per results of discussion at WP:DRN. If you disagree with the outcome of that discussion, you can start a new one in accordance with WP:DR. I see no further point in discussing it over and over here after the long discussion we had at WP:DRN. As for the Armenian claim, it is an allegation, and the Azerbaijani witness does not support it. She says nothing about Khojaly being used for shelling, and even if she supported the Armenian claim, it would still be an allegation, as it is a primary source, and HRW itself says nothing about the claim of ultimatum being true or not. So it is an allegation of one of the sides of the conflict, and allegations should be kept out of the lead. Grandmaster 16:54, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
- The WP:DRN did NOT have a conclusive answer as to the 613 propaganda figure. If you wish to produce any evidence to back up such a figure than we will not have qualms over its inclusion. I still believe it should be moved to the "Azerbaijani perspective" section. As far as the Armenian warning is concerned, it is a part of Helsink Watch's documentation of the events. Third-party sources are not POV. If these were frivolous allegations, then they would be noted as such in the report. Furthermore, I would advise you to reread the report as an Azerbaijani witness does in fact cite the warnings by the Armenians as having taken place.--Urartu TH (talk) 00:24, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
- There was no consensus for removal of the figure of 613, so it was left at that. In any case, it is not in the lead, and there's no such thing as Azerbaijani perspective. It is no different from the perspectives of HRW, Memorial, de Waal, Melkonian, Sargsyan, etc. According to the rules, we write the articles from a neutral point of view, and not from non-existing ethnic perspectives. As for the Armenian claims, a mention in the HRW report does not make them reliable, as HRW passes no judgment on their validity. If so, then it is just a POV, and the lead must contain only established facts. It is one thing to include the conclusions of HRW itself, and another to include an opinion of one of the sides quoted in the report. Again, you make the changes to the lead that have no consensus, and that is not acceptable. Grandmaster 21:16, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
- The 613 figure was contested in the WP:DRN. Almost all editors were against wild and unsubstantiated claims, and therefore against the 613 propaganda figure. We cannot push Azerbaijani POV in such a controversial and contentious article as this. If you wish to remove cited information from a third-party source, that documented events on the ground, then please go ahead and start a DRN. There is an "From an Azerbaijani perspective" section towards the bottom of the article. This is where the 613 propaganda figure should go. If you wish to submit any evidence for the 613 propaganda figure, I'm sure the community would welcome it. Otherwise, it is nothing more than propaganda.--Urartu TH (talk) 22:50, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
- The Azerbaijani perspective section is for external links, not information. And I think we should restore the 613 figure to the lead, as it is as good as the Armenian propaganda quoted there. As for the infobox, we can discuss it again at any dispute resolution forum and form a consensus for its content. Repeating the same arguments here is pointless. As for the ultimatum info, according to HRW, it comes from a "Helsinki Watch interview with A.G., a member of the PLAA, April 28, 1992". Why this anonymous A.G. should be quoted in the lead of the article? Again, we should differentiate between the conclusions of HRW and statements of witnesses that it quotes. HRW takes no responsibility for the accuracy of info contained in comments, while its own conclusions are their independent opinion. Grandmaster 15:44, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
- The 613 propaganda figure has no place in the lede nor the infobox; that's just unacceptable POV. There is no Armenian propaganda in the lede. You and I are both quoting from the same third-party document in the lede about the battle. Perhaps you should make a separate section from Azerbaijani government propaganda in the article to include the Azebaijani parliament figure of 485 and the foreign ministry figure of 613 (neither one has proof nor was it taken from the scene as was the info about Armenian reprisal attacks on Azerbaijani army forces). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Urartu TH (talk • contribs) 19:11, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
- No more comment on the official figure of 613. See WP:DRN. As for the figure of 485 provided by de Waal, it was added to other figures in the infobox by consensus. If you want to change the consensus, start a new discussion at the same forum. And how the opinion of some Armenian soldier referred to as A.G. is not propaganda? Once again, the lead must contain only facts, and not personal opinions of soldiers. If you want the info taken from the scene, HRW quotes the member of parliamentary group N.Aliyev, who says that 927 people were killed. Would it be Ok to include it, just because HRW sites it? Also, "reprisal" is your personal opinion, HRW does not use this word. No WP:OR please. Grandmaster 23:25, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
- The 613 propaganda figure is unsubstantiated. Next, I am not doubting that the 485 figure exists but we have no proof of the Azerbaijani parliaments' deliberations nor how they came to this figure (methodology etc). You need to provide some modicum of evidence for the 485 figure other than that de Waal quotes the Azerbaijani parliament. The Battle for Khojaly is a controversial article involving an issue with multiple sides contending different versions of the events. The Armenian warning is backed up by witnesses on the ground. If you wish to maintain a non-POV atmosphere, then that information must stay. "Reprisal" means retaliation. Armenian self-defense forces were in fact retaliating. Therefore it is not WP:OR. The only issue that remains is the moving of the 613/485 figures to a different location in the article.--Urartu TH (talk) 23:48, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
- HRW, Memorial, de Waal, and other third party sources say nothing of reprisal or retaliation. They don't use such words. Please do not add WP:OR to the article. As for warning, it is not a fact established by independent observers, therefore it does not belong to the lead. Grandmaster 00:00, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
- "Reprisal" is a simple word to describe the chronology of events, it does not require special mention. Armenian self-defense forces were responding to the shelling of Armenian civilians in Stepanakert. This is by definition a reprisal. The Armenian warning is in Helsinki Watch's report and has an Azerbaijani witness. If you wish to contend this, start a WP:DRN. I'm not going to go in circles with you anymore.--Urartu TH (talk) 00:06, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
- It needs a specific mention. You cannot add your personal interpretation of sources. You should quote the source exactly as written, and HRW does not say that it was a retaliation. The primary sources as witness opinions cannot be used to support any claims, see WP:Primary, which holds that "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation". You have no secondary source to support your interpretation of a primary source, and that is against the rules. Grandmaster 00:17, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
- The chronology of events is well established. This is where a term like "reprisal" fits in; if you wish, we can change it to retaliation or a similar term. I am not using the witness as a primary source; the information is in Helsinki's Watch's report written by their journalists. You are attempting to present an ultra-POV version of the Battle of Khojaly. This is unacceptable. Take it to a WP:DRN.--Urartu TH (talk) 00:20, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
- Urartu TH, you cannot go on labeling events as "reprisal", or "retaliation", or any thing of that sort based on your personal interpretation. Even if it seems to you like the most logical conclusion, it will still be POV, unless a reliable and neutral source mentions it as such. I am surprised to see this discussion dragging for three weeks. It is amazing how much effort you put into trying to substantiate something that is against every Wikipedia rule. Parishan (talk) 00:43, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
- As I noted to Grandmaster, we can use another synonym if you like. The Armenian attack during the battle of Khojaly was not a planned offensive nor was it spontaneous. It was in response to the bombing of civilians in Stepanakert by the Azerbaijani army. There is no opinion in explaining the chronology of events. Thanks.--Urartu TH (talk) 00:59, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
- We cannot "use another synonym"; we, the editors, have no authority in applying any kind of terminology to historical events. This constitutes WP:OR. I have no idea what you mean by "explaining the chronology of events"; the point is that there is no third-party assessment of the event as "reprisal" or "retaliation", which means you are making it up, which means it should not be on Wikipedia. Let academic sources do the "explaining". Parishan (talk) 01:07, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
- You're equivocating to mask your lack of argument. The word retaliation means, "The action of returning a military attack; counterattack". We know this to be true from the chronology of events. Therefore, it was a reprisal. I am NOT adding any opinion.--Urartu TH (talk) 03:05, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
- Lack of argument? Urartu TH, someone who gives me a dictionary reference to prove their POV is the one lacking arguments. Which source mentions the word "retaliation"? Parishan (talk) 11:49, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
- We know from the chronology of events that the Armenians were responding to the Shelling of Stepanakert. This by definition is a counter-attack. That term should at least by used to prevent Azerbaijani POV.
