Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh War

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Featured article star 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. If you can update or improve it, please do.

Contents

[edit] Orbat

Archive
Archives

Archive 1 (9 March 2006 - 2 January 2007)

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)

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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:
  1. Proof of presence in N-K during time of conflict, with dates and locations if possible.
  2. The size and composition of forces commanded, hopefully unit name or designation.
  3. 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)

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)
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)

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)

[edit] 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:
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)

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]
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)
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.

Fixed. Khoikhoi 05:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] 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)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../n/a/g/Talk%7ENagorno-Karabakh_War_86ea.html"