Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:59, 5 April 2014

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Azerbaijan High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Azerbaijan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Azerbaijan-related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AzerbaijanWikipedia:WikiProject AzerbaijanTemplate:WikiProject AzerbaijanAzerbaijan High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Armenia High‑importance Khojaly massacre is within the scope of WikiProject Armenia, an attempt to improve and better organize information in articles related or pertaining to Armenia and Armenians. If you would like to contribute or collaborate, you could edit the article attached to this page or visit the project page for further information.ArmeniaWikipedia:WikiProject ArmeniaTemplate:WikiProject ArmeniaArmenian High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Death Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Russian & Soviet This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Central Asia Mid‑importance Khojaly massacre is part of WikiProject Central Asia, a project to improve all Central Asia-related articles. This includes but is not limited to Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Tajikistan, Tibet, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Xinjiang and Central Asian portions of Iran, Pakistan and Russia, region-specific topics, and anything else related to Central Asia. If you would like to help improve this and other Central Asia-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.Central AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Central AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Central AsiaCentral Asia Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Human rights Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Disaster management Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Discrimination Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

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

Archives

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

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

Number of civilians affected

The 613 figure is ONLY given by the government of Azerbaijan and is clearly POV along with being original research. A citation is need from a third party it should be deleted. Human Rights Watch noted a death figure of 161 or more. That is the only credible figure available.--68.119.138.205 (talk) 19:41, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I believe the article makes an accurate attribution of this figure. Grandmaster 22:44, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

While it may make an accurate attribution, the figure is only claimed in one document by the Charge d'affaires a.i. of the Permanent Mission of Azerbaijan to the United Nations Office. This is clearly POV. There is no third source backing up such a figure.--Urartu TH

The article does not say whether this figure is accurate or not. We cannot make such assertions. The article only says that this is the death toll provided by the Azerbaijani authorities, which is true, and this is the figure that the Azerbaijani government cites. The positions of governments cannot be neutral, they are POV, and notable POVs need to be properly attributed, which has been done here. See WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. And HRW figure of 161 is not the only estimate provided by that organization, their later reports provide a higher death toll. We cannot only mention one estimate, when there are more. We should quote all existing figures provided by third party observers and investigators. Grandmaster 12:08, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Adding the 1000 figure to the infobox is highly controversial and only going to lead to readers assuming that this was some sort of mass murder of "thousands of people" which plays in to hte hands of POV anti-Armenian hysteria of those trying to push this as a large massacre. Such claims are NOT being made on the Sumgait Pogrom, Kirovabad Pogrom, Maragha Massacre or Baku Pogrom of Armenians pages, so let's not make them here.--Urartu TH

What Grnadmaster is saying is the Human Rights Watch, which the figures are quoted from, says:

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 hundred Azeris were murdered, as many as 500-1,000 may have died. (http://www.hrw.org/reports/pdfs/a/azerbjn/azerbaij94d.pdf) bottom of page 24

That is why he the 1000 figure should stay. Ninetoyadome (talk) 00:57, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Karabakh Armenian forces gained control of the area after the massacre" How did Chingiz Mustafayev videotape the bodies, if it was under Armenian control? This 1000 claim seems highly dubious, and considering it says "may have", I'm in favor not including the said figure. Antelope Hunter (talk) 16:19, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

"While it is widely accepted that 200 hundred Azeris were murdered, as many as 500-1,000 may have died" - What does it mean? 200*100=20000 Azeris were murdered? Divot (talk) 01:17, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

It just means the accepted number is 200 but the number could range from 500-1000. I dont know what you mean by multiplying 200 with 100. Ninetoyadome (talk) 06:11, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Not even the Azerbaijani government quotes such a high number as 1000; and they have an agenda here. I disagree with 1000 figure for the reasons I stated above.--Urartu TH

Ninetoyadome, "200 hundred" means 20000, 200 = 2 hundred. Divot (talk) 10:01, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Divot, i see what you mean, there was a typo on the document, its just 200. Urartu, that is a good point that the Azeri govt doesnt even go up to 1000. It's up to you guys and Grandmaster whether that figure should stay or not. Ninetoyadome (talk) 17:36, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

We do not pick what to include from the source, and what not. If the source says "as many as 500-1,000 may have died", then this is what we write. Anyone's personal opinion on whether this might be true or not is irrelevant here, as it is WP:OR, and we only go with what the source says. See WP:STICKTOSOURCE. So the number of 1000 as the highest estimate remains, obviously with proper attribution. Grandmaster 18:17, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

On page 24 of the reports, HRW states "More than 200 civilians were killed in the attack, the largest massacre to date in the conflict". Per this statement, the 200 figure is a definite term. The 500-1000 figure is given in a footnote on page 24 which states, "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 hundred Azeris were murdered, as many as 500-1,000 may have died". Once again we see that 200 is the accepted figure, while someone is merely speculating that more could have died. Adding the 500-1000 figure to the infobox equates it to the "widely accepted" figure of 200; this will surely be confusing to readers. As I mentioned above, such wild/offhand figures are not added to the Sumgait Pogrom, Kirovabad Pogrom, Maragha Massacre or Baku Pogrom of Armenians pages, so let's not add them here.--Urartu TH

