Talk:Khojaly massacre/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Many official figures are missing, and the "US State Department as the biggest civilian massacre in the world in 1992" is dubvious info at best, ater what happened in Algeria and Rwanda(three villages) that year. Adding POV Fadix 03:42, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

The term Kojaly Genocide is used by no any other person than some ultra nationalist Azeris. Fadix 03:43, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Khojaly was one the most tragic cold blooded massacres of the twentieth century. It has all the criteria to be regarded as a genocide. A huge population was exterminated due to their ethnicity and blocked to escape. Reference should be made to the US Government statement regarding Khojaly as being more brutal than Bosnia and the German Nazis. Also reference should be made to international journalists and their description. Khojaly is a wound that will bleed for a long time. Armenia should apologise for it. It is a genuine genocide.

Very good. We all believed you. You certainly aren't biased! Hakob 05:36, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

In that case, can we add the Sumgait Genocide committed against the Armenians in 1988?--MarshallBagramyan 22:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Another example of azeri lies. They killed their own people and blamed the Armenians, it's very similar to how politics work in their country.--Moosh88 00:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Moosh88 can you back up your claimings on that..? Must I remind you this is not a propaganda site, here we deal with facts and proof not with claimings... Baku87 17:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Why it is totallydisputed?

Tabib, some Armenians? Tabib, I requested to provide evidences of the also called Khojali genocide, that some ultra nationalist Azeris called such to equal it with the Armenian genocide doesn't make of something as also called. Beside, the death range, there are works providing 150 as death range and most Western books don't provide any numbers, and as stated official Azeris sources also provide such figures as well as the first numbers presented the Helzenki Watch etc. Those are some examples on why I replaced that tag there. Also, which statistic talk about over a thousand? Until such issues are not covered and addressed there is no reason to remove that tag from there. Also, the reason why I have replaced the totallydisputed tag and not the POV tag is because what is said about the event is also wrong, the death range and what is called also a genocide is wrong. Cite your sources of any book, academic serious work published anywhere outside of Azerbaijan that call it such. Even Turkey that was to pass such a resolution finally decided to not do it. If you expect to make of this article a Wikipedia article and not use Wikipedia as an extention of your site(in which you call a genocide), you will address those issues first. Fad (ix) 21:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

In the press

I have removed the "in the press" quotes where the name of the newspaper has been mispelled. - FrancisTyers 10:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

There are many reports of this massacre in the Western mass media, almost every major news outlet reported about it. For example, this is from Time magazine:

Massacre in Khojaly

The blood feud between Armenians and Azerbaijanis claims 200 civilians

By JILL SMOLOWE

Mar. 16, 1992

While the details are disputed, this much is plain: something grim and unconscionable happened in the Azerbaijani town of Khojaly two weeks ago. So far, some 200 dead Azerbaijanis, many of them mutilated, have been transported out of the town tucked inside the Armenian-dominated enclave of Nagorno- Karabakh for burial in neighboring Azerbaijan. The total number of dead -- the Azerbaijanis claim 1,324 civilians were slaughtered, most of them women and children -- is unknown. But the facile explanation offered by the attacking Armenians, who insist that no innocents were deliberately killed, is hardly convincing. [1] Grandmaster 20:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

That's an objective report from a neutral source which simply states that something terrible happened, we don't know what happened but civillians ended up dead. Since there is no concrete evidence for either position it's essentially Armenian word against Azeri word. --Eupator 21:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Time article says: But the facile explanation offered by the attacking Armenians, who insist that no innocents were deliberately killed, is hardly convincing.

But if you want more detailed report, see Memorial. It has all the details. Grandmaster 21:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I can read, thank you. That is not the Armenian position obviously, which you know very well. As for Memorial, it's some fringe organization with credibility issues. They authors of that piece aren't even on record. --Eupator 21:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Memorial is a reputable human rights organisation, it is a partner of HRW in the territory of former USSR. Armenians used to praise them for their report on Operation Ring, but they didn’t like the report on Khojaly as much. Grandmaster 06:12, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Grandmaster, here another newspaper dated 27 Feb 1992, before Goltz spread the news. It is in French, but you can get it translated by an online translator.

Le Monde, jeudi 27 février 1992, p. C7

Washington s'inquiète de la violence au Nagorny-Karabakh

AFP; Reuter

WASHINGTON - Le gouvernement américain s'est déclaré hier «profondément inquiet» de la recrudescence de la violence au Nagorny-Karabakh et a demandé à toutes les parties d'appuyer les efforts de médiation de la Russie et du Kazakhstan. Toutefois, Arméniens et Azéris ont démenti qu'un cessez-le-feu ait été conclu au Haut-Karabakh comme l'avait affirmé Radio-Téhéran dans son compte rendu de la médiation engagée par Ali Akbar Velayati.

L'existence d'une telle trêve a du reste été démentie dans les faits avec l'annonce, hier, de la capture de la ville azérie de Khojali par des combattants arméniens et le bombardement d'une autre ville azérie de l'enclave, Choucha, ainsi que de la capitale à dominante arménienne, Stepanakert.

Le ministre iranien des Affaires étrangères avait l'intention d'aller se rendre compte par lui-même de la situation au Haut-Karabakh, peuplé en majorité d'Arméniens mais administré par l'Azerbaïdjan. Mais cette visite semblait compromise hier par la violence des bombardements. En vingt-quatre heures, 150 roquettes tirées par des Azéris se sont abattues sur une base militaire de la CEI à Stepanakert, tuant un soldat et renforçant les craintes de voir les forces de la CEI entraînées dans le conflit.

Radio-Téhéran avait annoncé mardi, en citant un «responsable proche des négociations», que, à l'issue de longues discussions avec des responsables azéris, Ali Akhbar Velayati avait obtenu la conclusion d'un cessez-le-feu de vingt-cinq heures au Haut-Karabakh. Le ministre iranien doit rencontrer aujourd'hui des responsables armémiens.

Mais les deux parties ont démenti tout accord, notant que Ali Akbar Velayati - soucieux d'accroître l'influence de l'Iran dans la région - n'avait pas encore rencontré de représentants arméniens ni parcourus le Haut-Karabakh. Sur le terrain, la situation ne porte pas davantage à l'optimisme. Une cinquantaine d'Azéris ont attaqué un poste frontalier contrôlé par des garde-frontières de la CEI et ils ont volé 14 mitraillettes et un lance-grenades, rapporte l'agence Itar-Tass. Les dirigeants arméniens ont affirmé que, au cours d'un précédent raid, des irréguliers azéris s'étaient emparés d'obus et d'explosifs d'une puissance totale de sept mégatonnes.

L'Azerbaïdjan assure qu'il a le droit de posséder de telles armes dans le cadre de sa campagne de «nationalisation» des anciennes installations militaires soviétiques. Face à la dégradation de la situation des forces de la CEI, leur commandement a autorisé lundi le 366e Régiment motorisé, bloqué à Stepanakert où il en est réduit à manger des chiens errants, l'autorisation de riposter s'il était attaqué.

Après la mort, dimanche, de deux soldats de ce régiment, un troisième militaire et plusieurs civils ont été tués mardi par des obus tirés par les Azéris, rapporte Tass en citant le commandement central. «Les affrontements se transforment en guerre ouverte où les forces de la CEI et plus précisément la 366e Division motorisée pourraient être entraînées», avertit la Pravda. La télévision russe a pour sa part déjà présenté le conflit du Karabakh comme la première guerre de l'ère post-soviétique. Paris a annoncé son intention de présenter à la Communauté européenne un plan de cessez-le-feu en quatre points.

