MarshallBagramyan (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 420: | Line 420: | ||
::VartanM, NK is officially part of Azerbaijan, so in context of total territory occupied by Armenian forces, the total figure is more relevant. 16% is a figure from CIA World Factbook, and to my knowledge it's more appropriate for citation than "''I believe the correct number is 13.65%''". I not only believe but have reference from Armenian source that entire Erivan Governorate (what's now territory of Armenia) was 80% Muslim populated in 19th century, but it's not relevant in this article either. Thanks. [[User:Atabek|Atabek]] 12:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC) |
::VartanM, NK is officially part of Azerbaijan, so in context of total territory occupied by Armenian forces, the total figure is more relevant. 16% is a figure from CIA World Factbook, and to my knowledge it's more appropriate for citation than "''I believe the correct number is 13.65%''". I not only believe but have reference from Armenian source that entire Erivan Governorate (what's now territory of Armenia) was 80% Muslim populated in 19th century, but it's not relevant in this article either. Thanks. [[User:Atabek|Atabek]] 12:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC) |
||
Why bring it up in the first place if it's irrelevant? In any case, the citation you added is redundant. Vartan didn't come up with the 13.65% figure by his own calculations (although he's still correct for anyone who wants to check with a calculator); the citation is in fact from de Waal in ''Black Garden'' who cites an Azeri parliamentary member no less, for the figure. --[[User:MarshallBagramyan|Marshal Bagramyan]] 16:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 16:57, 5 October 2007
First Nagorno-Karabakh War is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Participants
Numbers killed and wounded meet or EXCEED number of participants for each side!!!
Orbat
Archives |
---|
More information on the ORBAT of the military forces of each side at different stages of the war would be useful.Toddy1 10:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
- In case people don't know what that is: Order of battle-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 14:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Featured Article discussion
There is presently a discussion on turning this into a Featured Article. Join the discussion! --Petercorless 11:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- I am firmly against this article being "featured". It has just to many historical errors, and is very biased in nature. Padishah5000 04:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Soviet division
This issue was endlessly debated on Nagorno-Karabakh page, and the compromise version was agreed. Currently the article on Nagorno-Karabakh reads:
The predominantly Armenian region became a source of dispute between the republics of Armenia and Azerbaijan when both countries gained independence from the Russian Empire in 1918. After the Soviet Union expanded into the South Caucasus, it established the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast (NKAO) within the Azerbaijan SSR in 1923.
You know perfectly well that the Kavburo resolution said:
Proceeding from the necessity of national peace among Muslims and Armenians and of the economic ties between upper (mountainous) and lower Karabakh, of its permanent ties with Azerbaijan, mountainous Karabakh is to remain within AzSSR, receiving wide regional autonomy with the administrative center in Shusha, which is to be included in the autonomous region.
It does not use the wording that you included in the article. I think the article should observe NPOV rules. Grandmaster 19:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- As somone not party to those prior discussions, and as a neutral observer, I see no reason that the mention of the historical geographical and political divisions of the USSR are to be excised. I added back in the mention of the NKAO and Azerbaijan SSR. They are historical facts, and should not be subject to partisan modern revisionism. If there were historical objections to that, or modern objections, cite the objections. --Petercorless 23:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- P.S. Did the Kavburo resolution actually misspell "peace"? --Petercorless 23:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- Ha-ha. No, they got it right, I misspelled it. Grandmaster 05:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- The problem is that current version creates an illusion as if Nagorno-Karabakh was included in Azerbaijan by the Soviets, however by the time Kavburo passed its resolution NK was already part of Azerbaijan. That's why Kavburo said that NK was to remain within Az.SSR. I think that this should be corrected. Please see more sources on Kavburo here: User:Grandmaster/Karabakh. Grandmaster 06:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Also, the current version of the article says:
These factors lead the committee to reverse its decision and award Karabakh to Soviet Azerbaijan in 1921, and later incorporated the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast (NKAO) within the Azerbaijan SSR in 1923.
The reference is made to the above quoted decision of Kavburo, which says that "mountainous Karabakh is to remain within AzSSR", and the descrepancy between the Kavburo resolution and its interpretation in the article is obvious. I suggest chosing neutral wording for this. Grandmaster 08:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Sergei Ivanov
Could you please explain how Sergei Ivanov who is mentioned in the NK template as a key person is linked to the war? Colchicum 21:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- and also Vladimir Putin??? This table needs extensive rewriting if this article is nominated for a featured article. Colchicum 21:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- Asides from Gorbachev most of the Russian leaders have simply provided vocal support for a peaceful resolution to the conflict which is why I believe they were included. Figures including Karen Demerchyan of Armenia although slightly associated with the Nagorno Karabakh movement also seem not to belong there so I removed those who really did not play a significant role in the conflict [1].--MarshallBagramyan 21:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
MT-LBT in video still
The vehicle is the MT-LBT, the artillery tractor version of the MT-LB. --Petercorless 01:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Basayev and Zinevich
The list of commanders should include only those who were in charge of military operations, and not every minor military leader. Plus, we have no sources to support the claim that Basayev commanded anything at all in Karbakah war. We only know that he fought in Karabakh. He might as well be just a soldier. On the other hand, Russian general Zinevich was chief of stuff of Armenian forces, so he definitely belongs to the list, while Basayev does not. Basayev can be mentioned in the text, but should not be listed as a commander. Grandmaster 13:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- What we need citation of is:
- Proof of presence in N-K during time of conflict, with dates and locations if possible.
- The size and composition of forces commanded, hopefully unit name or designation.
- Operations and events they were personally involved in.
- If these three matters can be given sufficient source, and if the force Basayev commanded was battalion-sized, then it is probably notable in the infobox as a leader of an external faction fighting on behalf of the Azerbaijan military.
- p.s. Grandmaster: Do you mean Chief of Staff? --Petercorless 13:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- :) yes, I meant just that. Grandmaster 13:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- Is Zinevich notable for inclusion in the infobox? He definitely was a commander. Grandmaster 13:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- Please check this: [2] Grandmaster 13:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
So what exactly was his role in the war itself? If he was ROA deputy chief of staff, how far was he involved in the war's planning and logistics? Was he involved in bolstering Armenian defenses opposite Nakhichevan and Turkey? How often did he visit Karabakh? If we're to use this criteria then Karabakh defense committee leaders Serzh Sarkisyan and Robert Kocharyan were just, if not more involved, and even more notable, in the war effort than Zinevich. According to sources, he played an important role in forming the ROA's Army and defense force but what was his exact role in this war? I have absolutely no objection to adding Zinevich provided that I see what capacity he was serving in.
