Talk:First Nagorno-Karabakh War/Archive 1

Untitled

Well as you can all see, I have added little but its a start. Hopefully we can have many members contribute to this article.--MarshallBagramyan 01:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

"which historically, had an ethnic Armenian majority" - that is disputed among many sources. What is important, is that the territory [i]currently[/i] has Armenian majority. Changed.

Uh, no. NK has had an Armenian majority for several decades now, it was like this in 1988 and it was like this in the 1920s, the Azeris admit this, and the mainstream press describe it as such. I don't want to get into a revert war but I'm cautioning you on making such baseless claims.--MarshallBagramyan 07:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I know the section "Roots of the Conflict" is very long and may distract the reader on actually learning about the war, I think its still a necessary bit of information for people to understand the significance of how and why two small countries could fight such a prolonged and dragged out war. I want to trim it a little though and I invite all suggestions made, also if I erred in some areas I wish to know so as to better the article. I'll promise to keep the following sections in relevance to the war and the conflict. --MarshallBagramyan 00:31, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Azerbaijan/Azarbaijan

The Azeris with, the support of nationalist Turkey, expelled the Armenian population out of Nakhichevan while a similar plight was taken by the Azerbaijani inhabitants in Zangezur.

I hope your not actually saying that armenians were he majority in Naxcivan? Also this map is wrong, compleet wrong. I fought in the war, Karabakh Armenians didnt start the war, it all began in Lachin. Armenians started to attack Azerbaijan from Armenia. Karabakh Armenians were hardly doing anything untill Armenia reached it.

Also this article is very anti-Azeri, it should contain both views and opinions.

Please list your name so I know that who I'm talking to. This article is still in its infancy and I welcome any sources to be posted. Much of this comes from De Waal's book which I think both Azeris and Armenians can agree, is objective and fairly neutral look on to the conflict. Nakhicevan is said to have had an Armenian majority and Zangezeur with an Azeri majority (due to its close proximity to Iran). Furthermore, the NK conflict was going to be solved rather peacefully until a city wide pogrom in Sumgait, Baku and elsewhere occured and happend to elongate the conflict and bury deep seeds of animosity between Armenians and Azeris.--MarshallBagramyan 06:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Nahkhcivan & Zangezur (strip between Nahkhcivan and Mainland) were part of Azerbaijan, Zangezur was transfered to Armenia. Also you again use that Stalin myth. This article is POV and based on pure Armenian perspective. No non-Armenian agrees on that statement made in the article. Change it into more neutral or remove it. Baku87 17:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)Baku87

There was a large power vacuum after the Russian government fell to the Bolsheviks. Your government may have declared Karabakh a region that belonged to Azerbaijan, indeed Zangezeur and Nachkichevan, perhaps during the Russian Empire also, but these lands historically belonged to Armenia and Armenians. You can repeat all the spurious information coming from Buniatov and the rest of the Azeri "scholarly" body and claim that we invaded and somehow stole away their culture, churches, khacthkars, etc. and even their alphabet from the Caucasian Albanians, but I would want to see the proof for it first. The Vietnam War was a conflict also but the proper colliquial term for an armed conflict is a "war" and it will remain so on this article. Furthermore, its funny that you should mention no non-Armenian supports this when I footnoted Thomas De Waal who explicitly states that the Kavburo under the eye of Stalin, chose to give Karabakh to the Azeris. I'm willing to here your side of the evidence but seeing as that Azerbaijan was no longer under its own jurisdiction at that point, who assigned that land to the Azeris? Martians?

And I already admit that I include many pieces of information from the Armenian side. I'm willing to accept some Azeri quotes and perspectives but right now I prefer that they come from someone like GrandMaster. --MarshallBagramyan 23:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The MAP of Karabakh is wrong

Sorry, this is the second time I'm telling. The map is wrong. (Armenicum 18:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC))

Now it's fixed. -- Clevelander 11:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I thought you Guys could use this

[[1]]

Meanwhile, it was the father of the present Azeri president, Haydar Aliyev, who first said that “Karabakh is lost for us.” On July 22, 2002, while receiving the founders of the Baku Press-Club in his palace, Aliyev made a number of avowals. The full text of Aliyev’s interview was published by Zerkalo daily on July 23, 2002. In particular, Aliyev said that as the first secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the USSR “he did much to help Nagorno Karabakh to develop, but, at the same time, he tried to change the local demography.” “Nagorno Karabakh asked for an institute. I decided to open one, but on condition that it would have three sectors – Azeri, Russian and Armenia. We opened the institute and began sending Azeris from nearby districts there rather than to Baku. We also opened a big shoe factory. Stepanakert had no sufficient labor force, so we began sending there Azeris from places around the region. By doing this I tried to increase the number of Azeris and to reduce the number of Armenians,” Aliyev said. He also noted that “when I left Azerbaijan, the situation there got worse – Armenia’s influence grew bigger, and our authorities did nothing and missed the moment.” “When in Feb 1991 I was elected deputy from Naxcivan and came to Baku and said in the parliament that Nagorno Karabakh was already lost,” Haydar Aliyev said. Returning to our topic, let’s try to describe the consequences the war in Iran may have for Armenia. The armed crisis in Iran, the preventive strikes on or the military invasion of the US and the “accomplice-countries” in that country and the possible consequences this may have for Armenia are a question that can knock out any Armenian politician. They in Armenia have no answer to this question – they just well realize how serious this threat is. The possibility of a US-Azeri or any other conspiracy over the Karabakh-Iranian problem as a whole is an even bigger trap for the Armenians. We can hardly imagine them to rule out this possibility at all. The region is too small, and there is just one step from Iran (and, most importantly, from its regions where the ethnic Azeri majority is several times bigger than the whole population of Armenia) to Karabakh. Yes, it’s not calm in Armenia, and not only because of the daily shuttle visits of US politicians and diplomats. In fact, any destabilization will reveal the real balance of forces in the region and will blow up the whole foreign political doctrine of Armenia. The country will have to instantly choose which camp to join. The situation is going beyond short-term predictability, which means the end of the epoch of complimentarity – a wait-and-see policy, a policy of balance between the interests of macro-players.

Yerevan seems to have already taken the first steps in this direction… not without Moscow. In the chronology we give in the preamble shows that after the usual OSCE MG format broke up and the Russian co-chair went into the shadow, it was only the Armenian FM that visited Moscow. But this was overshadowed by an unprecedented meeting of the Russian ambassadors to Georgia, Azerbaijan and Turkey and Russian Deputy FM Grigory Karasin in Yerevan. Even in calmer times such a meeting would look intriguing. The N1 topic before and after the military exercises in Nagorno Karabakh was the Armenian-Russian military cooperation. Apr 19 the chief of the general staff of Armenia’s armed forces Mikayel Haroutyunyan said that “Armenia and Russia should conduct joint exercises more frequently and should involve the Karabakh armed forces therein.” In the meantime, Armenian Defense Serzh Sargsyan said in an interview to Krasnaya Zvezda newspaper that Armenia would welcome the training of Russian military students in highland conditions.

Is a local war in Karabakh possible? It is — as war is still regarded as one of the possible ways to resolve the dragging conflict. But who will it benefit? The benefits are many, but they depend on what the beneficiaries want. Let’s consider some of the possible scenarios: The US involves Azerbaijan in a local war with Armenia and deploys its military bases in the Azeri territory to protect its oil-gas interests and, at the same time, pressures on Iran from the north. This scenario fits well into the US’ strategic plan of Iran’s military-political encirclement.

72.57.230.179

RFE/RL

I was thinking of uploading several images from Radio Liberty's news website. Does anyone know what sort of copyright protections we might run into, if any, if we decided to use their pictures?--MarshallBagramyan 06:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[2]--Eupator 20:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Awesome. Thanks!--MarshallBagramyan 22:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

NKR as a party

Yo, Marshall. Nice page you got here:)

Anyway, NKR was indeed a party to the war, especially in the beginning when there was no corridor between NKR and Armenia. UN Security Council resolution 822, for example, mentions "latest invasion of the Kelbadjar district of the Republic of Azerbaijan by local Armenian forces." http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N93/247/71/IMG/N9324771.pdf.

Furthermore, whether Armenia itself was a party to the war is disputed. Armenia itself denies it. Noted human rights activist Galina Storovoitova, in an article published at United States Institute of Peace (USIP, a reputable source), notes:

After a series of offensives, retreats, and counteroffensives, Nagorno-Karabakh now controls a sizable portion of Azerbaijan proper (about 20 percent of the whole territory), including the Lachin corridor. Sovereignty after Empire Self-Determination Movements in the Former Soviet Union; http://www.usip.org/pubs/peaceworks/pwks19/chap3_19.html

Of course there are others who disagree, but to adhere to NPOV, we don't assert one position over another--if there is a dispute, we note it.--TigranTheGreat 03:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course Starovoytova would dispute it, she was an Armenian lobbyist and deputy of Armenian parliament. There are better and more neutral sources than her. See CIA World factbook:

Armenia supports ethnic Armenian secessionists in Nagorno-Karabakh and since the early 1990s has militarily occupied 16% of Azerbaijan [3] Grandmaster 04:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

That's the US position. US' position is pro-Azeri for known reasons. Again, we don't assert positions--I am not saying Staravoitova is right and CIA is wrong--we keep a neutral stance.--TigranTheGreat 05:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Neutral stance does not mean we should not report verifiable facts. Britannica is not pro-Azeri, and says the same. Grandmaster 05:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the article may need an overhaul in terms of who we name who fought who. The media constantly refers that it was a war with Armenia vs. Azerbaijan; however Armenia, though may it dispute it, was technically a 3rd party to the conflict. It was a war of Armenian secessionists with tangible aid sent by Armenia, somewhat like Moldova's conflict with Transdniestra.--MarshallBagramyan 05:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I would say Britannica is pro-Azeri. Britain is pro-oil, pro-US, pro-NATO, pro-Turkey, anti-Russian, hence pro-Azeri. On Wiki, if a fact is disputed, we attribute it, we don't state it as an undisputed fact.

At any rate, the article lists Armenia as a third party, which answers Marshal's concerns.--TigranTheGreat 06:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

How come Britannica is pro-Azeri? Do they have any share in oil projects? I would say its pro-Armenian, because one of the main contributors to Azerbaijan and Armenia related articles is Grigor Suni, an ethnic Armenian. Grandmaster 06:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Suny is considered one of the most anti-Armenian people in the world. He's hated in Armenia.--Eupator 12:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

When Suny went to Armenia, they called him "traitor." He is pro-Azeri. His proposed solutions to the NK issue perfectly correspond to the Azeri POV. Actually, they correspond to the US State Department's position, which itself corresponds to pro-Azeri POV. He may be ethnic Armenian, but he is fully a US academic, heavily influenced by the foreign policy doctrine of his country. So, his presence in Britannica actually confirms that Britannica is pro-Azeri.

By the way, about the share in oil projects--Britannica's country does. And contributors to Britannica are born, raised, or educated in Britain or US, and are naturally sensitive to the political climate and the interests of their respective nations, which are again pro-oil, anti-Russian, pro-NATO/Turkish, and thus pro-Azeri.--TigranTheGreat 23:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Therefore we should only trust the Armenian and pro-Armenian sources and ignore CIA, Britannica and other authoritative sources, because they all have share in Azeri oil. Grandmaster 05:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Image:366th and Weapons.jpg

Image:366th and Weapons.jpg is used in this article - while listed as fair use it lacks a rationale. In fact, its copyright tag is: "This image is a screenshot from a copyrighted film, and the copyright for it is most likely owned by the studio which produced the film, and possibly also by any actors appearing in the screenshot. It is believed that the use of a limited number of web-resolution screenshots ... for identification and critical commentary on the film and its contents...qualifies as fair use". Now, it certainly doesn't seem to be used here to illustrate the film itself. In fact the film itself is not even mentioned in the image page, which means it lacks source information and also seriously affects the "fair use" claim. Is this image actually necessary here? And if it really is necessary (remembering that free content is always vastly preferred to copyright-tangled proprietary content on this "free" encyclopedia), then can the image be used here in such a way as to make a valid fair use claim, or is it a copyvio? TheGrappler 02:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Most of the video images used by the war were not recorded by journalists or even freelancers (the ITN one is an exception). Much of it belonged to video cameras owned by those who were lucky enough to own them and even then, many were killed while recording them in battles and their identities remain as much a mystery that most people would not be able to claim it as their own if they even saw it. I figured the picture was necessary to illustrate how simple it was to buy arms after the USSR broke down. I took the images using a digital camera while watching it on a videotape and it was simply amazing, no commanders, no ranking officers, no oversight, just a few poor Uzbek and Tajik conscripts who had never seen a video camera before in their lives, conversing with two Armenian commanders, exchanging the armor in their barracks for a few rubles and bottles of vodka. The videos are narrated by Armenians, the ones I have that is, and are basically a montage of video clips compiled into one another and be purchased for only 3-5$.--MarshallBagramyan 05:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

It could do with a good fair use rationale. I'm not sure if the "screenshot" tag is appropriate - that is clearly intended for instances where the movie itself is being commentated on - perhaps it should be fairusein instead? TheGrappler 07:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the fair use rationale is much better.--MarshallBagramyan 15:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Infobox

Just wondering why the Strength section was removed from the infobox? Isn't it standard practice?--Eupator 03:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Mutalibov

If you include the reference to Mutalibov (quoted below), you should also include his reaction to interpretation of his interview by the Armenian side. He claims that he never ever accused Popular Front and uses not very nice words to characterise allegations of the Aremenian side. [4]

Ayaz Mutalibov's oft-refered to letter was used by Armenian officials to counter Azeri claims that the massacre had not been done by Armenian soldiers but that instead by Azeri Popular Front soldiers who massacred 100 Azeri civilians and also several Armenian hostages. They then proceeded to mix the bodies which according to Mutalibov, was a ploy to denigrate his government. Grandmaster 05:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Can I ask when the interview was done?--MarshallBagramyan 05:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, in 2004. Well, Mutalibov is surely angry but how do we know he didn't change his position after all this time=? It wasn't just the Armenians but several news journalists and organizations even quoted him for making the claims. Several others used his letter to defend the Armenians. If his views changed in 12 years, what relevance does that have to do with a letter he wrote trying to save himself from blame right when Khojaly happend?--MarshallBagramyan 05:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

He did not write a letter, it was an interview, which was quoted and given various interpretations by the Armenian mass-media, but in fact it doesn’t even mention Popular Front. He claims that he only meant that the opposition took the advantage of the situation, but never said that they have anything to do with the massacre. Plus, Mutalibov was refuting Armenian claims not only in 2004, but much earlier. If you quote this person, you should quote all his interviews related to this event, and not just one. Grandmaster 05:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

But it wasn't just the Armenia media that consumed it. Some articles from the Associated Press and several other organizations quoted or "misinterpreted" his comments. If its better, I'll just list that as another theory that emerged, not exactly something Mutalibov said. Do you have a transcript of the interview? Preferably in English?--MarshallBagramyan 16:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

It was not taken seriously anywhere outside of Armenia. You can find the text in any Armenian site about NK. That interview was given a couple of weeks before he tried to return to power with the help of his armed supporters. It was sort of a black PR against his political opponents. He says there that he is ready to return to presidency if people call him. When the coup failed, he explained that any information to which he was referring was taken from the Armenian sources from Stepanakert, where he called by telephone to find out what happened. I have the text of the interview of 2002, where he says the same thing, I can post it here. And again, if you refer to him, you should refer also to his later interviews as well. Grandmaster 17:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Good Article nomination has failed

The Good article nomination for Nagorno-Karabakh War has failed for the following reason(s):POV issues. But it can make it as a good article if the issues are resolved. Grandmaster 06:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not attaching disputed tags, because I think this article can be improved by joint efforts up to the required standart. Grandmaster 07:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Who would nominate this for GA status so soon? Don't they have to completed first? There's still much more to be added. Add POV issues and any necessary excerpts on my talk page or here. I'm doing my best in balancing this. Can I also see the nomination page and their comments?--MarshallBagramyan 16:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I did not see any commnets there. Click the link on the tag to see the list of nominations. And by the way, you indeed did a good work, I think if the article gets more input from Azeri users it can make it as GA. I will contribute when I finish with NK page. Grandmaster 17:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Missing time

I just added a basic ending to this conflict from the N-K file, but there appears to be a time gap. September 92-May 94, when the cease fire stuck. --Eeble 19:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)--67.94.171.178 19:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

What part of Armenia "assisting their brethren" do you find POV problems? Do the Armenians living in Karabakh some sort of different chemical imbalance or genetic make up that somehow negates such an assertion? Also Armenia did aid and assist Karabakh, which puzzles me as to why you removed it altogether. I'm working on this article chronologically so the resolution and the peace process will be included after certain other sections. Right now, the article is hinging on December 1992-Feburary 1993. The air war section will be included after the 1994 peace signing, so please be patient.--MarshallBagramyan 20:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I think more should be written about outside Involvement in the War

I think we should add more on outside involvement in the war. Including aid, help, political support, refugee status, foreign arms, fighters, balance of power, and de facto alliances. 69.196.164.190

Yup, all those things will be included including a section on refugees and possibly a section on alleged war crimes.--MarshallBagramyan 15:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

1/3 of the total size of Azerbaijan?

