This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 |
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)
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)
BTW, Mutalibov did not say what you wrote in the article. Any citation should be accurate. Grand master 16:30, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
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)
"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)
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)
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. Grand master 00:02, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
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. Grand master 09:57, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
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. Grand master 16:28, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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: [9], 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. Grand master 10:23, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
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
Full text removed due to copyright.
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. Grand master 19:44, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
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)
I posted a request at WP:REX. Hopefully someone will help us to do an independent verification. Grand master 19:58, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Hürriyet, correspondent of "Le Monde", head of Turkish Parliament’s Human Rights Commission - reliable sources. They say about Istambul's march. This is no offtopic. Please, read Wikipedia:Content disclaimer. Divot ( talk) 11:29, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Parishan, to use content translated from the supposed screenshot of an email that is on the webpage at http://panorama.am/en/politics/2012/03/02/xocali-lidice-kellerova/ would be original research. Beyond questions about the veracity of any translation, we don't know anything about this email, whether it is the complete email, the only email, etc. The actual article does not contain any of the new content you inserted, but the article does contain the content that you deleted. Meowy 02:00, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
The file File:Hocali anit.jpg, used on this page, has been deleted from Wikimedia Commons and re-uploaded at File:Hocali anit.jpg. It should be reviewed to determine if it is compliant with this project's non-free content policy, or else should be deleted and removed from this page. Commons fair use upload bot ( talk) 08:47, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Today, a subsection on Falsification of History was added by me, but user brandmeister removed it. I was suggested to discuss it for the first and then get it back. So I'm ready for any questions related to the text [10]. Gazifikator ( talk) 23:42, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
The edit by Sprutt violates neutrality policy and de Waal says nothing of falsification of history. Ladytimide ( talk) 18:32, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
The political manipulations and falsifications of the "khojali Masacre" incident by Azerbaijan are the only reasons the incident has notability. I'm not satisfied that the current additions are the best way of addressing this fact (and the subsection title as it curently stands is not suitable), but for now it is better than having nothing. So the content that some are repeatedly deleting should stay. Meowy 16:13, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
It is about time it was fixed. As a start, I am going to remove in its entirety the "recognition" section and all parts of the remembrance section that are not connected to the incident. By "connected" I mean remembrance by those who in some way see themselves as having a direct connection with those involved. I am guided in this by the lack of "recognition" sections or trivia-filled propagandistic "remembrance" sections in articles such as Bloody_Sunday, Sabra and Shatila massacre, My Lai Massacre, etc. If an editor wants this content reinserted, I expect them to justify why this article should be different from the articles I have mentioned. Meowy 02:00, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
I am going to revert your overly large deletion of material, if you have problems with certain sections you need to make individual arguments for each. A quick look at some of the material that you deleted was information about an entire nation recognizing the massacre (which is obviously notable) and an American state recognizing the massacre which is not only notable but was cited by pointing to their publicly available records (making it notable and verifiable). Your self-imposed criteria of limiting to "those who in some way see themselves as having a direct connection with those involved" is not a wiki-standard a fact which is observable by pointing to an article of a similar event that remains disputed which you can find under the name Armenian Genocide, and a sub-page that flies directly in the face of your self-imposed criteria Armenian Genocide recognition. Again, if you wish to delete certain sections you need to make individual arguments for each section, and of course such arguments would benefit from citing established wiki-standards. -- Wowaconia ( talk) 15:28, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't think the information about recognition should be deleted. It contains verifiable info, and passes the guidelines for notability. Removing such large section twice without consensus with other involved editors is not acceptable. I agree with Wowaconia that Meowy should make arguments for deletion of every section separately, to allow for discussion and consensus. Grand master 06:44, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
The article is not about the protest, so the recently added description of the protest should be weighed against due weight (to avoid straying from topic) and neutral point of view before submitting. Brandmeister talk 18:20, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
This is not about protest, this is about rally. According WP:RS "News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact". Of course, AFP and Today's Zaman is well-established news outlets, so we can use information about Anti-Armenian signs, becouse it's a fact about meeting. Once more, it is not a protest, it's a fact about rally. Divot ( talk) 21:47, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Summarize. Not any clear objections, AFP and Today's Zaman - identifying reliable sources. I return information. Divot ( talk) 08:38, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Divot ( talk) 08:48, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
I have discovered that all articles with "Azerbaijani victims" are titled "... massacre" whereas articles (concerning the same topic, namely the karabakh war) with "Armenian victims" are titled "... pogrom". The term "massacre" sounds obviously bigger than the term pogrom. But in most cases the death toll of the Azerbaijani victims is even smaller but yet called "massacre". As these tragic events have the same relation I suggest using the same terminology in order to prevent a manipulating interference in the search for consensus.
