Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nagorno-Karabakh War

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 03:44, 23 February 2007.

Nagorno-Karabakh War[edit]

This is the article's second nomination and I feel that it has substantially improved and addressed most of the concerns that were raised when it failed its first nomination in September 2006. The article boasts over 100 in-line references derived from a plethora of sources which are comprised virtually of both reputable and verifiable books and respected scholarly journals. It had held a GA rating for well over half a year and I believe that it is well-written and covers every aspect of this war on both sides that it possibly can.--MarshallBagramyan 00:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose
  1. Quotes should not be italicized, per the MoS.
  2. Fair use images need to have a clearly identified copyright holder, source information and a fair use rationale (Image:Captured azeri tank.jpg, Image:Shilka AA.JPG, Image:Khojaly Massacre.jpg, Image:366th and Weapons.jpg, Image:Sumgaitrioting.jpg). Fair use images should be used as little as possible.
  3. Images are missing source info Image:Nkr-army6.jpg, Image:Azerirefugees2.jpg
  4. Image:Damage to Stepanakert.jpg; what sort of permission was actually given for the use of this image?
--Peta 03:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Done
  2. All of the grainy footage images (the captured tank, the Shilka AA, the 366th Division's cache of weapons, unless otherwise indicated if they were taken by a TV agency) were taken by amateur cameramen who accompanied the fighters during the war. The screenshots of the images were taken by videos of the war and many of them of them were uploaded on to YouTube. For example, a great deal of video montages containing them can be found here [1]. The people who recorded the footage of the Sumgait massacre remain unknown and their images have been published all over the web and on television. Nevertheless the owners of the website [2] gave permission and free rein over the use of their images. I'm unsure of the copyright over the Khojaly massacre but a source is listed.
  3. I updated the status of the first image which was taken by the Armenian Government and found on its Ministry of Defense's website however its source link appears to be dead. For the second picture, I contacted the person who uploaded the to see if he is able to clarify its source.
  4. Permission to use this image was given to me by the owner of the website Armeniapedia.org and fellow Wikipedia contributor User:RaffiKojian who used to run its predecessor cilicia.com where the image was originally found. My asking and his agreeing of the image usage can be found here [3].
  • Oppose The article is not up to the FA standards, and has not been much improved since the last nomination. The references for the most part are not academic, and there are problems with neutrality. Grandmaster 11:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The content is biased and tendentious. Furthermore, the quotes have been deliberately chosen in a manner, which serve to manipulate the reader's opinion rather than provide insights. --Tabib 13:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral contributors raised problems with the prose, sources (too many news articles) and the length of the article in the last nomination. Bias and POV issues weren't among them and even they told you this. All of the books used are academic, I don't know how you came up with that conclusion that they compromise any of the facts. --MarshallBagramyan 16:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The above two oppose comments are ambiguous at best and seem to be there for the sake of opposing only. Unless they are expanded upon they oughta be disregarded.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 17:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment All quotations should have citations, and whoever said each quotation should not be included within the quotation marks. —Cuiviénen 18:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The page essentially became a site of Armenian POV, yet again claiming that Karabakh was "made" part of Azerbaijan by Stalin. This is not true, Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast (NKAO) was "established within" Azerbaijan SSR by the decision of Kavbureau in 1923. Atabek 18:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you guys please go a little bit further besides claiming its propaganda and lies? The sources do back up the information.--MarshallBagramyan 19:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is pretty much obvious that Azeris editors like Grandmaster would always oppose to the nomination of this article, and probably some Armenian editors too. Batabat is a newly registered user, this vote being his 9th edit here. Tabib will also always oppose, he is working with political parties in Azerbaijan and we can't expect him to ever accept FA on this article until it becomes the official view of the republic of Azerbaijan.
  • So a note to the Armenian and Azeri editor, I think it is best for both parties concerned to not vote, comment, but do not vote. Anyway, I will refrain voting myself. Fad (ix) 20:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Agreed w/ both Marshall's and Fad(ix)'s comments. This article has been fixed up well since the last FAC nomination (which failed to pin-point any POV problem). The same old issues brought by the Azeri editors on this page have been discussed 1000 times. I agree w/ Fad(ix) that we should let non-Armenian and non-Azeri editors vote. - Fedayee 22:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just a clarification, I did not say we should leave non-Armenian and non-Azeri editors to vote, but rather that I think it would be best if such was to happen. Fad (ix) 22:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I would also wanted to vote, but Fadix mad a good point. I rather not vote since Azeri users would oppose and Armenian users would support. The best would be to let non Armenian and Azeri users to vote on this article. ROOB323 04:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose For the time being, the page is not ready yet, let's return to this issue later, once more sources will be added and this page will become save quality as featured articles should be. --AdilBaguirov 04:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support - This article is well written has over 60 references, the image problems have been solved, and obviously this section has been invaded by Turkish nationalists. Nareklm 05:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't have the authority to speak for Raul, but I can say that I am certain that any and all oppose votes by Azeri editors and any and all support votes by Armenian editors that provide flimsy or no reasons for supporting or opposing will be ignored. Please don't even bother. —Cuiviénen 05:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. --Mardavich 07:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support - (Upgraded to strong support after many fixes were made to article. --Petercorless 17:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)) Prior "Conditional Support" discussion: I just went through the article, proofreading and making a few minor editing changes towards the grammar and syntax of the article. Since I am not an expert on the conflict, and since most of the references were to off-line sources, I cannot comment on the veracity of its claims. My main reservation is that it does not follow the form of citation templates favored by Wikipedia. I wish to see the templates replace most of the presently unstructured textual footnotes. As a neutral observer I did not sense any heavy bias, though quotes from Armenian sources might be balanced by a few comments by Azeri sources. Aside that, I have to say the article read very clearly and would be a fine featured article. I would not wish to see partisan political opposition sideline the