Assuming for a second here that Nagorno-Karabakh is about 1/3 of Azerbaijan, and that Armenian forces control just the region alone, does that mean Armenians control 33.3% of Azerbaijan? Someone got their statistics wrong. Combining areas of Kelbajar and Fizuli together the region is only 14% controlled by Armenian forces, not even 20% that's repeated so often by the news. Here are the correct statistics:

Armenians currently hold about 4,088km of the Nagorno-Karabakh region (about 4.7% of Azerbaijani territory). They fully hold 5 of 7 provinces: Kelbajar (1,936 km), Lachin (1,835km), Kubatly (802km), Jebrail (1,050km) and Zengelan (707km). Furthermore, they hold about 77% or about 842km of the 1,094km of Aghdam and about 462km of about 1,386km of Fizuli and two villages of about 75 km. Combined together, the land comes out to about 11,797 square kilometers, give or take. Azerbaijan is about 86,600 square kilometers. So this number comes to about 13.62% give or take.--MarshallBagramyan 17:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

There are different assesments on this issue. According to CIA world factbook, "Armenia supports ethnic Armenian secessionists in Nagorno-Karabakh and since the early 1990s has militarily occupied 16% of Azerbaijan". [5] Grandmaster 18:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I know there is just the 14-16% pecentile is more accurate than 20 or even 30%. I advise to whoever wrote that they take a look at the Nagorno-Karabakh page and see exactly how many NKs you can fit in Azerbaijan.--MarshallBagramyan 18:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry it was me, but that also included territory in the present day Republic of Armenia that is claimed by Azaris and does not include Nakhichevan. 69.196.164.190

Flags

Why were the flags from the combatants removed? They looked nice. --TigranTheGreat 07:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Good article?

I think that it's still too early to have this nominated for a GA. The article is still not complete and I think that, if anything, we should strive to make this piece a Featured Article instead. If we are successful in doing that, then it will be featured on Wikipedia's index page and subsequently everyone will be able to check it out (not just a closed group of Armenian and Azeri editors). -- Clevelander 12:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Too early. This one has no contribution from Azeri users, so it has some POV problems. Grandmaster 17:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

GM, just because there have been minimal contributions by Azeri editors (and there have been, look at the history) does not automatically make it a POV article. The whole thing was written very carefully and referenced from several credible sources. -- Clevelander 17:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Just because no Azeris contributed to the article doesn't mean it "lacks" POV. I took special consideration in balancing both sides and explaining controversial events by using the word "allegations". Just because there are more details on the Armenian military operations doesn't necessarily mean the article has only one point of view, maybe little insight into the Azeri military's capability. That may mean its somewhat unbalanced rather than suffering from POV problems, big difference. This has been under the auspices of writers of every side (Armenian, Russian, Turkish, Azeri) and I have barely heard any clear problems in the article. Take a look at the sources, I count two sources written by Armenians; the rest are all American, Canadian, British, Greek, or Russian, more than neutral and balanced. I have been finding all these from numerous databases and have avoided ones that are not serious credible publications.--MarshallBagramyan 21:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Good Article nomination has passed

The Good article nomination for First Nagorno-Karabakh War/Archive 1 has failed, for the following reason:

There are still certain statistic that require citing:

• "but also held and currently control approximately 14% of Azerbaijan's territory."
• "with a population that was 94% Armenian"
• "Armenia's economy as 85% of the cargo"
• "About 60% of Karabakh Armenians were said to have also served in the Soviet Army."

Heading should follow the manual of style, WP:MOSHEAD

Iolakana|^T 17:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Apologies, as I should have just put this on hold. I now feel that it passes as a good article. Iolakana|^T 11:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Whohoo:) Congratulations, Marshall. Your work truly deserved the "good article" title. Great job, and keep it up. Magharich@ ko vra, lol.--TigranTheGreat 12:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Congrats, Marshall! You definitely deserved it! -- Clevelander 13:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Very cool, FA status coming soon. Until then, we'll finish the last section and mop up grammar and other errors. Thanks Kilo-Lima.--MarshallBagramyan 16:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Congrats - I changed the class to GA.--Oldwildbill 06:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Quotes

I think it is better to remove all quotes in the headlines, they are quite controversial. Grandmaster 08:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

We think not. The quotes are real; therefore, they satay unless you show me a wiki policy that says "controversial" quotes are not to be included within articles.--Eupator 12:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Azeri Turk refugees

The article claims there were "600,000" Azeri Turkish refugees. This claim is incorrect. The correct number of refugees in Azerbaijan as a result of the conflict is around 1 million. Sources:

[1] http://ijrl.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/6/4/581

Faultlines of Nationality Conflict: Refugees and Displaced Persons From Armenia and Azerbaijan

BILL FRELICK

International Journal of Refugee Law 1994 6(4):581-619

This essay, which is taken from a fuller report published by the United States Committee for Refugees, was written in early 1994 and is based in part on a site visit in September 1993. It focuses on the critical needs of the estimated 100,000 newly displaced persons from Azerbaijan's southwest who were fending for themselves with little or no outside support, the most destitute and vulnerable among a population of about a half million who became displaced in 1993 as a result of a push by ethnic Armenian forces into Azerbaijani-populated areas outside the boundaries of Nagorno-Karabakh. It also looks at the humanitarian toll generally, both in Azerbaijan, which now is struggling to accommodate as many as 1,000,000 refugees and displaced persons, dating to the beginning of the conflict in 1988,...