Basayev commanded a faction of Chechen troops, not ethnic Azeris. Most sources do not place the size of the force but it must have substantial enough to have risk traveling across borders and to come in aid in the of a defense of a town they did not even have the most remote affiliation to. The source listed on the page (Land Between Christianity and Islam) provides more details.--MarshallBagramyan 18:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- I too would not object if Zinevich was listed a military commander, if there is citation of the forces commanded, and if this is significant. As far as Basayev, it behooves us to have citations of even a rough estimate of the size of forces he commanded in N-K, otherwise, we cannot state he was a "commander." --Petercorless 21:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'll add a section about Basayev's participation in the war. --Petercorless 21:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- Bassayev is notable. Zinevich is not. Zinevich was not some foreigner who was in command of a foreign force aiding Armenians. He was part of the Armenian forces and was a naturalized Armenian. No comparison can be made.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 21:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- More to the point: was he a commander of forces? If he was, then we have more of a case for his name being listed as a commander. If he was not a commander of forces, then he is not listed. Similarly, we list generals, but not generally Secretaries of Defense or Defense Ministers. For an example, Barre Adan Shire Hiiraale of Somalia served as both Defense Minister as well as a Colonel and an active military commander in the army. Who can find information on Zinevich's role? --Petercorless 21:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- Bassayev is notable. Zinevich is not. Zinevich was not some foreigner who was in command of a foreign force aiding Armenians. He was part of the Armenian forces and was a naturalized Armenian. No comparison can be made.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 21:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'll add a section about Basayev's participation in the war. --Petercorless 21:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
The closest search on Google yields an Armenian forum speaking about his him whereas a search on Proquest finds only two articles that report his death without listing his contributions to Armenia asides from the role he played in creating the Armenian military from 1992, which is unclear if any of it had to do with the war.
The listed source in the article also writes that Basayev led not only Chechens but also sympathetic Islamists from the North Caucasus. The forces he commanded again remain unknown while most sources list that he led a mujahadden unit both in and out of Azerbaijan. Russian sources however comment that the size of his force was near battalion size [3]. They were even given the right to take back tanks and other war booty back to Chechnya [4] and comment that had it not been for the fighting Karabakh, he would not have gained the expertise to use in his fight against Russian forces in 1994-1996.
Apparently the name of the Afghan mujahadeen (they were confirmed to number up to 1,000) was called the Afghan Brigade and they may have been responsible for "terrorist acts" inside Armenia proper during the war (Unholy Wars, p. 151). --MarshallBagramyan 22:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- You first source (Khachig) is Armenian and not third party, so it should be rejected. The second one does not provide information about the role of Basayev as a commander in Karabakh. Grandmaster 08:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- Just because the source is from one side, or another, does not mean that it is to be rejected. Where would the history of World War II have gone if we rejected all the reports by German and Soviet and British and American and Japanese sources? Your argument is therefore facetious. While we do need to be careful about sources, we do not need to avoid them zealotously or chauvanistically, thank you. --Petercorless 08:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I beg to differ. Please check the rules:
Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require stronger sources. [5]
In my opinion, the above source does not qualify, as it is not third party and not published by a reputable publisher either. We should adhere to high standards in selection of sources if we want this article to be featured. Grandmaster 09:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- Third party in that case mean, in that case, that we should not be relying on Basayev's own blog and accepting it verbatim. That would be his first-person account. Third party does not mean "avoid any site written by anyone of Armenian extraction." Your opinion is noted, thank you. --Petercorless 09:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, let me just mention that in my view third party source is the one that is not related to either of the sides of the conflict, since the article covers the conflict between the two countries. Thanks. Grandmaster 10:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- Please see more detailed info about the career of Z in the Armenian army: [6] Grandmaster 12:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- While your opinion has been expressed and noted before, again, it is not necessary to avoid all sources from anyone of an ethnicity or national affiliation involved in the conflict. According to your logic, we would not be able to cite the New York Times regarding any event having to do with the United States, or anyone of Irish descent as a source regarding conflict in Northern Ireland, or cite the BBC involving events in the UK. Avoid spurious logic, please. --Petercorless 17:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- It is not the same thing. You cannot use an Al-kaida source to describe the US, you can only report the position of this organisation. In this case, Armenian sources have clear bias with regard to Azerbaijan, and vice versa. And with all due respect it is not my personal logic, I'm refering to the rules. I think the rules are pretty clear. Also, I would like to note that the source provided by MarshallBagramyan states that Basayev was in Karabakh only a few months, after which his deal with Azerbaijani authorities "went sour" and he left. Still he is listed as someone who made a significant contribution to military operations during the war. Grandmaster 19:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- As one of the editors of the Al Qaeda page, I am surprised at your assertion, because Wikipedia's own page is written as a counter-example to your assertion. The Al-Qaeda article quotes Osama bin Laden and his edict directing attacks against the United States: World Islamic Front for Jihad Against the Jews and Crusaders (al-Jabhah al-Islamiyya al-'Alamiyya li-Qital al-Yahud wal-Salibiyyin). Looking at many articles about conflicts on Wikipedia, it is rather common to quote from both sides of a conflict, and to not shy from primary sources—whether that is Al Qaeda or the U.S. Department of Defense. Our mission does not require us to avoid quoting sources simply due to ethnicity or nationality of authors. Nor does the spirit of Wikipedia require you to consistently harp on ethnicity as the primary basis of credibility. Again, your comments have been noted. --Petercorless 01:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
- But this is my point. You can quote Al Qaeda to describe their position and claims, but you cannot use Al Qaeda as a source for describing the US actions. The same with Armenian and Azerbaijani sources. You can use them, but you cannot rely on their info about the other warring side. They are interested in misrepresenting the facts for propaganda purposes. Grandmaster 07:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
- As one of the editors of the Al Qaeda page, I am surprised at your assertion, because Wikipedia's own page is written as a counter-example to your assertion. The Al-Qaeda article quotes Osama bin Laden and his edict directing attacks against the United States: World Islamic Front for Jihad Against the Jews and Crusaders (al-Jabhah al-Islamiyya al-'Alamiyya li-Qital al-Yahud wal-Salibiyyin). Looking at many articles about conflicts on Wikipedia, it is rather common to quote from both sides of a conflict, and to not shy from primary sources—whether that is Al Qaeda or the U.S. Department of Defense. Our mission does not require us to avoid quoting sources simply due to ethnicity or nationality of authors. Nor does the spirit of Wikipedia require you to consistently harp on ethnicity as the primary basis of credibility. Again, your comments have been noted. --Petercorless 01:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