forwarding of an article which helps illuminate the conflict. --Petercorless 11:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have objections to the quotes. For example this quote: Congratulations on your earthquake. Nature has spared us the trouble is taken from the book by Melkonian, which is definitely not third party. No one has ever seen this telegram, and it is nothing but allegation of Armenian sources. Grandmaster 11:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If there are specific quotes like this, which are considered objectionable or of questionable origin, we can discuss excising them. Is there any other independent source of this quote? I did not find anything on Google. Of course, I have no visibility into original language sources. Thoughts on the value of this quote versus its divisiveness? --Petercorless 11:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it has much informative value, same as other quotes included. Grandmaster 12:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Shamil Basayev was just snipped from the list of commanders; his own biography notes his possible involvement in the NK-Azeri conflict. Would anyone have a reference to prove this assertion, or should his name be excised? --Petercorless 12:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He was involved, but not as a commander of Azerbaijani army. He was just one of the Chechen fighters who fought on Azerbaijani side at the early stage of war. Grandmaster 12:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So? He was a commander of a faction allied to the Azeri army.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 15:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's this kind of careless attitude towards editing that spoils the page overall -- what is meant by "so?" That's the point, this is an encyclopedia, and only verifiable and correct information should be featured -- there is a big difference between commander of the entire Azerbaijani Army and a commander of a Chechen battallion of maybe 100 fighters, who was there only for the first half of 1992. Meanwhile, the Russian commanders who led Armenian troops, such as Anatoliy Vladimirovich Zinevich, a Major General and even "Chief of the Nagorno-Karabakh Army Headquarters", should be mentioned, as should be other mercenaries that fought on Armenian behalf (you can read Zinevich's interview in Yerevan's VREMYA newspaper in Russian, 24 August 1996, p. 3, by Ara Tatevosyan, MOSKOVSKIYE NOVOSTI staff correspondent, entitled "Once a Russian General...") Zinevich died only recently, with both President Kocharyan and next President Sarkisyan attending his funeral. --AdilBaguirov 16:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let me say this in the most elemantary language possible, That column does not list the commanders of the Azeri national army. It lists the commanders of the factions fighting against Armenians. In addition, Bassayev and the Chechens were not mercenaries! Likewise, the Afghan/Al-Qaueda terrorists were also not mercenaries.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 16:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Earthquake source. Hey Peter, here is another source from TIME Magazine that supports Melkonian: A Journey into Misery (page 3): "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!" If it would help I can replace his book with this source. Zinevich falls under a CIS mercenary, Basayev is included because he is a notable figure.--MarshallBagramyan 16:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • On citation style. I believe you are right Peter but I think that adding the template would easily add several kilobytes of space on to the article.--MarshallBagramyan 16:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: What's ridiculous is the "CIS mercenary" terminology (?!) - the Maj-General ended up staying in Armenia and dying there just some time ago, and was far more important and prominent than any mercenaries that fought on Azerbaijani side. Moreover, the page lacks references and citations of UN documents, which outline several instances of mercenaries fighting for Armenia, including Russian Spetsnaz (Special Forces), who were captured in 1993 and released because of an appeal of President Yeltsin. Then what about the EXECUTION of several Azerbaijani POWs, which Western human rights organizations have slammed?
Meanwhile, the most ridiculous of all is the total disrespect to, and lack of knowledge of, the fact that Azerbaijan SSR and Azerbaijanis were among the FIRST to help Armenia after the eqrthquake -- even though it coincided with a mass-scale ethnic cleansing of 165,000 Azerbaijanis from Armenia in Nov-Dec 1988 (plus the remaining 50,000 or so thousand Azerbaijanis and Kurds later)! That's right -- Azerbaijan sent a military plane full of supplies to Yerevan, and due to a very suspicious "mistake" by ground operators, the plane crashed and all but one have died. No one in Armenia mentions this, and there is no memorial or otherwise thanks. Also, all hospitals and spas (pansionats) of Kelbajar region were urgently made room at, so as to accomodate Armenian victims of the earthquake -- some 2,000 people, from what I remember reading the Soviet press back then (it should be available in the FBIS translated into English articles too, see December 1988 digests). Also, there are references in Azerbaijani press that all the blood donated by Azerbaijanis was smashed by Armenians with exclamations "We don't need blood of Turks". However, not very sure if all these references from both sides are appropriate for an encyclopedia article. Long thing short -- this article is not ready, it is POV and lacks balance. --AdilBaguirov 04:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This may come as a shock to you, but atrocities were committed on both sides; don't act as if Azerbaijan was an innocent party twiddling its thumbs during the war. Should I introduce instances of rape of captive Armenian women by the Azeris during the war? Of prisoner torture and abuse in Baku? Of course because then that will start pathetic POV war that up to one year now, this article has avoided. I don't doubt Azeris sent help after the earthquake but after multiple pogroms in Azerbaijan (Sumgait, Kirovabad, etc.) I don't doubt Armenians rejected, understandably, aid from Azerbaijan either. But the quote highlights the ethnic tensions prior to outbreak of war and its not supposed to be casting aspersions on any of the sides. More than 1,200 Armenian families left Sumgait after the pogrom, which was one of the ultimate reasons why the conflict grew worse, which is why many Azeris left Armenia and Armenians from Azerbaijan. None of the third party observers are seeing these silly errors Adil. Please be more constructive in your criticism.--MarshallBagramyan 05:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see a systemic bias. If you (AdilBaguirov, others) have citations of UN documents of mercenaries, or the refutation of someone's status as a mercenary, bring the titles, dates, and URLs to the table. Offer them with a positive "can-do" spirit, and presume goodwill as the basis of our work. No stonewalling or grandstanding. Before we start devolving into who-committed-the-worse-atrocities, or who didn't thank who for extensions of olive branches and aid, let's keep in mind we are seeking to construct a sober, rational document of what happened -- not to inflame a vivid re-eruption of partisan emotions and griefs. For those of you for whom the issue is to close to your heart, take a step away from the monitor, take a deep breath, and come back with constructive comments on how to improve the document. I think people are willing to accommodate changes which are citable and verifiable. Please avoid polarizing claims and accusations. Thank you. --Petercorless 05:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is becoming ridiculous. Including Azerbaijani members know very well that Azeri having celebrated the earthquake is well documented, here another two sources.

