Talk:Khojaly massacre/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 9

366 regiment

The sinister role of 366 regiment was more than just provision of weapons to the Armenian militants. Some soldiers and officers of that regiment took a direct part in the attack on the town, in particular almost the entire staff of the batallion under the command of major Oganian (who is currently a minister of defense for Karabakh separatists) participated in the attack. All the tank crews were soldiers of this regiment. So I rolled back the latest edit by Pereleshin. Grandmaster (talk) 09:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Pls do not remove sourced and relevant info just because we wrote about it anywhere else. Its an obvious biased editwarring with no relations with Wiki rules. Andranikpasha (talk) 17:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

And you just deleted all the references and links from the article. Do you actually check what you revert? Grandmaster (talk) 17:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The info repeatedly added by anon is misinterpretation of the sources. The journalist denies that he ever said the words that were attributed to him, all the sources make it clear. So please stop POV push. Grandmaster (talk) 04:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I reverted 2 POV cat's added by an IP. Andranikpasha (talk) 18:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Andranik, please, discuss your changes in future. Khojaly Massacre is an act of massacre committed against civilian population by Armenian forces, driven by the ethnic hatred. So it was an act of anti-Azerbaijanism or anti-Turkism. Atabek (talk) 21:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

What source have you presented to back up that allegation? Nowhere in the article does it say that the so called massacre was driven by anti whatever "hatred".-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 21:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Eupator, it would be helpful if you first actually read the article before reverting and note this section:

• "According to Markar Melkonian, the brother of the Armenian military leader Monte Melkonian, "Khojaly had been a strategic goal, but it had also been an act of revenge." The date of the massacre in Khojaly had a special significance: it was the run-up to the fourth anniversary of the anti-Armenian pogrom in the city of Sumgait"

I am not sure what you're trying to achieve by removing anti-Turkism link, but the fact is that Armenian-Azeri conflict is of ethnic nature, has been such ever since its beginning. It's not something new. Atabek (talk) 22:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Listing at List of events named massacres

The Khojaly massacre is currently included in the above list. Unfortunately the entry does not meet with our inclusion criteria, which state that multiple reliable sources be cited to demonstrate that the word "massacre" is used as part of an accepted NAME for the event (in other words, that multiple reliable sources name the event the "Khojaly Massacre" or some close varient thereof).

At the moment, there are sources that discribe the event as being a massacre... but they do not name the event as one. If sources that fit our inclusion criteria are not provided, we will have to remove the event from the list... and, if possible, we would prefer not to do that. Since it is likely that those who regularly edit this page will be familiar with the sources, we ask for your assistance in correcting this problem. Thank you.

I think there are plenty of sources in the article describing the event as the massacre. Human Rights Watch:

In February 1992, Karabakh Armenian forces - reportedly backed by soldiers from the 366th Motor Rifle Regiment of the Russian Army - seized the Azeri-populated town of Khojaly, about seven kilometers outside of Stepanakert. More than 200 civilians were killed in the attack, the largest massacre to date in the conflict

Human Rights Watch / Helsinki. Azerbaijan: Seven Years of Conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh. New York. 1994.

Time Magazine, the title of the article says it all: Tragedy Massacre in Khojaly - TIME

New York Times - Massacre by Armenians Being Reported

Asked about the taking of Khojali, the Armenian military leader Serzh Sarkisian said carefully, "We don't speak loudly about these things. “A lot was exaggerated” in the casualties, and the fleeing Azerbaijanis had put up armed resistance, he claimed. Sarkisian's summation of what had happened, however, was more honest and more brutal: “But I think the main point is something different. 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 [stereotype]. And that's what happened. And we should also take into account that amongst those boys were people who had fled from Baku and Sumgait”. Sarkisian's account throws a different light on the worst massacre of the Karabakh war, suggesting that the killings may, at least in part, have been a deliberate act of mass killing as intimidation.

Thomas De Waal, Black Garden: Armenia and Azerbaijan through Peace and War, NYU Press, 2004, ISBN 0-8147-1945-7. Chapter 11. August 1991 – May 1992: War Breaks Out.

Thank you... but all of the above sources simply discribe the event as being a massacre... what we need are sources that NAME the event the "Khojaly Massacre" (or a close varient there of). Some of your sources below might work... I will check them out. Again, thanks. Blueboar (talk) 13:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

If you need more sources, there are more. I don't think it is called anything other than the massacre, and indeed, what the killing of hundreds of civilians should be called? Grandmaster (talk) 05:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The use of the wording Khojaly Massacre by more authors:

• Svante Cornell. Small Nations and Great Powers
• Abbas Malek, Anandam P. Kavoori. The Global Dynamics of News
• Gary K. Bertsch, Cassady B. Craft, Scott A. Jones. Crossroads and Conflict
• Karen Dawisha, Bruce Parrott. Conflict, Cleavage, and Change in Central Asia and the Caucasus
• Donald Bloxham. The Great Game of Genocide

Parishan (talk) 18:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks... these are much more in line with what we are looking for. Blueboar (talk) 13:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

IP's messing up sources. Rvd. Grandmaster (talk) 07:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Redirect Khojaly Genocide --> Khojaly Massacre up for discussion

If you wish to participate in the discussion please add your comments here. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 23:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits

Please cite reliable, third party sources for any information you wish to add, per WP:RS. Grandmaster (talk) 20:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

And to anonymous IP: do not remove sourced information as well, please discuss the edits. Atabəy (talk) 22:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Instead of Editwarring...

Could we have some references for the following?
However, other sources blame the Azeri government for the massacres saying the militia of the Azerbaijani National Front actively obstructed and actually prevented the exodus of the local population through the mountain passages specifically left open by Karabakh Armenians to facilitate the flight of the civilian population. On this matter, the September 1992 Helsinki Watch[2] non-governmental organization report quotes an Azerbaijani woman who says that "Armenians had notified the Azerbaijani civilian population to leave the town with white flags raised, in fact the Azerbaijani militia shot those who attempted to flee."<--reference?

I have read a letter from Holly Cartner, "Neither our overview and version of the events, nor the individual interviews with Azeri refugees from Khojaly and other villages in Nagorno Karabakh published in the report could possibly support the notion that Azerbaijani forces willfully prevented the evacuation of civilians or that they shot their own citizens. We are deeply distressed that the Ministry has, wittingly or unwittingly, linked our report to views which we reject and which our report does not reflect.

Yet we place direct responsibility for the civilian deaths with Karabakh Armenian forces. Indeed, neither our report nor that of Memorial includes any evidence to support the argument that Azerbaijani forces obstructed the flight of, or fired on Azeri civilians. For clarity's sake I cite our 1992 report (page 24): Thus, a party that intersperses combatants with fleeing civilians puts those civilians at risk and violates its obligation to protect its own civilians. . . .[T]he attacking party [i.e., Karabakh Armenian forces] is still obliged to take precautionary measures to avoid or minimize civilian casualties. In particular, the party must suspend an attack if it becomes apparent that the attack may be expected to cause civilian casualties that are excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated."

The circumstances surrounding the attack . . .on those fleeing Khojaly indicate that [Karabakh] Armenian forces and the troops of the 366th CIS regiment . . .deliberately disregarded this customary law restraint on attacks. Nagorno Karabakh officials and fighters clearly expected the inhabitants of Khojaly to flee since they claim to have informed the town that a corridor would be left open to allow for their safe passage. . . Under these circumstances, the killing of fleeing combatants could not justify the forseeably large number of civilian casualties."[1].

If anymore information can be provided, I would be more than happy to read it.

Also, Heydar Aliyev [3], who was then chairman of Nakhichevan parliament, was also quoted by Azeri news agency Bilik Dunyasi as saying that “the bloodshed would be in our favor and we must not interfere.”<--reference?

An Azeri cameramen Chingiz Mustafayev[4], who was shooting a documentary in Aghdam and nearby territories, controlled then by Azerbaijani People’s Front, has questioned the official Azerbaijani theory that it was committed by Armenians and began a journalistic investigation. His first contribution to the Moscow-based D-Press news agency about possible involvement of Azeri troops in it cost him dearly. Shortly after it he was killed in Aghdam region under obscure circumstances<--reference?
Thank you. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The information that User:AcademicSharp is adding to the article is taken from the propagandist letter of Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Armenia [2] The claims in that letter were rejected by HRW and others. The edit warrior himself is reported here and will be dealt with by the admins. CU proved that he used socks to evade 3RR. Grandmaster 20:18, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Tuturum and anon editors. Please, discuss the sensitive topic and substantiate added text with references for the claims. Thannks. Atabəy (talk) 23:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I removed an irrelevant photo image from this page, about man crying in Agdam near ruins. It isn't related to the specific context of this article. Atabəy (talk) 06:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Why Armenian side's views are dominant?

