Talk:First Nagorno-Karabakh War

Splitting this article in 2

This article started as an article about a very particular WAR, the primary focus of which was its military aspects. Then it started evolving into a junk pile off all sorts of information, which in many places is too-long and unnecesarily boring to a simple reader who wants to get the necessary Descriptive information about what this war was. -- Therefore, I suggest splitting this article into 2 separate articles: 1) Nagorno-Karabakh War (which is where only the military aspects will be contained) and 2) Armeno-Azeri Conflict (which will be a broader articles where we can put all sorts of information about the history, backgrounds, Zheleznavodsk, 2008 skirmishes, peace talks etc etc ) What do you think??? (Matrixfighter (talk) 17:22, 28 April 2010 (UTC))

POV infobox

Im refering to this specific change: [1]. How is it that under the headline Agdam, Fizuli, Jebrail and_Zangelan fall the text says that there were 1,000–1,500 Afghan and Arab mujahadeen fighters from Afghanistan. with the given source (Croissant, Michael P. (1998). The Armenia-Azerbaijan Conflict: Causes and Implications. London: Praeger. ISBN 0-275-96241-5). And yet in the infox box is says 2,000-3,000, thats double the number while the source puts its at 1,000-1,500. The amazing number of 2,000-3,000 Mujahideen should be corrected 1,000-1,500 as it says in the source.

On the involvement of Russian 366th Motor Rifle Regiment, this is a fact by now. Its supported by 2 objective sources and its also written in Khojaly Massacre article. If the role of Mujahideen is mentioned then the specific role of this Russian regiment should be mentioned in the article aswell.

The section of Building_armies shows the statistics during the war and the amount of military personnel. It says 42,000 troops for Azerbaijan and again the infobox says something compleet different - 72,000. The number of Azerbaijani troops should be changed to 42,000 as stated in the source. The number of 72,000 does not match the entire section of Building_armies headline, which provided by several sources says it was 42,000.

In the infobox under strength it also includes the Mujahideen's amount of troops. But it failed to mention the number of troops of Republic of Armenia, this is a very easy change and yet still not done. Which suggests a very POV stance in this article. We should add the number of troops of Armenia and 366th Russian regiment aswell.

As you can see, the infobox is full of mistakes and is compleet different then the text. This kind of POV approach is not oke for a featured article, lets settle these issues.Neftchi (talk) 09:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there are some recent WP:OWN issues. The participation of 366th until March 1992, as well as genuine Armenian forces are facts, there are several third-party sources confirming that. Besides, there should be a fairly equal illustrative representation.

sources and statistical numbers do not match, in one section it says 42,000 number and other section 72,000 number - same goes for number of afghani troops. You cannot say one thing here and write another thing some other section. also look how there are 10 pro-armenian pictures ([2], [3],[4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]) and only 3 pro-azerbaijani ([12], [13], [14]). this must be fairly balanced 6-6 pictures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.93.146.23 (talk) 13:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The figure for the Mujaheddin may have been altered during the constant revert wars. I have only came across the 1000-1500 figure in sources and we can change it to that if no other source is offered.

The involvement of a single regiment during a war that went on for six years does not merit inclusion into the infobox and it is ridiculous for you to argue otherwise. Do we place the name of the Spanish Blue Division in the World War II article? Or the Royal Fusiliers in the World War I article? Many CIS servicemen - Russians and Ukranians - offered their services to both sides and placing the Russian flag in the infobox is definitely a poor attempt to mislead readers on the true nature of this conflict. This is still part of Azerbaijan's bland narrative to explain away how they lost the war "see it was the Russians helping them".

The number of troops serving on each side fluctuated during the war. If you took time to read the footnote, it says that the figures in the Building Armies section was done during 1993-1994. It's not entirely impossible that thousands of more conscripts were recruited during other times of the war.

Brandmeister, please avoid making such snide remarks and assume good faith. It's bad enough that you use misleading edit summaries to justify your own misleading edits but if you continue to edit and comment in such a poor disregard for the rules, we will have to look to the ArbCom to remedy the problem once more. The "imbalance" in illustrations is an an empty complaint. There is no such thing as a "pro-Armenian" or "pro-Azeri" photo unless you personally construe it in that manner, and turning Wikipedia into an ethnic battleground - again - is highly discouraged here.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Misleading the readers would be to double the number of Mujaheddin and not add the number of Armenian troops from the Republic to the strength section. Your the last person to preach about misleading the readers. Correct the number of Mujaheddin in the infobox. Add the number of Armenian troops from the Republic of Armenia to the Strength section in the infobox. The 366th Russian regiments involvement plays an important role just like the Mujaheddin and cannot be neglected. The 366th regiment is also supportered my multiple sources you cannot remove it because it doesnt match your personal view of things. As for the number of image's its a serious matter which must be looked into. There are indeed more Armenian-related image's then Azerbaijani related image's, we need a fair balance.Neftchi (talk) 22:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Neftchi, please note that unnecessarily inflammatory comments such as, "Your [sic] the last person to preach about misleading the readers", are actionable material for the ArbCom administrators. Please remain civil and refrain from telling what one editor should or should not do. If you cannot comply with these basic principles, feel free to excuse yourself from the discussion.

Human Rights Watch says that the number of Afghans who fought during the war ranged from 1000-2500 [15] and another source gives 2500 as well [16], so it appears that the current figures are not so fantastic after all. The 72,000 figure is given here [17], and the correct number is actually 74,000 and given the context, it appears that 74,000 was how much troops Azerbaijan was able to muster at its greatest point throughout the war and not just the number it had during a specific time period (1993-1994).

The 366th fought in a single engagement in February 1992 and it was withdrawn within a matter of weeks. It never reappeared for the next two years of the war. So why does it merit inclusion in the infobox? I can see that its name is tied to Khojaly but the infobox was not intended for that matter, hence its reason for removal. I wouldn't mind the addition of new images, provided that they are pertinent to the article and are not being added simply to "shock" the reader. The talk of "balance" is otherwise nonsense and has no basis to Wikipedia's rules.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 23:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The evidence we have onwiki is at 8th Cavalry Corps (Soviet Union)#Postwar (not an obvious place, I know). I've now created a redirect at 366th Motor Rifle Regiment. Let me give everyone a very stern warning: interference aimed at biasing that article, instead of adding great detail to aid understanding of historical events, will be reverted and dealt with if necessary.

Greg Chalik did a great amount of work on the 8CC article, and cites de Waal, 'Black Garden,' p.167, saying that the regiment's loyalties were split: officers with the Armenians, while units based in Ganja. This is not evidence for the regiment as a whole fighting at Khojaly; rather, individual Soviet Army officers and soldiers. Can someone clarify, WITH SOURCES, exactly which personnel of the regiment, acting through which command structures, or on their own authority, fought at the battle? If the regiment as a whole did not participate, then addition of 'Soviet Army personnel' rather than '366 MRR' is more accurate for the infobox. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

With several exceptions, Buckshot, I think it's nearly impossible to determine which unit switched to what side. However, your compromise is in fact what is shown in the infobox: since Russians, Ukranians, and other peoples of the former Soviet bloc lent their service to either side, I feel the most appropriate entity to place in the "Belligerents" section is "CIS mercenaries". Members of the 366th may have went on to the Armenian side but they were, in a sense, still part of the CIS. Perhaps some of these soldiers who switched sides were no longer fighting for gain (as the word mercenary implies) but I think it's the best word(s) we got. It's a minor question of semantics but if anyone has a better way to phrase it, we're all ears.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 02:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

CIS military command admitted that the personnel of 366 regiment fought on Armenian side during the attack on Khojaly. However, they insisted that they did not act on orders from Caucasus military district commanders. The official newspaper of the Russian ministry of defense wrote:

несмотря на категорические приказы командования округа, некоторые военнослужащие 366-го мсп всё же принимали участие на стороне карабахцев в боевых действиях под Ходжалы в двадцатых числах февраля. По крайней мере зафиксировано два таких случая. А при эвакуации личного состава полка десантники на выбор проверили несколько военнослужащих и обнаружили у них большие суммы денег, в том числе и в иностранной валюте.

