Talk:Ziya Bunyadov

Wiki Vandalism Atabek and Grandmaster

I see that several participants simply wiped out work by the original user who set up this article. this is not what should have been done. however I appreciate adding good bio material on Buniyadov. some content from the original article should be restored. the original article contained important info and labeling its content as "character assassination" is wrong. Atabek and Grandmaster are VANDALS and should be reprimanded for their bad conduct.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zurbagan (talk • contribs) 01:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

The above comment is apparently left by the same person, who used sock accounts to create this article. I urge the admins to check this user. Grandmaster 06:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

sorry for not signing my previous comment. but my recommendation still stands: go and revert to at least some of the original edits Zurbagan 03:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Zurbagan, calling someone a "Vandal" is considered a personal attack according to Wikipedia:NPA, you have been warned now. Please, engage in a civilized discussion in accordance with the Wikipedia:Civility.Atabek 18:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Atabek is a suspected sock puppet of Grandmaster; vandal is a technical term designating someone who engages in acts of vandalism (tech. term) - like wiping out entire pages created by a third party. Atabek/Grandmaster is warned that this behavior will result in administrative prosecution under the Wiki's rules and regulations such as edit warring. Zurbagan 01:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

You have been asked to provide references for your edits, not to discuss or attack other users. Atabek 08:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Page created by Vachagan but handed over to markhssen

here is a article about buniatov

undue weight on Karny's book; POV wording of the article

Ya'av Karny is not a historian, but a journalist, which detracts from his ability to make expert comments on complex history of the region. His sources are obviously mostly Armenian, and ignore all the research from the likes of Velichko, Trever, Yampolsky, and even some Armenian sources like Ishkhanian. As such, Karny makes, for example, the following mistakes of historical nature on just one page (p. 377): "...the Romans, in need of local allies along their Parthian frontier, became interested and made Albania a province..." There is no proof to that -- Romans fought a war with Caucasian Albania, and failed to subjugate the country or make it a vassal. The only vassal in the region of the Romans was Armenia.

Karny claims: "It adopted Christianity as early as the fourth century through the activity of Armenian missionaries..." -- now we know what kind of books was Mr. Karny basing his research on -- definitely not the primary sources, such as Movses Dasxuranci (Moisey Kalankatuyski), where it becomes obvious that Armenians simply could not have any role in this. Not to mention that St. Gregory the Illuminator, who Christianized Armenia, was not even Armenian himself, but ethnic Parthian.

Karny claims: "The last Christian Albanian state ceased to exist in 821" [sic!] -- false, it contradicts not only independent scholarly sources and encyclopedia's, but even Armenian POV sources.

Karny further claims: "Even though the ancient Albanians earned some disparaging remarks about their culture and degree of learning--it was said that they could not count to one hundred..." That's also based on Strabo's third-party sources, and is unverifiable. By the way, same is said of Georgians, for example. Also, if there is any truth to that, it probably refers to absence of the word "thousand", "million", etc. Instead, ancient people would say "two hundred", "five hundred", "ten hundred", etc., when in need to denote decimals in excess of 100.

On page 383 he mistakenly writes 1829 as the year of the Turkmenchay Treaty (1828). On the next page, he does seem to correct himself, and mentioned the veritable date.

Later (e.g., pp. 390-391), he adheres to the outdated pro-Armenian POV when outlining events of the NK conflict -- he is nowhere as detailed and even-handed as de Waal, another journalist cited by the wikipedia's article. For example, he doesn't mention that first refugees were Azerbaijani, or that first killed were two Azerbaijani youth.

On p. 401, Mr. Karny describes lake Gokcha as a "Nagorno-Karabakh's provincial capital" (?!) --AdilBaguirov 02:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

some of the quotes from de Waal's book on Bunyatov (available in full in Russian on BBC website)

Зия Буниятов по крайней мере мог претендовать на звание настоящего бойца. Солдатом Красной Армии он прошел во Вторую мировую войну через всю Европу, дошел до Германии. На его глазах над Рейхстагом в 1945 году водрузили красное знамя Победы. За свои боевые заслуги он был удостоен золотой звезды Героя Советского Союза. Награда помогла ему сделать успешную научную карьеру и стать видным историком-кавказоведом. Позднее Буниятов пошел в политику. Его противоречивая карьера завершилась загадочным убийством на пороге собственного дома в феврале 1997 года.