I really wonder why on the Khojaly Genocide article Armenian side's views mentioned very much even more than Azeri views.Abbatai (talk) 14:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't you know? There is truth and then there is the Armenian version. They like it better that way. I would too! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.56.118.177 (talk) 02:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Hahahaha--78.178.87.86 (talk) 18:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Documentary about Khojaly Genocide

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afZriyVUH-Q

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8woCdzhh7_U

Its very interesting, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.136.154.175 (talk) 18:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuscumbia (talk • contribs)

Chingiz Mustafayev

Hello. From what I read, a lot of sources mention the journalist Chingiz Mustafayev who filmed the dead bodies after the massacre. Why is he not mentioned in the article? Tuscumbia (talk) 15:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Memorial Society

The correct name of the organization is Human rights protection center "Memorial", not International MEMORIAL Society and was linked properly to an article about the organization - Memorial (society). You're claiming the English translation is from their website, but where? Could you please provide the link? The rest of the changes and edits seem to be POV. Please discuss before reverting. Tuscumbia (talk) 14:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Memorial correct name and link

I was referring to the information published in English on this organization's website:

1.1. The International Volunteer Public Organization “MEMORIAL Historical, Educational, Human Rights And Charitable Society” (henceforth referred to as “INTERNATIONAL MEMORIAL Society” or “the Society”) is a volunteer public association. Its creation is based on cooperation of the citizens united to pursue common interests and INTERNATIONAL MEMORIAL Society mission and purposes stipulated by this Charter.

This is how they call themselves in English on their own website.

Journalists, Wikipedia, and other sources might call them whatever they think fits, but the organization itself has the right to be registered and referred to by the name they chose. Please reverse your changes or provide a published source where they call themselves otherwise.

Please be mindful about the current situation in their country and the number of people they lost. It could be just not to their advantage to be referred to by the name you're attributing to them.

I also fixed the broken link to the correct one that shows the cited report in Russian. By the way, this report needs to be translated into English - if you don't read Russian you'll discover quite a different story then currently claimed on Khojaly Massacre page...

Here we go again: current link is incomplete and goes to an error page - http://www.memo.ru/hr/hotpoints/karabah/Hojaly/ Correct link is here: http://www.memo.ru/hr/hotpoints/karabah/Hojaly/index.htm Artsax (talk) 02:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Their charter actually calls the organization MEMORIAL Historical, Educational, Human Rights And Charitable Society (link-[3]), not INTERNATIONAL MEMORIAL Society. Henceforth referred to as “INTERNATIONAL MEMORIAL Society” only means that it's abbreviated for the use within the description of the charter. This is the procedure and norm used in many contractual documents, charters and bylaws. So, if everyone agrees we can call it MEMORIAL Historical, Educational, Human Rights And Charitable Society but again we would need to link it to the Wikipedia article Memorial (society). I do understand Russian and I don't think it presents a different story. I'll write a response to the below translation shortly. Tuscumbia (talk) 15:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm new to wiki - can somebody tell me what it means "if everyone agrees we can call it..."? Who is "everyone" and how do we know that they all agree or not? My understanding is that everyone can change and then whoever disagrees can change to what they think is right, preferably explaining why they think so. This time I changed it to something that is provable, then it was changed back without any argumentation or reference and now we need to ask this mysterious "everybody" for approval. It's not going to work with this page.Artsax (talk) 05:24, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

The report is called ДОКЛАД ПРАВОЗАЩИТНОГО ЦЕНТРА «МЕМОРИАЛ», i.e. "report of Memorial Human Rights Center". Grandmaster 12:14, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Memorial's POV, not mine

Here is Memorial's POV from the original report published in Russian on their website:

"Место массовой гибели беженцев, а также тела убитых были засняты на видеопленку, когда азербайджанские подразделения проводили операцию по вывозу тел на вертолетах в Агдам. Из отснятых кадров следует, что тела убитых были рассеяны на значительной площади. Среди тел, заснятых в месте массовой гибели, большую часть составляли тела женщин и людей пожилого возраста, среди убитых были также и дети. Вместе с тем, среди убитых были также люди в форме. В целом, на видеопленке зафиксировано несколько десятков тел."

My quick translation: "The place of the refugees' massacre, and the bodies of people killed ware videotaped when Azerbajani military was conducting an operation to evacuate the corpses to Agdam by helicopters. The conclusion from this documentary is that the bodies were spread over a substantial territory. Among the bodies filmed at the place of these mass deaths the majority of the bodies were of women and elderly, also among the dead were children. Additionally, people in uniform were among the killed. Overall, the film documents several dozen of bodies."

Why call it Armenian military vs. Azerbaijani civilians? There were corpses of dead soldiers in Azerbaijani military uniform among the bodies. On their way to Agdam, before they died, they managed to kill two Armenian volunteer guards and wounded ten at a nearby village. Why were they transporting bodies to Agdam by helicopters when it was inside the territory continuously under Azerbaijani control and just a short drive from Agdam? Why call it Khojaly massacre when Khojaly was several hours away and hundreds of Azerbaijani civilians who stayed there survived? Who identified all of these civilian bodies as Azerbaijani? They could be Armenians taken hostage by the Azerbaijani soldiers for that matter. After all, taking hostages and using civilians as human shields were quite common practices in that conflict. Artsax (talk) 03:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

This is an excerpt that you copied from the Memorial article and left out the rest of the article which describes the massacre. Massacres don't happen strictly when a group of civilians is shot dead and there are no people in uniform. From what I had read and watched about this massacre, I can conclude that there were only a few soldiers left in Khojaly to defend the town and even fewer (4) started evacuating the civilians out of the city when the city was taken by Armenian military. There were 613 dead among civilians. The Memorial report, journalists as well as documentaries describe the brutal nature of the event. This was not a battle between armed groups, this was a massacre. I think it's called Khojaly massacre because it implies the massacre of civilians not only at the place of mass murder close to village of Nakhichevanik but also in Khojaly proper and surrounding villages. From what I read, I can't say that the area of mass murder of Azeri civilians was under Azerbaijani control: first, because most of the reports are from Armenian sources, hence are biased; second, because the logic says that if the area was under Azerbaijani control, why would they use helicopter and not vehicles (armored vehicles, trucks, etc) when it's more dangerous to fly a helicopter which can be hit by enemy forces than drive a vehicle on the ground? Tuscumbia (talk) 15:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Fortunately, we can't write a Wikipedia article based on your speculations. Serouj (talk) 01:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

We can all keep posting emotional statements like this one above every day until the cows go home. But there are plenty of forums on the Internet for such exercise. This is encyclopedia and requires logical information backed up by references. The way this story is presented now is not logical. It states that hundreds of Khojaly residents who stayed in town were not killed by NKR forces and were returned to Azerbaijan unharmed several days later. Khojaly residents who used the humanitarian corridor to leave Khojaly were later found dead less then one kilometer from Agdam where thousands of Azerbaijani soldiers were stationed. These deaths are blamed on NKR forces who somehow decided to spare lives of 1275 Khojaly civilians who stayed in the town, let the other several hundred leave using humanitarian corridor only to catch them up later and brutally kill them in front of Azerbaijani army positions. And Azerbaijani army was just watching this massacre not doing anything? Not killing even one Armenian fighter? Common, people here are much smarter. That's why this article (the way it's written now) avoids truth about the exact location of the massacre and purposefully misleads readers about positions of Azerbaijan forces and the balance of power at that stage of the conflict.Artsax (talk) 05:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing emotional. It's only plain logic. Khojaly residents were not found dead "one kilometer from Agdam". They were apparently massacred on their way to Agdam. Should there have been any good will in letting these civilians pass unharmed through a "corridor" which Armenian troops had allegedly prepared for civilians for days, as claimed by the Armenian side, the civilians would not been shot dead en masse. The article goes as far as bringing sourced quotes from incumbent president of Armenia and brother of glorified Armenian commander Monte Melkonian. These prove the intent and the outcome of the massacre.Tuscumbia (talk) 14:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Khojaly and Aghdam are about 15 kilometers apart. One would think that 1 km from Aghdam (a region controlled by Azeris at the time) would also be controlled by Azeris! Do you think Armenians would have committed the massacre and simply have left all of those bodies all over the place for journalists to come and take photos of? Simple logic. The eyewitness journalists even say that when they first saw the bodies there was no mutilation, according to them, it took some time for the bodies to be "prepared" by the Azeris. Serzh Sargsyan, in his quote does not admit any wrongdoing, and the speculation of a man who was not even in the same hemisphere at the time (Monte's brother) does not mean anything. Serouj (talk) 01:44, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Besides, dismembering bodies and hacking off heads is the modus operandi and military culture of Turks and Azeris who long have such a military tradition. That type of activity appeals to the senses of the Azeri population and that's why it was done by the Azeri opposition -- to cause shock in their own population and to oust the existing leadership. Serouj (talk) 01:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

