Talk:Khojaly Massacre/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

Ayaz Mutalibov

The Armenian side refers to Ayaz Mutalibov's interview to claim that the massacre had been committed not by Armenian soldiers but by Azerbaijan Popular Front militants who allegedly shot their own civilians escaping through the corridor.[citation needed] In one of his interviews Mutalibov stated that the event could be a ploy by opposition to denigrate his government.[citation needed]

While the second part of this is conform with the interview I've seen, the first is not. Is there a source for the first as it is writen here? To not be open to interpretation we should stick to quoting him directly. Does everyone agree? Ionidasz (talk) 18:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Is there any interview other than this one? I don't see explicit support for the first claim:

Из интервью бывшего президента Азербайджана Аяза Муталибова чешской журналистке Дане Мазаловой, "НГ" 2.04.92


Вопрос — Что вы думаете о событиях в Ходжалы, после которых вы ушли в отставку? Трупы ходжалинцев были найдены недалеко от Агдама. Кто-то сначала стрелял в ноги, чтобы они не могли уйти дальше. Потом добавил топором, 29 февраля мои коллеги снимали их. Во время новых съемок, 2 марта, эти же трупы оказались скальпированы. Какая то странная игра...

Ответ— Как говорят те ходжалинцы, которые спаслись, это все было организовано для того, чтобы был повод для моей отставки. Какая-то сила действовала для дискредитации президента. Я не думаю, чтобы армяне, очень четко и со знанием дела относящиеся к подобным ситуациям, могли позволить азербайджанцам получить изобличающие их в фашистских действиях документы. Можно предположить, что кто-то был заинтересован в том, чтобы потом показать эти кадры на сессии ВС и все сфокусировать на моей персоне.

Если я заявляю, что это вина азербайджанской оппозиции, могут сказать, что я на них наговариваю. Но общий фон рассуждений таков, что коридор, по которому люди могли уйти, армянами все-таки был оставлен. Зачем же им тогда стрелять? Тем более на территории, близкой к Агдаму, где к тому времени было достаточно сил, чтобы выйти и помочь людям. Или просто договориться, что мирные жители уходят. Такая практика была все время.

Мне все время говорили, что ходжалинцы держатся, что им нужно помочь оружием, людьми, продуктами. Я дал поручение сделать это вертолетами. Однако летчики, как мне объяснили, отказались туда лететь, поскольку у них нет специальных приборов, чтобы уходить от стингеров. Так прошла почти целая неделя. Там же поблизости располагалась агдамская группировка, которая обязана была все время следить за развитием события. Как только техника окружила Ходжалы, нужно было эвакуировать население. Еще раньше я такое поручение дал по Шуше: мужчин- оставить, а женщин и детей вывезти. Это тоже законы войны: их надо спасать. Мое поведение было объективным и однозначным: я такие поручения давал, но почему в Ходжалах их не выполнили, мне неясно. Я, кстати, несколько раз в этот период говорил с Мкртчяном, председателем ВС НКР: "Вы уложили тысячи людей. Дайте нам возможность вывезти их трупы". Но он ответил, что никаких трупов быть не должно, у них есть наши люди, которых кормят, хотя продовольствия не хватает, и готовы отпустить в обмен на своих заложников.

Вопрос — Когда вам сообщили об этих погибших?

Ответ— На следующий день после того, как передали, что в Ходжалах всего несколько погибших. Пришла информация министра внутренних дел.

Вопрос — Кто ответствен был за эту информацию?

Ответ— Сам министр. К тому времени была создана пресс-служба и в Министерстве обороны. После истории с вертолетом мы договорились, что никто не будет давать непроверенной информации.

Вопрос— Считаете ли вы ответственным и премьер-министра Гасана Гасанова?

Ответ— Глава правительства, конечно, отвечает за все, хотя он от этого открещивается, говоря, что не занимается подобными вопросами. Но правительство есть правительство. Ionidasz (talk) 18:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Mutalibov never mentioned Popular Front, and denies that he ever said or implied that Azerbaijanis had anything to do with this. According to him, he only meant that the opposition used the situation to come to power. Grandmaster 19:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
If it's this interview, the first claim attributed to him should be deleted. But on the other hand, Mutalibov explainations of the prior interview make little sense given the content of the question he answered. We can't expect him to later admit what is concluded by the actual interview itself given the political situation in Azerbaijan. The same denial also accured with Eynulla Fatullayev, but the content of the article was a lot more explicit in his case so at first he entirly denied it's existance. Ionidasz (talk) 19:32, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
I do agree to stick to quotation. Aregakn (talk) 00:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Good, Grandmaster and John Vandenberg do you agree too? Ionidasz (talk) 00:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

A correction, for a reason I switched them, I meant to say, the second phrase is suported not the first. Lets stick in quoting him. Ionidasz (talk) 03:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

We could delete the first line, and keep the second one. And his later interviews should remain, and could possibly be expanded. A couple of days ago he gave yet another interview saying that his interview in NG was misquoted, and he did not say what is cited there. Later interviews explain what he actually meant, and have more weight, since this is what he would say if he is asked about the event. Political situation in Azerbaijan has nothing to do with position of Mutalibov, he lives in Moscow. Grandmaster 04:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I propose deleting both and rather paraphrasing the question and a relevant section of his reply and telling Armenian sources use this to say xyz... and then say he denied he meant what is implied and rather claimed he meant... Better quoting in such case rather than interpreting it. Ionidasz (talk) 05:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
That would take too much space in such a short article. This interview is not really notable, and no one outside of Armenia cares about it. That is their only chance to mislead the international community, but they don't have much success with that. A short summary of the old interview and his later interviews is sufficient. One line for each. Grandmaster 05:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Our goal is not to mislead the reader rather than thinking of space. Aregakn (talk) 13:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Massachusetts House of Representatives again

Checking the scan several time, we need to ask the opinion of someone who write a lot about US politics and know what the document means.

Here we have a primary source which says on top Citation which was offered by Ellen Story which was read by a speaker of the house. It seems to be a speech not endorsed by anyone else than the person who offered it, which is Ellen Story. In this context what Grandmaster provided writen by her makes sense, which was: Unlike Congress, the MA state legislature does not typically print commemoratory documents or speeches in its journal. The record is the citation itself. Since it was not something to vote or debate and not on the agenda, there can be no trace of it in its journal. But, democratically, everything which is voted, there should be a track record of it in the journal.

In this context on February 25, 2010 the Massachusetts House of Representatives adopted a document is not accrtate since it was not adopted, since not voted and endorsed by the members. Statments, citations are made on daily basis but those are not adopted documents. So the primary source seems to contradict the Azeri sources claiming any adoption.

If what I wrote is accurate, this should be simply removed from the article, as it's far from being an international reaction. It's just a statment made by someone. Ionidasz (talk) 00:24, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, I have a proposal, it remains but with the following form.

On February 25, 2010, state representative Ellen Story offered a citation to the Massachusetts House of Representatives which in its name offers "its sincerest acknowledgment of the 18th commemoration of the Khojaly Massacre."

I personally believe the info is not notable, and if given such an undue weight, citations could rain on every claimed events so that it becomes worth inclusion. But if it's going to stop edit warring I'm ready to make a concession even if I personnally believe its addition is unencyclopedic and only lowers the quality of the article. Ionidasz (talk) 00:52, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The is the scan of the original document. [1] Your proposal is not acceptable, since it was not just proposed, it was signed by Robert DeLeo, the speaker. Such documents do not need to be voted and endorsed by all members, the speaker has a right to adopt such documents on behalf of the House. Grandmaster 05:00, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I doubt that's true, see here definition 4, adopted really imply House voting. Ionidasz (talk) 05:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Also, I did not write propose, I took it as is, Ellen Story offered a citation, the primary source claims she offered. Ionidasz (talk) 05:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