This is why the 366e backed the Armenians, it was because that day Azerbaijani army attacked an army bases lunching 150 grad missiles from and nearby Khojali and killing soldiers which resulted in an attack in the night.

Svante E. Cornell writes: Why a massacre? It does not make any sense to assume that soldiers of different ethnic origins, only some of whom were Armenian, would suddently start massacring fleeing civilians. (Small Nations and Great Powers- A Study of Ethnopolitical Conflict in the Caucasus by Svante E. Cornell, RoutledgeCurzon 2000)

Cornell doesn't go further in this questioning but present Goltz conspirationist view, he goes on to write: One answer to the question, suggested by Goltz, is that other forces also had an interest in making 'Khojaly' a point of no return in the escalation of hatred between the two peoples'. And then, expose Goltz conspirationist theory and the incidence of the Azeris hellicopter shut by an hellicopter that neither Armenians nor Azeris possessed. While previous reports, like the one presented in the French language newspaper I posted above, shows Washington worries about the intense fightings and Azeris sides lunching attacks from Khojali against military bases and how as an answer the military captured the town on the night.

Also, Goltz say nothing about the fact that the attack against army bases followed after the cease fire(hours after). And here, this was also reported in newspapers. Here, one example.

Le Soleil Vendredi 28 février 1992, p. A16

La cessez-le-feu n'a pas duré longtemps au Nagorny-Karabakh

MOSCOU - De violents affrontements entre forces arméniennes et azerbaïdjanaises se sont déroulées hier au Nagorny-Karabakh, quelques heures après l'entrée en vigueur d'un cessez-le-feu.Selon les dirigeants des deux forces en présence et les agences de presse, les pertes ont été lourde des deux côtés.

Selon les Arméniens, ce sont les troupes azerbaïdjanaises qui ont rompu le cessez-le-feu en lançant une vaste offensive au moyen de tanks et de véhicules blindés.

De son côté, l'Azerbaïdjan a accusé l'Arménie d'avoir violé la trêve. «Des combattants arméniens ont ouvert le feu ce matin sur des localités de la région d'Agdam», a déclaré Akchen Zeynalov, porte-parole du ministère de l'Intérieur.

Le cessez-le-feu était entré en vigueur jeudi à 9 h, après les violents combats de mercredi au cours desquels les Arméniens ont pris la ville azérie de Khojaly. D'autre part, le Comité international de la Croix-Rouge 'accord de principe des autorités d'Azerbaïdjan pour entamer des opérations humanitaires au Nagorny-Karabakh et enverra une première mission dans cette région d'ici deux ou trois semaines, a-t-on appris officiellement hier au siège du CICR à Genève.

So, if you want to rely on newspapers, don't forget that there are others supporting else. Not to forget that Azeris victims claiming Russians participating in the massacres, when there is no reason I can see of why Russians would massacre Azeris and this while they were fleeing in the zone that neither Armenians or Russians hadn't still taken control of. True this is my POV and investigations, but the refugees claims of Russians massacring too isen't, and I can provide examples of newspapers about those too if you want, I have access to newspaper servers and have just to search the words Khojaly or Khojali and am finding the original newspapers of that period. Fad (ix) 00:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Here some other examples, if you want I can email you the full texts.

Officials in Baku, the capital of Azerbaijan, estimated the deaths in Khojaly at 100, while Armenian officials in their capital, Yerevan, said only two Azerbaijanis were killed in the attack. An official from Baku said his government fears Azerbaijanis would turn against it if they knew how many had been killed. (Armenian, Azeri shells shatter brief ceasefire in Nagorno- Karabakh, The Gazette. Montreal, Que.: Feb 28, 1992. pg. A.7)

Armenian spokesmen insisted that Khojaly was inhabited mainly by Azerbaijani fighters who used the town as a base to rain down shells on the Armenian-populated capital of Stepanakert and to control its airport. Since Khojaly was taken, they said, much of the shelling of Stepanakert has ceased.(Furor growing as Azeri bodies are recovered; Armenians reject charges as withdrawal of former Soviet troops delayed; The Gazette. Montreal, Que.: Mar 4, 1992. pg. A.8)

I checked in the newspapers archives if this claim of attacks on Stepanakert were reported.

Local news agencies said Armenian forces chased Azeri army units out of Khojaly, leaving Shusha as the only Azeri stronghold inside the remote Transcaucasian region.

Azeri refugees headed for Agdam, an Azeri city just outside the border of Nagorno-Karabakh, a predominantly Armenian enclave administered by Azerbaijan.

The Interfax news agency quoted the Azeri Popular Front saying much of Khojaly was in ashes. It said dozens of houses were destroyed and many civilians were hurt or killed.

Azerbaijan's Interior Minister Tofik Kerimov said almost 100 Azeris were killed in the battle and 250 wounded. Armenian sources put the figures far lower.

Azerbaijan answered with a furious rocket attack - using launchers taken from the former Soviet army - on the Nagorno-Karabakh capital, Stepankert, an Armenian centre.

Television showed civilians fleeing in panic as blocks of apartments and houses were consumed in flames. (Armenian troops overrun Azeri town; The Gazette. Montreal, Que.: Feb 27, 1992. pg. A.13) Fad (ix) 04:11, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

The reason why Russian 366 regiment attacked Khojaly was not because they were shelled by Azeris, but because many of its officers, including current “minister of defense” of self-proclaimed NKR, were ethnic Armenians. Officers of other ethnicities fought on Armenians side as mercenaries. That’s why Azeris shelled their base, since this regiment participated in hostilities, it was a legitimate target. At first, officials in Mutalibov’s government tried to conceal the real scale of the tragedy, they even announced that only 2 Azeris were killed in the attack on the town, and that town was still under Azeri control. Armenian leaders did the same, they denied mass killing. But soon Chingiz Mustafayev revealed the truth to the world. Grandmaster 06:39, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not disputing anything, the point I am trying to make, is that you can not filtrate informations by claiming what is the truth or not. Also, the claim that Russians were participating in the massacres was reported by refugees, that those in the 366 were mostly Armenians has yet to be confirmed, which is even not claimed by Goltz himself. Also, consider that there are other coverages claiming that the pictures were taken during a temporary ceasefire in which both sides were exchanging their cadavres, there are those in the French press that have claimed that during that moment hellicopters filled with journalists came in taking pictures when those on the scene knew that the corps were neither all from Khojali, neither all Azeris. If for example you search the event in the archives of the press, you will see that the coverages are much more ballanced in publications than what Azeris website selectivily quote.

Also, there is no question that the also called Khojali genocide should be removed, I have requested at least one book published outside of Azerbaijan which call it genocide. There are none ever reported and even in Azeris websites, in fact, that term is not used for hundreds of victims, but rather thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions etc. Srebrenica Massacre which was the killing of thousands doesn't mention such a thing as also called genocide, neither is there any international conference on genocide, work in the Holocaust Genocide studies or any comparative genocide studies which ever use the cases of Khojali. Until you can provide evidences that the term khojali genocide is indeed notable, its uses would rander this article factually incorrect, and here I am ready to revise my decision if ever it happens that Khojali genocide is a notable term.

