Talk:Khojaly massacre

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2

Greek help ?

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

Photograph

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The draft/trash is the following:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You Tube

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here are a few I'm aware of

WP: What Wikipedia is not

WP: Reliable sources

WP: Verifiability

WP: Neutral Point of View

WP: Assume Good Faith

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Whether to include the photo

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

TAGs added

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

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

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

UPD: The second source by "Time" :

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Massacre in Khojaly

The blood feud between Armenians and Azerbaijanis claims 200 civilians

By JILL SMOLOWE

Mar. 16, 1992

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

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

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