[2] http://www.pcr.uu.se/publications/cornell_pub/main_doc.pdf

Undeclared War: The Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict Reconsidered

SVANTE CORNELL

Journal of South Asian and Middle Eastern Studies Vol.XX, No.4, Summer 1997

This led to a severe refugee crisis in Azerbaijan. In addition tot he near 300,000 refugees that had arrived from Armenia frmo 1988 onwards, the internally displaced person leaving their homes in Nagorno Karabakh and its surrounding areas amount to between 600,000 and 800,000 people, depending on the sources. Thus Azerbaijan had to provide shter for between 1,000,000 and 1,200,000 people.

Questionable Ethics?

I don't see the point of this category, as it only contains a single quotation. Unless somebody wants to add a significant amount of relevant information to the category, I believe that such content belongs in Wikiquote. In addition, the only source I could find citing the quote is this article itself. I would recommend providing a verifiable source for it if it is to remain in the article. Augustgrahl

FA?

Is there one good reason why this article is not a FA yet? ;) —Nightstallion (?) 10:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I can't think of one! Has it been nominated? -- Clevelander 10:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Marshall, you should nominate it now. The process alone generally improves the article in all areas.--Eupator 11:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The article has major flaws. It says nothing about the circumstances that allowed the Armenian forces to occupy so many districts without any resistance, i.e. Suret Huseynov’s coup and collapse of the military system of Azerbaijan, as the Azerbaijani military units were involved in confrontation with each other and left Karabakh front line undefended. When law and order was restored, Armenian forces could advance no further, and Azerbaijan even recaptured most of Fizuli rayon (2/3ds of it, including railway junction of Horadiz on Iranian border). Some quotes from de Waal:

The Armenians ruthlessly exploited the crisis, which had left the Karabakh front almost undefended. Shortly after Husseinov's rebellion, they began an offensive against Aghdam. On 27 June, they recaptured the town of Martakert and most of the northern part of Karabakh, now the most ravaged and plundered part of the whole war zone. On 23 July, facing almost no resistance, they took the large strategically vital city of Aghdam. A month later, they advanced south and captured Fizuli and Jebrail. The end result was that in four months, as power changed hands in Baku, the Azerbaijanis lost a staggering five regions of their country as well as the North of Nagorny Karabakh itself. They gave up an area of almost five thousand square kilometers, or nineteen hundred square miles. The Armenians preceded all their offensives with a crude propaganda campaign, insisting that they were acting in self-defense against heavily defended positions. In fact, on most occasions, they walked into empty towns and villages after the Azerbaijanis had fled.

On Fizuli and Horadiz:

Fierce fighting resumed in December 1993. The Armenians attempted to push east of Fizuli but met with unprecedented resistance and fell back. Azerbaijan then attacked on three fronts. An offensive in the Northeast of Nagorny Karabakh made gains in the Martakert region. In the Southeast, Azerbaijan recaptured the Horadiz rail junction on the Araxes River on 6 January and pushed north toward Fizuli.

Armenians also occupy 77 percent or 842 km2 of the 1,094 km2 of Aghdam region (this figure was given by the head of Aghdam region, Gara Sariev, at the front line on 19 May 2001) and approximately one-third (judging by maps) or 462 km2 of the 1,386 km2 of Fizuli region.

Also nothing is said about mercenaries on the Armenian side, while quite extensive comments are provided on the same on the Azeri side. In fact, Azerbaijani forces captured 7 Russian soldiers and officers, who served in the Russian brigade, located in Armenia. They were not mercenaries, as they said that they were implementing the orders of their command. I’ll provide more info on this. Grandmaster 12:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Hussenov's demotion and subsequent "march" back to Baku is mentioned and the disparity, ineffectiveness, and gradual deterioration of the Azeri military is extensively mentioned in the article.

Also nothing is said about mercenaries on the Armenian side, while quite extensive comments are provided on the same on the Azeri side. That's not true, in the article I write "...it is well known that Russians among other ethnic groups of the former Soviet Union fought as mercenaries on both sides...Russian military units were said to have been cooperating with Armenian units when they took Khojaly and similarly with Azerbaijan during its summer 1992 offensive. After the Kelbajar offensive, the Azeris also accused Armenians with receiving help from Russia..." There is no ambiguity in the writing that would imply that Armenians did not get Russian help; the only difference reason Azerbaijan's foreign help section gets more attention is because it was more prominent during the war.

I can't understand why no one else notices these "major flaws"....--MarshallBagramyan 23:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Because not everybody is familiar with the history of the conflict. In fact, most of Armenian advances coincided with political instability in Baku. Every time power changed in Baku Azerbaijan lost some territories. The article does not reflect this at all, it talks more about Armenians ability to quickly repair tanks as the major contributing factor to Armenian victories. But even de Waal says that 5 districts were lost while power was changing hands in Baku. Once the situation stabilized, Azerbaijan regained most of Fizuli districts, but of course it was very difficult to recapture the lands that were given up without any fighting. Azerbaijan paid a heavy price for the lack of strong political system. And I will add more info on the mercenaries on the Armenian side, the involvement of whom was on a much wider scale. The whole 7th Russian army fought on the Armenian side, it still is stationed in Armenia under a different name. Grandmaster 07:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Can I please see the quote from this source, supporting your claims? (http://www.itar-tass.com/eng/ Azerbaijan throws teens into Armenian fray ITAR TASS News Agency, April 24, 1994) Thanks in advance. Grandmaster 06:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure, here it is:

" STEPANAKERT, Azerbaijan - Increasingly desperate Azerbaijan,facing a new drive by Armenian separatists, is using teen-age draftees while trying to stave off defeat, Western diplomats report...

....With winter over and warm weather creating better fighting conditions, heavy combat has flared. The Russian ITAR-Tass news agency reported fierce fighting in northern Nagorno-Karabakh as Armenian forces tried to break through Azerbaijani defenses near the towns of Agdam and Terter. The Armenians lost 56 soldiers in ten days of fighting, and Azerbaijan lost at least 700 troops, ITAR-Tass said.