Also, for the range of victims, the figures between 100 to 200 were not only provided by the Azeris autorities but there are number of works that still keep the "more than 150." Fad (ix) 18:53, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I did not say most, I said many officers were Armenians. Oganian, current leader of the separatist army, was one of them. Armenian forces confirmed to Memorial that armored vehicles and their crews from 366 regiment participated in the attack. It is stated in Memorial report. There are no alternative coverages, claiming that the pictures were taking during exchange of dead bodies. It was just a lie by Armenian propaganda, which was exposed by the French journalist Florence David, to whom they were referring. One of Armenian news agencies said referring to her that the pictures were shot during exchange of the dead, but she denied that she ever said anything like that and claimed the Armenian news agency should publish a refutation of this lie. I remember watching Russian news program Vesti, and the presenter Mitkova said that their program would never ever use the news of that Armenian agency for circulating such a monstrous lie. Later Armenian foreign ministry was also caught lying, when it was trying to distort HRW and Memorial reports and spread false information with reference to them.

Coming to genocide term, run a search on Google and see how many hits you get. It’s one of the most popular results, so it should be included. As for the number of the people killed in the attack on Khojaly, the official figure 613 is indeed more than 150. Azeri authorities at the time (Mutalibov’s administration) were not interested in revealing the real scale of the tragedy, their initial figures prove nothing. They first claimed that only 2 people were killed, then the number grew up to 100, and then they had to accept that hundreds were killed. Two most reliable sources on this issue are reports by Memorial and HRW, who made their own investigations and spoke with people on both sides. They both claim that the number of victims is higher than 200. Memorial says that in addition to people who were killed many froze to death, and that exact number of people who died is unknown. They refer to official records, which stated that humanitarian aid was provided to 476 families of the victims, which was not the final figure as well. HRW said that as many as 500-1,000 may have died. This also does not contradict the official figure. And most of the news reports provide the number of 1000, which is higher than official figures. Grandmaster 22:02, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Grandmaster, who is to confirm this, to answer to what you call 'Armenian propaganda' you rely on Azeris websites. First about Florence David, I have found the claim of her denial from Azeris websites, that claim that she has denied about her claiming the pictures to be forgeries, but what I have read is that she did not claim them to be forgeries, but rather that Hellicopters filled with journalists came to the scene out of nowhere during an exchange of cadavre. There is a huge differences between claiming that she has claimed the pictures to be forgeries and that crew of journalists landing there out of nowhere to take pictures of the scene while victims were brought in a zone to then be exchanged. I will email her and ask more about that and wait for the reply.

Memorial reports? Which memorial reports have been manipulated? The last time I have checked it is an insignificant organization that very few know the existance of. Also, when comparing the Azeri autorities fabrication of Red Cross reports to the distortion of the HRW report by the Armenian government, I don't think that there is much to trust from either sides. Who would trust news agencies from Ex-Communist governments controled medias anyway? And this goes for Azerbaijan and Armenia too.

Genocide term, I think you are having difficulty comprehending Grandmaster, you could ask any veterans here, and you will have the same answer. Google helps in cases where the notability has to be confirmed when there are publications about the issue, it is just one method but is unsufficiant alone, and you could ask anyone. One of the ways to document notability is to refer to citation index, I do have access to them, and there is 0 results for Khojali genocide. I have requested you to cite a single non-Azeris book, you can for that matter refer to a Turks book published outside of Turkey. I know of a Turk having published a book covering the issue, he doesn't even call it such. And, I will repeat that again. Turkey refused to finally vote for a resolution recognizing a Khojali genocide.

As for the numbers of victims, more than 150 doesn't mean 613, if that was confirmed that figure would have been used insteed, and since we do refer to the HRW, it should also be noted that them too have published figures not much higher than 150. As for the 1000 figure, this is not accurate, and I can email you the search engine for newspapers I have access too and you could search for the words Khojaly or Khojali and submit me the results you want to read the content and I will email you the contens, and you will see that the figure of the 1000 victims was presented as according to Azeris autorities, as you can see the Azeris autorities haven't tried to minimise the victims in any way and this was not the figure used mostly.

And true about the higher than 200, but higher than can mean anything, including 201..., also the figures presented of between 500-1000 are 'may have died' that does not only include that 'may have' but also 'died' which 'may' also include those that have not been killed. If you read the Armenian genocide entry, you will see that the term died, perished etc. are terms that are used to present the number of victims, which also means that all did not die from direct killings or massacres.

Lastly, I do really wish to remove the totally disputed tag from them, due to the fact that we are talking about a tragedy and I have been fighting for years against denials of tragedies, but you have to face that by including the term genocide there, not only you are placing a term that does not fit, but also you are yourself engaging in a propaganda war that you are accusing others to have engaged in themselves. If you don't trust me, why don't you request the opinion of El_l, if he thinks that the term genocide fit there. Fad (ix) 23:38, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Fadix, I don’t rely on Azeri websites, I saw it on Russian TV back in 1992. When Pro-Armenia agency spread its false information, the commenter on the main channel of the Russian TV showed the video from the location of the mass killing and said that it looked nothing like the exchange of bodies. The next day after refutation by the French journalist Russian TV channels, who usually were sympathetic to Armenians, were really outraged and refused from cooperation with that Armenian news agency. Other than that, there were no other reports of this sort. You can see Mustafayev’s video yourself on the Azeri websites, it is shocking and it is not exchange of the bodies, it is a scene of a mass killing.

As for Memorial, it is a reputable human rights organization in the former USSR. It’s not global, so not many people outside the region know them, but HRW cooperates with them in the former USSR territory. They are the only ones, who did such a thorough investigation of the killing, talked to the people on both sides and traveled to the location of the tragedy. HRW also did their investigation, but it was not so detailed. But they both came to the same conclusion.

As for genocide term, we don’t call the article Khojaly genocide, but since it gets so many hits at Google, we need to include it as one of the popular references to the event.

As for the numbers, the article does not say that certain number is true, it just said that “The official death toll is 613 civilians, of them 106 women and 83 children”. No one can deny that these are the official figures, provided by the Azerbaijani government, so we just included this number with a reference to the Azerbaijani government. It’s quite NPOV. Also, HRW statement just says that 200 is a minimum number, while maximum number of 1000 is also possible. I agree with your statement that “the term died, perished etc. are terms that are used to present the number of victims, which also means that all did not die from direct killings or massacres”. But Memorial report also said that many people froze to death while wandering the forests:

Оценивая общее количество погибших жителей Ходжалы, следует учесть, что люди гибли не только при обстреле беженцев (часть тел погибших таким образом людей была вывезена в Агдам), но и замерзали при блужданиях по горам. Наблюдатели общества «Мемориал» беседовали с женщиной, у которой таким образом погибли трое ее детей. Точно установить количество замерзших жителей Ходжалы не представляется возможным. По сообщению газеты «Карабах» от 26.03.92 г., комиссия помощи беженцам из Ходжалы выдала пособия 476 семьям погибших.

While assessing the total number of perished Khojaly citizens one should take into account that people died not only during the shooting of the fugitives (some of the bodies of people who were killed this way were transported to Agdam), but also froze to death when wandering the mountains. The observers of Memorial society spoke with a woman, who’s three children died this way. It is not possible to establish a precise number of people from Khojaly, who froze to death. According to the report of Karabkakh newspaper dated 26.03.92 the commission for refugees provided humanitarian aid to 476 families of the victims.