- It is not the same thing. You cannot use an Al-kaida source to describe the US, you can only report the position of this organisation. In this case, Armenian sources have clear bias with regard to Azerbaijan, and vice versa. And with all due respect it is not my personal logic, I'm refering to the rules. I think the rules are pretty clear. Also, I would like to note that the source provided by MarshallBagramyan states that Basayev was in Karabakh only a few months, after which his deal with Azerbaijani authorities "went sour" and he left. Still he is listed as someone who made a significant contribution to military operations during the war. Grandmaster 19:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- Begging the question. You are presuming all Armenian sources – even non-governmental authors and editors – are inherently propagandistic and factually incorrect, to the same level as Al-Qaeda, a terrorist organization. Given that as a premise, your conclusion is self-affirming. It is not, however, logically proven. --Petercorless 09:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
- I think that you cannot rely on what Armenian sources say about Azerbaijan, and vice versa. They have a reason to be biased. In such cases it is better using third party sources with no bias. However, Armenian and Azerbaijani sources have no bias towards themselves, therefore we can use them when they describe what happened on their side. I think it is very simple. How can you trust to what Armenians say about involvement of Basayev? They are interested in demonizing their enemies. We should rely only on those sources that have no interest in the issue. Grandmaster 13:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
- Btw, check the title of the Armenian source: Terror in Karabakh. Very unbiased, isn't it? Grandmaster 17:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
- Given wars are terrible, horrific, and traumatic, I don't believe the title, by itself, is inherently unbiased. Trying to fathom your meaning, I had to wonder: are you trying to argue multi-year wars are "fun" for civilian populations? Furthermore, even if the book was trying to argue that there were acts of terrorism in Karabakh, and that Azeris were responsible for such, that would not, by itself, be inadmissible as a source. There are indeed many parties in this war — on both sides — which committed rather terrible things. We simply need to note any bias and contextualize the reference. We need not discard it as a source. Otherwise, we'd have to throw away every historical resource to ancient Greece and Rome to the present day. At this point, I'll ask you to read this: WP:BDH --Petercorless 18:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
- According to such logic, we can refer to Goebbels propaganda and say that there’s certain truth in what Nazis said about Jews and that we cannot completely reject that source. I think we should refrain from using biased sources in such controversial issues like this, especially considering that the Armenian source in question does not even provide the name of the author. It is written by some Khatchig M., who does not disclose his full name, which makes it even less reliable. I'm sorry to disagree with you, but usually we refrain from using Armenian and Azerbaijani sources in the articles about this conflict, when they accuse each other of various things. If the fact indeed took place, it must have been mentioned by some third party source as well. Grandmaster 12:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- While you can draw that assertion if you wish to, that is your own assertion. Like many other assertions you have made, it is based on false presumptions or draws the wrong conclusion from a spurious line of reasoning. You can use both Azeri and Armenian sources, given general adherence to Wikipedia policies on citation and sources. They can accuse each other of many things. Some of those assertions are true. Some of the false assertions may be noteworthy, especially if they are false assertions. Wikipedia itself need not adopt assertions as a neutral truth. But to avoid citation of direct sources as to the causes of war, or its conduct or resolution, is not Wikipedia policy. Check out: WP:NPOV#Attributing_and_substantiating_biased_statements. Thank you. --Petercorless 07:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- According to such logic, we can refer to Goebbels propaganda and say that there’s certain truth in what Nazis said about Jews and that we cannot completely reject that source. I think we should refrain from using biased sources in such controversial issues like this, especially considering that the Armenian source in question does not even provide the name of the author. It is written by some Khatchig M., who does not disclose his full name, which makes it even less reliable. I'm sorry to disagree with you, but usually we refrain from using Armenian and Azerbaijani sources in the articles about this conflict, when they accuse each other of various things. If the fact indeed took place, it must have been mentioned by some third party source as well. Grandmaster 12:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- Given wars are terrible, horrific, and traumatic, I don't believe the title, by itself, is inherently unbiased. Trying to fathom your meaning, I had to wonder: are you trying to argue multi-year wars are "fun" for civilian populations? Furthermore, even if the book was trying to argue that there were acts of terrorism in Karabakh, and that Azeris were responsible for such, that would not, by itself, be inadmissible as a source. There are indeed many parties in this war — on both sides — which committed rather terrible things. We simply need to note any bias and contextualize the reference. We need not discard it as a source. Otherwise, we'd have to throw away every historical resource to ancient Greece and Rome to the present day. At this point, I'll ask you to read this: WP:BDH --Petercorless 18:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
- While your opinion has been expressed and noted before, again, it is not necessary to avoid all sources from anyone of an ethnicity or national affiliation involved in the conflict. According to your logic, we would not be able to cite the New York Times regarding any event having to do with the United States, or anyone of Irish descent as a source regarding conflict in Northern Ireland, or cite the BBC involving events in the UK. Avoid spurious logic, please. --Petercorless 17:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I suggest removing this part from the article:
A Chechen contingent, led by Shamil Basayev, was one of the units to participate in the conflict. According to Azeri Colonel Azer Rustamov, in 1992, "hundreds of Chechen volunteers rendered us invaluable help in these battles led by Shamil Basayev and Salman Raduev." Basayev was said to be one of the last fighters to leave Shusha. Basayev later said during his career, he and his battalion had only lost once, and that defeat came in Karabakh in fighting against the "Dashnak battalion". He later said he pulled his mujahideen out of the conflict when the war seemed to be more for nationalism than for jihad. During the conflict, Basayev was first introduced to Amir Ibn Khattab.[42]
It is not based on a reliable third-party source and is just Armenian propaganda, which has no place here. The role of Basayev should be described in a neutral manner with a reference to reliable sources, and not anonymous Armenian pamphlets. Grandmaster 08:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- I still expect proper referencing of the role of Basayev. Grandmaster 07:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- While you, personally so far, assert this is propaganda, can you provide a citation to a 3rd party counter-assertion the above is indeed false or misleading information? --Petercorless 07:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Basayev has been referenced and sourced by multiple sources, read them if you are so unsure on Amazon.com or Google Books. Follow Peter's advice and quit beating this dead horse. I use de Waal's wording in "award" as the use of the Kavburo's wording has been debated to death on the NK page. This article's nomination has been stonewalled enough, can we move more constructively already?--MarshallBagramyan 07:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- I do not object to the use of your second source:
- President Dudayev soon dispatched Basayev to Azerbaijan to assist the Muslim Azerbaijani national army in fighting the Russian-backed Christian Armenian forces over the Nagorno-Karabakh region. In exchange for Chechnya's help, Basayev would get to keep the “trophies of war” (the weapons and ammunition that he captured from Armenian forces) to take back to Chechnya. But within a few months the deal went sour and, as Basayev recalls, “I led my own mujahideen out of Azerbaijan”.
- It is a third party published source. However I do object to the use of the anonymous Armenian source for the reasons stated above. As for Kavburo resolution, why are we using de Waal and not any of the sources quoted here: [7] And why cannot we provide a balanced description of the situation, considering that sources differ and we cannot take one authoritative sources over others? Grandmaster 07:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- There’s no proof of Khatab’s participation in Karabakh war, however the Armenian source tries to link Basayev to Khatab and Osama bin Laden:
- The short time Basayev spent in the region was crucial in his "career", because, according to some reports, it was there that he met Amir Ibn Khattab, sent to the region by Osama Bin Laden to participate in the civil war in Tajikistan and assist the Azeries in the war against the Armenians. It is with Khattab that Basayev later traveled to Afghanistan.