Examples:
- 1988 "Sumgait pogrom", 32-100 Armenian victims
- 1988 "Kirovabad pogrom", more than 130 Armenian victims
- 1990 "Pogrom of Armenians in Baku", at least 90 Armenian victims
- 1992 "Malibeyli and Gushchular Massacre", 8 Azerbaijani victims
- 1992 "Garadaghly Massacre", 70-90 Azerbaijani victims
- 1992 "Khojaly Massacre", 161-613 Azerbaijani victims
--
Markus2685 (
talk)
20:18, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
I have checked the sources used in this article and came to the following result. This article is based on…
27 Azerbaijani (partisan) sources
6 Armenian (partisan) sources
6 Turkish sources
6 Russian sources
6 Dead links
and the rest are sources like Thomas De Waal, Memorial, Human Rights Watch, parliamentary resolutions or sources that are listed twice and more. So to sum it all up... one third (or even more) of this article is based on Azerbaijani (partisan) and primary sources. The sections "Rememberance" and "Memorials" are almost purely based on Abzerbaijani/primary sources.-- Markus2685 ( talk) 02:04, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
I delete links to the articles about pogroms, because they are irrelevant. Don't revert back without discussion. Best, Konullu ( talk) 23:48, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
According to this wiki page about Khojali (Hodjali) Genocide/Massacre, Armenian soldiers killed people including children and women fast & painless, but this is not all the truth. Maybe just for Armenian side. You have to include opinions of both sides and show pictures & documents about the event in the name of being objective. You have to add documents about tortures applied before killing those people including children and babies inside pregnant women.
And if there were any massacres against Armenian civilians you can give a link to an Armenian site easily, but I haven't heard any. So what if there aren't any massacres against Armenians? I understand from your answer to previous topic that you won't give links to sites including massacres/genocides against Azerians too, right? That's bad for Wiki. Obsteel ( talk) 17:32, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
In which way is it important for the understanding of the main topic and the article at all, to mention every single resolution which has been introduced by represantatives of parliaments commemorating the victims of the Khojaly Massacre? Where does this lead to? Adding every resolution which will consequently be introduced in the future on every anniversary of the massacre?
Wikipedia articles about the
Holocaust, the
Armenian Genocide,
Srebrenica massacre etc. (with much more victims) also don't list every single resolution which in a way mentions or commemorates the victims. I therefore suggest to delete this section. This information is in no way relevant or important for the understanding of the topic. The section Recognition of the massacre, which basically only consists of mentioning resolutions, is almost longer than the indeed important section Background.
Wikipedia:Relevance of content --
Markus2685 (
talk)
15:01, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Can someone find the right page for references 86 and 87? thank you. Nocturnal781 ( talk) 18:24, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
The quotes from Fatullayev take a large part of the article. But considering that he was neither a witness (he was a child when Khojaly massacre took place), nor conducted a proper investigation (which is impossible after so many years), and European Court of Human Rights concluded that he only made "passing remarks” about Khojaly massacre, and his article may have contained “exaggerated and provocative statements”, I think the references to this person need to be shortened at least by half. All the info about his criminal case could be moved to the article about this person. And adding more quotes from this person is pointless. His views already take up a large part of the article in violation of WP:Weight. He clearly cannot be placed on the same level as notable international human rights organizations HRW and Memorial, which conducted investigations on both sides of the front line at the time of the massacre. Grand master 20:01, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Also, Roses&guns, you should stop misquoting sources, it is a violation of the rules. Please be careful when referring to a source. You added a following line with the reference to HRW:
As reported by the Human Rights Watch, prior to launching an attack the Armenian fighters had issued an ultimatum warning that if the Azerbaijani side didn't stop the shelling of Stepanakert from Khojaly the Armenians would seize Khojaly.