So yes, after the attack on the columns of refugees many people were trying to hide in the forest and mountains and find a passage to Agdam, and a certain part of them perished from the frost. It is hard to tell exactly how many were shot and how many froze. But it is known that some people from Khojaly were killed in attack on the town, some were killed during the shooting of the columns (there were two columns, moving along two routes), some froze to death while hiding in the mountains, and some were killed in captivity. Grandmaster 09:59, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Grandmaster, we are turning in circle. For it to be called 'also called' in the lead, the term should be notable... google point to dubious sites and no publication. Even Goltz doesn't call it Khojali genocide, I told you ask any veterans and you will have about the same answer, this is a very obvious cases we can not claim that it is also called Khojali genocide when there is no demonstrated notability of this term. You may on the other hand, say that the Azeris government recognizes it as such but you can not impute a general notability to that term when it doesn't have this notability.

Also, concerning Mustafayev, don't also forget that soon after he covered the event he had claimed having uncovered evidences that the Azerbaijani National Front was also related in the tragedy, and this is not an Armenian claim, it is known. [2] There was no one that we could know of the results of his research since he was killed in misterious circumptances and some claims that the National Front was behind it. Fad (ix) 17:36, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

This is just another speculation. Chingiz may have or have not made some claims, but that is not a proof of anything. Circumstances of his death are not mysterious, they are well known. He was killed when filming an exchange of fire. This is described by his brother, who is also a journalist. [3] Grandmaster 19:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Grandmaster, that he researched before his death and said to have found evidences of the national front participation is not an Armenian claim, you can not dismiss things as speculation, this is your POV. Also, it is pretty amazing that you dismiss the films of of the Armenian monuments destruction when it was filmed while it was happening and you attach so much credibility to pictures showing cadavres and while the act already happened. You don't expect his brother to claim anything else do you? You like me know that had he made charges accusing the national front his brother now will be considered as a traitor and his death as good ridance. Fad (ix) 16:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Mustafayev never presented any evidences, right? Then there’s nothing to talk about, it is just a speculation. It was a time of political instability, when different forces were fighting for power, and journalists were also a part of this process. There’s a big difference between the alleged monument destruction video, where one hardly can see anything, and videos of Khojaly massacre, which are very graphic and shocking. They were shown in the news reports all over the world and no one doubted their authenticity, including the French reporter you were referring to. As for Mustafayev’s brother, the Popular Front is not in favor with the government nowadays, so he could gain a couple of points for placing blame with them, but he never did. Grandmaster 07:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

You see, this is the sort of thing that makes any honnest discussion with you very difficult. You are interpreting things, also, what you call so-called destruction of the monument was filmed live while it was happening, while you claim that there is nothing one could see repeating what the Azeris government claim maybe you should check it a second time, take a look at the man on the middle of the video on the right uper side and the other with darker clotes, you will clearly see the engraving in the stone, you will also see about the middle(and I will trust you will find this all by yourself) at least 5 stones where the engraving are clearly obvious, don't make me take screen shuts Grandmaster and circle them. On the other hand, the Khojali tapes WERE NOT taken while the events were happening but after. Of course if I were to use your methodology I could even deny if it was taken while it is happening. Also, you imply it was accepted in all over the world, my proposition still stend Grandmaster, I will email you the databases of newspapers and you will research, while you will have no permission viewing the content you will at least see the titles and could pick any you want and I will provide you the contents, you will see that it is far from being what you claim. Also about the French reporter, again, reread what I have said about him, what Azeris sites claim he dismissed is not what I have read he has said, and as far as I am concerned this claim about the French reporter still stend and we will have to wait for this persons answer since I will be emailing him. Fad (ix) 19:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I seriously doubt you’ve seen the tapes you’re talking about. You can see them on Azeri cites about the massacre. Also you can check them at the website about Chingiz Mustafayev: [4] They look nothing like exchange of bodies. As for the French reporter (she is female, by the way), according to other journalists who traveled to the location of the massacre they never saw her there. Her refutation was reported on Russian TV, I saw it myself. And there are dozens of other reports by reputable sources, which contradict the report of Pro-Armenia news agency anyway. HRW reports are the most authoritative of them. In addition to genocide term, what else do you dispute in the current article? What do you not agree with? Grandmaster 07:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Grandmaster, I think we are not on the same frequency, but that's OK as this last discussion is not much important. Your last question is though. Beside the genocide claim there is nothing much that would requite the totallydisputed tag, maybe the NPOV I don't know I'll leave Azeris and Armenians discuss about this, I don't want to sound as if I am denying a tragedy when I am not and this regardless of who is to blame for the tragedy. My point was that claiming it is called also Khojaly genocide is just not accurate, because it is not also called Azeris genocide, it is true that many Azeris call it such but this does not make it an 'also called' of course this does not exclude that this information could not be added in the article. Fad (ix) 20:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

This information is impossible

In a declaration in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) the massacre in Khojaly was called "Recognition of the genocide perpetrated against the Azeri population by the Armenians" (PACE Doc. 9066 2nd edition, Written Declaration No. 324, 14 May 2001) unless it was a request from the representing party of Azerbaijan, which would be misleading to include here. But after checking the information more closely, we find out that from the 30 person who signed it, 20 were either from Azerbaijan or Turkey, and there was in total only 30 person who signed it. [5] And also, it is clearly specified that it is undorsed only by those who signed it. And here, I won't even cover those from UK who signed it and some of the non-Turkish or non-Azeris members, isen't it amazing that it is always those who works with Turkey as strong supporter of its entrance in the EU who sign such resolutions? I won't include the Albanians who signed there, since their move was honnest, as victims of the Serbian regime they have signed every possible resolutions about genocide.

What I have requested was a single academic book which call it genocide. Fad (ix) 19:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I brought up that issue to the person who introduced it Fadix (see the article's history) but he still touted it as a formal recognition by PACE. Its not a resolution made by PACE members but just Azeri and Turkish signatories who recognize the killings as a genocide. That's tantamount to having American history professors signing a paper and recognizing the Armenian Genocide and claiming that the US has formally recognized it. --MarshallBagramyan 19:09, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can see from the text this declaration is an appeal by a number of PACE deputies to recognize the massacre in Khojaly as genocide. It is signed not only by Azerbaijani and Turkish members, but also by assembly members from the UK, Norway, Luxemburg, Poland and other countries. We just can provide a more accurate description of the document in the text of the article and add a link to the online text of the document. Grandmaster 06:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

That is what should be said, that several signatories demanded that Khojalu be recognized as a Genocide not that PACE officially and formally recognized it as such since that would be misleading. Furthermore, to call Khojalu a genocide is a misnomer because we arguing semantics here. You need to prove government intent on this one. If you can find that the Armenian government sought out and sent the Armenian in conjunction with CIS forces to systematically wipe out all the inhabitants of Khojalu, then the genocide label is warranted. But, the fact remains that Khojalu assault was a military operation with strategic objectives to sever the shelling of GRAD artillery and also to capture its airfield.

