Azerbaijan B‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Azerbaijan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Azerbaijan-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AzerbaijanWikipedia:WikiProject AzerbaijanTemplate:WikiProject AzerbaijanAzerbaijan articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Armenia B‑class High‑importance

Khojaly massacre is within the scope of WikiProject Armenia, an attempt to improve and better organize information in articles related or pertaining to Armenia and Armenians. If you would like to contribute or collaborate, you could edit the article attached to this page or visit the project page for further information.ArmeniaWikipedia:WikiProject ArmeniaTemplate:WikiProject ArmeniaArmenian articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on February 25, 2008 and February 25, 2012.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Yes there is information about this news on the Embassy of Azerbaijan in Mexico [1]. The full document on the recognition can be found here. Mursel (talk) 22:10, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those two sources only confirm the claim of Azerbaijani side. --vacio 14:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Btw, is one newspaper article ([2]) enough to say that Pakistani (...) sources occasionally refer to the massacre as Khojaly Genocide? --vacio 15:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

* 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

[3], [4], [5] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. [6] There's no reliable evidence to connect his death with events in Khojaly. Grandmaster 23:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Youtube videos cannot be used as sources, according to the rules. Grandmaster 00:09, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Any info about bodies should come from neutral sources. De Waal was quoted about that. Grandmaster 00:33, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Read carefully. Melkonian writes about stabbing and killing, and de Waal confirms that. Grandmaster 01:20, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

It's Ok. In my version it is on 213-214. Grandmaster 01:27, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I put your statement baack about Chingiz since it shows the other point of view.Ali55te (talk) 01:29, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The following part was deleted a couple of days ago:

Ramiz Fataliyev, Chairman of the investigative commission in Khojaly:

It was 4 days until the events in Khojaly. In the presence of the president, prime minister, chairman of the KBG (Committee for State Security) and others on 22 February a conference of the national security council took place. During the conference the decision was made not to evacuate the population of Khojaly. In other words, we even provoked to attack the Armenians. Even the members of the security council knew very well that the Armenians were not able to carry out any actions similar to a genocide.

This statement, which depicts the "Armenian point of view", is sourced with an Interview of Ramiz Fataliyev from an Azerbaijani news-website (http://www.azadliq.org/content/article/1818751.html). Using an Azerbaijani source for describing an "Armenian point of view" should not be called "partisan" and should be compliant to the rules, right? --Aghetrichter (talk) 04:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Translation is incorrect. That's not what he said. I presume you do not speak Azerbaijani. I explained above why this was deleted. Grandmaster 17:05, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I will check the translation. On what explanation of yours are you refering to? --Aghetrichter (talk) 21:03, 28 February 2012 (UTC) I've checked the translation. You were right, it is incorrect. --Aghetrichter (talk) 22:27, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to wrongly state what Mutalibov or Fataliyev said. You should study the sources before making additions such as ones you recently made, Aghetrichter.  Anastasia Bukhantseva  05:46, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've corrected myself and confirmed what Grandmaster said about the wrong Fataliyev statement. So what exactly do you mean?--Aghetrichter (talk) 22:06, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, Mutalibov did not say what you wrote in the article. Any citation should be accurate. Grandmaster 16:30, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which Mutalibov citation do you mean?--Aghetrichter (talk) 22:06, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's only one there. Mutalibov never used the word Azeri-Turks, which shows that you took his words from an Armenian or pro-Armenian source. And if you read his interview, he never openly accused anyone. His words were very vague. Grandmaster 10:43, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Cox is not a good source to quote Mutalibov. She clearly distorts his words. Plus, there are tens of new interviews by Mutalibov, where he explains his position. I added another quote and fixed the one that was there. Grandmaster 11:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My citation is accurate, based on Caroline Cox's and John Eibner's source, which is the one used for this citation.--Aghetrichter (talk) 15:13, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cox is not providing correct citation. This are the actual words of Mutalibov: Я не думаю, чтобы армяне, очень четко и со знанием дела относящиеся к подобным ситуациям, могли позволить азербайджанцам получить разоблачающие их в фашистских действиях документы. You can find it on any Armenian website about this event. So please do not add inaccurate translation. I really wonder how Mutalibov could use the term Azeri-Turks, that's not his usual lexicon. Grandmaster 23:43, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to suggest to split the article NOT based on affiliation of sources but based on the different point of views. This is more beneficial in order to have a better and more comprehensible structure of the information of each side (Armenian point of view, Azerbaijani point of view, International point of view). Of course the sources should not only exist of the corresponding side but should also contain third-party-sources. Arranging the article in chronological order is not a contradiction and also possible when splitting it into the different point of views.--Aghetrichter (talk) 15:29, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is pointless. Why create 3 different articles within one? That's not how the articles are written here. Grandmaster 23:37, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"On March, 2010, head of Lidice municipality in Czech Republic, Josef Klima, said that one of newly-constructed streets in Lidice would be named Khojaly."