Красная звезда, 11.03.92. Карабах: война до победного конца?

Translation:

despite categorical orders of the command of the military district, some military personnel of the 366th regiment took part in military operations near Khodjaly on Karabakhi side on the 20s of February. At least two such instances were recorded. And during evacuation of the military personnel of the regiment paratroopers selectively searched several servicemen and found large amounts of money on them, including foreign currency.

So it is an undisputed fact that the personnel of the regiment fought on the Armenian side, and this was admitted even by the official newspaper of the Russian ministry of defense. And here's the quote from an article in The Boston Globe. The reporter saw Russian military in Stepanakert fighting on the Armenian side.

STEPANAKERT, Nagorno-Karabakh - Troops of the former Soviet army are continuing to fight and die in Nagorno-Karabakh, despite claims by the Commonwealth of Independent States' high command that they have been withdrawn.

The last Commonwealth unit in Nagorno-Karabakh, the 366th Motorized Regiment, was officially pulled out last week. But a fair sprinkling of non-Armenian troops can be seen in and around Stepanakert, the Armenian-held capital of the disputed enclave.

They are serving in tank crews, repairing military equipment, visiting comrades in the hospital. Some claim to be half-Armenian, despite their blond hair. All, however, give or take orders in Russian, not Armenian.

And all are described as volunteers, fighting for the cause, not high salaries.

They are people like Valery, a captain from Mogilev, Belarus. A veteran of fighting in Somalia and an officer of the elite airborne, Valery - who would not give his family name - is now battalion commander of a new Armenian unit.

Then there is Yury Nikolayevich, a cheery but cautious lieutenant colonel of Central Asian origin said to have been the deputy commander of the 366th regiment.

Yury Nikolayevich still wears his uniform. He refuses to give his full name or talk about his current role.

Armenian officials say that Yury Nikolayevich went over to the Armenian fighters last week with a large part of the regiment's military hardware. The fighters are also people like the unnamed Russian soldier who was killed last Thursday along with his Armenian comrade when their armored personnel carrier hit an Azerbaijani land mine.

Valery plans to spend at least the next three years here. At the moment, he is receiving only food and accommodation from the Nagorno-Karabakh government, he says. But sometime soon, he expects to sign a formal contract.

He refers to the Azerbaijani fighters as "dukhi," the Soviet army slang for Afghan mujahideen. Most are savages, he says.

He believes that Islam has to be checked here in Karabakh. "If not," he says, "I'll have to fight them in Belarus." And he is now training Armenian Karabakh's first border unit, made up, he says, of Armenians who had served in the Soviet airborne, marines and border forces.

Paul Quinn-Judge. In Armenian unit, Russian is spoken. The Boston Globe, March 16, 1992.

Grandmaster 13:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Let me repeat myself Grandmaster. The regiment as a whole did not participate and it was not ordered to by HQ Transcaucasus Military District. It broke up and its personnel were not acting as a unit, rather, as individuals. Thus the unit itself was not involved - especially given the order from ZKVO not to get involved. We might as well add 104th Guards Air Assault Division into the infobox by your reckoning, and possibly other motor rifle divisions of the 4th Army (Soviet Union) and 7th Guards Army. I believe the current 'CIS mercenaries' is OK, though possibly it should be 'former Soviet Army personnel.' Buckshot06 (talk) 07:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

2 battalions of 366th regiment out of 3 fought on the Armenian side, especially the one commanded by Seyran Ohanyan. The commander of the regiment Zarvigorov was also involved in this. He was subsequently fired from the army. But yes, there's no proof that the Transcaucasus Military District gave the regiment any orders to support the Armenian side. The commanders insist that they ordered the regiment to remain neutral, which they did not obey. I think saying that they acted as individuals is not entirely accurate though, as a large part of the regiment became mercenaries for Armenians and acted as a unit, taking part in the attacks on Azerbaijani settlements. However saying that it was CIS or Russian army would not be correct either, as it was never openly involved on either side. They was mercenaries from CIS, who sometimes fought as units. I'm not sure what is the best way to describe it accurately. Grandmaster 08:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

It looks like the soldiers from 366th were not mercenaries, so we can mention that fact as a note for CIS mercenaries in the infobox. The withdrawal of the 366th was issued by Yevgeny Shaposhnikov. Brand[t] 14:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, both of you. I appreciate the intelligent bias free comments. Would you be able to list your sources for these additions? For a start, which other battalion of the 366th fought on the Armenian side and what was the full name of Zarvigorov? I was trying to avoid the use of the word 'mercenary' because it has a large number of connotations which different people understand differently. Payment or lack of, motivations, etc. Also on Shaposhnikov, was HQ Ground Forces paying much attention to him, him not being an Combined Forces officer?

Also, I've got my personal questions which you may be able to answer. Vladimir Feskov lists the 75th Motor Rifle Division in Nakhievichan (forgive my spelling errors) as 'disbanded.' (Feskov ('Tomsk') The Soviet Army in the Years of the Cold War, Tomsk, 2004) Was this actually what happened? What happened to it? And what happened to the other elements of the other divisions in 4th Army (Soviet Union) in Azerbaijan? Did they dissolve or withdraw? Cheers and best regards from Aotearoa New Zealand, Buckshot06 (talk) 06:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The non-Armenian soldiers and officers of 366th were mercenaries, and fought for money. When the paratroopers who came to evacuate the regiment searched some of them, they found large amounts of money on them. And here's an article from Western media, which may answer some of your questions:

The Guardian (London), March 7, 1992

RUSSIAN DESERTERS JOIN ARMENIANS

SUZANNE GOLDENBERG IN STEPANAKERT

THE commander of the former Soviet forces in Nagorno-Karabakh flew out with the last of his officers yesterday, leaving about 60 defecting personnel and at least half the weaponry in the service of local Armenians.

"I am going with sad feelings," Colonel Yuri Zarvigorov said aboard one of the military helicopters that has been ferrying the 366th Motorised Infantry Regiment from Nagorno-Karabakh to Georgia, the central command in the Caucasus of forces under control of the Commonwealth of Independent States. "There is too much connecting me with this place."

The troop evacuation from the Armenian-populated enclave in Azerbaijan this week saw open defiance in the regiment towards the paratroopers sent in to bring them out. Soldiers balked at an order to hand over regimental tanks and other vehicles at a base at Baluja village. One soldier was killed after being trapped between two armoured personnel carriers seized by the paratroopers.

Before we took off by helicopter, a general from the central command ripped Col Zarvigorov's insignia from his cap and handed it to me saying "Here, Anglichanka. He won't need it any more."

The hostility illustrates the problem which the politicised 366th Regiment now poses for the CIS military leadership. Although the regiment was ordered out of Nagorno-Karabakh last week - ostensibly for its own safety after two men where killed by Azerbaijani shelling - many of its men no longer bother to hide their sympathy for the Armenian side.

All three commanders of the battalions that make up the regiment have deserted, choosing now to align their fate to that of the Armenians. Two were Russians, as were many among the 60 other men who deserted. With them, they took about 80 tanks, APCs and other military vehicles.

Foraging for weaponry abandoned by the departing regiment assumed tragi-comic proportions. One Armenian fighter kept dropping the anti-tank rocket he had tucked under his arm when the Armenians moved into the main base in Stepanakert. Two of his comrades were preoccupied by a table-top ice hockey game that they dragged from the rubble of the officers' club.

