Talk:Ziya Bunyadov - Wikipedia

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).Reply

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).Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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

here is a article about buniatov

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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 ^[1]

Bunyadov is also known for his article Why Sumgait?^[2]

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply