Talk:Khojaly massacre/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 9

Proposed edits

I propose to add the following info to the section about the massacre. Currently it provides very little info about the circumstance of the massacre. I used the reports from Memorial and HRW, which explain what happened:

On the night of February 25-26 Armenian forces with support of armored vehicles of the 366th regiment of the CIS army attacked the town of Khojaly. According to the report of Memorial, as result of the bombardment unestablished number of civilians died on the territory of Khojaly during the assault, but the Armenian side practically refused to provide the information about the number of people who died this way. Residents and defenders fled the town trying to reach the town of Agdam, controlled by Azerbaijani forces. According to Human Rights Watch:

Residents fled the town in separate groups, amid chaos and panic, most of them without any belongings or clothes for the cold weather. As a result, hundreds of people suffered - and some died - from severe frostbite. The majority of Khojaly residents went along a route that took them across a shallow river, through the mountains, and, by about dawn, towards an open field near the village of Nakhichevanik, controlled then by Armenians. It was there that the most intense shooting took place. Other people fled along different routes that took them directly by Shelli, an Azerbaijani village near Agdam. A number of Khojaly survivors wandered through the forest for several days before finding their way to Agdam's environs.

The quote from Memorial is available above. Please comment. Grandmaster 12:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

That's a good sourced paragraph. Tuscumbia (talk) 14:51, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Oppose it in its entirety. This article is not about the attack and capture of Khojali (as Tuscumbia said, quoting Grnadmaster, "if we have to relate every other event we could really run out of space") - it is about a specific incident involving the death of a large group of people at a specfic location, and the various controversies and allegations surrounding that incident. BTW, I find that Memorial "report" to be astonishingly amateurish and badly written. Does it even have a publication date and an authorship? The intellectual lameness of its unnamed authors are obvious throughout. For example, it bizarrely claims that the act of providing an evacuation corridor for civilians to escape a war zone is an act of ethnic cleansing (presumably either ignoring the existance of a civilian population or forcefully confining that civilian population in war zone is OK for its authors), yet in the very next sentence it complains about the same evacuation corridor not being publicised enough for all the civilians to know about its existence! Meowy 16:20, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I have deleted the section on the 366th regiment - this article is not about the attack on Khojali. I have yet to see sources that say members of the 366th regiment were involved in killing the civilians in this massacre. Also see Talk:Seyran_Ohanyan. Content can't be added to this article in an attempt to circumvent the BLP issues that stopped the same content being added to the Seyran Ohanyan article Meowy 16:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The claim "the town itself was levelled to the ground" needs to be fact tagged. The Memorial report claims that property in Khojali was given to inhabitants of Stephanakert and nearby settlements, and (the google translation is unclear) says something about the NK authorities granting them property rights. Meowy 17:04, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Why would you remove the section about 366. There were sources indicating involvement of 366th regiment. This article is about Khojaly Massacre and whoever took part in it. If you write an article about bread, you are likely to mention its ingredients, aren't you? All of a sudden, the whole HRW report appears bizarre to you. Why is that? Tuscumbia (talk) 18:06, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The removed content (which I have again removed) contains a serious violation of BLP policy. Would you read Talk:Seyran_Ohanyan and the following BLP noticeboard discussions: [1] and [2]. Take it to the BLP noticeboard if you disagree. Also, the mention of the 366th regiment is off-topic: this article is about the massacre, not the attack on Khojali. There is no source that says any elements of the regiment were involved in the subject of this article. Meowy 19:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I read the BLP noticeboard discussions but don't see the final consensus there on the issue. However, I am inclined to agree with you but will disagree with your latest edit: removing the whole section. First off, the article is not about Seyran Ohanian. It's about an event. Secondly, if your argument is about removing a name of a living person, then you could have just removed his name and his affiliation to 366th regiment. On contrary, you're removing the whole section which is not acceptable. As far as the involvement of 366th reg. is concerned, please see all sources indicating it was. Why keep repeating the same thing over and over? I am reverting to previous version for now and let's hear from others and agree on the wording. Tuscumbia (talk) 20:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I have opened a new discussion on the BLP noticeboard [3]. You are misunderstanding what BLP issues involve - it is not a matter of consensus when it involves accusations against a living person. You say the article is not about Seyran Ohanian - so why are you wanting his name mentioned in an article about the massacre? The attack on the town was a different event, and the town was a legitimate military target (it was being used to shell Stepanakert). There are no sources that say the regiment was involved in the massacre, or, for that matter, that say Ohanyan was even present at the attack on the town. It seems to me that the only reason text is there mentioning the regiment is to weasel-in Ohanyan's name - an attempt to insert words that are intended to imply the same unsubstantiated "war criminal" propaganda that was removed for BLP reasons. Meowy 21:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I am clearly understanding BLP issues. Those are not baseless accusations, they are allegations yet to be proven in a war crimes court if or when the Azerbajani side decides on the motion (apparently with Ohanian in office it would be impossible). This has to do with the investigations and indictments. Apart from that, you have all available sourced material linking 366th regiment to the event we're discussing. The text is not there to "weasel-in Ohanian's name". I think it's quite the opposite - you're trying to delete any relation of 366th regiment to Khojaly because Ohanian did command it for quite some time, especially during the Khojaly Massacre. Tuscumbia (talk) 23:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

So you are admitting that the reason Ohanyan's name is there is because of unsubstantiated Azeri allegations. I think you have made my case for the removal. What source links 366th regiment to the event we're discussing? Meowy 02:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I never said Ohanian's name is there because of "unsubstantiated" Azeri allegations. They are there because there are counts of his participation which the Azerbaijani side takes notice of but had not yet passed the information to war crimes court, due to the fact that he's in office. As for involvement of 366th regiment, please see Grandmaster's messages. Tuscumbia (talk) 13:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Memorial, HRW and de Waal all mention the role of this regiment. According to Memorial:

Участие военнослужащих 366 полка Советской Армии. По утверждению практически всех беженцев из Ходжалы, в штурме города принимали участие военнослужащие 366 полка, причем некоторые из них входили в город.

По сведениям, полученным от армянской стороны в штурме города принимали участие боевые машины 366 полка с экипажами, обстреливавшие Ходжалы, но не входившие непосредственно в город. По утверждению армянской стороны, участие военнослужащих в боевых действиях не было санкционировано письменным приказом командования полка.

Participation of the 366th regiment of the Soviet army. According to practically all the refugees from Khojaly, the military personnel of the 366th regiment took part in the assault on the town, and some of them even entered the town.

According to the information provided by the Armenian side the armored vehicles of the 366th regiment together with their crews took part in the attack on the town and shelled it, but they did not enter the town. The Armenian side claimed that participation of the military personnel in the armed hostilities was not sanctioned by the written order of the command of the regiment.

That means that even the Armenian side admits that the 366th regiment took part in the attack on the town. HRW says in their report:

At Nakhichevanik Armenians and troops of the CIS 366th regiment opened fire on the retreating OMON militia and the fleeing residents. [4]

So the regiment was involved both in the attack on the town, and the massacre. Grandmaster 06:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand the reason why Meowy opposes inclusion of the description of the attack on the town. We need to describe what happened in Khojaly, as the massacre was possible only because of the attack, and civilians were killed both in the town and outside of it. Memorial and HRW are 2 independent sources that conducted their own investigation. And no one ever complained that Memorial's report is amateurish, Meowy is the first one. It is actually very well written, and describes the events in much detail. As for Ohanyan, he was the commander of the 2nd battalion of the 366th regiment which was involved in the attack, and attempts to suppress this info are not acceptable. The involvement of this regiment is confirmed by both Memorial and HRW, as well as de Waal, the Russian military command and even by the Armenian side. Armenians confirmed the fact to Memorial investigators. Grandmaster 06:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

You claim "the massacre was possible only because of the attack". That is just your opinion. And a strange opinion it is. If it were a Turkish or Azerbaijani attack on a civilian centre, I'd expect such an attack to almost always end in a massacre of civilians - history does indicate that to be the case. However, for most military attacks in the modern era, masacres of civilians are not the usual end result. But the simple fact is that this article is not about the attack on Khodjali, it is about the massacre. You have no sources which justify the inclusion of Ohanyan's name, and it is there just to insinuate an involvement. Meowy 03:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

It is about both the attack and the massacre. You cannot describe one without the other, as the massacre was a direct result of the attack. Both Memorial and HRW reports describe the attack on the town in much detail as a part of the event they consider to be a massacre. It is a very strange argument that the attack on the town has no relation to the massacre. Grandmaster 08:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The fact that both sources outline, is that not only by the claims of Armenian side, but notes of Azeri side it is clear, that the safe-passage was granted for several days and that the local governing officials and officials in Baku knew it but the population stayed in the village. It is also clearly noted, that the population itself was not directly notified by it's government. Tell, me, can one explain why it happened so? Why were the civilians in the town and unprepared, when the Azeri officials were warned? Why did the people leave unprepared, means, just ran away, IF the armed forces knew? Why would the main armed forces be able to leave and not warn others? Thinking of it, one 'MAY' make a conclusion, that it was planned so by the local governance and/or the militia and/or from Baku. Of course, there COULD be reasons like buying time or other but does it justify the inaction of the Azeri side? Tell me your opinion!

I recall the same tactics being used by Hezbollah or Mammas, meaning, holding the civilians as a living shield or for not allowing the advance of armed forces. Do you see a reason to keep partial population in the town?

As a result of not evacuating the civilians, they had to flee unprepared and die from cols or be caught in crossfire, etc.Aregakn (talk) 01:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

"cols or be caught in crossfire". Right, and 613 weren't killed and mutilated by Armenian armed units. They were just "caught in crossfire" and died from cold. Please try not to defame those massacred. Azerbaijani authorities were busy with corruption and strengthening of power in Baku. Mutalibov administration even tried to suppress the information about Khojaly massacre after the event telling the Azerbaijani side repelled the Armenian forces. He was finally forced out from office. Tuscumbia (talk) 14:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Khojaly or Khojali?

...or something else? In the article about the town it is spelt Khojali. Meowy 20:45, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I guess Azerbaijanis use both but I read as Khojaly a lot more. Has to do with pronunciation. Tuscumbia (talk) 20:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

We need consistancy, so one will need to be changed. I suppose it depends on which is the most used, but for me Khojaly implies a soft "e" sound, as in "bee", and Khojali a hard "i", as in "hit", Meowy 22:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The way I always heard from Azeri or Russian pronunciations, it sounds more like -y- in Valkyrie.Tuscumbia (talk) 23:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

You are using a word that has two different "y" sounds in it! Meowy 02:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Khojaly should be the right spelling to get the pronounciation right. Khojali seems to be just the transliteration of Xocali (what Azerbaijanis use).Tuscumbia (talk) 13:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

It should be Khojaly. That spelling is more widely used. And I agree, we need consistency in the use of the name. Grandmaster 07:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The chronicle of unseen forgery and falsification

During the war in Nagorno-Karabakh, the civilian population was repeatedly exposed to armed attacks, and in some cases, to pogroms and slaughter. Among the most well-known episodes could be mentioned the following: the murder of Armenian civilian population in the village Maragha in Nagorno-Karabakh, the ethnic purges of Armenians in Nakhijevan Autonomous Region, in the Azerbaijan SSR, in particular, the pogrom of Armenians in Sumgait (February 26-29, 1988),in Kirovabad (November 21-27, 1988, and in Baku (January 13-19, 1990), the killings of civilian population in Stepanakert, fired at by facilities “Grad” from Shushi and Khojaly.

However, the killings of rural population of Khojaly in the February of 1992, when at night the inhabitants of the settlement were leaving for Azeirbajani town Aghdam, is, undoubtedly, an episode having more publicity. The Armenian side claims that they were given the opportunity of a free corridor, while the Azerbaijani side denies this fact. According to the Azerbaijani side, 613 people were killed on those days.

This very occurrence differs from others, first of all, by the fact that the Azerbaijani side fully controlled the territory where the Khojaly inhabitants were killed and had the opportunity to make an unimpeded and unrestricted survey not only of the very spot but also of the dead, by taking photos and video filming. In particular, Azerbaijani camera-man Chingiz Mustafaev, found himself in the place of the death practically straight away and it is his materials that underlie all the documentary materials on Khojaly.

After the defeat in the war with Armenians, a process of formation of national identity began in the present Azerbaijan. In this scheme Armenia and Armenians became the main antagonists. In the process of modeling of the national self-consciousness, the Khojaly events were declared as one of the several genocides against Azerbaijani, though, it is absolutely evident that the Khojaly events, by no means, fall under the category of genocide. In spite of this, Azerbaijan, on a governmental level, is engaged in presenting the Khojaly events as genocide: at the Web Site of the president of Azerbaijan there is a section devoted to a number of genocides against Azerbaijani, including “the genocide in Khojaly ” (http://president.az/browse.php?sec_id=56). There are sections on the “genocide in Khojaly” at the Web Sites of Embassies of Azerbaijan Republic to different countries as well. All this is an evidence of the great role of the Khojaly tragedy in Azerbaijan state propaganda.

Any photograph that "supports" this falsified genocide can be where it originally came from. http://xocali.net/EN/index.html Tiko310 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC).

We know the opinion of the Armenian propaganda, thanks. It is not of interest for anyone. We are interested in independent sources. Grandmaster 11:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Of COURSE it is of interest, especially due to the fact that there were no "independent sources" during the event -- it was Armenian soldiers vs Azeri soldiers along with an unknown number of civilians. So when it's Azeri word versus Armenian word, we take both sides into account. Indeed, the above site chronicles the use of false images in endorsing the Azeri propaganda. Serouj (talk) 21:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

It is not about Azeri sources vs Armenian ones, it is about some (not all) Armenian sources vs the international ones (HRW, Memorial, etc are not Azeri sources). Grandmaster 07:15, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Moreover, the fact of the massacre is confirmed by several notable figures, including the incumbent president of Armenia. Tuscumbia (talk) 14:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't recommend using the term "massacre" to put an intent of a planned murder of civilians. If it was planned and intended, no warning would have been issued at least. None of the sources claim or even put a possibility, that it was a planned killing of civilians.Aregakn (talk) 01:38, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Because none of the sources were able to be present in the headquarters of Armenian commanders and those of 366th regiment to determine whether it was planned or not. The execution of civilians, some at point blank in the open hills, especially during the morning hours when it is visible that these were civilians, speaks of deliberate actions. Tuscumbia (talk) 14:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it is painfully obvious that the evidence of falsification of the photographs that are used as "support" for the Azeri side are being completely ignored. Again, for you slow readers, the photographs used by the Azeri government as "evidence" for this "massacre" have been proven to be false. I don't understand why user Tuscumbia is ignoring this fact and continuing the argument. The only "proof" you have are these photographs. And if you begin to read half of what is on the website, you will see that these pictures are working AGAINST your cause, because it sheds immense doubt on the validity of this alleged massacre. Tiko310 (talk) 21:56, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Nothing is obvious from the bogus website which is created to denounce the massacre in the first place. The amateurish "analysis" of photographs is presented with an Armenian point of view yet inadvertently dismissed the fact that collection of bodies from the massacre location has been done during 2 days. The clothes on victims, shapes, locations of the bodies were easily and likely changed by Armenian militants. I am not sure what you're trying to prove with that bogus website when the evidence, including ones by Armenian militants and the current Armenian president is overwhelming. Tuscumbia (talk) 16:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

It is interesting how you show absolutely no evidence to support your accusations that this website is "bogus". You are simply calling it bogus. Point out something TANGIBLE from this website that discredits it. You are assuming that someone changed the bodies. Assuming assumptions. That is what you sound like.

Armenian point of view you say? What is wrong with that? There are ONLY two views, so we must take both into account is this not so? The Armenian point of view clearly shows the evidence, and supports its arguments. Unlike you, who are assuming things with nothing to back it up. It is an undeniable fact that all of these photographs were forged and faked and taken from other incidents. You lose all your credibility.

You call this website amateurish, why? One must come to a conclusion that you are not interested in the truth, but are interested in pushing your own personal opinions. It is hardly "overwhelming". Armenia is constantly denying anything close to a genocide took place.

You COMPLETELY ignore the interviews with some individuals including the first president of Azerbaijan, and Ramiz-mualim. May I direct you to them here. [5] and [6]. It is also an undeniable fact that many photographs that are "evidence" for Khojali, are directly taken from events from Kosovo. [7] Just because a website has facts that you do not LIKE, that does not mean you have the right to deem it amateurish, bogus, or biased.Tiko310 (talk) 21:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

You should re-read my statements on this talk page and then try writing something substantial. Otherwise, those are baseless accusations. What more evidence would you like? You post a bogus site, I tell you that website is bogus because the so-called "analysis" is based on nothing but imagination. The authors of the site show pictures of the same people from different angles and claim their clothe, shape of their body parts, nudity varies from picture to picture. So? That does prove once again what really happened in February 1992. In the timeframe between the first and second helicopter flights, the bodies were disturbed and mutilated (some might have been mutilated before that). The quotes from participants of the massacre indicate the act of massacre. What "Kosovo" are you talking about when most of the pictures were screenshotted from the Khojaly film shot by Chingiz Mustafayev on the spot? The film is available on youtube.com. The rest of the pictures were shot by American and European journalists, including that of Chingiz Mustafayev when he was filming. So, what kind of "tangible" evidence are you looking for when everything is tangible enough to clearly see and observe? When bodies shot by Armenians en masse lie in the Armenian controlled area and are later videotaped and the act is later confirmed by many Armenian sources, including the incumbent President of Armenia and by the brother of one of the chief commanders of Armenian armed units, how else can you understand it?

What interviews are you talking about? Mutalibov's interview? Read this:

Source Russian newspaper Regnum: "Только армянская подлость может позволить обвинить самих азербайджанцев в организации геноцида в Ходжалы": Экс-президент Азербайджана - Trans: "Only Armenian infamy can allow accusations of Azerbaijanis on organization of Khojaly Genocide" - former President of Azerbaijan

Translation of the whole text:

---

"Only Armenian infamy can allow accusations of Azerbaijanis on organization of Khojaly Genocide" - former President of Azerbaijan

"Claims of Armenian authorities on Azerbaijanis organized or were interested in the fall of Khojaly is an indicator of an unparalleled infamy" said the former President of Azerbaijan, Ayaz Mutalibov, commenting on annual publications of Armenian media outlets which try to accuse the Azerbaijani side in Khojaly tragedy.

"There are numerous materials of respected organization such as "Memorial", findings of specialists and of investigations, which prove that Khojaly is an act of genocide, committed by Armenians with assistance from Russian troops from 366th regiment" - said Mutalibov.

"References to my opinion that Popular Front organized or contributed to fall of Khojaly is a shameless lie and absurd. At the same time, I said that Popular Front used the situation around Khojaly to take over the power" - said Mutalibov

Touching upon the tragic events of February 26, 1992, Mutalibov noted that in February 1992, Milli Majlis, under pressure from members of the Popular Front did not approve joining the treaty about transferring to Moscow's general command of ground forces, located on the territory of the former USSR. "In response to our refusal to join the treaty, we were punished by the Russia's generalship. Armenians would never dare and would not have been able to take Khojaly. That's why, loss of this strategic location is, foremost a result of foreign policy miscalculation. During discussions of the issue in Milli Majlis, Russia's President, Boris Yeltsin called me and asked to make a decision about joining the aforementioned treaty in an exchange of support in Karabakh. However, my efforts to explain this to our "patrioteers" did not succeed. As a result, Khojaly was lost" - said Mutalibov

"After the tragedy we were finally able to have 366th regiment's withdrawal and even decided on liberation of Khojaly. A military operation was developed which was broken on March 6, when the Popular Front forced me to resign" - said Mutalibov

He confirmed that issues were being decided by generals, not by politicians and to save the territory and the people, I had to go along with their arrangements, especially taking in consideration that they remained on paper and in the end, lost their force. Misunderstanding of all these realities brought to loss of Shusha and of other regions of the country, concluded Mutalibov.

---

Not sure who Ramiz is but clearly his interview says nothing to support your argument. If, as per Ramiz, Mutalibov did not send any reinforcements or relocate 2,000 Azerbaijani civilians from Khojaly, that doesn't mean Armenian gunmen should be chasing and massacring them en masse, does it? Again, that again speaks of the incorrect perception of Armenians by Azerbaijani leadership at that time which expected Armenians not to touch the civilians (if they were not relocated, Armenians would not enter the city), and subsequent Armenian breaking of that stereotype. (Before Khojali, the Azerbaijanis thought that they were joking with us, they thought that the Armenians were people who could not raise their hand against the civilian population. We were able to break that [stereotype] Serzh Sargsyan.)

Hope this clarifies your doubts. Tuscumbia (talk) 22:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Deaths of soldiers

Someone, I don't know who and don't have the time to check, is continually deleting mention that SOLDIERS were among those killed in this event. Let's be very clear: there were at least "several dozen" Azeri soldiers involved in this event according to HRW. This was NOT an entire massacre of an unarmed population. I've added this to the intro, and should not be deleted. Serouj (talk) 04:51, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the infobox line about casualties needs to mention that among those killed were also members of the local militia, but the massacre relates to civilians, so it does need to be mentioned in the intro. Grandmaster 08:30, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

No, the massacre does NOT only relate to civilians. The event is taken as a WHOLE. It's ONE event, not two. And that is how HRW and everyone else treats it. Reverting your edit. Serouj (talk) 21:51, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The whole event was more like a battle than a massacre, especially since at least "a few dozen" (according to HRW) ARMED Azeri soldiers were involved. But we're giving Azeris the benefit of the doubt and calling it "massacre". Compare this to the Maraghar Massacre of UNARMED Armenian civilians. Serouj ([[User

talk:Serouj|talk]]) 21:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Evidence and role of armed Azeri combatants in the Khojaly event

This is so that Grandmaster considers that we've reached a "consensus" that there were actually FIGHTING and HOSTILE Azeri combatants (22, 40, or over 200, according to various sources) among the civilians. The presence of a large group of Azeri combatants is simply indisputable. Here are the quotes from HRW's report:

1. "Some of the bodies received at the makeshift hospital in Agdam were identified as combatants." - Bloodshed in the Caucasus: escalation of the armed conflict in Nagorno Karabakh, page 23.
2. "Moreover, the parties may not use civilians to shield military targets from attack or to shield military operations, including retreats. Thus, a party that intersperses combatants with fleeing civilians puts those civilians at risk and violates its obligation to protect its own civilians." - - Bloodshed in the Caucasus: escalation of the armed conflict in Nagorno Karabakh, pg 23-24. Serouj (talk) 19:07, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
3. "On the night of February 25-26 Armenian forces seized the Azerbaijani town of Khojaly, located about ten miles from Stepanakert. As some of its residents, accompanied by retreating Azerbaijani militia and self-defense forces, fled Khojaly seeking to cross the border to reach Agdam, they approached Armenian military posts and were fired upon..." - Bloodshed in the Caucasus: escalation of the armed conflict in Nagorno Karabakh, page 19 Serouj (talk) 19:17, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
4. "Since at least 1990, an Azerbaijani OMON militia unit was deployed in Khojaly, mainly with the purpose of defending the town and the airport. The exact number of militia deployed is unknown. Aiden Rasulov, who leads the Azerbaijani Procuracy's investigation of Khojaly, puts the number at twenty-two, although displaced persons said that as many as forty militia men fled with the town's population. In addition, Khojaly had a self-defense group of about 200. - Bloodshed in the Caucasus: escalation of the armed conflict in Nagorno Karabakh, page 20. Serouj (talk) 19:17, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
5. HRW has a section titled "Positioning of the Militia" (that is, the AZERI militia). see Bloodshed in the Caucasus: escalation of the armed conflict in Nagorno Karabakh, page 21.
6. "Among one of these fleeing groups was the Azerbaijani OMON, led by Alif Gajiev, on retreat form the airport. Gajiev had, according to several Helsinki Watch interviews, directed the group seeking shelter in the school basement to leave the village. At Nakhichevanik Armenian and troops of the CIS 366th regiment opened fire on the retreating OMON militia and the fleeing residents. - Bloodshed in the Caucasus: escalation of the armed conflict in Nagorno Karabakh, page 21.
7. "All Azerbaijanis interviewed who were in this group reported that the militia, still in uniform, and some still carrying their guns, were interspersed with the masses of civilians." - Bloodshed in the Caucasus: escalation of the armed conflict in Nagorno Karabakh, page 21.
8. "For example, Hijran Alekpera, a twenty-three-year-old former bakery worker, described a mass of civilians who moved along "surrounded by a ring of defenders. They tried to defend us. They had guns and they would try to shoot back." - Bloodshed in the Caucasus: escalation of the armed conflict in Nagorno Karabakh, page 21.
9. "The leaders of our group were men. The Armenians opened fire as we approached the village (of Nakhichevanik). They surrounded us and shot. There was shooting between Armenian soldiers and ours." S.A., a member of the OMON unit, told Helsinki Watch, "We were shooting and running in the pack, but it was not an organized retreat. We were all mixed together." - Bloodshed in the Caucasus: escalation of the armed conflict in Nagorno Karabakh, page 21.
10. "Another young Azerbaijani woman, who suffered frostbite on her legs, also described the crossfire: "When Armenians saw us they began to shoot. We hid. At the same time Azerbaijanis shot back. They were Azerbaijani OMON. Some of them were with us when we fled." - Bloodshed in the Caucasus: escalation of the armed conflict in Nagorno Karabakh, page 21. Serouj (talk) 19:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

We can mention in the infobox that the number of dead includes both civilians and combatants. The article already includes the above info. Grandmaster 07:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The introduction certainly does not and the body of the text makes it seem like there were no militia, mentioning it only in passing. Indeed, HRW doesn't even call the incident a "massacre" and that, as well, should be addressed in the article. I will shortly add this information to both the introduction as well as the body of the text. Serouj (talk) 02:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

If you try to edit against consensus and edit war, I will have to ask for the admin intervention. This article is covered by the arbitration remedy. Now, you say that HRW does not call this a massacre. You are certainly wrong. See quotes from HRW reports:

The number of servicemen in the 366th who participated in the massacre of civilians is still unknown. [8]

In February 1992. Karabakh Armenian forces — reportedly backed by soldiers of the 366th Motor Rifle Regiment of the Russian Army — seized the Azeri-populated town of Khojali, about seven kilometers outside of Stepanakert. More than 200 civilians were killed in the attack, the largest massacre to date in the conflict. [9], and again here: February 1992 massacre at Khojali, an Azeri-populated town ... [10]

As you can see, HRW clearly refers to this event as a massacre. As for introduction, it says what the sources say. HRW calls the killing of civilians a massacre. But the infobox can say that Armenians also killed militia, who tried to defend the civilians. Grandmaster 09:34, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually EVERY SINGLE ONE of my quotes from HRW can be added to the article by me without consensus, as EVERY ONE of the above quotes is by HRW. Does that make sense to you? Serouj (talk) 04:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I proposed to add a quote from HRW, but Meowy disagreed. So I did not add it. Plus, what is the point in adding info that is already there? The article says that there were armed men among civilians. There's this line there: Helsinki Watch itself concluded "that the militia, still in uniform, and some still carrying their guns, were interspersed with the masses of civilians." How many times do you want that said? Grandmaster 05:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

It should be stated in MUCH MORE DETAIL than a sentence in passing. The Azeri combatants during the Khojaly Event / Battle played a central role in what would unfold. Serouj (talk) 08:10, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Who says? We have quoted HRW. They confirm that there were armed people among refugees, and that this does not justify the massacre of civilians. This info is provided in the article. There's no point in repeating it over and over. Grandmaster 14:52, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Shots fired by Azerbaijani combatants protecting civilians from an ambush by Armenian militants does not justify an act of massacre of Azeri civilians. HRW does clearly indicate that for people who might not understand it. Therefore, as much as one tries to portray the massacre as a battle with 'casualties' (613 civilians?!), this is not the case. The article does state there were Azeri combatants. If much more detail is wanted, we should also indicate the whole list of massacred civilians along with details about vandalism on their bodies, where they were buried, etc. Tuscumbia (talk) 16:18, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Death toll

"There are still no definitive figures on the number of civilians who were shot while fleeing Khojaly. According to Aiden Rasulov, more than 300 bodies showing evidence of a violent death were submitted for forensic examination. At the time of the Helsinki Watch's visit to Baky, the results of these examinations had not been completed, and the investigative team was in the process of tracking down the corpses of Khojaly victims that had been removed from Agdam by family members in the first days after the tragedy. Earlier figures made available by Azerbaijan and published by Memorial group put the number of deaths resulting from gunshot, shrapnel, or other wounds at 181, (130 men and fifty-one women, including thirteen children). In addition, an undetermined number died of frostbite. Namig Aliev, who heads the Department on Questions of Law and Order and Defencse of the Azerbaijani Parliament and who is part of the parliamentary group investigating the Khojaly events, told Helsinki Watch in April that 213 Khojaly victims were buried in Agdam. Some of the bodies received at the makeshift hospital in Agdam were identified as combatants. Many male bodies that lacked all identification were not identified as civilian or combatant." - Bloodshed in the Caucasus: escalation of the armed conflict in Nagorno Karabakh, page 23. Serouj (talk) 19:07, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Infobox states that the estimates vary. Grandmaster 07:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The infobox should included number of soldiers killed, number of men killed, number of women and children killed, and should have SOURCES for each. E.g. it should be clarified that the 600 number is by Azerbaijani government and that initial and reports were closer to 200. Serouj (talk) 02:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Reports of HRW make it clear that up to 1,000 could have been killed, so 200 is not the final number, but just a preliminary estimate. The number of children and women killed is available from the official info of Azerbaijani government. Grandmaster 09:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I think we go by what a reliable THIRD PARTY publishes on this event. Not what the government of Azerbaijan claims. Serouj (talk) 04:22, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

We do, but we also cite the official statistics with proper attribution. We do not have any other estimates for the number of women and children killed. Grandmaster 06:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

366th regiment section

The information about the role of 366th regiment is supported by sources and cannot be removed.Neftchi (talk) 16:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Same goes with the fact that there were a large number of Azeri combatants involved in the Khojaly events. Serouj (talk) 19:09, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

There was no large number of Azeri combatants. The alleged number of 200 self-defense militia aside from existing 40 OMON refers to the number present in 1990, not in 1992 during the massacre.Tuscumbia (talk) 14:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, it seems according to early Azeri reports and Memorial out of 181 victims, 130 were men. According to eyewitness reports, there were a good 40 OMON militia. In other words, a significant portion of those killed were combatants. And the number is not "alleged" it is an official number. Serouj (talk) 02:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