First, the report of Memorial says that many of captives were executed by Armenians. Second, we do not engage in original research. The reports of HRW and Memorial, who conducted their own investigation, say that the massacre was committed by Armenians. Armenian propaganda may disagree with that, but we only write what reliable sources say. Grandmaster 12:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

And Azerbaijani propaganda sows the seeds of hate with this fairy tale they call biggest genocide in the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.33.249 (talk) 19:47, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

As it is known Memorial and other organizations have admitted that their position was not original and they were duped by Azerbaijani officials. Homered (talk) 01:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Really? And when did they do that? Sources, please. And why do they have that report on their website? Grandmaster 09:24, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Please assume good faith and keep out of making POV statements. Homered (talk) 15:24, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

The above account is a sock of the banned user, please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Paligun. Grandmaster 08:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits

This article has been stable for a long time. Controversial, and non-consensus edits such as adding "alleged" all over the place will need to be agreed to on the talk page by all parties before being added to the article. - Francis Tyers · 16:17, 21 February 2010

The article is a complete mess and fixing it asap is an urgent priority. Sometimes mess can be stable but it is not an excuse. Homered (talk) 16:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

The article is a complete mess in your opinion. In the opinion of other editors it is a good consensus version, which fulfills the relevant Wikipedia guidelines on sourcing and NPOV. When editting a controversial subject such as this, it is important to review the talk page archives and work towards getting consensus before embarking on any wholesale revisions. - Francis Tyers · 16:49, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I have made two changes:

1. I have removed the 'khojaly.org' link from the infobox. This website does not appear to be appropriate for an encyclopaedia, and especially featured so prominently.
2. The number of killed is disputed, and I have updated the infobox to show that.

I hope that these changes are accepted by both sides. - Francis Tyers · 22:14, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Francis. I agree. I think having the website link in the External Links section would be sufficient, although I tend to disagree with the second change. The number 613 seems to be solid. If you google both numbers, you'll hardly find any sources indicating 161. This, evidently official Azeri source even indicates 804. Tuscumbia (talk) 14:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

1) I think it is better to not have the link, we don't want link bloat. And if the Azerbaijanis get one, of course the Armenians will want one. :) The external links from both side we have at the moment are official and sufficient I think.

2) We can expand the infobox to include numbers and sources (e.g. with footnotes). Or we can come to an agreement on the talk page as to which number (or range) to include.

- Francis Tyers · 17:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I think if we add a lot of numbers in the infobox, it might turn into a mess. Armenians will always try to provide lower numbers, Azeris - the higher, although massacre is a massacre and many civilians were murdered in an act of vandalism regardless the count. Tuscumbia (talk) 18:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree, I think using the min and max that are quoted in the article (e.g. from reliable sources) might be a way around this. - Francis Tyers · 11:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Let's see what numbers community decides to use. Armenians? Azeris? Tuscumbia (talk) 13:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I think I tried the "minimum and maximum figures" option a while ago - but my edit didn't survive. I guess the minimum figure was too small to satisfy those wanting to use the incident for propaganda purposes, and the maximum figure was unacceptable becasue it was so clearly ott that it indicated how much propaganda there exists. And the range of death figures indicate the amount of controversy and uncertainty that still surrounds the incident - an incident Azerbaijan wants presented as cut-and-dried, tried-and-convicted. Meowy 22:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• I have returned photos of victims (which author uploaded himself with OTRS permission) and photo of massacre memorial in Holland. Please be careful with reverts. --Interfase (talk) 08:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Those pictures are a good addition to the article. Thank you. Tuscumbia (talk) 14:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Non-legitimate uses of the event by Azerbaijan and Turkey

Perhaps some content in the article should be devoted to the extremist propaganda that Azerbaijan and Turkey have produced that uses the Khojali Massacre. For example, I've just noticed that an Armenian Genocide denialist book "Ermeni Vahşeti" (Armenian Savagery) published in Turkey in 1992 has a chapter containing many photos of alleged victims of the Khojali massacre. It might seem a bizzare thing to use an event from 1992 to attempt to disprove an accepted historical reality from 1915, but it is something that Turkey and Azerbaijan have attempted on a number of occasions - there are a number of similar examples (for example, http://www.meclis.gov.az/?/az/statement/view/25/ - a 1994 declaration by the Azerbaijani Parliament about what it calls the "Khojali Gencide" and which also accuses "lying Armenians" and "Armenian nationalists" of "inventing" the Armenian Genocide). Meowy 21:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Meowy, I think by posting this message, you are actually trying to disprove the Khojaly Massacre, a more recent and more thoroughly documented event (including use of video cameras) while at the same time accusing the opposite side of the denying the massacres you believe had taken place.Tuscumbia (talk) 22:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

A more reasonable person might say "the actions of Azerbaijan and Turkey, through their obnoxious misuse of the Khojali Massacre for Armenian Genocide denialist propaganda, are a disgrace to the memory of those that died at Khojaly". Meowy 22:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

If you're hinting I am unreasonable, you're incorrect. You regard that reasonable because of your beliefs. By the same token, your opposite side may claim that Armenians "obnoxiously misuse Armenian massacres to justify the Khojaly massacre". Remaining reasonable is important.Tuscumbia (talk) 22:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

You are moving towards a lot more than unreasonable. 1.5million dead is a "massacre" (or an "Armenian invention"?), 600 dead is a "genocide": it is this sort of use of the Khojali massacre that needs to be mentioned in the article. Meowy 22:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Now, you're just plain wrong with accusations. 1.5 million is the figure that Armenian diaspora finally agreed on during the course of a few decades. It went up from a rough 600,000 up to 2 million whilst even fluctuating between 2 mln and 3.4 mln. I have been to Tsitsernakaberd while in Armenia and to Martyrs' Lane as well as at the site of Guba mass grave while in Azerbaijan. Massacre and genocide are virtually indistinguishable. It's the technicality of naming that varies. Civilians are brutally killed which is wrong in any case and under any names.Tuscumbia (talk) 22:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

You have gone from "moving towards" to "arrived". Meowy 23:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations on your discoveries.Tuscumbia (talk) 13:49, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Image gallery

Personally, I don't see how the image gallery adds to the article, aside from quenching some prurient desire to see dead bodies. These images have been added without consensus, and thus should be removed to the talk page while their inclusion is discussed.

Victims of Khojaly massacre. Photos by "AzerTac" journalist Ilgar Ceferov

Victims of Khojaly massacre. Photos by "AzerTac" journalist Ilgar Ceferov

• Photos by
• 
• 
• 
• 

• Fotos von
• 
• 
• 

- Francis Tyers · 15:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, let's discuss. But I don't understand what don't you like. Photos added by the author, Ilqar Ceferov. I know him personaly and was with him when he uploaded his photos. He was in Agdam when the bodies were brought there after massacre and made these photos. Photo of ambulances were made in Baku, when the bodies were brought for medical appraisals by experts. Photo of frozen old woman and three children were made in train wagoon in the way to Baku. Now, what else do you need to know? --Interfase (talk) 17:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

They also smell of self-advertisement. If Ceferov wants to advertise his existence he should get a website of his own, not flood an article with his images. One such photo would be plenty, two at most, and it needs to be captioned describing its context (where was the photo taken, etc.) I suggest using only the top left photo. Meowy 23:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Um, is it just me or is this photo and this photo essentially the same, only taken from different angles? Also, based on casual observance, their bodies don't shown any evidence of wounds. If they were from Khojaly, they must have died from the cold or something, while they were retreating through the corridor left by the Armenians. So the caption of "victims of Khojali massacre" in "The Massacre" section seems ill-placed.