- This article also repeats this claim. Once again, I do not object to mentioning Basayev in the article, however this should be done objectively and with reference to reliable sources as per rules. As we know, exceptional claims require stronger sources. Grandmaster 08:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
All you have to do is Google Basyev's name and Khattab's and you'll get numerous hits regarding their contact and Karabakh itself:
- In the Caucasus, around 1,500 Afghan veterans entered Azerbaijan to fight Armenia over Nagorno-Karabakh, and once fighting ceased there in 1994, they swiftly moved on to Chechnya-Daghestan (Shamil Basayev was a bin Laden associate). [8]
- 'None too pleased that the war was more nationalist than religious in nature, Basayev soon tired of it [war]. But the war in Nagorno-Karabakh was to have a profound influence on him, for here he met Amir ibn al-Khattab, a Saudi Wahhabi extremist.[9]
- Amir ibn al-Khattab, a Saudi national and bin Laden protege, led the al Qaeda effort in
Chechnya. Al-Khattab previously assisted Islamic fighters in the Tajik Civil War and the Armenia-Azerbaijan War over Nagorno-Karabakh. [10]
Etc. etc., if you don't think those sites are reliable, just do the searching yourself. And by the way, his full name is Khatchig Mouradian so you can cease your claims on him being some anonymous figure. The Kavburo wording has been discussed repeatedly, just because they use the word doesn't necessarily mean it reflected back on reality. USSR sources claim that it had liberated the Baltic states during World War 2 instead of saying that they had occupied and annexed it. Do we have to use their wording in those articles? There's so many interpretations and wordings used, they annexed it, included in it, ceded it, were awarded it, were given it, etc. De Waal is the one source many us agree to use with a free and is even more pro-Azeri than he is neutral yet and you're still complaining? --MarshallBagramyan 17:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- I don’t have to search for anything, if you want something included in the article, it is your responsibility to provide reliable sources. Check Wikipedia:Verifiability: The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not with those seeking to remove it. You first source does not say anything about Khattab, it only claims that Basayev was Bin Laden associate, which is irrelevant to this article, back in 1992 Basayev had no connection with Al-Qaeda, moreover, he had connections with Russian special forces and even undergone training in secret military camps of GRU, second one is a blog, and third one says: It should be noted that the Azeri Ministry of Defense officially denies that Khattab took part in the fighting over Nagorno-Karabakh.
- As for Kavburo, the sources provide different interpretation of the decision, but you chose the one that you like the most, ignoring others. That’s not the way it’s done. Grandmaster 19:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
It is not my fault if every source I present is torn down by you as "biased" or inadequate material. This argument has gone on in circles for long enough.--MarshallBagramyan 22:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Not every source. I accept good sources, and I agreed with inclusion of some, but if the sources conflict, you cannot choose the one you like and ignore others. Grandmaster 11:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Explanations of our individual editorial processes need not be addressed in detail, and move focus away from the content. Let's either return to specific elements of the article or move on. --Petercorless 19:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Zinevich
(Split out to avoid getting lost in the proverbial weeds above. --Petercorless 01:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC))
It's a very distinguished career GM, but how does he factor into this war? His biography notes that he served as high level staff officer for the NKR's Army only beginning in 1994, when the war had pretty much ended. Monte Melkonian led his fighters in Martuni and elsewhere from 1992-1993, Hemayag Haroyan, a career Soviet officer rendered his services in Karabakh, "Komandos" Ter-Tatevosyan was one of the most well known and one of the most respected officers by the lower file and rank troops and not only organized but personally led many battles including the capture of Shushi. I don't doubt Zinevich's contributions to forming the Armenian Army but it's irrelevant putting his name in the infobox if we don't see what he accomplished in the war.--MarshallBagramyan 17:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- Zinevich can therefore be mentioned in the article, probably as one of possibly a group of people who helped found the NKR army. That seems like a fair citation of his involvement. If he's not a commander of field forces, then please leave him out of the infobox. Again, citation of his role as a commander would be needed. Yet I see no reason to make it seem like there's a consipiracy to not mention civil-military defense leadership. Again, if he is notable, note his role using NPOV voice. Seems straightforward to me. --Petercorless 17:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- With regard to Zinievich. According to Seyran Oganian, the Minister of Defence of Karabakh Armenians, Zinevich personally took part in all military operations:
- Zinevich can therefore be mentioned in the article, probably as one of possibly a group of people who helped found the NKR army. That seems like a fair citation of his involvement. If he's not a commander of field forces, then please leave him out of the infobox. Again, citation of his role as a commander would be needed. Yet I see no reason to make it seem like there's a consipiracy to not mention civil-military defense leadership. Again, if he is notable, note his role using NPOV voice. Seems straightforward to me. --Petercorless 17:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- Анатолий Владимирович был одним из наших учителей и руководителей, но прежде всего он был боевым товарищем и лично участвовал во всех боевых операциях.
- Anatoly Vladimirovich was one of our teachers and leaders, but first of all he was a brother in arms and personally took part in all military operations. [11]
- More:
- В июне 92-го по просьбе первого министра обороны Армении Вазгена Саркисяна он поехал в Карабах "...на три дня, посмотреть, как воюют карабахцы". И остался там на пять лет.
- In June 1992 he went to Karabakh by the request of the first Minister of Defense of Armenia Vazgen Sarikissian “for three days, to see how Karabakhees fight”, and stayed there for 5 years.
- "Да, это именно так, - сказал мне еще в 1994 г. Вазген Саркисян. - Даже в самое тяжелое время Зиневич не бросил Карабах. Мы обязаны ему очень многим. А знаешь, сколько армянских офицеров я посылал в Карабах? Никто из них больше трех дней там не остался..."
- “Yes, it is indeed so”, told me Vazgen Sarkissian back in 1994. “Even during the hardest times Zinevich did not leave Karabakh. We owe him a lot. You know how many Armenian officers I sent to Karabakh? None of them stayed there for more than 3 days”.