BTW, of course the speaker signed it, he took act of the document. This is self-evident. Ionidasz (talk) 05:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, I really have to go right now, but pick any neutral user who knows about US politics and you will see that he will basically endorse my description above. Ionidasz (talk) 05:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Just change the wording, like this: on February 25, 2010 the Massachusetts House of Representatives offered "its sincerest acknowledgment of the 18th commemoration of the Khojaly Massacre". Problem solved, the word "adopted" is not used. Grandmaster 05:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi Grandmaster, I was just checking what was happening down here. Since I want the article to be as accurate at it should, I can not agree with your proposition. By rules, it is required that a citations author is provided. What you request amount to quoting an author or paraphrasing him, and attributing it to the editor of the book rather than the author. This is obviously unacceptable and in this case forge somehow a notability to the citation which obviously it does not pocess. My above proposition was already a pro-Azeri proposal, since everyone including me would delete a citation such as this in other articles. Ionidasz (talk) 15:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
The author of citation is MA House of Reps, represented by the person who signed it, i.e. Robert DeLeo. If we need to mention any person, it should be the one who signed it. Grandmaster 15:15, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Grandmaster, I don't know how it works in Azerbaijan, and contact Story you will understand, the speaker obviously signed the document. The speaker decides who speak, he endorsed the citation being read. Claiming that Story offered means she recieved the permission to read the document. Citations are being read on daily basis and the speaker sign since he took note, or took act. It's a none-issue really. I don't know Azerbaijan politic, but there must be someone obviously who moderate the chamber, house, etc. Claiming the speaker in this article is dumb, it's redondant, plus not everyone will understand what it means. And will give no info on the author of the citation, the person who offered it. Ionidasz (talk) 15:37, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

You can start requesting a third opinion, but you will have to wait until Thuesday for my statment. Ionidasz (talk) 15:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
It does not work the way you want it. There are 2 signatures on the document, and we cannot ignore that. In any case, providing the summary of the document is quite sufficient. If you insist, we can include the info on who offered the citation, and who signed it. But both names should be there, the way they are in the official document. Grandmaster 17:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I won't repeat myself, I'll fill a request for third opinion when I have time. Ionidasz (talk) 02:42, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Better file a WP:RFC. WP:3o is for disputes that involve only 2 users. Grandmaster 05:08, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
The phrase "Massachusetts House of Representatives Journal for February 25, 2010 does not contain any information about this document" does not add anything encyclopedic and is totally redundant. Brandmeister[t] 21:51, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it is an OR, since the journal does not contain any commemoratory statements at all, and as Mrs. Story explained, they do not publish such documents in their journal. Grandmaster 05:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Brandmeister, if you are going to discuss this, do it in another section, if you noticed this section has nothing to do with that statment. Ionidasz (talk) 14:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Grandmaster, you are trying to interpret a 1st level source. the interpretation should rely on the 2nd sources. Do you have any such reliable sources? If not, then the issue cannot be sighted the way you represent it. Aregakn (talk) 22:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm not interpreting anything. Just quoting the primary source. It is allowed by the rules. Grandmaster 10:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
You want to say that Ellen Story wrote that "Massachusetts House of Representatives adopted a document, offering "its sincerest acknowledgment of the 18th commemoration of the Khojaly Massacre"", but it didn't publish in official site? Divot (talk) 21:53, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Grandmaster, you are not really telling the truth! "According to Azerbaijani media, on February 25, 2010 the Massachusetts House of Representatives adopted a document, offering "its sincerest acknowledgment of the 18th commemoration of the Khojaly Massacre". First of all, telling that the HOUSE ADOPTED is false. Secondly, if not false (though it is), then it is an INTERPRETATION. And thirdly, Azeri news have spread the news as if it was a recognition by the house, and so are propaganda means (at least in this case) and cannot be cited. Aregakn (talk) 21:39, 26 May 2010 (UTC) Why did suddenly everybody stop arguing? Usually things continued till an official dispute process. Aregakn (talk) 10:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the sentence should be "On February 25, 2010 the Speaker of the Massachusetts House of Representatives Robert DeLeo signed a document, which offers the "sincerest acknowledgment of the 18th commemoration of the Khojaly Massacre". That seems to be correct. Brandmeister[t] 15:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Closer to the reallity but "signed a document..." keeps the reader not understanding what kind of document it was, was it a house document, a speach, what? So nope, isn't good enough because it misleads again. Aregakn (talk) 22:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
That's taking the reader for an idiot. Like I mentioned countless times, that it was offered by Story and read in the House, it means it was permitted by the Speaker of the House. So it was obvious it was indeed signed by him. But readers who are not from the US, or countries where they do not call the mediator of the House, Parlemant etc., as a speaker they will be fooled by such a wording. Because anything is signed by him, including adopted documents! It's Story who offered it and she was permitted to make such a declaration by the Speaker of the house. Any wording like the one you propose which make it sound as a recognition by the House is blatantly false. Ionidasz (talk) 15:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't think we have any reason to delay the dispute resolution process. Any arguments? Aregakn (talk) 15:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree, and I believe the claimed PACE document should also be added in this discussion. Because in both cases, the subject of notability and relevance is important. In the case of the PACE document, at that time, every members representing Turkey and Azerbaijan were present and they all trolled by their votes. It was not an official adopted document in both cases so their relevancy in such an article is questionable. It amounts to word a rejection of a resolution as recognition by refering to the few approve vote it recieved. Ionidasz (talk) 16:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
No dispute resolution is needed here. As could be seen on the scan, the document is a citation, so one can narrow as "signed a citation". Brandmeister[t] 18:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't know how many times I have to repeat that, that there was a citation implied that it was signed by the speaker of the house. To clarify that is redundant information for those residing in the US, or others in which the mediation is trough the speaker. For the rest of the World, or those who have little knowledge of the governing bodies, it's somehow misleading. Since citation implies and since an encyclopedia should be as clear as possible, the only relevant information here should be the author of this citation itself. Ionidasz (talk) 04:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The below citations of Divot's communication with Ms. Story leaves no doubts that this is such an unnotable event for it to be mentioned in an encyclopedia, leave alone calling it anything connected to the House itself. But if there are still doubts by the advocators of the Azeri media, then the dispute resolution process is the only way to bring the truth to WP. Aregakn (talk) 12:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The role of 366th regiment of CIS army

I propose killing the title of this article as there is no evidence of role in the massacre as it implies. I, on the other hand, propose the content to be merged in the background section. This preceded most of the human tragedy even if there was human tragedy in Khojali itself too. Ionidasz (talk) 01:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Can not make sense out of this section. I'll see how I can connect the dots and come with a proposition. Ionidasz (talk) 01:26, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Of course there was human tragedy in the town of Khojaly itself. There are sources about that. And the role of 366 is very important, it needs a separate section. Grandmaster 04:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

See above, I did not dispute there was a tragedy inside Khojali itself. We'll discuss this on monday, I'll take a brake until then. Ionidasz (talk) 04:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I remember discussing this with another user, not so long ago. Grandmaster 05:40, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
The 366 regiment did not participate in the attack itself. Those could only be rebel soldiers of Karabakhi nationality. Aregakn (talk) 10:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
The corresponding section has sufficient sources imo and additional references could be provided, I see no problem there. Brandmeister[t] 15:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request

{{editprotected}} Due to a prolonged discussion of the subject document and the absense of secondary WP:RS to properly present the case, I request an edit adding

[dubious ]

to the section "According to Azerbaijani media, on February 25, 2010 the Massachusetts House of Representatives adopted a document, offering "its sincerest acknowledgment of the 18th commemoration of the Khojaly Massacre"." As well as delete the 3 Azeri media reports (and news summary) as unreliable as per discussion according to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2 and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Today.az_and_U.S._Azeris_Network discussion Aregakn (talk) 22:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC) Aregakn (talk) 22:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Not done for now. On an article protected due to edit warring, it would be advisable to hear from more editors before fulfilling a request. Please put the {{editprotected}} request back up if/when more editors have expressed an opinion that that tag is necessary. Thank you, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't support this edit. The scan of the document is available. The confirmation from MA House was also received. So I object. Grandmaster 06:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Massachusetts House of Representatives. 2 letters.

Letter 1

Story, Ellen - Rep. (HOU)
It is a commemoration of the events of that day on the occaison of the anniversary, and not a statement of policy or opinion.

From: ***** [2]
To: Story, Ellen - Rep. (HOU)
Subject: Re: Khojaly Massacre
Dear Helen Story
Thanks for the quick response. And whose opinion reflects this document? I'm the editor "Khojaly massacre" articles in Wikipedia and I need to understand exactly how to describe this document

Story, Ellen - Rep. (HOU) <Ellen.Story@state.ma.us>
Dear Mr. *******,
The document adopted is a citation, which is a standard document used to commemorate events or congratulate individual acheivement. They are not printed in the record of the House of Representatives, which is why it can't be found on the state website. It does not necessarily reflect the opinions of the entire membership of the House or of Massachusetts, but it is an official docment of commemoration of the event at Khojaly.
Yours sincerely,
Ellen Story
State Representative


From: ****** [3]
To: Story, Ellen (HOU )
Subject: Khojaly Massacre
Dear Helen Story
Last month in the Azerbaijani newspapers, a large number of messages that on February 25, 2010 the Massachusetts House of Representatives adopted a document, offering "its sincerest acknowledgement of the 18th commemoration of the Khojaly Massacre" (f.e. http://www.today.az/news/society/66724.html), includes links to the document (http://www.usazeris.org/MA%20House%20of%20Rep%20citation%20of%20Khojaly%20Massacare.pdf). But at the site of Massachusetts I can not find anything like that. Could you explain what took Massachusetts House of Representatives?
Best rgrds,

Letter 2

From: Story, Ellen - Rep. (HOU) <Ellen.Story@state.ma.us>
Date: Thu, May 27, 2010 at 5:14 PM
Subject: RE: Controversial Citation about Khojaly Events
To: Z.