There's no reliable statistics of the number of combatants killed. We cannot use your personal estimates. One should bear in mind that most of murdered males from Khojaly were unarmed. Grandmaster 09:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Again, presence of 40 OMON militia defending the city does not mean they all left everything behind and ran along hundreds of civilians at 3 AM when the civilians took the flight from the city. The OMON fought and whoever remained alive had to leave the city to accompany the civilians fleeing to Agdam. And guys, please stop adding propoganda materials such as the "NKR statement" and bogus "xocali.net" site to From an Armenian perspective section. Can you imagine what the article would look like if users added dozens of websites from Azerbaijani perspective? I think it would make matters worse Tuscumbia (talk) 13:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

We don't have the exact number of militia in the town or walking within the civilian groups! No source for that is available. But we have a relative quote, that says, that the main forces with large groups of civilians had already left the town.Aregakn (talk) 01:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The source with the statements from the commander of defenders of the city, Alef Khadjiev, who said there were 60 under his command in beginning of January 1992, while only 40 during the attack of Khojaly and 10 making it to Agdam.(Of the forty-odd men under Alef Khadjiev's command, only ten were left alive. Dirty, exhausted, and exuding waht can only be described as survivor's guilt, they pieced together the awful night and next day-and the death of their commander, Alef Khadjiev. He was killed by a bullet to the brain while defending the women and children. Most of the women and children died anyway.Azerbaijan Diary: A Rogue Reporter's Adventures in an Oil-Rich, War-Torn, page 123) This means around 30 died during the Khojaly defense and in the hills leading to and around Nakhichevanik village. (see the previous section of talk for quotes). By the way, the source also mentions the first counts of the dead (477 civilians) and indicates involvement of 366th regiment in the atrocities. Tuscumbia (talk) 13:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, militiamen were not numerous. According to HRW: a large column of residents, accompanied by a few dozen retreating fighters, fled the city as it fell to Armenian forces. As they approached the border with Azerbaijan, they came across an Armenian military post and were cruelly fired upon. So they were just a few dozen. Most of the males killed were not even armed. They were just peasants from the town. I added a word "combatants" to the infobox anyway, since there a few policemen among those killed. I hope this resolves the problem. Grandmaster 05:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

According to their commander, Alef Khadjiev, only 4 of them were experienced soldiers which had fought a real war in Afghanistan. The others were just town folk who defended the city in self-defense units, which had nothing to do with the army.Tuscumbia (talk) 13:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Mcnabs, please, discuss references and wording here before deliberately removing them or adding thoughts to the article. The article text clearly spells out figure reported by which authorities, and there is no doubt that savagery in Khojaly was dubbed as response to Sumgait riots, in which 32 people died, 6 of them Azeri, rest Armenian. There is an article for that, not this one, and Wikipedia article is not for finding justification to one crime using another. Atabəy (talk) 01:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I removed bad source (author is an idiot), left combatants. I agree on justification, but think the context of violence is important. Mcnabs (talk) 03:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

No need for edit warring. It's a valid source. Goltz put it in 477 as a confirmed number of dead bodies received at the mosque after collection of the bodies from the field.[11] Azeri sources initially put the number above 1,000. After official count and exchange of civilians to Armenian POWs, the count came down to 613. Here are the names of the victims of Khojaly massacre [12]. Tuscumbia (talk) 13:37, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Terminology

HRW refers to the subject of this article as the "Khojaly events". Considering the number of Azeri combatants involved, I'd like to know on what basis (which independent sources) this article is called "Khojaly Massacre"? Serouj (talk) 19:07, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

HRW refers to this event as a massacre (the largest massacre in the history of the conflict). So do most other sources. Grandmaster 07:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

All sources refer to the event as the massacre except for Armenian sources. The fact that there were a few soldiers accompanying the fleeing civilians and were shot en masse does not relieve the Armenian armed groups who committed the massacre from responsibility of a war crime. As mentioned in the letter of the HRW Director, the responsibility for civilians deaths is placed on Karabakh Armenian forces, despite the fact that there were a few soldiers accompanying them.Tuscumbia (talk) 14:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

"A few" soldiers? Think again. Out of 181 dead, 130 were men, and at least 40 were combatants. We can safely say that over 25% of those involved were actually soldiers. Look at the quotes above: the HRW CLEARLY rebukes those parties (Azerbaijan) that use civilians as human shields in conflicts -- soldiers should not have been interspersed with civilians. Also, HRW, in its long report, calls the incident the "Khojaly events". In any case, the point is that the article currently makes little mention of the significant group of militia that were interspersed with the population. (Figures vary -- one estimate says 200 soldiers were on site. So if you're gonna very the number of deaths upwards of 600, then we might as well vary the number of soldiers to 200 as well. It's the same.) Serouj (talk) 02:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately for you, Wikipedia is not a place for your personal interpretations and guesses. As mentioned, 200 could have been an alleged number of soldiers in 1990, 2 years earlier than massacre took place. So, to allege that these soldiers went harmless for 2 years doing nothing and all of a sudden when Armenians started an offensive on Khojaly, they resurfaced, is just wrong analysis. 40 OMON sounds more likely because they were the team led by OMON member, Alif Gajiyev. Tuscumbia (talk) 13:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I'm only going by what a reliable THIRD PARTY -- HRW -- has documented about this event. It's is YOU who's bringing in your opinion. All of my quotes above are from HRW. Serouj (talk) 04:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The source you have listed has not used the term massacre, Tuscumbia! Make a search and you shall see. And you also say that the responsibility is on the armenian side, as in the letter, but you don't cite the reason why the Executive Director put's it on the responsibility on the Armenian side. Citation: For clarity's sake I cite our 1992 report (page 24): " . . . Thus, a party that intersperses combatants with fleeing civilians puts those civilians at risk and violates its obligation to protect its own civilians. . . .[T]he attacking party [i.e., Karabakh Armenian forces] is still obliged to take precautionary measures to avoid or minimize civilian casualties. In particular, the party must suspend an attack if it becomes apparent that the attack may be expected to cause civilian casualties that are excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated."

End of citation. Do you see the reason it mentiones? "The attacking party [i.e., Karabakh Armenian forces] is still obliged to take precautionary measures to avoid or minimize civilian casualties." Clear is the reason, isn't it?Aregakn (talk) 01:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

And, what are you trying to say? Nobody disputes there were Azerbaijani OMON (?) defenders accompanying one group of the fleeing civilians. So? When a group of civilians is shot en masse, and these OMON defenders shoot back, of course you will see them all together. Moreover, the corpses of civilians had their hands raised above their heads as if shot after having surrendered, in other words, executed:

A literal wake of stiff, dead bodies trailed back into Karabakh. Many, including women and children, had their hands raised above their heads as if shot after having surrendered. Others were mutilated, with fingers cut off and eyes gouged out by knives. Some were apparently scalped.

Azerbaijan Diary: A Rogue Reporter's Adventures in an Oil-Rich, War-Torn, page 135

Apart from that, there weren't any 200 Azeri combatants during the storm of Khojaly. Again, the figure given by HRW report represents an approximate number from 1990, not 1992. The estimated figures from beginning of January 1992, given by Alif Gadjiyev to American journalist Goltz is around 60:

The sixty men under his [Alif Khadjiev] command lacked both the weapons and training to defend the straggling perimeter, he told me. The only Azeri soldiers worth their salt were four veterans from the war in Afghanistan. The rest were greenhorns.

Azerbaijan Diary: A Rogue Reporter's Adventures in an Oil-Rich, War-Torn, page 120

while DURING the storm of Khojaly on February 25, 1992, there were only 40 defenders of the city, with only 10 of them making it to Agdam:

Of the forty-odd men under Alef Khadjiev's command, only ten were left alive. Dirty, exhausted, and exuding waht can only be described as survivor's guilt, they pieced together the awful night and next day-and the death of their commander, Alef Khadjiev. He was killed by a bullet to the brain while defending the women and children. Most of the women and children died anyway.