- So Zinevich was in NK in 1992-1997 and personally commanded military operations. Grandmaster 20:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
It is not the same thing. You cannot use an Al-kaida source to describe the US, you can only report the position of this organisation. By your logic, we should thus disregard the above source since it has an "obvious bias" judging it from its origin. We can exclude the Armenian source on Basayev only to buttress it with three other non-Armenian sources. You can't use one source when it fails to support your views and then point to it when it does. If I was to introduce a source originating from the Gov. of Armenia alleging such and such claims against Azerbaijan, you would most probably dismiss it but its enough if if one source supports your claims, regardless of who published it.--MarshallBagramyan 20:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- Armenian source has a bias toward Azeris, but not toward Armenians, same as Azeri sources are biased with regard to Armenians but not with regard to themselves. Grandmaster 21:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Armenian reports on Basayev in Azerbaijan is unsubstantiated by third party sources. We have Azeri sources, claiming that Bin Laden had hubs in and links to Armenia. If we include Basayev here based on Armenian reports we should include Bin Laden as well. But then what is the merit of such encyclopedic articles? Either we include both - Basayev, Zinevich (and why not Bin Laden) or none.--Dacy69 23:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Dacy, every now and then I like to pore over some crackpot theory on the evilness of us Armenians, and whatnot but what you say truly lacks imagination and thought. You trying to connect Osama bin Laden, a man who detests Christians to say nothing of certain Muslims also, is perhaps one of the most stupidest things I and other people have ever heard. Check this article right now and see where exactly are the sources coming from on the Chechen-Basayev-Afghan/Arab guerrillas-Azerbaijan connection and then come back and post your comments.
Read over your personal belief on your user page and then check if they reflect with reality in regards to what you just posted above.--MarshallBagramyan 00:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
It is not about my personal belief. it is about principles of using references and sources. And if we use, as you put it, stupiedest things such as about Basayev then it might apply also to other things. It is me who wrote above "what is the merit of such encyclopedic articles".--Dacy69 01:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
- Alright. I'll call the question: back to the topic of Zinevich's role as commander. What is the unit or formation he commanded in the war? Was he a staff officer, advisor, or a commanding officer? He stayed for 5 years. Fair enough. I do not dispute his presence. I don't have any investment whether he is listed or not. Simply quote the sources which say he commanded a force, and then name the units and whatever particular engagements they were involved in. --Petercorless 01:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
- p.s. Based on the above, feel free to add in something to the general article properly cited. Until we establish him as a commanding officer (versus, say, a staff officer or advisor), we should not (yet) add him to the infobox. --Petercorless
- The above source clearly says that Zinevich was involved in all military operations of the Armenians forces and was one of their leaders. Grandmaster 13:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
- Yes he "took part." I read that, by the way. Answer the germaine questions: "What is the unit or formation he commanded in the war? Was he a staff officer, advisor, or a commanding officer?" --Petercorless 18:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
- The above source clearly says that Zinevich was involved in all military operations of the Armenians forces and was one of their leaders. Grandmaster 13:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
- p.s. Based on the above, feel free to add in something to the general article properly cited. Until we establish him as a commanding officer (versus, say, a staff officer or advisor), we should not (yet) add him to the infobox. --Petercorless
- Alright. I'll call the question: back to the topic of Zinevich's role as commander. What is the unit or formation he commanded in the war? Was he a staff officer, advisor, or a commanding officer? He stayed for 5 years. Fair enough. I do not dispute his presence. I don't have any investment whether he is listed or not. Simply quote the sources which say he commanded a force, and then name the units and whatever particular engagements they were involved in. --Petercorless 01:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
He was a commander of NK army staff. there is a plenty websites confiming his involvement in NK at high military level. [12], [13], [14], I can add more.--Dacy69 19:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
- Was he commanding Russian or Armenian soldiers? Basayev was commanding a foreign mercenary group. Fad (ix) 20:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
- Russian sources *Sigh* Nareklm 05:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- В переломный период войны штабом Армии обороны НКР руководил генерал Анатолий Зиневич, кадровый военный, имеющий богатый опыт участия в боевых действиях в различных регионах мира – Эфиопии, Сомали, Афганистане. До добровольного прибытия в Нагорный Карабах он являлся советником министра обороны Республики Армении по вопросам обороны. Благодаря четко разработанным операциям генерала, карабахские войска решали поставленные перед собой задачи при минимальных потерях. [15]
- Russian sources *Sigh* Nareklm 05:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- Zinevich was chief of staff of the Armenian forces in NK. He planned the operations of the Armenian forces and took active part in their implementation. He should be listed as a commander of the Armenian forces. Grandmaster 12:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- If he was chief of staff of the army, then, without further objection, you can list him in the Infobox, and you can add something about his role in the text. Agreed? --Petercorless 15:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- Zinevich was chief of staff of the Armenian forces in NK. He planned the operations of the Armenian forces and took active part in their implementation. He should be listed as a commander of the Armenian forces. Grandmaster 12:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- Yes. Grandmaster 06:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
THE FLAG OF PRE-2004 CHECHNYA IS WRONG. The proper one is green-white-red-white-green = Dudayev/Separatist flag
http://images.google.co.uk/images?svnum=10&hl=en&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=ichkeria&spell=1, while the one on the page got 2 red stripes, which is http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/ru-ce_ru.html.
Good luck.
Petercorless' FAC comment
"Non-"third party" objections of sources -- If this was an article about World War II, it would be allowable to quote from either Churchill's six-volume history of World War II, or Hitler's Mein Kampf, as both individuals were personally and primarily involved. You cannot toss away a primary source by calling it POV".
Well, it depends on which statement is supposed to be supported by citation. Many primary sources usually aren't entirely within the POV/NPOV and may contain some other issues which are to be checked (especially while citing Mein Kampf). --Brand спойт 12:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed. Yet the outright elimination of an entire nation or ethnic group's historical works based solely or primarily on their nationality or ethnicity is a severe form of prejudice and highly one-sided POV. Let's move on. --Petercorless 15:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations to all the contributors!
A Featured Article! This is a well-deserved result of a lot of hard work, a fair bit of compromise, and many, many passionate discussions. For all those who contributed their energies, time, knowledge and contributions, you have my thanks. Let us take a moment to pay our respects also to those who suffered and died, or who survived forever changed, due to this conflict. May the work here help inform the world about the peoples of this region, and serve as witness of their collective experiences. --Petercorless 06:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- I personally think that it is very sad that such an article becomes an FA. The issues that I raised on talk still have not been addressed. Only 4 third party editors took part in voting, of them 3 voted in support, and 1 opposed. The rest of support votes came from Armenian and Iranian users. I don’t see that this article received an overwhelming support of wiki community. It needs much work and currently is not up to FA standard. That is my opinion. Grandmaster 07:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- I second Grandmaster opinion. Moreover this article is listed in arbitration case--Dacy69 17:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Good job! this article deserves it :-) Artaxiad 09:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Good job Marshal. Fad (ix) 17:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks guys, couldn't have done it without any of you.--MarshallBagramyan 21:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Good job MarshallBagramyan, and congratulation to all. Vartanm 23:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I currently have no Internet, so my feedback, especially in voting, is on hold. --Brand спойт 11:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Khojaly Massacre
I added Khojaly Massacre to "See Also" part. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Micrain (talk • contribs) 20:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC).