Yet when checking a source that you are referring to, one can see that it says something completely different. Here's what it says:
Armenian fighters maintain that they sent ultimata to the Azerbaijani forces in Khojaly warning that unless missile attacks from that town on Stepanakert ceased, Armenian forces would attack. According to A.H., an Azerbaijani woman interviewed by Helsinki Watch in Baky,
After Armenians seized Malybeyli, they made an ultimatum to Khoja1y ... and that Khojaly people had better leave with a white flag. Alif Gajiev [the head of the militia in Khojaly] told us this on February 15, but this didn't frighten me or other people. We never believed they could occupy Khojaly.
According to nearly all of the twenty-two Azerbaijani witnesses of the Khojaly events interviewed by Helsinki Watch, the village had been shelled almost on a daily basis during the winter of 1991-92, and people had grown accustomed to spending nights in basements.
As you can see, nowhere does HRW say that Armenians issued an ultimatum, it is the claim of the Armenian side, not that of HRW, HRW merely reported their claim, without making any assertions about its accuracy. And HRW also mentions that all the Azerbaijani refugees maintained that Khojaly was shelled by Armenians on a daily basis, and people had to hide in basements. So HRW does not support your claim, and it is not Ok to misquote the source. Grand master 20:24, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Roses&guns, please stop making POV edits and misquoting the sources. If you continue such problematic editing, I will have to raise the issue at the relevant admin board. Once again you changed the line:
Armenian fighters claimed to HRW investigators that they sent ultimata to the Azerbaijani forces in Khojaly warning that unless missile attacks from that town on Stepanakert ceased, Armenian forces would attack
to
According to the reports of HRW and Memorial the Armenian fighters had sent ultimata to the Azerbaijani forces in Khojaly warning that unless missile attacks from that town on Stepanakert ceased
I provided the quote above, and the same is with Memorial. Neither organization asserts that the Armenians actually gave such an ultimatum. They only quote the position of the Armenian side, which needs to be properly attributed. If you restore this POV edit once again, I will have to draw the attention of the administrators to your behaviour. Also, please use talk to explain your edits before making them, as they are clearly contentious. Grand master 15:29, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
xocali.net is not a third party published source, it is a private nationalist website. WP:VERIFY holds: Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. xocali.net is not a reliable third party source, nor has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Roses&guns claims that it is not used as an RS, "only its existence is stated as an example to the previous sentence". If you include a link in the article, you do use it as a reference. And why should we mention the existence of some nationalist website anyway? What makes it notable? There are similar websites on Azerbaijani side as well, but they are not reliable sources either. Moreover, the arbcom strictly prohibited the use of such websites: Use of material from propagandistic nationalist sites is unacceptable. [13] Grand master 10:40, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
The Part "The massacre" in its current version is very long (which is not false) but this makes it very hard to get an overview as it is mainly one big long continuous text without any clear divisions. Therefore I suggest providing subcategories in order to achieve a better structuring of information and the topic itself. As an example one can take the German Wikipedia-article where the part "The massacre" consists of three subcategories making it very clear structured. When reading the English text "The massacre" it becomes clear that there are three main positions presented: An Azerbaijani view, An Armenian view and there are international Organisations like Human Rights Watch and Memorial. These three depictions at the moment are all mixed up, without any type of chronology or anything lese, making it hard to pick up the information.-- Markus2685 ( talk) 16:06, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
While the topic is too sensitive, mostly Azeri and Turkish sources are used in the section. Most of these so called 'recognitions' are not supported by the official sites or reliable sources. F.i. Columbian senate never released any doc recognizing Khojaly [16]. Only Azeri and Turkish papers claim this. Lkahd ( talk) 08:45, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
"The Colombian Senate recognized the killings of Azerbaijani civilians in the village of Khojaly in 1992 as genocide, becoming the second country in Latin America after Mexico to do so" ( [17], ... the Azerbaijani government has announced) - The Azerbaijani government is lying again. The site of the Senate of Colombia has not a word about the genocide ( Azerbaiyán, Xocalı, Jodyalí). Divot ( talk) 15:39, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
It condemns ALL mass murders, and Khojaly is mentioned, since it was the largest one. And noone is blamed for that massacre, no perpetrator is mentioned. Feel the difference? Хаченци ( talk) 22:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC)Condemn mass murder of civilians on nationalist and ethnic motives, especially in the city of Khojaly, during the Armenian-Azerbaijani, Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, as crime against humanity and a threat to peaceful co-existence of nations, share deep sympathy with the victims of the tragic conflict and their families
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 |
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)
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)
BTW, Mutalibov did not say what you wrote in the article. Any citation should be accurate. Grand master 16:30, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
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)
"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)
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)
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. Grand master 00:02, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
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. Grand master 09:57, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
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. Grand master 16:28, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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: [9], 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. Grand master 10:23, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
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
Full text removed due to copyright.