There seems to be some redundancy elsewhere. We see in this photo two bodies. The first one from the bottom appears to be the same one as this one. The first seems almost looks as if it was darkened (including the bearer) to make it look different. Also we see the second victim on the first image all covered with the exception of his head. If we are going to add images to this article, can we at least add them from a reliable source, like a book or a human rights organization website? I also concur with Francis and Meowy that flooding that flooding the article with dozens of images contributes next to nothing to the reader's understanding of the material. There's virtually no context to the images, and, as Meowy said above, a few images would seem to suffice.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 03:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Ilqar hasn't his own web site. But these photos are published in the book called "Two photo-talks on a tragedy" (here you can read about this book). There are also comments of Ilqar Ceferov (which he also gave while he uploaded photos to commons). --Interfase (talk) 13:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I added top left photo (as Meowy said) and showed a sourse where it was published. But I dont understand why we couldn't added another photos in a gallery. as I said author pulished them in the book. --Interfase (talk) 15:05, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Interfase, is that the only photo which is copyrighted and uploaded by the author or were all of them? If they are, why can't they be posted in the article? Tuscumbia (talk) 16:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I also don't understand it. All photos uploaded by author, by Ilqar Ceferov, are in this book. I think we must add all of these photos as a gallery in the article. --Interfase (talk) 16:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure what the excuse is, but I think the pictures are a good addition to the article. Tuscumbia (talk) 16:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I think so. --Interfase (talk) 17:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

On the subject of pictures, the website xocali.net has an interesting analysis of the extensive faking of photographs by Azerbaijan. Perhaps the most disturbing is the abuse done to the dead - their bodies rearranged in order to produce fake "evidence" that they had been mutilated or raped by Armenians. This one is one of the most blatant http://xocali.net/EN/h14.html - a child who in the earliest photos is dead and fully clothed and lying next to another body, is, in a later photo, pictured semi-naked and lying next to the same body, and in a video (titled "Armenian savagery" and taken from a helicopter) she is pictured semi-naked and lying alone. This helicopter is presumably the one Tuscumbia mentions in the section below this one: "second flight was made 2 or 3 days later with more international journalists who filmed and took pictures of hundreds of corpses, including ones mutilated". This is the sort of thing that I was proposing should be mentioned for the "non-legitimate uses". Meowy 22:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow. It's sickening to see to what depths some people will stoop to.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 03:00, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

xocali.net is not specialised sourse with unknown origin. Who made these analysis? Unknown. Antiazerbaijanian propaganda. And there is not photos of Ilqar Ceferov. --Interfase (talk) 14:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Clothing on, clothing off, scalpings, ears cut off, etc - these are all brutal acts of vandalism and again - they support the Azerbaijani side of the story: bodies were mutilated after the first attempt of Azerbaijanis to collect bodies. Tuscumbia (talk) 14:51, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Bodies mutilated and abused post-mortem by Azerbaijanis in order to make a horrible event into a more propaganda-worthy event by appealing to Azeri (and Turkish) racism and xenophobia. It was intended to feed and encourage their already substiantial pre-existing prejudices - that is why the same fake attrocity photographs appear in that Turkish "Ermeni Vahşeti" book I mentioned in my Non-legitimate Uses comment, and why an event from 1992 can be considered (by Turks) to in some way disprove the 1915 Armenian Genocide. Meowy 15:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Please see section Talk:Khojaly Massacre#Falcification and claims from the Armenian side Tuscumbia (talk) 16:07, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I am restoring the consensus version of the page again, as it seems the opinion here is split between including them and not. If you want to achieve consensus I recommend that you steer clear of calling things anti-Azerbaijani this, or anti-Armenian that. - Francis Tyers · 20:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I've no objections to a single Ceferov photo being added to the article, such as the recent edit by Interfase that added one photo (but I'd like a more explanatory caption to go with it if that were possible). I don't think there are sources that cast doubts on whether the Ceferov photos are genuine. Meowy 03:11, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

And it cannot be any doubts. I know Ilqar Ceferov very well. He was in Karabakh, he saw victims of massacre, he made their photos and published their in the book "Two photo-talks on a tragedy"([4]) and in commons. --Interfase (talk) 10:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I think pictures are a good addition to the article and as long as they are uploaded by the author, I think we can use them. However, as Marshal Bagramyan noted, same pictures from different angles are not necessary. Tuscumbia (talk) 14:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Guys personal knowledge of an author does not prove the author or it's work being authentic and a material for encyclopedia.Aregakn (talk) 00:41, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

These are not just images by some photographer who came about after 20 years. This is a photographer who used to be a correspondent of the news agency (and may be he still is) and the images have been widely used in all news sources for the past 18 years. He now uploaded them in Wiki.Tuscumbia (talk) 13:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

"NKR Foreign Ministry: Baku Responsible for Khojaly Incident"

First of all, this article is very one-sided and needs to mention the stand of both the Azeri leadership (at the time) as well as the current NKR. See the official statement of the NKR Foreign Ministry regarding the incident at Khojaly. As it stands, this article is way out of line. Serouj (talk) 05:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Photo falsifications by the Azeri side also tells boatloads that I think should be mentioned in the article. Serouj (talk) 07:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

They are no reliable and specialised sources. --Interfase (talk) 13:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the OFFICIAL stance of the NKR can definitely be mentioned, as well as the position of the Azeri leadership at the time of the incident, which stated that Armenian forces DID allow safe passage of the Azeri civilians, that Aghdam, and the region around Aghdam where the photos were shot (3km from Aghdam and 13km away from Khojaly) were controlled by AZERI forces. All of these OFFICIAL stance of the government of the NKR are RELIABLE, because what we're trying to explain here is not the event, but the different NARRATIVES to the event by by both sides (the NKR and today's Azerbaijan). We can also easily dig up what the Azeri leadership said at the time: that it was AZERI forces who fired upon the civilians as they approached Aghdam. Here is a quote that we can easily verify: «The Azerbaijani official propaganda tries to blame Armenians for the killing of the civil population of Khojaly, but even Azerbaijani President Mutalibov admitted that “Armenians still provided a corridor for the civilians’ leaving the place», the Russian Nezavisimaya Gazeta from April 2, 1992 wrote. Also, Ogonyok journal (#14-15, 1992) noted that «…the attack of Khojaly wasn’t sudden». Serouj (talk) 14:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Here are some more quotes to think about:

1. ...Azerbaijani human rights activist Arif Yunusov wrote: «The town and its citizens were deliberately made victims of the political goal – to prevent the Azerbaijani Popular Front’s coming to power” (Azerbaijani Zerkalo newspaper, July 1992).
2. Tamerlan Karayev, in due time Chairman of the Supreme Soviet of the Azerbaijani Republic (now AR Ambassador to India), testified: «The tragedy was implemented by the Azerbaijani authorities», specifically «some of the top officials» (Mukhalifat Azerbaijani newspaper, April 28, 1992).
3. Heydar Aliyev admitted himself that «the former leadership of Azerbaijan is also guilty” of the Khojaly events. According to Bilik-Dunyasi Agency, still in April 1992 he expressed a cynically monstrous idea:“The bloodshed will do good to us. We shouldn’t interfere in the course of the events».
4. Czech journalist Yana Mazalova who, by the Azerbaijanis’ oversight, found herself in both groups of the mass media representatives, which were shown the «corpses defiled by Armenians», noted a sufficient difference in the latters’ condition. Visiting the field immediately after the events, Mazalova didn’t see any traces of barbarity on the corpses. And two days later, the journalists were shown the disfigured bodies already «prepared» for filming.

