Talk:Battle of Kalbajar

GA passed

1. Well written? Pass

2. Factually accurate? Pass

3. Broad in coverage? Pass

4. Neutral point of view? Pass

5. Article stability? Pass

6. Images? Pass

Great article and very informative/NPOV. Just to help the reader, the redlinks should be turned blue or giving a succinct description of that element would still be good. Cheers, Lincher 13:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

1) has way too much of Melkonian's "My Brother's Road" references -- that's both undue weight and Armenian POV.

2) Contains an external link to http://www.nkrusa.org/nk_conflict/armed_conflict.shtml - This is of course not acceptable for clear and obvious reasons. --adil 21:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

again, no to "nkr" website link, this is a POV source. --adil 05:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

GA Sweeps Review: On Hold

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Conflicts, battles and military exercises" articles. I believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, and I'll leave the article on hold for seven days for them to be fixed. I have added two fact tags that need inline citations for the statements. Also, reword this statement in the intro, it doesn't flow very well: "A raion that was surrounded by several canyons and an elevated mountain range known as the Mrav Mountains, Armenian forces from four different directions including Armenia proper, attacked and captured a space of over 1,900 kilometers, linking it with region of Nagorno-Karabakh and opening a second "corridor" for Armenia to send aid through." If these are not addressed within seven days, the article may be delisted. If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAC. I don't see that being a problem since these should be easy to fix. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page. Regards, --Nehrams2020 08:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Good job on addressing the issues. Keep improving the article, making sure that all new information is properly sourced. I have determined the article still meets the GA criteria, and it will remain a GA. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. Keep up the good work! --Nehrams2020 21:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

128th regiment of Russian army

Please see the second source "Civil wars of the world: major conflicts since World War II, Volume 2: [1]: According to Russian sources mountain troops from the 128th Regiment of the 7th Russian Army based in Armenia participated in the seizure of Kelbajar Province. Tuscumbia (talk) 21:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

That still does not mean you get to disregard other sources and present your favored version as unequivocal fact. The operation's commander and an analyst of the region (both reliable sources) both categorically reject the involvement of any Russian forces and so the only logical thing is to state that its involvement is disputed/alleged. If you continue to revert and hammer your version into this article and pretend that you're still not hearing another editor's concerns, I will feel obliged to report you. And, for the third time, I have removed a duplicated line inappropriately inserted in the lead. That information is found in the appropriate section in the body and doesn't need to be constantly duplicated in every part of the article.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 23:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Both sources provided state Russian involvement. The second source relies on Russian sources. It's sufficient enough. Who? The operation commander? Are you really telling me that an Armenian commander will acknowledge the fact that he was aided by Russian regiment and Armenian forces coming from Armenia proper? Come on now. Report away as you like and we'll see where you go with sourced information. And why would you remove the line The majority of population of the district was ethnic Azerbaijanis and Kurds? Do you have doubts the majority of ethnic population was Azerbaijanis and Kurds? Have you checked the Kalbajar Rayon stats? Tuscumbia (talk) 12:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

What you or myself think is immaterial regarding this point; the notion that the Armenian commander would automatically deny Russian involvement is reductio ad absurdum - it's a logical fallacy. You can easily turn that argument on its head and ask "Would Azerbaijan ever admit that a country of about 150,000 was able to handily defeat it without the help of the Russians?" All you have to do is visit some Azerbaijani websites or read their books and you'll see that's what they write. Thankfully, we don't need to waste our time on such speculative matters; we have a RS stating that the commander denied it and an analyst from the region who dismisses it as well.

Regarding your second point: it's odd that you ask me such a bizarre question when in the main body it explicitly says, Situated between a steep mountain range, its wartime population of approximately 45,000–60,000 was primarily made up of ethnic Azeris and Kurds.[1]. It's unnecessary to include such information right up there in the lead since it essentially duplicates what is already said in the body and has only a remote relevance to the military aspects of the battle.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 15:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't really care what individual Azerbaijani website may or may not write. The HRW findings and second source confirm the allegation. The fact is that Russian military aid was extended. You can also view it here [2] on pages 115 and 116. Tuscumbia (talk) 15:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Charles Van der Leeuw

I would like to see further proof of

• hundreds of refugees were shot on the way by Armenian hit squads
• the notorious black-masked Cobra units
• massacres in Shusha, Lachin and many other villages.