Vážený pane šéfredaktore,

děkuji za Váš mail a za zájem o dění v obci Lidice. Dohoda o spolupráci mezi obcí Chodžaly byla podepsána s Památníkem Lidice, což je příspěvková organizace Ministerstva kultury. V naší obci Lidice nebyla pojmenována ulice po ázerbajdžánské obci Chodžaly. V nové obci Lidice jsou ulice pojmenovány na památku v souvislosti s lidickou tragédií a II.světovou válkou.

S pozdravem Veronika Kellerová, starostka

Link. Divot (talk) 16:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just read this

Lidice and Khojaly had never been sister cities. The Azeris have been denied the Czechs Azerbaijan continues to carry on the state level and to promote large-scale tragedy in Khojaly genocide. Expression of this was the television coverage of Azerbaijan organized in this year's events.

This issue has touched the Armenian daily newspaper "Azg", stressing that over the past few years have been significant films produced, and information booklets, which are to some extent, may be the answer to the Azerbaijani lie.

As in the past few years and this year the Union of Azerbaijan, Azer-Czech in Prague organized event on Khojaly, setting the table tents in the city center and along with propaganda leaflets to passers-by and handing out coffee, tea and cake.

At the same territory of the Armenian community representatives handed out leaflets and pamphlets refuting Azerbaijan's a lie. In fact, the usual Czech passer anyway, there is heard, most importantly - free coffee and cake. A booklet has ten meters from the stage proved in urns. And as the Azerbaijanis thought sunken event of the day, the next day they put a table on another empty square and repeated his campaign, speaking in front of themselves.

As always, the Azerbaijani ambassador to the Czech Republic, representatives of the community and a former resident of Khojaly, which is again compared with the Khojaly destroyed by the Nazis in 1942, the Czech village of Lidice. In general, Lidice has become a favorite topic of speculation Azerbaijanis. Everywhere they write that they are sister cities, the streets were opened.

"Everything is a lie," - writes "Azg." - In our new query whether this is true falsification of Azerbaijan, the mayor of the town of Lidice Kellerova Veronica replied that the town of Khojaly had no treaty was concluded, moreover, in Lidice no street by that name. Streets in the new Lidice named in memory of a human tragedy during World War II. A representative of the Khojaly signed a cooperation agreement only with the museum complex of Lidice.

By the way, the Azerbaijanis had planned to note the 20th anniversary of Khojaly in the Lidice museum complex, but were refused. "

/ Panorama.am /

http://voskanapat.info/blog/lidice_i_khodzhalu_nikogda_ne_byli_gorodami_pobratimami_azerbajdzhancy_poluchili_otkaz_chekhov/2012-03-01-9496 So i think we should remove that line that says there is a street named in Lidice about Khojaly.Ninetoyadome (talk)

I've checked the entire reference stack about purported falsifications of victims' images. Almost none of the refs support the claim about photo deception. Those that do are all partisan and refer either to some Armenian Director of Information and PR Center Ara Saghatelyan or Armenian author Samvel Martirosian of similar notability. Brandmeister t 22:34, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then please check it again and read carefully. Since it says "According to Bulgarian journalist..." the sources are ok. It is the same thing like "According to Azerbaijani news agencies in 2011, over a million signatures gathered in Netherlands and sent to county’s parliament to support recognition of Khojaly." In this case there is not even one single proof that such a collection of signatures exists except that one Azerbaijani source which is given that only mentions it and yet this statement is accpeted. In the case of the falsified photos there are in contrast different sources which directly refer to the existing evidence where the falsified photos can be seen, therefore the "partisan argumentation" is not relevant.--Aghetrichter (talk) 18:50, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unverifiable - didn't find the phrase where Paskaleva says the images are falsified. One Armenian reference just mentions her on Khojaly issue. Brandmeister t 20:38, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At a press conference Paskaleva said: "Azerbaijan is making up falsification and repeats it every day." ^[1] --Aghetrichter (talk) 00:53, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it's true that doesn't mean the images of Khojaly victims are being falsified. The reference itself contains nothing about that. Brandmeister t 02:02, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is actually not my task to copy and paste everything in here, but as you are obviously unwilling to read through the sources I do it and hope that you stop your vandalism! The following statements can be read In the mentioned sources, it is unbelievable that you really claim that nothing about falsified photos is said in the sources!

