Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh War

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] NPOV???

Is the wikipedia a mouthpiece for Armenian propaganda or is there some sort of a standard for articles around here? You read and read all about the atrocities committed by the Azeris without any mention of things done by the Armenians. But even with all the downplaying and propaganda there comes a line "oh by the way there were some Azeris kicked out of their homes in Karabkh and elsewhere and living as refugees and they started killing Armenians". Are you serious? You mention what happened to Azeris only after Armenians get hurt and consider yourselves decent human beings? You claim to present a conflict from a respectable point of view and all you write about is how badly Armenians were treated by the Azeris who had been first kicked out of their homes and went through who knows what. Not that I expect a perfect non-biased article but this is even beneath the Wikipedia standards, which is already at the ground level. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.42.76 (talk) 00:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Participants

Numbers killed and wounded meet or EXCEED number of participants for each side!!!


[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)

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)

[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)

[edit] 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)
I'm fine with it, but it would be nice to have an exact number. VartanM 21:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
If someone had an exact number, we wouldn't be having this problem. --Golbez 21:54, 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)

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)
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.
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)
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:

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

http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:5cyzGL5l-r4J:www.ucm.es/info/unisci/Cometario1.pdf+Nagorno-Karabakh+iran&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=us

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.
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)
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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

So can I change operation goranboy in this article to Mardakert and Martuni Offensives as I can't find any source that calls it by that name? Pocopocopocopoco 00:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Azerification

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)
Indeed, welcome to Wikipedia. "Azerify" is very offensive word and the source you have indicated does not use it, but shows what Armenians said about Azerbaijanis. So that's not a appropriate word to use in an encyclopedia.--12insan 07:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 9% figure

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)

Atabek, I added the 9% number and my justification is here Pocopocopocopoco 00:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Pocopocopocopoco, 16% number comes from CIA World Factbook, which unlike your calculation avoiding NK territory, is a neutral source. Also, NK is not a disputed region, it's part of Azerbaijan as recognized by United Nations, U.S., EU, major European and international organizations, Russia, CIS, Iran, etc. Same as Abkhazia and Ossetia are integral parts of Georgia according to all of the above as well. Wikipedia is supposed to carry encyclopedic sourced information not calculations based on certain POV assumptions. It's also not for pushing WP:SOAP that no one in international community recognizes. Atabek 12:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Atabek, can you please provide the WP:SOAP violation of Pocopocopocopoco, also I'm still curious about why you told me to assume good faith. Looking forward to your answer. VartanM 12:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind citing de Waal's figure, but CIA figure should be included in the article as well. Both are authoritative sources. Grandmaster 15:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
The 9% figure comes from calculations from the actual rayons plus the area of the Nagorno Karabakh Oblast that have been done above. If you believe the CIA figure to be correct then show the calculation. The CIA may be a reliable source but it's apparent that they have got this figure wrong. Pocopocopocopoco 16:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
We are not allowed to make an original research about who is right and who is wrong. We should state all existing estimates, provided by reliable sources. Grandmaster 19:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
As I mentioned in my edit summary as well as earlier in this talk page, arithmetic is not original research. I don't need a citation to show that 2+2=4 and if the CIA incorrectly calculates 2+2 to be 5, I don't need to state both 4 and 5 in the article. The CIA obviously made two mistakes in their calculation firstly, they included entire rayons when the Nagorno-Karabakh defense army only controls portions of many of the rayons and not the entire rayon. Secondly, they excluded Nakhichevan in there calculation. Here is how they calculated the 16%.

Kelbajar........1,936
Lachin..........1,835
Kubatly...........802
Jebrail.........1,050
Zangelan..........707
Aghdam..........1,094...(s/b 842 as they occupy 77% of Aghdam region)
Fizuli..........1,386...(s/b 462 as they occupy 33% of Fizuli region)
exclaves...........75
NKAO............4,088
Total..........12,973

Area of Azerbaijan excluding Nakhichevan is 81,100 so

12973/81100x100%=15.996% Pocopocopocopoco 01:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