Одно из самых ранних исторических наблюдений Буниятова было хорошо обосновано. Он одним из первых среди историков заметил, что добрая часть армян в Армении и в Карабахе были потомками иммигрантов XIX века. В 1828-1830 годах, вскоре после завоевания юго-западного Кавказа, Россия переселила 57 тысяч армян из Турции и Ирана в Армению и Нахичевань. Небольшие группы осели также в Карабахе, где армяне-выходцы из Персии основали селения Меликджанлу, Цакури и Марага. Историки пока что не пришли к окончательному выводу, какую долю девятнадцатитысячного армянского населения Карабаха в 1830-е годы составляли поселенцы (половину, четверть, десятую часть?), но очевидно, что их там было немало.

Этот интересный исторический нюанс пробивает брешь в теории "непрерывной генеалогии" карабахских армян.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/russian/in_depth/newsid_4670000/4670649.stm --AdilBaguirov 03:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

”Academician” Ziya Bunyadov: Plagiarist, Pseudo-Scholar and Hate Writer

This is a reply to AdilBagirov’s and other POV Azerbaijani remarks:

1. From now on, do not undo other people’s work simply because it wimps you to do so

2. Your references to Karny’s “mistakes” are false, you are lying. I have checked specified pages in his book and he never discussed the mentioned facts in that light. That places a heavy liability on your further edits in Wikipedia. Also, there is not evidence that Karny’s sources are “Armenian.”

3. Karny and Waal are journalists, true but they have western-certified degrees in social sciences. In order to understand that Bunyadov is a pseudo-scholar, you don’t need to be a career academic – it is self-evident because Bunyadov bases his arguments on shaky methodological foundation: conspiracy theory and non-falsifiable statements. Bunyadov and his disciple Mamedova are well-exposed hate commentators, which deflates their academic credentials. Waal calls Bunyadov “Azerbaijan’s chief Armenophobe” for a reason – because of his bona fide hate articles, such as “Why Sumgait?” Bunydov is highly controversial and this article WILL reflect that.

5. A number of career NPOV academics examined Bunyadov’s work – Bournoutian (an American, http://www.umd.umich.edu/dept/armenian/sas/bour.html) and Schnirelman (a Russian, http://vehi.net/istoriya/armenia/albanskymif.html). Their conclusions derive form hard facts - not just opinions - that Bunyadov used unacceptable methods of academic conduct by plagiarizing Robert Hewsen’s work and re-publishing historical sources in advance purging them of references to Armenia and Armenians. Waal writes about Bunyadov’s plagiarist habits in his “Black Garden” Zurbagan 04:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

user Zurbagan, you are a sock, and should think twice before accusing someone of "lying". Yes, Karny's sources are mostly Armenian -- his bibliography in the book would reveal that quickly. All my reference's to his mistakes are correct and easily verifiable. What you checked or not means little -- you are not qualified to make complex arguments, as you lack proper credentials, and are a sock. None of the "western-certified degrees in social sciences" trump Bunyadov's Ph.D, Doctorate, professorship, corresponding members and full academician credentials of the USSR. None of your sources proved anything - some of the mistakes can be blamed on technical errors on behalf of publishers, others on the right of an editor to comment on any text or leave certain lines out, provided that's specified in the book (which Bunyadov did). Your Bournoutian is Armenian POV, who can't even get the basic information straight -- that Bunyadov was not the President of the Academy of Sciences, but one of its Vice-Presidents. Plus Bournoutian cannot even translate from Russian correctly. Likewise, Hewsen is also Armenian. Meanwhile, Schnirelman is just another Armenian propagandist, who works on Wikipedia on behalf of Armenians. Although don't forget to quoute him on his criticism of Armenian historians -- or should I bring all those quotes? Finally, once again, change your tone, and behavior, and cease from socketpuppetry. --AdilBaguirov 08:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Zurbagan, you should present neutral sources for such claims, not Armenian authors. I mean your last edits. I have left neutral sources like de Waal, but removed your own assertion - there is no place for OR and such comments like 'sardonically'--Dacy69 15:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Edits to be left in the article

As shown above, Karny is not a historian and makes a bunch of simple errors when trying to comment on the complex history. Meanwhile, Tom de Waal relies heavily on Robert Hewsen, himself an Armenian. However, as shown above, he does have nice things to say about Bunyadov vis-a-vis damaging the Armenian claims about their autochonticity in Karabakh.

