Talk:Khojaly massacre: Difference between revisions

Azerbaijan Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Azerbaijan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Azerbaijan-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AzerbaijanWikipedia:WikiProject AzerbaijanTemplate:WikiProject AzerbaijanAzerbaijan articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2

In the table titled "Important people, places, countries, and events of the Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict", and in the column titled "Military aid: To Armenia and NKR", Greece is named as one of the countries which provided military assistance to Armenia and the NKR. On what evidence is this claim made ? The Gnome 23:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the photograph as it does not come from a reliable, third-party source. Please do not re-add it. - Francis Tyers · 06:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have rephrased the deleted info to clarify the "relevance." The fact that the declaration was drafted by a Turkish official, the fact that 20 out of 30 signatories were Turko-Azeri, and the fact that it coincided with the Armenian Genocide draft, all suggest that 1) the declaration, rather than reflecting the truth, was a political ploy by the Turko-Azeri alliance; 2) that the purpose of the ploy was to kill two birds with one stone--a) propaganda against Armenia and b) eclypsing and then squashing an Armenian Genocide draft. These two points, coupled with the draft's contradiction with Azeri claims, would further suggest that the imaginary "Khojali Massacre" was more of a fiction than reality. I think the relevance is not just existing--it's glaring. And sense the info is not readily apparent to the reader, its deletion would be criminal.--TigranTheGreat 19:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement is full POV we dont have personal interpretation here.--Dacy69 20:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

imaginary "Khojali Massacre"? Are you serious? Grandmaster 20:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You two can drop it aswell, stop rising to the bait. - Francis Tyers · 22:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tigran, drop it. You know you are in the wrong. This is probably the best article on the NK conflict precisely because we don't have the childish sniping that marks the rest of them. It isn't going in. If you add useless cruft, they'll want to add useless cruft, but you won't like their useless cruft and they won't like yours, then you'll remove theirs and they'll remove yours, and we'll find ourselves in one of those exceptionally tedious conflicts, that could be avoided by spending your time more productively elsewhere. - Francis Tyers · 22:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dacy you have again disrespected the arbitration ruling, the arbcom ruling requires explanation and not blunt claims like the above. Every bit of information was accurate, 20 of the 30 people who signed were either from Azerbaijan or Turkey. PACE documents provide the person having drafted the declaration, and all those informations are on the page from the official website linked already on the page. Either provide any example of POV in the addition or quit this revert warring.VartanM 23:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very courageous, manly, ballsy attitude, Francis. "Screw what's relevant, let's just label unwanted information as 'cruft' and exclude it." If only we could find that brave, ballsy, masculine energy in you while Grandmaster was adding his useless verbatim quotes to the NK article. Now, Francis, how do we channel this new-found courage to remove all the cruft in the NK article?

And no, I don't know I am in the wrong, because I am not. If you judge the value of an article on the "shut-the-mouth" scale, a significant portion of the very badly written articles are in such a category, and the "shut-the-mouth" is due of fear of another conflict rather than approval. I am not adding anything new, I am adding more information on something which is already there. How the person who prepared the draft is not relevent given that he is on the top of the list of Turkish officials in Europe who are the most active in the denying of the genocide. Explain how that most who signed the draft are either from Azerbaijan or Turkey is not relevent? Those informations are relevent as in any other articles. You know that some draft by a political activist would be deleted as it has no historic value, but here it became OK. The written declaration isn't even about Khojali, it is about an "Azerbaijani genocide," something which you have yourself claimed to be trash if you remember. So explain me now, how the clarification that even the Azerbaijani autorities do not make claims included in that draft is not relevent?

Do you think just because I don't edit this article anymore it means in any way that I think it is fine, I find this article to be one of the worst of its kind, I just don't touch it because we know that Grandmaster and the other editors will charge all together and turn this once more into a battleground. Because believe me, I do have sources from other organizations dismissing the information like Dan Sneider a correspondant etc., but I know that I can't add anything at all, because here only vocal users make their point accross. This is also basically why I don't edit much anymore.--TigranTheGreat 00:47, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good, because you're in no position to judge what is bad and not. - Francis Tyers · 11:04, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, what a mess the NK page has become. We need to remove those ridiculous quotes. And please, do not assume just because I have not commented it means I'm supporting Grandmaster. He can be as absurd as you. - Francis Tyers · 11:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Francis, you removed from the NK article any mention of Resolution 1416, adopted by the PACE. I don't think it is a right thing to do. We can shorten the quote or provide a summary, but this is an important international document on the subject, which should be mentioned. And NK article has recently been edited mostly by anons, as acitve editors refrained from editing this article. Grandmaster 11:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shorten it so that we give equal time to both sides, and don't use {{quotation}}. - Francis Tyers · 11:50, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The other side is basically Armenia, as no country in the world recognizes independence of Karabakh. There was a short description in the older versions of the article, someone decided to add more quotes from this document. Grandmaster 16:16, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Francis, I second Tigran and I request a second opinion, your brute reply above was unwarranted. 20 of the 30 persons who signed it were either from Turkey or Azerbaijan. This draft won't make it in any other article and you know it. Some of the 10 non-Turkish or Azerbaijani members are from cocuses working for the incorporation of Turkey in the EU, who took the bait after the Armenian draft was presented. This includes Tadeusz Iwinski [1], Younal Said Loutfi from Bulgaria, who has studied in Turkey. [2]

The draft/trash is the following:

Genocide became an integral part of the Azeri history starting from the partition of the Azeri lands with the treaties of Gulustan in 1813 and Turkmenchay in 1828. The Armenians carried out massacres against the Azeris in 1905-1907 in order to achieve "the Greater Armenia". In March 1918 the Armenians purged the Azeris from Baku, Shamakhy, Guba, Garabakh, Zangezur, Nakhchivan, Lankaran and other regions of Azerbaijan. With the help of the Soviet regime, Armenia annexed Zangezur and other Azeri lands in 1920. The Communist regime deported the Azeri population from their historical lands in Armenia to Azerbaijan from 1948-1953. From the beginning of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict in 1988 hundreds of thousands of Azeris were deported from their historical lands. On 26 February 1992, Armenians massacred the whole population of Khodjaly and fully destroyed the city. Armenian separatism in Nagorno-Karabakh and the ongoing Armenian occupation of 20 per cent of the Azeri territory has resulted in thousands of deaths and more than a million refugees. The undersigned, members of the Assembly, appeal to all the members of the Parliamentary Assembly to take the necessary steps to recognize the genocide perpetrated by the Armenians against the Azeri population from the beginning of the 19th Century.

No political draft like this will ever make in any other articles. It is even not about Khojaly, either we delete it, either we clarify about it, you decide, because if we ask a third party editor he'll agree. The draft was a counter measure to this. [3]

Can you tell me where the POV is? That most who signed it were either from Azerbaijan or Turkey? That even Azeri officials do not make those claims about Khojaly? That there are no other records making those charges about Khojaly? That it was prepared by a high official of the Turkish republic a day after the Armenian genocide draft was prepared on the day of the Armenian genocide commemoration?

Tell me which one of those is a personal interpretation? Which is a position? Which are not facts which are not substantiated? Francis, do we start a request for comment? Ask Grandmaster the last time he had a conflict on whatever or not include advocate organizations what a third party editor told him? This matter isn't even about advocacy. I advise you to read Tigrans proposition one more time and trace which information is POV and discuss. VartanM 20:20, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The draft is published by a reliable source. Your interpretation (that it was a response to the Armenian Genocide) draft is not. If you would feel more comfortable, and in the spirit of compromise, we can list the precise numbers of delegates from each country which signed it. On another note, people reading this page will notice the difference between the official death toll and the one in the declaration, we do not need to spell it out for them (as doing so would be original research). - Francis Tyers · 13:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Francis, it does not qualify as a third party source, there is no peer review and no fact checking, there is a message on the draft which says that only those who signed it support it. If there is a Palestinian deputee from a European state, he could submit such a draft claiming a genocide against the Palestinians. Therefor everything could be printed, the reliability of the source only applies that its published as is and that there was no fact checking. You claimed yourself that we should use neutral sources, how is it neutral to use the draft of a Turkish official who is activly denying the Armenian Genocide? It's fine, you do not want a clarification, so I will submit this article to RFC and I am sure that third party editors will agree of its deletion. VartanM 22:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It qualifies as a third party source because it is published on a third party website... the PACE site. We do not say that "all of them were killed", we say that "these deputies signed a resolution that said..." which is verifiable, attributed and neutral. If you think that PACE is not relevant then we can remove it from all articles, but I think they are notable enough to be included. You're right, a resolution could be published describing a Palestinian genocide, and I would support it being included on the appropriate articles... providing it was attributed and sourced. If you have a declaration, or resolution published by the Armenian government (or supra-national authority) that takes a denialist stance, that should also be included. - Francis Tyers · 11:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You mean deletion of the whole article? --Grandmaster 09:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No he means deletion of the draft. - Francis Tyers · 11:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The photograph survived a deletion review and will stay, and there is nothing wrong with the source, there is no consensus for removal, do not remove it again Bleh999 01:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus actually for the addition of this OR. The question of Armenian massacres in Ottoman Empire has absolutely no relation to Khojaly Massacre in 1992 in Azerbaijan. So attempts to link the two are nothing but disrespect towards the victims of this massacre and/or use them for the political purposes. There is more than sufficient evidence recorded in various forms, showing that Khojaly massacre was committed by the Armenian forces. Atabek 07:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VartanM, you removed the YouTube video link commenting to see WP:YOUTUBE, which says:

"There is no blanket ban on linking to these sites as long as the links abide by the guidelines on this page (which would be infrequent). See also Wikipedia:Copyrights for the prohibition on linking to pages that violate intellectual property rights."

This is a video(!), which evidences the massacre, which is already documented by reliable media and scholarly sources. But since you choose to refer to the not-well-defined policy, perhaps, we should also ask, what's the authenticity of [4] and [5]. Also, I am not an expert on spiritual or moral matters, but what's your opinion on deliberate removal of evidence, link or reference to blinding, maiming and brutal murder of a 3-4-year old child by as you would call it "heroes", "liberators" or "fedayins", relating to the topic of this article. Is this also WP:SOAP? Atabek 16:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Atabek, the reason the video was removed was because it violated WP:Youtube. '"Wikipedia:Copyrights for the prohibition on linking to pages that violate intellectual property rights." I'm not here to express my opinions, just trying to keep the artile within Wikipedia policies. You have to apply your non expert abilities on someone else. As for the pictures of the Armenian Genocide you should follow what you preach and stop the WP:SOAP --VartanM 01:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Parishan, that video may not be copyrighted by PEH TV, but by someone else. From my past experience, I know that generally, Youtube videos are to be avoided. Also just a side note ,The Armenian radio communication and the English subtitles don't correspond with one another. VartanM 01:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]