A sever earthquake hit northwestern Armenia on December 7, 1988. The news was greeted in Azerbaijan by cheers in student dormitories and celebration in the streets. Armenia- portraits of survival and hope Par Donald E. Miller, Lorna Touryan Miller, Jerry Berndt, University of California Press, p.7

However, even the massive earthquake which devastated parts of Armenia failed to bring about a diminution of tensions in the area, and the Soviet press noted that some Azerbaijanis openly rejoiced over this tragedy. Niall M. Fraser; Keith W. Hipel; John Jaworsky; Ralph Zuljan, The Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 34, No. 4 (Dec., 1990), p.668

Some members would really like to have this article as a conform copy of the official Azerbaijan republic vision.

And here, I am addressing to non-Armenian, non-Azeri members. I advice those members to go on and read the Khojali section of the article. Marshall has tried to do everything to satisfy the Azeri members, even as far as tainting sections with Azeri POV. The wording is harsher than the Armenian Genocide intro. If some Azeri members are not satisfied now, with such unjustifiable concessions, does anyone think they will ever? Both Azeri and Armenian members know that while Marshal has presented the moderate estimates of the losses of Khojali to be on the over 400, the moderate estimates in scholarship publications is in the range of between 100-200. See for instance, Roberta Cohen and Francis M Deng book The Forsaken People- Case Studies of the Internally Displaced, Brookings Institution Press 1998 p.260, or Vitaly V. Naumkin book, Central Asia and Transcaucasia: Ethnicity and Conflict, Greenwood Press, 1994 p. 95. I have also provided the fist Azerbaijani official figures supporting that contention and many other sources on that, on Khojali tragedy article itself.