The genocide label would for more befittingly apt to describe -- as unbelievable it may sound to some -- the Sumgait massacre since government officials and policer officers not only condoned but subtly encouraged Azeris to seek out and kill Armenians in the town. --MarshallBagramyan 21:48, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

There’s a big difference between events in Khojaly and Sumgait. The attack on Khojaly was organized by Armenian leadership, while attack on Armenian residents in Sumgait was carried out by the angry mob, among them many refugees from Armenia, and one of the main criminals there was an ethnic Armenian Gregorian. The role of Azerbaijani officials in the events in Sumgait is nothing but a speculation. Also, the numbers speak for themselves, 26 Armenians were killed in Sumgait, and more than 600 Azerbaijanis in Khojaly. Grandmaster 05:37, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Where's the proof of the Armenian government organizing the genocide? Armenian leaders may have green-lighted the attack which was causing scores of casualties by using the inaccurate GRAD missiles but that doesn't mean they conspired to wipe off the entire town of its inhabitants.

I know you are misleading everyone GM. You have read De Waal's book and he lists the fact that only one Armenian took part in the Sumgait massacre was just an excuse propagated by Azeris who denied that it even occurred or that it was only centered against Armenians. Apparently he was a half-Russian or half-Azeri Armenian who just caught up in the craze in the factory he was working in.

The role of the Azeri government in the events of Sumgait are well documented. The fact that police officers failed to break up and even condoned their actions, failed to answer to emergency phone calls placed by Armenians is proof that government officials were involved and encouraged it. The official death count by the Soviet government is open to speculation, they were attempting to quell the violence and that number may be grossly under-estimated. And further pogroms did take place in Baku in 1990 and Kirovobad and elsewhere against Armenians. And so far, the Azeri death count is unstable seeing as how government officials keep shifting the casualties to as little as 150 to as much as 1,000. --MarshallBagramyan 21:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

First off, with regard to Sumgait, there’s no real proof that local authorities had anything to do with pogroms. Police was confused and did not know what to do, at that time nobody in the USSR had any experience how to break violent crowds. Soviet prosecutors did not find any guilt with any local official, they were not up to the challenge, but they did not commit any crimes by getting involved in any way into what was going on. As for Gregorian, he was sentenced to 14 years in jail by the Soviet court, so he was not just a casual passer by, who got caught in the middle. De Waal thinks that his role in the event is exaggerated by Azeri side, maybe so, but nonetheless he was one of the people who took part in the attacks on Armenian residents. As for the official death count in Khojaly, it is 613, the figures grew as the bodies were being recovered, some 150 people are missing to this day. Their relatives believe that they are held in Armenian captivity. According to HRW 1994 report, "There are no exact figures for the number of Azeri civilians killed because Karabakh Armenian forces gained control of the area after the massacre. While it is widely accepted that 200 Azeris were murdered, as many as 500-1,000 may have died". Grandmaster 05:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes there is Grandnaster. There are several underlying concerns that Azerbaijani officials were cognizant of what was going to go on Feburary 27:

1)Days before Feb. 27, the Third Party Secretary of Baku personally participated in several violent anti-Armenian broadcasts.

2)The fact that many benevolent and concerned Azeris warned their Armenian neighbors to flee the city because of the impending the danger (one such woman I met seeked and recieved shelter by her Azeri neighbors before, during, and after the event).

3)The fact that several truckloads of stones and rocks were brought towards the Armenian districts of Sumgait.

4)That many of the participants were convicted felons and murderers.

5)The fact that telephone lines cut Sumgait from the rest of the world.

6)The fact that vice-prosecutor Kadousev appeared on Azeribaijan Radio at 9 PM Feburary 27 and gave the false account of two Azeris being killed by an Armenian, thus signaling the massacres to begin.

7)The fact that the MVD Interior Ministry troops remained in inactivity for 3 days before responding to Baku.

These come from Armenia in Crisis: The 1988 Earthquake by Pierre Verluise Wayne State University Press April 1995.

And even if Gregorian was convicted, isn't it rather peciuliar that he was the only one prosecuted and punished? I'm unaware if the head prosecutor punished or even charged any of the Azeris who took part in the pogrom. As De Waal notes, his role was insignificant and Azeris attempted to elevate his role in it to show that the event wasn't just confined to Armenian victims and Azeri aggressors, a red herring in the matter. --MarshallBagramyan 21:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

You are wrong, Marshal. Read de Waal’s book again. He said that more than 80 people were prosecuted and convicted for participation in pogroms in Sumgait. De Waal thinks that Gregorian was just a thug without ethnicity, as he was convicted 3 times before Sumgait events. But the majority of attackers were criminals like him. According to the Soviet laws people who were released from prisons were not allowed to settle in the capital cities, so they were mostly settled in Sumgait. And there’s no real fact to prove any role of Azerbaijani authorities in this events. Anyone could cut of the phone lines and bring truckloads of stones to the city. As for Katusev, he was not punished despite the fact that his speech triggered riots in Sumgait, but it’s hard to tell whether Katusev's speech was stupidity or deliberate action by the Soviet authorities. Grandmaster 05:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I value information De Waal's book but even I see many problems in Black Garden. That's why I constantly cross-examine his references with other sources (since his citations list is quite short and specific) But anyways who prosecuted them, Soviet authorities from Moscow or prosecutors from the Azerbaijani SSR? De Waal says 80, other news sources place it to 60. Furthermore the Communist Party first secretary of Sumgait, the chairman of the city executive and the police chief all were fired subsequently thereafter. These actions must been partaken by the Kremlin not Azerbaijan.

In the eyes of many Soviet officials, fired Azerbaijani leader Bagirov was partly responsible for savage rioting in his province, and numerous articles in the official press have criticized his failure to prevent violence against Armenians.

The Washington Post May 22, 1988. pg. a.01

Maybe telephone lines cut from the Armenian district would make sense but the fact Sumgait was cut off entirely from the rest of the world is enough to spell suspicion. Police officers failed to help Armenians when watching the attacks which couldn't mean that they were acting on their own, someone had to have told them to stand down or ignore pleas made by the Armenians:

Jhanetta and Elvira Bogdasarova huddled in a doorway Saturday night, peering through a crack onto a Baku street as a crowd of about 50 Azerbaijanis surrounded a young Armenian woman and her child, who appeared to be about four years old.

The sisters watched in terror as the men cursed the woman and displayed a can of gasoline. The woman began to yell for help. Azerbaijani police officers were visible a few dozen yards away, but they made no move to intervene, they said.

The screaming, fist-shaking mob pressed around the terrified mother and child. One man doused them with gasoline and another set them alight.

The sisters watched them fall to the ground, writhing in agony until they died.

"The Azerbaijanis were smiling. It was entertainment for them," said Jhanetta, 25, who worked as a typist for the Soviet Ministry of Health. ""I wanted to help her, but we're Armenian, too. They would have done the same thing to us."