- I removed it because there is already a section in the article about Khojaly Vartanm 02:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Sure, but how long do we have to wait? Vartanm 04:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- I added in some figures and external citations of the casualties. --Petercorless 04:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- I informed the anon. user about the possible removal. Vartanm 04:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- I added in some figures and external citations of the casualties. --Petercorless 04:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Azeri and Armenian sources
As user:MarshallBagramyan insist on inclusion of Armenian source I see no reason why he continues to remove Azerbaijani sources.--Dacy69 19:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- It might have to do with some crazy belief that perhaps its corroborated by non-Armenian sources. If you want to place in a source that the Azeri gov. insists it had no knowledge on that matter, go ahead. But NPOV does not mean all POV of are included. --MarshallBagramyan 19:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- I agree that NPOV does not mean that all POV included because some POV can be totally and purposefully distorted and biased info. But in this case both POV might be biased - so either we include both and let a reader to judge or remove both.--Dacy69 21:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- I have included your source. Let me know if you have any objections. Vartanm 22:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- I agree that NPOV does not mean that all POV included because some POV can be totally and purposefully distorted and biased info. But in this case both POV might be biased - so either we include both and let a reader to judge or remove both.--Dacy69 21:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
You cannot present the claims of the Armenian source as a fact. There’s not a single evidence from any reliable third party source that Khattab ever traveled to Karabakh. Therefore it should be properly attributed to the Armenian source, and the position of Azerbaijani side should be presented as well, as per NPOV rules. Grandmaster 06:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Two entries in the "Further Readings" section removed
- Curtis, Glenn E. Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia Country Studies. Federal Research Division Library of Congress, 1995
- Libaridian, Gerard. The Karabagh file: Documents and facts on the region of Mountainous Karabagh, 1918-1988. Zoryan Institute for Contemporary Armenian Research & Documentation; 1st ed edition, 1988
Why are they removed? They are replaced by two others. Why not have all of them? I don't think 12 such entries is too much. deniz 05:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
16%
See CIA World factbook:
- Armenia supports ethnic Armenian secessionists in Nagorno-Karabakh and since the early 1990s has militarily occupied 16% of Azerbaijan [16] Grandmaster 06:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Stop suppressing the info, Marshall. If there are different estimates, you should include them all, and not pick the one you like the most. Grandmaster 06:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- The last edit by Aivazovsky is acceptable. Grandmaster 11:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- De Waal's 14% was pretty exact. Take this passage from p. 286 of Black Garden:
- The Armenians fully occupy five of the seven "occupied territories" outside of Nagorny Karabakh. They are Kelbajar (1,936 km²), Lachin (1,835 km²), Kubatly (802 km²), Jebrail (1,050 km²), and Zangelan (707 km²). They also occupy 77 percent or 842 km² of the 1,094 km² Aghdam region (this figure was given by the head of the Aghdam region, Gara Sariev, at the front line on 19 May 2001) and approximately one-third (judging by maps) or 462 km² of the 1,386 km² of Fizuli region. The Armenians also occupy two former village enclaves of approximately 75 km² in the Nakhichevan and Kazakh regions. (For their part, the Azerbaijanis occupy one former Armenian enclave of about 50 km²)
- This means that the combined area of Azerbaijan under Armenian control is approximately 11,797 km² or 4,555 square miles. Azerbaijan's total area is 86,600 km². So the occupied zone is in fact 13.62 percent of Azerbaijan–still a large figure, but way short of President Aliev's repeated claim.
- However, Grandmaster insists that we use the 16% as presented on the CIA World Factbook website, claiming that it's a credible source. -- Aivazovsky 22:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Considering how much it is cited on Wikipedia, yes, it is a credible source. --Golbez 22:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- However, Grandmaster insists that we use the 16% as presented on the CIA World Factbook website, claiming that it's a credible source. -- Aivazovsky 22:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Of course it's a reliable source but I'm being a little investigative, rather than selective, here. Most sources either place the figure to 13-14% or 20-25% (even 50%) - the latter figures just ones that were repeated by Azerbaijani politicians during the war.
I don't always like using de Waal as the "be all, end all" source but at least in his book, the calculations are meticulous since he even adds up the regions in Nakhichevan and Kazakh too. Take a look at a map of the region and figure out the calculations because the CIA's doesn't seem to add up. Even if we were to remove the Nakhichevan exclave, (we would then have 81,100km) the figure would still come up to be 14.54%. Stretching it by almost 1.5% percent just reveals some lazy homework done by the boys at Langley.--MarshallBagramyan 23:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- I find it funny how Grandmaster choses to use the CIA factbook only when it comes to stuff he agrees with or that suits his POV. The CIA factbook also clearly says that Moscow (Stalin) assigned Nagorno-Karabakh to Azerbaijan.
- "Armenian leaders remain preoccupied by the long conflict with Muslim Azerbaijan over Nagorno-Karabakh, a primarily Armenian-populated region, assigned to Soviet Azerbaijan in the 1920s by Moscow."
- Yet he claims that the CIA doesn't know diddly squat about history here So then, if this CIA is that credible as users here claim it to be, then we should change all NK information that doesn't say NK was handed over to Azerbaijan. - Fedayee 00:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- I only suggest to include all estimates and opinions, as per NPOV. The same goes for historical section. You picked one version of events ignoring other interpretations, and I still object to that. As for the figures, we should provide all available estimates, and not make any original research judging who made better calculations. Grandmaster 05:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
It would be the same as asking for the inclusion of the 20% figure as part of the final estimate of the land held. This is not a subjective issue to necessarily include multiple opinions: we're talking about the borders of countries which have been clearly delineated in maps in which Azerbaijani leaders have given the estimates.