Dear Mr. Z.,

Thank you for your e-mail. The issuance of a citation is an action taken by an individual legislator or groups of legislators, normally for the purposes of congratulations or commemoration, and are submitted on behalf of the House. Citations do not confer stances on policy or opinion. The particular citation in question was requested by a constituent of mine for events commemorating the Khojaly Massacre on the occaision of its anniversary, which is what the document cites.
In direct answer to your questions:

1) No.

2) It expresses neither.

3) No.

4) No. It is not clear to me who you mean by "council" as there is no state governmental body which goes by that name. To my knowledge, there were no events in Massachusetts at all regarding this event, and there definitely were none in the State House.
Once again, thank you for writing.

Yours sincerely,
Ellen Story

________________________________ From: Z.
Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2010 4:40 PM
To: Story, Ellen (HOU )
Subject: Controversial Citation about Khojaly Events

Dear Rep. Ellen Story,

I am a resident of Cambridge, MA, and I am writing in regards with a citation that House adopted on February 25th, 2010, commemorating Khojaly events. As you may know, this citation has created a lot of controversy and confusion in Republics of Armenia, Azerbaijan and Nagorno-Karabakh, as well as in the large Armenian community in Massachusetts. There is a lot of speculation in the media and a lot of contradictory information. I was hoping you could clarify what actually happened and what this citation actually implies. I would highly appreciate it, if your office could shed some light on this situation. My questions are as follows:
1. Do these kinds of citations require majority voting, or can they be proposed and signed/adopted by just an individual in the council (or by a limited number of representatives)?
2. If it is the latter, would it be safe to assume that the citation expresses views of individual(s) and not the whole MA House of Representatives?
3. Are there any legal implications of this citation? Does this mean that Massachusetts House of Representatives officially recognizes Khojaly events as a massacre? If yes, who are the sides that House considers as victims and perpetrators of Khojaly massacre?
4. Was there an official event organized in the House to commemorate the Khojaly events? If yes, was it organized and sponsored by the House or just by a member of council?
Again, I would highly appreciate it if you could clarify the situation. Detailed answers would provide a clear understanding, which, in turn, will help ease the tensions that this citation has created in the large Armenian population in Massachusetts and will stop speculations in the media.
Respectfully,
Z.

Divot (talk) 19:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for providing these letters. A friend of mine also contacted Mrs. Story and she confirmed that the citation is a real document. So I think the above eliminates all doubts about the authenticity of the document. So it is safe to remove that the document is just a claim by Azerbaijani media. Mrs. Story confirms that the document was adopted, which was being disputed here, and she also confirms that it is an official document to commemorate the massacre. So I think we should restore the original wording, per the clarification provided by Divot. Grandmaster 13:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Are you kidding us? Story is misusing the term adopted!!! Ionidasz (talk) 14:56, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Mrs. Story says that the document was adopted: The document adopted is a citation, which is a standard document used to commemorate events or congratulate individual achievement. So it was adopted. Whether she is misusing the term or not, is not up to us to decide. She knows better. I used a different wording though, and consider this issue to be resolved. Grandmaster 04:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Contrary to what you say, it matters if it was accurate or not. Or else, we would have to claim that Story claimed it was adopted and also add when in fact it was not. If that is really what you want, go ahead, but it will discredit her. Ionidasz (talk) 14:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Look, why don't we ask for a 3o? Grandmaster 16:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Fixed many issues

Hope both side agree's, as my edits are neutral and accurate and per policy. Ionidasz (talk) 17:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

OK the two problems which remain now, is Ayaz Mutalibov and the 366. We'll discuss about them. Ionidasz (talk) 17:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I see no problem here. Grandmaster 04:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I do.

No propoganda please

If Eynulla Fatullayev denied saying that he thinks Azeri Army did it, then there is no need to publish that he said it, without any citation. This is just pure manipulation. Also it would be great if Armenians stopped publishing nonsense 'citation needed' at the end. I can say anything without any reference. And please don't use USSR Armenian Encyclopedia, or an Armenian ultra-nationalist newspaper that is read no one but some crazy dashnaksutyun members. Same goes with "quotations" from Ayaz Mutallibov.

Will be adding a section on controversies

The article as of now is one sided. Ionidasz (talk) 16:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I see a great deal of references in the archive, I'll make use of them. Ionidasz (talk) 16:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Please discuss with other involved editors first. Normally we propose edits here at talk, and get consensus for inclusion. Grandmaster 16:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
And where is your talk on your revert of uncontroversial and accurate info. I pratically added nothing, yet you reverted me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ionidasz (talkcontribs) 16:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Content of the article should be disputed

Content of the article should be disputed, as further investigation is required. Though I have no direct information about this "Khojalu Massacre", it wouldn't be hard to find local sources on the topic. Unlike our Azerbaijani colleagues, I would consider that kind of information politically as biased as the Azerbaijani side, and I'd prefer not to put biased information on Wikipedia. What I can tell for sure is what I witnessed myself - Azerbaijani citizens were indeed provided by means of immigration from Armenia during the war as the ethnic nature of the conflict threatened their safety as well as public order. Unlike their Armenian counterparts from Azerbaijan, who literally fled for their life, they were given time to move and fully compensated for their property. Also, after the city of Lachin capitulated to the Armenian armed forces, the population of the city was allowed to evacuate at their will, and no kind of violence was used against them. This is what I saw myself, and this isn't the behavior of a side, which organized "ethnic cleanings" and "massacres". Yes, I've witnessed cruelty on both sides - with Azerbaijani soldiers hermetically sealing Armenians inside steel barrels and leaving for the advancing Armenian forces to find - as well as Armenian soldiers, drawing crosses on their foreheads with dead Azerbaijani children's blood. Neither of this can be justified or presented as necessity, these were horrible deeds and a horrible war. And many crimes were committed, by people of both sides. And now standing and lying about what was and was nat, is a greater crime. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.76.11.169 (talk) 17:47, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Consensus

As mentioned in many of the edit histories, this article is a contentious one, and the current version has been agreed on over a period of time by Armenian, Azerbaijani and non-partisan editors. Any change made to this version should be agreed on the talk page by all sides before being implemented. - Francis Tyers · 17:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, besides, the version to which you reverted was a fresh concoction, not some past version agreed by everyone. Besides what you are proposing is not written in any policies. It is asked to be bold, someone can not revert me without providing any example of innacurate and non-neutral material. That's what you did under the basis of some past concensus. Ionidasz (talk) 17:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
The only thing that actually changed there is the part about citation, in international reaction. No one denies now that it is a real document. So it should be quoted. Grandmaster 17:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
A lot of additions were done, without requesting any concensus, and this for weeks. Francis Tyers come here and revert me for some past concesus. Why now? Also, the info was not removed it was accuratly presented. For someone who does not know about the way it works in the House of states in the United States, your version is wholly misleading. Also you removed clarifications as well as adding back pictures which we don't know of the authenticity. Ionidasz (talk) 17:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Hey, sorry about that, now I've reverted it to the previous-good version. Thanks for the heads up. - Francis Tyers · 17:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
But it still does not fix the problem of status-quo here. Ionidasz (talk) 17:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Francis, Grandmaster and Brandmeister. The consensus among you is a consensus that comes to life before you discuss anything on wikipedia. Be careful with these wars in a group. Don't ask for proofs because you know there are.
I suggest everybody to engage in consensus-building and not warring, especially in conspiracy. Aregakn (talk) 20:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Aregakn, the non-partisan reference, Thomas de Waal, says killings [4]. People in Khojaly were killed didn't just die, which is why the article is called massacre. Please, engage in discussing the references you add to avoid WP:POV in the article. Thanks. Atabəy (talk) 19:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
From where you came by? The HRW to use it's argument of possibly over 200, it claims that many victimes died indirectly, such as from cold. So the claim that hundreds were killed is not accurate. Also, I see nowhere information about the fact that those who remained in Khojali were unharmed, I remember having read this in one of HRW reports. I guess a report from the HRW being added will be reverted claiming there was no concensus, when most of the sources about Khojali are pratically reprints of HRW which is known for its position against military action (and each of its reports about them blow the human tragedy out of proportion), one particular case is when it had to later admit having exaggerated the Kossovo tragedy. It's weird though, that when we dig in the newspaper archives a lot of information about Khojali are just left out from sources such as De Waal. I guess every truth are not to be told. :( Ionidasz (talk) 05:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