1. "Plus to that a great amount of materials not having any link to Karabakh has been customized for Khojali events – there are photos from Afghanistan, Kosovo. The impression is that in their aspiration to gain favor some activists of the Azeri propaganda were using whatever they got handy. It is by no accident that after the web-site began functioning, certain sound media and experts in Azerbaijan noted some photos and proofs, not having any relation to Khojali."
2. "The initiative participants and judicial experts found that the injured children so frequently distributed in Azerbaijani websites are victims of a bus blast, some photos presented as Khojalu events unveil Kosovo war episodes, etc."
3. “We’ve proven, for example, that Azerbaijanis are carrying posters of pictures depicting victims of the Kosovo war, when they gather at Armenia’s embassies in different countries to hold anti-Armenian rallies”
and so on… That should be enough to stop your vandalism. --Aghetrichter (talk) 17:01, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And who are this European Center for Artsakh e.V Aghetrichter keeps referring to? It is clearly a partisan source owned by Armenian diaspora. We might as well refer to similar Azerbaijani sources, however we must rely on third party sources. Grandmaster 23:48, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, some Armenian sources also presented photos of Khojaly victims as victims of Sumgait. But are such events notable enough for mention in the article? Grandmaster 23:52, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This, if at all, belongs to "victims of Sumgait" (as you said yourself) and not to "victims of Khojaly", hence this is not proper for this particular article --Aghetrichter (talk) 19:12, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly, because the victims are of Khojaly. Plus, all of your sources are not reliable. Tsvetana is well known for her Armenian connections, others are very obscure. You still haven't explained who are European Center for Artsakh e.V. Just because they are registered in Germany does not make them third party, it is still an Armenian propaganda source. And every other source you refer to is Armenian, not neutral. I can also write a lot of things with reference to Azerbaijani sources, but that's not how we should write articles. Propaganda sources from both sides are not reliable. We should rely on third party sources. Grandmaster 21:23, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Xenophobia Prevention Initiative is an organization from Yerevan, Armenia. These are their contacts: [7] Why is this a reliable source? Grandmaster 21:34, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You did not refer to the main arguments of mine at all and obviously don't really want to understand what the point is! But I will repeat it again: This article contains several statements which are only sourced with mostly one singel Azerbaijani news site and yet you do not complain about it. But now the same thing for the Armenian version (with even much more sources which are moreover provable as compared with the Azerbaijani statements), and you immediately delete it. This is not acceptable. You demanded fairness, so please stick to what you say. I will undo your changes and except them to not be deleted again, otherwise this would mean vandalism. As long as the circumstances do not change, refrain from deleting the section but discuss it before. This also refers to Brandmeister --Aghetrichter (talk) 00:53, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Show me what exactly is sourced to Azerbainjani sources. I don't see any important claim being sourced to Azerbaijani sources. If you think otherwise, show me examples, and we can fix that. Grandmaster 20:43, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you still haven't explained to me why European Center for Artsakh e.V. and Xenophobia Prevention Initiative from Yerevan should be considered reliable sources. Anyone can create a website and post anything he likes there. The sources must be third party, and have reputation for fact checking and accuracy. I don't think any of your sources qualify. And as Brandmeister already said above, Paskaleva does not even mention Khojaly. Why do you keep pushing her into the article? Grandmaster 21:15, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, if we are talking about falsified evidence, there is plenty of info in Azerbaijani sources about how Armenian sources present images of Khojaly victims as images of Armenians from Maragha and Sumgait. For instance, here: [8] The information in Azerbaijani sources is as good as that in Armenian sources. However I don't think that the actions of some irresponsible journalists on either side are notable enough to deserve a mention. Grandmaster 21:48, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning your source "gulustan.ws": This is a private website/portal and belongs to "Self-published sources" which are largely not acceptable. WP:SPS