Azerbaijan Diary: A Rogue Reporter's Adventures in an Oil-Rich, War-Torn, page 123

Tuscumbia (talk) 13:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I was saying only what the citation was and you make judgements and keep it neutral in wiki. And the way the bodies were found just proves that it wasn't the Artsakh forces as they were not near. The report was telling, that Artsakh/Karabakh forces were firing from their posts. This also puts the so called "OMON" in to doubt to have been executing. Hmm, didn't think of it, maybe this was why the Artsakh forces were firing at the so called "OMON"... Interesting Aregakn (talk) 22:53, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Massachusetts House of Representatives

On February 25, 2010 the Massachusetts House of Representatives adopted a document, offering "its sincerest acknowledgement of the 18th commemoration of the Khojaly Massacre" - fake.

• Massachusetts House of Representatives
• UNCORRECTED PROOFS OF THE JOURNALS OF THE MASSACHUSETTS HOUSE
• February 25, 2010

Divot (talk) 16:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I found a scanned copy of the document in one of Azerbaijani forums: [13] It does not look like fake. Grandmaster 07:29, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Google never listen about it. It is a very secret document of DeLeo... Divot (talk) 13:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

What does google have to do with it? It is not the only source of info. Grandmaster 19:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes. But you have another source? Divot (talk) 20:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

It is mentioned here: [14] Grandmaster 07:12, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

"Here", you mean azerbaijani newspaper "Эхо"? Divot (talk) 17:05, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Dear Brandmeister, please see Massachusetts House of Representatives schedule: February 25, 2010. Nothing about "Khojaly massacre". Divot (talk) 09:50, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The fact that it has not published the document on the website does not mean the non-existence. I've added a 3rd-party source on that, which is perfectly sufficient per WP:VERIFY. Brandmeister[t] 10:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

You add only azerbaijani newspapers. Please, add any reliable sources ("Mainstream news sources, especially those at the high-quality end of the market, are considered to be generally reliable. However, it is understood that even the most reputable news outlets occasionally contain errors. ... While the reporting of rumors has a news value, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should only include information verified by reliable sources. Wikipedia is not the place for passing along gossip and rumors."). Divot (talk) 10:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Is Isria.com an "Azerbaijani newspaper"? I don't see something like gossips or rumors here. Brandmeister[t] 11:10, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

"You must login to access this file". Short announce is "Azerbaijan- US State of Massachusetts acknowledging Khojaly massacre The Massachusetts State House of Representatives ... Azerbaijan- US State of Massachusetts acknowledging Khojaly massacre The Massachusetts State House o" - it is news from Azerbaijan too. Divot (talk) 11:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I hope everyone would be happy now: [15] :) Brandmeister[t] 12:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

www.turkishforum.com.tr - it is not reliable sources ("Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable."). Divot (talk) 12:05, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

There is a scan with signature (separate file). No more edit war please. Brandmeister[t] 12:50, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

There is not a scan with signature, because www.turkishforum.com.tr is not reliable site, so it can be only photoshop work. No more edit war please. Ok? Divot (talk) 16:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

If you have evidences for photoshopping, bring it, otherwise I suggest you sticking to good faith. Such references can not be discarded with baseless accusations, you can take that link to WP:RSN if you wish. Brandmeister[t] 17:07, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

sticking to good faith: "Assuming good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. It is the assumption that editors' edits and comments are made in good faith.". Once more, editors' edits and comments, not any unreliable site comments.

So, if you want to use that kind of sites, you must ask community at [[WP:RSN]. Divot (talk) 20:21, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I sent an e-mail to Robert DeLeo, but he did not reply. As such, I hope this particular reference would suffice, solving the entire issue. Brandmeister[t] 17:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

U.S. Azeris Network is not reliable sources. Divot (talk) 19:31, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

You sent an e-mail to bass player Robert DeLeo? Divot (talk) 20:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Pardon, Robert DeLeo (politician). Anyway, if you think the sources are unreliable, take them to WP:RSN. Otherwise I recommend you stop deleting them. Brandmeister[t] 14:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

There is no anything about adopted document at oficial Massachusetts House of Representatives site. So, your azerbaijani sources are not reliable sources, because all Massachusetts House of Representatives document must published at oficial site. U.S. Azeris Network is not authorized agent of MA. I recommend you stop put fake information in Wikipedia. Divot (talk) 18:53, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The journal of Massachusetts House of Representatives does not contain any commemoratory statements at all. It does not mean that they do not adopt them. See discussion at WP:RSN. Grandmaster 18:15, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Who is "a friend of mine"? Is he Reliable source? Divot (talk) 18:36, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Of course. But I will not be disclosing any private info here. That's against the wiki rules. Grandmaster 08:44, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

So, you have only Azeri unreliable sources. Divot (talk) 14:36, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

No, I have the scan of the document. "The record is the citation itself". Grandmaster 17:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

No. You have the picture from unreliable source. Divot (talk) 17:40, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

How so? It is the scan of the original document. And please note that further edit warring may result in editing restrictions, in accordance with AA2 arbitration case. If you think that the source is not reliable, get the community consensus for its removal. Grandmaster 08:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Why is this being disputed? Divot is removing it because it doesn't exist in one place he is looking, yet it has been reported in the media. We don't get to choose whether we believe it or not. If someone believes it isn't authentic, please cite someone reliable. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:15, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm buffled by your reply, Divot did not remove it, someone else did. Any particular reason why you reverted to Brandmeister version rather than the version which is attributing it to the Azeri media? Your second argument makes even less sense, it's claimed it is authentic, it's up to you, Brandmeister and others claiming it's authentic to provide a neutral source for it. Divot did what was correct, which was to attribute the claim to the source. Ionidasz (talk) 03:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Divot removed it many times before, and is the person who started this discussion about the authenticity of the source. I can understand it being removed because it was only in Azeri media, however it has since been verified by direct correspondence. "According to <x>" is only used when there is differing reports, which doesnt appear to be the case here. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh OK, but where is this direct correspondence? And a correspondance with whom? Some backdoor correspondence sure can't be considered as a reliable source. If the author of the correspondence has any information on where to obtain that record it could help. Some libraries keep records of daily proceedings by houses of representatives so it should not be that hard to obtain it. Ionidasz (talk) 04:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The direct correspondence is mentioned above in this section, but there is a better explanation at Wikipedia:RSN#Today.az and U.S. Azeris Network. Someone contacted Rep. Story.

Of course this correspondence is not able to be used as a source, however it does confirm what sources have already reported.

Maybe we can ask WP:LIBRARIANS for assistance. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 05:27, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

There are only azeri media with this info. There are no any neutral media, which say about this document. MA ofitial site say nothing about it. So, this information is controversial. Divot (talk) 05:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Dear John Vandenberg, please read all diccussion before editing. www.isria.com refer to azeri media "Azerbaijan- US State of Massachusetts acknowledging Khojaly massacre The Massachusetts State House of Representatives ... Azerbaijan- US State of Massachusetts acknowledging Khojaly massacre The Massachusetts State House of ...". Divot (talk) 05:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

It is odd that nobody else has reported about this, but that doesn't make it controversial. There are no conflicting sources.