On Lenin Street, an old woman sat at the gates of a military warehouse that had been set on fire handing out canvas bags while civilians ran into the flames and came out with military trousers and jackets. Nobody bothered to try to put out the fire.

Some of the defecting Russians said they had thrown in their lot with the Armenians because they believed this was their only chance of surviving after an Azerbaijani declaration that it now viewed local troops as its enemy.

For six Armenian officers the choice was clearer: "This is a terrible moment for Karabakh. I must stay," said Major Seiram Oganian, a battalion leader, who was born in the Azerbaijani town of Shusha.

He, like leaders of the Armenian militia, believes that it is only right that the enclave receive the weapons of the departing regiment. Armenian leaders have expressed their sorrow that some weapons were taken away.

"I am disappointed because we, the people of Karabakh, like all other Soviet people, paid our taxes to support the army. So it was natural to expect that we would get a part of it," said Serge Sargisian.

"Now when all the Soviet army has been divided I think we have a small right to the army or even its equipment, and also the presence of the army which was a means of protection in itself."

Yuri Zarvigorov was fired from the army, but not punished for selling arms to Armenians. As for the 4th army, some of its weapons were left to Azerbaijani army, and some were taken by the Russian army in accordance with the agreement between the 2 countries. The same happened to the former Soviet army in other former USSR republics. And I have no information about Soviet military in Nakhichevan. I think they did there the same as anywhere else, they split the weapons and evacuated Russian personnel. Grandmaster 09:08, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

start of war

war not start in 1988 but in 1992, it also say in article this: full-scale fighting erupted in the late winter of 1992. armenian referendum voting and riots does not mean war. this is page on nagorny karabakh war not nagorny-karabakh riots and origins of war. the real war start in 1992. make correct please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.93.146.23 (talk) 13:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Repairs

Somebody made a mistake with the infoboxes so I fixed aesthetically but I don't know if I put in out-of-date information. I am not familiar with the subject so if anybody who is would like to check if the info I used is up-to-date. I used only things that I found on wikipedia in the "edit this page" section. I am now going to make the infobox "Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict" a bit more practical.--Tomvasseur (talk) 17:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh and I think that whatever the last editor wanted to do I completely removed it, just because I don't know what the idea was that the editor had in mind.--Tomvasseur (talk) 17:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I have tried to fix the article, I find the result not satisfactory because of the lacking info but it is the best I could do. Everything I used was found on Wikipedia. I hope anybody could complete this article without making it a POV article.--Tomvasseur (talk) 18:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Addition of Zheleznovodsk accords

I am adding the Zheleznovodsk Communique to the article. There was no mentioning of these first peace efforts. Tuscumbia (talk) 13:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Brandmeister addition

He removes where it is situated, I guess because it refers to Stepanakert, he then go on additing a controversial section which is supported by one single and dubious source. Ionidasz (talk) 20:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The town is linked, making the mention of its location redundant imho, but let it be, not a big deal. However the removal of sourced info is quite close to vandalism here: I'm not mad enough to ask myself why I "add a controversial material in a new section supported by one single source", it's your onus. Brandmeister[t] 20:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

An entire section supported by a business newspaper which purport Azeri witnesses claims? We don't make history with a single source, particlarly this type of source. You're adding it, the onus is on you, not me. Ionidasz (talk) 01:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Links to Azeri media

NovaSkola and others, that refer to Azeri media as secondary (3rd and other) sources, please relink the information included in the article to other sources, as those are proven to be unreliable and falsifying facts. Eventually all the info linked to those should be deleted, if not linked to reliable sources. Press review agencies aren't suitable either. Aregakn (talk) 23:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Some bunches

The totally unsourced fall of Artsvashen and Armenia-Turkey relations in the Capture of Shusha should depart IMHO. Twilightchill t 18:03, 3 November 2010 (UTC)\

Chechen Muhajideen... whut? It didn't exist

There was no "Chechen Muhajideen" at this time at all. The only Chechen force that ever participated was a couple of mercenaries led by Shamil Basayev. It was not a "muhajideen" (Basayev hadn't even met the people who persuaded him to try to present the conflict that way yet) and they came to Karabakh not to fight for Islam, but to train for a possible conflict with Russia and to improve relations with Azerbaijan (hoping that maybe Azerbaijan would help them if Russia invaded). They weren't even 100% supported by Dudayev's government, he only tolerated them going and fighting for the Azeris because of the reasons above and because he didn't want trouble with Basayev (there was already a lot of internal conflict, with liberals vs. conservatives; highlands vs. lowlands; Russia encouraging it to try to bring Ichkeria down by backing some wacko named Labazanov and this other guy too; etc...). Yes, Basayev said many, many years later that he went for jihad and a muhajideen- but saying this later had an ulterior motive of gaining the necessary support from the Middle East. But that doesn't make it true. It should be changed or removed. --Yalens (talk) 14:33, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree, there were no "Chechen Muhajideen" in Karabakh war and there are no substantial sources which would indicate their presence. Unlike Abkhazia, where Chechens had their battalion (Grey Wolf), in Karabakh no single Chechen military formation existed. It was on the level of individual fighters but even that is not clear how many and under whose authority they fought. Moreover, no such article exists or is available to back-up the claim: Taarnby, Michael. "The Mujaheddin in Nagorno-Karabakh: A Case Study in the Evolution of Global Jihad." Real Institute Elcano. Iberieli (talk) 15:13, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Iberieli brings up a good point, I just need to add one more thing (and clarify the relationship of Karabakh with Abkhazia with regard to Basayev's group). To be precise: the Basayevite Chechens fighting in Abkhazia. Abkhazia was also an independent operation which was in fact not supported by the Ichkerian government. But once again Dudayev would rather let Basayev leave than have him stay and cause problems (many Chechens in fact view letting Basayev aid the Abkhaz as a mistake, because the Abkhaz are allied to the Ossetes and Russians, two peoples highly hostile to Chechens)- are actually the same ones that fought in Karabakh. The reason they fought in Karabakh was the same as in Abkhazia- and it certainly wasn't jihad, as the majority of Abkhaz are Christian! The best way to sum it up is that they are Basayev's mercenary/military-training group that came to get military experience and cash mainly. To say that they came for jihad is just incorrect. --Yalens (talk) 15:59, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring between IP, MarshallBagramyan, and others

Please discuss your reasons (I am referring to the IP here primarily, but it would be good for others to state their reasons if deemed necessary as well) here, rather than edit warring.

This is the addition in question. The IP address wants it to remain on, Bagramyan and etc delete it. Personally, I don't know enough on this particular part of the war at the moment to contribute much.

Fighting in the Qazakh region

Azerbaijan has enclaves in the territory of Armenia (Karki, Yuxarı Əskipara, Barxudarlı и Sofulu), and also has an exclave — Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic. During the war in Karabakh Armenian armed formations attacked the Azerbaijani enclaves, as well as border villages of Qazakh Rayon and Sadarak Rayon of Nakhchivan. This was a direct invasion of the territory of Azerbaijan from Armenian territory. January 18, 1990 Armenian armed forces took the village of Azerbaijan, an enclave — Karki. March 26 several cars with Armenian militants arrived in the Armenian village Baganis near the border with Azerbaijan. At dusk, they crossed the border near the Azeri village Bağanis Ayrum, burnt about 20 houses and killed 8, according to other reports - 11 villagers Azerbaijanis. The body of one family, including infants, were found in the charred ruins of their burned homes. By the time the Soviet Interior Ministry troops arrived in Baganis-Ayrum, the attackers had already fled. August 18 witnesses from among the residents of the Kazakh region reported a significant accumulation of Armenian militants near the border. The following day, department of the Armenian national army bombarded Azeri villages Yuxarı Əskipara, Bağanis Ayrum, Aşağı Əskipara and Quşçu Ayrım, and according to eyewitnesses used rocket-propelled grenades, mortars and rocket-type surface-to-earth ". Within hours, military personnel reflect the attack, but after the attacker reinforcements arrived from Yerevan, Armenian militants seized villages Yuxarı Əskipara and Bağanis Ayrum. The next day in battle area were transferred to tanks, anti-aircraft guns and helicopter gunships during the day, both villages have been released. According to the Ministry of Interior of the USSR during the fighting killed an officer of internal troops and two police officers, and 9 soldiers and 13 residents were injured. By Armenian militias data loss was estimated at 5 people were killed and 25 wounded, according to Azerbaijan - about 30 killed and 100 wounded.