HRW does not say that any figure is definite. It says that there are no exact figures, so I don't see how you can claim that any figure is definite. More than 200 could be 500 or 1000, so I don't see how this figure makes impossible higher numbers. HRW provides a range of possible number of casualties, which is between 200-1000. We cannot engage in original research and pick what we like in a source, and what we don't. If HRW says that "as many as 500-1,000 may have died", this is what we write in the article. Remember, we must stick to sources, according to the rules. When you put into infobox the number of 200, it creates a false illusion that this is the number that HRW supports, while HRW makes it perfectly clear that the higher death toll is possible. As a compromise, I propose to amend the part in question as "161+, or 200 - possibly up to 500 - 1,000", making it close to HRW statement. Grandmaster 08:42, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. Not even Azerbaijan uses a figure more than 613 and their figure is certainly POV. If we used every wild figure that may be speculated in a footnote then we'd have an obscure/confusing infobox for all of the massacres of the Karabakh conflict. I propose we amend the infobox to state: "more than 200" or "200+". Urartu TH 20:36, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

We cannot do that, it is against the rules. We should stick to the source, and write what the source says. No original research, and your personal beliefs as to whether any number could be true or not cannot be a basis for selectively quoting a source. Grandmaster 10:03, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you continue to ignore the trhust of my point, which is that the 500-100 figure is merely in ONE footnote by one official who was not on the ground. The statement is not made using any empirical evidence and statistical data. Not even the Azerbaijani government quotes a figure of 1000 and they were certainly biased. If you want, include the 500-1000 figure in the body and note that it is only mentioned in a FOOTNOTE in one document by someone who is not verified as having been on the ground; otherwise you are misleading readers by equating that figure with the widely accepted one of "more than 200." Urartu TH 20:12, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

It does not matter whether it is a footnote or not, it is in the document, and that is the only thing that matters. This number is already in the text of the article, and there's no reason why it should not be in the infobox. I have already explained you the rules many times, and you still haven't provided any valid reason why we should violate the rules and omit information contained in the reliable source. All you said was your personal opinion on why you believe that the number is no good, but personal opinions have no relevance here. We only refer to sources, and we do not interpret or alter them. Grandmaster 22:57, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad you've noticed that the figure from the footnote, 500-1000, is mentioned in the article. A mention in the body is different from the infobox. Placing it into the infobox gives it the validity and weight that it does NOT have. This is the point you keep ignoring. This is the reason it hasn't been in the infobox for years; you are the one pushing this POV and controversial change to the infobox. We should certainly mention that the 500-1000 figure is noted as an unsubstantiated guess/possibility in the footnote of ONE single document by one person, but including it in the infobox is ridiculous. Context is key here; what you are proposing is confusing to readers. We should not change the status quo. Urartu TH 11:34, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how mention in the body is different from mention in the infobox. If it is in the text, it should be in the infobox as well. Show me the rule that does not allow inclusion of the info from the text of the article into infobox. The rest is your original research. Again, the source mentions this number, and as it is a sourced info, it should be included. I don't want to waste the community's time by taking this to the appropriate forum, but I will if you keep on insisting on your original research. Grandmaster 15:43, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

You are the one quoting "rules" and not showing us which rules actually support your controversial and POV changes to an infobox that hasn't had that 500-1000 footnote figure ever (including years). You've conveniently not responded to any of the community' concerns on this talk page, including mine just above; your viewpoint is clearly in the minority here amongst Antelope Hunter, Divot, and myself. Urartu TH 21:41, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I responded to everything. But I do not engage in a discussion about the validity of HRW estimates, because it not our task to do so, and it is a violation of WP:OR. Otherwise, I explained to you that we only write what the reliable sources say, and if they say that the death toll could have been as high as 500 - 1000, then we just write that. It is not up to us to decide whether this number is reliable or not. And your argument is a good example of Misplaced Pages:I just don't like it. And finally, the disputes here are not resolved by majority of opinions. Grandmaster 09:49, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Thomas de Waal. Существуют разные оценки числа убитых азербайджанцев в Ходжалы или в его окрестностях. Пожалуй, наиболее правдоподобная цифра - та, которая была получена в ходе официального расследования, предпринятого азербайджанским парламентом. По этим данным, число погибших составило 485 человек. Divot (talk) 23:07, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok, but what is the point of this quote? I never said that any number is more reliable than the other. All I said was that reliable estimates should be included in the infobox, and this one could be included as well. Grandmaster 09:49, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I filed a request at Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Let's ask the community help in resolving this dispute. This also serves as a notification to everyone involved. Grandmaster 10:18, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