- Lack of argument? Urartu TH, someone who gives me a dictionary reference to prove their POV is the one lacking arguments. Which source mentions the word "retaliation"? Parishan (talk) 11:49, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
- You're equivocating to mask your lack of argument. The word retaliation means, "The action of returning a military attack; counterattack". We know this to be true from the chronology of events. Therefore, it was a reprisal. I am NOT adding any opinion.--Urartu TH (talk) 03:05, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
- We cannot "use another synonym"; we, the editors, have no authority in applying any kind of terminology to historical events. This constitutes WP:OR. I have no idea what you mean by "explaining the chronology of events"; the point is that there is no third-party assessment of the event as "reprisal" or "retaliation", which means you are making it up, which means it should not be on Wikipedia. Let academic sources do the "explaining". Parishan (talk) 01:07, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
- As I noted to Grandmaster, we can use another synonym if you like. The Armenian attack during the battle of Khojaly was not a planned offensive nor was it spontaneous. It was in response to the bombing of civilians in Stepanakert by the Azerbaijani army. There is no opinion in explaining the chronology of events. Thanks.--Urartu TH (talk) 00:59, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
- Urartu TH, you cannot go on labeling events as "reprisal", or "retaliation", or any thing of that sort based on your personal interpretation. Even if it seems to you like the most logical conclusion, it will still be POV, unless a reliable and neutral source mentions it as such. I am surprised to see this discussion dragging for three weeks. It is amazing how much effort you put into trying to substantiate something that is against every Wikipedia rule. Parishan (talk) 00:43, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
- The chronology of events is well established. This is where a term like "reprisal" fits in; if you wish, we can change it to retaliation or a similar term. I am not using the witness as a primary source; the information is in Helsinki's Watch's report written by their journalists. You are attempting to present an ultra-POV version of the Battle of Khojaly. This is unacceptable. Take it to a WP:DRN.--Urartu TH (talk) 00:20, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
- It needs a specific mention. You cannot add your personal interpretation of sources. You should quote the source exactly as written, and HRW does not say that it was a retaliation. The primary sources as witness opinions cannot be used to support any claims, see WP:Primary, which holds that "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation". You have no secondary source to support your interpretation of a primary source, and that is against the rules. Grandmaster 00:17, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
- "Reprisal" is a simple word to describe the chronology of events, it does not require special mention. Armenian self-defense forces were responding to the shelling of Armenian civilians in Stepanakert. This is by definition a reprisal. The Armenian warning is in Helsinki Watch's report and has an Azerbaijani witness. If you wish to contend this, start a WP:DRN. I'm not going to go in circles with you anymore.--Urartu TH (talk) 00:06, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
- HRW, Memorial, de Waal, and other third party sources say nothing of reprisal or retaliation. They don't use such words. Please do not add WP:OR to the article. As for warning, it is not a fact established by independent observers, therefore it does not belong to the lead. Grandmaster 00:00, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
- The 613 propaganda figure is unsubstantiated. Next, I am not doubting that the 485 figure exists but we have no proof of the Azerbaijani parliaments' deliberations nor how they came to this figure (methodology etc). You need to provide some modicum of evidence for the 485 figure other than that de Waal quotes the Azerbaijani parliament. The Battle for Khojaly is a controversial article involving an issue with multiple sides contending different versions of the events. The Armenian warning is backed up by witnesses on the ground. If you wish to maintain a non-POV atmosphere, then that information must stay. "Reprisal" means retaliation. Armenian self-defense forces were in fact retaliating. Therefore it is not WP:OR. The only issue that remains is the moving of the 613/485 figures to a different location in the article.--Urartu TH (talk) 23:48, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
- No more comment on the official figure of 613. See WP:DRN. As for the figure of 485 provided by de Waal, it was added to other figures in the infobox by consensus. If you want to change the consensus, start a new discussion at the same forum. And how the opinion of some Armenian soldier referred to as A.G. is not propaganda? Once again, the lead must contain only facts, and not personal opinions of soldiers. If you want the info taken from the scene, HRW quotes the member of parliamentary group N.Aliyev, who says that 927 people were killed. Would it be Ok to include it, just because HRW sites it? Also, "reprisal" is your personal opinion, HRW does not use this word. No WP:OR please. Grandmaster 23:25, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
- The 613 propaganda figure has no place in the lede nor the infobox; that's just unacceptable POV. There is no Armenian propaganda in the lede. You and I are both quoting from the same third-party document in the lede about the battle. Perhaps you should make a separate section from Azerbaijani government propaganda in the article to include the Azebaijani parliament figure of 485 and the foreign ministry figure of 613 (neither one has proof nor was it taken from the scene as was the info about Armenian reprisal attacks on Azerbaijani army forces). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Urartu TH (talk • contribs) 19:11, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
- The Azerbaijani perspective section is for external links, not information. And I think we should restore the 613 figure to the lead, as it is as good as the Armenian propaganda quoted there. As for the infobox, we can discuss it again at any dispute resolution forum and form a consensus for its content. Repeating the same arguments here is pointless. As for the ultimatum info, according to HRW, it comes from a "Helsinki Watch interview with A.G., a member of the PLAA, April 28, 1992". Why this anonymous A.G. should be quoted in the lead of the article? Again, we should differentiate between the conclusions of HRW and statements of witnesses that it quotes. HRW takes no responsibility for the accuracy of info contained in comments, while its own conclusions are their independent opinion. Grandmaster 15:44, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
- The 613 figure was contested in the WP:DRN. Almost all editors were against wild and unsubstantiated claims, and therefore against the 613 propaganda figure. We cannot push Azerbaijani POV in such a controversial and contentious article as this. If you wish to remove cited information from a third-party source, that documented events on the ground, then please go ahead and start a DRN. There is an "From an Azerbaijani perspective" section towards the bottom of the article. This is where the 613 propaganda figure should go. If you wish to submit any evidence for the 613 propaganda figure, I'm sure the community would welcome it. Otherwise, it is nothing more than propaganda.--Urartu TH (talk) 22:50, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
- There was no consensus for removal of the figure of 613, so it was left at that. In any case, it is not in the lead, and there's no such thing as Azerbaijani perspective. It is no different from the perspectives of HRW, Memorial, de Waal, Melkonian, Sargsyan, etc. According to the rules, we write the articles from a neutral point of view, and not from non-existing ethnic perspectives. As for the Armenian claims, a mention in the HRW report does not make them reliable, as HRW passes no judgment on their validity. If so, then it is just a POV, and the lead must contain only established facts. It is one thing to include the conclusions of HRW itself, and another to include an opinion of one of the sides quoted in the report. Again, you make the changes to the lead that have no consensus, and that is not acceptable. Grandmaster 21:16, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
- The WP:DRN did NOT have a conclusive answer as to the 613 propaganda figure. If you wish to produce any evidence to back up such a figure than we will not have qualms over its inclusion. I still believe it should be moved to the "Azerbaijani perspective" section. As far as the Armenian warning is concerned, it is a part of Helsink Watch's documentation of the events. Third-party sources are not POV. If these were frivolous allegations, then they would be noted as such in the report. Furthermore, I would advise you to reread the report as an Azerbaijani witness does in fact cite the warnings by the Armenians as having taken place.--Urartu TH (talk) 00:24, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
- The figure of 613 remains in the infobox, as per results of discussion at WP:DRN. If you disagree with the outcome of that discussion, you can start a new one in accordance with WP:DR. I see no further point in discussing it over and over here after the long discussion we had at WP:DRN. As for the Armenian claim, it is an allegation, and the Azerbaijani witness does not support it. She says nothing about Khojaly being used for shelling, and even if she supported the Armenian claim, it would still be an allegation, as it is a primary source, and HRW itself says nothing about the claim of ultimatum being true or not. So it is an allegation of one of the sides of the conflict, and allegations should be kept out of the lead. Grandmaster 16:54, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
- Grandmaster, the communtiny has time and again struck down your notions of credibility. The 613, as noted by many other editors, is pure speculation. The 1000 figure is discounted as unreliable according to the community; please see the DR page that you yourself started. That issue will not be discussed any further. The 613 figured should be moved away from the top of the article. The facts on the ground--confirmed by Azerbaijani witnesses--of an Armenian warning must stay in the lede to maintain neutrality on this highly controversial and contentious topic.--Urartu TH (talk) 20:48, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