Btw, in the Azerbaijani case the falsified pictures are not the result of "some irresponsible journalists" but are part of Azerbaijani state politic as they can be seen on governmental websites, books, embassy booklets and in almost every Azerbaijani (and Turkish) campaign for years. Therefore, except for the not reliable source you've mentioned, one can not in any way compare the extent of the Azerbaijani falsification with what you have mentioned and is therefore not relevant at all. --Aghetrichter (talk) 01:49, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have really explained this issue extensively and also mentioned the relevance of the phrase "According to..." which is clearly used to describe this part! See WP:RELIABLESOURCES:

1. "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered" (although you as your personal opinion describe the Armenian view allegedly as "minority", it is a "significant view" as it depicts the main opposite view) = IS RELIABLE

2. "News organizations: ...is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact... Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces are reliable for attributed statements as to the opinion of the author" (The sources used are News organizations and their statements are marked with the term "According to.." = "attributed statements as to the opinion of the author") = IS RELIABLE

3. "Statements of opinion: ... may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact without an inline qualifier like "(Author) says..." (in this case the tantamount inline "According to..." is used) = IS RELIABLE

The lesson is clear: The section about the falsified photos is clearly reliable based on the above mentioned rules of Wikipedia. Any further deleting of this section will lead to blocking you from editing. --Aghetrichter (talk) 01:20, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stop threatening me, you are free to complain wherever you like. As it was said many times before, Paskaleva does not use the word Khojaly even once. What does she have to do with this article? And European Center for Artsakh e.V. and Xenophobia Prevention Initiative are both self-published sources, same as Gulistan.ws is. So Gulistan.ws is as good as your sources. Plus, here's a published Azerbaijani source about Armenian falsifications: [9] [10] [11] In English: [12] This one is self-published, but it is a translation of an article in 1news.az. There are more published Azerbaijani sources about that, and they can be used in this article, but since such sources from both sides are partisan, they are not reliable. Grandmaster 09:11, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, since you are citing the rules, please note that most of your sources fall into the category of Questionable sources: [13] The use is such sources is very limited here, and they should not be used to support contentious claims. Grandmaster 10:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not threatening you. You just still don't make the impression of beeing in any way objective and you just proved this again by again mentioning "Paskaleva" although she already has been removed from the text on 3 March 2012 (23:30), so already 4 days ago and you still mention her everytime. This shows that you do not read the texts that you persistently delete at all but directly delete them without any analysis just because they do not fit to your personal point of view and your idea of what this article should look like. Therefore I consider your behaviour to be vandalism!

Your accusation is incorrect. All sources that have been used contain a full contact address or editorial oversight or are registered Organizations and therefore can not be called "self-published/personal" or "Questionable sources" based on the rules of wikipedia. Gulistan.ws has none of them and thus is not comparable.--Aghetrichter (talk) 14:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for Paskaleva, but European Center for Artsakh e.V. and Xenophobia Prevention Initiative are both just websites, and not published sources. They are not notable, are clearly partisan, and if you insist on using them, I will add a bunch of Azerbaijani websites. They write quite interesting things about Armenian falsifications. The fact that sources used by you have an address or registration is not a proof that they have reputation for fact checking, and they are clearly expressing extreme bias. So they fall into the category of questionable sources, and they are self-published, because they are not news outlets, and their opinion is not published by a reliable third party source. If anything, gulistan.ws is as good as any of those sources. And why do you remove 1news.az? It is as good as panarmenian.net or any other Armenian propaganda source. That is not acceptable. Grandmaster 15:19, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As for Paskaleva, here's your revert with incivil edit summary, which restored her back: [14]. So no, she was not removed 4 days ago, the last time you added her was today, which is why I mentioned her. Grandmaster 21:54, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aghetrichter, the article of Helen Womack in The Independent can be found in the archives. You need to use a database like Lexis-Nexis, the website of the newspaper does not provide full access to all the articles published before 2003. In fact, it displays no articles at all for 5 March 1992: [15], or any other day that month. I have the full text of the article, and I can post it here, if you want. As for 1news,az, of course the links to the Armenian websites do not contain falsified pictures anymore, they removed them after the publication of the articles. But 1news.az made screenshots and included them, you can see them at the bottom of their articles. I see that you avoid discussion here at talk, and repeatedly remove the info from the article without any attempt to discuss. That is not acceptable. Grandmaster 10:23, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have to tell you that is it getting extremely nerve-racking to discuss about every single word one is writing a hundred times and over and over again. This absolutely sensitive topic definitely needs a "Pending-changes protection" as it is for example in almost every German Wikipedia article. In this way an OBJECTIVE administrator can decide what is right and what not before making it public and we can save all this endless discussions which lead to absolutely no solution.