Armenians Tell Of Terror In Azerbaijan

San Francisco Chronicle. San Francisco, Calif.: Jan 16, 1990. pg. A.13

I'm not trying to say the government directly organized the pogrom per se but to think that government officials did not intentionally provoke (and subtly encourage) or were not complicit of an ongoing 3 day massacre is downright folly and fallicious. But I digress Grandmaster, this is Khojali Massacre page and we have seriously gone off topic so we can continue this discussion when I create an article on the Sumgait pogrom. --MarshallBagramyan 06:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

These are different things. Failure to act does not mean they organized or encouraged it. The only encouragement was Katusev’s speech, but was it intentional or not, is hard to tell now, since he died a couple of years ago. And he was representing the central authorities, not local ones. But we indeed deviated from the topic of this article. Regards, Grandmaster 07:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

That's assuming the victims died from Armenian weapons, in that case they died because Azeris refused to let them leave the town and stopped the evacuation. I have read accounts that they were murdered by Azeri sodliers themselves. In either case their deaths are the direct result of Azeri military actions that prevented the evacuation that is if they didn't kill them themselves. --Eupator 21:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Armenian authorities tried to make such claims in a letter to UNO, but in response to such allegations the executive director of Human Rights Watch said: “we place direct responsibility for the civilian deaths with Karabakh Armenian forces. Indeed, neither our report nor that of Memorial includes any evidence to support the argument that Azerbaijani forces obstructed the flight of, or fired on Azeri civilians”. Grandmaster 05:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Even using the HRW scenario, it's still Azeris fault. The quote must be read in the proper context, HRW suggests that Armenian forces should have halted the attack because Azeri soldiers were using civillians as shelter. There is no such international law that says you shouldn't fire back when fired upon, civillian deaths are the fault of the Azeris who were armed and wore uniforms in the midst of civllians well informed of the consequences as HRW says. --Eupator 21:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

HRW does not share your view and places the responsibility with Armenian forces. Indeed, you can’t accidentally kill hundreds of women and children. The number of civilian casualties is extremely high and has no precedence in the territory of former USSR. See HRW letter:

Yet we place direct responsibility for the civilian deaths with Karabakh Armenian forces. Indeed, neither our report nor that of Memorial includes any evidence to support the argument that Azerbaijani forces obstructed the flight of, or fired on Azeri civilians. 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."

"The circumstances surrounding the attack . . .on those fleeing Khojaly indicate that [Karabakh] Armenian forces and the troops of the 366th CIS regiment . . .deliberately disregarded this customary law restraint on attacks. Nagorno Karabakh officials and fighters clearly expected the inhabitants of Khojaly to flee since they claim to have informed the town that a corridor would be left open to allow for their safe passage. . . Under these circumstances, the killing of fleeing combatants could not justify the forseeably large number of civilian casualties."

Also see de Waal’s book, the chapter dedicated to these events quotes Sarkisian, who suggests that the killings in Khojaly were a deliberate action to intimidate the Azerbaijani side. Grandmaster 06:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm assuming this is Sarkisyan the military commander? If so, Sarkisyan didn't say that his forces were to intimidate the Azeri populace but to show them, and I'm paraphrasing, that Armenians were a force to reckon with and so that they would not be looked down upon as a weak and fragile peoples. He also added that, though I'm suspect to the claim, many of the soldiers in the attack were from Sumgait. Something to consider. --MarshallBagramyan 21:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Here the citation of the relevant paragraph from the book:

"Но я думаю, что главный вопрос был совсем в другом. До Ходжалы азербайджанцы думали, что с нами можно шутки шутить, они думали, что армяне не способны поднять руку на гражданское население. Мы сумели сломать этот [стереотип]. Вот что произошло. И надо еще принимать во внимание, что среди тех мальчиков были люди, бежавшие из Баку и Сумгаита".

Оценка Саркисяна заставляет под другим углом взглянуть на самую жестокую бойню карабахской войны. Не исключено, что эти массовые убийства явились, пусть хотя бы и отчасти, преднамеренным актом устрашения. [6] Grandmaster 05:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

POV

This article has POV issues, and thus I am re adding the tag for the third time. Until this POV is resolved, please don't remove the tag, thank you!--Moosh88 20:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Please explain which POV issues the article has. Saying that it has POV issues is not enough, you need to properly substantiate the tag. Grandmaster 07:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

The article only states the azeri side, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out.--Moosh88 05:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

It does not. Memorial and HRW are not Azeris. The article reflects Armenian position as well. Grandmaster 06:46, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

This is the killing of innocent Azeris, the Armenian side wants to deny this.. The Armenian Genocide article has no Turkish perspective either. So why should this article become a exception... Baku87 17:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)Baku87

Tag

The Armenian position is misrepresented, the quotes presented by HRW are out of context and the general tone of the article is POV. A summary of the acftual Armenian position --Eupator 15:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Summarize it in brief. The Armenian position was included in the text by the Armenian editors, I did not touch it. Grandmaster 15:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Summarize what in brief? I already did earlier regarding the quotes, everything else has been touched upon by others. I have no time to edit the article, until I or someone else does the tag stays.--Eupator 16:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

You should summarize the Armenian position, so that we could include it in the article. You should explain which quote is out of context and why. And the Armenian position was taken from the official letter, circulated in UNO by the Armenian Ministry of Foreign Affairs [7], it remains the way it was included, and nobody touched it. You can check the history of the article. I’m going to remove the tag until you properly substantiate it, so that we could work on the improvement of the article. Grandmaster 16:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't like redundancies and repeating myself. You just wasted your third revert btw. The 4th one will get you blocked.--Eupator 16:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Don’t worry, I’ll be alright. You simply cannot substantiate your tag, because you know that the article is perfectly NPOV. It’s based on third party neutral sources. Grandmaster 04:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

This article is full of Azeri opinions, none of which are confirmed, and this article cites shady sources. The armenian view is not represented here! Just azeri prop!!! Not exactly a fair and neutral article ... Why just the title Khojaly Genocide is clearly an insult toward armenians ...

Please elaborate your statement of this article being POV. Your only spamming pointless statements here. All the given information is confirmed! Also the title of this article is named Khojaly massacre, not genocide! Again you have not even readed the article.

You say this is an insult towars Armenians..? Hello.. it were the Armenians who brutally murdered these innocent people.. So far only your pointless comments have insulted us! Baku87 17:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)Baku87

This article lacks any armenian viewpoints, and Armenians deny massacring the so called population. Amnyway, judging from your nickname, who you htink you are? [personal attack removed - FrancisTyers 08:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)]

I incorporated your interpretation of the Armenian position into the article. If anything else is disputed, let us know on this talk page. By the way, what does "so called population" mean? Grandmaster 04:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I know enough that my grandfather got a heart attack after Khojaly and died. I know enough that my uncle served in Azeri army and was killed. I know more then enough that my other uncle was assassinated by armenians!!! Stop making false claimings!! Baku87 00:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)Baku87

Watch your langauge baku87, you will not be warned again.--Moosh88 03:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

this article is not about judging people, so no more insulting from both sides! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.169.153.5 (talk • contribs) 10:29, 31 March 2006

Baku87 ... Well, you have got to be kidding with what you said and the way you say it. [personal attacks removed - FrancisTyers 12:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)]

Keep it to the subject. This not a place to discuss personalities of other editors. Grandmaster 12:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

This article still greatly lacks neutrality, and before that a tag should be kept.

Article needs to be divided into 3 parts. 1 intro, stating about massacre, and 2 azeri and Armenian points. THis article still sounds basically that armenians are murdrers, we have to remeber that armenians have not been confirmed to have killed all of these, and many facts remain shrouded.