(...)

Conflict in the last days of the USSR

In the paralysis of the allied powers, and then the collapse of the Soviet Union Armenian militias launched offensives to liberate deported in May–July 1991 the Armenian villages of Nagorno-Karabakh. During the autumn, had been released on a number of villages in Nagorno-Karabakh and the former Shahumian region of Azerbaijan. Leaving these villages, the Azerbaijani formation in some cases burned them. According to the Human Rights Centre "Memorial", at the same time as a result of attacks by Armenian armed forces had to leave their homes to several thousand residents of Azerbaijani villages in the former Shahumian region of Azerbaijan, Hadrut, Martakert, Askeran, Martuni region Nagorny Karabakh. Some villages (eg, Imereti, Gerevent) were burnt by the attackers. There have been instances of serious violence against the civilian population (in particular, in the village Meshali). Since the late autumn of 1991, when the Azerbaijani side has made a counter-offensive, the Armenian side started targeting of Azerbaijani villages. According to the Human Rights Centre "Memorial", were expelled villagers Malıbəyli, Gushchular, and the resulting fire killed dozens of civilians. Both sides put forward the accusation that the villages turned into the enemy's reinforcement areas, covering the artillery positions. 19 December internal troops began withdrawal from Nagorno-Karabakh, which was completed by 27 December. With the collapse of the Soviet Union and the withdrawal of internal troops from Nagorno-Karabakh, the situation in the conflict zone has become uncontrollable. Two people: the Azeris and Armenians were on the verge of full-scale war over Nagorno-Karabakh.

And for the future, use the talk page rather than simply reverting anyone who removes your edits. If you explain your reasons for editing, there is at least a chance you will get your way in the end (not saying you will). --Yalens (talk) 21:04, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe I'm among those who have reverted the insertion of those sections. They seem to be poorly written, have sources in non-English languages, are inserted (in apparently identical form) by a number of different IPs, and seem to side primarily with one side in a highly controversial conflict. That leads me to suspect nationalist POV pushing, and is why I would request sources in English be provided before it is reinserted in the article. Sakkura (talk) 21:47, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

This is an important part of the conflict. The war was not only in Karabakh and 7 districts. Military clashes occurred also in the north-western Azerbaijan. The article hardly written about the output of internal forces in the last days of the Soviet Union. You do vandalism, removing part of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.237.8.152 (talk) 03:46, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

You haven't addressed the issues presented above, so I've reverted your latest edit to the article. Sakkura (talk) 12:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I replied, and again you are uninstalling, so I've reverted your latest edit to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.141.147.138 (talk) 14:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

IP, what is the source for the Cyrillic sources you use (I assume they are Russian). That is pretty much what the discussion is revolving around right now. --Yalens (talk) 15:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I, too, would like to ask the same question. Also, is it possible to limit this guy to a single account? He just seems to be jumping from one computer to another. Maybe have the article semi-protected?--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think it would really be necessary to semi-protect the page, because in truth, the IP has not been exactly vandalizing the page, simply adding controversial information. I never knew of any part of the Karabakh war being fought on the Azerbaijani enclaves within Armenia- though I have long suspected it was the case (why wouldn't it be? It would seem natural for Armenia to fear that Azerbaijan would use the areas as centers from which to attack and destabilize Armenia once the conflict escalated and create a second front to draw forces away from Karabakh). Why there were even such ridiculous enclaves (Armenia apparently has one in Azerbaijan too...) underlines the myopia of Soviet territorial divisions, as it is almost as if they played it from the beginning to make conflicts in case areas seceded... But then again, I had never heard of anything like this before. However, if these Russian-lang sites are only Azerbaijani, you could hardly call it authoritative. But then again, there is common use of Russian sources even by the Western media for dealing with Chechnya.

The problem, at least, how I see it, is not vandalism or destructive actions by the IP- the info is controversial but it is not vandalism. Rather, it is that the IP (who seems quite dedicated to the topic, unlike most IPs) has a sort of a battlefield mentality and refuses not only to compromise, but to discuss at all (hint, hint).--Yalens (talk) 12:29, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

why wouldn't it be? It would seem natural for Armenia to fear that Azerbaijan would use the areas as centers from which to attack and destabilize Armenia once the conflict escalated and create a second front to draw forces away from Karabakh - this is a controversial statement. Why would you not think that Armenian forces would attack Azerbaijani villages in the north of Azerbaijan to draw the attention of Azerbaijani forces away to other frontlines and prevent advances of Azerbaijani forces on Karabakh front? Azerbaijan had three such enclaves within the Armenian SSR and Armenian SSR had one enclave inside Azerbaijan. The IP is adding a relevant information about the fighting in other areas of Azerbaijan-Armenia war which have been missed out in this article. Tuscumbia (talk) 14:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Did you misunderstand me? What I said is that Armenia would fear that Azerbaijan would use them for those purposes (as is generally the case when your country is at war with another, you tend to fear such things happening!), whether Azerbaijan actually did/would or not, I don't know. Conversely, Azerbaijan would fear that Armenia would attack them. I wasn't necessarily implying that the conflict (if it happened) played out any certain way. As I'm sure you know, there is a million ways in which the conflict could initiate- blockades, incessant surveillance, skirmishes, etc. In any case, is it not true, what wikipedia says for the Azerbaijan page, that "The enclaves of Karki, Yuxarı Əskipara, Barxudarlı and Sofulu are surrounded by Armenia and have been controlled by it since the Nagorno-Karabakh War. ". So there does seem to have been a conflict over Azerbaijan's enclaves in Armenia. If it was a part of the war, it should probably, as Tuscumbia said (unless I misunderstood the user) be added, no? The conflict here seems to be that Bagramyan, Sakkura and others view the information as controversial, and they bring up the point that it uses Cyrillic sources. --Yalens (talk) 15:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying and yes, the war was all along the border between Azerbaijan and Armenia including Karki village in Nakhichevan and the information about these villages and fighting in the regions should not be suppressed. Tuscumbia (talk) 15:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Sure, it can be included, but it has to be with proper sources. Wikipedia isn't about truth per se, it's about verifiability. Also, the segments in question are very poorly written so that would also need to be taken care of (though that's not something to revert over since it can just be taken care of in subsequent edits). Sakkura (talk) 16:47, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

In addition to Nagorno-Karabakh and seven adjacent districts, the war has affected five enclaves Azerbadzhana and 1 one enclave in Armenia. There are reputable sources, which describes the collision in the north of Azerbaijan. Why do you neglect the sources? I understand that you somnevatsya. Do you have any sources that might disprove it? If so, provide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.141.146.246 (talk) 16:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

IP, please don't just revert to your version. I think everybody agrees that the text you included is an important part of the war and needs to be included. You just need to re-write the the text because it's more or less poorly written. Tuscumbia (talk) 16:37, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I re-wrote the text which now sounds in proper English. Tuscumbia (talk) 15:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

After some hesitation and further edits made by most probably the same editor behind the IP, I have asked that this article be semi-protected, a move that will hopefully induce the user to create an account rather than simply edit war with all of us.