P.S.: Please provide at least a scan or something of Helen Womack, as this article can be found nowhere except on Azerbaijani websites --Aghetrichter (talk) 16:29, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a scan, as I said, I have the full text through Lexis-Nexis in an electronic form. I will post the article below in full for 1 day, and then remove it because of possible copyright issues. Here goes:

The Independent (London)

March 5, 1992, Thursday

Azeris hunted down and shot in the forest; Refugees and fresh graves confirm massacre by Armenians

BYLINE: From HELEN WOMACK in Agdam, Azerbaijan

SECTION: TITLE PAGE; Page 1

LENGTH: 817 words

THE EXACT number of victims is still unclear, but there can be little doubt that Azeri civilians were massacred by Armenian fighters in the snowy mountains of Nagorny Karabakh last week.

Refugees from the enclave town of Khojaly, sheltering in the Azeri border town of Agdam, give largely consistent accounts of how their enemies attacked their homes on the night of 25 February, chased those who fled and shot them in the surrounding forests. Yesterday I saw 75 freshly dug graves in one cemetery in addition to four mutilated corpses we were shown in the mosque when we arrived in Agdam late on Tuesday. I also saw women and children with bullet wounds, in a makeshift hospital in a string of railway carriages at the station. Khojaly, an Azeri settlement in the enclave mostly populated by Armenians, had a population of about 6,000. Rashid Mamedov, Commandant of Police in Agdam, said only about 500 escaped to his town. "So where are the rest?" Some might have been taken prisoner, he said, or fled elsewhere. Many bodies were still lying in the mountains because the Azeris were short of helicopters to retrieve them. He believed more than 1,000 had perished, some of cold in temperatures as low as -10C.

Standing outside the Khojaly mosque, where women beat their breasts in anguish, a refugee, Rami Nasiru, described how residents at first thought the attack was no more than the routine shooting to which they had become accustomed in four years of conflict. But when they saw the Armenians with a convoy of armoured personnel carriers, they realised they could not hope to defend themselves with machine guns and grenades, and fled into the forests. In the small hours, the massacre started.

Mr Nasiru, who believes his wife and two children were taken prisoner, repeated what many other refugees have said - that troops of the former Soviet Army helped the Armenians to attack Khojaly. "It's not just my opinion, I saw it with my own eyes." he said. So angry are the people in Agdam that it could be very risky for commonwealth forces due to withdraw from the enclave's capital of Stepanakert to drive through this town, as they must do to reach Russia. The 366th Motorised Infantry Regiment yesterday seemed to have postponed its planned pull-out. Commonwealth forces say they are neutral in the conflict. Armenians say they had to attack Khojaly because it was used as a base to attack Stepanakert.

Women, many of whom had followed Azeri tradition and scratched their cheeks to give the impression of tears of blood, knelt at the graves, producing a high-pitched ritual wailing. Graves decorated with dolls were those of young men who were due to be married. A middle-aged man stood over the grave of his nephew, Abulfat Aliev: born 1963, died February 1992. "He went back twice into the forest to save women and children. The third time he got killed himself. Write the truth," the man said, expressing a common view that the Western Press has favoured Christian Armenia and been unfair to Muslim Azerbaijan.

The mosque and graveyard were harrowing enough, but worse were the railway carriages with the wounded. Dr Eldar Sirajev, from Baku, said 256 people had been treated since 26 February. Nubar Duniamalieva lay on her stomach with bullet entry and exit wounds in her back. She had been in the forest with her four children and elderly mother. Two children had disappeared, but the other three escaped with her. They were lucky in that they were shot close to Azeri-held territory and managed to crawl to soldiers from their own side.

Another surgeon, Satar Jagoubov from Baku University, appealed for antibiotics. Before Khojaly he had believed in the possibility of peace, but now the only solution was to clear Nagorny Karabakh of Armenians, he said. "I cannot bear to see an Armenian any more." The urge for vengeance, even among people as civilised as Dr Jagoubov, bodes ill for the chances of settling this conflict.

On the way back, the fighters apparently decided to unnerve us by driving us into a cemetery whence they reconnoitered for Armenian snipers in the nearby fields. Seeing my fear, one of them said: "Are you scared? Now you know how our women feel."

A team sent to the region by the medical aid organisation Medecins sans Frontieres said yesterday that up to 35,000 Azeri civilians were heading towards Azerbaijan's capital, Baku, to escape Agdam, which is under fire by Armenian fighters.

In Baku, the powerful Popular Front opposition yesterday called for President Ayaz Mutalibov's resignation after the massacre. Azerbaijan's parliament opens an emergency session today, where President Mutalibov is likely to face increased pressure to quit.

In the Armenian capital, Yerevan, survivors from an Armenian helicopter downed in Azerbaijan said it came under fire before plunging to the ground in flames, killing at least 14 people.

Copyright 1992 Independent Print Ltd

So there's no reason to question the existence of the article. I cited my source, and I even provided here the full text. You can go to a library and check for yourself. Grandmaster 19:44, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This page, to which the reference is made, at the very bottom contains a comment by Fatullayev, who said:

by: Eynulla Fatullayev

October 25, 2011 22:25

I certainly never told that Khojaly massacre was committed by Azeribaijanis! I simply quoted what Armenian villagers told me during my visit to Karabakh. Many Azerbaijani ex-government officials were imprisoned because they were accused of failing to protect the residents of Khojaly from massacre and not because they committed the crime. I certainly do not want my words to be used by Armenians to cover up one of the most horrific crimes committed during the NK conflict.

I think he makes pretty clear what he meant, and it is quite in line with his statements to the European court. Grandmaster 00:02, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your basing that off a comment? How do you even know that's Eynulla Fatullayev and not someone pretending to be him and discredit what he said? Ninetoyadome (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:03, 2 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]

I totaly agree! It is a just a simple comment and could be anybody. --Aghetrichter (talk) 18:39, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Fatullayev, his opinion takes almost one third of the article. This needs to be shortened and summarized, like it was done with other sources. Considering that he was not present there when the massacre took place (he was just a kid back then), and did not conduct an investigation, but only made a passing remark about Khojaly, and even this remark contained exaggerated and provocative statements (according to the European court), we should not dedicate as much space to this person as we do to reliable international organizations that conducted real investigations. There are 2 large quotes from this journalist, and other statements related to him. All this needs to be summarized in one paragraph for brevity. See for instance how the information from Romanov (the real witness) was summarized. Grandmaster 09:57, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article contained the same quote by Fatullayev, but in different translation:

First is this: Having familiarised myself with the geographical area, I can say, fully convinced, that the conjectures that there had been no Armenian corridor are groundless. The corridor did indeed exist, otherwise the Khojaly inhabitants, fully surrounded [by the enemy troops] and isolated from the outside world, would not have been able to force their way out and escape the encirclement.

And second is this: After I have made myself familiar with the area, I can say with full conviction that the allegations about the lack of an Armenian humanitarian corridor are completely unfounded. The corridor indeed existed, but the inhabitants were completely prevented from breaking out. I've talked with hundreds of refugees and the presence of a humanitarian corridor has been confirmed and they assured, that thanks to this corridor they were able to cheat death and survive.

I removed the second instance, as there's no need to repeat the same quote twice, and second translation is simply bad. Grandmaster 16:28, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are 10 topics about Karabakh by Helen Womack in "The Independent" from 1992, but I can't find any news about Khojaly. Please, give any good source about topic. Divot (talk) 15:58, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have already explained that the archive from 1992 is not available at the website of The Independent. Use Lexis-Nexis. The fact that it is not available on the website does not justify the tag. If you fail to find it in Lexis-Nexis, or in a major international library, let me know. We can ask the wikicommunity for help with verification, if you wish. I'm sure there are plenty of people here who have an access to Lexis-Nexis. Grandmaster 21:11, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Verifiability. If you can check an online database like Lexis-Nexis, check it, and say us about result. Divot (talk) 12:01, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I checked it, and the article is there. If you keep edit warring, you could be placed on an editing restriction. What makes you think that the article is not on Lexis-Nexis? Have you actually checked? If so, you should have found it easily. I copied the entire article from Lexis-Nexis and posted it in a thread above. So please stop edit warring, and go to a library. Grandmaster 19:35, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I posted a request at WP:REX. Hopefully someone will help us to do an independent verification. Grandmaster 19:58, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]