That's an original research, you cannot do that. If the info comes from a reliable source, it should be included, and not deleted time after time. I will have to ask for a third party opinion on this if this continues. Grandmaster 04:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
IMO, if it can be demonstrated that the reliable source is wrong, it should not be included - not saying the OR should be included, but nor should the demonstrably wrong reliable source. --Golbez 05:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
But how do you know that Nakhichevan was excluded, for example? It is a guess, i.e. original research. We don't know how they made their calculation, and making OR is not something that is allowed here. Therefore I believe we should include both figures, as they come from reliable sources. Grandmaster 05:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
But this would appear, to a layman, to be simple math. That Kalbajar, Lachin, Qubadli, Jabrayil, and Zangilan are occupied is not in dispute; that the NKAO is occupied is not in dispute; and I doubt that the extent of Agdam and Fizuli that is occupied is not in dispute. So pray tell, what could the problem be? Are any of these figures disputed? --Golbez 08:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Where do they come from? And how do we know that Nakhichevan is not included in CIA calculations? --Grandmaster 10:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I didn't say it was, though it has been demonstrated that that could explain the discrepancy in the math. I'm talking purely about the math at work here. Does the CIA mention the specific breakdown of the occupation? If not, perhaps we should find a better, more detailed source. I'm trying to look at this as a layman who may come to the article, look at the map, do the math, and say, "Huh, wait, that doesn't add up." We have to cater to them, not to the need/desire to post verbatim what an otherwise reliable source says, if it can be demonstrated that such source is wrong. --Golbez 18:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Also, I removed a quote from armtown.com. It is not a reliable source. Grandmaster 15:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

But apparently dangerous "separatist" websites like http://www.nkr.am/rus/news/zinevich.html are, only whenever they support your argument, right? --Marshal Bagramyan 18:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Marshall, you removed the CIA figure of 16% again, why? And if the fact is acknowledged by Armenian sources, it can be included, since it is not disputed. But that website was not the only one used. Grandmaster 19:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Marshall can't just remove reliable sources without proper justification or discussion, neither should he be modifying the source material with POV. His reverts on this page are already establishing a pattern of edit warring without conclusive talk page discussion. So now I am updating page with quoted text of every word in that sentence taken precisely from CIA World Factbook, so that any further arguments are addressed based on source text not on Bagramyan's interpretation of it. Atabek 16:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Golbez, Pocopocopocopoco has no source for 77% of Aghdam or 33% of Fizuli, this is OR. And 12,973/86600 (with Nakhchivan) vs 12,973/81,100 (without Nakhchivan as Pocopocopocopoco claims without proof), has only 1% difference, which is made up by claims of "77%" or "33%". CIA World Factbook is actually very well regarded and respected source, it can't be just denied it by original research or tweaking of numbers on the talk page of Wikipedia article. Atabek 16:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Even if you included 100% of Agdam and Fizuli, the math wouldn't bring you to 16%. And it can be denied if it can be demonstrated that their math is wrong. Typos and miscalculations happen, even at the CIA. So, again, what we need is a more detailed source pointing out how much square mileage is occupied, rather than the CIA's simplistic (and possibly demonstrably wrong - THIS IS SIMPLE MATH HERE PEOPLE, HOW CAN THERE BE A 7% DISCREPANCY) reporting. --Golbez 18:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
As I've mentioned the 77% and the 33% come from de Waal. Pocopocopocopoco 18:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Golbez is spot on with this. If a news article from the BBC News or the Washington Post, both respectable sources, say that George W. Bush was in Washington D.C. on a certain date when instead he was at has ranch and there was clear proof of it (ex. interview, footage, etc.), then it doesn't matter how authoritative is and point out the error. You guys rejected using the CIA as a source because it didn't conform with your views several months ago; but with this, it's suddenly infallible.

The CIA figure is wrong, plain and simple. You can quote it but a little arithmetic is all it takes to show they arrived that conclusion. --Marshal Bagramyan 17:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

What we really need is a reputable source or two that states which rayons are occupied, and how much of the other rayons are occupied. At that point, arithmetic is not original research, and we can do our own. We don't need a source that says 2+2 is 4, but we can't use one that says 2+2 is 5. --Golbez 18:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Pocopocopocopoco did the calculation in front of you, what's wrong about it? The CIA factbook is a verifiable source and though it can be wrong, we can't take the research of Armenian websites over the research of CIA factbook. — talk § _Arsenic99_ 23:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

There's more than enough Golbez. The one source that I have cited on so many of the Nagorno-Karabakh articles, despite my misgivings on the objectivity of the author, is Thomas de Waal's Black Garden: Armenia and Azerbaijan Through Peace and War. I have yet to hear any Azeri reservations of using him. This article alone has him cited 26 times including the figure on the territory under Armenian control (see p. 286). And to top it all off, these aren't just de Waal's figures but those collected by Azerbaijani parliamentary member Arif Yunusov in his report on statistics of the war.