Marshall has gone out of his way to voluntarily make concessions, and various, here was one example, to taint a little bit to satisfy the Azeri members. And this is how he is thanked by those same members.

But here is the situation; many of the members here are not in Wikipedia in good faith. Tabib who has voted, works in a tink tank organization which work with political parties in Azerbaijan, was a real life friend with Adil, who has associated himself with think thank organizations members of the republic of Turkey, like Sedat Laciner, and even got articles published by their journals, among many things denying the Armenian genocide and adhering to Laciner ultra nationalistic views. Then we have new members just recently created suspected to be socks, like Atabek, Dacy etc., who had no better than maintaining Adil versions and pushing over them.

So, if Raul want to take a fair decision, and while I admit to be maybe biased, while this would be involuntarily, I think it would be best to only take into consideration members who have not been involved with Azeri-Armenian conflicts on Wikipedia. For now, this is all what I wanted to say. Fad (ix) 17:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is truly ridiculous -- Fadix is overstepping all boundaries with his repeated defamation and harassment of myself and another user, Tabib, as well as groundless and false claims about other well-established users like Dacy69 and Atabek. Additionally, the above two references are worthless -- both are co-written by Armenians, such as Touryan and Zuljian, and that's POV, no need to pretend it is from unbiased Western sources. --AdilBaguirov 04:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Resorting to personal attacks instead of responding to criticism is not the best way to deal with the issue. It is very sad that Fadix consumes so much space to slander other Wikipedia contributors, who do not hide behind the nicknames and contribute under their real names. Adil has a very good point. How come that the article lists Shamil Basayev as an Azeri commander, while he was never in charge of any unit of Azerbaijani army and never commanded any military operation during the NK war, and at the same time, the article never mentions such a prominent Russian mercenary as Zinevich, who was a chief of stuff in the Armenian army, let alone listing him as a commander. This shows that the article is very superficial. As for the telegram, neither of the quotes presented prove its existence. Time Magazine reporter only repeats what he heard from Armenians, plus they told him about some graffiti, and Fadix’s quotes are not about the telegram either. Grandmaster 18:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Slandering? No, I am actually describing the situation in which we are. Fad (ix) 22:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where does it say Bassayev was an Azeri commander? Am I blind or are you blind? The footnote states he was in command of Chechens fighting against Armenian, for Azerbaijan obviously. No point to list mercenaries, unless they are notable individuals. I don't se how this guy is notable. Besides, Azeris had more money and had more mercenaries, if we start listing them guess who gets the shorter end of the stick.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 19:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Create an article on Zinevich and I'll include his name in the column (that is if it falls under WP:N. Your vague, stonewalling objections are becoming more superficial and non-existant as they come. Most of the neutral observers have pointed out actual problems in the article that I have no objections to rectify, but POV issues is not one of them. --MarshallBagramyan 19:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Additionally, the above two references are worthless -- both are co-written by Armenians, such as Touryan and Zuljian, and that's POV, no need to pretend it is from unbiased Western sources." To dismiss a reference as "worthless" simply because it is Armenian or Azerbaijan, is not sufficient, and smacks of extreme chauvanism. Let's avoid that, shall we? Meanwhile, conversely, let's leave out attacks ad hominem and stick with critiquing the article, thank you. --Petercorless 05:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He's been doing this from the beginning, this is just the point of the iceberg, if you even knew all the racist trash he is known to write..., when I answer to this sort of stuff I am warned for personal attack. Anyway, Zuljan, is not an Armenian. Adil purpously added the 'i' to make it sound as if he is an Armenian. Zuljan is a Slovak name, not Armenian. Fad (ix) 08:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll ask all parties to avoid speaking of personal past relationships. Let's focus on the output of the work. Comments should be directed towards the quality of the article, Thank you. In regard to Zuljan's heritage: what point are you trying to make specifically? --Petercorless
Petercorless, the "ian" ending is an Armenian family name ending. Adil added the "i" to make it "ian." He modified the authors name to then claim he is an Armenian and dismiss the article on the bases that an Armenian contributed. I just clarified that Zuljan is a Slovake author not Armenian. Fad (ix) 00:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
True. A Slovak is not an Armenian. Thank you for clarifying your logic. Let's move on. --Petercorless 03:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. After some further thought, I suggest that all of the quotations used to head sections be removed. They're unencyclopedic, instead making the text more of a narrative than a presentation of facts. It might be useful to mention some of the quotations in the body of some sections as appropriate, but only if they add significantly to the understanding of the section. —Cuiviénen 22:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Marshall, I agree that placing quotations on the lead of each sections is not encyclopedic, it gives more of a sensationalist look to the article, like the magazines bolding sensasionalist phrases in leads etc. Fad (ix) 22:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, I removed some of the quotes and integrated those I felt were most relevant into the text. How does it look now?--MarshallBagramyan 23:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Consider to achieve a peer review and A-class rating on the Military history project. Several NPOV issues still remain, for example already in the lead: "As the war progressed, Armenia and Azerbaijan, both former Soviet Republics, became enveloped in a protracted, undeclared war as the latter attempted to curb a secessionist, irredentist movement in Nagorno-Karabakh". The opening of the background is one-sided. A POV could be traced in the referencing (6 Armenian sources). --Brand спойт 00:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was the one that added the comment as to it being a irredentist movement, because this is how the conflict is objectively classified. Irredentism is a cause of many ethnically-driven conflicts in the world. Citing that as a cause of the war is not a validation nor a refutation of either side, nor is that description particularly partisan. It is an objective description of why there was fighting in the first place. --Petercorless 00:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus-building