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. Grand master 19:44, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
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)
I posted a request at WP:REX. Hopefully someone will help us to do an independent verification. Grand master 19:58, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Hürriyet, correspondent of "Le Monde", head of Turkish Parliament’s Human Rights Commission - reliable sources. They say about Istambul's march. This is no offtopic. Please, read Wikipedia:Content disclaimer. Divot ( talk) 11:29, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Parishan, to use content translated from the supposed screenshot of an email that is on the webpage at http://panorama.am/en/politics/2012/03/02/xocali-lidice-kellerova/ would be original research. Beyond questions about the veracity of any translation, we don't know anything about this email, whether it is the complete email, the only email, etc. The actual article does not contain any of the new content you inserted, but the article does contain the content that you deleted. Meowy 02:00, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
The file File:Hocali anit.jpg, used on this page, has been deleted from Wikimedia Commons and re-uploaded at File:Hocali anit.jpg. It should be reviewed to determine if it is compliant with this project's non-free content policy, or else should be deleted and removed from this page. Commons fair use upload bot ( talk) 08:47, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Today, a subsection on Falsification of History was added by me, but user brandmeister removed it. I was suggested to discuss it for the first and then get it back. So I'm ready for any questions related to the text [10]. Gazifikator ( talk) 23:42, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
The edit by Sprutt violates neutrality policy and de Waal says nothing of falsification of history. Ladytimide ( talk) 18:32, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
The political manipulations and falsifications of the "khojali Masacre" incident by Azerbaijan are the only reasons the incident has notability. I'm not satisfied that the current additions are the best way of addressing this fact (and the subsection title as it curently stands is not suitable), but for now it is better than having nothing. So the content that some are repeatedly deleting should stay. Meowy 16:13, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
It is about time it was fixed. As a start, I am going to remove in its entirety the "recognition" section and all parts of the remembrance section that are not connected to the incident. By "connected" I mean remembrance by those who in some way see themselves as having a direct connection with those involved. I am guided in this by the lack of "recognition" sections or trivia-filled propagandistic "remembrance" sections in articles such as Bloody_Sunday, Sabra and Shatila massacre, My Lai Massacre, etc. If an editor wants this content reinserted, I expect them to justify why this article should be different from the articles I have mentioned. Meowy 02:00, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
I am going to revert your overly large deletion of material, if you have problems with certain sections you need to make individual arguments for each. A quick look at some of the material that you deleted was information about an entire nation recognizing the massacre (which is obviously notable) and an American state recognizing the massacre which is not only notable but was cited by pointing to their publicly available records (making it notable and verifiable). Your self-imposed criteria of limiting to "those who in some way see themselves as having a direct connection with those involved" is not a wiki-standard a fact which is observable by pointing to an article of a similar event that remains disputed which you can find under the name Armenian Genocide, and a sub-page that flies directly in the face of your self-imposed criteria Armenian Genocide recognition. Again, if you wish to delete certain sections you need to make individual arguments for each section, and of course such arguments would benefit from citing established wiki-standards. -- Wowaconia ( talk) 15:28, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't think the information about recognition should be deleted. It contains verifiable info, and passes the guidelines for notability. Removing such large section twice without consensus with other involved editors is not acceptable. I agree with Wowaconia that Meowy should make arguments for deletion of every section separately, to allow for discussion and consensus. Grand master 06:44, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
The article is not about the protest, so the recently added description of the protest should be weighed against due weight (to avoid straying from topic) and neutral point of view before submitting. Brandmeister talk 18:20, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
This is not about protest, this is about rally. According WP:RS "News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact". Of course, AFP and Today's Zaman is well-established news outlets, so we can use information about Anti-Armenian signs, becouse it's a fact about meeting. Once more, it is not a protest, it's a fact about rally. Divot ( talk) 21:47, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Summarize. Not any clear objections, AFP and Today's Zaman - identifying reliable sources. I return information. Divot ( talk) 08:38, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Divot ( talk) 08:48, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
I have discovered that all articles with "Azerbaijani victims" are titled "... massacre" whereas articles (concerning the same topic, namely the karabakh war) with "Armenian victims" are titled "... pogrom". The term "massacre" sounds obviously bigger than the term pogrom. But in most cases the death toll of the Azerbaijani victims is even smaller but yet called "massacre". As these tragic events have the same relation I suggest using the same terminology in order to prevent a manipulating interference in the search for consensus.