Other sources corroborate what they say:

It should be noted that Azerbaijani officials and the international media often claim that Karabakh and Armenian forces occupy some 20 percent or more of Azerbaijan's territory, which is incorrect. Of 14.5 percent of the territory of Azerbaijan of the former Azerbaijan SSR currently occupied by Armenian and Karabakh forces, approximately 10 percent lies outside the borders of Nagorno-Karabakh (Bertsch, Crossroads and Conflict: Security and Foreign Policy in the Caucasus and Central Asia, 1999, p. 297).

This isn't rocket science people. Just take a calculator out. --Marshal Bagramyan 21:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

What's funny is that some of you are here arguing about a 5% difference, like as if 9% is perfectly legal and generous of Armenia, and 16% is a war crime. It really wouldn't change the fact that it was an illegal invasion, and since the CIA factbook is used in many sources in Wikipedia, it is more trustworthy and reliable than some Armenian sites who says 13% or 9%. Get over it, and stop removing cited sources. Both 12,973/86600 (with Nakhchivan) vs 12,973/81,100 (without) come out to be ~15.00-15.99%, hence, unless you have a better number with verifiable sources of land not occupied or occupied, please do not remove verifiable sources of CIA factbook, unless you want administrators here to block you for adding POV and original research. — talk § _Arsenic99_ 19:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
One thing I am finding is the reference for the 9% is

"^ Using numbers provided by journalist Thomas de Waal for the area of each rayon as well as the area of the Nagorno Karabakh Oblast and the total area of Azerbaijan are (in square kilometres): 1,936, Kelbajar; 1,835, Lachin; 802, Kubatly; 1,050, Jebrail; 707, Zangelan; 842, Aghdam; 462, Fizuli; 75, exclaves; totaling 7,709km² or 8.9%: de Waal. Black Garden, p. 286."

But it doesn't explain what article it's from, and we cannot even verify this at all. I think this needs to be changed to the CIA factbook source, and I hope you will take on the job of changing it to show that you are here to side with the Wikipedia policies such as WP:NPOV, WP:SOURCES, and WP:V. — talk § _Arsenic99_ 23:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anon

I reverted POV edits by anon. Please mind WP:NPOV and don't add personal interpretations. Grandmaster 19:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I have concerns about your use of Melkonian as a source in this article and in the Khojaly Massacre. I don't think it would qualify under WP:RS. Pocopocopocopoco 00:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
There are many other sources too. HRW and Memorial to name a few. Grandmaster 05:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
HRW and Memorial are already in the two articles so I suggest removing Melkonian. Pocopocopocopoco 04:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:T-72sinAghdam.jpg

Image:T-72sinAghdam.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 23:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Featured article?

I find it hard to understand why this is a featured article. It is biased and uses facts selectively. I'm writing an essay on this conflict and all of my sources present a fuller, non-biased picture than this article. --SianMycock 17:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

What parts are bias? And what would you change? — talk § _Arsenic99_ 18:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reference

Added a reference to Robert Kocharian's comment on Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, Sumgait and Baku. Atabek (talk) 06:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

There a reference in Stuart Kaufman's book [17], that those leading the violence in Sumgait were Azerbaijani refugees deported from Armenia. I will be adding that reference to the article in lieu of text just removed.Atabek (talk) 21:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Captured azeri tank.jpg

Image:Captured azeri tank.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Combatant numbers involved in war

I am trying to figure out why the article's side-bar says "20,000" for Armenia-NK forces, and "42,000" for Azeri-mercenary forces. If I'm not mistaken NK was mainly on Armenian side yes?

And the following chart that's already in the article shows this:

Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh 20,000 16 13 120 N/A N/A Republic of Armenia 20,000 170 160 240 200 N/A Republic of Azerbaijan 42,000 330 280 360 480 170

So I believe if my Math is still good enough... 20,000+20,000 = 40,000 right? So should we change the side-bar? To show that this wasn't just a war where Armenian forces miraculously won versus twice the amount of soldiers against a country that's richer than Armenia, reads very POV to me. — talk § _Arsenic99_ 18:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