For the time being, I have removed the above information with the hope that it will be discussed in detail here. They do not lack merit for inclusion, but we need to work on a wording that all sides can agree on and include or omit any piece of information we might find necessary. I have also removed another section which was much the same in nature: poorly written and far too specific a section which is supposed to summarize information, rather than give full-ranged details and dates.

Regarding Svante Cornell: I have a somewhat ambivalent attitude towards him as a reliable source. After skimming through his biography, he seems to be an individual with far too cozy relations with Azerbaijan and Turkey, compromising his neutrality. That doesn't mean he cannot be used as a source, but is it possible, Quantum666 or anyone else interested, that we discuss your inclusions prior to re-adding them? --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 02:34, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Your "ambivalent attitude" toward Svante Cornell and your investigations about his biography are not important as he is reliable source. Please do not remove information confirmed by RS's. --Quantum666 (talk) 05:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Controversial information must be properly attributed and sourced. You are presenting information cited by only a few authors as universal truth. If a majority of authors do not mention or do not support such statements, then there is enough to start using phrases such as "According to", "As stated by", etc. Most of your edits consisted of such material and instead of constantly re-adding it over another person's reasonable objections, you should bring it here and propose wording that others will agree to instead. Compromise.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 05:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Marshall, if we go by the way you propose we'd have to rewrite most of the articles where Armenian or pro-Armenian sources have been added. I don't see the words "According to" that much. Tuscumbia (talk) 15:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Of all these sources added, I only see one that it obviously pro-Azeri (Президентская библиотека Азербайджанской Республики= Presidential Library of the Republic of Azerbaijan). For all the others, including Memorial and Kommersant... you can't make that sweeping claim that they are biased against Armenia. Is there some reason you are opposed to the information being here? --Yalens (talk) 15:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Tuscumbia, please refrain from making blanket reverts again. Your most recent one undid every change that was made, undoing grammar fixes, incomplete sentences, and other copyedits. I have stated numerous times now that these edits do not lack merit but the manner in which the information is presented is far from neutral. The glaring grammar mistakes aside, we have wording used such as "all positions of Armenian militants were terminated, thus liberating the villages." You'll never encounter such wording in the other Nagorno-Karabakh articles, at least not written in such a crass and unneutral manner.

Yalens, I have stated numerous times now that I am not against the information per se. For the moment, we're not even speaking about the sources. We've all come to the conclusion that this information deserves some sort of inclusion but it all must be done in line with nPOV. So far, no one has offered any new wording nor done anything to improve those sections and have shown little patience to exclude that information, even temporarily. I am simply proposing that we keep that information out, discuss it here, agree on the wording and then re-add it. Why the others have been so reluctant to accept such an elementary proposal and have turned to blanket reverts is perplexing. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

And you remove information which "deserves some sort of inclusion" instead of "NPOVing" it. It seems you contradict yourself. --Quantum666 (talk) 17:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, if one thinks certain text does deserve inclusion of the information, he should propose NPOV version, and not delete whole sections and in between include deletions of properly sourced information such as condemnations by international organizations. I am not doing any blanket reverts. I reverted and copyedited the text as well as restored what you removed completely, including condemnation of Armenian aggression by international organizations. As for the wording of all positions of Armenian militants were terminated, thus liberating the villages, it is indeed about liberation of Azerbaijani villages and termination of Armenian militants. Remember that this part concerns not NKAO per se, but direct occupation of villages in Azerbaijan proper, far from former NKAO. Tuscumbia (talk) 18:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not always easy to find reliable sources, particularly with the language barrier. Of course it would be a better solution to source what can be sourced and remove/change what violates NPOV (if anything), but removing controversial and poorly sourced material is an acceptable alternative where that isn't possible.

Now, the section about the OIC resolutions seems perfectly acceptable to me. There's no violation of NPOV when you simply state that the OIC has said this and that - it's clearly denoted as their statement, so the reader can judge their reliability on their own (or with the assistance of the wikipedia article about the OIC).

As for Svante Cornell, I see no reason not to use him as a source. But it's generally good practice to attribute claims, even from reliable sources, on controversial topics. Whether it's necessary and whether it's too obtrusive, that's something I'm pretty open to debate on. Either way I'm pretty sure we won't end up with a serious violation of NPOV. Sakkura (talk) 18:04, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Sakkura. Changes can be proposed here. Tuscumbia (talk) 18:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The sections, standing by themselves, reek of POV. In my latest edit, I have not deleted any information but I have striven to qualify and attribute extraordinary claims to the sources themselves and have provided context rather than irresponsibly presented information which lacks any background. I have furthermore made copyedits, fixed grammar mistakes, formatted sources, provided more accessible sources in the English-language, and made other edits which I don't believe will cause any controversy. The OIC statement is important as well but they have made the same statements several times already and we only to make their position known. Conciseness is key for an article that is now about 130 kilobytes.

I have changed the order of the images, however, in order to reflect the fact that the images originally found on the top are all duplicated below. Brandmeister's deletion of the photo of Armenian children of Stepanakert standing next to the rubble of a building (which was described by him as "unrelated") has also been restored. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 20:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I have made some corrections to your edits, restoring the main image in the infobox which reflects both sides, including Azerbaijani refugees and not just some tank Armenians installed as a sign of victory; correcting the Armenian transliteration of Azerbaijani villages which you claim you "NPOV"ed, to English transliteration of the village names; correcting the wording on OIC condemntation (whether it's "categorization" or not, it's condemnation. It's not the only international organization condemning this specific agression so it's a bit excessive to state they "categorize" when all those organizations condemn per se), changing the wording about enclaves to the present tense (these enclaves as well as Nagorno-Karabakh are still the territory of Azerbaijan). Tuscumbia (talk) 20:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

All those images are duplicated below in the article - that is why I am removing it and replacing it with a new image. If you are that sensitive to the image issue (as if the top photo itself can even be perceived that the article is favoring one side or another), we can just replace it with the photo of the burned out MT-LBs (this photo here). At least that's a photo that is not seen throughout the article.

And also: enough with the pontificating. Whatever your opinion is on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, please keep it to yourself. Incessantly throwing around phrases like "Armenian aggression" and making snide remarks like "some tank Armenians installed as a sign of victory" is a sign that you are unwilling to treat the other party with a level degree of respect. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 02:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

If you think the images have been duplicated, then maybe we can add this picture of a partially destroyed mosque of Shusha istead. What do you say?

PS: Keep your comments to yourself. Agression is agression and if you open the OIC document you will see the word repeated several times. If you need to see it on this talk page as well, I can quote each sentence mentioning Armenian agression. Tuscumbia (talk) 13:55, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

That photo doesn't convey much of an image of war (nothing really discernable at least): there are no visible bullet marks or any other signs that the building survived a war. The photo of the hollowed-out APCs are far more effective and from an aestetic standpoint, they contrast well with the background and the mist creates a very nice effect. The photo of this hollowed out BRDM-2 also works well.