ISRIA has included it; why do you highlight the "Azerbaijan" in the title - what special meaning are you attaching to it? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 06:13, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Because "Azerbaijan- US State of Massachusetts acknowledging Khojaly massacre The Massachusetts State House of Representatives ... Azerbaijan- US State of Massachusetts acknowledging Khojaly massacre The Massachusetts State House of ..." means "news from Azerbaijan". If you attaching to it, plese cite whole news. Divot (talk) 06:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, it would have helped if you provided it prior, as this is not discussed as far as I can see here. So I am assuming you're refering to: Unlike Congress, the MA state legislature does not typically print commemoratory documents or speeches in its journal. The record is the citation itself. It's weird to ask a confirmation that the statment was said without requesting any info on where to obtain the info anywhere. I don't think it's fake, just that there is no acceptable source, and you keep adding sources but they do not add-up, as none in this context would qualify as reliable. Five sources originating from the same source don't make five sources, so one would more than suffice for the purpouse when attributing the claim, five different from the same won't be enought to not attribute it. Instead of adding more of the same quality and arguing, don't you think you should contact Story and ask him or her any record, be it the original and how is it tagged. There must be some record somewhere? Ionidasz (talk) 05:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

According to what has been written at WP:RSN, Story was contacted, and they confirmed it. Why do I need to contact Story? You could also contact Story .. ;-)

The Mass. state govt should provide these documents on their website, but their omission doesn't mean we can ignore other sources. How does this context mean that these sources are unreliable? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 06:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

My personal confirmation that Story wrote that won't make any differences. You are required to provide a source which in this context is reliable, Story should not be contacted to confirm it, but rather provide something which would confirm it. The Azeri media can not be considered as reliable in this context, see here as evidence. Ionidasz (talk) 15:13, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Why do you insist that AzerTag is not reliable in this context? What part of this contains even a hint of POV that does not come from the original Mass. State document? AzerTag does publish some very non-neutral sources about complex topics, but this article is merely reporting an event without any extra information or POV. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 16:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think neither of us is writting anything new here. I made my position clear that newsources controlled by a government at war with the accused in that source are neither ideal nor sufficient to not attribute the claim. Nowhere have I questioned the actual claim. If we're going to be satisified with state controled media's information about the enemy then I don't give much about the credibility of many of the articles here had they made use of suc material. Now, if you are going to confirm that you started the process to locate the original, great, but please don't come with statment on why the source is acceptable, you've written you find it acceptable more than twice. Ionidasz (talk) 16:11, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I am certain, there's a rule of logic (as science), that something shouldn't be proven that didn't happen or isn't. It should be proven that something happened or is. And by Wiki it is a 3rd party reliable source. If there are none, given the absense of any record in the official docs, it didn't happen. Once again, something that isn't shouldn't be proven and the opposite should be. It's a general rule of logic. Aregakn (talk) 06:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

It is enough to provide a scan of the document, which has been done. The record is the citation itself, and the citation itself is available in wikicommons for everyone to see. Grandmaster 10:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you are mixing the Massachusetts HoR with one member of it that commemorated an event. The wording in the article is not relevant to the facts. Aregakn (talk) 23:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Speaker of the House is not just one member. He is allowed to speak on behalf of the House. Grandmaster 06:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The speaker of the house doesn't make his own political decisions. He speak about those that the house makes. If the house didn't make it, then what speaker does is in his own name and non-political. Aregakn (talk) 22:31, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Markar Melkonian

Is there more info about this: According to Markar Melkonian, the brother of the Armenian military leader Monte Melkonian, "Khojaly had been a strategic goal, but it had also been an act of revenge." Since no side denies the city has been attacked, is there any info about the admission of a massacre, this sentence only says Khojaly, so I don't see how this is an admission of anything. Is there any more from this, which specifically refers to a massacre so that it can be considered as an admission? Ionidasz (talk) 15:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't have this in my library, but Google Books displays that paragraph. It does sound like it is about the events of these two days. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 16:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I don't know if I understood this paragraph (at least what can be viewed), but is he claiming his vrother was there? Ionidasz (talk) 16:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, he said that his brother went there soon after the massacre. Grandmaster 10:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

So he was not there during the event, right? Ionidasz (talk) 19:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about Markar, but Monte was there. Grandmaster 05:51, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

xocali.net

Who are the people behind xocali.net? I don't mind including it if it has some endorsement or credentials. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why it should make any differences, I am not using the site to support any position in the article, it's under Armenian perspective and it clearly state it's an allegation of falsification. The major allegations are there, like the actual interview by Eynulla Fatullayev for which he was harassed and trialed. See here. Once I find a scan of that interview, I'm going to add the info in the article. Ionidasz (talk) 16:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Both links should be removed. We've been over this Tuscumbia (talk) 16:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

You are referring to #Image gallery above, or some other discussion? --John Vandenberg ^(chat) 16:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

No, the image gallery above has nothing to do with it. I was referring to external links to Justice for Khojaly and xocali.net. While the former is a widely recognized campaign held worldwide, the latter is an allegation melting pot from an unknown source. We've already discussed why the explanations for pictures from xocali.net are forgeries themselves. I am for removal of both links because they may be controversial to both parties. Tuscumbia (talk) 16:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with the removal of both. Ionidasz (talk) 17:22, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't mind, but I am partial to keeping both now that I have looked at Google News Archives. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 17:41, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Then, please remove both from external links. Those results from google search are Armenian news agencies just talking about the site.Tuscumbia (talk) 18:20, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I guess I am wondering whether or not this website is the "Armenian perspective". Has this website been mentioned in Armenian media? Or are the majority of these accusations floating around the Armenian media?

It is claiming that some of the "Justice for Khojaly" material is forgeries, and I am curious if someone is willing to put their name to that assertion. How do we know whether the "evidence" of forgeries isnt the forgery? What a mess. I look forward to what you find and add. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 16:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes it was, search xocali.net on google, you will see that it is included on several media. Ionidasz (talk) 16:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

There's a little problem here, I see. Those websites are not used as sources for information, are they? Maybe I missed something... If not, then what is the discussion about? To delete them from external links? Can I know the reasons and goals? Thanks Aregakn (talk) 05:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The problem is the notability of xocali.net. For instance, Justice for Khojaly is supported by Islamic Conference, an international organization, so it is not just some private website. What is xocali.net? Who owns it? Why is it notable? Grandmaster 06:40, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry, but the Islamic Conference has not considered any facts about the case and just made a ruling with no discussion. It is the tradition and the manner of the Islamic Congress to adopt with no discussion or research on the matters when a country member (Muslim country, so to say) proposes it.

As for xojali.net, If there are sources, that some facts of the massacres contain falsifications, not offering to the readers for familirisation means hiding it. Can you tell me a reason why to hide it? Especially where there is one side, that claims A thesis and an other, that speaks of B thesis this kind of information is important for the reaser to be able to see the whole picture. Isn't it? Aregakn (talk) 15:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Whether Islamic conference considered or not considered something is immaterial here. The mention of Justice for Khojaly in their resolution shows notability of the campaign. What is notable about xocali.net? It is not referred to by any notable entity, and it does not represent the Armenian government. It is just another private website about the massacre, which are a dime a dozen on either side of the conflict. Grandmaster 15:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

You seem to try to represent an institution, that doesn't discuss an issue and acknowledges it to be a notable institution. If such a VASTLY BIASED institution is notable in your opinion, then you should not be afraid of any evidence of falsifications that you want to hide under the phrase "not notable website". You tell me a reason why you want it not to be worth mentioning, if it's an important fact. Aregakn (talk) 23:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Again, OIC is a notable organization. Whether they are biased or not, is of no consequence here. If a campaign has an endorsement from them, it is notable enough to be mentioned. And again you provided no reason why a private website xocali.net should be considered notable. Your personal belief that they may have evidence of falsification is not a reason for notability. Their "evidence" in reality is nothing but falsification. I can include a bunch of Azerbaijani websites exposing falsifications of this website, but again, why private websites should be notable for inclusion into this article? They do not represent official positions, their owners are not known, and they have not been endorsed by any notable entity. Grandmaster 05:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Give me links to those Azeri websites. I'd like to have a look and then asnwer. Aregakn (talk) 04:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