Folks, we need to develop a consensus about the quality of the article, and avoid personal aspersions or even comments about those commenting about the article. Why a person votes for or against an article matters to me far, far less than "Is it a good article or not?" I wish to use objective evidence, not subjective personal political positions. That said, I wish to address some of the issues brought about above, which are getting buried under cross-talk.

  • Footnotes -- If it makes for a better article, add the formatting. In the case of this article, it would help the professionalism and standardization of the citations. Laziness is no excuse. Neither is byte count.
  • Main leaders of factions should be shown in the infobox. If you want to have a more comprehensive list of military leaders of each of the participants, and perhaps a list of units under their command, you can have some sort of order of battle or leader listing in the article. It can include both civil and military leaders, wheras the infobox should be for military commanders only. Example: War in Somalia (2006–present): Key people.
  • Earthquake seems notable to mention, and I suggest to add the related verifiable published newspaper/magazine/book references so long as we do not beat a dead horse or argue ad nauseum. If there are objections, ensure to cite who made such claims to show they were assertions as opposed to provable/verifiable fact. If there are counter-arguments that these events or expressions never occurred or did not occur as asserted, then cite a published source where the refutation was made. No personal assertions or POV-based excisions. Back your statements. If you cannot, we won't delete simply because you find it an objectionable topic or reference.
  • Quotes at the start of sections -- Personally, I liked them as a stylistic engagement of a reader. But yes, they can be argued to be non-encyclopedic that way. Some of those taken away could be worked back in to the paragraphs either inline or as cquotes for the section.
  • Seems close to ready -- aside from some minor and often technical disputes which are never going to be resolved unless people put down partisan positions, this article seems about 95% ready for FA status. Remember that no article is ever complete, and just because FA does not mean the article is enshrined in a temple somewhere. --Petercorless 23:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe we got points 2 (for the most part) and 3 squared away. --MarshallBagramyan 02:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another comment:

  • Non-"third party" objections of sources -- If this was an article about World War II, it would be allowable to quote from either Churchill's six-volume history of World War II, or Hitler's Mein Kampf, as both individuals were personally and primarily involved. You cannot toss away a primary source by calling it POV. What you can do is note who the source is, and ensure that assertions, allegations, and other non-verified claims or opinions of an author, even if a primary source, are properly contextualized. --Petercorless 23:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DICK