It may or may not be actually so, but HRW's upper bound of 1,000 is also quoted in Markar Melkonian's My brother's road: "Humans Rights Watch/Helsinki investigators who visited the site in 1994 estimated that the Armenian attackers had killed more than 200 civilians, and perhaps as many as 1,000". As long as that upper bound has the proper direct attribution to HRW source, it is acceptable per WP:V and WP:RS. Brandmeister 21:45, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

For the body of the article yes but for the infobox it violates WP:UNDUE, is a controversial change of the status quo consensus and is a higher figure than even that provided by the obviously biased Azerbaijani government. The citation from the book you provided merely quotes the footnote on page 24 of HRW document; it is not itself a source. Therefore it doesn't change the fact that hte 500-1000 figure is only cited in on unsubstantiated manner on one single document in a footnote. --Urartu TH (talk) 21:56, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Fringe theories

The sentence "Culpability for the civilian deaths has been clouded in uncertainty, with Azerbaijani journalists such as Eynulla Fatullayev and Chingiz Mustafayev alongside former President of Azerbaijan, Ayaz Mutalibov, citing Azerbaijani forces as having committed some or all of the killings" is not quite true. The HRW and other sources pinpoint the culprits, the version of Fatullayev and the likes constitute WP:FRINGE. Per MOS:INTRO, "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points", not fringe thoughts. They are already mentioned in the article's body below. Brandmeister 16:59, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. Minority views cannot be given equal weight with what is generally accepted by the third party sources. Fatullayev etc are not reliable third party sources either. Grandmaster 21:40, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I would not even dignify this with the term "minority view". Neither Fatullayev, nor Mutallibov, nor any other source in their right mind ever accused Azerbaijani troops of committing the killings. This is really something you can only find on Armenian websites of rather dubious nature. Even the Radio Liberty article (shown here as a reference) does not state anything of that sort. Quite a bizarre conclusion coming from a user, who has gone out of his way in affirming that propaganda has no place in Misplaced Pages. Parishan (talk) 00:30, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Considering the controversy and sensitivity of this topic, I think we should take heed in allowing for a broader debate on what is "fringe", especially considering the fact that the sources I provided are Azerbaijani--2 journalists and the former President of the country. HRW does mention that some Armenian forces caused some of the deaths, but it is NOT conclusive about all of the actions that were involved. That's where the Committe to Protect Journalists, the two journalists mentioned and the former President come in. I don't see any convincing argument against including this well-sourced information about this tragic event during the Karabakh invasion.--Urartu TH (talk) 01:42, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

There are enough neutral reliable sources saying that the killings of the people from Khojaly were committed by Armenian troops. Fatullayev and Mutallibov, and especially Mustafayev never claimed that the killings were committed by Azerbaijanis. This information is a part of Armenian propaganda against Azerbaijan coming from non-reliable sources. I recommend not to use information from such websites. There are no any reliable and neutral sources (including Radio Liberty) saying that. --Interfase (talk) 05:28, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

You are flat out wrong. You obviously haven't looked at the sources I had posted. Please don't comment unconstrutively, especially if you haven't taken a look at the citations. I have cited to numerous sources: the European Court of Human Rights and Radio Liberty for Fatullayev, the Committee to Protect Journalists for Mustafayev (already in the body), and Radio Liberty and the Council of Europe for President Mutallibov (already in the body). Furthermore, even De Waal has stated: "the tragedy in Khojaly was a result of a chaotic situation, and not a "deliberately planned" action by the Armenians." The fact remains that these killings were not an organized massacre as the Sumgait Massacre for example, but a result of killing during the Battle of Khojaly. Some sources show that some civilians were in fact killed by Azerbaijanis. POV rhetoric is not helpful, but I understand that I am currently discussing this with four other people who are all Azerbaijani so I guess I get it.--Urartu TH (talk) 07:24, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

You are wrong. I have looked at the sources you put. You also wrongly interpreted the sources. Neither this source not that one don't say that the killings were committed by Azerbaijani forces. Asbarez is not reliable and neutral source. The truth is that the killings of the population of Khojaly was committed by the Armenian and, partially, by CIS armed forces. Even current president of Armenia Serj Sarkisyan recognize that: "Before Khojali, the Azerbaijanis thought that they were joking with us, they thought that the Armenians were people who could not raise their hand against the civilian population. We were able to break that . And that's what happened." --Interfase (talk) 10:07, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Why didnt you finish the Sarkisyan quote? "Although I think that is still very much exaggerated, very much. Azerbaijanis needed an excuse to equate a place to Sumgait, but they can not be compared." How is that Sarkisyan recognizing it? The Meshketian Turks were even saying how the Armenians treated them better than the Azerbaijanis' did.Ninetoyadome (talk) 17:10, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Mutalibov denies accusing Azerbaijanis of committing the massacre, how can you ascribe to him the claims that he denies? If anything, that is also a BLP violation. The Committee to Protect Journalists does not say that the killing was committed by the Azerbaijanis either. Please read carefully the source that you are quoting. It says that "Mustafayev had reportedly been gathering information alleging that the Armenian attack on civilians in Khojaly was a provocation by the Azerbaijani National Front to force the resignation of Azerbaijani president Ayaz Mutalibov". But we do not present allegations as facts, and it is unclear how an Armenian attack could be a provocation by PFA, even allegedly. Did PFA provoke Armenians to attack, or what, and who makes the allegations? Regardless, it still mentions the Armenian attack, makes no mention if Mustafayev found any info to support the allegations, and is too vague and uncertain to make any claims on its basis. Fatullayev said to the European court that he only quoted one Armenian person, but never made any claims personally. In any case, neither of these persons is a third party reliable source, and they made too many contradictory statements to be taken seriously. The fact remains that the majority of third party reliable sources, including HRW and Memorial, which conducted thorough investigations of the tragedy, lay the blame with the Armenian side. That is a generally accepted version, and it should be given a priority, and fringe theories cannot be given equal weight with the majority view. Grandmaster 23:14, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