Western analysts said the Nagorno-Karabakh separatists seemed to be pushing toward the strategic Azerbaijani city of Yevlakh. If the separatists capture Yevlakh, they will control the vital main road to Georgia, as well as Azerbaijan's oil export pipeline to the port of Batumi....

The war has helped stall efforts by U.S., British and other oil companies to develop Azerbaijan's offshore oilfields. The government has refused to sign an agreement ultimately expected to be worth $118 billion in what diplomats think is an attempt to secure Western help in ending the war...."

If you want to see copies of other news sources on the articles you have doubts on, I can send them to you (give me time though, to check them up again though). --MarshallBagramyan 22:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but that’s not a direct quote from ITAR-TASS. It would be nice to see the original source to check whether it was the report from Yerevan or otherwise. It is not clear how they obtained the figures. Grandmaster 13:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

How they obtained it is irrelevant (it would be nice to know but is not required), unless you don't consider ITAR-TASS a reliable source?--Eupator 14:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Afghan Mujahideen

Wow, there is no citation I noticed through search on recruiting the Afghan Mujahideen, neither in the infobox, nor in the body. --Brand спойт 12:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Will this do? Following the defeats suffered by the Azeri (Muslim) forces in their war with the Armenians (Christians) over control of the Nagorny Karabakh region, Azerbaijan turned to Afghanistan in August 1993 for military aid. Afghanistan responded by sending 1,000 mujahideen warriors to help the Azeris. In October 1993, the Afghan mujahideen launched a surprise attack against the Armenian forces in the region of Zanglan (near the Iranian border), and even gained ground, before being repulsed by the Armenian forces. As far as we know, these mujahideen forces remained in Azerbaijan where they continue to help the Azeris in their struggle against the Armenians. The source is the Israeli government, a staunch ally of Azerbaijan.--Eupator 14:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've fixed it. --Brand спойт 17:22, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Earthquake quote

The specific quote mentioned on the article comes from My Brother's Road but other similar reactions can be found, for example the author of the Time Magazine article dated December 26, 1988 A Journey into Misery John Kohan writes:

"Sometimes these tales of grief from the earthquake zone merged seamlessly with horror stories of brutal rapes and beatings during ethnic clashes last February in the Azerbaijani city of Sumgait. The people I spoke with insisted that after the earthquake, Azerbaijanis refused to help, announcing that 'Allah has finally heard us.' Some claimed that trains from the neighboring Muslim republic were even scrawled with graffiti reading DECEMBER 7. HAPPY HOLIDAY!" (Source A Journey into Misery)

See also the book, Black Garden on page 64 which the author writes, "And there were also reports of some gleeful Azerbaijanis setting off fireworks to celebrate the 'punishment' [earthquake] of Armenia".--MarshallBagramyan 21:13, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

And there was also an airplane with rescuers from Azerbaijan, which along with Yugoslavian plane crashed near Yerevan. Armenians erected a monument to Yugoslavs and prefer not to talk about Azeris, who were also trying to help. Do you think this should be mentioned as well? Grandmaster 10:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

You can include it on the Leninakan Earthquake or as an example in history section between Armenians and Azeris in the Foreign relations of Armenia page but I don't think it would make much sense including it on this article since it seems somewhat irrelevant and just unnecessarily elongates the article.--MarshallBagramyan 20:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you include negative reaction from Azeris, why not include the info on Azerbaijani attempts to provide help? Why only negative info? If you concerned about the space, I suggest you remove the quote altogether. Grandmaster 07:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Because it seems rather misplaced in an article that is supposed to be focussing much more about a war and its military aspects rather than continuously dwelling on how the two groups hated one another. The quotes are simply attention getters to make the article more interesting and expose the ugly characteristics in wars and conflicts. Nevertheless, many Armenians rejected aid from Azerbaijan. But since you mentioned it, I noticed that the quote is under the "Sumgait" section, I can simply replace it with something more relevant to the pogrom itself.--MarshallBagramyan 20:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Elchibey, arriving from exile in Iran ?

"Elchibey, arriving from exile in Iran" ? As I know , he was not in Iran : is there any source for that ?

I remember reading that the Soviet government exiled him in the 1980s and he resided in Iran temporarily. He may have been in Nakhichevan so i'll double check it.--MarshallBagramyan 20:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

It was not Elchibey, he never left Azerbaijan. It was Neimat Panakhov who fled to Iran after the Black Junuary. Grandmaster 07:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Name change

I wonder if anyone is amenable to changing the name of the article to the Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict since this deals from 1988 to 1994 and not the real war years that lasted from '92-'94. I figure its an issue of semantics but I'm curious to hear different opinions on it.--MarshallBagramyan 22:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The term "war" works better, I say we keep it as it is. -- Clevelander 00:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

War actually started in 1992, with the collapse of the USSR, before that it was a conflict, so I'm not really sure. It might be better to call it a conflict. Grandmaster 06:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure either. I guess this article covers both the war and the conflict that led to it. MA, maybe if you change it to conflict you can move a lot of info to a separate war article thus shortening this article to a much smaller size finally.--Eupator 15:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I think if we call it conflict, then the article would begin from 1988 and cover everything that happend since then. The reason I've kept it under the title of "war" is because news sources refer to it essentially beginning in 1988. 1992-1994 simply saw Armenians and Azeris graduate from hunting rifles and axes to assault rifles, tanks, helicopters, and fighter planes. I suppose cutting it can be similar to placing under a new article name such as Causes of the Nagorno-Karabakh War. Like I said, it seems like an issue of semantics depending on how one looks at it. --MarshallBagramyan 16:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Map

File:Nk War Export.png

I was browsing through some of my old work and came across this map of the line of control I whipped up one day while making my Nagorno-Karabakh map. (link here) and wondered if perhaps it had a place on this article? With some editing and shrinking perhaps? --Golbez 19:45, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Khojali

I marked the Khojali section for POV since it only mentions one perspective. There were high-ranking Azeris at the time of the incident that admitted it was internal Azeri forces that were responsible for the massacre.