I will remind that we are not simply supposed to throw up any roadblock to progress we can find in Wikipedia's arsenal of templates, especially if said template additions are not followed by a related discussion or citation of what the problems are. Talk rationally, thank you. --Petercorless 06:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I already explained that Basayev was not a commander in Azerbaijani army, still he is listed as such in the commanders section. I also provided a full text of Kavburo resolution, which says that Nagorno-Karabakh was to be left within Azerbaijan SSR, and not awarded. The article clearly provides inaccurate info with regard to these issues. Grandmaster 06:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Basayev was not a commander in the Azerbaijani army. He is not listed as such. He is listed as a commander during the war. He is not listed as a commander of the Azeri army. Stop this malicious nonsense. It's understandable why you're seeking to remove this fact from the article but it's just silly. -- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 13:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, mind civility. Second, the two warring sides were Armenia and Azerbaijan, so Basayev should be a commander in the either army to be listed as commander. I'm not trying to remove Basayev from the article, he can be mentioned in the text along with people like Zinevich, but the attempts to present Basayev as a commander are deliberate misinformation. Grandmaster 13:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, no. He need not be part of the Azerbaijan army to be listed as a commander in the Infobox. He simply needs to have been a commander of a notable faction or formation. --Petercorless 00:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dodging the issue by saying mind civility is uncivil and uncalled for. No, the two principal warring sides were the NKR Army and Azerbaijan. Both sides were supported by others. NKR by Armenia and Azerbaijan by Afghan mujahedin and Chechen guerillas commanded by Basayev. In addition each side employed mercenaries. Basayev with his Chechens was as much a part of the conflict as Azerbaijan was. Basayev cannot be compared with Zinevich since Zinevich was a mercenary while Basayev was not.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 15:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You cited no sources to support your claim that Basayev commanded any military unit. He fought in Karabakh, but none of your sources say that he was anything other than a soldier. And again, Basayev did not command any military operation, while Zinevich was chief of stuff in the Armenian army. Grandmaster 15:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are countless sources that name Basayev. Even De Wall: " One of the last fighters to leave Shusha was the Chechen volunteer Shamil Basayev,". He was a commander of batallionm always has been.[4].