However, here are my edits that we removed, but I propose to keep them:

The Krasnaya Zvezda (Red Star), the official newspaper of the Soviet Army, wrote about Bunyadov in 1942: "sly, swift as a tiger, the intelligence officer Ziya Bunyadov, who under the improbable conditions, in the most complex situation could clearly orient himself, bring precise data about the number, the armament and the dislocation of the enemy. He was valued in the battalion for the romantic soul and the literary erudition"[1].

Bunyadov researched ancient and medieval Azerbaijani historiography, specializing on Caucasian Albania and Azerbaijan during the Arab caliphate rule, concentrating on the events from the 7th-19th centuries AD

Bunyadov is also known for his article Why Sumgait?

The first paragraph is a sourced and verifiable quote from Krasnaya Zvezda newspaper, and since comments on such an important event as WWII and gives background and portrait of why Bunyadov became one of a handful of Hero's of Soviet Union -- a top military honor in USSR (where army building was taken very seriously, and USSR was, as some maintain, the strongest country in the world), it should be left in.

The second paragraph makes the following distinctions -- Bunyadov was a specialist in MEDIEVAL historiography primarily, not ancient, and specialized in Arabic studies more than in Caucasian Albanian (unlike Farida Mamedova, for example, he didn't know ancient Armenian (grabar), Pahlavi, and Caucasian Albanian (Udi)) -- as we know, everything after c. 5th century AD is considered (early) medieval. Since his most important books were "Azerbaijan in VII-IX centuries" and "State of Atabeks of Azerbaijan: 1136-1225" and many translations of Arabic works - which means that he was primarily a medival history specialist. He does have works on Caucasian Albania, which makes his secondary specialty the ancient history, too.

The third paragraph simply adds a URL link to the actual article, that was republished in IRS magazine without any editorial changes to it, preserving its original style.

Also, I we should add a response to some of those critics -- I've done it about Karny, and can do the same about Bournutian easily. The rest of the Hewsen et al claims are unsubstantiated, and never have been proven, just allegations. --AdilBaguirov 18:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

While some obscure specialist like Karny criticizes Bunyadov, well-known Russian expert in oriental Studies (vostokoved) and journalist Farid Seyful-Mulukov says the following about Ziya Bunyadov: "Мы учились с ним на арабском отделении факультета востоковедения МГУ. Зия был душой курса, факультета. Он был выдающимся ученым. Перевод Корана требует превосходного знания арабского языка и потому не каждый осмелится взяться за этот труд. Зие Буниятову удалось сделать прекрасный перевод Священной книги" - We have studied together in the department of Arab studies in MGU (moscow State University). Ziya was a soul of the course and the department. He was an outstanding scholar. Qoran translation requires excellent knowledge of Arabic language and only few dare to embark upon that job. Ziya Bunyadov managed to do excellent translation of the Holy Book. (Zerkalo, 14 March 2007)--Dacy69 21:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Quotes attributed to Karny and Waal, apply to word controversial only. Fixed that now. On another note, de Waal is not a historian, so technically he is not in position to make judgements about historical research. Atabek 01:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

References

Vandalism by Atabek and Grandmaster Should be Reversed

This page was vandalized by a joint effort of Atabek and Grandmaster, and until its restoration to original state all discussion does not really matter. I recognize that the original content of the page was not an NPOV, and subsequently added material was of some use. However, the part on Buniatov's military deeds is overdone - after all he was an academic and not a military leader. About Bournoutian and Hewsen - they are American and not Armenain authors the last time I checked, and have well-established academic credentials. Targeting these people because of their alleged ethnic origin will be rejected as simply as racist slur. But again, I repeat, given the methodology Buniatov, plagiarism and fraud with re-publishing, which all bound well to Azerbaijani political agendas, plus hate speeches by him and Mamedova - it is all very clear what kind of "scholarship" both produced. It is transparent for any political commentator - by it Karny, Waal, Schirelman and whoever. Historical facts do not matter here that much. best regards Zurbagan 06:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