If you read the citation, it writes that nearly 40% of the NKR fighting force was made up of Armenians from Armenia. The statistic of the ROA's army does not necessarily mean they were all committed to fighting the war in Karabakh against Azerbaijan. Most Armenian troops were committed to defending the border against Turkey, Nakhichevan, and northern Armenia. To say otherwise is clear conjecture and a non-sequiter. Armenia's uniformed army, barring material support it provide to Karabakh which is not in dispute, rarely participated in battles for obvious reasons (it's impossible to say even how much of it was committed to fighting there) and such support arrived late in 1993. Azerbaijan concentrated its forces solely in Karabakh and its use of mercenaries, Afghan mujahadin and teenagers clearly shows that they had depleted their ranks by 1993.
I have been reading your comments lately in regards to the Armenian Genocide and for the most part, they seem insubstantial and I'm inclined to believe the same here. A countless number of neutral administrators have gone through this article and have seen virtually no POV problems in it. This article cannot please everyone, its nomination for FA even attests to that. The simple story is that a small yet more motivated and better trained fighting force defeated a wealthier, more numerous, better equipped, although poor in morale, army.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 23:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
So let me get this straight, you're saying that most Armenian troops were watching the Turkish border, and northern Armenia, and that only 40% of Nagorno-Karabakh forces so if I can still do math, 20,000*40% = 8000, and that Azerbaijani army was dedicated to the NKH front. So what you're implying here is that 8000 "motivated, better trained" fighters defeated 42,000 troops of an oil-rich country, have I understood you correctly? To me it sounds like something I would read in Harry Potter. — talk § _Arsenic99_ 23:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Well if you even bothered to further read, it says Armenians had combat training and experience prior to the war, while Azerbaijani's had none because they were "discriminated" against. Also, most of the time Azerbaijan sent out ethnic minorities to fight on the front, and at one point they got so desperate they started to send 15 year olds to the frontlines that had absolutely NO military experience. And yes, if you have 8,000 highly-trained and motivated fighters you can definintely defeat an army of 42,000 that belongs to an oil-rich nation. History repeats itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.174.215.30 (talk) 06:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] dropped quotation

In this diff, a quote from the President of Armenia was removed. It looks an accidental deletion as it wasnt mentioned in the edit summary, however that quote doesnt seem particularly useful in the section "Sumgait" as the quote is isnt specifically about Sumgait, and the article text is 101 KB, which is on the heavy side. John Vandenberg (talk) 00:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I also question what that passage added to that section and I think we should leave that passage out. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edits

Made some wikifying edits, also added to emphasize the fact that involvement in Khojaly Massacre was detailed also in book by Markar Melkonian. Atabek (talk) 23:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Melkonian wasn't there during the events in Khojaly so how is what you've added reliable? Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Melkonian used in almost every article about NK war. If he is reliable for all those articles, why is he not reliable when his opinion does not support a certain position? Grandmaster (talk) 05:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

He published his brothers diary, which included an account of brutalities against Azeri population in Khojaly by the Armenian "Arabo" and "Aramo" fighter brigades (mercenaries from Lebanon and Syria), on the cited page. Atabek (talk) 16:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Israel

I thought I read somewhere that Israeli forces were involved in combat- does anyone have any further information?Norgy (talk) 15:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure about combat but they indeed provided arms to Azerbaijan. Check out Markar Melkonian's book My Brother's Road for more info. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 15:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

As did Melkonian's book also cite Arabo and Aramo mercenary fighters from Lebanon and Syria on Armenian side. Perhaps, Lebanon and Syria should be added to list of mercenary origins as well. Atabek (talk) 03:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

You're not very bright are you? None of the diaspora Armenians was paid to fight. Your claim about "mercenary fighters" is idiotic to say the least.

No, they shouldn't. Those fighters were still ethnic Armenians, from the Armenian diaspora. User Baku87 tried to pull that trick on the NK War template a year back and he was unable to find any sources that supported his weak claim that the governments of Lebanon and Syria supported Armenia (the former being ridiculous anyways, Lebanon was just finally recovering from its civil war). Monte Melkonian and Karo Kaqedjian were Armenians from America; using your logic, should we now include the United States as one of the countries that supported Armenia with military aid?

Besides, those detachments were not mercenaries. Mercenaries would imply that they were being paid to fight for the Armenian side (which they weren't). All diaspora Armenians serving in the war were volunteers, no one forced them to travel to Karabakh and take up arms.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 04:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't have said it better myself. Good job Marshal Bagramyan.