President Dudayev soon dispatched Basayev to Azerbaijan to assist the Muslim Azerbaijani national army in fighting the Russian-backed Christian Armenian...:-The Wolves of Islam: Russia and the Faces of Chechen Terror - Page 13 by Paul J. Murphy. This book: Caucasus: A Journey to the Land Between Christianity and Islam - Page 186,by Nicholas Griffin - 2004 - 248 pages writes extensively about Basayev and his dirty deeds for Azerbaijan. Link:[5]-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 16:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps his role should be detailed specifically in the text as well as the Infobox. Furthermore, the citation of the CIA factbook in the infobox does not lead to any infomation about Basayev. Was it in an older year entry? I also suggest to add it to Basayev's own Wikipedia entry. Again, please use reliable sources, and since there seem to be doubts, put in more than one if possible. If his alleged battalion had a name or designation, it should also be cited. --Petercorless 00:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CIA information is about the role of Armenia. It says that Armenia occupies part of Azerbaijan's territory. Grandmaster 05:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GM, quit parsing the words and arguing semantics with these trivial points. If he lead a unit into combat then that makes him a commander. --MarshallBagramyan 16:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say that Basayev did not fight in Karabakh, show me a source that proves that he commanded any significant military unit or was in charge of any operation by Azerbaijani army. Otherwise he cannot be listed as a commander. And even if he was a battalion commander, he still does not qualify to be listed there. You cannot list every battalion commander in the list of commanders. Also, Armenian sources have obvious bias in this issue and cannot be trusted. Grandmaster 17:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a foreign command with a foreign commander, there are times when it is appropriate to cite the external force, and other times when it is not appropriate. If this was a squad or platoon of advisors, that would be one thing. Once you are talking about a battalion commitment, that is arguably a sufficient force for citation in the infobox given the scale of the war. Also, while the force itself is not major, I believe the point that is trying to be illustrated is the convergence of Islamist forces in support of the Azeri government. For that purpose, it is significant and duly notable. Those who assert his presence in NK, also cite sources on the alleged size of the force he commanded. Transfer further discussion to the Talk page. --Petercorless 00:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The list of commanders should include those who were in charge of military operations, and not every minor military leader. Plus, we have no sources to support the claim that Basayev commanded anything at all in Karbakah war. We only know that he fought in Karabakh. He might as well be just a soldier. On the other hand, Russian general Zinevich was chief of stuff of Armenian forces, so he definitely belongs to the list, while Basayev does not. Basayev can be mentioned in the text, but should not be listed as a commander. Grandmaster 05:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Continue on Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh War. Not here. --Petercorless 13:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my gush, not this AGAIN. Grandmaster we've been there, two Administrators have mediated the whole thing on the NK and you've wasted the time of countless numbers of users on this for months. There has been various sources on that, and both administrators, including all the other members beside you have opposed to this word. You much know why Kavburo resolution contained that word, this was discussed for a very long time. No one is interested to bring this for a year, two year, three year. Fad (ix) 08:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And you remember that we agreed on a compromise wording, which is not what the current version of this article states. Grandmaster 08:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't know what the compromise was, you know I left the article because I had no time to waste fighting over one single word. Bring this with the other members who were still there. But there is no any single word used there as POV as "left." Fad (ix) 08:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neither were the words "awarded", "granted", etc. We avoided such wording altogether. Grandmaster 08:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Awarded and granted are more acceptable and more accurate wordings than left. Something can not be left in an entity which was just created with no official borders. But we can claim that the one having created it "granted" or "awarded" it. Also, I havent seen you editing it with the wordings of NK main article, you have rather replaced it with the term left which you knew was more opposed by the 2 administrators and members than the terms "granted" and "awarded." Fad (ix) 18:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No need to distort the facts. This was my edit, which was reverted by certain people: [6] I proposed a compromise in line with the main article about Nagorno-Karabakh, but you insist on your prefered version, despite it contradicting the text of Kavburo resolution. Grandmaster 06:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Guys, I recommend to transfer the discussion to the talk page, the nomination already has a long tail. --Brand спойт 21:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. At this point, the major issues have been addressed. The arguing over minor semantic differences should be handled on the Talk page henceforth. --Petercorless 00:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, the citation of the CIA factbook in the infobox does not lead to any infomation about Basayev. If you check the link next to Chechen Volunteers and Basayev's name in the infobox, you'll see that its a clickable link refers to a book I added. The number 2 citation follows the "Republic of Armenia" in the infobox where it refers to the participants in the conflict.--MarshallBagramyan 02:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. The problem is in the fact that note1 and note2 in the infobox occurred twice. I made the link to the CIA Factbook a standard citation template. Also, as many, many, many of the military conflicts on Wikipedia have to do with unrecognized or de facto states, I dropped the note from RNK. --Petercorless 03:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support, per nom and Petercorless. --Pejman47 15:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC); I see that objection of User:Piotrus to citations of some claims in the article is withdrawn: so stronger![reply]
  • Strong support, per nom. -- Aivazovsky 17:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong supprt, Marshall has taken care of all the minor issues. - Fedayee 20:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And now?--MarshallBagramyan 21:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Objection withdrawn, and I am impressed by how quickly you provided all the refs I requested :) -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  01:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Blessed be the search tools Proquest, JSTOR, the free TIME archives and the mundane Google ;)--MarshallBagramyan 02:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Featured Article criteria and call for consensus - As per Wikipedia:Featured article criteria, the page seems well-written and comprehensive. Issues of factual accuracy and neutrality, including extensive footnoting, have been addressed to the general satisfaction of most, though there are definitely going to be some who would oppose the NPOV issue no matter how many revisions it goes through. Even for the changes, the vast bulk of the text remained stable. Many of the objections listed above have been addressed already. While my own view is that the article is ready for FA status at present, given the extensive discussions above, we have a few options:

  • Approve it as it stands now, in recognition of changes incorporated since the start of this review.
  • Fail it or agree there was no consensus for this FA candidacy.