Examples:
- 1988 "Sumgait pogrom", 32-100 Armenian victims
- 1988 "Kirovabad pogrom", more than 130 Armenian victims
- 1990 "Pogrom of Armenians in Baku", at least 90 Armenian victims
- 1992 "Malibeyli and Gushchular Massacre", 8 Azerbaijani victims
- 1992 "Garadaghly Massacre", 70-90 Azerbaijani victims
- 1992 "Khojaly Massacre", 161-613 Azerbaijani victims
--
Markus2685 (
talk)
20:18, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
I have checked the sources used in this article and came to the following result. This article is based on…
27 Azerbaijani (partisan) sources
6 Armenian (partisan) sources
6 Turkish sources
6 Russian sources
6 Dead links
and the rest are sources like Thomas De Waal, Memorial, Human Rights Watch, parliamentary resolutions or sources that are listed twice and more. So to sum it all up... one third (or even more) of this article is based on Azerbaijani (partisan) and primary sources. The sections "Rememberance" and "Memorials" are almost purely based on Abzerbaijani/primary sources.-- Markus2685 ( talk) 02:04, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
I delete links to the articles about pogroms, because they are irrelevant. Don't revert back without discussion. Best, Konullu ( talk) 23:48, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
According to this wiki page about Khojali (Hodjali) Genocide/Massacre, Armenian soldiers killed people including children and women fast & painless, but this is not all the truth. Maybe just for Armenian side. You have to include opinions of both sides and show pictures & documents about the event in the name of being objective. You have to add documents about tortures applied before killing those people including children and babies inside pregnant women.
And if there were any massacres against Armenian civilians you can give a link to an Armenian site easily, but I haven't heard any. So what if there aren't any massacres against Armenians? I understand from your answer to previous topic that you won't give links to sites including massacres/genocides against Azerians too, right? That's bad for Wiki. Obsteel ( talk) 17:32, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
In which way is it important for the understanding of the main topic and the article at all, to mention every single resolution which has been introduced by represantatives of parliaments commemorating the victims of the Khojaly Massacre? Where does this lead to? Adding every resolution which will consequently be introduced in the future on every anniversary of the massacre?
Wikipedia articles about the
Holocaust, the
Armenian Genocide,
Srebrenica massacre etc. (with much more victims) also don't list every single resolution which in a way mentions or commemorates the victims. I therefore suggest to delete this section. This information is in no way relevant or important for the understanding of the topic. The section Recognition of the massacre, which basically only consists of mentioning resolutions, is almost longer than the indeed important section Background.
Wikipedia:Relevance of content --
Markus2685 (
talk)
15:01, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Can someone find the right page for references 86 and 87? thank you. Nocturnal781 ( talk) 18:24, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
The quotes from Fatullayev take a large part of the article. But considering that he was neither a witness (he was a child when Khojaly massacre took place), nor conducted a proper investigation (which is impossible after so many years), and European Court of Human Rights concluded that he only made "passing remarks” about Khojaly massacre, and his article may have contained “exaggerated and provocative statements”, I think the references to this person need to be shortened at least by half. All the info about his criminal case could be moved to the article about this person. And adding more quotes from this person is pointless. His views already take up a large part of the article in violation of WP:Weight. He clearly cannot be placed on the same level as notable international human rights organizations HRW and Memorial, which conducted investigations on both sides of the front line at the time of the massacre. Grand master 20:01, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Also, Roses&guns, you should stop misquoting sources, it is a violation of the rules. Please be careful when referring to a source. You added a following line with the reference to HRW:
As reported by the Human Rights Watch, prior to launching an attack the Armenian fighters had issued an ultimatum warning that if the Azerbaijani side didn't stop the shelling of Stepanakert from Khojaly the Armenians would seize Khojaly.