It shouldn't be very difficult to verify each source if someone wishes to. But certainly the POSITION of the NKR does not need to be verified, as this is an official statement released by the NKR. Serouj (talk) 14:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

So there is a MARKED change in what the government of Azerbaijan during and after the incident, and today. This is quite significant, IMHO. Serouj (talk) 14:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the information already provided (citation from reliable source needed) with Mutalibov's alleged interview should be sufficient. The quotes from Serzh Sarkissian and Markar Melkonian are very clear. Additionally, the quotations that were posted in the article by one of the users quoting Armenian authors are also indicative of confession and the nature of the crime. You won't see a whole section describing Turkish position on the Armenian Genocide page, evidently due to contributions from the Armenian users. Moreover, all the information above do not come from reliable sources. If they are, please provide them. If you are implying "xocali.net" is a reliable source of information indicating alleged falsifications, then it is unacceptable. Actually, many of the photos claimed to be forgeries are in fact a proof of the Azerbaijani side of the story. The woman and the old man with pictures in different positions and mutilated bodies show the brutality done to the bodies in the timeframe when the Azerbaijanis visited the site right after the massacre (and were forced to leave due to an attack) and afterwards (a few days later). Moreover, the claim that the site of the massacre was somehow controlled by Azerbaijani forces is a myth. The mere fact that the Azerbaijani soldiers along with journalists were collecting the bodies by flying a helicopter into a danger zone as opposed to safely driving a truck or any kind of vehicle to collect the bodies should be indicative of Armenian control of territories. What person would risk flying an object into his own controlled territory and be a target visible to enemy forces which can be easily hit, when he can just drive a truck(s) to do the same job without risking being attacked. Simple logic. Tuscumbia (talk) 15:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Neither the government of the NKR nor any official has "admitted" any guilt, as the above quotes more or less speak for themselves. The corridor was made available by the Armenians, but the Azeris did not allow their own population to return, and those who did try to return were killed just outside Aghdam (not near Khojaly!). Essentially, this was a political campaign that brought down the reigning party and president, and in its place brought the Aliyev regime. Markar Melkonian is in no way related to the NKR war, other than the fact that his brother is Monte Melkonian. So his allegedly writing "Khojaly had been a strategic goal, but it had also been an act of revenge" does not have much clout, and in no way is an admission of guilt on the part of the government of NKR. The article also does not mention the killing of ARMENIAN hostages inside Khojaly. Serouj (talk) 16:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

BTW, did you not read the article cited above, or read the quotes from Azeri officials from 1992? I'm not talking about xocali.net. That's a minor aside. I'm talking about official statement of the NKR Foreign Ministry regarding the incident at Khojaly. We've got the Chairman of the Supreme Soviet of the Azerbaijani Republic (now AR Ambassador to India), testifying on record: «The tragedy was implemented by the Azerbaijani authorities», specifically «some of the top officials». Also, in NO WAY can you draw parallels between the Armenian Genocide and the events of Khojaly -- the former was a campaign of race murder centrally planned and implemented by a government on the historic homeland of a people. The events at Khojaly were nothing more than a battle in War in which an opposition group within the government tried to come to power by forcing the staging of a "massacre" to smear the current government and president. The "facts" regarding the "helicopter" are rather moot. Serouj (talk) 17:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Which helicopter are you talking about? The two mentions of helicopters in the article don't refer to airlifting out anybody. I don't think they can fly a helicopter into KHOJALY if it's controlled by Armenians! Indeed, the bodies were reportedly 3km from AGHDAM, territory controlled by AZERI forces. Serouj (talk) 17:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

There were two helicopters flown into the area by Nakhichevanik where the massacre in big numbers took place. The first incident took place on March 2, 1992 when the first tape was made by Chingiz Mustafayev and when the team was ambushed by Armenian armed units which forced the former to fly back. The second flight was made 2 or 3 days later with more international journalists who filmed and took pictures of hundreds of corpses, including ones mutilated. During this whole time, the area was controlled by Armenians. Of course, for you there are no parallels between the Armenian massacres and Khojaly massacre because you're an Armenian. For others, all deaths count. For some reason, the Armenians of Western Ottoman Empire were not subject to so-called "campaign of race murder" and the rest were. (?!) Moreover, why are you trying to defame the name of "Khojaly Massacre"? Hundreds were killed in Khojaly city and more were killed fleeing to Agdam. What corridor are you talking about? How can one escape through an Armenian controlled corridor when they are exterminated from left and right? In addition to that, the area is within the administrative unit of Khojaly raion, hence the massacre is called Khojaly Massacre. You're not really calling Armenia Genocide different names like Syrian Deserts genocide, Van genocide, etc. where Armenian civilians died in masses, do you? Tuscumbia (talk) 18:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks like you are rather misinformed. From the Chingiz Mustafayev article you cite, we read "On the other hand, some sources claim that details of his killing were not available and that before his death he reportedly was gathering data alleging that the Armenian attack against civilians in Khojaly was a provocation by the Azerbaijani National Front to force the resignation of Azerbaijani president Ayaz Mutalibov." You've got to dig a little bit deeper. It would be no surprise that the territory came under Armenian control by the time Chingiz arrived. The point is that the corridor was open and the Azerbaijanis did not allow their own people to pass. This is admitted by both the President of Azerbaijan as well as the Chairman of the SSofAzerbaijan. Serouj (talk)

I think you're misinformed. Those allegations on Chingiz Mustafayev page were not sourced. Ayaz Mutalibov never said anything of that nature and even refuted the claims that he ever said that due to numerous misquotings from Armenian media. The territory was under control of Armenian armed units at the time and after the massacre. These are facts. The whole territory up to Agdam including Nakhichevanik village and Askeran. In fact, Chingiz Mustafayev was killed right by Nakhichevanik during the Azerbaijani offensive towards Nakhichevanik in summer of 1992. Whether, the area was recaptured by Azerbaijanis during collection of bodies or Armenians retreated on purpose to allow that due to agreement with Azerbaijanis, is unknown to me.Tuscumbia (talk) 14:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I hold that there are no parallels between the Armenian GENOCIDE and the battle at Khojaly. First of all, this was a two-side and symmetrical war between parties. The Armenian Genocide was not a war, but rather the planned extermination en masse of an entire race within the Ottoman Empire. The planning was done centrally and all able-bodied men were conscripted to the army and forced in labor battalions after which they were killed, or they were killed out right. At Khojaly, you had Armenians offering a corridor OUT of the area until the Azeri civilians could reach Azeri-controlled Aghdam. Both the civilians and the armed Azeri force stayed (and were interspereed among the civilians). We've got the TOP AZERI LEADERSHIP saying that neither the civilians nor the armed Azeri force were allowed to return to Aghdam. So the facts rather speak for themselves. Serouj (talk) 04:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you see what you are doing here? You are actually trying to defame one event because it was committed by Armenians and highlight the event you believe took place and was committed on Armenians. Both were wars and both were massacres. The planning for Khojaly was done thoroughly as support from 366th regiment was used in the offensive. You should also concentrate on confirmations from the Armenian leadership that Khojaly was a deliberate attempt to ethnically cleanse the Azerbaijani town, thus showing the Armenian force. See Sargsyan's quote. Tuscumbia (talk) 14:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you've got a MAJOR misunderstanding of history. The Ottoman Empire and Armenians living inside the Ottoman Empire were NOT at war with each other. Indeed, Armenians were considered the LOYAL minority and ALL Armenians of the Ottoman Empire were conscripted in the Ottoman Army and were promptly forced into labor battalions and later killed. In a later stage, women and children were taken on forced marches that led to nowhere through mountains and deserts. Clearly a centrally planned and implemented government plan to annihilate an entire minority of a country's OWN citizens. At Khojaly, you've got a large number of Azeri SOLDIERS mingled into a civilian population and not wearing any uniforms, and you've got an ongoing war of liberation by Armenians in which there are symmetrical (that is, equal in power) parties at war with each other. The Azeri civilians were offered a way out and for one reason or another (it's unclear) many of them were found dismembered in Aghdam, a town under the control of Azeri forces at the time. There is no case for genocide or ethnic cleansing here. Serouj (talk) 01:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you've got a lot worse misunderstanding of general history while you have perfect understanding of your history as per Armenian side of the story. Why would someone start to kill the people loyal to their government en masse after 600 years of friendship? You're speaking of "centrally planned and implemented government plan". What was the ARF foundation in 1890 for then or their first but not least Istanbul bombing? How about armies of Andranik that massacred dozens of villages? Was that part of that plan too? Look at Khojaly. It's the same story, yet less told, for now. What Azeri soldiers are you talking about when 4 soldiers were claimed to accompany hundreds of people escaping from Khojaly and just a few stayed behind in Khojaly? This was a deliberate act of massacring civilians with one purpose - to scare away the remaining part of Azerbaijani community of Karabakh and Sargsyan succeeded because Azerbaijanis fled en masse from other regions after Khojaly Massacre.Tuscumbia (talk) 13:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

No, the territory was controlled by Armenians. That's what HRW says. This is not a place for propaganda sources. We must refer to reliable third party sources, which is what we do. The Armenian position presented in the article, according to its weight. We know that Armenian propaganda blames Azerbaijanis for killing their own civilians, and this absurd position is not shared by anyone else. At the same time the Armenian president admits that it was Armenians who committed the massacre. Grandmaster 17:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