This is what happened to the people who remained in Khojaly: [5] [6] They were cruelly killed by the Armenian forces. The pictures were taken by the Russian journalist who entered the town together with the Armenian soldiers. So there's no way for the Armenian side to deny the fact of brutal killing of innocent women and children by the Armenian armed forces. Grandmaster 08:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

A very nice WP:OR by you, Grandmaster. I see you have many. Aregakn (talk) 10:52, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
What is an OR here? Did you see the description of the pictures, provided by the author? It is pretty clear. Grandmaster 06:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

It should also be discussed, if this kind of simple matters are worth mentioning in Wikipedia. Somebody in Uganda would announce something and we can include it too and it will start looking like an article of lots of unnotable events. Why would unnotable events start being put in WP? Aregakn (talk) 10:57, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

What is an "unnotable event" in your opinion? Grandmaster 06:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
An unnotable even for the article in encyclopedia is something that doesn't add value. That Story wanted to commemorate the event of the massacre gives nothing valuable to the article and worthy t be noted. If we include all such announcements by more or less official people in all articles, it'll make hundreds of pages of such events that don't say anything by themselves. Aregakn (talk) 08:15, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
MA House citation is notable, because it is the first commemorating document adopted by a US state so far. Grandmaster 08:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
It is not a House event and we already discussed this. Don't be what Azeri media is. Aregakn (talk) 13:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Read the letters from Mrs. Story. It is the official document of MA House. Grandmaster 05:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Are there any other letters than those that Divot presented? From those answers she had it seems not to be a house document. Emilio1974 (talk) 18:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

How so? She says: it is an official document of commemoration of the event at Khojaly. How could it not be a House document? Grandmaster 14:17, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
No Grand, you are giving a wrong citation. She tells it's a citation and there's a stndard doc to commemorate an event and congratulate a person. This is not an official HOUSE document and represents only a citation of a speech. You can read once again her answer to the question if it an official position of the house about an issue, that was "No". This isn't any notable event. Aregakn (talk) 02:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
I did not say that it was an official position of the House. But it is an official document of the House for commemoration of the event. Not a political declaration, but a commemoratory document. Grandmaster 04:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
It is a citation, not an official document of the house. Transcripts of speeches of sessions of the house are "official documents" (as you call) too but the speeches themselves are not something notable to be included in the encyclopedia. Aregakn (talk) 05:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Mrs. Story said: it is an official document of commemoration of the event at Khojaly. I think she knows better than you and I. Grandmaster 05:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand why you are repeating false citation for the 2nd time. Once again, Ms. Story said: "The document adopted is a citation, which is a standard document used to commemorate events or congratulate individual acheivement." A citation, ok?

1. ...can (these kinds of citations) be proposed and signed/adopted by just an individual in the council..?

1) No.

2. If it is the latter, would it be safe to assume that the citation expresses views of individual(s) and not the whole MA House of Representatives?

2) It expresses neither.

3. Are there any legal implications of this citation? Does this mean that Massachusetts House of Representatives officially recognizes Khojaly events as a massacre ?

3) No.

4. Was there an official event organized in the House to commemorate the Khojaly events?

4) No... To my knowledge, there were no events in Massachusetts at all regarding this event, and there definitely were none in the State House.

There is 0 notability in this document. Especially when the answer of Ms Story shows, that it has little to do with the subject of this article - the massacre. Aregakn (talk) 11:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Again, the article never says that it is a document acknowledging the massacre. The citation is an official document commemorating the event. This is what the article says. Whatever it is, it is still the official document adopted by the House, and signed by its speaker. Grandmaster 05:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Adopted or not, what is the notability of a mere commemoration? 0 it seems. Sardur (talk) 09:03, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
A commemoration by a US state is notable. It is worth a short single line mention. Grandmaster 09:50, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Impossible... you keep telling it's somehting the state did. I'm done with this. Aregakn (talk) 13:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm just quoting Mrs. Story. It is an official document. Grandmaster 08:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

You are not quoting her, you are interpreting her and I showed it thrice. Time for other instances to be involved for the dispute, I guess. Of course, proven that it is not the duck or puppet of our "pro-Azeri group".Aregakn (talk) 18:40, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Vote/commenting for the next step of WP:DR

What is this voting for? You do not need to vote to follow WP:DR. I think you should go ahead and request WP:RFC. Grandmaster 05:23, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Please, do not remove references from US Congressional record about the recognition of the massacre. These sources are not Armenian or Azerbaijani but neutral U.S. Congressional links that directly reference and recognize the massacre. Atabəy (talk) 16:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The name of the article

I see it is more accurate to change the name of the article to "Khojaly Events" because of the highly disputed and contradicted sources provided in the article such as the Azerbaijani president's interview given to the Czech journalist Jana Mazalova, published in the 2 April 1992 issue of Nizavisimaya Gazeta, Moscow. His statements during the interview could destruct all the Azerbaijani allegations about a "massacre". Kevorkmail (talk) 05:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Right, you see it "more accurate". Khojaly massacre is a known fact and using the Armenia funded Jana Mazalova or her interview which is no where to be found is not enough to disprove the fact that 613 civilians were massacred by Armenians. This is a repetitive pattern if you study the talk page of the article. Please re-study it with all admissions from the Armenian side and response from Mutalibov ([7]) to allegations also added to the article as the source.  Anastasia Bukhantseva  05:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

A case disputed by one journalist who clearly has an agenda is anything but "highly-disputed." Mutallibov has refuted those claims, and all international human rights organisations have described the event as an Armenian-committed massacre against civilian Azerbaijani population. What you have got there is not enough to rename the article. There is a lot more controversy surrounding this article, and a lot more sources that disagree with its name, yet I doubt that you will be happy with renaming it "1915 events." Parishan (talk) 17:54, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

And what about the announcemnts of Eynulla Fatullayev?? Do not forget that he is an Azerbaijani citizen and an applicant before the European Court of Human Rights. His case against Azerbaijan is documented in the official website of the European Court. Is he also an "Armenia funded" figure??? Do not make conclusions about the trustiness of Mazalova without evidences. Kevorkmail (talk) 19:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Kevorkmail, Eynulla Fatullayev is not an expert on the facts of Khojaly massacre, neither did EHCR establish him as one. You are welcome to incorporate his claims and EHCR stuff on the Wiki page on Fatullayev. Atabəy (talk) 23:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm really disappointed with the way you are discussing this issue: one is accusing the journalist of being funded by Armenia without any evidence, the other is comparing the events of Khojaly with the 1915 Armenian Genocide -which is ironic- and the third is ignoring the confessions of his compatriot witness. At least show some respect to other point of views which do not agree with the Azerbaijani agenda, rather than turning Wikipedia into an editing battlefield. Kevorkmail (talk) 03:58, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Dear Kevorkmail, Eynulla Fatullayev is a self-proclaimed journalist whose views turned pro-Armenian after his trip to Armenia and Karabakh. Many facts are revealed here in this video by an Azerbaijani TV which he used to work for ([8], [9] in Azeri). Fatullayev is not an expert in Khojaly Massacre, he was not there to see and film the horrors and he ignored the facts recorded by international media, journalists, witnesses and organizations. He just relied on stories of newly befriended Armenian friends after his trip. Please read and thoroughly study the talk page before making controversial additions.  Anastasia Bukhantseva  05:12, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I think you are all talking about wrong things. The fact of killing hundreds of civilians is not disputed (even by Fatullaev) so the massacre is the fact and there is nothing to discuss. To be honest I see some kind of provocation here. --Quantum666 (talk) 05:23, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Quantum666, keep on discussing about the controversial statements made by Mutalibov and Fatullayev instead of "seeing some kind of provocation". Kevorkmail (talk) 11:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Kevorkmail, do you doubt the fact of killing hundreds of civilians? If you do please provide reliable independent sources. So far I have seen no RS to doubt the massacre. --Quantum666 (talk) 11:58, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Do not change the context, I have invited you to discuss the abovementioned statements. Kevorkmail (talk) 13:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Didn't you say I see it is more accurate to change the name of the article to "Khojaly Events"? So I am waiting for the RS. --Quantum666 (talk) 14:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Kevorkmail, please, beware of WP:POV is choosing references. Eynulla Fatullayev may be accused of some statement that he made about Khojaly massacre, the statements are bound to interpretations and are irrelevant to the fact of massacre, which is the purpose of this article. I personally fully support referring to Melkonian or Sargsyan on the massacre, because they are relevant to it, and thus are factual references. Fatullayev, who was 16-year old schoolboy in 1992, lived in Baku and had nothing to do with politics, is irrelevant. Atabəy (talk) 19:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Controversial statements