From one of the citations I had provided:"However, Fatullayev continues, “… part of the Khojaly inhabitants had been fired upon by our own … Whether it was done intentionally or not is to be determined by investigators … not by mysterious , but by provocateurs from the National Front of Azerbaijan’s battalions … had been mutilated by our own …”." He made these same statements to the European Court--which is in the cite I gave. If you want to consider this a "minority view" that is fine, but we will need to incorporate into a new section in the article. Furthermore, the 613 figure is also a "minority view", "fringe" etc. in comparison and should be removed from the infobox.--Urartu TH (talk) 23:36, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I think you should read his statement to the European court. There he says that he only quoted the Armenian side, in particular one person whom he talked to in Nagorno-Karabakh. Grandmaster 23:56, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Tragedy vs. Massacre

Considering the fact that no third-party source refers to these events as a "massacre" I think we need to move the title to Khojaly tragedy to avoid any POV here. Massacre is defined as: "an indiscriminate and brutal slaughter of people." British journalist Thomas De Waal--the one credible third-party journalist that is heavily mentioned in article-- says that the tragedy in Khojaly was a result of a chaotic situation, and not a "deliberately planned" action by the Armenians. Even those who wish to ascribe full blame on the Armenian/Karabakh side cannot argue that this attack was a planned event. The tragedy took place during the Battle of Khojaly.

Helsinki Watch notes: Helsinki Watch reported that "the militia, still in uniform, and some still carrying their guns, were interspersed with the masses of civilians". HRW states: Human Rights Watch noted that "the attacking party is still obliged to take precautionary measures to avoid or minimize civilian casualties. These killings, while immensely tragic and unjustified, were clearly collateral damage during the battle.--Urartu TH (talk) 23:45, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

HRW calls it the "largest massacre" in the history of the conflict, and it is a third party source, so I don't see how you came to a conclusion that "no third-party source refers to these events as a "massacre"". De Waal also refers to it as a massacre, and so do countless other sources. Plus, tragedy is a vague word and does not explain what exactly happened. Therefore this proposal is not acceptable. Grandmaster 23:59, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

HRW calls it both a massacre and a tragedy. De Waal says: "I do not think it was intentional. I think that in any war events occur very quickly, spontaneously. But still, I wonder how interpreted. Course, we must look again at the text, but I do not think that it was a deliberate action, approved on, I think it was a war, it was a very chaotic situation". Massacres are generally defined as planned actions; this took place under the fog of war. Using the term "massacre" is not only POV and controversial, but opens the doors for anti-Armenian racists and the Azerbaijani dictatorship's apologists to start using even more nongermane labels such as "genocide".--Urartu TH (talk) 05:41, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Massacre is a mass killing, whether premeditated or not. Tragedy could be many things. This event was a mass killing, i.e. a massacre. And this is what the majority of third party sources call it. De Waal, to whom you refer, also calls it a massacre. "Khojali was the bloodiest massacre in the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict over Nagorny Karabakh". De Waal also says that "The overwhelming evidence of what happened has not stopped some Armenians, in distasteful fashion, trying to muddy the waters". So the evidence is overwhelming, and all reliable third party sources refer to the event as a massacre. Grandmaster 08:55, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

A massacre requires deliberate intention and is often seen as a planned event. Please note that De Waal says, "I do not think that it was a deliberate action, approved on, I think it was a war, it was a very chaotic situation". Generally, civilian casualties during battle are not regarded as being deliberate massacres. Unfortunately, this is exactly what the title incorrectly implies. Perhaps a more neutral term should be applied.--Urartu TH (talk) 12:59, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Who says that the massacre needs to be preplanned? Is that your personal understanding of what a massacre is? The fact that all the reliable sources, including de Waal to whom you refer call it a massacre speaks for itself. If the words of de Waal should be construed that it was not a massacre, but a "tragedy", then why de Waal calls it a massacre? Grandmaster 19:28, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