Aggression is in the eye of the beholder. I'm quite sure other organizations will be more hesitant to express views on the conflict in such black and white terms. Surely the Armenians of Nagorno-Karbakh will disagree.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 21:28, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, while I primarily agree with Tuscumbia and Quantum in that Marshall should not remove the information, I'd like to say this. Just because it says "Armenian Aggression" in the source, that doesn't mean you have to use that wording in the article. We can avoid it nonetheless to make it more neutral. --Yalens (talk) 14:58, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

But while we're "inventing" neutrality, we're twisting or even misinterpreting the source. This is a legal international document which condemns the aggression per se. What's the use of this source in Wikipedia if we will re-interprete it? Tuscumbia (talk) 15:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, put it in quotes, at least. I understand that you are not trying to be biased, but others won't see it that way. --Yalens (talk) 18:37, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I clearly understand your point, but putting in quotes would yield an opposite effect. Then the reader will think it's an allegation. Aggression is aggression. It's recognized as aggression and is worded as an aggression. For instance, if Azerbaijan were to attack Armenia, occupying a part of its territory it would then be called aggression and would be worded as such by everyone. That's just the dictionary used worldwide. There is no reference to the agression in the article, hence no bias anywhere throughout the article, but the wording we're discussing is about a certain international organization condemning an aggression of one state against the other. Whether they are right or wrong is secondary because for Azerbaijanis they are right, for Armenians they are wrong, but the bottom line is the resolution calls it aggression, changing it something else would appear as OR. Tuscumbia (talk) 19:01, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

That's because they are allegations. Yalens is spot on with his comments: we are not misinterpreting a source when are making it clear to the reader that the resolutions are passed by the OIC and we place their wording in quotations. I'm quite sure the people in Armenia, and especially the Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh, would dispute the OIC's assertions. The people view the 1988-94 war as a liberation struggle and that aggression emanated only from Azerbaijan itself. So we have two sides with two differing interpretations on the other's actions. Otherwise, the impression is created that these allegations are universally accepted (which they clearly are not). In the end, we are, afterall, stating the opinion of a single organization. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 21:28, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The name of this article is the Nagorno-Karabakh War, not Resolutions Passed on the Nagorno-Karabakh War or Reactions to the the Nagorno-Karabakh War. I'm not opposed to including mention of a resolution or two but to including long, rambling details (precise date and month, location, name of parliamentarian) of identical resolutions passed within months apart do not do anything for the reader and only serve to further encumber an article which is now 130 kilobytes. As far as can be ascertained, these resolutions have made no impact on the resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh War and seem almost to be ceremonial in nature. It is far more beneficial to the reader to inform him if a pattern can be discerned from these resolutions, rather than list every single one of them in what can almost cynically be seen as a systematic attempt to tarnish this or that country.

The IP's characterization of any edit which serves to undo his edits as "vandalism" is becoming increasingly irksome.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 01:32, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

First off, the resolutions are a vital part of the conflict, just as much as the background, revival of the issue, results, consequences, etc. Please find another excuse other than the weight of the file. Armenian Genocide article is three miles longer but I don't see you deleting its parts because it got heavy all of a sudden. Resolutions state the opinion of the international community and it's very important for the reader to see the background, results of the war and reaction of the international community. Please do not make any deletions without any consensus.

IP, for God's sakes, create an account and make your point in the discussion so that Marshall is comfortable with you. Tuscumbia (talk) 13:40, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

They are not as important as you make them out to be. They have had a negligible, if any, impact on the resolution of the conflict and the fact that they keep passing the same resolution every year only shows that their decisions are almost ceremonial (non-binding and hence something which does not impact the negotiations in any way) in nature (driven home by the fact that the OIC is hardly a partial organization when it comes to Armenia-Azerbaijan). We're better off summarizing the resolutions within a single line, rather than droning on that this resolution was passed on this day, on this month, by this person, etc. Your analogy with the Armenian Genocide hardly holds water - the Armenian Genocide article is such a multifaceted issue (history, the denial, culture, etc.), it's impossible to compare one with the other.

And if you haven't been paying attention: I'm not the only one who has been reverting and pleading with this disruptive individual to discuss his edits. I think 6 or 7 us will become more comfortable (if) once he creates an account.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:56, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

They are important and not that unimportant as you make them out to be. The resolutions passed each year are part of what is called diplomacy. States get these resolutions for diplomatic pressure and they are a vital part of the conflict. I do understand they seem less important to you, but that's not the case with the rest of the community at war. My analogy does hold water. Nagorno Karabakh War resulting in more than 800,000 Azerbaijani refugees forced out from Karabakh by Armenian forces is a valid reason for resolutions and an attempt to suppress the information is the start of the denial within the subject of Nagorno-Karabakh.

Marshall, my request to the IP was genuine; and since you are one of the people who asked the IP to register most of all, I thought it would make you the most comfortable. Tuscumbia (talk) 19:26, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Like I have stated above: this article is about the Nagorno-Karabakh War. If you want to keep endlessly adding resolutions which virtually do not differ at all in content, create an article for them (you can start with these titles if you like: Resolutions Passed on the Nagorno-Karabakh War or Reactions to the the Nagorno-Karabakh War).. Otherwise, flooding an article with long, meandering passages will only cloud the clarity of the article. This is compounded by the fact that the disruptive IP undid grammar corrections and upended nPOV statements to tilt toward his partial perspectives.

And your analogy only seems to sink even further with the comparisons you have provided above. Two entirely different subjects that not even a few paragraphs will suffice to explain the invalidity of the analogy. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 20:06, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

The article does not get flooded with a few lines about the content of resolutions. So, your excuses are completely invalid. Whether you want it or not, they are important to this article and must not be removed. Tuscumbia (talk) 20:14, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of the current debate, regarding this IP... this section now takes up roughly 2/5ths of the page, and the IP hasn't said squat. At this point, if you want to block the page from IP editing for a time (like a couple months maybe?), I wouldn't oppose the move. --Yalens (talk) 01:38, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Questionable sources

There is no way that sources like this or this can be used to substantiate such controversial assertions. The former employs propagandistic language and misses no opportunity to denigrate and degrade Armenians by crassly calling them "cutthroats", "vandals" and other adjectives of the like. Further, that it cites no sources and clearly shows that it has an agenda to forward a very narrow point of view eliminates it from even consideration of a WP:Reliable Source. The second source is much the same and is simply a recent speech delivered by a politician to the United Nations, not documentation by a human rights organization. That's it's being misrepresented as such in the article behooves you to be more cautious when making edits and to attribute claims to those who make them, not present them as absolute, undisputed evidence. Even the past additions made by the IP were more properly done than Brand's recent edits.

Also, please do not remove information, as you did regarding the Baku pogrom of 1990, by misleadingly claiming that it has been repeated elsewhere.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 00:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I would like to note that Bagramyan has a strong point, not in the least because one of hte sources is a report to the UN by Azerbaijan. I don't think you can think to yourself about calling that neutral. I am, however, against deleting the info, I have simply placed "According to Azerbaijan" in front of it, and will proceed to decorate it with tags. Hopefully we can get an Armenian perspective on how (and if) this happened cited as well, to balance it. But seriously, one shouldn't use Azeri government claims a supposedly neutral, reliable source.--Yalens (talk) 15:55, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Information like that needs to be substantiated by better sources like human rights organizations. The Azerbaijani government sources carry such a heavy weight of propaganda, that it's nearly impossible to verify if anything they say. If we allow the use of sources which employ such racist language, then we will be creating a new precedent that will not augur well for future Wikipedia articles. The article itself is becoming unwieldy (now at over 130 kilobytes). Rather than branching out into small, relevant articles, new pieces of information are just being piled atop one another. The consecutive mentions of two identical resolutions by the OIC need to be simply summarized and squeezed into one or two sentences, not long rambling lines of block texts.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 20:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