Bagramyan, there is no trick here, many of those mercenaries, who fought on Azerbaijani side were Muslims and/or Turkic and natives of Caucasus too. So what? Those who fought, regardless of ethnicity, were citizens and nationals of their respective countries. I wasn't referring to Monte in particular, but to Arabo and Aramo mercenaries from Lebanon, who were described as committing brutalities. But since you mention it, Monte Melkonian left America and built his career as a terrorist, caught, convicted and sentenced in France, later trained in terrorist camps of Lebanon. It's all described in his own brother's book. I have no problem including the fact that U.S. national-convert-international-terrorist was fighting on Armenian side, this in no way implicates U.S. in war crimes committed by Armenian forces, for instance the Khojaly Massacre, so honestly described and accounted in Melkonian's own book. To bring you an example, citing the fact that Osama Bin Laden is a native of Saudi Arabia in no way directly implicates this country in 9/11. Atabek (talk) 08:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, but Azerbaijan's government paid many of them to fight on its side. Those 1,000 Afghan mujahadin didn't make a religious pilgrimage to Azerbaijan - Aliev paid for their plane tickets and gave them a comfortable salary to go along with it.
In regards to Aramo and Arabo, they were ethnic Armenians who may have been from Armenia or from Lebanon or Syria, but were not mercenaries. All Diasporan Armenians who fought during the war were there because they wanted to be there. It has been made abundantly clear that this was the primary reason Armenians won the war. Regarding bin Laden, the fact that 15 of the 19 terrorists originated from Saudi Arabia would raise some eyebrows in my opinion, although that's a whole different matter I'm not going to get into. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 22:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Basayev did not fight for money either, so what? I believe volunteers from the Armenian diaspora need to be mentioned too. Grandmaster (talk) 09:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I have no objections to their inclusion. Perhaps something to the effect of Volunteers from Armenian Diaspora.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 22:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that would be alright. If we mention volunteers on one side, it would be fair to mention the same on the other. But there were also mercenaries from a number of countries, who were not ethnic Armenians. I'll try to find a source on that. Grandmaster (talk) 04:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I have removed the mention of "mercenaries" and "volunteers" from the belligerents section of the conflict infobox. They should not be listed there - a "belligerent" has to be an entity or organised group. If there was a regiment or group that identified itself as, for example, Chechens, or Russians then that would be OK, but mercenaries or volunteers are not belligerents, they are combatants. The proper place to mention of mercenaries and volunteers is in the body of the article. Study the advice on these talk pages http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Infobox_Military_Conflict http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:MILHIST for confirmation. Also see, for example, the various pages on the Iraq war: volunteers or mercenaries from outside Iraq are not listed as belligerents. Meowy 00:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
BTW, I see that there are still foreign flags assigned against the names of some of the military leaders. I do not think this is correct - is anyone suggesting that the military forces of the CIS, or the Chechen republic were officially involved at a state level in the conlict? Meowy 19:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Occupation v Controlled