And this is what Mutalibov has to say about this: Please do not add questionable statements to the lead. Mutalibov and his statements are too contradictory to be summarized the way you did. He considers the events to be an act of genocide, perpetrated by Armenians, and rejects any other interpretations of his statements. Grandmaster 09:18, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Lead changes

Currently, the second paragraph of the lead has some issues. The excerpt reads: "At Nakhichevanik Armenians and troops of the CIS 366th regiment opened fire on the retreating OMON militia and the fleeing residents. All Azerbaijanis interviewed who were in this group reported that the militia, still in uniform and some still carrying their guns, were interspersed with the masses of civilians. For example, Hijran Alekpera... described a mass of civilians who moved along "surrounded by a ring of defenders. They tried to defend us." Per the same source, this was just one of the several fleeing groups, so no need to attach the excuse that they "may have been the reason why Armenian troops fired upon them" and place it into the lead. Also, don't remove the official Azerbaijani claim as it's a vital part of the data. Brandmeister 22:36, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Some of the civilian deaths during the Battle of Khojaly, took place during this frantic retreat by Azerbaijani forces. This is why some make the argument that Azerbaijani civilians were used as human shields in violation of Article 28 of the 4th Geneva Convention. This information must be in the lede so as to give readers a full synopsis of events rather one-sided POV.--Urartu TH (talk) 00:32, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect. Azerbaijani troupes were nowhere in the vicinity of Khojaly, this is why the town was said to be sieged. The closest Azerbaijani position was around the village of Gülablı in Agdam. In any case, please cite your sources for bold statements such as this (that the militia used the people "as human shields"), otherwise see Misplaced Pages:NOT A FORUM. Parishan (talk) 01:32, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes. The wording "may have been" suggests it's merely an assumption. This doesn't look like one of the most important points per WP:MOSINTRO and also compromises the relative emphasis, that's why I've put it to the article's body. Brandmeister 19:00, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

It would be good to discuss any changes to the intro here before making them. Clearly, HRW says nothing about "the reason why Armenian troops fired". It is a personal interpretation and as such it is an OR. We can only quote the sources, but not interpret them. And this info does not belong to the lead anyway, as it is an assumption. Grandmaster 20:30, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

It's not HRW, it's from Helsinki Watch. Everyone please take a look at the document cited. The information is listed under the "Khojaly" subsection. These are events that took place during the battle, albeit while Azerbaijani forces were retreating alongside civilians. The cite provides one of the central arguments from the Armenian side on this issue. We can't simply blanket this information or bury it in the middle of the article. Thanks and Happy Nowruz.--Urartu TH (talk) 21:20, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

HRW and Helsinli Watch are the same organization. They clearly say that Armenians deliberatively killed civilians, and that the mass killing cannot be excused by anything. From their report, right after the part that you quoted: "the attacking party 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 at Nakhichevanik on those fleeing Khojaly indicate that Armenian forces and the troops of the 366th CIS regiment (who were not apparently acting on orders from their commanders) deliberately disregarded this customary law restraint on attacks." So why quoting the source selectively, while it makes no excuses for the Armenian soldiers murdering Azerbaijani civilians? That whole argument does not belong to the lead, otherwise we should explain that HRW does not find the presence of armed people in the refugee columns to be a justification to the mass murder, and places the responsibility exclusively with the Armenian side. It is clearly said in their documents: "we place direct responsibility for the civilian deaths with Karabakh Armenian forces". Grandmaster 22:55, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Your accusations are troubling. Helsinki Watch doesn't emphasize "mass murder" or "murder". Murder is defined as "the unlawful killing, with malice aforethought, of another human, and generally this premeditated state of mind." Civilians deaths during a battle are not murder. I'm quoting the portion of the report that notes the facts on the ground that support the Armenian argument. In any case, if you wish to censor the Armenian side here, then perhaps you should refer this to arbitration. Also, note that HRW used to be called Helsinki Watch. My point was that this is a separate document then the one generally referred to as that of HRW.--Urartu TH (talk) 23:14, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Helsinki Watch became HRW in 1988, so in 1992 it was already HRW. HRW calls this a massacre, which is a mass killing. Also, quoting only the parts which you believe support the Armenian argument is not in line with WP:NPOV, we should quote also the parts that place direct blame with Armenian forces. But if we are going to include in the lead everything various sources said, it will become unreadable. Right now it does not make much sense after your recent edits, because it talks about armed people among the refugees, yet it makes no mention why these people became refugees and under which circumstances they were murdered. And adding all that info would simply duplicate the whole article in the lead, which is not something that we should do. The lead should be kept brief and only say what this event was, who committed it, and when. All other details must be in the main body of the article, because different quotes in the lead do not explain what happened as they lack the details found in the main text, and space in the lead is too limited to describe all the circumstances. Grandmaster 23:42, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