If you're concerned about the better sources, why don't you review the article and first delete the source 3 written by some unknown Araks Pashayan in an Armenian forum website (!) who has nothing to do with human rights organizations before anything else? Tuscumbia (talk) 21:00, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not as if the Azerbaijani side sources are the only sources that carry racist tones. The Armenian article cited for Basayev is of particular notoriety: not only is it published in the Armenian Weekly, but it uses the "Chechen terrorist" moniker (which is ironic coming from Armenians, when Turks tend to haphazardly apply the word terrorist to them as well). Were, in this instance, Basayev's troops "terrorist"? They were in fact mercenaries serving the Azeri government. That is not "terrorism". Perhaps what Basayev did later- i.e. after Russia flattened and bombed his hometown back to the Stone Age and killed countless relatives of his- was. But I seriously fail to see how Basayev fighting for Azerbaijan at a time when the Chechens were in need of money, military training, sympathy and experience classifies as "terrorism". It is quite obvious that the Armenian Weekly is just using the "Chechen Terrorist" racist moniker. And may I add, the article is now a broken link as well. --Yalens (talk) 15:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, to be fair, that title in the link doesn't appear to be the author's wording but something that has been added post facto (by the the editing staff? from whoever hosts that site?). Otherwise the author's tone remains largely impartial and doesn't resort to making any sweeping claims and generalizations about other peoples. The same cannot be said with a document purporting to represent human rights and at the same time scorning Armenians for their ability to deceive others and the implication of their inherent traits of being "cutthroats", bloodthirsty barbarians, etc. Why we are turning to such dubious sources with spurious credentials and little credibility, where they would be rejected on any other article on Wikipedia, is beyond me. Of course, certain Armenian sources undoubtedly do not try to conceal their bias, but I and my other peers have always tried to find and use sources written by peer-reviewed, mainstream scholars or journalists, who at least try to adhere to some standards expected from those in their profession and who try to make an effort to present information in as clear and accurate a manner as possible.

Regarding Basayev: the man was, after all, a self-described terrorist but as to his and the actions of the mujaheddin - your comments and edits have just gone to show poorly studied their role was in the conflict. It's something we have to wait for historians to dwell upon but, for the moment, we have to rely on the sources that they have produced thus far.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 20:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The reasons why I removed the large chunks of text on the resolution have already been noted above. For one, several of them, such as those by the Organization for Islamic States, are virtually identical in nature and there doesn't appear to be any difference in policy or opinion with the resolution passed in 2007 with the one passed in 2008. Hence, we can, at most, simply state the position of the organization itself within a single line, perhaps.

Second, whoever added the information on the resolution passed by the UN General Assembly in 2008 seems to have deliberately neglected to mention that over 100 countries abstained from voting for it and the United States, Russia, and France, voted against it (see here). The omission seems to suggest that this was a unanimous decision carried out by the United Nations, when it clearly is not. As for the PACE resolution, one can see from the BBC source that it is non-binding and, once more, whoever added the text selectively chose what to include and what to exclude: there's no mention that the resolution deplored the fact that the conflict resulted in "ethnic cleansing" of people from both sides, not just from Azerbaijan, no mention that the resolution was drafted by Turkey, a country whose foreign policy is aligned with Azerbaijan, etc, etc.

We cannot include every single resolution passed by every single organization on the conflict, especially in a section which is simply supposed to describe what the current situation is. At most, a paragraph can be provided, mentioning the names of organizations which have passed resolutions on the conflict.

Furthermore, Tuscumbia's complete removal of the article by Stephen Brooks for the The Times and subsequent removal of the following line "An Armenian recounted to a journalist of witnessing Azerbaijanis 'playing football with Armenian heads'" can only be interpreted as the suppression of verifiable information. No reason was given in the edit summary and it should not be repeated unless a reasonable one was provided.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 02:07, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree, this article is not the place to add every single meaningless resolution. We're deviating from the focus of the article and that is the war that happened between 88-94. The current situation should be kept as brief as possible. I have also added back Brooks' passage and citation given its neutrality. Sneaky removals without any notification or justification on the talkpage is discouraged on Wikipedia even if perhaps you do not like the info presented. - Fedayee (talk) 07:04, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The Times reference contains nothing about alleged heads playing. Looks like the URL is either invalid or outdated. Twilightchill t 14:15, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The source on Brooks was removed because it's not verifiable. Please post a link here so we can understand if there is such a source claiming somebody played soccer with Armenian heads (!). Secondly, do you really want to have every Armenian's opinion on what he or she "saw"? Should I add recollections from Azerbaijani witnesses and what they said (and it will be from reliable sources)?

Resolutions do need to be mentioned. Don't twist the subject saying it takes space, etc. The resolutions indicate the opinion of the international community and how they see the conflict. It's essential to the subject of Nagorno-Karabakh and especially for the article Nagorno-Karabakh War. Tuscumbia (talk) 14:21, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Two things:

1: The reason I showed the thing about Basayev was to demonstrate that neither side is full of tolerant humanitarians who necessarily always refrain from ethnic slurs. That being said, I would further argue that, whether its "Armenian cutthroats" or "Azeri mass murderers" or whatever, we shouldn't be relying on sources that are Armenian or Azerbaijani to begin with, whether they are racist or not as it is a joke to think that either side is going to do neutral reporting. --Yalens (talk) 16:02, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

2. I would agree about the resolutions. You can make a page about the resolutions made by other parties about the conflict... but this page is pretty long already, and not every one of them is that important for readers to see if they are just researching the war and not all the diplomatic games that went on because of it long after it became "frozen". The latter can be a separate page if you want it.--Yalens (talk) 16:02, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Here is the excerpt from Brook's article, which I found through LexisNexis:

In a world saturated with refugees, it was hard for the diminutive figure of Vartush Barbayan to make an impression, but she did. A survivor of the siege of Leningrad during the second world war, she had settled into the Armenian community in Sumgait, Azerbaijan. In February 1988 massacres took place there, and Barbayan's husband and daughter perished. She took refuge in the northern Armenian town of Spitak, until in December the horrific earthquake reduced her home to rubble. She moved south to Echmiadzin, and then to Shushi in Nagorno Karabakh. Of her family, she is the last survivor. Here in Shushi she hopes to die in peace. At the refugee camp in Artzni near Yerevan, a distinguished old gentleman in a faded grey suit waggled his empty eye socket at me. "In Baku", he roared, "I saw Azeris playing football with Armenian heads. They tore my eye out and I was lucky to escape alive. I was a prosecutor, a famous lawyer. Now I have nothing. I want to work but there is no work. We live worse than dogs, and our self-respect has been destroyed."

In Armenia refugees are multiple refugees, expelled repeatedly by bloodshed, rifle-point, missiles, ethnic cleansing and natural disaster. A full 10 per cent of the country's population, some 340,000 people, have fled their homes, and the government can assist only about one third of their number.

The source of the problem is the war that has been raging in Nagorno Karabakh for more than four years. It was Stalin who, with malicious genius, created this mostly Armenian enclave within Azerbaijan. His nationalities policy injected ethnic minorities into the republics to confound nationalist movements. The strategy has worked to perfection, embroiling the entire Caucasus in a tangle of ethnic uprisings.

There has never been much love lost between the Azeris and the Armenians. Azeris are a Turkic people, and the Armenians cannot forget that their persecutors in 1915, when more than a million were butchered, were the Ottoman Turks. Nonetheless, the two peoples lived side by side in a semblance of harmony, especially in Baku, where the skills of the large Armenian population helped to develop Azerbaijan's oil industry.

However, the Azeri authorities chose to deal harshly with Karabakh, restricting access to the enclave and suppressing Armenian culture. True, the enclave was never populated entirely by Armenians, as Turkic tribesman have crisscrossed the region for centuries. Churches dating back to the 4th century testify to a lengthy Armenian presence there.

The reason this was added was to show to the reader that violence in the conflict was not a one-way street. It's odd that you ask me if I want to have "every Armenian's opinion" in a section which is essentially doing just that (which are, after all, Brandmeister's additions) - providing accounts of witness testimony. Of course, I'm not going to try to "balance" out that section by providing equal airtime for everyone because that would be absurd.