I will rewrite this entire mess in the very near future.--Eupator 05:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

This article is an example of an extreme NPOV, because it lacks Azerbaijani position, the position of victims of the massacre. It reflects the position of Armenians, and also positions of such neutral authoritative organizations, as Memorial and HRW. The article does not even state the obvious fact that it was Armenians who committed this crime, it says: According to the Azeri side, as well as Memorial Human Rights Center, Human Rights Watch and many other international observers, the massacre was committed by the ethnic Armenian armed forces. You can’t deny that all those source indeed claim so. The Armenian position is not supported by a single neutral authoritative source, their attempt to blame the massacre on the Azeris themselves is really pathetic, but in accordance with NPOV policies the Armenian position was also reflected in the article. I don’t really understand what you mean by claiming that the article lacks neutrality, you have not given a single example of the lack of neutrality. All the views in the article are properly attributed, and are easily verifiable. You are welcome to make any edits to the article, but please use neutral reputable sources in accordance with Wikipedia policies. I also suggest you have a look at Thomas de Waal’s book Black Garden [8], it has a chapter titled “Khojaly”, and it has a detailed description of what happened in Khojaly. Even Armenian leaders admitted that they committed this crime to intimidate Azerbaijani people. What else do you want? Grandmaster 07:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

The article is surprisly NPOV given that it would attract many nationalists but still has some serious issues and I already raised them. The range of victims is one example, which I offered you to research from a database I was going to give you the link and for you to decide which articles you wanted. I offered you to provide them to you so that you could verify yourself about it. Second, and the more serious issue which I have verified, it is the writen declaration No. 324, which in the article it is claimed 'by various countries.' Here is the result of the information I have gattered. On April 24 2001 a written declaration was submitted to recognize the Armenian genocide, which you can have a copy from the same site [9], this infuriated Azeris and Turkish members who prepared a declaration of an Azeris genocide two days later, and Grandmaster, pay attention to the article, it contains clear historic mistakes which even various Turkish historians would admit. But the only way non-Turkish and non-Azeris members were dragged in signing it was from the Turkish and Azeris members claiming hypocrasy of admitting one genocide and not the other from the few members who had not clue of what the subject was about. Even after this, they were able to get 10 non-Turks or non-Azeris to sign it while 81 non Armenians have signed the Armenian genocide resolution, which was considered a failure do to the Turkish government pressure. Both were signed the same day. Fad (ix) 00:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Fadix, you appear to be the only reasonable person among those who represent Armenian point of view in this talk page, I appreciate that you try to explain the points you think are POV here. But the article does not make any claims with regard to the number of the people killed, it says: “While there is disagreement over the exact number of the dead and the details and causes of their deaths, estimates range from 400 to over 1,000. The official death toll is 613 civilians, of them 106 women and 83 children”. It’s quite NPOV. It says that the estimates are within a certain range and that the official death toll is 613. No one can deny that the Azerbaijani government officially provided this number, but the article says nothing about that number being true or not, it just states the fact. If you have a different estimate range, which can be properly supported by reliable sources, please provide it. As for the declaration, I was not the one who included it, I just edited it to make it NPOV. Again, it just states the fact that such declaration was signed by a number of PACE deputies from various countries, no one can say that such declaration never existed. As I said all the views in the article are properly attributed. Grandmaster 07:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Here is the problem, the range does not start from 400, most source I have seen don't even provide figures at all, some use the 'at least 150' for the number of victims but exclude any other victims other than civilians. Also, the qualification of civilians, who qualifies as civilians, do OMONs qualify as such, because even if we take the final Azeri autorities figures the high mortality of male shows somehow a selectivity, thosefor combatance. Also, as we have discussed previously, while the word 'death toll' is rightly used the article suggest that they all died from massacre, we have no clue on the number of people having died from so-called colateral 'damages' because I assume many have died during the capture of Khojali, the fighting was in the town which was heavily populated. I think for those reasons a more balanced word such as The Khojaly massacre was the killing and the related death... Concering PACE, but the way this articles read is as if they have voted something specific to a Khojali genocide, while what was signed was a declaration prepared jointly by Azeris and Turkish members accusing Armenians of genocide against the Azeris not specific to Khojali, Khojali was just one example in that declaration. I myself decided to not include the declaration signed the same day regarding the Armenian genocide in the Armenian genocide article even thought it was signed by 81 non-Armenian members because as the declaration says it represent only the view of those that signed it and that I could not call the signature of only 85 of them as recognition, I hardly see how an organization with hundreds of members, from which only 30 sign, and from which only 10 are neither from Turkey nor Azerbaijan could be called any recognition. We do not call recognition when in a parlement a recognition is defeated and this regardless if there has been 50, 100 etc. votes, it rather seems as to be a petition. On the other hand, I do believe that this could indeed remain in the article, because, while the Armenian genocide has official recognitions which would render such PACE signatures as irrelevent and misleading because it would be to give it more space that it worth it, in the cases of the Khojali massacre the PACE signature may have a place, but it does need a rewording though. Those are bout the criticisms I had and already clarified them.

Having said this, I don't think adding any neutrality or factuality tag is appopriate for the following reasons: 1)this article is amazingly NPOV given that this subject would attrack many POV pushers. 2)if we add such a tag, it will mean that the efforts placed here in making it NPOV are worthless, which they are not. FrancisTyers is doing a good job keeping things under control. Fad (ix) 17:19, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

With regard to the number of dead, I’ve never seen the figure of 150. If you’ve got any reliable source claiming that figure you may wish to provide it here. According to HRW 1994 report: There are no exact figures for the number of Azeri civilians killed because Karabakh Armenian forces gained control of the area after the massacre. While it is widely accepted that 200 Azeris were murdered, as many as 500-1,000 may have died. The lowest number of civilians killed has got to be at least 200, while the highest number is over 1000. We can make correction to the lowest limit. In addition to that, obviously combatants also died. According to de Waal’s book, the number of the town defenders was about 160. Among those killed there were many relatively young males, but they were mostly unarmed. There were not enough weapons to arm the town inhabitants, the government did not do anything to organize the defense of the town, as Mutalibov expected the Russian army to secure peace in the region, when he signs the collective security agreement. Therefore he did not take any steps to create national army and arm population in the conflict area. He talks about his plans in his interviews. According to the most reports there were just a few people in uniform among the victims of the massacre. As for the related deaths, they are also part of the massacre, because people had to hide in the mountains after the attack on civilians, and many of them froze to deaths.

As for the declaration, we can add that a number of PACE members from various countries called on PACE to recognize the massacre in Khojaly as part of genocide perpetrated by Armenians against the Azerbaijani population to be precise. The current version of the article says that it is a declaration by a number of PACE members, and not an official recognition as the previous version claimed. I think it is a correct description of the document. Grandmaster 13:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The figure at least 150 is widely used. An example is the 'at least 159 dead' from Roberta Cohen and Francis M Deng book The Forsaken People- Case Studies of the Internally Displaced p.260. There is Vitaly V. Naumkin book, Central Asia and Transcaucasia: Ethnicity and Conflict p. 95, in which it is said 'at least 150.' It uses the term Khojali tragedy. Most other books I have seen don't provide any particular figures, few provides figures like '400,' or even '500,' and a very limited numbers to over that range..., but their isen't much coverage, hardly more than a line about it.

Comming to the combatant part, here is where I really oppose Grandmaster, and this was the issue if you remember correctly I have proposed to offer you full text newspapers. One of the newspapers I have posted in French was the worry by Washington of the escaladation of the conflict and Iranian attempt to obtain ceasefire. That newspaper clearly mention serious attacks from the Azeris position against the Armenian position with balistics the day the Armenians decided to capture Khojali, Helsinki Watch and journalists have interviewed Khojali residents and reports about the Khojali residents sandwitched between the OMONs and the army can also be found.

