Talk:Battle of Shusha (1992)

Artsakh Top‑importance

	Battle of Shusha (1992) is within the scope of WikiProject Artsakh, an attempt to improve and better organize information in articles related or pertaining to Artsakh and Artsakhians. If you would like to contribute or collaborate, you could edit the article attached to this page or visit the project page for further information.ArtsakhWikipedia:WikiProject ArtsakhTemplate:WikiProject ArtsakhArtsakh articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Azerbaijan High‑importance

	Azerbaijan portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Azerbaijan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Azerbaijan-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AzerbaijanWikipedia:WikiProject AzerbaijanTemplate:WikiProject AzerbaijanAzerbaijan articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Russian & Soviet

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force

A fact from Battle of Shusha (1992) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 15 September 2006. The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the Battle of Shusha in May 1992 was the first significant Armenian military victory during the Nagorno-Karabakh War, and marked a turning point during the conflict?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2006/September.

Wikipedia

Name of the city

Just wanted to remind everybody that the name of the city, per WP:COMMONNAME, is Shusha not Shushi. I am writing this in response to what I see as the beginnings of an edit war regarding the name. Thanks. Kornatice (talk) 20:06, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

The entire article had been deleted and replaced with a single word repeated over and over again, I have deleted the vandalism and replaced it with a request that the article be re-posted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.108.14.160 (talk • contribs) 01:41, 15 September 2006.

Thanks. In the future, please read up on how to revert a page. —Khoikhoi 01:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Basayev

Ok, perhaps he wasn't a commander, but I still think he should be mentioned somewhere in the article. I personally found it to be interesting information. —Khoi khoi 01:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He was a commander. He was not a commander in the Azeri army.--Eupator 01:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV

1) Contains several references to Melkonian's book and to another Armenian POV author of Levon Chorbajian, but not a single one to an ethnic Azerbaijani writer to balance it out. 2) Contains an external link to: http://www.nkr.am/eng/gov/Image14.jpg - This is of course not acceptable for clear and obvious reasons. --adil 21:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

once again, the extreme POV external link should be removed. --adil 07:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Contains several references to Melkonian's book and to another Armenian POV author of Levon Chorbajian, but not a single one to an ethnic Azerbaijani writer to balance it out. Utter tosh, your opinion doesn't justify adding POV tags. Move on, unless there is something factually inaccurate about what they say, all this is red herring to turn Wikipedia into a nationalist battleground. --MarshallBagramyan 17:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Factually inaccurate"? Well, isn't that the synonym for POV and bias associated with it? Again, no to Armenian external sites, especially these nationalistic one's. --adil 07:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the Armenian POV, an ultra-nationalist website link. --adil 03:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hahaha never heard that one "ultra-nationalist" Artaxiad 03:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of info

The participation of Russian military is attested further by Russian author L. M. Drobizheva ([1]) and the raion administrator for Shusha ([2]). The Human Rights Watch-published info by a third-party author should also stay, as well as the "partisan source". Some sources could be dubbed 'partisan', but they are more familiar with domestic situation, than the external ones. The oh really? also uses partisan sources in the lead and further, as you probably know. Brand[t] 21:54, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've read the mentioned page and references by Altstadt in L.M.Drobizheva's edited volume. Unfortunately, that author's footnote does not provide enough concrete evidence to suffice inclusion of "Russia" in the list of belligerents. Even if we were to think of the members of 366th Regiment, most of whom by this time had left for home, as "mercerinaries", who no doubt participated in the broader conflict and both sides, it comes as a surprise to me that any such mercenary would be allowed anywhere near this operation, let alone be told about the existence of this operation. This was a very delicate operation, prepared in highest degree of secrecy and a great care was taken to allow only the most dedicated men from the separately fighting detachments. Furthermore, if ITAR-TASS mentioned the word "mercerinaries" in a generic context as partaking on both sides of the conflict, as Altstadt's footnote claims, does not necessarily mean that mercenaries or even official Russian forces did partake in this particular operation.--Matrixfighter (talk) 17:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That reference is supported by the raion administrator for Shusha Vagif Huseynov, who testifies that the town was occupied through the combined efforts of the Armenian forces and the 366th Russian Motorized Rifle Regiment ([3]). In any case the lead should reflect both sides of the conflict, Armenians did not encounter with immortals and perpetual buildings. Brand[t] 12:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The word "belligerent" has a specific meaning in Wikipedia's conflict infoboxes. It means a state at war with another state, not individuals or groups of individuals. Russia was not a "belligerent". I have doubts there should be a Chechen flag there as well. Flags normally represent countries, not individuals or groups - even if the group is of one ethnicity and fighting as a unified unit. Also, no Azeri propaganda please. Meowy 14:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, Chechen volunteers may depart as they were neither regular troops nor a significant ally throughout the war. But concerning the so-called Azeri propaganda, the lead is entirely written from Armenian perspective, including Markar Melkonian's panegyric. The defending side should be also present. Brand[t] 14:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how you can say the lead section is written from anyone's perspective. As it is now, it is a series of facts that summarise the event. But I think the Melkonian quote was out of place, so I've moved it to another part of the article. Meowy 15:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a series of facts, then the fate of the defenders should be also reflected in the lead, in at least two sentences. Brand[t] 16:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1)The confirmation of raion administrator for Shusha Vagif Huseynov cannot be taken as a reliable source of information that the 366th Regiment did participate.