It seems to me that editors have sidestepped the use of the word "occupation" or "occupied" to describe Armenian military forces in Azerbaijan in favour of the word "controlled" or "under control" etc. I dont believe this adequately describes the nature of Armenia's presence in Azerbaijan, especially those regions outside of Nagorno-Karabakh which saw the expulsion of Azeris. When a military force is present in another country against its will, then that presence is usually called an occupation, I think we have to be frank in this and call it as such. --A.Garnet (talk) 12:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, while Azeris might view it as such, ask any Armenian living in Karabakh and none of them will term the Armenian military as an occupation force, especially when they have their own uniformed army that guards the NKR's borders. Nagorno-Karabakh's population was nearly 3/4 Armenian prior to the break up, so in a sense, it depends on whose lenses you are viewing the conflict through. Shahumyan's Armenian population was deported during Operation Ring, I'm pretty sure their definition of the events differ from that of the Azeris'. Certainly, the NKR's population does not feel that Armenia is imposing its will against them (it doesn't really do so anyways). They'll identify the war as a struggle for liberation from Azerbaijan, so "control" is the best common ground we've came down to and there appears little logic in changing it to something so politically-charged as occupation. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 04:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
The NKR is one matter; the other areas of Azerbaijan are another. Lachin, et.al. have not been claimed nor annexed by Armenia or the NKR, therefore I can see only "occupation" as the proper term. Also, we have a helpful ¾ link in the symbols box below. :) --Golbez (talk) 04:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I dont think occupied is actually that loaded a word, it has quite a specific meaning in international relations, and that is the presence of an external military force in ones internationally recognized sovereign territory. I am Turkish Cypriot, I do not consider the Turkish army in Northern Cyprus an occupation army, but still I accept it is referred to as such and in Cyprus conflict articles I use the term occupation.
Whether Armenians in Nagorno-Karabagh consider it a liberation or not, in the context of international law, Armenian forces are present in lands it has no legal sovereignty over, hence it is a military occupation, especially considering the Armenian military is present in Azeri lands outside of NKR also. That is why neutral sources such as Crisis Group, CIA factbook or BBC News use the term occupation, or occupied territories. I am not saying we should write occupation at every opportunity, but it has to be mentioned somewhere at the very least. I suggest in the infobox under "territorial changes" we write something like "16% of Azerbaijani territory occupied, Nagorno-Karabakh becomes a de facto independent republic" or something similar. --A.Garnet (talk) 13:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I think it does. I know what you're getting at but it's not as simple as saying that Armenia launched an invasion into Azerbaijan during the war and is now occupying those lands. Nagorno-Karabakh's Armenian population was fighting against the Azeris in the same lands they were living in prior to 1991. Armenians from Armenia helped them out in that process and Armenia's armed forces now serve as the guarantors of the NKR's security but it's difficult to ascertain under whose jurisdiction those other lands fall under. If it's under the NKR's, which I tend to believe, then that negates the notion that they are an external force, which further negates the use of the term "occupation" (their occupying their own land? well duh, lol). We can go on with this argument forever and really, you can fill several chapters on it without still coming to a clear conclusion; the word "control" is used not only for neutral purposes but also because the word "occupation" does not necessarily reflect the reality of the situation.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 20:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
You're still combining the NKR and the surrounding rayons. Regardless of if the NKR is "controlled" or "occupied" (personally I agree, you cannot occupy your own land), the surrounding rayons, by any definition I can see, are occupied. Thoughts? --Golbez (talk) 20:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
The word "occupation" and "occupied" are POV in this situation. The population of NK does not consider it is "occupying" another country's territory, it considers that it has freed these lands from an occupation, i.e. it has "liberated" them after 60 years of unjustified Azeri occupation. If the word "occupation" were to be used, then we should also use the word "occupied" to describe the Azeri "occupation" that preceeded the Armenian "occupation". Words that invite a POV-reading, like "occupation" and "liberation", should only be used if that usage describes 100% the reality of the situation. In this case they do not. Neutral words like "capture" and "control" are better, and should be used instead. Meowy 19:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand AGAIN, what about the non-NKR regions that are currently under NKR/Armenian control? Those were never part of the NKR or NKAO or NK, and they have neither claimed nor annexed them. I have asked this three times now and it has been avoided each time. Am I to ever receive a response? --Golbez (talk) 20:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I told you, I told you, we're opening up a can of worms by continuing an interminable discussion over this little word. Don't count on me for sticking around if that's what it evolves into.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 21:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

So no response at all? --Golbez (talk) 00:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Well at the very least the article should stress the position of Azerbaijan and the United Nations, both of whom consider it an occupation. This way we are highlighting important positions which is perfectly in line NPOV. Are there any objections to this? --A.Garnet (talk) 21:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
My perfectly neutral opinion is that the NKR itself should be labelled 'controlled' (since you cannot occupy yourself; no one called the southern USA 'occupied' by the Confederacy), but the surrounding rayons can only be described as 'occupied'. --Golbez (talk) 00:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I think there is a misunderstanding here. Whether or not the external military force and the native population are the same ethnicity does not detract that they are occupying the internationally recognised territory of another state. They dont "control" this territory with the consent of recognised authority of that state. It is in this context that the United Nations asks Armenia to withdraw from "occupied territories". In the same context, Turkey in Cyprus is also referred to as an occupation, despite the consent of Turkish Cypriots. As I said, at the very least we should be highlighting this position, and since it is a verifiable position held by prominent bodies I dont think we can claim it violates NPOV. --A.Garnet (talk) 11:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

You're jumping around here. The UN as well as other organizations (the CIA included) too often confuse Armenia proper with the NKR's Armenians, fully ignoring the complex realities in the region. Even if Armenia was to remove any military forces it has in the area, there still would be a significant military presence in the area (the NKR's). Azerbaijan's and the intl. community's positions here are a given (they're strewn throughout the text anyways, there's even a UN Resolutions on NK article devoted to it), just as the NKR's is given. Furthermore, I think the Cyprus comparisons are malapropos: the two conflicts, though similar in some respects, are not identical. This conversation has a circular feeling to it and the insertions that you keep insisting on will add little next to nothing that the reader does not already know.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 22:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)