- Ultimatum is not a fact, just a claim. The lead should not contain speculations. And infobox is not the lead, it is a different section, and it just contains all notable estimates, as there's no precise figure. And as you were told many times, there's nothing incredible about the 613 figure, it is quite in line with HRW data. If anything, the Azerbaijani government provided names of each of 613 people killed by Armenian forces. Grandmaster 15:39, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
- The fact that Karabakh Armenians warned Azerbaijani troops in Khojaly to stop firing upon civilians in Stepanakert or face attack is noted in the Helsinki report and corroborated by an Azerbaijani witness in the report itself. This certainly gives it a ton more credence than the 613 Azerbaijani government propaganda figure currently in the infobox. The 613 should be removed as it is not fact but merely speculation. We should move it to the Azerbaijani perspective seciton.--Urartu TH (talk) 05:12, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
- The 1000 figure is also provided by HRW, I don't see why it is unreliable. The fact that the Armenian position was reported by HRW does not make it a fact. The intro must contain only the facts, and not speculations. Grandmaster 19:55, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
- The Armenian statements regarding the need for a defensive attack against Khojaly due to Azerbaijani shelling of Armenian villages and the killing of civilians is documented by Helsinki Watch. The 613 figure has absolutely zero third-party support or any evidential backing. Also, the 1000 footnote number is considered unreliable by the Wikipedia community per DR started by yourself, so let's not talk about it.--Urartu TH (talk) 19:42, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- The Armenian claim cannot be proven either. All that can be proven is that the claim was made. As for the figure of 613, as other editors pointed out above, it does not contradict HRW which says that up to 1000 could have been killed, and the Azerbaijani government's estimate was presented only as a notable POV with attribution, and not as a fact. You say that "It is an established fact that Armenian soldiers say that they warned the Azerbaijanis of a possible retaliation", but it is also an established fact that the Azerbaijani government provides this figure with the names and other personal details of each victim. We can remove all speculative claims from the lead, but all notable casualty estimates must remain in the infobox, as per outcome of WP:DRN. I hope that will resolve the dispute. Grandmaster 20:35, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
- Friend, the Armenian notice of retaliation is mentioned in a third party document and also corroborated by an Azerbaijani witness. The Azerbaijani government claim is not backed up by any empirical source; it cannot be fact until proven whereas the Armenian notice is recorded from witnesses on the ground by a third party. Also, the 613 Azerbaijani claim is already in the infobox. Finally, the deaths of civilians during battle is very tragic and the blame can be placed on the Armenian side here to a greater extent than the Azerbaijani but that does not automatically make this mass murder. Examples of mass murder: Jewish Holocaust or Armenian Holocaust. Happy Nowruz.--Urartu TH (talk) 20:18, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
- If killing of hundreds of civilians is not a mass killing, then I don't know what is. But in any case, I see no point in discussing this here. You can stick to your opinion, and I to mine. As for the Armenian claim that they made an ultimatum, it is just a speculation, and I do not see why the Azerbaijani figure should be removed from the lead as speculative, but speculation of Armenian forces should be included instead. Don't you see a contradiction here? Grandmaster 19:47, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
- Third party sources refer to the events ranging anywhere from "battle for khojaly" to "khojaly massacre". They never imply premeditated murder. You keep intending on ignoring the basic definition of murder. There is no point in the continuing that part of the discussion. This was not mass murder. For mass murder, take a look at Sumgait Massacre. As Helsinki Watch document that mentions Armenian claims of having warned the Azerbaijanis to stop their killings of civilians in Stepanakert or else they would attack, this is a well known fact of the battle for Khojaly. It is in the report and corroborated by the Azerbaijani witness according to Helsinki Watch. If this does not fit your viewpoint, then too bad it must stay in order to portray the other side of this highly controversial article about the Battle for Khojaly. The 613 figure on the other hand is PURE speculation and a propaganda tool of the Azerbaijani dictatorship. It's inclusion in the lede is preposterous; only established facts on the ground are to be included. It is an established fact that Armenian soldiers say that they warned the Azerbaijanis of a possible retaliation.--Urartu TH (talk) 08:41, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
- It is speculative, as it is presented not as a fact, but as a version provided by the unnamed Armenian soldiers. We do not include versions in the lead, only facts. As for an Azerbaijani civilian, first, I could not find any testimony that supported the Armenian version, and second, even if there's such a testimony, it is a primary source, and thus is not reliable. We should base the article on secondary sources. As for the mass killings, this is how this event is described by HRW, Memorial and de Waal. You may think otherwise, but that is your personal opinion, which we cannot include in the article. I see no further point in discussing whether this was or was not a mass killing. If the third party reliable sources say that it was, then this is what we write, and keep our personal opinions to ourselves. Grandmaster 10:13, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- The information you're trying to delete is not deemed speculative by the document and is corroborated by an Azerbaijani civilian at the scene as noted in the document. If you need any more corroboration, then see the Shelling of Stepanakert article. Mass killings are defined as mass murder. As already explained, murder requires premeditation. These deaths occurred during "chaos" while the Battle of Khojaly was being faught. It is very tragic, but not murder.--Urartu TH (talk) 04:14, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- Helsinki Watch became HRW in 1988, so in 1992 it was already HRW. HRW calls this a massacre, which is a mass killing. Also, quoting only the parts which you believe support the Armenian argument is not in line with WP:NPOV, we should quote also the parts that place direct blame with Armenian forces. But if we are going to include in the lead everything various sources said, it will become unreadable. Right now it does not make much sense after your recent edits, because it talks about armed people among the refugees, yet it makes no mention why these people became refugees and under which circumstances they were murdered. And adding all that info would simply duplicate the whole article in the lead, which is not something that we should do. The lead should be kept brief and only say what this event was, who committed it, and when. All other details must be in the main body of the article, because different quotes in the lead do not explain what happened as they lack the details found in the main text, and space in the lead is too limited to describe all the circumstances. Grandmaster 23:42, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- Your accusations are troubling. Helsinki Watch doesn't emphasize "mass murder" or "murder". Murder is defined as "the unlawful killing, with malice aforethought, of another human, and generally this premeditated state of mind." Civilians deaths during a battle are not murder. I'm quoting the portion of the report that notes the facts on the ground that support the Armenian argument. In any case, if you wish to censor the Armenian side here, then perhaps you should refer this to arbitration. Also, note that HRW used to be called Helsinki Watch. My point was that this is a separate document then the one generally referred to as that of HRW.--Urartu TH (talk) 23:14, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- HRW and Helsinli Watch are the same organization. They clearly say that Armenians deliberatively killed civilians, and that the mass killing cannot be excused by anything. From their report, right after the part that you quoted: "the attacking party [i.e., Karabakh Armenian forces] 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." So why quoting the source selectively, while it makes no excuses for the Armenian soldiers murdering Azerbaijani civilians? That whole argument does not belong to the lead, otherwise we should explain that HRW does not find the presence of armed people in the refugee columns to be a justification to the mass murder, and places the responsibility exclusively with the Armenian side. It is clearly said in their documents: "we place direct responsibility for the civilian deaths with Karabakh Armenian forces". Grandmaster 22:55, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- It's not HRW, it's from Helsinki Watch. Everyone please take a look at the document cited. The information is listed under the "Khojaly" subsection. These are events that took place during the battle, albeit while Azerbaijani forces were retreating alongside civilians. The cite provides one of the central arguments from the Armenian side on this issue. We can't simply blanket this information or bury it in the middle of the article. Thanks and Happy Nowruz.--Urartu TH (talk) 21:20, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- It would be good to discuss any changes to the intro here before making them. Clearly, HRW says nothing about "the reason why Armenian troops fired". It is a personal interpretation and as such it is an OR. We can only quote the sources, but not interpret them. And this info does not belong to the lead anyway, as it is an assumption. Grandmaster 20:30, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- Yes. The wording "may have been" suggests it's merely an assumption. This doesn't look like one of the most important points per WP:MOSINTRO and also compromises the relative emphasis, that's why I've put it to the article's body. Brandmeistertalk 19:00, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- Incorrect. Azerbaijani troupes were nowhere in the vicinity of Khojaly, this is why the town was said to be sieged. The closest Azerbaijani position was around the village of Gülablı in Agdam. In any case, please cite your sources for bold statements such as this (that the militia used the people "as human shields"), otherwise see Wikipedia:NOT A FORUM. Parishan (talk) 01:32, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- You cannot know that for a fact, unless there is a third-party source that clearly states that. It is like saying "we know from the chronology of events that the German incursion in the USSR was a counter-attack for the defeat of the Teutonic Knights." I do not mean to come across as patronising, but if you are unable to sense how ridiculous such claims are, you probably have a long way to understanding how Wikipedia works. The word 'reprisal' is POV. The word 'attack' is not. Because regardless of whether it was a counter-attack or not, it was still an attack. Parishan (talk) 23:30, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