The information you're trying to delete is not deemed speculative by the document and is corroborated by an Azerbaijani civilian at the scene as noted in the document. If you need any more corroboration, then see the Shelling of Stepanakert article. Mass killings are defined as mass murder. As already explained, murder requires premeditation. These deaths occurred during "chaos" while the Battle of Khojaly was being faught. It is very tragic, but not murder.--Urartu TH (talk) 04:14, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

It is speculative, as it is presented not as a fact, but as a version provided by the unnamed Armenian soldiers. We do not include versions in the lead, only facts. As for an Azerbaijani civilian, first, I could not find any testimony that supported the Armenian version, and second, even if there's such a testimony, it is a primary source, and thus is not reliable. We should base the article on secondary sources. As for the mass killings, this is how this event is described by HRW, Memorial and de Waal. You may think otherwise, but that is your personal opinion, which we cannot include in the article. I see no further point in discussing whether this was or was not a mass killing. If the third party reliable sources say that it was, then this is what we write, and keep our personal opinions to ourselves. Grandmaster 10:13, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Third party sources refer to the events ranging anywhere from "battle for khojaly" to "khojaly massacre". They never imply premeditated murder. You keep intending on ignoring the basic definition of murder. There is no point in the continuing that part of the discussion. This was not mass murder. For mass murder, take a look at Sumgait Massacre. As Helsinki Watch document that mentions Armenian claims of having warned the Azerbaijanis to stop their killings of civilians in Stepanakert or else they would attack, this is a well known fact of the battle for Khojaly. It is in the report and corroborated by the Azerbaijani witness according to Helsinki Watch. If this does not fit your viewpoint, then too bad it must stay in order to portray the other side of this highly controversial article about the Battle for Khojaly. The 613 figure on the other hand is PURE speculation and a propaganda tool of the Azerbaijani dictatorship. It's inclusion in the lede is preposterous; only established facts on the ground are to be included. It is an established fact that Armenian soldiers say that they warned the Azerbaijanis of a possible retaliation.--Urartu TH (talk) 08:41, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

If killing of hundreds of civilians is not a mass killing, then I don't know what is. But in any case, I see no point in discussing this here. You can stick to your opinion, and I to mine. As for the Armenian claim that they made an ultimatum, it is just a speculation, and I do not see why the Azerbaijani figure should be removed from the lead as speculative, but speculation of Armenian forces should be included instead. Don't you see a contradiction here? Grandmaster 19:47, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Friend, the Armenian notice of retaliation is mentioned in a third party document and also corroborated by an Azerbaijani witness. The Azerbaijani government claim is not backed up by any empirical source; it cannot be fact until proven whereas the Armenian notice is recorded from witnesses on the ground by a third party. Also, the 613 Azerbaijani claim is already in the infobox. Finally, the deaths of civilians during battle is very tragic and the blame can be placed on the Armenian side here to a greater extent than the Azerbaijani but that does not automatically make this mass murder. Examples of mass murder: Jewish Holocaust or Armenian Holocaust. Happy Nowruz.--Urartu TH (talk) 20:18, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

The Armenian claim cannot be proven either. All that can be proven is that the claim was made. As for the figure of 613, as other editors pointed out above, it does not contradict HRW which says that up to 1000 could have been killed, and the Azerbaijani government's estimate was presented only as a notable POV with attribution, and not as a fact. You say that "It is an established fact that Armenian soldiers say that they warned the Azerbaijanis of a possible retaliation", but it is also an established fact that the Azerbaijani government provides this figure with the names and other personal details of each victim. We can remove all speculative claims from the lead, but all notable casualty estimates must remain in the infobox, as per outcome of WP:DRN. I hope that will resolve the dispute. Grandmaster 20:35, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

The Armenian statements regarding the need for a defensive attack against Khojaly due to Azerbaijani shelling of Armenian villages and the killing of civilians is documented by Helsinki Watch. The 613 figure has absolutely zero third-party support or any evidential backing. Also, the 1000 footnote number is considered unreliable by the Misplaced Pages community per DR started by yourself, so let's not talk about it.--Urartu TH (talk) 19:42, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

The 1000 figure is also provided by HRW, I don't see why it is unreliable. The fact that the Armenian position was reported by HRW does not make it a fact. The intro must contain only the facts, and not speculations. Grandmaster 19:55, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

The fact that Karabakh Armenians warned Azerbaijani troops in Khojaly to stop firing upon civilians in Stepanakert or face attack is noted in the Helsinki report and corroborated by an Azerbaijani witness in the report itself. This certainly gives it a ton more credence than the 613 Azerbaijani government propaganda figure currently in the infobox. The 613 should be removed as it is not fact but merely speculation. We should move it to the Azerbaijani perspective seciton.--Urartu TH (talk) 05:12, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Ultimatum is not a fact, just a claim. The lead should not contain speculations. And infobox is not the lead, it is a different section, and it just contains all notable estimates, as there's no precise figure. And as you were told many times, there's nothing incredible about the 613 figure, it is quite in line with HRW data. If anything, the Azerbaijani government provided names of each of 613 people killed by Armenian forces. Grandmaster 15:39, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Grandmaster, the communtiny has time and again struck down your notions of credibility. The 613, as noted by many other editors, is pure speculation. The 1000 figure is discounted as unreliable according to the community; please see the DR page that you yourself started. That issue will not be discussed any further. The 613 figured should be moved away from the top of the article. The facts on the ground--confirmed by Azerbaijani witnesses--of an Armenian warning must stay in the lede to maintain neutrality on this highly controversial and contentious topic.--Urartu TH (talk) 20:48, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

