Talk:Khojaly massacre

Hürriyet, correspondent of "Le Monde", etc.

Hürriyet, correspondent of "Le Monde", head of Turkish Parliament’s Human Rights Commission - reliable sources. They say about Istambul's march. This is no offtopic. Please, read Wikipedia:Content disclaimer. Divot (talk) 11:29, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Every has a right for such rallies. Nothing extraordinary happened apart from that "strong sense of nationalism", no one was killed or wounded. Brandmeister^talk 11:33, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

You are right about "killed or wounded". But we don't say that "someone was killed or wounded", we just say, after Hürriyet etc., that "The protest was heavy with ultranationalist sentiment" and "The head of Turkish Parliament’s Human Rights Commission, Ayhan Sefer Üstün, called on the country’s prosecutors...". This is an important information about such rallies. Divot (talk) 11:37, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

P.S. If you think "Nothing extraordinary happened", we can delete all information about such rallies. Are you agree? Divot (talk) 11:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Why it was "ultranationalist"? Unless something important happened, the inclusion of that is discouraged per WP:NPOV (and WP:WEIGHT), it's just an opinion, not an important info. Brandmeister^talk 12:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

"Why it was "ultranationalist"?" Because reliable source Hürriyet says "The protest was heavy with ultranationalist sentiment".

Of course, this is important information about the rally, because the few of first-class media, describing the event, notes the nationalist sentiment. Divot (talk) 12:21, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Like Plato said that :) The reliable sources do not automatically guarantee inclusion because they should be balanced against neutrality in particular. Brandmeister^talk 13:07, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Of course, but if the leading newspaper describe rally in the article "Racism mars Khojaly protest in Taksim", it means that this is "balanced neutrality". Divot (talk) 13:22, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

This is still should be balanced against Wikipedia's neutrality policy. The rally itself, as the articles say, was not an ultranationalist as a whole: "Some protesters, however, said they had no problems with Turkish-Armenians but added that they were marching to draw attention to the Khojaly Massacre". Brandmeister^talk 13:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I add oficial position of head of Turkish Parliament’s Human Rights Commission. 14:07, 1 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Divot (talk • contribs)

OR derived from an image

Parishan, to use content translated from the supposed screenshot of an email that is on the webpage at http://panorama.am/en/politics/2012/03/02/xocali-lidice-kellerova/ would be original research. Beyond questions about the veracity of any translation, we don't know anything about this email, whether it is the complete email, the only email, etc. The actual article does not contain any of the new content you inserted, but the article does contain the content that you deleted. Meowy 02:00, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Fair use candidate from Commons: File:Hocali anit.jpg

The file File:Hocali anit.jpg, used on this page, has been deleted from Wikimedia Commons and re-uploaded at File:Hocali anit.jpg. It should be reviewed to determine if it is compliant with this project's non-free content policy, or else should be deleted and removed from this page. Commons fair use upload bot (talk) 08:47, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Falsification of history

Today, a subsection on Falsification of History was added by me, but user brandmeister removed it. I was suggested to discuss it for the first and then get it back. So I'm ready for any questions related to the text [1]. Gazifikator (talk) 23:42, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I found no mention of Khojaly in Markedonov. Why did you try to include sources that do not support your assertions? Grandmaster 07:31, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

For a little peace of text 4 sources are used. If even Markedonov is problematic, according to your post, you agree others are reliable. I see no problem as a consensus to delete Markedonov's name and source. Hopefully you will not continue Brandmeister's line, time after time changing your attitude. Gazifikator (talk) 07:41, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

This source is about events in Guba: [2] Grandmaster 19:46, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Manipulations on Khojaly is a well known topic. This paragraph should be expanded. Sprutt (talk) 23:07, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Schnirelmann and Markedonov wrote nothing about the criticism of the word "genocide" in the provided references and do not even mention the massacre. Also, as I wrote previously in the edit summary, the sentence about Quban Jews is not relevant. And do not remove the official death toll by Azerbaijani authorities until consensus is reached to do so. So far there is no evidence against those figures. Brandmeister^talk 12:36, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