Controversial official statements which confronts the pro-Azerbaijani statemnts are constantly being removed without justifications. Salah Mar1978 (talk) 11:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

What statements do you mean? --Quantum666 (talk) 11:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
See the article after the edits of Kevorkmail, before being undone. Salah Mar1978 (talk) 13:18, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Show the diffs please. --Quantum666 (talk) 14:06, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

File:KhojalyMassacre.jpg Nominated for Deletion

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:KhojalyMassacre.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 03:29, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Pakistani Senate

There are no any information about it at Pakistani Senate "Orders of the Day". 77th Session's links: 17, 18, 19, 20, 23, 24, ets. There are no any information about Khojaly. Please, looking for a more reliable source. Divot (talk) 21:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

If it is true, then it necessarily must be published in the first class news agency. BBC Azeri to help you. For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened. Amen! Divot (talk) 00:36, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

sources occasionally refer to the massacre as Khojaly Genocide

Btw, is one newspaper article ([10]) enough to say that Pakistani (...) sources occasionally refer to the massacre as Khojaly Genocide? --vacio 15:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
The same problem with "Turkish[10][11][12] sources".
* TURKSAM - "TURKISH CENTRE OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS & STRATEGIC ANALYSIS TURKSAM" without any academical publications (TURKSAM, "TURKISH CENTRE OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS & STRATEGIC ANALYSIS", "Sinan OGAN")
* «The First News» - Azerbaycan Cumhuriyeti Adalet Bakanlığı
* http://www.hocalisoykirimi.com/ - what is this? Turkish media???? Divot (talk) 16:00, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
* I don't know why armenian clones/sockp puppet Divot and Vacio (yep, it is well known both of them are clones as they pop up same time) is removing information as here is sources about recognition in Pakistan

http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/islamabad/02-Feb-2012/mps-committee-slams-occupation-of-azerbaijani-territories

Here is mexican sources about recognition http://www.diputados.gob.mx/servicios/datorele/LXI_LEG/1_POS_IIIANO/08-dic-11/8e.htm

as well as Mexican Senate's Foreign Relation Committee's resolution, which mentions the Khojaly massacre http://www.senado.gob.mx/index.php?ver=sp&mn=2&sm=2&id=11745&lg=61

--NovaSkola (talk) 04:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

  1. There are no any information about Senat of Pakistan decision here. We don't know who use "genocide", Senat or "The Nation". There is not resolution text here.
  2. This document only "DICTÁMENES A DISCUSIÓN' - Opinions in Discusion. "Proposición presentada por el Dip. Marcos Pérez Esquer (PAN) el 6 de septiembre de 2011. (LXI Legislatura)" - Proposal submitted by Marcos Perez Esquer, not more.
  3. Mexican Senate's Foreign Relation Committee's resolution - say only "de la masacre de Jodyali", not "Genocidio de Jodyalí"
  4. "http://www.1news.com.tr/azerbaycan/kulturyasham/20110303125802833.htm" - is not a turkish source, it is azerbaijanian source and registered in Azerbaijan.

Please, don't adding disputed information. Discuss proposed changes on the talk page, cite your sources, and work to build a consensus. If you don't understand spanish, ask someone, who know. If you want know who am I, you can ask Grandmaster, or see Russian Wikipedia. or ask checkusers, of course. Divot (talk) 09:58, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

BTW. The Nation: "The Foreign Relations Committee of Senate has condemned...". Where do you see "Senate of Pakistan has recognized events in 1992 as genocide"? Divot (talk) 10:45, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

There seem indeed to be some problems with the 3 sources provided by NovaSkola above.
  1. nation.com.pk is not confirming that the KM is recognized as a genocide by Pakistani Senate. It only says that the Foreign Relations Committee of the Senate has condemned the KM (the genocide committed by Armenian armed forces in the Azerbaijan town of Khojaly) and passed a resolution re-affirming the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Azerbaijan. Moreover, it is not clear whether the use of the word genocide is the journalists choice or of the Committee.
  2. diputados.gob.mx contains the word genocide only between quotation marks (as que tuvieron lugar en el denominado “Genocidio de Jodyalí”), which is again not a confirmation of recognition as genocide.
  3. senado.gob.mx only contains the word massacre (de la masacre de Jodyalí). In short, these sources do not contain evidence that massacre of Khojaly has been recognized as genocide by Pakistan or Mexico. --vacio 16:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

[11], [12], [13] Just a few sources to include mentioned information, and for my Armenian friends: instead of trying to refute each citation please try to find better sources to contribute Wikipedia.Tanks.--Abbatai 20:05, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Abbatai, regarding your sources, the first one is an opinion, second one is the speech by the president of Mexico-Azerbaijan Friendship Group and the third one is about Pakistan, which is already included in the article. --George Spurlin (talk) 22:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
If such statements exist, surely there should be mention of them in governmental websites of Pakistan and Mexico? To date I have seen no such sources or any credible neutral source, only Azerbaijani sites that are known for altering things for propaganda purposes, and sites which have reproduced the content of those sites. Meowy 02:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Regarding the claim that "Jobbik stated that they will officially recognize Khojaly massacre if they become the ruling party in the country". A look at their website finds no such statement. However, a check of past content using archive.org does provide a copy of the event mentioned in the mili.az press release (see http://web.archive.org/web/20110727201644/http://www.jobbik.com/jobbik-announcements/3197.html), but it does not contains wording along the lines of "Jobbik stated that they will officially recognize Khojaly massacre if they become the ruling party in the country". Such a statement, if it existed, would suggest that Jobbik were actually making it a matter of party policy, but in their press conference they makes no such policy commitment. I have removed the claim from the article for that reason. It seems to be a case of an official media outlet in Azerbaijan (day.az) exagerating something for propaganda purposes. These Pakistan and Mexico things may turn out to be the same. Meowy 02:23, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Senate of Mexico

Viernes, 04 de Noviembre de 2011. Primer Periodo Ordinario. No. Gaceta: 302

SEGUNDO.- Recuerda que a mбs de 19 aсos de la masacre de Jodyalн, la justicia no ha llegado a las vнctimas, por lo que manifiesta que un elemento central para cualquier acuerdo de paz deberнa ser el poner en marcha a la brevedad, medidas que contribuyan a sanar los vнnculos entre los pueblos y a reconstruir tan pronto como sea posible la armonнa entre ambas sociedades.

Nothing about "passed a decision consisting of articles of agreement on Armenian-Azerbaijani, Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and called as genocide by international human rights organizations". Azerbaijani media again lying. Divot (talk) 10:48, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Mexican senate confirmed its in their parliamentary newspaper. I attached the link in the reference so don't need to panic :)--NovaSkola (talk) 02:12, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

It's not the Senate, its the Foreign relations committee and there is no mention of any genocides. --George Spurlin (talk) 06:56, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

DE LA COMISIÓN DE RELACIONES EXTERIORES, CON PUNTOS DE ACUERDO SOBRE EL CONFLICTO ARMENIAAZERBAIYÁN RESPECTO A NAGORNO KARABAJ != Senate of Mexico passed a decision. Please learn the Spanish language. Divot (talk) 09:56, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

To Divot, calm your tone down. Your sarcastic remarks not necessary. As well as George Spurlin is well known sockpuppet. --NovaSkola (talk) 14:34, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
To NovaSkola. Calm tone down is a good idea for one, who try to use any comission as a senate. By the way, Porfirio Muñoz Ledo even is not a president of Foreign relations committee of Senate. Chief of foreign relations committee of Senate is Rosario Green Macнas. I don't know who is George Spurlin. You can ask checkusers about it. Divot (talk) 21:36, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm a well known sockuppet? Where did you hear that? I don't recall ever talking to you before? --George Spurlin (talk) 23:47, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

There is no any information about it at Embassy of Azerbaijan in Mexico. Last news - "El Presidente de Azerbaiyán, recibe al secretario de Marina de EE.UU." 21.11.2011. Divot (talk) 02:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes there is information about this news on the Embassy of Azerbaijan in Mexico [14]. The full document on the recognition can be found here. Mursel (talk) 22:10, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Those two sources only confirm the claim of Azerbaijani side. --vacio 14:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Million signatures

I can't find a single Dutch source mentioning the "Million signatures" in 2011. How is it possible that 6% of the entire population of a country signs a petition, but no news-agency writes about it? Very suspicious. --vacio 15:00, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Sarajevo

"In February 2012, Bosnian city Sarajevo unveiled memorial to the victims" - Where is it unveiled? Maybe in the territory of the Azerbaijani embassy. Divot (talk) 21:16, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Fataliyev

Please stop misinterpreting the words of Fataliyev. He says nothing close to what is ascribed to him. Grandmaster 22:33, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The text below is translated inaccurately and is being misinterpreted.