That is laughable at best. Did you not see the quotes from AZERI sources I quoted above??? Read the words of the PRESIDENT of Azerbaijan and the CHAIRMAN of the Supreme Soviet of Azerbaijan. That is all I have to say. And no, the President of Armenia has not admitted to any massacre. Serouj (talk) 04:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Beyond any doubt they are forgeries. They do not come from a reliable source. And even if they were, they prove nothing. We have reports of HRW and Memorial, who conducted their own investigation and described the circumstances of the massacre in much detail. They do not support the claims of Armenian propaganda, and even refute them. The only thing that Armenian propaganda can propose in support of their theory are dubious quotes from Azerbaijani politicians and journalists. But it is not serious evidence. Other than that, the Armenian propaganda has nothing. And for a good reason, which is that the massacre was committed by Armenians, and everyone knows it, including the Armenian president and the brother of Monte Melkonian. Do you think that Serge Sarkissian does not know anything about the claims of the Armenian propaganda that the massacre was committed by Azerbaijanis themselves? Then how come that he says that the massacre was committed by Armenians to carry out the scare tactics? And he said that to a verifiable source, the British journalist. Grandmaster 07:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I would say that beyond a doubt the quotes seem to be accurate. They are actually very well-cited by the official statement of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic Foreign Ministry. Next time I'm in the Republic, I'll visit the Foreign Ministry and make sure to ask for some copies of these articles. Serouj (talk) 02:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Official statement of NK separatists is not a reliable source. It is just a propaganda source. Grandmaster 10:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Falcification and claims from the Armenian side

To indicate falsifications from the Armenian side, including claims from Republic of Armenia as well as the regime in self-proclaimed NKR and last but not least, by the Armenian users in Wikipedia (see above), these claims are refuted below

Claims about the "free corridor" allegedly provided by Armenian armed units

Armenian units did not provide any corridors or did not communicate the message to Khojaly population in proper manner. In addition to that, the brutal attack in a full scale invasion of the city by Armenian armed groups along with heavy artillery and tanks from 366th regiment of the Russian army could have prevented the civilians take any routes offered by Armenians. In other words, if you see your house burned and fellows massacred in the town, why would you take any corridors offered by the very attacking groups? Therefore, as per the HRW, the fleeing civilian population took two routes and was massacred by the Armenian armed units near the village of Nakhichevanik. Armenian authorities have tried to use as much self-generated evidence as they could get falsifying the information from reliable sources, but received the proper response in time. Please see the response from Human Rights Watch (HRW) Executive Director Holly Cartner refuting Armenian data falsifications and misrepresentations on Khojaly as well as Sumgait pogroms:

Source: HRW Response to Armenian Government Letter on the town of Khojaly, Nagorno-Karabakh (March 23, 1997)

Did you read what you sent?? "Our report indeed found that many residents of Khojaly may have had advance warning of the impending military operation, since Armenian forces had given an ultimatum to Alif Gajiyev, then head of the Khojaly militia, who in turn warned civilians. Our research and that of the Memorial Human Rights Center found that the retreating militia fled Khojaly along with some of the large groups of fleeing civilians. Our report noted that by remaining armed and in uniform, the Azerbaijani militia may be considered as combatants and thus endangered fleeing civilians, even if their intent had been to protect them." Serouj (talk) 02:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

In other words, the Armenian forces WARNED the Azeri militia ahead of time, allowing them time to flee. As to what happened next remains unclear, even to HRW. Were they firing upon Armenian forces that they encountered along the way? Did the Armenians fire, in turn, killing some civilians? Were the civilians killed in Aghdam later, having been fired upon by opposition forces to create a PR campaign? Clearly, though, the Armenian forces had warned Alif Gajiyev, and if Armenians wanted a massacre, it would make little sense to warn Alif of anything. Serouj (talk) 02:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

They just wanted to take people of Khojaly out to an open area, where they would be an easy target. If Armenians had tried to massacre people in the town, they would have suffered heavy losses, as street fights cause many casualties among the attackers. The Armenian president Serge Sarkissian admitted that the Armenians killed people of Khojaly to carry out scare tactics. He said: “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 [stereotype]. And that's what happened." He clearly admitted that the massacre was a deliberate act on part of Armenian forces. Grandmaster 09:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Claims about former President Ayaz Mutalibov allegedly making comments quoted by Armenian side

Source Russian newspaper Regnum: "Только армянская подлость может позволить обвинить самих азербайджанцев в организации геноцида в Ходжалы": Экс-президент Азербайджана - Trans: "Only Armenian infamy can allow accusations of Azerbaijanis on organization of Khojaly Genocide" - former President of Azerbaijan

Translation of the whole text:

---

"Only Armenian infamy can allow accusations of Azerbaijanis on organization of Khojaly Genocide" - former President of Azerbaijan "Claims of Armenian authorities on Azerbaijanis organized or were interested in the fall of Khojaly is an indicator of an unparalleled infamy" said the former President of Azerbaijan, Ayaz Mutalibov, commenting on annual publications of Armenian media outlets which try to accuse the Azerbaijani side in Khojaly tragedy.

"There are numerous materials of respected organization such as "Memorial", findings of specialists and of investigations, which prove that Khojaly is an act of genocide, committed by Armenians with assistance from Russian troops from 366th regiment" - said Mutalibov.

"References to my opinion that Popular Front organized or contributed to fall of Khojaly is a shameless lie and absurd. At the same time, I said that Popular Front used the situation around Khojaly to take over the power" - said Mutalibov

Touching upon the tragic events of February 26, 1992, Mutalibov noted that in February 1992, Milli Majlis, under pressure from members of the Popular Front did not approve joining the treaty about transferring to Moscow's general command of ground forces, located on the territory of the former USSR. "In response to our refusal to join the treaty, we were punished by the Russia's generalship. Armenians would never dare and would not have been able to take Khojaly. That's why, loss of this strategic location is, foremost a result of foreign policy miscalculation. During discussions of the issue in Milli Majlis, Russia's President, Boris Yeltsin called me and asked to make a decision about joining the aforementioned treaty in an exchange of support in Karabakh. However, my efforts to explain this to our "patrioteers" did not succeed. As a result, Khojaly was lost" - said Mutalibov

"After the tragedy we were finally able to have 366th regiment's withdrawal and even decided on liberation of Khojaly. A military operation was developed which was broken on March 6, when the Popular Front forced me to resign" - said Mutalibov

He confirmed that issues were being decided by generals, not by politicians and to save the territory and the people, I had to go along with their arrangements, especially taking in consideration that they remained on paper and in the end, lost their force. Misunderstanding of all these realities brought to loss of Shusha and of other regions of the country, concluded Mutalibov.

---

I hope this clarifies everything for editors on this page. Tuscumbia (talk) 16:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that that text is from 2004, by which time this Azeri official changed his stance (as the political situation had changed). We should instead rely upon his statements during and immediately after the conflict in which it was in his OWN best interest to speak the truth. Serouj (talk) 07:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

No. According to de Waal, back then Mutalibov was just trying to diminish his role in the fall of the town. [5] Now he speaks the truth. In any case, what he says now is his position, and you cannot ascribe views to the people against their will. Also, if Armenians did not commit the massacre, why would the Armenian president, Monte's brother and the Armenian soldiers who talked with Memorial lie, and say that Armenians did it? Grandmaster 07:52, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, you refer to Azerbaijani politologist Arif Yunusov, alleging that he says that the massacre was committed by Azerbaijanis, but in fact he says that it was committed by Armenians: [6] Clearly, he was misquoted. His opinion about the massacre is well known. I'm sure that the words of other Azerbaijani politicians are also misquoted or taken out of context. Grandmaster 08:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Grandmaster. A lot of misquoting just to create a discourse in this article. Tuscumbia (talk) 14:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, thankfully the Armenian sources have made clear references to the articles they cite, so don't get too excited with your speculation. It's a simple matter of going to the citation and verifying whether it's true or not. Serouj (talk) 03:01, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

It would be nice to see scans of those texts. Still, we have recent interviews of the same people, who bring clarity to their position. Grandmaster 07:01, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if someone can simply backtrack on statements they've made 15 years later. Different times. Different politics. So we take their quotes at the time of the incident, and a reasonable amount of time afterwards. Serouj (talk) 02:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

These people are still alive, and they can be contacted for clarification. And they have been contacted, and explained what they meant. It is all on the record. You can read Mutallibov's and other's recent interviews. They are available online. These recent interviews cannot be discarded or disregarded. Grandmaster 09:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