Yet when checking a source that you are referring to, one can see that it says something completely different. Here's what it says:
Armenian fighters maintain that they sent ultimata to the Azerbaijani forces in Khojaly warning that unless missile attacks from that town on Stepanakert ceased, Armenian forces would attack. According to A.H., an Azerbaijani woman interviewed by Helsinki Watch in Baky,
After Armenians seized Malybeyli, they made an ultimatum to Khoja1y ... and that Khojaly people had better leave with a white flag. Alif Gajiev [the head of the militia in Khojaly] told us this on February 15, but this didn't frighten me or other people. We never believed they could occupy Khojaly.
According to nearly all of the twenty-two Azerbaijani witnesses of the Khojaly events interviewed by Helsinki Watch, the village had been shelled almost on a daily basis during the winter of 1991-92, and people had grown accustomed to spending nights in basements.
As you can see, nowhere does HRW say that Armenians issued an ultimatum, it is the claim of the Armenian side, not that of HRW, HRW merely reported their claim, without making any assertions about its accuracy. And HRW also mentions that all the Azerbaijani refugees maintained that Khojaly was shelled by Armenians on a daily basis, and people had to hide in basements. So HRW does not support your claim, and it is not Ok to misquote the source. Grand master 20:24, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Roses&guns, please stop making POV edits and misquoting the sources. If you continue such problematic editing, I will have to raise the issue at the relevant admin board. Once again you changed the line:
Armenian fighters claimed to HRW investigators that they sent ultimata to the Azerbaijani forces in Khojaly warning that unless missile attacks from that town on Stepanakert ceased, Armenian forces would attack
to
According to the reports of HRW and Memorial the Armenian fighters had sent ultimata to the Azerbaijani forces in Khojaly warning that unless missile attacks from that town on Stepanakert ceased
I provided the quote above, and the same is with Memorial. Neither organization asserts that the Armenians actually gave such an ultimatum. They only quote the position of the Armenian side, which needs to be properly attributed. If you restore this POV edit once again, I will have to draw the attention of the administrators to your behaviour. Also, please use talk to explain your edits before making them, as they are clearly contentious. Grand master 15:29, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
xocali.net is not a third party published source, it is a private nationalist website. WP:VERIFY holds: Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. xocali.net is not a reliable third party source, nor has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Roses&guns claims that it is not used as an RS, "only its existence is stated as an example to the previous sentence". If you include a link in the article, you do use it as a reference. And why should we mention the existence of some nationalist website anyway? What makes it notable? There are similar websites on Azerbaijani side as well, but they are not reliable sources either. Moreover, the arbcom strictly prohibited the use of such websites: Use of material from propagandistic nationalist sites is unacceptable. [13] Grand master 10:40, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
The Part "The massacre" in its current version is very long (which is not false) but this makes it very hard to get an overview as it is mainly one big long continuous text without any clear divisions. Therefore I suggest providing subcategories in order to achieve a better structuring of information and the topic itself. As an example one can take the German Wikipedia-article where the part "The massacre" consists of three subcategories making it very clear structured. When reading the English text "The massacre" it becomes clear that there are three main positions presented: An Azerbaijani view, An Armenian view and there are international Organisations like Human Rights Watch and Memorial. These three depictions at the moment are all mixed up, without any type of chronology or anything lese, making it hard to pick up the information.-- Markus2685 ( talk) 16:06, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
While the topic is too sensitive, mostly Azeri and Turkish sources are used in the section. Most of these so called 'recognitions' are not supported by the official sites or reliable sources. F.i. Columbian senate never released any doc recognizing Khojaly [16]. Only Azeri and Turkish papers claim this. Lkahd ( talk) 08:45, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
"The Colombian Senate recognized the killings of Azerbaijani civilians in the village of Khojaly in 1992 as genocide, becoming the second country in Latin America after Mexico to do so" ( [17], ... the Azerbaijani government has announced) - The Azerbaijani government is lying again. The site of the Senate of Colombia has not a word about the genocide ( Azerbaiyán, Xocalı, Jodyalí). Divot ( talk) 15:39, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
It condemns ALL mass murders, and Khojaly is mentioned, since it was the largest one. And noone is blamed for that massacre, no perpetrator is mentioned. Feel the difference? Хаченци ( talk) 22:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC)Condemn mass murder of civilians on nationalist and ethnic motives, especially in the city of Khojaly, during the Armenian-Azerbaijani, Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, as crime against humanity and a threat to peaceful co-existence of nations, share deep sympathy with the victims of the tragic conflict and their families