Please tone it down. I am not trying to twist the subject at all as you can see that even Yalens concurs that we should try to keep this article as concise as possible. If you truly want to present all the resolutions on the conflict, create a separate article, such as this one. The fact that you went and blind reverted Fedayee's edits, in spite of the complaints I have raised against the resolutions (such as what was omitted in the supposed UN resolution), does not do much in the way of building confidence.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:53, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

That excerpt does not help at all. There is no record of that article anywhere and the claim by some person that Azerbaijanis played football with Armenian heads sounds a little more than fishy when there is no information of that kind of violence anywhere. Brandmeister's additions do not include this kind of nonsense about someone "playing football with heads of Armenians", on contrary it includes solid information. Again, if you like to add any witness accounts, we would then need to add witness accounts of Azerbaijanis tortured by Armenians, which were recorded by human rights organizations. I think we would run out of space considering how much torture they had really seen with nearly a million running for their lives. Nobody says it was a one way street. But that allegation by some angry person is out of line and most importantly, unreliable.

There was no consensus on removing the resolutions, hence the restoration of the sentences. I went ahead and deleted the excerpt from the resolution according to your complaints but the rest stays because it says what the resolutions are about. Tuscumbia (talk) 18:58, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

All you have to do is dig around. I found that article on at least two databases, LexisNexis and ProQuest. I have the entire article on hand and would post it in full for anyone who wants to read it. Your reasons for its exclusion, furthermore, do not make sense and just because it has yet to be mentioned in a report by a human rights organization does not mean it did not take place, and The Times, a Western newspaper, is far better and reliable a source than "dem.az" and the rantings of Azerbaijan's ambassadors.

With the exception of you, no one else sees it necessary to post long blocks of text, devoid of any context and lacking quotations. I came up with the compromise to summarize the resolutions and to put their wording in quotations (thus attributing the allegations to the organizations themselves) and yet you still went ahead and reverted me and Fedayee. What is the advantage of telling the reader that the OIS has passed the same identical resolution every year and leveled the same (one-sided) accusations against Armenia? Why is there no explanation of the importance of the PACE resolution to the reader? If you're itching that badly to include everything, by all means, create an article for those resolutions and post the link here but let's not try to encumber the reader with meaningless piles of text which is simply added with no specific objective in mind other than the bland excuse of showing that "The resolutions indicate the opinion of the international community".--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 03:05, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's what I'm saying. If I start to dig around I'll get you thousands of testimonies of Azerbaijani victims of the conflict confirmed by human rights organizations and believe me the accounts of Azerbaijani victims are not limited to "playing football" but something a lot harsher, and it's not something being fantasized by an old man. Those are actually confirmed by human rights organizations. I understand you wouldn't want me to add those accounts here either, or would you?

I reverted you and Fedayee and amended the text by rewording and deleting a quote from one of resolutions because you deleted important information. Those resolutions state the concern of the international community, repeated resolutions underline increased concern of the international community. The information is a vital part of the conflict and current situation. Whatever seems "meaningless" to you is actually quite important for a reader. Tuscumbia (talk) 13:45, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Tuscumbia, would you please take 10 minutes and consider Yalens' and MarshallBagramyan's views without making blind reverts? This article is already over the size limit, and there is WikiSource for the various resolutions if there is a need. Please consider whether it is not best to have a short summary of the resolutions, rather than large chunks of diplomatic text which add little to the article. I'm not going to revert your edits, but I'm going to ask you to collaborate with the other contributors here to come up with some wording that summarizes without reproducing entire blocks of text. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:55, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Buckshot, I already deleted the text from the resolutions. This is my last revert from Fedayee's rewording of text. I don't know about other users commenting here, but I fail to see any large chunks of text Marshall is complaining about. The text on resolutions being discussed is literally three sentences. I'm not sure why we're even discussing it and how those three sentences affect the size of the article and why deletion is even being proposed because of that, when we could delete the section Operation Ring for example, which is a pretty large section and does have a whole article dedicated to the event, or say, section on Capture of Shusha, which is a lot larger and has an article of its own. So, it is pretty obvious that attempts to delete 2-3 sentences on resolutions condemning Armenia is just an excuse to suppress the much needed information on the stance of international community on Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, and not a genuine desire to shorten the article because of its size. The initial excuses were grammar; when that was corrected, the size of the article became the issue. I mean come on, isn't it too obvious? Tuscumbia (talk) 21:38, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Operation Ring and the capture of Shushi were integral components of the Nagorno-Karabakh War. To exclude them would be akin to removing any mention of D-Day and the battle of Stalingrad from the World War II article. And the issue was never the grammar. While those chunks of text may have been written without due consideration to nPOV and poorly worded, the amount of space that was allotted in a section which is supposed to tell the reader what precisely the situation is was absurd. Instead of dedicating a separate article for such matter, as I proposed on many an occasion, this one was elongated further and further.

For the moment, Brandmeister (aka Twilight Chill) has removed the text in question, although it is quite disconcerting that he chose to do so in such a unilateral fashion, especially considering that his contribution to the discussion has amounted to almost nothing. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 02:16, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

While it is probably true (in my opinion) that Bagramyan doesn't really care about the length of the article, that is beside the point. The thing is that, he has a point that it is a large amount of unnecessary info that most readers of this page are not interested in. You can make a separate page, can you not, and list them there. Then make a section on this page, with a link to it. That way, if readers are interested in this stuff (which is not part of the war per se), they can read about it, and the information need not be suppressed. What do you say to that?--Yalens (talk) 02:51, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Marshall, I did not imply removing Operation Ring or Capture of Shusha. Full aware they are a part of the Karabakh War. I said the sections could be shortened since they have big articles on those events anyway since you were "concerned" about the size of this article.

Twilight Chill, please do not remove whole sections of text. Rewording would such as I just did shortening the information and linking them to new articles to be created.

Yes, OK Yalens, I reinserted two simple lines with reference to OIC resolutions (just like the resolution of PACE and linked them to a future article which I will create. Tuscumbia (talk) 15:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

reverting! I have reverted because sourced info have been removed without providing any reasons of it. As for the picture, NK is and was a mostly Armenian inhabited region, it would seem biased to have that picture on the lead, involving Azeri people. Vidovler (talk) 21:28, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I reverted it like this [18] because first the image in the information box with four pictures in it shows representation from both sides. The image you add is a tank memorial which is also in that 4 picture image! So, I don’t understand what you complain about. The quotation that you reverted to about “Azerification” or something is OR and is not from any source. The quotation about “recalling of Armenian genocide memories” is highly pov written by Armenian. There is so much articles when written by Azeris which can also say this remind Azerbaijani genocide memories. May we include them too? I understand why you keep undoing. Dighapet (talk) 22:43, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Where are the Armenian refugees of the war on that picture? Also, what is POV? I don't see any problem with recalling of Armenian genocide memories unless you believe the Armenian genocide is a myth. Vidovler (talk) 15:31, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Is anyone else still not convinced there is something fishy with all these accounts popping up? I may sound like a broken record, but Dighapet himself exhibits so many characteristics of several topic banned users (namely Tuscumbia) that it's almost impossible to ignore. His broken grammar really comes off as contrived in light of the fact that the first edit he ever made was a new article that contained no glaring grammar or spelling flaws. His interest in all the same articles and similar argumentation style really leave almost no room for doubt.

Just consider his above response: just like Tuscumbia he has invoked the ethnic identity of an author as an obstacle to his neutrality in the topic. It's sort of suspicious that an editor would continue to bring something like this up even after he was warned but even doubly so when Tuscumbia has been topic banned twice for making the same remarks. This, despite the fact that one of the authors of said source is American and has been published by a respected publisher (University of California Press). A through investigation really needs to be carried out. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 02:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)