Here is a great article from www.haias.net: (Please read carefully, paying attention to journalistic, eyewitness and governmental sources)

• I would've posted a link but the original site's authoring format doesn't allow*

The Truth about Khojalu Events

Azeri Sources Testify

An anti-Armenian campaign has been hysterically raging in Azerbaijan throughout the nine years following the Khojalu events the official Baku. The purpose of the campaign is to falsify the facts and bring discredit on Armenia in the eyes of the international community. The Khojalu events when peaceful people died were exclusively the result of the political intrigues and struggle for power in Azerbaijan. The real reasons lying behind these events are more convincingly reflected in the testimonies of the Azeris themselves, both the participants, eyewitnesses of the events and those who knew the ins and outs in Baku. According to M. Safaroghli, an Azerbaijani journalist, "Khojalu was located in an important strategic position. Losing control over Khojalu would mean a political fiasco for Moutalibov". (Newspaper "Nezavisimaya Gazeta" ("Independent Newspaper", February, 1993). Along with Shushi and Aghdam, Khojalu was one of the key bases from where Stepanakert, the capital of Nagorno Karabagh was continuously bombed during the winter months.

The population of NKR which was in the danger of the total physical extinction by Azerbaijan could survive only by neutralizing the weapon emplacements of Khojalu and de-blocking the airport. Hundreds of peaceful people were killed in Stepanakert as the result of the daily bombing from the adjacent Khojalu. The military operation of the armed forced of NKR on the neutralization of the weapon emplacements of Khojalu was not a surprise for Azerbaijan. For the first time the Azeri side was notified about the forthcoming attack by TV nearly two months prior to the operation. Arif Yunusov, a well-known champion of human rights in Azerbiajan wrote about that in "Izvestia". The officials in Baku did not try to hide their awareness, including Ayaz Moutalibov, the president of Azerbaijan. He emphasized that "… the offense on Khojalu was not a surprise". ("Ogoniok" Magazine, N 14-15, 1992) As the result of these warnings the majority of the peaceful people of Khojalu moved to safe zones.

The detachments of NKR did everything possible in order to exclude the death of the peaceful population of the settlement and left a corridor for the safe evacuation of the peaceful population from the zone of military actions. The Azeri side was timely informed about the opened corridor which allowed to evacuate the people of Khojalu. Elman Mamedov, the mayor of Khojalu: "We knew that the corridor was left for the exit of the peaceful people" ("Russkaya Misl" 03.03.1992, citation from "Bakinskie Rabochiy" newspaper).

After the operation was over 11 bodies of Azeris were found by the rescue group "Artsakh" in the village and its neighboring areas, naturally, counting out the bodies of the members of the armed formations dressed in uniforms (their number was also small). The insignificant number of the peaceful victims of Khojalu in the view of the intense military actions undertaken for the purpose of holding control over the settlement evidenced that the Armenian side had taken all measures on ensuring the maximal possible security of the people of the village. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that a significant number of the peaceful population of Khojalu became victims of the operation. How many of the people of Khojalu were killed and where?

The Azeri side is categorically silent about the place of the death of hundreds of residents of the village. The truth is that all of them were coolly assassinated at the distance of 11 km from Khojalu, about 2-3 km far from Aghdam which at that time used to be the regional military base of the Azeri armed forces. This mere fact is enough for casting light on the intricate story about the massive extinction of the residents of Khojalu. It is hard to understand why should the Armenians let the population of Khojalu flee from the besieged village in order to kill them on the approaches of Aghdam putting their lives at risk (at that time Aghdam was under the control of the Azeris).

In his interview to "Nezavisimaya Gazeta" Moutalibov stated that "however, the Armenians had left a corridor for the escape of the people. Why a fire should have opened then?("Nezavisimaya Gazeta", April 2, 1992) He linked the fact of the criminal fusillade of the peaceful people with the attempts of the opposition to remove him from power, laying the responsibility for the tragedy entirely on him. In his interview to "Novoye Vremia" ("New Time") Magazine Moutalibov confirmed his statement which was made nine days before: "It was evident that the some people had organized the shooting for shifting the power in Azerbaijan" ("Novoye Vremia" , March 6, 2001). Similar statements and assessments of the Khojalu events were made by several other Azerbaijani top official and journalists.

R. Gajiyev, member of the Operating Committee of Aghdam Branch of NFA (National Front of Azerbaijan): We could have helped the people of Khojalu because we had the resources and means.

However, the authorities of the republic wanted to demonstarte to the people of Azerbaijan that they are not able to do so and ask for the assistance of the CIS Army and with the help of the latter also neutralize the opposition" (Moscow, "Izvestia", April, 1992).

The Azeri journalist Arif Yunosov's view is slightly different from the statements given above. According to Yunusov, "The town itself and its population are willingfully sacrificed for the political purposes, i.e., prevent the National Front of Azerbaijan from coming to power" ("Zerkalo" ("Mirror") Newspaper, July, 1992.) Again, it follows that the Azeris themselves are the perpetrators of the tragedy.

The Khojalu events are the result of the treachery of the high-level Azeri authorities towards the people of Khojalu whereas the Azeri propaganda blew up the story about the "brutalities of the Armenians", and the dreadful pictures of the site covered with defiled bodies were demonstrated by TV. It was propagated that Khojalu was the retaliation of the Armenians for Sumgayit.