The edit by Sprutt violates neutrality policy and de Waal says nothing of falsification of history.Ladytimide (talk) 18:32, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

No, that's not right, both criticize the usage of "genocide" by Azerbaijan. Markedonov speaking about the theory of "genocide of Azerbaijanis"- "Whatever we spoke about the imperfection of the Azerbaijani arguments (and spoke mostly right) and the low quality of modern philosophy of history of Azerbaijan, no one will dispute its political effectiveness. With the help of the "theory of the victims' post-Soviet Azerbaijan is largely managed to escape the image of a country, encouraging Sumgait and Baku pogroms, as well as to present the conflict over Karabakh as a more complex confrontation, rather than a fight among the "Armenian Democrats" against the "Azerbaijani national communists. Given the extremely low awareness of Western public opinion in the history and specifics of inter-ethnic relations in Asia, the theory of genocide of Azerbaijanis was effective." The text by EAJC is not only about Quba Jews, but about Khojaly too, it is there, please read - "The Azerbaijani government strives to get the Jewish community involved in the policy of “Holocaustizing history” wherein they attempt to prove facts of mass killing of Quban Jews by Armenians in 1918-1919 in order to identify them with the Holocaust, like with the capture of Khodjali in 1992". Simple WP:Idontlikeit is not passing here, sorry. Find more serious arguments. Gazifikator (talk) 18:40, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Political manipulations about Khojaly in Azerbaijan is well known topic. This passage is deleted by Brand for the third time. Mind your attitude. Sprutt (talk) 19:23, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Violation of WP:Synth and WP:OR. Neither source uses the word "falsification", yet you included it into the heading. That alone is a rude violation of WP:NPOV. Markedonov does not even mention Khojaly, yet he is included here too. WP:Synth. EAJC is also very ambiguous, it is hard to understand how mass killing of Jews in Guba could be identified with Holocaust, like in Khojaly. Do they mean to say that the capture of Khojaly is identified with Holocaust, and someone tries to do the same in Guba? The source is written in very bad English, plus it is a fringe opinion anyway. You cannot construct a section based on it, especially considering that it allows different interpretations. Grandmaster 19:26, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

What you write, completely differs from your first opinion written here (mind WP:Idontlikeit). The source says what it says, both Markedonov and EAJC are reliable sources, do you have sources criticizing them as wrong? if no, then the section must be returned. Thank you. Gazifikator (talk) 03:29, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Show me where exactly this Markedonov guy mentions Khojaly. He never does, and his article has nothing to do with the topic of this article. It is completely irrelevant, and therefore a violation of WP:Synth. You cannot combine unrelated sources to advance a point. Grandmaster 04:32, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

What a question? He is speaking about the "Azerbaijani genocide". It is what criticized, surely not the Khojaly massacre as an event. You're asking wrong question so why you don't receive a right answer. And Markedonov is just one of many sources. Don't agree? ask for a third opinion. Gazifikator (talk) 13:57, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

How can you use here a source that does not even mention Khojaly? You cannot make WP:Synth. And no source uses the word "falsification" that you included in the heading. You cannot misinterpret sources like that. Grandmaster 14:55, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

The political manipulations and falsifications of the "khojali Masacre" incident by Azerbaijan are the only reasons the incident has notability. I'm not satisfied that the current additions are the best way of addressing this fact (and the subsection title as it curently stands is not suitable), but for now it is better than having nothing. So the content that some are repeatedly deleting should stay. Meowy 16:13, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

There is another source that need to be added to subsection: after Hrant Dink's assassination some Turk nationalists organized a demonstration with "“We are all Turks, We are all from Khojaly, We are all Mehmet." placards, and a group of Azerbaijanis called "Turkey Platform of Socialist Azerbaijanis" protested against them in Ankara and announced: "To take part in this game, to tolerate how the Khojaly Massacre has become a political tool for these circles, is, first and foremost, an example of disrespect to the memory of those people brutally murdered in the Khojaly Massacre; it is indifference against the grief of those from Khojaly. ". [3]. It was so much notable that was published by Hurriet (the announcement "should be recorded in history", Hurriet says). Gazifikator (talk) 17:45, 7 June 2012 (UTC)