One doesn't need to contact these people. There are their previous comments available, what for to contact them? So as the recent interview can't be discarded or disregarded, the previous cannot either. So if you really want to know the truth, take all sides and weigh them and think. But here facts should be sighted without POVs.Aregakn (talk) 00:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Official count

What does everyone think of the official count versus maxed count claims by Azerbaijani and Armenian sides? I think the number 613 is a confirmed number versus lowest 161 and highest 1324 as per Time Magazine: [7]. Tuscumbia (talk) 14:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The reality is that the "facts" of what happened at Khojaly are very moot. I doubt that Time Magazine had a correspondent in Khojaly. Serouj (talk) 03:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Tuscumbia, I recommend you read the Time article again. It clearly states: "the Azerbaijanis claim 1,324 civilians were slaughtered,". That number is in stark contrast to the current Azeri claim of 613. There is no confirmed number, the numbers are disputed while 613 is the official Azeri claim.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 03:25, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Eupator, I have read the article. The intent was not to present you with a new number but to show you the difference of claims. I know that was a higher number than the official one. Perhaps, the number included those alleged dead but then traded in after the massacre.Tuscumbia (talk) 13:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

According to HRW [8]:

There are no exact figures for the number of Azeri civilians killed because Karabakh Armenian forces gained control of the area after the massacre. While it is widely accepted that 200 Azeris were murdered, as many as 500 - 1,000 may have died.

So the highest estimate needs to be put at 1,000. Grandmaster 07:14, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Did HRW have a correspondent on the ground? I highly doubt it. All of the numbers are speculation. The number 200 they cite is also not their number, but one they say is "widely accepted." Widely accepted by whom? Who made the count? When was the count made? And importantly, where was the count made? Were the bodies identified? What happened to the 50 Armenian hostages at Khojaly? Were they part of the 200 count? As you see, there are many unanswered questions at Khojaly. Especially concerning is the fact that eyewitness reporters at the scene claim that the bodies were mutilated after the fact -- that is, after they reached Aghdam (which was under Azeri control). Serouj (talk) 20:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

HRW conducted their own investigation of the massacre. It is available online. HRW talked to people on both sides of the conflict, and so did Russian Memorial organization. And there were no 50 Armenian hostages, it is just a lie by Armenian propaganda. There are no independent sources to confirm this claim. Refugees were killed before they reached Agdam. They were killed on Armenian controlled territory near the village of Nakhichevanik. HRW report says:

The majority of Khojaly residents went along a route that took them across a shallow river, through the mountains, and, by about dawn, towards an open field near the village of Nakhichevanik, controlled then by Armenians. It was there that the most intense shooting took place. Other people fled along different routs that took them directly by Shelli, an Azerbaijani village near Agdam. A number of Khojaly survivors wandered through the forest for several days before finding their way to Agdam's environs.

[9] Armenian soldiers also confirmed to Memorial that they killed people of Khojaly on the territory that was under their control. They offered their own version though, which was different from the Azerbaijani one:

Официальные представители НКР и члены армянских вооруженных отрядов объясняли гибель мирных жителей в зоне «свободного коридора» тем, что вместе с беженцами уходили вооруженные люди, которые стреляли по армянским заставам, вызывая ответный огонь, а также попыткой прорыва со стороны основных азербайджанских сил. По словам членов армянских вооруженных отрядов, азербайджанскими формированиями со стороны Агдама была предпринята попытка вооруженного прорыва по направлению «свободного коридора». В момент, когда армянские заставы отбивали атаку, к ним в тыл подошли первые группы беженцев из Ходжалы. Вооруженные люди, находящиеся среди беженцев, открыли огонь по армянским заставам. Во время боя был уничтожен один пост (2 человека убиты, 10 человек ранены), однако бойцы другого поста, о существовании которого не подозревали азербайджанцы, с близкого расстояния открыли огонь по людям, идущим из Ходжалы. По показаниям беженцев из Ходжалы (в том числе и опубликованным в прессе) вооруженные люди, идущие в потоке беженцев, вступали в перестрелки с армянскими заставами, но каждый раз стрельбу начинала первой армянская сторона.

The official representatives of NKR and members of Armenian armed units explained the death of civilians in the area of "open corridor" by armed people leaving together with refugees shooting at Armenian outposts, and causing return fire, as well as by the break-through attempt by the main Azerbaijani forces. According to the members of Armenian armed units, the Azerbaijani forces attempted an armed break-through towards the "open corridor". When Armenian outposts were repulsing the attack, the first groups of refugees approached them from the rear. Armed people, who were among the refugees, opened fire on Armenian outposts. During the fight one outpost was destroyed (2 people killed, 10 wounded), but the soldiers of another outpost, the existence of which was not known to Azerbaijanis, opened fire from close range on people, coming from Khojaly. According to the testimonies of the refugees from Khojaly (including those published in mass media) armed people in the refugee groups exchanged fire with Armenian outposts, but the Armenian side opened fire first each time.

Now if the people of Khojaly approached the Armenian positions from the rear, as Armenian soldiers claimed, it is quite obvious that the scene of the massacre was behind the Armenian lines. And Azerbaijani refugees do not confirm the claim of Armenians that the Azerbaijani soldiers opened fire first. HRW said:

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. Nagorno Karabakh officials and fighters clearly expected the inhabitants of Khojaly to flee since they claim to have informed the town that a corridor would be left open to allow for their safe passage. No witnesses interviewed by Helsinki Watch, however, said that they knew beforehand of such a corridor. In addition, although witnesses and victims gave varying testimony on the precise time the shooting began at Nakhichevanik, they all indicated that there was sufficient light to allow for reasonable visibility and, thus, for the attackers to distinguish unarmed civilians from those people who were armed and/or using weapons. Furthermore, despite conflicting testimony about the direction from which the fire was coming, the evidence suggests that the attackers indiscriminately directed their fire at all fleeing persons. Under these circumstances, the killing of fleeing combatants could not justify the foreseeably large number of civilian casualties.

This is the picture according to independent investigators, not Armenian or Azerbaijani propaganda. People were killed on the territory which was under the Armenian control. Armenian soldiers deliberately shot at civilians. Both Memorial and HRW say that the killing of Azerbaijani civilians by Armenian armed forces cannot be justified by any circumstances. Grandmaster 09:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

"Who opened fire first" is rather a debatable point: what an Azeri refugee says, versus what an Armenian soldier says. There will NEVER be an independent, third-party opinion. Not by HRW, not by anyone. The problem is that the attacking Azeri soldiers who were among the civilians actually put the lives of those civilians IN DANGER. Here is what HRW has to say: "Our report indeed found that many residents of Khojaly may have had advance warning of the impending military operation, since Armenian forces had given an ultimatum to Alif Gajiyev, then head of the Khojaly militia, who in turn warned civilians. Our research and that of the Memorial Human Rights Center found that the retreating militia fled Khojaly along with some of the large groups of fleeing civilians. Our report noted that by remaining armed and in uniform, the Azerbaijani militia may be considered as combatants and thus endangered fleeing civilians, even if their intent had been to protect them." Source: HRW Response to Armenian Government Letter on the town of Khojaly, Nagorno-Karabakh (March 23, 1997) Serouj (talk) 16:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

It also says that the Armenian forces should not have fired at people of Khojaly, even if there were armed people among them. Grandmaster 08:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but when Armenian soldiers are fired upon, they have the right to shoot back. Unlike the Maraghar Massacre there are a lot of ambiguous things about what happened near Nakhichevanik. The principle issue among these is why Armenian soldiers fired at the mixed civilian and military group of Azeris from Khojaly. HRW numerous times and in various documents has stated that the Azerbaijani militia endangered the lives of the civilians by being a part of the civilians. If they fire at Armenian soldiers, then it is no wonder that Armenians soldiers will fire back -- whether there are civilians or not. Serouj (talk) 09:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

But there's no proof that Azerbaijani soldiers first fired at Armenian ones. It is just the claim of the Armenian side, while Azerbaijani refugees all said that the Armenians fired first. Also, the location of the massacre was not just the plain near Nakhichevanik. Many people died in the town, and along the way towards Nakhichevanik. Memorial says:

В результате обстрела города неустановленное количество мирных жителей погибло на территории Ходжалы во время штурма. Армянская сторона практически отказалась предоставить информацию о количестве погибших таким образом людей.

As result of the bombardment of the town unestablished number of civilians died on the territory of Khojaly during the assault. The Armenian side practically refused to provide the information about the number of people who died this way.