Now the PACE part. Grandmaster, did you read what is in that article? I will copypast the text:

Genocide became an integral part of the Azeri history starting from the partition of the Azeri lands with the treaties of Gulustan in 1813 and Turkmenchay in 1828.

The Armenians carried out massacres against the Azeris in 1905-1907 in order to achieve “the Greater Armenia”.

In March 1918 the Armenians purged the Azeris from Baku, Shamakhy, Guba, Garabakh, Zangezur, Nakhchivan, Lankaran and other regions of Azerbaijan.

With the help of the Soviet regime, Armenia annexed Zangezur and other Azeri lands in 1920.

The Communist regime deported the Azeri population from their historical lands in Armenia to Azerbaijan from 1948-1953.

From the beginning of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict in 1988 hundreds of thousands of Azeris were deported from their historical lands.

On 26 February 1992, Armenians massacred the whole population of Khodjaly and fully destroyed the city.

Armenian separatism in Nagorno-Karabakh and the ongoing Armenian occupation of 20 per cent of the Azeri territory has resulted in thousands of deaths and more than a million refugees.

The undersigned, members of the Assembly, appeal to all the members of the Parliamentary Assembly to take the necessary steps to recognise the genocide perpetrated by the Armenians against the Azeri population from the beginning of the 19th Century.

This text has neither any historic value, neither was it supported by a significant number of non-Turkish and non-Azeris members to claim a 'various country' suggesting some sort of support for a term not used in a single notable work. 2 members from Albania, 3 from United Kingdom, 1 Luxembourg, 1 Poland, 1 Macedonia, 1 Bulgaria and 1 from Norway. The way it is worded seems as if various members from various countries have recognized it which is not the cases, there are hundreds of members in the PACE. Fad (ix) 00:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

HRW claims that the figure of at least 200 is widely used, while the real number could be as high as 1000. If you look at reliable sources such as Memorial and HRW, they put the numbers much higher. I think we should adhere to the most reliable sources in this matter, we know that HRW and Memorial did their own investigation on both sides of the frontline and they know better what they are talking about. Now as for the attack from Khojaly towards Armenian positions, that was hardly possible, considering that according to Memorial the town was in full blockade from autumn 1991 and one could get there only by a helicopter. The town was short of supplies of food, water and military ammunition, so the reports on such attacks are not trustworthy and are probably based on Armenian sources. Memorial, HRW and Thomas de Waal say nothing about any such attacks.

As to the declaration, it is not our task to check the accuracy of the info contained there, we need to describe the contents of this declaration and properly attribute the views, which I tried to do. It was signed by the deputies from at least 9 countries, which allows us to use the word “various”. It does not say anything about recognition, it says that those deputies called on PACE for recognition. In my opinion it’s quite NPOV and factually accurate, no one can say that they did not call for recognition. Grandmaster 10:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The fact is this article is unbalanced and needs to be re-worded or rewritten, others have already said this, so the tag stays till both sides of the issue are clearly represented.--Moosh88 07:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Please be specific. Which line or which paragraph are unbalanced? Until you explain that, the tag is just vandalism. You can’t attach a tag without providing a valid reason. I find the revert war that you wage to be a waste of everybody’s time and suggest we try a dispute resolution. If you are sure that the tag has been properly substantiated, you’ll have no problem in explaining that to third party editors. Grandmaster 11:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I second that, you need to explain yourself before making any edits to a article. Baku87 12:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm with Fadix on this, the article appears to be quite neutral, both sides of the argument are presented equally but there is alot of information missing that has to be addressed and added and I can try to find more books about and witness testimonies to them. --MarshallBagramyan 18:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

The Armenian view of the story is written to make it look as if only the Armenians have this viewpoint, while the Azeri view is made to look as if all NGO's support it and the fact that Human Rights Watch is presented as an infallible source. Also, in this paragraph, "In response to such allegations the executive director of Human Rights Watch stated in her letter: “we place direct responsibility for the civilian deaths with Karabakh Armenian forces. Indeed, neither our report nor that of Memorial includes any evidence to support the argument that Azerbaijani forces obstructed the flight of, or fired on Azeri civilians”.[6]", the Armenian viewpoint is contradicted, where as the Azeri viewpoint is shown as factual without any other organizations opposing it. This is my problem with the article.--Moosh88 00:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Do you have sources for NGOs that support the Armenian position? I mean, sometimes, like with the Armenian Genocide, pretty much everyone agrees that it was a genocide except the Turks, could it be that here everyone agrees that it was a massacre except the Armenians? If you feel that the article is not worded neutrally enough I'd encourage you to propose an alternate wording on the talk page (appropriately sourced of course). By the way, I don't see HRW being presented as an "infalliable source", I see a quote by them being attributed in an NPOV manner - although "allegations" should be changed and I will do that now. Thanks :) - FrancisTyers 01:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The problem in this cases is that much everyone (I mean in the academic circle) don't cover this event, this is where the article may suffer because we do not have developped positions of 'supporters' and 'opposers' which positions may have been developped in the article as it was the cases for the Armenian genocide. What recognitions may be included in the Khojali massacre article, the equivalent would be excluded from the Armenian genocide article, because if we were to include such recognitions we won't have the place to cover them all while for this article they fit in. But from the few works I have seen covering the event, even thought most only gives about a line, they either indeed use massacre or tragedy, maybe massacre is a little too heavy suggesting all deaths to be caused by massacres, but it is one of the two terms used so that's that, and we can always clarify. In short, the problem here would be to either find the 'supporters' sources or the 'opposers.' Of course news coverages are abound but most don't directly place a blame on Armenian autorities but do report unusually high casulty figure in a short period of time for a town indirectly accusing the Armenian autorities. This article will suffer of the lack of accademic coverage so I think under those conditions it is pretty much in its good way to be an OK article considering those difficulties. Of course it will probably not satisfy a number of Armenian editors, but we can't expect satisfying everyone can we? I for don't agree with the position it maintains, but we should differenciate between what each of us believe and how to write an encyclopedic article, we are not here to establish the truth but present what is said about a subject. Fad (ix) 02:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I will post links to neutral articles that I found within the next week.--Moosh88 02:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Like Grandmaster said; The only reason why Khojaly was a primairy target is because it had the only airport of whole Karabakh region... Also why is there even a Armenian perspective in this article..? There is no Turkish perspective in the Armenian Genocide article.. So why is there a perspective of the agressor its side..? Has Khojaly become a expection..? No.. its pretty arrogant to write something like.. that Azeris killed their own people for political reasons.. Its also pretty insulting.. The Armenian perspective should be removed.. or a Turkish perspective should be added in the Armenian Genocide article... Baku87 17:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)Baku87

Edits

Hi, I've made a few edits, I hope that by and large they are not controversial. I've added a wikiquote see also, added a reference for the genocide thing, tidied up the external links. The controversial edit might be making a naming section. I'd like to see what the Armenians call it, along with the names in Azerbaijani of the massacre. I think that would benefit the page. I've also been searching for a way to split up the page a bit to avoid having a massive lead and then TOC then nothing. - FrancisTyers 11:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)