- We do in fact know the Shelling of Stepanakert took place before the battle of Khojaly. We know that the Azerbaijani army was bombarding Stepanakert from the town of Khojaly and that Armenians warned them that they were attack if the bombardment did not stop. Using the term counter-attack does not change anything about the fact that civilians were killed in that counter-attack. It does though, better explain the Armenian forces' calculus for attacking Khojaly. This is extremely important in understand the matter.--Urartu TH (talk) 02:43, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- With all due respect, this is nothing but your personal analysis. We are not in the position to put two and two together. This is called WP:Original research, and it does not work like that. If you have a source mentioning the shelling of Stepanakert and another one mentioning that Armenians issued a warning, it does not give you the right to apply the word 'reprisal', or 'retaliation, or 'vendetta', or any other controversial terminology that is not used by a neutral source. Perhaps the Armenian commanders saw that as reprisal, but the Azerbaijanis did not, and neither did outside observers for whom this was just an attack. Using a term that describes the Armenian take on the issue is typical case of POV (a term which you personally tend to abuse, but here it applies perfectly). This is pretty basic stuff here, Urartu TH; I am surprised you still persist at trying to convince others of the neutrality and applicability of words like 'reprisal'. Parishan (talk) 03:27, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- I recommended using a different word in earlier discussions, but was ignored. "Reprisal" is not necessary. Counter-attack is certainly a more neutral term. We don't need to put "two and two" together. We need only look at the facts that are presented to us by third-party sources, mainly HRW. From the information that is already in the article, we know that the attack was a counter-attack. This is not POV. Forget the word "reprisal".--Urartu TH (talk) 07:05, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- And which source exactly mentions it as a counter-attack? Remember that "we know" still does not constitute an argument, as it has been said numerous times. Parishan (talk) 12:57, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- With all due respect, this is nothing but your personal analysis. We are not in the position to put two and two together. This is called WP:Original research, and it does not work like that. If you have a source mentioning the shelling of Stepanakert and another one mentioning that Armenians issued a warning, it does not give you the right to apply the word 'reprisal', or 'retaliation, or 'vendetta', or any other controversial terminology that is not used by a neutral source. Perhaps the Armenian commanders saw that as reprisal, but the Azerbaijanis did not, and neither did outside observers for whom this was just an attack. Using a term that describes the Armenian take on the issue is typical case of POV (a term which you personally tend to abuse, but here it applies perfectly). This is pretty basic stuff here, Urartu TH; I am surprised you still persist at trying to convince others of the neutrality and applicability of words like 'reprisal'. Parishan (talk) 03:27, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- We do in fact know the Shelling of Stepanakert took place before the battle of Khojaly. We know that the Azerbaijani army was bombarding Stepanakert from the town of Khojaly and that Armenians warned them that they were attack if the bombardment did not stop. Using the term counter-attack does not change anything about the fact that civilians were killed in that counter-attack. It does though, better explain the Armenian forces' calculus for attacking Khojaly. This is extremely important in understand the matter.--Urartu TH (talk) 02:43, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- You cannot know that for a fact, unless there is a third-party source that clearly states that. It is like saying "we know from the chronology of events that the German incursion in the USSR was a counter-attack for the defeat of the Teutonic Knights." I do not mean to come across as patronising, but if you are unable to sense how ridiculous such claims are, you probably have a long way to understanding how Wikipedia works. The word 'reprisal' is POV. The word 'attack' is not. Because regardless of whether it was a counter-attack or not, it was still an attack. Parishan (talk) 23:30, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
I need to agree with Urartu TH. The article is a mess, and should be cleaned from Azerbaijani propaganda. Hablabar (talk) 13:20, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
- The article is based 100% on third party reliable sources with no connection to Azerbaijani government. How could it be Azerbaijani propaganda? Are HRW, Memorial or de Waal Azerbaijani propaganda? Grandmaster 19:47, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
- The 613 death figure is the most problematic of Azerbaijani government claims since it is not buttressed by any hard evidence.--Urartu TH (talk) 20:18, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
- It does not have to be, it is just a statistical info from a notable source, presented along with other existing estimates. Grandmaster 20:35, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
- A source that lacks any aspect of notability or reliability. Hablabar (talk) 14:32, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
- An official death toll is certainly notable. But you can start another WP:DR if you disagree with it remaining in the infobox. Grandmaster 19:35, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
- A source that lacks any aspect of notability or reliability. Hablabar (talk) 14:32, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
- It does not have to be, it is just a statistical info from a notable source, presented along with other existing estimates. Grandmaster 20:35, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
- The 613 death figure is the most problematic of Azerbaijani government claims since it is not buttressed by any hard evidence.--Urartu TH (talk) 20:18, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
In general, I find the lead to be overloaded with detailed information. For a page about a massacre, the lead would require basic information, i.e. the Five Ws. The current introduction goes into a scrupulous analysis of who was obliged to do A and who had issued an ultimatum to B, all of which really mean nothing to someone who visits the page for brief and general information about the event. Those details clearly belong in the body. Parishan (talk) 00:56, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
- This is a highly controversial article about a contentious topic. We can't merely include a couple sentence "conclusion" of the events. Also, the lede is the customary 3 paragraphs. Deleting the second paragraph (which I assume is your purpose), would only create POV in the lede and cause readers who only read the lede and move on to perhaps make incorrect inferences. This danger is extinguished by the current lede.--Urartu TH (talk) 03:05, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
- It is not contentious that people were massacred, that it was ethnically motivated and that Armenian and CIS troops were involved, and this is what constitutes basic knowledge about this article. All the rest is too much for an introduction. Parishan (talk) 11:49, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
- I agree with Parishan. The lead is cluttered with random information and opinions, and that is not in line with WP:MOSINTRO. The lead for such an article should only state simple points, i.e. that there was a massacre committed by certain forces against certain people. All the details needs to go into the article. In the present form, it is hard to understand anything from the very confusing intro. As the recent intro changes had no consensus, I believe it needs to be returned to the original form that was a consensus for many years. Grandmaster 13:25, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
- In view of recent editing I agree with the above. Also the sentence "Helsinki Watch reported from Stepanakert that its delegates witnessed widespread damage in Armenian civilian areas, including to schools, homes and hospitals" should be relocated as well to make the lead less cluttered. That looks more like a tangentially related POVish insertion. Brandmeistertalk 12:29, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
- Great. I think we have a consensus. Parishan (talk) 02:56, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
- There is no consensus, as I disagree. The lead must include relevant information regarding the reasons for the Armenian attack which resulted in the unnecessary deaths of civilians. This attack was a counter-attack to the Shelling of Stepanakert. By moving the second paragraph you are going to mislead readers who merely wish to have a quick synopsis of the events. Furthermore it seems that you have COMPLETELY REMOVED other relevant and cited information in the article WITHOUT consensus. These sections must be put back in place until there is consensus.--Urartu TH (talk) 19:53, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
- Great. I think we have a consensus. Parishan (talk) 02:56, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
- In view of recent editing I agree with the above. Also the sentence "Helsinki Watch reported from Stepanakert that its delegates witnessed widespread damage in Armenian civilian areas, including to schools, homes and hospitals" should be relocated as well to make the lead less cluttered. That looks more like a tangentially related POVish insertion. Brandmeistertalk 12:29, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
- I agree with Parishan. The lead is cluttered with random information and opinions, and that is not in line with WP:MOSINTRO. The lead for such an article should only state simple points, i.e. that there was a massacre committed by certain forces against certain people. All the details needs to go into the article. In the present form, it is hard to understand anything from the very confusing intro. As the recent intro changes had no consensus, I believe it needs to be returned to the original form that was a consensus for many years. Grandmaster 13:25, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
I did not remove one sentence. Everything that was in the lead is now in the body. In fact, this was the consensus version until you began randomly adding things to the lead without reaching an agreement with anyone. Parishan (talk) 23:31, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
- Parishan, I'm not referring to the text that you moved to the body. I'm referring to other parts of the article which you have removed. Please take a look at my recent edit and temporary back-track of that edit until things cool down, to see what I'm referring to.--Urartu TH (talk) 02:43, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- Again, I did not remove anything. I restored the lead version that was in place as of 12 March, which was the consensus version before you intervened with your edit-warring and controversial manipulations in the intro. What ended up disappearing was exactly what we need to discuss here before adding it back. What exactly is your disagreement with the current version? Parishan (talk) 03:27, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- You are being extremely misleading. The edit war issue was over the word "reprisal". You have removed information that was added by not only myself but other editors, such as a link to the Shelling of Stepanakert article. None of this information was contested nor did it have anything to do with the reprisal word issue. You cannot simply delete information. Take a look at my edit and temporary undo. It is in regards to information that is not about the reprisal word issue.--Urartu TH (talk) 07:05, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- Just because the editors had the good grace not to engage in an edit war with you over your additions does not mean they agreed with them. Take a look at the discussion initiated here by Brandmeister on 17 March 2014: the whole discussion revolves around the controversial text in the intro. I must repeat: I did not remove anything manually; I simply reverted the article back to the pre-edit war version of 12 March, that is, before this whole discussion here took place; and as of 12 March, Shelling of Stepanakert was an orphan article. Now, is that your only disagreement with the current version? Parishan (talk) 12:57, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, none of the edits made after 12 March had any consensus whatsoever, they were pretty much forced into the article. The fact that other editors did not want to engage in an edit war does not mean that there was a consensus for the recent version of the intro. In fact, as the discussion above shows, every line there was contested, while the original consensus version of the intro was in place for years. So Urartu TH, please reach a consensus for your edits, or seek the dispute resolution, in accordance with the rules. Grandmaster 14:11, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- Just because the editors had the good grace not to engage in an edit war with you over your additions does not mean they agreed with them. Take a look at the discussion initiated here by Brandmeister on 17 March 2014: the whole discussion revolves around the controversial text in the intro. I must repeat: I did not remove anything manually; I simply reverted the article back to the pre-edit war version of 12 March, that is, before this whole discussion here took place; and as of 12 March, Shelling of Stepanakert was an orphan article. Now, is that your only disagreement with the current version? Parishan (talk) 12:57, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- You are being extremely misleading. The edit war issue was over the word "reprisal". You have removed information that was added by not only myself but other editors, such as a link to the Shelling of Stepanakert article. None of this information was contested nor did it have anything to do with the reprisal word issue. You cannot simply delete information. Take a look at my edit and temporary undo. It is in regards to information that is not about the reprisal word issue.--Urartu TH (talk) 07:05, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- Again, I did not remove anything. I restored the lead version that was in place as of 12 March, which was the consensus version before you intervened with your edit-warring and controversial manipulations in the intro. What ended up disappearing was exactly what we need to discuss here before adding it back. What exactly is your disagreement with the current version? Parishan (talk) 03:27, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Literature section
I suggest removing the literature table. If we include every book that mentions the massacre, it will bloat the article with unimportant info. Grandmaster 22:23, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Atlético Madrid
I have fact tagged the "in February 2014, Atlético Madrid, which is sponsored by the Republic of Azerbaijan[103] honoured the victims of Khojaly, by wearing black armbands against Osasuna and Real Madrid" claim. All the sources cited for this claim refer to an alleged planned future event. I can find no source saying this event actually took place, and one source saying it did not "Atlético Madrid play without black armbands in connection with 'Khojaly events'" [2]. This report also refers to the alleged event as a "rumour". If this is correct, this content needs to be removed from this wikipedia article as the content is just a rumour that never came to anything. The sport.news.am article also mentions something on the club's website being removed - but unless we can locate some specifics about this, there really is no content that can be added to this article. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:39, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
- They did not wear the armbands, their was no minute of silence. Also, the reports claimed, Turkish midfielder Arda Turan along with his Atletico Madrid teammates will feature in a video "condemning the Khojalu genocide" and supporting peace globally. They did not. According to Haqqin.az, Atletico players wore no armbands during La Liga matches, nor were the "Khojalu genocide victims" commemorated with a minute of silence. Here is the azeri website: http://haqqin.az/news/17630.Ninetoyadome (talk) 22:04, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
- Who is "Hafiz Mammadov"? If nothing at all happened, I think all that content should be removed from the article. However, if some sources can be found suggesting that something was in an early planning stage but then cancelled, then maybe an argument could be made to mention that (but I doubt that something like that would be notable enough to deserve a mention). But let's wait a bit in case there is some legitimate disagreement about the deletion or some sources that can be presented. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 23:08, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
- He owns shares of Atletcio Madrid. I would leave it but add a sentence about what happened. This is the current sentence.
- In February 2014, Atlético Madrid, which is sponsored by the Republic of Azerbaijan[103] honoured the victims of Khojaly, by wearing black armbands against Osasuna and Real Madrid.
- We can change it to this:
- In February 2014, Atlético Madrid, which is sponsored by the Republic of Azerbaijan[103] was rumored to wear black armbands against Osasuna and Real Madrid in honour of the victims of the Khojaly massacre. On match day Atlético Madrid did not wear arm bands or have a moment of silence. Ninetoyadome (talk) 23:41, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
- But that makes it content about an unexplained rumor. Content about nothing. Nothing happened and we do not know why nothing happened - was it just a rumor without any basis in fact? If there is no source that adequately explains this rumor and why it came to nothing, I think the whole content should go. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:12, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- Who is "Hafiz Mammadov"? If nothing at all happened, I think all that content should be removed from the article. However, if some sources can be found suggesting that something was in an early planning stage but then cancelled, then maybe an argument could be made to mention that (but I doubt that something like that would be notable enough to deserve a mention). But let's wait a bit in case there is some legitimate disagreement about the deletion or some sources that can be presented. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 23:08, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Free coridor allegation
In the article Armenian side's(The side carried out massacre) allegation shown as there was a real evidence for it so the word "allegation" should be added to section. Otherwise we should add all the Nazi propagandas to the article Holocaust. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.58.128.135 (talk) 15:54, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- There are numerous sources which confirm a corridor was available. Mutalibov even states there was a corridor. Ninetoyadome (talk) 20:11, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Tragedy vs. Massacre
Considering the fact that no third-party source refers to these events as a "massacre" I think we need to move the title to Khojaly tragedy to avoid any POV here. Massacre is defined as: "an indiscriminate and brutal slaughter of people." British journalist Thomas De Waal--the one credible third-party journalist that is heavily mentioned in article-- says that the tragedy in Khojaly was a result of a chaotic situation, and not a "deliberately planned" action by the Armenians. Even those who wish to ascribe full blame on the Armenian/Karabakh side cannot argue that this attack was a planned event. The tragedy took place during the Battle of Khojaly.
Helsinki Watch notes: Helsinki Watch reported that "the militia, still in uniform, and some still carrying their guns, were interspersed with the masses of civilians". HRW states: Human Rights Watch noted that "the attacking party [i.e., Karabakh Armenian forces] is still obliged to take precautionary measures to avoid or minimize civilian casualties. These killings, while immensely tragic and unjustified, were clearly collateral damage during the battle.--Urartu TH (talk) 23:45, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- HRW calls it the "largest massacre" in the history of the conflict, and it is a third party source, so I don't see how you came to a conclusion that "no third-party source refers to these events as a "massacre"". De Waal also refers to it as a massacre, and so do countless other sources. Plus, tragedy is a vague word and does not explain what exactly happened. Therefore this proposal is not acceptable. Grandmaster 23:59, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
HRW also stated that civilians were interspersed with the azerbaijani militants. using human shields isn't really an acceptable practice in any way and thus, this should be described as a tragedy. the definition of 'massacre' here proscibes its neutral use- there is no evidence it was an intentional slaughter of a considerable number of people reaching the level of such an atrocity. there is a serious violation of the neutrality of this article given the dearth of incriminating information on the armenians and the amount of information to the contrary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.49.6.225 (talk) 08:18, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
- HRW calls it both a massacre and a tragedy. De Waal says: "I do not think it was intentional. I think that in any war events occur very quickly, spontaneously. But still, I wonder how interpreted. Course, we must look again at the text, but I do not think that it was a deliberate action, approved on, I think it was a war, it was a very chaotic situation". [3] Massacres are generally defined as planned actions; this took place under the fog of war. Using the term "massacre" is not only POV and controversial, but opens the doors for anti-Armenian racists and the Azerbaijani dictatorship's apologists to start using even more nongermane labels such as "genocide".--Urartu TH (talk) 05:41, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- Massacre is a mass killing, whether premeditated or not. Tragedy could be many things. This event was a mass killing, i.e. a massacre. And this is what the majority of third party sources call it. De Waal, to whom you refer, also calls it a massacre. "Khojali was the bloodiest massacre in the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict over Nagorny Karabakh". [4] De Waal also says that "The overwhelming evidence of what happened has not stopped some Armenians, in distasteful fashion, trying to muddy the waters". So the evidence is overwhelming, and all reliable third party sources refer to the event as a massacre. Grandmaster 08:55, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- A massacre requires deliberate intention and is often seen as a planned event. Please note that De Waal says, "I do not think that it was a deliberate action, approved on, I think it was a war, it was a very chaotic situation".[1] Generally, civilian casualties during battle are not regarded as being deliberate massacres. Unfortunately, this is exactly what the title incorrectly implies. Perhaps a more neutral term should be applied.--Urartu TH (talk) 12:59, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- Who says that the massacre needs to be preplanned? Is that your personal understanding of what a massacre is? The fact that all the reliable sources, including de Waal to whom you refer call it a massacre speaks for itself. If the words of de Waal should be construed that it was not a massacre, but a "tragedy", then why de Waal calls it a massacre? Grandmaster 19:28, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- The civilian deaths in this event are referred to as a tragedy by de Waal himself. De Waal uses both terms. Also other sources use the term tragedy and use the terms "battle for khojaly" to refer to the events. "Massacre" is a loaded term with legal implications that have never been proven. Some Armenian sources refer to the events as having been merely collateral damages during battle. This is obviously not unacceptable either. Therefore, to avoid POV, "Khojaly tragedy" is the best title to use for the article. Also, massacre implies mass murder. Mass murder, by definition, is a deliberately planned action.--Urartu TH (talk) 20:26, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
- Who says that the massacre needs to be preplanned? Is that your personal understanding of what a massacre is? The fact that all the reliable sources, including de Waal to whom you refer call it a massacre speaks for itself. If the words of de Waal should be construed that it was not a massacre, but a "tragedy", then why de Waal calls it a massacre? Grandmaster 19:28, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- A massacre requires deliberate intention and is often seen as a planned event. Please note that De Waal says, "I do not think that it was a deliberate action, approved on, I think it was a war, it was a very chaotic situation".[1] Generally, civilian casualties during battle are not regarded as being deliberate massacres. Unfortunately, this is exactly what the title incorrectly implies. Perhaps a more neutral term should be applied.--Urartu TH (talk) 12:59, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- Massacre is a mass killing, whether premeditated or not. Tragedy could be many things. This event was a mass killing, i.e. a massacre. And this is what the majority of third party sources call it. De Waal, to whom you refer, also calls it a massacre. "Khojali was the bloodiest massacre in the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict over Nagorny Karabakh". [4] De Waal also says that "The overwhelming evidence of what happened has not stopped some Armenians, in distasteful fashion, trying to muddy the waters". So the evidence is overwhelming, and all reliable third party sources refer to the event as a massacre. Grandmaster 08:55, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- HRW calls it both a massacre and a tragedy. De Waal says: "I do not think it was intentional. I think that in any war events occur very quickly, spontaneously. But still, I wonder how interpreted. Course, we must look again at the text, but I do not think that it was a deliberate action, approved on, I think it was a war, it was a very chaotic situation". [3] Massacres are generally defined as planned actions; this took place under the fog of war. Using the term "massacre" is not only POV and controversial, but opens the doors for anti-Armenian racists and the Azerbaijani dictatorship's apologists to start using even more nongermane labels such as "genocide".--Urartu TH (talk) 05:41, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
And this is what Mutalibov has to say about this: [5] Please do not add questionable statements to the lead. Mutalibov and his statements are too contradictory to be summarized the way you did. He considers the events to be an act of genocide, perpetrated by Armenians, and rejects any other interpretations of his statements. Grandmaster 09:18, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- I also think that the term massacre must stay. This term is appropriate for all events that happened during the Karabakh war.--Markus2685 (talk) 17:08, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
References
Armenian forces vs Nagorno-Karabakh forces
Mentioning Armenian forces when refering to Nagorno-Karabakh forces in the article, may be misinterpreted as armed forces of Republic of Armenia. Sources included in the article as well, if mentioning Armenian forces ([1], p. 24) clearly point out Nagorno-Karabakh fighters to avoid this kind of confusion. A reader unaware of the matter may regard Republic of Armenia as the party in question. This is a major issue and should be handled properly. I propose to use Nagorno-karabah forces consistently, since Armenian forces is a broader term and may refer to armed forces of Republic of Armenia as well. Hayordi (talk) 02:48, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- We should use the same wording as the sources use. They refer to ethnic Armenian forces, because forces both from Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh were involved. Grandmaster 20:53, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- Now you contradict yourself. The source[2] (see p. 24 as refered to in article) when mentioning Armenian forces precisely specifies Nagorno Karabakh fighters. So the later terminology should be used to disambiguate Armenian armed forces of Republic of Armenia from Armenian armed forces of Nagorno karabakh, which in turn consisted of valenteers from throughout the world. Hayordi (talk) 18:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
- The thing is that the aforementioned HRW report uses the terms "ethnic Armenian forces" and "Armenian forces" throughout the text, and though on p.24 it mentions both "Armenian forces" and "Nagorno-Karabakh officials and fighters", yet the rest of the chapter on Khojaly mentions only "Armenian forces". However in another report HRW clarifies what it means by ″Karabakh Armenian forces″:
- Now you contradict yourself. The source[2] (see p. 24 as refered to in article) when mentioning Armenian forces precisely specifies Nagorno Karabakh fighters. So the later terminology should be used to disambiguate Armenian armed forces of Republic of Armenia from Armenian armed forces of Nagorno karabakh, which in turn consisted of valenteers from throughout the world. Hayordi (talk) 18:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
The war in Nagorno-Karabakh presents an interesting case for the use of ethnic identifiers. "Karabakh Armenians" is used to signify forces connected with the self-proclaimed, breakaway "Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh." "Karabakh Armenian" forces, however, may include citizens of the Republic of Armenia, mercenaries, and members of the armed forces of the Republic of Armenia. Only where it can be determined that soldiers in an action are overwhelmingly from the armed forces of the Republic of Armenia will the term "Armenian forces" or "Armenian soldiers" be used.
- So Karabakh Armenian forces for HRW is a reference to the forces both from Armenia (including the regular army servants) and Nagorno-Karabakh. And another report by HRW refers simply to Armenian forces: [6], while other sources, like de Waal, also refer to Armenian forces. Therefore the term "ethnic Armenian forces" is better, as there's no need to explain what is meant by "Karabakh Armenian forces". Grandmaster 20:47, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
- Now you are pushing official biased point of view of Azeri government based on selective references to HRW. HRW does not refer to joint forces of Armenia and Karabakh as Karabakh forces. I pointed to sources in my previous adds where HRW clearly disambiguates Armenian forces as Karabakh fighters. Besides this wiki article uses the Armenian armed forces term - official name of nowadays armed forces of Republic of Armenia, which has nothing to do with Karabakh forces. Hayordi (talk) 23:03, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
- This article uses the term "Ethnic Armenian forces", which is not the same as armed forces of the republic of Armenia. "Ethnic Armenian forces" is not what the army of Armenia is officially called. And HRW mostly uses the term "Armenian forces" in the article you refer to. If you read HRW quote above, it says that forces both from Karabakh and Armenia were involved. If you believe that armed forces of Armenia were not involved in the conflict, that is your personal opinion. But the quote from HRW clearly states that Karabakh forces included "members of the armed forces of the Republic of Armenia". That's why it is better to use the term "ethnic Armenian forces", instead of clarifying that Armenian forces in Karabakh included those of both Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh. Grandmaster 14:53, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
- HRW report is extensive and reading it leaves no doubt, that Armenian forces refers to agorno Karabakh fighters, a term directly quoted from HRW report. This wiki article uses "Armenian and, partially, by CIS armed forces", in contrary to your explanation, and is clear misinterpretation. What consernes involvment of forces from Armenia which where volenteered citizens, then based on your reasoning should we add US, french, Australian forces as well, since volunteers from aforementioned contries served in NK defence as well? Hayordi (talk) 18:25, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
- Have you read the quote from HRW above? It says that Nagorno-Karabakh forces included "members of the armed forces of the Republic of Armenia". How can you claim that Armenian army was not involved, when HRW says that it was? Grandmaster 20:47, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
- From your quote: "Karabakh Armenians" is used to signify forces connected with the self-proclaimed, breakaway "Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh". Individual members, if such' of Armenian armed forces that served under jurisdiction of Nagorno-Karabakh defence forces, did not constitute as servants of Republic of Armenia, as they where under direct command of Nagorno-Karabakh authorities. Besideds, you've drifted away from the matter in discussion, and your presented sources are irrelevant here. This article is after all concerned with Kholjaly and not the Nagorno-Karabakh war in general. Where does HRW mention that Armed Forces of Republic of Armenia where present in Khojaly. Hayordi (talk) 01:41, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
- And where does HRW say that only Karabakh Armenians were involved, and there were no Armenians from other places? HRW uses mostly the term "Armenian forces", and only occasionally refers to "Nagorno-Karabakh officials and fighters". But as we know from HRW reports, Nagorno-Karabakh forces included Armenians from different countries, and members of the Armenian military. Therefore, it is better to use the term "ethnic Armenian forces", as this could apply to any Armenian which could be a part of the Armenian forces that attacked the town. Using the term "Nagorno-Karabakh forces" could give an impression that only Armenians from NK were involved, but we cannot make such a claim. Grandmaster 19:13, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
- Keep in mind this article is about Khojaly. The date of the events is 1992. At that time Armenia had already established military force - Armed Forces of Republic of Armenia. There is no single source stating that Armed Forces of Republic of Armenia where present in Khojaly. Forces operating under the jurisdiction of Nagorno-karabakh, being that of Armenian, American or US citizenship, constitude Nagorno-Karabakh forces. Armenia is not in command of forces serving under NK jurisdiction. Thats why HRW refers to them as Karabakh forces in general. Besides no report of says that Karabakh forces consisted of exclusively ethnic Armenians. Ethnic Armenian forces is a selective, broad and highly ambiguous term. Hayordi (talk) 07:04, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
- Again, sources do not say that those involved were only NK Armenians, and other Armenians were not involved. Armenian forces are not necessarily the army of the republic of Armenia, the army is not called "ethnic Armenian forces". And there's no such things as jurisdiction of Nagorno-Karabakh. And HRW does not refer "in general" to Karabakh forces, they mostly use the term "Armenian forces". I think that it is better to use a bit ambiguous term, as sources also are ambiguous on this matter. Otherwise we will have to go into more details on who NK forces were, and as you can see from the source above, they included members of the Armenian military. Also note that the report describing the composition of NK forces concerns the whole history of the conflict, including Khojaly. Grandmaster 21:22, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
- HRW explicitly mentions Armenian forces, not Karabakhi Armenian, as in the aforementioned link, p. 19 ("Armenian seizure of Khojaly"). It's possible to put the related reference in the article's lead, next to "by the Armenian", but if that fact is already sourced in the article's body, the lead ref is not mandatory per WP:LEADCITE. Brandmeistertalk 10:28, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
- Hayordi, there is no indication in the HRW report of any "Nagorno-Karabakh jurisdiction", let alone claiming that everyone who fought on the Armenian side did so as part of this so-called jurisdiction. We are not in the position to use sources to jigsaw-puzzle our way to general conclusions; that qualifies under WP:OR. HRW makes frequent references to ethnic Armenian forces which is an umbrella term for all those (apart from the Russian regiment) who took part in massacring the people of Khojaly, and I see no problem in using that wording. Parishan (talk) 11:27, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
- Keep in mind this article is about Khojaly. The date of the events is 1992. At that time Armenia had already established military force - Armed Forces of Republic of Armenia. There is no single source stating that Armed Forces of Republic of Armenia where present in Khojaly. Forces operating under the jurisdiction of Nagorno-karabakh, being that of Armenian, American or US citizenship, constitude Nagorno-Karabakh forces. Armenia is not in command of forces serving under NK jurisdiction. Thats why HRW refers to them as Karabakh forces in general. Besides no report of says that Karabakh forces consisted of exclusively ethnic Armenians. Ethnic Armenian forces is a selective, broad and highly ambiguous term. Hayordi (talk) 07:04, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
- And where does HRW say that only Karabakh Armenians were involved, and there were no Armenians from other places? HRW uses mostly the term "Armenian forces", and only occasionally refers to "Nagorno-Karabakh officials and fighters". But as we know from HRW reports, Nagorno-Karabakh forces included Armenians from different countries, and members of the Armenian military. Therefore, it is better to use the term "ethnic Armenian forces", as this could apply to any Armenian which could be a part of the Armenian forces that attacked the town. Using the term "Nagorno-Karabakh forces" could give an impression that only Armenians from NK were involved, but we cannot make such a claim. Grandmaster 19:13, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
- From your quote: "Karabakh Armenians" is used to signify forces connected with the self-proclaimed, breakaway "Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh". Individual members, if such' of Armenian armed forces that served under jurisdiction of Nagorno-Karabakh defence forces, did not constitute as servants of Republic of Armenia, as they where under direct command of Nagorno-Karabakh authorities. Besideds, you've drifted away from the matter in discussion, and your presented sources are irrelevant here. This article is after all concerned with Kholjaly and not the Nagorno-Karabakh war in general. Where does HRW mention that Armed Forces of Republic of Armenia where present in Khojaly. Hayordi (talk) 01:41, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
- Have you read the quote from HRW above? It says that Nagorno-Karabakh forces included "members of the armed forces of the Republic of Armenia". How can you claim that Armenian army was not involved, when HRW says that it was? Grandmaster 20:47, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
- HRW report is extensive and reading it leaves no doubt, that Armenian forces refers to agorno Karabakh fighters, a term directly quoted from HRW report. This wiki article uses "Armenian and, partially, by CIS armed forces", in contrary to your explanation, and is clear misinterpretation. What consernes involvment of forces from Armenia which where volenteered citizens, then based on your reasoning should we add US, french, Australian forces as well, since volunteers from aforementioned contries served in NK defence as well? Hayordi (talk) 18:25, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
- This article uses the term "Ethnic Armenian forces", which is not the same as armed forces of the republic of Armenia. "Ethnic Armenian forces" is not what the army of Armenia is officially called. And HRW mostly uses the term "Armenian forces" in the article you refer to. If you read HRW quote above, it says that forces both from Karabakh and Armenia were involved. If you believe that armed forces of Armenia were not involved in the conflict, that is your personal opinion. But the quote from HRW clearly states that Karabakh forces included "members of the armed forces of the Republic of Armenia". That's why it is better to use the term "ethnic Armenian forces", instead of clarifying that Armenian forces in Karabakh included those of both Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh. Grandmaster 14:53, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
- Now you are pushing official biased point of view of Azeri government based on selective references to HRW. HRW does not refer to joint forces of Armenia and Karabakh as Karabakh forces. I pointed to sources in my previous adds where HRW clearly disambiguates Armenian forces as Karabakh fighters. Besides this wiki article uses the Armenian armed forces term - official name of nowadays armed forces of Republic of Armenia, which has nothing to do with Karabakh forces. Hayordi (talk) 23:03, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
- So Karabakh Armenian forces for HRW is a reference to the forces both from Armenia (including the regular army servants) and Nagorno-Karabakh. And another report by HRW refers simply to Armenian forces: [6], while other sources, like de Waal, also refer to Armenian forces. Therefore the term "ethnic Armenian forces" is better, as there's no need to explain what is meant by "Karabakh Armenian forces". Grandmaster 20:47, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
References
How hilarious...
...all those Armenian trolls who deny this atrocity and lower down the death toll. Keep on going guys. -- 188.22.174.54 (talk) 19:28, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
- Also don't forget to add some extra "citation needed" to every critical sentence, dear trolls. -- 188.22.174.54 (talk) 19:39, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Chingiz Mustafayev
"The Committee to Protect Journalists states that the Azerbaijani journalist Chingiz Mustafayev who recorded the bodies after Khojaly Massacre was killed very suspiciously while he was reportedly trying to gather 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.[43][44]"
I deleted this section. It is speculative and reeks off conspiracy theory. Mustafayez's last moments were captured by his own camera (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2R1MTjVd_w). He clearly died in a trench during a skirmish between Azeri and Armenian forces. The way it is written here it sounds like he was murdered by his own, because he had been in the process of uncovering a plot against the Mutalibov government. There is absolutely no evidence for this. The CPJ report also does not provide any sources for this claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koestler22 (talk • contribs) 18:58, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Genocide addition
This has been discussed numerous times and every time the same conclusion has been arrived at, it should not be included because no one, besides Azerbaijan, calls it a genocide. There are no scholars that call it a genocide. Also the addition of Dennis Jaffe's "The Hill" article is pointless. The hill is not a neutral source, Jaffe works with Azerbaijan as it states on that same article: Jaffe is the U.S. Azeris Network's military analyst. His article's are completely biased and his statements are unsourced. Ninetoyadome (talk) 19:29, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
- If an article of an pro-Azerbaijan supporter is consired as "unreliabe", than you basically have to delete almost any source of Armenian Genocide as these sources are equally mostly made by pro-Armenian supporters.