First off, Bunyadov was a Hero of Soviet Union, a top military honor -- in order to comprehend the importance of this, you should study more the military history of USSR. So yes, Bunyadov was a military leader, even though was not a general. Secondly, you should check once more, because both Burnutian ("alleged ethnic origin"?!) and Hewsen are ethnic Armenians (since when acknowledging someone being an ethnic Armenian is a "racist slur"?! where did you learn that from?), and it doesn't matter they live in the USA or have US citizenship, etc. Otherwise we can insert any Azerbaijani author who was published or otherwise resides outside of Azerbaijan -- would you like that? I don't even mention Turkish authors, sources from whom we are all free to add, as they are technically a third-party. Plus it's not the nationality of Burnutian -- but the fact that he is simply wrong, he can't even get the work title of Bunyadov correct (calling him "president of Academy of Sciences") - what's to be expected from him then? Plus none of them are as published and accomplished academically (not to mention militarily) as academician Bunyadov. You are full of POV and hate -- your very language about some alleged "hate-speeches" by Bunyadov (and Mamedova, who is not even the main subject of this article) reveals your motivations and biases. Try to read any one of their books, and then tell what do you disagree with in terms of facts -- let's be concrete, please. You are not a scholar, not a professor, not even a Ph.D., so you shouldn't be talking about scholarship and passing judgement on academics. Plus you are a sock puppet. --AdilBaguirov 07:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I just repeat: Karny, Waal, Bournoutian and Hewsen are accomplished and well-published Western scholars and political commentators. Perhaps, there are some accomplished Western scholars of Azerbaijani and Turkish origin as well - they can be included. Turks from Turkey will be excluded as non-NPOV because the Turkish state punishes independent research - formally and informally - that does not adhere to standard nationalist line. Bunyadov is a bona fide nationalist and a product of Soviet historical pseudo-science who abused academic practices. All Soviet historical scientists can be treated with suspicion. You are engaged in edit warring and use personal attacks. Zurbagan 17:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Your body of text and attacks on Turkish state reveals your bias and bigotry which has no place in Wiki. Keep your opinion to yourself about academic Bunyadov who received positive remarks from neutral people. Besides, you can not exclude Soviet scholars and school of science from global one. Even with its obvious ideological mantle it made a great contribution - a number of good books and researcjh about history of Eurasia, Armenia, Middle east which mentioned in the work of western scholars. For example, in Armenia scholars like Gamkrelidze-Ivanov theory - both Soviet scholars. You need to change completely your attitude and still you should learn Wiki rules.--Dacy69 14:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

your inclusion of Bournoutian is unacceptable, and Karny is not a historian or otherwise specialist on Caucasian Albanian history. The article right now is complete POV and ignores important facts. --AdilBaguirov 07:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Why did you remove my quote? I added. Artaxiad 05:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Edits by Pulu-Pughi

I had to restore the information that was deleted without any reason. In the future, if you believe there isn't enough said about one aspect of Bunyadov's life with respect to another, elaborate on the former instead of shortening the latter. Parishan 06:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Zurbagan 15:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

academic career

I added alternative opinion about Bunyadov's academic credentials and specified that previous quotation is a view of journalist Tom de Waal. Thus, all such opinion should be attributed to specific persons since no common view exists on Bunyadov works. There are, as a matter of fact, conflicting views and we should give broader picture about that.--Dacy69 08:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay Dacy but please do not remove cquotes or else it is plagiarism, those are there for a reason, therefore the coding is okay with your addition and it is fine. Artaxiad 22:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

What plagiarism you mean? In quotation? I did not changed anything in it. I have formatted text to put 2 quotations and I outlined both with italics. It is quite academic format. I have attributed both quotations to persons who said that. And yours btw goes first. I hope it will satisfy you.--Dacy69 22:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

That seems fine, thanks. Artaxiad 22:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Recent additions by Zurbagan

The way Wikipedia works you cannot add your own views and interpretations of facts, all claims need to be attributed to some reliable source. So do not insert your ideas about Bunyadov’s works, however you can quote what others think about them. Grandmaster 13:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, that's why I removed the unsourced praise.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 14:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

That's fine, it should go like "such and such person or source says this, and such and such person says this". No personal comments, as they are an OR. Grandmaster 14:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

WikiP is not a collection of quotes but a collection of descriptions of opinions. Please do not abuse NPOV or OR enforcement guidelines, presenting comments to quotes or major themes as OR. Buniatov is a well-exposed plagiarist, nationalist and hate writer and there should be descriptive material discussing these issues, and supported/illustrated by quotations. Compare this with the texts in the "Life" section, which are acceptable (if overdone) even though quotes are lacking. I disagree with Eupator - the praise was a discriptive comment to an opinion, which, however, should have been complemented by a note that Seiful-Mulukov's view was a minority opinion. Pulu-Pughi 16:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Apparently you are Zurbagan, Jallaleddin, etc because your view is identical. You continue pushing your POV. Quotes can be inserted except Bourtanian. Please discuss first. We have inserted negative opinion on Bunyadov. --Dacy69 23:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

He is not a sock puppet as of now, since the check user was declined, no evidence. Artaxiad 23:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I am sure Arbcom will sort out. But for now, as you wish, let's deconstruct his edit.