Thoughts? --Petercorless 23:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article is always going to have its detractors; many of those who opposed the article did it outright, listing that it was misrepresenting history which is only about 5% of this article, in other words, it does not correspond to their (point of) views. Those who have objected due to more realistic concerns (i.e. sources, citations style, etc.) have voiced their support so I think we'll go with option 1 :) --MarshallBagramyan 01:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, but if possible more images of Azeri soldiers/equipment should be added. Mieciu K 01:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. We seem to be about evenly split in votes supporting and opposing. Many of the "oppose" votes were cast early in the cycle, and many of those who voted thusly did not rejoin discussions after fixes and changes were made. Grandmaster, you seem to be the main proponent of a certain viewpoint in the discussion. Is the article now at a good state of readiness in your opinion? What would be needed to change your vote from "Object" to "Support" at this time? Or should we move for "no consensus" at this time, and try again in a future round? --Petercorless 22:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the "oppose" votes were cast early in the cycle, and many of those who voted thusly did not rejoin discussions after fixes and changes were made. Not to mention that one of them was found to be a sock puppet [7]. But I'm surprised as to why Brand and Peta have yet to reply in regards to the changes made on the issues they originally raised. Asides from GM, does anyone else have objections to this article's FAC? Eupator, Fadix, and Roob23 were also to raise their support for the article but abstained for the sake of having it attain FA support via 3rd party editors, which it broadly has. --MarshallBagramyan 02:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article needs more work. The Azerbaijani side of story is not fairly presented (you can see it even by photos), and the problems that I mentioned have not been rectified. You may have noticed that none of Azerbaijani editors voted in support of this article. You may discard their votes, but this fact shows that the article lacks objectivity, otherwise they would have at least abstained from voting. Fadix blames the position of Azeri users to ethnic bias, but if it was so, we would have voted against other FA articles created by Armenian users [8], which we did not. But since this article has a direct relation to Azerbaijan, the opinions of Azeri editors should be taken into account. Grandmaster 07:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Article is still biased, especially in the background section. The numbers provided for Nagorno-Karabakh's ethnic composition in 1923 are based on two sources - one clearly Armenian, the other one from 1921 when Nagorno-Karabakh did not exist and therefore its borders could not have been determined. However when Nakhichevan and its being part of Azerbaijan are mentioned, nothing is said about its predominantly Azeri population. Parishan 07:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nakhichevan was not the reason why this conflict began. Its impossible to satisfy all sides, whether you're Armenian or Azeri. I've had to revert this article and others several times whenever someone has injected Armenian POV. The images are not my problem, nor should they suggest that I hand picked those favorable to a certain POV: no one, asides from Baku87, bothered showing me images of the Azeris fighting in the war which I would more than happily accepted into this article. It does not show it lacks objectivity when only Azeri users are finding hints of systematic bias. It simply means that they do not agree to the current version because it does not correspond to their POV, that's tough luck because it definitely does not correspond to the Armenian, nor any other interested party, POV either. That is why the problems raised by the neutral contributors have found little to no traces of POV, all of which, if found, they or I have quickly sought to fix.
The content is biased and tendentious -Tabib
The content contains historical distortions and verbal manipulations while using sources in order to create an impression that NK used to be part of Armenia and was transferred to Azerbaijan by accident (which is nonsense, like 2+2=5) - Batabat
And so forth. We cannot be listening to Azeri editors if all they complain about is who Karabakh belonged to in 1921 or 1923 or who or what gave it for. Images, yes; troop numbers, yes; command decisions, yes but 97% of this article is about the war and yet seemingly, we are focusing on what words we should use in the background section. I have spent little over a year focusing on what went on with the war rather than drag through on the reasons that brought it which, although important, does not solely merit an oppose vote to block and stonewall an article because someone disagrees on the way it is written. If its not Karabakh's population in 1923, its the death count and perpetrators of the Sumgait massacre, or its the casualty count and actions of Khojaly, or its the circumstances of the capture of Shushi, or its the capture of Kelbajar - certain people are always going to have problems with this article, but that does not mean the article itself is problematic and filled with errors and inaccurate history.--MarshallBagramyan 18:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
MarshallBagramyam, I understand how frustrated you may feel after working very hard and very long on this article. Stay calm, even in the face of criticism, whether perceived as fair or unfair. Remember that even a very few words can be "show-stoppers" to people. While I am not validating removing any specific text at this time, nor offering that we fundamentally rewrite (or whitewash) the background or any elements of the article to please partisan audiences, we need to consider how to resolve and conclude the present FA discussion. Nakhichevan is mentioned a good number of times in the article. Might it be worthwhile to make a brief description of the contrast between how Nakhichevan, as an Azeri exclave, resolved quite differently than NK, as an Armenian exclave? Something very high-level, including general population sizes, influences, and results. Perhaps a small table or sidebar? Bullet point comparison? If we do include something like that, would it be an element editors would support, or oppose? I'm trying to find the resistance points to FA status. Please, bring specific and constructive suggestions forward at this time. Presume and work in good faith, folks. --Petercorless 19:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There were a few skirmishes in Nakhichevan between Azerbaijani forces and the Republic of Armenia's military but much of the war rested on Karabakh Armenians who were fighting to secede from Azerbaijan. Perhaps the attacks there were diversionary in May 1992 due to the victories in Shushi and Lachin but its apparent that Azeri leaders were intent on keeping the region out of the caranges of war and so diffused the crisis within a matter of days (Nakh.'s Azeri pop. was in the high 90s by the breakup of the USSR). It never grew into a second front but I don't mind if someone wants to introduce something about it.--MarshallBagramyan 20:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Much improved since the last nomination. Therefore, I support.--Yannismarou 19:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Great job Marshal. The changes since the last nom are astounding and well done.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 01:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Nagorno-Karabakh_War&oldid=1144710362"