- The Hill is reputable enough, since these people have high profession standards and contacts in the US senate. Besides that it is fact, that many Kurds and Meskheti Turks have been living in Khojaly.
- There had been many people demonstrating in Azerbaijan and Europe for the recognition of this massacre as "genocide", making it at least debetable. Just as debetable "Khjoaly Tragedy" is, so is "Khojaly genocide". -- 62.46.161.198 (talk) 19:58, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
- Your claim that everyone who supports the Armenian genocide is an Armenian supporter is ludicrous and does not warrant a response. The hill article is unreliable because he doesnt cite anything, he just makes a statement without citing anything. There are tons of articles cited in the article that don't mention Kurds or Meshketian Turks and yet you ignore those. Also his article doesnt even call it a genocide, he calls it a massacre. Thomas De Waal, when asked if it was a genocide, stated "But let me make two points. The massacre at Khojaly was a war-crime which is fully punishable under international law, but it was not a genocide. The word genocide should be reserved for a systematic attempt to exterminate a people because of their identity." Other then Azerbaijan no one calls it a Genocide. Mexico accepted it and called a Massacre as did Pakistan but no one, other than Azerbaijan calls it a genocide. Check the archives as this has been discussed numerous times. Ninetoyadome (talk) 20:04, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
- The term 'genocide', when used to describe these events, is only a minority viewpoint pushed by a relativity small group of people. Giving that term as much weight as 'massacre' is clearly misleading and is ultimately a grave disservice to our readership. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:13, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
- My claim is that there are tons of sources in the Armenian-article which are made by Armenians. According to your logic Ninetoyadome, these sources should have been deleted, as Azerbaijan people analysing the Khojaly massacre are deemed by you as unreliable.
- The fact that these people were trapped into corridors in order to kill them, makes the term of systematic killing more than debetable. -- 62.46.161.198 (talk) 20:15, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
- There is a difference between historians making a statement, who cite there sources and are not biased, and a military analyst, who has ties to Azebaijan, writes numerous biased articles against Armenia and does not cite his sources. Ninetoyadome (talk) 20:24, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
- The term 'genocide', when used to describe these events, is only a minority viewpoint pushed by a relativity small group of people. Giving that term as much weight as 'massacre' is clearly misleading and is ultimately a grave disservice to our readership. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:13, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
- Your claim that everyone who supports the Armenian genocide is an Armenian supporter is ludicrous and does not warrant a response. The hill article is unreliable because he doesnt cite anything, he just makes a statement without citing anything. There are tons of articles cited in the article that don't mention Kurds or Meshketian Turks and yet you ignore those. Also his article doesnt even call it a genocide, he calls it a massacre. Thomas De Waal, when asked if it was a genocide, stated "But let me make two points. The massacre at Khojaly was a war-crime which is fully punishable under international law, but it was not a genocide. The word genocide should be reserved for a systematic attempt to exterminate a people because of their identity." Other then Azerbaijan no one calls it a Genocide. Mexico accepted it and called a Massacre as did Pakistan but no one, other than Azerbaijan calls it a genocide. Check the archives as this has been discussed numerous times. Ninetoyadome (talk) 20:04, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Khojaly Massacre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110303163620/http://www.turksam.org:80/tr/a2342.html to http://www.turksam.org/tr/a2342.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:07, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Khojaly Massacre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140228233350/http://www.yap.org.az/view.php?lang=en&menu=1&id=32554 to http://www.yap.org.az/view.php?lang=en&menu=1&id=32554
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:37, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Khojaly Massacre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
- Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110614055359/http://www.azertag.com/jsp/shownews.jsp?id=681&cdate=2010-04-25&lang=en to http://www.azertag.com/jsp/shownews.jsp?id=681&cdate=2010-04-25&lang=en
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:45, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
366th CIS regiment
In the Infobox 366th CIS regiment incorrectly called as "russian 366th Motor Rifle Regiment", furthermore this formation not acted as a combat unit, what is said in the relevant section, wherein are talking about that some of Armenian origin soldiers acted illegally against the orders of the command. (Would like to know authoritative view, if I'm in something wrong.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.252.229.3 (talk) 14:09, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- if there's no objection, then I remove unconfirmed changes (more likely vandalism), if someone doesn't agree, I suggest not to start edit war, and express their views. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.252.229.3 (talk) 18:42, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- Svante Cornell, "overrun by Armenian forces, supported by Russian army's 366th infantry regiment..." from his book "Azerbaijan Since Independence
".Nocturnal781 (talk) 11:33, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for your argument, but I disagree. Firstly, I would like to see a link to the source, of which you speak. Secondly, there's a Russian-language wiki page about 366th Guards Motorized Rifle Regiment (366-й гвардейский мотострелковый полк), here reliably argued that the regiment belonged first to the USSR and then to the CIS, and was disbanded in '92. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.252.229.3 (talk) 15:21, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
- Even though the 366 regiment raised the CIS flag, it was still a Russian army unit, and eventually it was evacuated to Russia. Grandmaster 23:01, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for your argument, but I disagree. Firstly, I would like to see a link to the source, of which you speak. Secondly, there's a Russian-language wiki page about 366th Guards Motorized Rifle Regiment (366-й гвардейский мотострелковый полк), here reliably argued that the regiment belonged first to the USSR and then to the CIS, and was disbanded in '92. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.252.229.3 (talk) 15:21, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
- In Russia were evacuated soldiers who recruitment from the RSFSR (later Russian Federation), while others went to the Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakhstan, etc. respectively recruitment places. Next, read the article:
- but over 100 soldiers and officers remained in Stepanakert and joined the Armenian forces, including the commander of the 2nd battalion major Seyran Ohanyan, who currently serves as a Minister of Defense of Armenia
- Also you write: it was still a Russian army unit. Have you any sources confirming this statement? Please first make sure the reliability of your data, and then edit them. Advance thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.252.229.3 (talk) 06:57, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
- I add the link to the report of Human Rights Watch "Bloodshed in the Caucasus: escalation of the armed conflict in Nagorno Karabakh, vol. 1245 of Human rights documents, 1992, p. 24":
- The circumstances surrounding the attack at Nakhichevan on those fleeing Khojaly indicate that Armenian forces and the troops of the 366th CIS regiment (who were notapparently acting on orders from their commanders)” deliberately disregarded this customary law restraint on attacks...
- In Russia were evacuated soldiers who recruitment from the RSFSR (later Russian Federation), while others went to the Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakhstan, etc. respectively recruitment places. Next, read the article:
- I think it's authoritative opinion, and any changes to this information without providing sources will be falsification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.252.229.3 (talk) 08:03, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Claims
I would like to ask why Urartu is keep changing my title. My title fits more to the subject as the title now makes it look like the "free corridors" were a fact. Even though the armenian side claim it. So that's why I think my change fits better. DavidThomson1997 (talk) 15:33, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
- Your new title is blatantly POV. The text of the section clearly speaks to the discrepancies in announcement and creation of a free corridor by the warring sides. Most users, including Dr.K., I think would agree with that. Urartu TH (talk) 20:21, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
- I agree. Putting a word in scare quotes is inherently POV. Dr. K. 21:43, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
I think DavidThomson1997 has a point. The title of the section should reflect that the existence of the corridor is not a fact, but just a claim by one of the sides. It is clear from the context of the section. Maybe without the quotes, but something like "Free corridor claims", or "Free corridor allegations". Grandmaster 22:20, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think that the corridor is a unilateral claim. The memorial report is quoted in the article as follows:
The Memorial report quotes the words of Elmar Mamedov published in the newspaper Russkaya Misl (3.04.92): "We knew that this corridor was provided for the exit of the civilians..."
. Dr. K. 23:11, 4 July 2016 (UTC)- Could be. But neither HRW nor Memorial say that it actually existed. So I think the title of the section should be worded more carefully to reflect that. I think your edit is good, thanks. Grandmaster 08:48, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Speaking from other similar conflicts, I think the problem is in the use of the term corridor implying humanitarian corridor. What the NK authorities claim seems more to correspond with a request addressed to the other party for an evacuation order. A humanitarian corridor prime intention is the safegard of civilians, while an evacuation is more often than not a military measure and does not necessarily provide the same resources and facilities. Yaḥyā (talk) 13:22, 5 July 2016 (UTC)