So maybe we need to include multiple locations in the infobox. Grandmaster 09:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

That's why it is called Khojaly Massacre because it involves multiple locations of Khojaly region. As far as "first shotting" goes, it's established by witness accounts who fired on whom. A few Azerbaijani soldiers accompanying hundreds of civilians through the woods, escaping from Armenian military advancement and hiding in the woods for hours when endangered, would never start shooting at Armenian positions established on top of hills. And Armenian positions defending against Azerbaijani shooters would never go mutilating the bodies afterwards. Only deliberately planned action would assure all that (massacring civilians in large numbers out in the open, mutilating the bodies, etc) took place. Can you see the logic? Tuscumbia (talk) 14:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

At the end of the day, it's the word of Azeri soldiers and civilians, versus Armenian soldiers. It's not surprising that the two have different sides to the story. Both Armenians and Azeris were "witnesses" to the events. So you can't take one's word over the other with regard to "who shot first." Both groups had SOLDIERS involved. It's not like the Azeris were a bunch of unarmed civilians. Compare that to the Maraghar Massacre in which the Armenian population was completely unarmed. Serouj (talk) 03:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

That's right and the words of Armenian soldiers as well as their commanders are and some were a part of this article describing the barbarism of Armenian armed units. Those are real undeniable published confessions which you can't dispute.Tuscumbia (talk) 14:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I rolled back your changes. Saying that 200 civilians died is not accurate, HRW does not say that 200 died, they say that the number of dead could be up to 1,000. Hundreds is a more accurate description, because the number could be 200, or 600. In any case, it is counted in hundreds. Also, Maraga has nothing to do with the topic of this article. As for location, I changed it to multiple. According to Memorial, civilians died in the town as well. Grandmaster 07:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

HRW in their report says 200, and not "hundreds". The Marghara Massacre is very relevan to this article, as it shows that the atrocities were committed by both sides. It without a doubt sheds vital light on the historical context of the event. Serouj (talk) 08:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

HRW does not say 200, it says: "while it is widely accepted that 200 Azeris were murdered, as many as 500-1,000 may have died". So if you want to refer to HRW, you need to provide a range of 200 - 1,000. Please do not add inaccurate info. And Maragha has no relation to this. It was a separate event. If we are going to mention every massacre committed in the history of the conflict, we will run out of space. Grandmaster 08:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree. The Maraghar Massacre directly followed this incident and that is why it is relevant to mention in this article. You don't want to portray Azeris as angels in this conflict now, do you? See the quote from HRW in the comprehensive document cited. It says 200 -- no mention of 600 or 1,000. Serouj (talk) 08:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Many things followed. We cannot include the events that have no relation to the event described in the article. This article has a topic, we should not deviate from it. Maragha has a separate article. And HRW says that up to 1,000 may have died. You can pick just one figure and cite it. Grandmaster 08:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Naa, HRW clearly states 200. See page 26 of this. Maraghar Massacre is one of the main massacres of Armenians (besides the events at Sumgait and Baku, not to mention the shelling of Stepanakert from both Shushi and Khojaly). As it occurred about 1 month following this incident, it is quite relevant to this article, and brings some historical context and shows that the atrocities were certainly two-sided and symmetrical. Serouj (talk) 08:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

If we have to relate every other event from the war, we could really run out of space, as Grandmaster mentioned. Should we perhaps also talk about forced exodus of Azerbaijanis in Armenian starting from November 1987, way before any Sumgait pogroms took place, or any other terror acts on the territory of Azerbaijan (on buses, trains, etc), villages of Malibeyli, Gushchular, etc? Those were there before the open conflict. Maraghar is a separate event.Tuscumbia (talk) 14:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I provided the quote from HRW. It clearly says that estimates vary. Other sources also say that estimates vary. According to de Waal [10]:

There are varying estimates of how many Azerbaijanis were killed in or near Khojati. Probably the most reliable figure is that of the official Azerbaijani parliamentary investigation, which put the death toll at 485. Even taking into account that this number includes combatants and those who died of cold, it still dwarfs any body count of the Nagorny Karabakh war. The number of Azerbaijanis who returned fire was small; this could not excuse the clear targeting of hundreds of civilians, including children, in an open space and the shooting of defenseless people on the ground.

And other massacres have no relation to this one, especially those that occurred 1 month later. Grandmaster 08:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I take that back. I wouldn't say "symmetrical". The barbarity of the Azeris at Marghara was really something else... 45 civilians DECAPITATED! 100 kidnapped, and who likely suffered a fate even WORSE than death -- we'll never know. Meanwhile, there's a good amount of evidence that the mutilation done to the corpses from Nakhichevanik was done in Aghdam by Azeris. Such acts have never been the modus operandi of Armenian soldiers. Serouj (talk) 08:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

"And other massacres have no relation to this one, especially those that occurred 1 month later." Why do you keep on PAROTTING the same thing? You KNOW that Marghara Massacre has a lot to do with this and are very much related. You just won't admit it, because mentioning it would show that Azeris were not angels. Indeed, with the WORST estimate at least one-fourth of those killed at Khojaly were SOLDIERS. Serouj (talk) 08:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I wonder how you came to that number - 1/4? Could you please elaborate? Tuscumbia (talk) 14:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure. HRW says that there were "dozens" of soldiers among the Azeri people killed. Let's conservatively interpret "dozens" to mean 3 dozen (who knows?) -- that would be about 40 people out of 200. So 1 in 5. If "dozens" means 5 dozen, then that's 3 in 5. 1/4 is a good middle ground. Again, no one knows the real numbers, but 200 is the "widely accepted" one. Serouj (talk) 03:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

If they were all civilians, one would expect a much closer match between the numbers of men killed and women killed. The disproportionate male casualty figures indicate to me either that a fairly large percentage were armed male fighters, or those firing on them were trying not to deliberately target women or children. Meowy 04:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you guys even looking at what you write? :) Jesus Christ! All you do is try to cover up physical vandalism of Armenian armed groups in 1992. It's very clear and widely known that 613 civilians were massacred. Out of nowhere you're re-writing history pushing in self-invented hypothesis about soldiers and decreased count to justify the killings of hundreds of people. I do understand you want to portray this massacre as an act of "battle" and "casualties of war" but this is far beyond war. And any attempts to fish out a hypothetical lowest number from one source to claim that "is the number" are not acceptable. Witness counts, international journalists, Armenian soldiers and even Armenian President confessed about the intent and results of the massacre, yet two Armenian folks in the Wikipedia want to suppress that information.Tuscumbia (talk) 13:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you had better tone down your language and your racial/racist insinuations. Meowy 04:01, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you should assume good faith and take your accusations elsewhere. Nowhere and never did I make any "racial/racist insinuations". Presenting hundreds of civilian deaths trying to impose "casualties of war" status upon them is dematory. Tuscumbia (talk) 14:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Hold on guys, there are false claims brought here. Nowhere in memorial it is said, that Armenians fired at civilians. It is said, that the refugees claimed, that Azeri militia opened fire every time towards Armenians, when, as the refugees said, Armenians opened fire. There is nothing said, that The fire was opened on the civilians first! As for the numbers, there is no logical max and min compromise, Tuscumbia. Do you mean, if one some Armenian or Russian or Ugandan official claims, that there were 3 million killed, we have to look a compromise between those? Of course not. We can only state, that the Human rights groups mention number A and Azeri authorities A+B. Pay attention, that 'Armenian or Karabakhi numbers aren't even mentioned.' As for the numbers of Azerbaijan, a proper approach would be telling 1 number and 1 list of names and not changing it continuously. That undermines all the efforts of Azeri officials! One more thing: the number of DEAD isn't the number of murdered in crossfire! It includes the deaths "on the way", let's call it. Let us just try seeking objectiveness and logic and not try to push one side or the other!Aregakn (talk) 01:10, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Those are not false claims. HRW came up with the numbers in their investigations (by the way HRW was there later than the first journalists who were witnesses to body counts at the Agdam mosque) based on later counts. By the time, many could have been buried and many taken to Baku cemetries while most were buried in Agdam. Also read the allegations from Armenian authorities and HRW stance on them here [11]. Azerbaijanis actually claimed the numbers would reach 1,000 and more, perhaps due to missing persons which Armenian side later passed to Azerbaijani side. That's why the number decreased to the number of actually massacred while all bodies were retrieved. Some, like the body of OMON commander Alef Khadjiev was exchanged for gasoline a few days later. Tuscumbia (talk) 13:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)