1 - Bunyadov has been internationally criticized for unethical academic conduct associated with revisionist research of issues dealing with Armenia and Armenians. Obvious POV he is trying to insert in the text. No place for that in Wiki 2 - Quote of Bournatian - Armenian origin scholar. We have discussed and declined its neutrality. 3 - Yo'av Karny - it is not academic writing. We have discussed also. And actually that quote I would not advise to put because of your interests. It reveals complexity of issues and shed lights on some political reasons behind historical disputes. But if you wish - go ahead. 4 - big chunk again POV. We have discussed with you and Eupator previously the edit and came to some compromise. Overall current text reflects Bunyadov critisism. If that sock continue to push POV he will be reported. I am going to write to arbs. His last edit is identical to Zurbagan. That can't be coincidence--Dacy69 00:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest you report this to an admin since there obvious socks. Artaxiad 01:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I have just reported to Arbcom and to admin who checked Zurbagan case.--Dacy69 01:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Dacy69, Grandmaster and Atabek are obvious socks who call socks other users in order to suppress genuine NPOV reporting. To this end, these sockpuppets adopted a clumsy policy of intimidation, personal attacks and vandalism.

1. They falsely report normal, unbiased and descriptive narratives as POV or OR. For instance: Quote: “Bunyadov has been internationally criticized for unethical academic conduct associated with revisionist research of issues dealing with Armenia and Armenians.” Those are facts not opinions. a) Bunyadov has been internationally criticized, it is a fact and not an opinion; furthermore, I have not seen any positive opinions about Buniatov guy from any serious especially Western scholars b) his research is obviously unethical – that’s what a British, an American, an Israeli and a Russian scholars/commentators say loud and clear. I, however, can concede on that and omit “unethical” c) Bournoutian – he is a recognized scholar as Zurbagan mentioned; his purported Armenian “origin” is an allegation and POV, but even if it is true, bringing ethnic origin as a ground for exclusion from Wiki is a racist prejudice and nothing more. Scholars can be excluded if they live in states that suppress honest scholarship (Azerbaijan, Armenia, Turkey, USSR etc.) or if they - as Buniatov - overtly disregard established academic norms; but not for ethnic origin, race or religion especially if unconfirmed d) Bunyadov conducted revisionist research, as he challenged established views – that is what the four guys from different countries tell you, don’t they? revisionist research is a value- and judgment-free concept; it is not necessarily bad to be revisionist; Isaak Newton was a revisionist! e) Dacy69 excluded Victor Schnirelman – bring him back, and Karny too. And don't use your evidently incomplete and biased view on Wiki policies for pushing your POVs Pulu-Pughi 03:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

"Revisionist" is your personal interpretation and not someones opinion. Keep it out of wiki. Grandmaster 07:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Absurd Enforcement of OR and POV

Allegations that Bunyadov was "academician," "soldier" and even "human" are your personal interpretation and not someone's opinion. They are also OR. Keep it out of wiki. Where are the quotes/proofs? Zurbagan 03:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Just to let everyone know that Zurbagan has been banned from Wiki. I hope other similar accounts will be dealt with too, I suspect that they were created by a certain permanently banned user. Grandmaster 05:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Buniatov.jpg

Image:Buniatov.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 04:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Removal of information

User:SianMycock, there is no reason provided for removal of material information from this article [2] about the person and replacement with unsourced text. Please, discuss your further changes on the talk page. Thanks. Atabek 07:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I reverted the page move as well. I don't think that was a common English spelling, also many names here are spelled in accordance with native language spelling. Grandmaster 08:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Andranikpasha, any reason why you're removing [3] 3 sources from the article, including the one on Farid Seyfulmulukov citing Ziya Bunyadov as an excellent scholar. Please, discuss your POV and achieve consensus prior to just undoing someone's hard work of searching for them. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 08:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Everything is clear! It because you used to delete and make reverts even without reading the text! I NEVER deleted the source you marked and just added some more sources, which you deleted now! Pls be more careful on future and check what you're editwarring! Andranikpasha (talk) 10:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Why did you move it below though to emphasize more on Armenian POV upfront? Explain your edit, preferably without excitation marks. Atabek (talk) 12:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

If you think there is a problem and minority view must be the first, I see no problem and we can put it the first. Just let me know! You cant find an Armenian POV there right now, but Im going to add some opinions by well-known and never criticized American scolar of Armenian descent Bournoutian to realize your words (why not, I promist to not add this "Armenian" POV upfront). Once again, if you want the POV by Seyfulmulukov be the first, just let me know I see no problem! Andranikpasha (talk) 18:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Wartime information

This excessive section, which almost amounts to hagiography, has to be trimmed. Mention of minor medals / awards/ certificates are simply not notable. Some of them were awarded to anyone who was a member of the armed forces of the Soviet Union and fought in specific theatres (such as For the Defense of Caucasus", "For liberation of Warsaw", "For liberation of Berlin"). 15 million people got the "Medal For the Victory Over Germany", 2 million got the "Red Star", and so on. Proper military medals for specific incidents are notable, medals that were given out like confetti are not. Also, a word like "Nazi" is unencyclopaedic. Meowy 15:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I've edited out the most minor of the awards. I think the "Red Star" should also go, but have left it there for now incase someone wants to argue for its retention. I've also corrected lots of little gramatical errors. The word "completed", as in "Bunyadov completed the Moscow Institute of Orientalism" seems to be probably an incorrect translation from a Russian or Azeri word. What word is actually meant? Is it "graduated", or "entered"? Similarly, the word "defended" as in "defended his doctorate dissertation" looks wrong. Is the actual word meant to be "submitted"? Meowy 16:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I restored that part. I don't think that those medals were given like confetti, people actually shed their blood to earn them. I don't think that mentioning those awards somehow harms this article. Polishing the grammar is Ok. Grandmaster (talk) 16:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The correct word would be "graduated" in the first case. As for "defended", in Soviet system you had to defend your dissertation, i.e. respond to criticism and prove the validity of your thesis to the special commission. Better wording would be good. Grandmaster (talk) 16:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

You emotional argument for the retention of non-notable material is not valid. It has nothing to do with not recognising the harsh and bloody realities of WW2 and those who participated in it. As I had said, Soviet medals like "For the Defense of Caucasus", "For the liberation of Warsaw", "For the liberation of Berlin" were given to EVERYONE who took part in those campaigns, and the "Victory Over Germany" medal was given to every member of the Soviet armed forces that took part in the war against Germany. There is no notability to these medals. Do we see mention of the possession of such medals in every article about a citizen of the former Soviet Union who was a soldier during WW2? Do we mention their French, or British, or American medal equivalents in every article about citizens of those nations who served in WW2? No, we do not. And so we should not see them here. Meowy 19:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I don't think it would be out of place to mention that he fought in specfic European theatres of action, namely the capture of Warsaw and Berlin (I presume the issuing of the medals do indicate he actually did) though not using the POV word "liberation" of course. Meowy 20:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and mentioned that. Meowy 20:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I disagree with removing those medals titles. And it does not matter whether 1 million people got it or not. It was not given for free and everyone. Even if it was given to the majority, the majority has a right to mention it. It is like in your CV, you mention all your awards, whether another million people have got the same awards or not. It is not like 6,5 billion people have got same stuff like "He had two eyes, two legs and two arms". I hope you got my point. --Aynabend (talk) 18:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not meant to be someones cv! Content should only be there because it is notable. The information you have re-inserted is not notable. Meowy 16:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

An unexplained cat removal by an IP was reverted, as the cat is sourced and discussed many times.Andranikpasha (talk) 15:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Ziya Bunyadov. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070702093919/http://www.irs-az.com:80/gen/n5/n5_6.htm to http://www.irs-az.com/gen/n5/n5_6.htm
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070927183610/http://voices.musigi-dunya.az/voices/openinfo.asp?p=6 to http://voices.musigi-dunya.az/voices/openinfo.asp?p=6
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070927181651/http://www.azerizv.az/article.php?id=430&print=1 to http://www.azerizv.az/article.php?id=430&print=1
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20101217010700/http://www.science.az:80/ru/index.php?id=1 to http://www.science.az/ru/index.php?id=1
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070505052746/http://i-r-p.ru:80/page/stream-library/index-2504.html to http://www.i-r-p.ru/page/stream-library/index-2504.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:33, 20 July 2016 (UTC)