Jump to content

Talk:Khojaly massacre

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 188.22.174.54 (talk) at 19:39, 14 March 2015 (→‎How hilarious...). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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". [1] 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)[reply]
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". [2] 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

And this is what Mutalibov has to say about this: [3] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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'" [4]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Talk:Khojaly Massacre/GA1

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 ([2], 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Now you contradict yourself. The source [3] (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)[reply]
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″:

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: [5], 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
  1. ^ [6]
  2. ^ http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/1992%20Bloodshed%20in%20Cauc%20-%20Escalation%20in%20NK.pdf
  3. ^ http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/1992%20Bloodshed%20in%20Cauc%20-%20Escalation%20in%20NK.pdf
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Khojaly_massacre&oldid=651375288"