Tamerlan Karayev, the former Chairman of the Supreme Council of Azerbaijan testifies: "The tragedy was perpetrated by the Azeri authorities", in particular, "some of the top officials" ("Moukhtalifat" Newspaper, April 28, 1992). Yana Mazalova, a Czech journalist, who, because of the oversight of the Azeris, was included in both of the groups of journalists who visited the place of the events on the first day and several days later, noticed the stunning difference how the bodies looked at the first and second site visits. before and after between the previous and latest outer look of the bodies. When Mazalova visited the site immediately after the events she saw that the bodies did not bear any traces of brutality whereas a couple of days later the bodies "adulterated" by the Armenians and "ready" for the cameras were demonstrated to the journalists.

Who killed the peaceful people of Khojalu and later defiled their bodies, if the tragedy took place not in the village liberated by the Armenians, and not along the direction of the humanitarian corridor, but on the close approaches of Aghdam town, a territory which was entirely under the control of the National Front of Azerbaijan? Chingiz Moustafayev (Fuat-oghli), an independent Azeri TV journalist and cameraman who filmed the aftereffect on February 28 and March 2, 1992, doubted the official version of Azerbaijan and initiated his own investigation. His life was the price for his very first report to the Moscow News Agency "DR-Press" about the possible involvement of the Azeri side in the crime: he was killed not far from Aghdam, and the details of the murder still remain unrevealed. Moustafayev reported about the flight to Khojalu. He noted that he could not film the dead bodies there, because "there was not a single killed person there …". In the course of the first flight the journalists shot only a couple of dozens of bodies of the Azeri soldiers which were found not far from the village of Nakhichevanik. However, most of the bodies were near Aghdam where they were video-filmed on February 29 and later on March 2. These tapes were displayed at the session of Milli Medjlis and, later, numerous TV channels of the world as an evidence of the massive manslaughter of the Azeri population of Khojalu. The first flight of the helicopter with the Azeri journalists on board took place on February 29, 1992. It is noteworthy that the journalists who were informed about the massive offense of the Azeris in Khojalu flew directly to the place of the events. However, they did not find any evidence of the happenings and flew back. During the second flight to the region of the massive slaughter, on March 2, 1992, the journalists noticed that the positions of the dead bodies lying on the ground and the level of the injuries and physical impairment was astonishingly different as compared to the first inspection. Chingiz Moustafayev (Fuat-oghli) informed the Azeri president A. Moutalibov about the changed positions of the bodies and their physical impairment. Undoubtedly, by that time the Azeri president understood the reasons which caused the falsification of the tragedy. Moutalibov gave a really prophetic answer to the journalist, "Chingiz, don't tell anyone that you think something is wrong because they'll kill you". Chingiz Moutafayev was killed in the same field where he had shot the main Azeri "argument".

The present president of Azerbaijan Geydar Aliyev personally admitted that the "former leadership of Azerbaijan was also at fault of the Khojalu events". As early as in April of 1992 the following was articulated by him, "The bloodshed will do good to us. We shouldn't interfere in the course of events" (Bilik-Duniasi News Agency). It is out of question who gained from the "bloodshed". Megapolis-Express wrote: "It is impossible not to admit that if the National Front of Azerbaijan in fact had defined far-reaching goals, it succeeded in addressing them.

Moutalibov is compromised and forced out of his post, the international community is in shock, the Azeris and their brotherly Turks believed in the so-called "genocide of the Azerbaijani people in Khojalu"("Megapolis-Express", N17, 1992).

The Azeri mass media was silent in its comments on the Khojalu events about another tragic detail which was revealed later: 47 Armenians were held hostage in the "peaceful" Khojalu since February 26. After the liberation of Khojalu only 13 of these hostages were found in the settlement (including 6 women and 1 child), the remaining 34 were taken away by the Azeris in the unknown direction. All that is known about these hostages is that at the night of the operation they were driven away from the place of imprisonment, but not from the settlement. There is no information about their further status as hostages. It is obvious that the bodies of the Armenian hostages were tormented beyond the degree when they could be identified. This was done in order to create the illusion that the bodies of the victims "had been defiled" by the Armenians. This is the reason why the bodies of the wretched victims were outraged to the extent that it was impossible to identify the victims. As a matter of fact, around 700 inhabitants of Khojalu, including Turks - Meskhets who for whatever reasons failed to use the free corridor for retreat were passed to the Azerbaijani side without any conditions. After the thorough investigation the fact of the unconditional return of the residents of Khojalu to Azerbaijan was confirmed in the conclusion of the Human Rights Watch Center "Memorial" (Moscow), as well as in the documentary film of Svetlana Kulchitskaya, a journalist from St. Petersburg.

It follows from the above-described facts that the blame for the death of the peaceful people of Khojalu and those Armenians who had been taken hostage in the village lies on the Azeris. The Azerbaijani side committed a crime against its own people, and the motivation lies in the political intrigues and lust for power.

Please check the article on Khojaly massacre and don't copy propaganda articles here in their entirety. It is enough to provide a link. We cannot base articles on apologist websites like Sumgait.info. We refer to neutral sources and provide the viewpoints of concerned parties. So the viewpoints of Armenian denialists are reflected too. Grandmaster 05:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Had a competent, or at least literate person read what I wrote above preceding the article, particularly: "I would've posted a link but the original site's authoring format doesn't allow" they wouldn't have made such an ignorant comment. Second, I don't know what Sumgait.info has to do with me or my post. And again, if a competent or literate person read the article I posted they'd see that the RUSSIAN AND FOREIGN journalists, and AZERI OFFICIALS who were the subjects of the article wouldn't have an interest or advantage (respectively) in lying. Be careful when you call the work of professional journalists "propaganda". Regardless, if Azeri officials admitted that was the work of other Azeris (The National Front of Azeribaijan party) to foreign journalists, this article needs major overhaul to include that perspective.

Hovaness 05:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Azeri officials did not admit anything like that. The source above is not neutral and cannot be considered reliable according to the rules. Grandmaster 08:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)