Thanks. --Antelope Hunter (talk) 11:59, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Kalbajar. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20110707050308/http://www.azerbembassy.org.cn/eng/kelbajar01.html to http://www.azerbembassy.org.cn/eng/kelbajar01.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}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 17:31, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Reliable sources

As User:Jr8825 already pointed out in another discussion, BBC Azerbaijani Service is not a reliable source, and it appears to be a WP:POVFORK of Azeri Wikipedia pages translated into English. The service also endorses Azeri historical revisionism that does not have enough due weight to include on Wikipedia. And adding "As a result of the Armenian offensive" is blatant WP:POVPUSH that the article can do without. --Steverci (talk) 03:11, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

As a result of the Armenian offensive... isn't POV, it's a factual statement supported by a strong source (HRW). As a general comment, I'm not convinced this article meets GA standard – it seems overly reliant on a primary source written by the Armenian commander Monte Melkonian and when reviewing the HRW source I found most other usages of it were inaccurately cited (or not in the text). I may put it up for reassessment if I have the time to look at the article more fully. For what it's worth, I complained to the BBC about that article but I'm hitting a brick wall because the BBC in the UK doesn't want to take responsibility for a complaint about Azeri content, and BBC Azeri won't respond to my complaint. I plan to escalate it because I'd like to see the BBC conduct its own review of the piece. For now, I think it's reasonable to treat BBC Azeri as a biased source, as you would other Armenian and Azeri news sites, rather than as a neutral third-party source. Jr8825 • Talk 08:53, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Jr8825, thanks for the help. Do you think we can use the BBC Azeri source as an Azeri claim? For example, "511 civilians killed (per Azerbaijan)" ? — CuriousGolden (T·C) 09:11, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Personally I wouldn't. It doesn't quote its sources and, from what I've seen, it doesn't seem to be doing proper fact-checking. Yes, the source for the number of Azerbaijani military deaths is equally poor, but the best thing to do is to search elsewhere and see if there are numbers for civilian deaths in other sources (does 511 appear anywhere else, has the BBC taken the number from another, more reliable source)? It seems likely there were a large number of civilian deaths given the conditions that the HRW report described (it might be worth reading through the report more thoroughly to see if it goes into more detail, I only cross-checked the existing citations). If so, there'll be a reliable source somewhere giving an estimate. Try Google Scholar/JSTOR. You can get free access through academic paywalls via the Wikipedia Library, which I recommend. Jr8825 • Talk 09:54, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Jr8825, alright, then I'll delete the 511 figure from the article for now until I find a better source. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 10:01, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

It is POV. We might as well say "As a result of the Azerbaijani warmongering...". It's unencyclopedic wording that adds nothing of value, and could isn't impacted at all by removing. Simplifying text is a basic part of improving writing. As for adding a "persecution" category, we might as well add a Persecution of Germans category to every battle of the Eastern Front (World War II) because of the Flight and expulsion of Germans (1944–1950).

I'm not sure what you're doing to protest the BBC, but I doubt a multi-billion news corporation will do anything. Perhaps the BBC Azerbaijani Service should be nominated the be depreciated, as parts other parts of it already are, such as BBC Domesday Project. --Steverci (talk) 04:54, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF. The people didn't become displaced out of nowhere, they were forced to leave because of the Armenian offensive. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 06:38, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

@Steverci: "this version was made on Feb 5th by a now topic banned user, and I waited until the arbitration enforcement discussion was finished to prevent edit warring, which you should stop doing if you don't want to share their fate" This is an extremely uncivil language. I asked you to not repeat such language less than a month ago here. I'm sorry but I won't tolerate this any further.

About your revert, since you seem to completely ignore and not care about any points I've made, I again have to invite Jr8825 to give their opinion. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 08:05, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

As I already explained to you on AE, I was just warning you of what you were doing. And once again, trying to put "blame" on either side violates WP:NPOV. How is the article benefited in any way by something that can easily be removed? --Steverci (talk) 04:13, 2 March 2021 (UTC)