This is instead, objective, and one which a little logic should be employed when observing the figures.--MarshallBagramyan 16:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Just because nobody in the media is doing the math properly doesn't mean that we shouldn't be doing the math properly and this isn't original research. In order for the territory comprising the NKAR plus the occupied territories to be even 14% would mean that the total amount of territory occupied by Armenian forces is three times the area of the NKAR and I find this unlikely. Remember also that Azerbaijan occupies part of the NKAR. I recommend coming out with our own analysis as we can't find reliable numbers out there. Pocopocopocopoco 02:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Recent Changes putting percentage outside the enclave instead of lumping together
I have changed the 14 to 16% to 9% as lumping the territory inside and outside the enclave together and saying that it's the amount of Azerbaijani territory controlled by Armenian forces constitutes POV. The enclave itself is disputed so the amounts should be reported separately to prevent POV. My Calcations from Dewaal:
1,936 Kelbajar 1,835 Lachin 802 Kubatly 1,050 Jebrail 707 Zangelan 842 Aghdam 462 Fizuli 75 exclaves 7,709 Total
7,709/86,600=8.9% Pocopocopocopoco 16:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Afghan Mujahideen
This was long debated during hours of heated discussion. Sources were provided and there was finally peace in this article. This article has passed the process of sourcing, including with this information to become featured article. If you want more information please view the archives about this specific topic and stop removing information which amount to disruption. VartanM 02:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- What is this Vartan, you are stealing my arguments now? :P Tsk tsk tsk... >_> - Fedayee 04:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Damn, you caught me :) It was like 100F outside, I just came home and was tired, I decided to use ayour brain instead. You know what I found out? It hurts my brain less when I use yours. Just kidding :) VartanM 05:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Lets try and keep the discussion on topic, folks. Padishah5000 06:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Damn, you caught me :) It was like 100F outside, I just came home and was tired, I decided to use ayour brain instead. You know what I found out? It hurts my brain less when I use yours. Just kidding :) VartanM 05:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- What is this Vartan, you are stealing my arguments now? :P Tsk tsk tsk... >_> - Fedayee 04:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I do not disagree with you assertion that the the issue of Afghan Mujahideen involvement was debated. I disagree with the conclusion. The Nagorno-Karabakh conflict was not a religious conflict, and the combatants were as widely varied and aligned as one could imagine. The article makes some false assumptions, such as Iranian support for Azerbaijan. In reality, Iran, along with Russia, supported the Armenian cause. I also I firmly against this error-laden and clearly bias article being a featured article. After all, virtually ever photograph in the article shows the Armenian side! Padishah5000 04:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- It does not make a difference if it was a religious war or not. To the Soviets, their invasion was not religious, to the Afghan mujaheddin it was a Jihad. That is mostly why the Afghans joined the fight and participated in the front lines of the war anyway. Besides, if we keep the CIS mercenaries, it is only logical to keep the Afghan mujaheddin as well. - Fedayee 04:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- That does not make any sense to me, at all. We are not talking about an article on the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and any individual Afghan involvement in the conflict, on either side, sounds rather far fetched and lacking in evidence. CIS mercenaries fought on both sides of the conflict, irrespective of loyalty. Trying to connect Armenia to the Soviet Union, and thus stating that the Afghans joined the secular Azerbaijani side to have a second "jihad" against the Soviets, also seems to defy logic. As far as the mention of Iran in the article, a change is in order. Iran supported Armenia in the conflict through limited weapons deliveries and intel sharing, and most certainly not back Azerbaijan, along the sides of Turkey, the USA and Israel. Padishah5000 06:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- lol, you have misinterpreted what I am saying.
- >Trying to connect Armenia to the Soviet Union, and thus stating that the Afghans joined the secular Azerbaijani side to have a second "jihad" against the Soviets, also seems to defy logic.
- That does not make any sense to me, at all. We are not talking about an article on the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and any individual Afghan involvement in the conflict, on either side, sounds rather far fetched and lacking in evidence. CIS mercenaries fought on both sides of the conflict, irrespective of loyalty. Trying to connect Armenia to the Soviet Union, and thus stating that the Afghans joined the secular Azerbaijani side to have a second "jihad" against the Soviets, also seems to defy logic. As far as the mention of Iran in the article, a change is in order. Iran supported Armenia in the conflict through limited weapons deliveries and intel sharing, and most certainly not back Azerbaijan, along the sides of Turkey, the USA and Israel. Padishah5000 06:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- It does not make a difference if it was a religious war or not. To the Soviets, their invasion was not religious, to the Afghan mujaheddin it was a Jihad. That is mostly why the Afghans joined the fight and participated in the front lines of the war anyway. Besides, if we keep the CIS mercenaries, it is only logical to keep the Afghan mujaheddin as well. - Fedayee 04:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- No no no, I am saying that Jihad is most probably on of the reasons they volunteered for the war. The Soviet invasion was just an example by me to show that for one side, it's a religious war (Afghan) and to the other it was not (obviously, Soviet). Anyway this is beyond the topic now, it doesn't make a difference if it were a religious war or not (if you are still wondering if I think it was a religious war, it was not), their involvement is there, they participated in front line attacks, it is sourced. "Following the defeats suffered by the Azeri (Muslim) forces in their war with the Armenians (Christians) over control of the Nagorny Karabakh region, Azerbaijan turned to Afghanistan in August 1993 for military aid. Afghanistan responded by sending 1,000 mujahideen warriors to help the Azeris. In October 1993, the Afghan mujahideen launched a surprise attack against the Armenian forces in the region of Zanglan (near the Iranian border), and even gained ground, before being repulsed by the Armenian forces. As far as we know, these mujahideen forces remained in Azerbaijan where they continue to help the Azeris in their struggle against the Armenians. The source is the Israeli government, a staunch ally of Azerbaijan." This is from the archives on this talk page.
- >CIS mercenaries fought on both sides of the conflict, irrespective of loyalty.
- Yes, and that is why they are in the combatants section, on both sides. The Afghans fall in their category as foreign fighters, the only difference is, they chose a side.
- Far enough. You convinced me. On a side not, the Azerbaijanis must have been rather desperate to turn to Afghanistan for aid in the early 90's, given its own secular post Soviet government, and Afghanistans lack of any real government and organization, fundamentalist direction, as well as a complete lack of sources of weapons supply. Padishah5000 20:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, and that is why they are in the combatants section, on both sides. The Afghans fall in their category as foreign fighters, the only difference is, they chose a side.
- And as for Iran, sources in the article state otherwise. Please provide good sources to back your claims up. Which reminds me that some of the Arab world helped Azerbaijan during the war, as well. Are you familiar with that? - Fedayee 14:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- I am very knowledgeable about the Iranian government's foreign policy at present, and during the 1990's. Iran supported Christian Armenia against Muslim Azerbaijan, despite it's own official "Shia Islamic" government, or at the very least was nominally neutral, "leaning" towards Armenia's benefit. It was a question of geopolitical interest, as opposed to any ideology. Here is several links that state so:
- And as for Iran, sources in the article state otherwise. Please provide good sources to back your claims up. Which reminds me that some of the Arab world helped Azerbaijan during the war, as well. Are you familiar with that? - Fedayee 14:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
http://bcsia.ksg.harvard.edu/publication.cfm?program=CORE&ctype=article&item_id=1474
http://www.irn-press-service.com/ips/articles-2004/september/khatami_armenia_9904.shtml
http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticleprint/2006/07/61b4f75f-1f45-4c58-b543-2efa9a4a530b.html
http://poli.vub.ac.be/publi/ContBorders/eng/ch0701.htm
- For the article to be accurate, it must reflect this reality. Padishah5000 20:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Alright, I have viewed your sources and I have a few comments on them.