Həmin iclasda qərara gəldilər ki, əgər Xocalıdan camaat çıxarılsa, ermənilər bunu oraya girmək üçün əsas kimi qəbul edəcəklər. Yəni biz özümüz onları Xocalıya girməyə təhrik etmiş olacağıq. Hətta Təhlükəsizlik Şurasının üzvləri də inanmırdılar ki, ermənilər sonradan genosidə çevrilən belə bir işə gedərlər. Onlar düşünürdülər ki, xalq ordan getsə Xocalını özümüz təslim etmiş olacağıq. Bu siyasi uzaqgörənliyin olmaması, situasiyanı bilməmək Xocalı hadisəsinə gətirib çıxırdı ki, mənim də tribunadan dediyim bu idi.

He said that some people at the meeting objected the evacuation, because if the population left the town, it would be an invitation for Armenians to attack it, and at that time members of security council did not believe that Armenians could commit the genocide. As you can see, he does not say that Armenians did not or could not commit genocide, he only said that no one expected that they would, but they were wrong. Grandmaster 23:30, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, www.panorama.am is not a neutral source. It cannot be used as a reference. Grandmaster 23:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

http://eucfa.eu/index.php/konflikt-um-artsakh-berg-karabach-konflikt is an Armenian propaganda source. Not third party, cannot be used. Grandmaster 23:37, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, how many times can the article mention this Eynulla Fatullayev guy? He was only 16 when the massacre took place, he was not there at the time. He wrote a few stupid articles, but he cannot be considered as reliable as HRW or Memorial, who were there after the massacre. Grandmaster 23:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I checked Fatullayev's statement to the European Court of Human Rights, and he says that he never accused the Azerbaijani side of having anything to do with the massacre, he says that he was only quoting what Armenians told him. So I see no reason for extensive quoting of this guy, he does not support what Armenian media ascribes to him. Grandmaster 00:32, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Please explain who "European Center for Artsakh e.V" are. Why should they be considered reliable? Who are they anyway? Grandmaster 01:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Looked through the sources and agree with Grandmaster. Sources about Fatullayev have been seriously distorted. In the document Fatullayev clearly admits he just conveyed what he read on Armenian websites and what he heard from Armenians. This can not be presented as if his personal opinion. Second, many non-neutral sources appear on the reference list. Indeed, European Centre for Artsakh looks like someone's private website with no credentials and can not be considered a reliable source. www.panorama.am should definitely be removed as a non-neutral as well Angel670 talk 14:19, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I could not find anywhere in Memorial's report this section:

It is a fact that an organized evacuation of Khojaly's people was not carried out. It was not carried out, although the authorities of Khojaly, the High Command and the administration of the Azerbaijani fighters were informed and knew about the humanitarian corridor which was established for this purpose.

The report only says:

С осени 1991 г. Ходжалы был практически блокирован армянскими вооруженными формированиями, а после вывода внутренних войск из Нагорного Карабаха установилась полная блокада. С января 1992 г. в Ходжалы не подавалась электроэнергия. Часть жителей покинула блокированный город, однако полной эвакуации мирного населения, несмотря на настойчивые просьбы главы исполнительной власти Ходжалы Э.Мамедова, организовано не было.

From fall 1991 Khojaly was practically blockaded by the Armenian armed forces, and after the withdrawal of the (Soviet) internal troops from Karabakh the blockade became total. No electricity has been supplied since January 1992. Some inhabitants left the blockaded town, but the full evacuation of the civilian population was not carried out, despite insistent demands of the head of executive power of Khojaly E.Mamedov.

Therefore the quoting should be accurate. Also, what is the point in flooding the article with quotes about the lack of evacuation? The reader will get the point from a single line of Memorial report. There's no excuse for inserting repetitive quotes saying the same thing. The failure to evacuate is still not a justification for the mass killing of civilians. I would like to invite everyone to discuss here before making controversial edits. Grandmaster 14:34, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


Is this a bad joke?! Where is the difference between trend.az, news.az, today.az (all Azerbaijani News sites) and panorama.am (Armenian News site)?? This is called having double standards - Unacceptable! --Aghetrichter (talk) 16:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

News reports are only used to describe claims of recognition, rallies, etc. They are not used to describe the massacre. Grandmaster 23:41, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Double Standards

This article is absolutely infected by a double moral standard! It is really hard to write anything which presents the Armenian point of view as the two Users of obviously Azerbaijani origin "Grandmaster" and "Angel670" are deleting everything or shorten it extremely.

There are a couple of Azerbaijani statements in the article which are based only on Azerbaijani (=partisan) sources but they are just marked with "Third-party source needed" and that's it... where as statements presented for the Armenian point of view, sourced with russian, armenian AND non-partisan sources are deleted completely! --Aghetrichter (talk) 00:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

See WP:Weight. The minority view cannot be given equal weight with the majority opinion. The majority opinion, as de Waal stated, is that the massacre was committed by Armenians. This is what HRW and Memorial say, and they are non-partisan sources. There are many other third party sources saying the same thing. You cannot give an undue weight to marginal points of view. The conspiracy theories proposed by Armenian propaganda sources are not supported even by the Armenian president. Grandmaster 00:29, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I would not call it "marginal point of views" what for example the Azerbaijani president, Arif Yunusov (Azerbaijani civil rights activist), Jagub Mamedov (interim president of Azerbaijan) or Chingiz Mustafayev (Azerbaijani Photographer, Print reporter) said about Khojaly, namely that the Azerbaijani authorities have to be blamed for what has happened. If there are so many high ranking Azerbaijani voices saying the opposite of what the official Azerbaijani version is, that is not a "marginal point of view" at all, because these Azerbaijani statements challenge the official Azerbaijani point of view! Also Human Rights Watch (in your words, the "most reliable source") said that both sides commited atrocities. However, even this part has completely been deleted and can be found nowhere in the article. – Again a proof of double standards--Aghetrichter (talk) 01:04, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

What does both sides committing atrocities have to do with this particular article? There are separate articles on all notable events of this nature, including those committed against Armenians. As for persons mentioned above, I do not see any third party source mentioning them. They are only featured in the Armenian propaganda websites. I already quoted here what Yunusof said. He does not support the Armenian version. Neither do other persons. The Armenian position is a marginal view, because it is not shared by the international community, and even by the Armenian president. Are you saying that the president of your country lying when saying that the massacre was committed by the Armenians? I think the denialist version is featured way too prominently in the article, and it is not proportional to its weight. Grandmaster 11:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I advise you the last time to refrain from accusations. If you are unable to participate in this article as an Azerbaijani person in an objective way, please leave this topic and let people do their work! Calling every Armenian source "propaganda" is also just proving who you really are and that you should absolutely not participate on this topic. You again proved what was alreay clear by watching your behaviour, that you mainly want this article to present the Azerbaijani version! This is more than clear! Then change the name of the article to "Azerbaijanis version of the Khojaly massacre".

I will not accept this way of working and will crack down on this,--Aghetrichter (talk) 14:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not calling every Armenian source propaganda, but there's clearly Armenian and Azerbaijani propaganda. Such sources are not acceptable. I'm not using any Azerbaijani propaganda source here, and the same applies to propagandist sources from the other side. We should refer to third party sources, according to the rules. What you call "Azerbaijani version" is actually the version of events according to HRW, Memorial, de Waal and other neutral sources, which have nothing to do with Azerbaijan. If the third party sources do not agree with the version of events that you can see on some Armenian websites, that's not my fault. Grandmaster 21:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Grandmaster I showed that, the info that entered by aghetrichter is confirmed by de Waals statements. It is clear from his article that, Something fishy happened on Azerbaijani side about this mutilated bodies. Aghet right to revive that section and you can not undo it because he has the information confirmed from a Natural source. Human right watch did not comment on mutiliated bodies etc.. they just say it is known that 161 people killed thats it. Ali55te (talk) 23:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Any info about bodies should come from neutral sources. De Waal was quoted about that. Grandmaster 00:33, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Ayaz Mutalibov

The article says "Mutalibov stated that the event could be a ploy by opposition to denigrate his government." where as the source says "he declared that the massacre at Khodjaly was "organized" by his political opponents to force his resignation."

This is a huge difference. This again just proves that everything concerning the Armenian point of view is extremely downplayed in this entire article. --Aghetrichter (talk) 00:47, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

We are discussing here sources which you provide, and which in most cases contradict to your own statements, or perhaps, there is a problem with your interpretation of sources. The user Ali55te is quoting de Waal from the page of Carnegie Moscow Centre and yet he can not see the connection between the first sentence and the last sentence of the same paragraph he is quoting. I will provide full quote of Thomas de Waals text to make everything clear:

The overwhelming evidence of what happened has not stopped some Armenians, in distasteful fashion, trying to muddy the waters. The then Azerbaijani president Ayaz Mutalibov made a bitter remark accusing his political opponents of involvement in the killings, which he later disavowed. But that has not stopped his quotation being endlessly cited in Armenia. More disturbing is the evidence of the Czech journalist Dana Mazalova, whom I met briefly last year in Armenia and have since corresponded with. Mazalova saw the original footage shot by the Azerbaijani cameraman Chingiz Mustafiev of the dead bodies and says that she did not see there the signs of mutilation that were in later footage. That has the grisly implication that someone interfered with the corpses afterwards.

But if you want corroborating sources that Azerbaijani civilians were killed by Armenians how about the most famous Armenian warrior of the Karabakh war and the current Armenian president? According to the memoir of his brother, Californian-born Armenian nationalist commander Monte Melkonian, was on the scene shortly afterwards and was disgusted by what he saw, blaming the killings on the “indiscipline” of two fanatical paramilitary units named Arabo and Aramo. And Serzh Sarkisian, now president of Armenia, confirmed to me in an interview in December 2000 that Armenian armed men had indeed killed Azerbaijani civilians.
As you can see the same source provided by Ali55te is telling that Mutalibov disavowed his accusations. It means his statement proved to be groundless political move to grasp on power by blaming on opponents. Meanwhile, the political turmoil inside Azerbaijan could have been one of the factors of unpreparedness of Azerbaijani side to the war, or underestimation of the scale of aggression, but in no way it can be provided here to justify horrible massacre of civilians by Armenian armed forced.
In the same link which Ali55te provided, de Waal testifies that two top Armenian commanders of Karabakh war confirmed that Armenian armed men had indeed killed Azerbaijani civilians. Angel670 talk 01:56, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

de Waal is not used as a source in the sentence I am refering to. The sentence in the article is "In one of his interviews Mutalibov stated that the event could be a ploy by opposition to denigrate his government." This sentence is sourced to Caroline Cox. Carolin Cox's original sentence which is used in a false way in the article is: "...he declared that the massacre at Khodjaly was "organized" by his political opponents to force his resignation. " - The article says it could be to designate his government, where as the source says that it actually was to force his resignation. These are two different things!

What is done here is again downplaying the (pro-Armenian) content of what Mutalibov first said. What Mutalibov afterwards said, what you explained, has nothing to do with this sentence right now, because this sentence allegedly presents what he first said. --Aghetrichter (talk) 04:07, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

You do not understand the meaning of the word "denigrate". It is not the same as "designate". And as far as I understand, 68.190.212.98 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is the same person as Aghetrichter. If it so, the IP was blocked for 1 day for edit warring. Grandmaster 11:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

You are absolutaley unsuitable and bigoted due to your Azerbaijani origin. This is obvious! You are very wrong with your accusation and I advise you to refrain from such accusations. Why you stick to the word "denigrate"? The main phrase is "could be", what he allegedly said. But what he really said is it "was". This is downplaying and I except it to be changed to the truth. --Aghetrichter (talk) 14:55, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Please mind WP:NPA. Attacking me because of my ethnic origin is not acceptable here. This is your last warning. As for the word denigrate, it was added by Armenian editors. They chose this wording, and it was in the article for years. I think it reflects the situation accurately, but we can modify the wording as well. But threats and personal attacks will not get you anywhere. Grandmaster 21:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I am not threatening anybody. I am just reacting to your accusations and asked you to stop this. Furthermore I am not attacking you, I just stated that your answers and your acts of deleting make the impression as if you want this article to be "pro-Azerbaijani" and not objective. Please modify the sentences in the right way. Thanks. --Aghetrichter (talk) 00:00, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Manipulated evidence

I repeat:

"The section "Manipulated evidence" has almost completely been deleted with inexplicable reasons. The User "Grandmaster" (by the way: This user page has been vandalized 23 times) is almost deleting everything which is not "pro-Azerbaijani" and against his view, probably because of his own Azerbaijani backgroud which I found unsustainable! The reasons for deleting almost the entire section "manipulated evidence" was "neutral tone, rm unsourced chunks, speculation and partisan referencing, please discuss before further additions". Please explain me what exactly you mean with "unsourced chunks"? Every "chunk" in my text ends with sources! Altogether there are 10 different sources mentioned. And just to get this clear… Azerbaijani news-sites or obviously dubious sources like "www.hocalisoykirimi.com" are accepted and ok but sources like... - an original video interview of the person one is citing - Armenian news-sites - Russian news-websites (third-party-source) - the report "Ethnic Cleansing in Progress" (third-party-source) - "The European Center for Artakh" (a registered association from Germany) ... which are all sources I have used for "manipulated evidence" are considered to be "speculation and partisan referencing"?! If an original video interview is used to depict something, this is called "speculation"?! How can something be speculation if the fact can be heard in a video? As long as Azerbaijani sources are considered to be neutral and non-partisan I don't want my detailed sourced(!) texts to be deleted completey just because it does not fit to someones point of view." --Aghetrichter (talk) 02:15, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


As for your sources, as Brandmeister said, they are all partisan, including The European Center for Artakh, which is run by the Armenian diaspora. The official page of the website speaks for itself. Please use third party sources only. And hocalisoykirimi has not been used in the article. Grandmaster 07:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


The history shows clearly that everything which is not pro-Azerbaijani is being deleted completey or shortened extremely by Grandmaster who comes from Azerbaijan. It seems as if he is not objective in this case.

I extensively explained that a lot of Azerbaijani sources, like news websites or the dubious website "http://www.hocalisoykirimi.com" have been used (Grandmaster is false, see Source #10) and obviously accepted in the article "Khojaly Massacre". I am really asking myself why Armenian News websites, Russian News websites, "pro-Armenian"-third-party-sources on the other hand are considered to be "partisan" but Azerbaijani sources are not?! This is absurd!

Moreover the structure which you have used for this Article is absolutely inappropriate for this issue and is the main problem for all this disscussions and problems. In the case of the "Khojaly massacre" there is actualy clearly an "Azerbaijani point of view" (where Azerbaijani sources should be accepted), an "Armenian point of view" (where Armenian sources should be accepted) and an "International point of view". And all three different evaluations have to be presented in a seperate own topic for a better comprehension (which should be the intention of Wikipedia), all other structure in this case leads to deleting statements and extremly shortening because something does not fit to ones point of view (like in the case of Azerbaijani Grandmaster).--Aghetrichter (talk) 16:37, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


The sources you list like Armenian online news, including the Armenian diaspora page registered in Germany or Russia, are in fact non-neutral and partisan. You can not use everything you find on the web to modify the article and push aggressively your personal point of view. Angel670 talk 17:00, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