The figure of 613 remains in the infobox, as per results of discussion at WP:DRN. If you disagree with the outcome of that discussion, you can start a new one in accordance with WP:DR. I see no further point in discussing it over and over here after the long discussion we had at WP:DRN. As for the Armenian claim, it is an allegation, and the Azerbaijani witness does not support it. She says nothing about Khojaly being used for shelling, and even if she supported the Armenian claim, it would still be an allegation, as it is a primary source, and HRW itself says nothing about the claim of ultimatum being true or not. So it is an allegation of one of the sides of the conflict, and allegations should be kept out of the lead. Grandmaster 16:54, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

The WP:DRN did NOT have a conclusive answer as to the 613 propaganda figure. If you wish to produce any evidence to back up such a figure than we will not have qualms over its inclusion. I still believe it should be moved to the "Azerbaijani perspective" section. As far as the Armenian warning is concerned, it is a part of Helsink Watch's documentation of the events. Third-party sources are not POV. If these were frivolous allegations, then they would be noted as such in the report. Furthermore, I would advise you to reread the report as an Azerbaijani witness does in fact cite the warnings by the Armenians as having taken place.--Urartu TH (talk) 00:24, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

There was no consensus for removal of the figure of 613, so it was left at that. In any case, it is not in the lead, and there's no such thing as Azerbaijani perspective. It is no different from the perspectives of HRW, Memorial, de Waal, Melkonian, Sargsyan, etc. According to the rules, we write the articles from a neutral point of view, and not from non-existing ethnic perspectives. As for the Armenian claims, a mention in the HRW report does not make them reliable, as HRW passes no judgment on their validity. If so, then it is just a POV, and the lead must contain only established facts. It is one thing to include the conclusions of HRW itself, and another to include an opinion of one of the sides quoted in the report. Again, you make the changes to the lead that have no consensus, and that is not acceptable. Grandmaster 21:16, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

The 613 figure was contested in the WP:DRN. Almost all editors were against wild and unsubstantiated claims, and therefore against the 613 propaganda figure. We cannot push Azerbaijani POV in such a controversial and contentious article as this. If you wish to remove cited information from a third-party source, that documented events on the ground, then please go ahead and start a DRN. There is an "From an Azerbaijani perspective" section towards the bottom of the article. This is where the 613 propaganda figure should go. If you wish to submit any evidence for the 613 propaganda figure, I'm sure the community would welcome it. Otherwise, it is nothing more than propaganda.--Urartu TH (talk) 22:50, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

The Azerbaijani perspective section is for external links, not information. And I think we should restore the 613 figure to the lead, as it is as good as the Armenian propaganda quoted there. As for the infobox, we can discuss it again at any dispute resolution forum and form a consensus for its content. Repeating the same arguments here is pointless. As for the ultimatum info, according to HRW, it comes from a "Helsinki Watch interview with A.G., a member of the PLAA, April 28, 1992". Why this anonymous A.G. should be quoted in the lead of the article? Again, we should differentiate between the conclusions of HRW and statements of witnesses that it quotes. HRW takes no responsibility for the accuracy of info contained in comments, while its own conclusions are their independent opinion. Grandmaster 15:44, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

The 613 propaganda figure has no place in the lede nor the infobox; that's just unacceptable POV. There is no Armenian propaganda in the lede. You and I are both quoting from the same third-party document in the lede about the battle. Perhaps you should make a separate section from Azerbaijani government propaganda in the article to include the Azebaijani parliament figure of 485 and the foreign ministry figure of 613 (neither one has proof nor was it taken from the scene as was the info about Armenian reprisal attacks on Azerbaijani army forces). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Urartu TH (talk • contribs) 19:11, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

No more comment on the official figure of 613. See WP:DRN. As for the figure of 485 provided by de Waal, it was added to other figures in the infobox by consensus. If you want to change the consensus, start a new discussion at the same forum. And how the opinion of some Armenian soldier referred to as A.G. is not propaganda? Once again, the lead must contain only facts, and not personal opinions of soldiers. If you want the info taken from the scene, HRW quotes the member of parliamentary group N.Aliyev, who says that 927 people were killed. Would it be Ok to include it, just because HRW sites it? Also, "reprisal" is your personal opinion, HRW does not use this word. No WP:OR please. Grandmaster 23:25, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