As OIC is biased, including it is including a biased info. If so, then other biases can be included as well if "notable". Right? Aregakn (talk) 04:23, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Biased or not, does not matter. It is an international organization, and thus notable. If they endorse something, it also becomes notable. Grandmaster 17:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Once again I shall ask the question: if 1 biased sorce can be sited, than an other notable also can. Is it what you are telling? Aregakn (talk) 22:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand your question. Once again, OIC is a notable international organization, regardless of its being biased or not. Since they support the Justice campaign, it makes the campaign notable. Now why a private site xocali.net is notable? Who owns it? Who endorses it? It is one of the many private websites about the massacre. Grandmaster 09:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Should I open a new discussion so you can understand it, Grandmaster? Do not connect this question directly to xocali.net. So the question: if 1 biased source can be cited, then an other notable biased also can, right? Aregakn (talk) 21:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I didn't see the links of websites that would efficiently dismiss the proofs provided in Xocali.net and I heard no answer to my above question about biased website publishing biased stances of OIC. Aregakn (talk) 10:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

PACE document

Tuscumbia, why have you removed the quotation, the PACE document has gone just further than claiming there was massacre, it claimed the whole population was killed. Since it's the only source in the whole article claiming this, it ought to be somewhere in the article. Ionidasz (talk) 18:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I just reworded it to avoid any controversial stataments. Tuscumbia (talk) 18:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Quite a few politicians signed the statement. Apparently they were sure the ethnic cleansing took place. Nothing bogus about that. Tuscumbia (talk) 18:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

More than that actually, the document only makes a passing mention of Khojali, it accuses Armenians of having killed the whole population of Khojali in a series of genocide spaning from the 19th century to the date it was signed. This sure is not an international reaction, 2/3 of those who signed it were either from Turkey or Azerbaijan, and some of the other names are familiar for their pro-Turkish stance. Ionidasz (talk) 18:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Should we ask for a third opinion for the inclusion of this declaration in the international reaction section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ionidasz (talk • contribs) 18:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

When a bogus claim refuted by Mutalibov himself is incorporated into the article, how can an international document be excluded? Are you really serious? Think again. Tuscumbia (talk) 19:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Please don't change the subject. Do you think we should ask a third opinion? Ionidasz (talk) 19:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not changing the subject. If Mutalibov's name with his alleged interview is incorporated into the article with no sources provided and with his personal refutation available, this international document should not be excluded. Tuscumbia (talk) 19:20, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I will be providing the source tomorow. Anything else? Ionidasz (talk) 01:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The declaration was discussed, with participation of third parties. It was decided to keep the info about this declaration. Grandmaster 19:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

In particular, the declaration was discussed here: [16]. Grandmaster 19:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, there is obviously something wrong here discussed or not. The declaration claims the whole population was killed. Besides it's either way, it can be presented as a failure to have it endorsed since only some out of several hundred members signed it. There should at least be an information on the fact that the declaration is not specifically about Khojali and that the claim of whole population is not even claimed by Azeri sources. I believe a request for a third opinion, on either removing it or keeping it with a clarification is needed. I don't have a problem on ether option, but the way it is presented is wrong.

All these questions have been answered by Francis. Grandmaster 04:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

It must be somewhere else than the link you have provided. The declaration is not about Khojali, but some genocide spaning in a period of a hundred year or more. Declarations in government level which were not signed by a majority in the house are considered failure and described as such. Here the declaration recieved 30 votes out of hundreds of member, of which 2/3 were from either Turkey or Azerbaijan. Tuscumbia removed the quotation making mention that the whole population was killed because I added the clarification that even according to Azeri sources it was far from that. The way it is presented, someone will assume it's about Khojali and that it's a success of some sort when it was actually a failure. Note that my reply only makes sense in the context that this is in the section titled international reaction when it is a declaration authored by an Azeri politician and endorsed by a Turkish politician (as it takes a least one endorser to schedule a vote) and mostly signed by politicians from both of those countries. A third party opinion should be provided on if this can indeed be considered as an international reaction and if it can remain as misleading as it currently it is, when the declaration only makes a passong mention of Khojali in a series of genocide allegedly perpetrated by Armenians. Ionidasz (talk) 05:17, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

If you want to ask for a third opinion, go ahead and ask for it. No one can stop you. But like I said, this has already been discussed with involvement of third parties. Grandmaster 06:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Gulamhuseyn Aliyev

[17] and [18] say he is "Gulamhuseyn ALIYEV (Party of the Popular Front of Azerbaijan)" member from 2001-2006, however it looks like he better known in English as Gulamhuseyn Alibayli, former member of the Popular Front of Azerbaijan[19] and also a recent Independent presidential candidate. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 19:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

That's interesting, seems that recent sources refers to him more as Alibayli. Could it be a name change to not have two Aliyev run for presidency? Or maybe ethymologically both Ali derived family name have the same rooth, and the one with ev ending is a Russianized version. Ionidasz (talk) 19:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Protected

Due to the recent edit warring this page has been protected for 2 weeks. Please use the time to discuss the matter here and come to a consensus on what should and shouldn't be included on the page. If an urgent edit needs to be made during the protection, please place the template {{editprotected}} here with details of the edit that needs to be made and justification for the edit, and an administrator will come by to make the edit. If you have agreed and resolved the dispute before the expiry of the protection, please make a listing at requests for unprotection. While it is also possible to make such requests on my talk page, it would be quicker for you to use those previous methods. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 11:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Akward

Massachusetts House of Representatives Journal for February 25, 2010 does not contain any information about this document This is akword, what is implied by this is original research.

It is more than plausible this document exist, particularly when the statment is just a commemoration, but again, readers should not be needing to contact an official each time they doubt the content. Grandmaster, what else did Story wrote about this, I have hard time imaginating that the reply was two line long. Ionidasz (talk) 16:35, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

It was just what I quoted, 2 lines. MA House does not record commemorations in its journal, and the document itself is the record. She is a busy person, probably does not have much time to write long explanations. Since we have the scan, there's no reason to doubt the authenticity. The last version by Divot is an original research, and should be rolled back. Grandmaster 17:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

My problem is not whatever or not it's authentic, but rather the fact that those questioning the authenticity should be needing to contact some official because there is no neutral source other than a backdoor email conversation. When relying on non-neutral info, we run at risk of having a partial coverage even if the info is accurate. For example, we don't have an idea of the filler of the declaration or what kind of endorsment it was. Ionidasz (talk) 17:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

We have the full text of it. Scan available at commons. Grandmaster 19:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Requested edit

{{editprotected}} Per corresponding thread above and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Today.az and U.S. Azeris Network (both finished with the disputed evidence being proven) I would like to recover this edit, undone by the now-sanctioned user Divot (talk · contribs). Brandmeister[t] 16:53, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

See the talk above? welcome to participate on this issue before requesting an edit. Aregakn (talk) 00:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing discuss further, the verifiability was proven. Brandmeister[t] 04:47, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Neither version are accurate, see below. Ionidasz (talk) 05:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:23, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Conference

On February 25, 2010 a conference about the Khojaly Massacre was held at George Washington University,[31]. How this conference by Azerbaijan and Turkish organizations an international reaction?. Thet organize a lot of those lectures, those are not international reaction. Ionidasz (talk) 17:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

See my edit; it was in a section that was called "Remembrance". I later merged the sections because they were overlapping a lot. That conference is tied closely with the Justice for Khojaly program, which is internationally recognised. That said, I don't mind if that edit is removed. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:21, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

btw, what are some of the other lectures and conferences they have organised? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:23, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Justice for Khojali which seems to have limitless financing did actually prepare a couple alone. See this one. Remembrance is OK, but we should just mention that Justice for Khojali did organize a couple. Ionidasz (talk) 02:40, 22 May 2010 (UTC)