(I again bring up this question, as it seems that non of you (probably Azerbaijani or turkish Admins) is able to answer it) Where is the difference between trend.az, news.az, today.az (all Azerbaijani News sites) and for example panorama.am (Armenian News site)?? This is called having double standards - Unacceptable! I am not pushing my point of view. I am just presenting the Armenian point of view. Seems as if some of you all are extremely bigoted --Aghetrichter (talk) 23:24, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Check your facts. "www.hocalisoykirimi.com" is only used to show what this event is called in Turkey. It is not used to support any factual claim in the article. Again, partisan sources cannot be considered reliable. And splitting the article into sections based on ethnic affiliation of sources is not appropriate. The article should be arranged inn chronological order. We should describe what happened on the basis of the info provided by neutral observers. The positions of both sides are presented too. The Armenian version is featured very prominently, every conspiracy theory is described in much detail. In fact, I see that too much space is dedicated to Eynulla Fatullayev, despite the fact that he is not a reliable source, and does not support what the Armenian sources ascribe to him. Grandmaster 23:39, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
I never said to split the article based on affiliation of sources. Of course this is absurd and not appropriate. I suggested to split the article based on the different point of views. This is appropriate in order to have a better and more comprehensible structure of what each side said (armenian side, azerbaijani side, international side), And of course the sources should not only exist of the corresponding side but should also contain third-party-sources. --Aghetrichter (talk) 22:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Your way of answering and the choice of your words (calling everything "pro-Armenian" a "conspiracy theory") just prove that you are bigoted because of your obviously Azerbaijani origin. The Armenian version is absolutely not featured very prominently. And the few facts which are presented are attached with adjectives, which imply the Armenian version to be untrue. --Aghetrichter (talk) 00:03, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


Thomas De Waal confirms what aghetricher says. http://carnegie.ru/publications/?fa=42579

More disturbing is the evidence of the Czech journalist Dana Mazalova, whom I met briefly last year in Armenia and have since corresponded with. Mazalova saw the original footage shot by the Azerbaijani cameraman Chingiz Mustafiev of the dead bodies and says that she did not see there the signs of mutilation that were in later footage. That has the grisly implication that someone interfered with the corpses afterwards.

This claims are not coming from Armenian news it is the Czech journalist heavily worked during the Nagorno-Karabakh war. There is a good 3rd party source so aghet has the right to put up this section Ali55te (talk) 23:32, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

In addition she also tells the connection between this event and the suspicious murder of Chingiz Mustafayev. She says after Chingiz realized this he feared of his life, he started to wear body armour etc.. and 6 months later he was killed. http://cpj.org/killed/1992/chingiz-fuad-ogly-mustafayev.php Probably this will appear soon in third party sources then it can be added. Ali55te (talk) 23:35, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
When quoting de Waal, it is better to provide a full quote of the paragraph. This part of de Waal's article says it all:

The overwhelming evidence of what happened has not stopped some Armenians, in distasteful fashion, trying to muddy the waters. The then Azerbaijani president Ayaz Mutalibov made a bitter remark accusing his political opponents of involvement in the killings, which he later disavowed. But that has not stopped his quotation being endlessly cited in Armenia.

Grandmaster 23:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
I can not see any connection between the findings of Czech reporter and that quotation? How can you make a connection ? In addition inside the article in wikipedia it is clearly written that Armenian side referrs to the mutalibovs interview which he later denied. This has no connection with the issue of the aghet, that he raisedAli55te (talk) 23:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I think de Waal's opinion about the attempt to muddy the waters should be quoted separately, in a different passage. As for Mustafayev, the circumstances of his death are well known. According to his brother Vahid Mustafayev, he was fatally wounded when a shell exploded right beside him and a splinter from the shell severed one of his major arteries. By the time Chingiz was delivered to the hospital, he died of blood loss. [15] There's no reliable evidence to connect his death with events in Khojaly. Grandmaster 23:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

It was such a shell that sounded like a gun fire and only killed Mustafaev where he was surrounded by tens of Azerbaijani soldiers in a Azerbaijani trench. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgpAi78VoZQ&t=3m43s The report of the committee to protect of the journalists is clear. Czech journalists testimonies and evidences will shed a light on this issue. Ali55te (talk) 23:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Youtube videos cannot be used as sources, according to the rules. Grandmaster 00:09, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Mazalova is also mentioned in the article. What is the problem? Even de Waal says that overwhelming evidence proves the guilt of Armenian side, and the attempts to muddy the waters are distasteful. We should give prominence to prevailing view, in accordance with the rules. Minority view cannot be given equal weight in accordance with WP:Weight. I understand that many in Armenia can believe that Azerbaijanis killed themselves to depose their president, but that's not what the international community thinks. The reports of Memorial and HRW are the most reliable sources, since those organizations are not connected neither to Azerbaijan nor Armenia. One interesting thing about the Armenian propagandist websites is that they keep denying the massacre even after their president Sargsyan admitted that the Armenian side committed it to intimidate Aerbaijanis. This means that they accuse their president of lying. Quite strange. Grandmaster 00:23, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


Check your facts: Wikipedia says: "In some cases, video clips published on YouTube may be acceptable as primary sources if their authenticity can be confirmed" This is the case with the CNN-Video on Youtube about Mustafaev and the Novosti-Video of Dana Mazalovas Press conference where she describes, that the corpes have been multilated afterwards--Aghetrichter (talk) 00:27, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

You cannot make your own interpretations of videos. Plus, the CNN video says that he died from a shell splinter, so it supports what other sources say. If you see there something different to what is said, that is an OR. And Mazalova's opinion is presented in the article. Grandmaster 00:30, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Monte Melkonians Statement

Grandmaster can you please copy paste exactly the paragraph where it says Arabo and Aramo stabbed death civillians in Khojaly massacare ? Because I am having hard time to find this information. Ali55te (talk) 01:08, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Here:

At about 11:00 p.m. the night before, some 2,000 Armenian fighters had advanced through the high grass on three sides of Knojalu, forcing the residents out through the open side to the east. By the morning of February 26, the refugees had made it to the eastern cusp of Mountainous Karabagh and had begun working their way downhill, toward safety in the Azeri city of Agdam, about six miles away. There, in the hillocks and within sight of safety, Mountainous Karabagh soldiers had chased them down. "They just shot and shot and shot," a refugee woman, Raisha Aslanova, testified to a Human Rights Watch investigator. The Arabo fighters had then unsheathed the knives they had carried on their hips for so long, and began stabbing.

Grandmaster 01:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Also de Waal writes:

According to the memoir of his brother, Californian-born Armenian nationalist commander Monte Melkonian, was on the scene shortly afterwards and was disgusted by what he saw, blaming the killings on the “indiscipline” of two fanatical paramilitary units named Arabo and Aramo.

Grandmaster 01:12, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Apart from the sentence related to "revenge" Monte melkonian never mentions about stabbing or killing etc. Please correct that information. You can not take a section from human rights watch and say that Monte Melkonian told this. If you don't correct it do not intervene if someone changes it. Ali55te (talk) 01:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Read carefully. Melkonian writes about stabbing and killing, and de Waal confirms that. Grandmaster 01:20, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
It is on page 212. Now I see it. Please give the references correctly. Sorry for the misunderstanding Ali55te (talk) 01:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
It's Ok. In my version it is on 213-214. Grandmaster 01:27, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
I put your statement baack about Chingiz since it shows the other point of view.Ali55te (talk) 01:29, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


Why is the Azerbaijani sourced statement of Chingiz depicting another point of view ok, but other point of views sourced with Armenian news-sites are not ok? There should be equality. And this is again the point I already stated a couple of time ago. In this Khojaly topic, it makes absolutely no sense forbidding Azerbaijani or Armenian sources for depicting the corresponding point of view. It is like forbidding a defendant to speak for himself and only allowing third parties to speak for him. This is not a scientifically proven topic at all, like "is the earth flat or round", where only one version mainly exists. This is a topic where obviously more versions exist, and as long as these events have not yet received a single conclusive legal assessment (but only reports!), all sides have to be presented equaly. Therefore Grandmasters WP:Weight argumentation is improper in this case.--Aghetrichter (talk) 01:28, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
We are not totally prohibiting the use of Armenian or Azerbaijnani sources. If a person is notable, such as former Azerbaijani or current Armenian president, then their opinion deserves inclusion. But propaganda type sources should be avoided. That's not my own idea, that's what the rules require. WP:VERIFY holds: Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Propagandist sources on both sides are not third party, and certainly don't have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Vahid Mustafayev is a notable person, and his memoir about his brother is not any kind of propaganda piece. As for WP:Weight, it is perfectly applicable in this situation. For instance, Fatullayev is overquoted. Even the European court for Human rights admitted that he did not conduct an investigation on Khojaly, mentioned the events in passing, and made exaggerated or provocative assertions. Why then he is quoted more than HRW or Memorial, which did investigate the tragedy and made no exaggerated or provocative assertions? If anything, Fatullayev have no reputation for fact checking and accuracy, and his notability is also doubtful. He could be kept, but his statements should be summarized for brevity. Also, WP:Weight does not require a legal assessment, it is a matter of prevailing views in independent sources. Grandmaster 16:27, 29 February 2012 (UTC)