- For the article to be accurate, it must reflect this reality. Padishah5000 20:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- The first one's author, Dr. Shaffer, has a bias towards Azerbaijan as she is an "expert" on that nation. Dr. Shaffer's main research interests include political, social, and security trends in the Caucasus and Central Asia, with emphasis on the Republic of Azerbaijan; the Azerbaijani minority in Iran; ethnic politics in Iran; Iranian nuclear program and security policy; Russian-Iranian relations; Iranian foreign policy, with emphasis on Iran’s policy in Central Asia and the Caucasus; U.S.–Iranian relations; energy and politics, especially in the Caspian region, and the Nagorno-Karabagh conflict. So I doubt she is a reliable source we could cite.
- The second source does not say that Armenia was aided by Iran, it only says Azerbaijan accused Iran of helping Armenia. So coming from the Republic of Azerbaijan, it contains a bias.
- The fourth one actually talks about how Iran supported Azerbaijan during the war.
- So that leaves us with 2 sources, one of which is a news source and the other by a guy with a bias towards Iran ("The Islamic Republic of Iran considers the United States as the Big Satan and Israel the little Satan.")
- Although it is acknowledged that Iran helped the population of Armenia with economic aid (as any neighbour usually does), I am not convinced it actively sided with Armenia during the war when their Supreme leader, Ayatollah Khameini is heard saying stuff like this "Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, visited Tabriz - the largest and most important Iranian Azeri city - at the end of July 1993. In order to demonstrate Iran's clear support for the new Azeri leadership, he declared that Iran would not remain indifferent in the face of any further encroachments on Azeri territories, and he attacked Armenian policies: "The government of Armenia and the Armenians of Karabakh are oppressing the Muslims of the region, and we denounce the recent actions by the Armenians of Karabakh who acted with the support of the government of Armenia. We also expect the Armenians in our country to denounce these actions."(43) It actually points to the other side. One of the sources you provided also says that even the majority of the Iranian population actively encouraged their government to support Azerbaijan. - Fedayee 03:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
- Well, its not like the Iranian government has ever actually listened to the wishes of the Iranian people! Either way, there is zero evidence that Iran backed Azerbaijan during the conflict, and as such, the article must reflect that. In fact, the reference to Khamenei is most likely local political pandering, or taken out of context or without the effect of official governmental policy. The grim reality of it is that Iran had geopolitically no reason to support Azerbaijan in the fight. In fact, it was in Iran's interest that Azerbaijan NOT win the conflict. I will go ahead and find another ten or so sources if need be, but I don't think that is needed. Do you have and articles that actually show Iran backing Azerbaijan in the war? If not, we should just either leave Iran out of the article, or mention it has holding a neutral stance. Padishah5000 03:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
- Although it is acknowledged that Iran helped the population of Armenia with economic aid (as any neighbour usually does), I am not convinced it actively sided with Armenia during the war when their Supreme leader, Ayatollah Khameini is heard saying stuff like this "Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, visited Tabriz - the largest and most important Iranian Azeri city - at the end of July 1993. In order to demonstrate Iran's clear support for the new Azeri leadership, he declared that Iran would not remain indifferent in the face of any further encroachments on Azeri territories, and he attacked Armenian policies: "The government of Armenia and the Armenians of Karabakh are oppressing the Muslims of the region, and we denounce the recent actions by the Armenians of Karabakh who acted with the support of the government of Armenia. We also expect the Armenians in our country to denounce these actions."(43) It actually points to the other side. One of the sources you provided also says that even the majority of the Iranian population actively encouraged their government to support Azerbaijan. - Fedayee 03:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, I understand but I don't know exactly what you wanna change in the article because it mentions that weapons and provisions from Iran came to Azerbaijan (this is sourced), it mentions that Iran aided Azerbaijan with its refugee problem (sourced as well) and it mentions Iran helped Armenia economically (this does not have a source). It doesn't say that Iran had actively chosen an official side in the war. All mentions of Iran in the article point to neutrality. - Fedayee 23:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Yury Nikolayevich
Nikolayevich is a patronimic, not family. The person should be named by family name otherwise it is incorrect.--Dojarca 01:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Khojaly
Same here as on Nagorno-Karabakh page. Bagramyan, Khojaly is located in Nagorno-Karabakh, and the massacre, according to Memorial, was the most brutal and massive in the history of Nagorno-Karabakh conflict up to date. So, removal of it is alike removing Armenian massacres from the history of Eastern Anatolia. Atabek 00:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- There is a whole section about the massacre in the article, at Nagorno-Karabakh_War#Khojaly, so a see also link is redundant. Picaroon (t) 01:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- It's now part of the footer template, surely that resolves all problems. --Golbez 01:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Operation Goranboy
Is there a source that describes it with that name and is it the same battle as Mardakert and Martuni Offensives? - Pocopocopocopoco 00:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
This is pure armenian propaganda. Are you in your mind? When you stated that:
"Karabakh Armenian leaders complained that the region had neither Armenian language textbooks in schools nor in television broadcasting,[16] and that Azerbaijan's Communist Party General Secretary Heidar Aliev had extensively attempted to "Azerify" the region and increase the influence and the number of Azeris living in Nagorno-Karabakh, while at the same time reducing its Armenian population (in 1987, Aliev would step down as General Secretary of Azerbaijan's Politbureau).[17]" It is so pathetic... and has nothing to do with reality —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qarapapax (talk • contribs) 19:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- Please note that the sentence is sourced with two references. --VartanM 21:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- I totally agree, you can't just publish what you think. Plus, what does "Azerify" mean (very offensive also)? Why do you think you can just make up words and publish in an encyclopedia? --12insan 19:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- Welcome to Wikipedia, please see Azerification. You may voice your opinion there if you think its offensive. The term refers to something made non-Azeri into Azeri. --VartanM 21:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
VartanM, please, assume good faith. Also, please, provide the reference to figure 9% which you used in the article, for now I added a fact tag. I also added a CIA World Factbook 2007 reference, which says Azerbaijan lost 16% of its territory. Thanks. Atabek 23:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- Welcome back Atabek, I'm a little confused, can you please explain the "AGF" remark. The 9% refers to the territory outside of NK. As for the 16% I believe the correct number is 13.65%. VartanM 01:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- VartanM, NK is officially part of Azerbaijan, so in context of total territory occupied by Armenian forces, the total figure is more relevant. 16% is a figure from CIA World Factbook, and to my knowledge it's more appropriate for citation than "I believe the correct number is 13.65%". I not only believe but have reference from Armenian source that entire Erivan Governorate (what's now territory of Armenia) was 80% Muslim populated in 19th century, but it's not relevant in this article either. Thanks. Atabek 12:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Why bring it up in the first place if it's irrelevant? In any case, the citation you added is redundant. Vartan didn't come up with the 13.65% figure by his own calculations (although he's still correct for anyone who wants to check with a calculator); the citation is in fact from de Waal in Black Garden who cites an Azeri parliamentary member no less, for the figure. --Marshal Bagramyan 16:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)