The 613 propaganda figure is unsubstantiated. Next, I am not doubting that the 485 figure exists but we have no proof of the Azerbaijani parliaments' deliberations nor how they came to this figure (methodology etc). You need to provide some modicum of evidence for the 485 figure other than that de Waal quotes the Azerbaijani parliament. The Battle for Khojaly is a controversial article involving an issue with multiple sides contending different versions of the events. The Armenian warning is backed up by witnesses on the ground. If you wish to maintain a non-POV atmosphere, then that information must stay. "Reprisal" means retaliation. Armenian self-defense forces were in fact retaliating. Therefore it is not WP:OR. The only issue that remains is the moving of the 613/485 figures to a different location in the article.--Urartu TH (talk) 23:48, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

HRW, Memorial, de Waal, and other third party sources say nothing of reprisal or retaliation. They don't use such words. Please do not add WP:OR to the article. As for warning, it is not a fact established by independent observers, therefore it does not belong to the lead. Grandmaster 00:00, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

"Reprisal" is a simple word to describe the chronology of events, it does not require special mention. Armenian self-defense forces were responding to the shelling of Armenian civilians in Stepanakert. This is by definition a reprisal. The Armenian warning is in Helsinki Watch's report and has an Azerbaijani witness. If you wish to contend this, start a WP:DRN. I'm not going to go in circles with you anymore.--Urartu TH (talk) 00:06, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

It needs a specific mention. You cannot add your personal interpretation of sources. You should quote the source exactly as written, and HRW does not say that it was a retaliation. The primary sources as witness opinions cannot be used to support any claims, see WP:Primary, which holds that "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation". You have no secondary source to support your interpretation of a primary source, and that is against the rules. Grandmaster 00:17, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

The chronology of events is well established. This is where a term like "reprisal" fits in; if you wish, we can change it to retaliation or a similar term. I am not using the witness as a primary source; the information is in Helsinki's Watch's report written by their journalists. You are attempting to present an ultra-POV version of the Battle of Khojaly. This is unacceptable. Take it to a WP:DRN.--Urartu TH (talk) 00:20, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Urartu TH, you cannot go on labeling events as "reprisal", or "retaliation", or any thing of that sort based on your personal interpretation. Even if it seems to you like the most logical conclusion, it will still be POV, unless a reliable and neutral source mentions it as such. I am surprised to see this discussion dragging for three weeks. It is amazing how much effort you put into trying to substantiate something that is against every Misplaced Pages rule. Parishan (talk) 00:43, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

As I noted to Grandmaster, we can use another synonym if you like. The Armenian attack during the battle of Khojaly was not a planned offensive nor was it spontaneous. It was in response to the bombing of civilians in Stepanakert by the Azerbaijani army. There is no opinion in explaining the chronology of events. Thanks.--Urartu TH (talk) 00:59, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I need to agree with Urartu TH. The article is a mess, and should be cleaned from Azerbaijani propaganda. Hablabar (talk) 13:20, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

The article is based 100% on third party reliable sources with no connection to Azerbaijani government. How could it be Azerbaijani propaganda? Are HRW, Memorial or de Waal Azerbaijani propaganda? Grandmaster 19:47, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

The 613 death figure is the most problematic of Azerbaijani government claims since it is not buttressed by any hard evidence.--Urartu TH (talk) 20:18, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

It does not have to be, it is just a statistical info from a notable source, presented along with other existing estimates. Grandmaster 20:35, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

A source that lacks any aspect of notability or reliability. Hablabar (talk) 14:32, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

An official death toll is certainly notable. But you can start another WP:DR if you disagree with it remaining in the infobox. Grandmaster 19:35, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

In general, I find the lead to be overloaded with detailed information. For a page about a massacre, the lead would require basic information, i.e. the Five Ws. The current introduction goes into a scrupulous analysis of who was obliged to do A and who had issued an ultimatum to B, all of which really mean nothing to someone who visits the page for brief and general information about the event. Those details clearly belong in the body. Parishan (talk) 00:56, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

1. ^ http://www.regnum.ru/news/1345021.html#ixzz2w0Tw1sOI Cite error: The named reference "Regnum" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Azerbaijan articles
• High-importance Azerbaijan articles
• WikiProject Azerbaijan articles
• B-Class Armenian articles
• High-importance Armenian articles
• WikiProject Armenia articles
• B-Class Death articles
• Mid-importance Death articles
• B-Class military history articles
• B-Class Russian, Soviet and CIS military history articles
• Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force articles
• B-Class Central Asia articles
• Mid-importance Central Asia articles
• WikiProject Central Asia articles
• B-Class Human rights articles
• Mid-importance Human rights articles
• WikiProject Human rights articles
• B-Class Disaster management articles
• Mid-importance Disaster management articles
• B-Class Discrimination articles
• Mid-importance Discrimination articles
• WikiProject Discrimination articles
• Selected anniversaries (February 2008)
• Selected anniversaries (February 2012)