2) In the list of troops 366th Regiment is mentioned. Does that mean the entire(!?) Regiment or maybe a few individuals who had enough of the shelling horror? Another question is: Was there anything left of 366th Regiment by this time? Over the years I have done a lot of research on this particular military operation, and I should say that mentioning of Russian involvement or 366th Regiment comes as a total surprise to me! (Though, I would love to learn more in case there is something that I don't know) Personally , I would like to see a lot more reliable and serious accounts that will confirm the participation of 366th. Until then, the 366th should be removed.
3)So called "Chechen flag" represents precisely the Chechen rebels of that period, and today Chechnia has another official(!) flag, so the currently featured flag in the article cannot be called "Chechen flag" and therefore can stay IMHO.
4) If Melkonian's brother's book is regarded as a "partisan" biased source, then the lead still needs a mention as to how important this particular battle was and what a military accomplishment it was, and why May 9th is celebrated in NKR both as Victory Day over Nazis and the day of establishments of NKR Army.
5)Let's leave "politics" out of it and let's collectively create a nice, elaborate and interesting article that will outline the Military aspect of this battle for people who are interested in military history of the 20th century.--Matrixfighter (talk) 00:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect this vague "366th Regiment" stuff will have something to do with official Azerbaijani historiography about the Nagorno Karabakh war and the reasons for its military defeats. Hence Brand's insistance on including it. We need an "Azerbaijani historiography" article. Meowy 16:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You hit the nail on the spot. The general Azerbaijani narrative goes that Armenians won these battles and the war only through Russian aid. Whether it's the battle of Shushi or the battle of Kelbajar, Russia always comes out as the proverbial Assyrian boogeyman of this narrative. Of course, Russia aided both sides to maintain parity in the region. Most Azeris cannot gulp down the fact that Armenians were simply more experienced, better organized, and had a greater committment to defending their lands and their families than their Azerbaijani counterparts. Was it some mysterious Russian hand that led to the deaths of 4,000 Azerbaijani youths in battles in the winter of 1993-1994? Or was it because of inexperience and primitive military tactics?

Vagif Huseynov does not state any evidence to prove Russian complicity in the city's capture. Did the tanks have Russian flags hoisted above them? Did they speak in clean Russian accents? Did he witness seeing any Russians taking part in the advance? The source does not say and it's probably that he has simply molded his story to conform to the above narrative. As for Svante Cornell, he does not say the participation of the 366th regiment in the battle. He says that the regiment had been withdrawn in March 1992, whereas Shushi was taken in May of that year. Regarding the PACE and Council of Europe documents - they are simply propaganda. No cultural organization is cited and no material evidence is offered and it comes as slap in the face of cultural vandalism, when we see Azeri troops hard at work, destroying thousands of khachkars in Nakhichevan. This is POV-pushing at its best.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 19:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Capture of Shusha. 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:

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:00, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Capture of Shusha. 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/20160604072459/http://www.arf1890.com/armhistory/4.htm to http://www.arf1890.com/armhistory/4.htm

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) 21:57, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rename - Battle of Shusha (1992)

Hi

As there is another Battle of Shusha and the current name could potentially lead to confusion in the future, I think a rename of the article is in order --LOLCaatz (talk) 10:46, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]