Talk:2016 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about 2016 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Date

Bit early to label the clashes as over, with a ceasefire in place. There are no indications that it has ended, if anything there are some indications that operations are ongoing and will until NK is retaken from Armenian forces 68.194.218.93 (talk) 03:54, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Though Ill add Azer sid the fighting has ceased.Lihaas (talk) 08:21, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

There is written that Azerbaijan violated ceasefire, while Azerbaijan side claims vice-versa. Correct that, so be neutral about it.

Reactions

The response from Germany and Norway are not notable. Some stuff is best kept on news reports. The precedent for allowing such material opens up the floodgates of every country on the planet and thus the article turns to shit. Jolly Ω Janner 08:35, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

It is reliable/notable because they are important players in the conflict zone/mediation. At any rate, it is not for us to cherry pick which stays and goes. RS sources and notable persons are there.Lihaas (talk) 10:55, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Best to keep all reactions at this point, some statements could be geopolitical signals not observed by editor at time of removal. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 11:10, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I was hoping an element of editorial judgement and common sense could be applied. I will never understand your concept that every published response is "notable" instead of just being routine news. Jolly Ω Janner 19:25, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

International reactions: where are the reaction from Russia? (see French and Turkish versions of Wikipedia) --Brateevsky ^{(talk to me)} 14:02, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Support removal. --Dixtosa (talk) 17:07, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Proposal_to_do_away_with_including_world_leader_responses_to_terrorist_incidents

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Proposal_to_do_away_with_including_world_leader_responses_to_terrorist_incidents. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 11:08, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

NPOV, anyone?

Actually, text in the "Clashes" section is NOT well-balanced. While some of the content has been mediated by Russian sources, most sentences reflect the Azerbaijani description of the events: "According to the Azerbaijani side", "According to the Azerbaijani Ministry of Defense", "The Azerbaijani side claimed". Armenians have been cited on just one case, which is finished off by a victorious rebuttal: "Azerbaijani military officials quickly countered Armenia’s claims". Also, in the initial paragraph, the "official" statistics actually means Azerbaijani (Минобороны Азербайджана). Until neutral estimates become available, at least both sides should be cited to enable comparison. For that, there is a relatively good example in the infobox. --85.253.172.109 (talk) 12:40, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

And more: the sentence "On 3 April, the Azerbaijani Ministry of Defense announced a unilateral end to hostilities.[13]" is presented as if it would reflect the content of the source. The actual headline is "Azerbaijan claims cease fire in Nagorny-Karabakh, Armenia says hostilities continue". This is NOT neutral editing. --85.253.172.109 (talk) 12:52, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Armenian version is also there, you're welcome to add more from reliable news sources. At this point, there's no independent evaluation of the situation, so official sources, like Ministries of Defense are good enough. Brandmeister^talk 13:22, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the IP, but I should assure him that some of us are working on it to bring a more balanced point of view to this article.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 16:44, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm also concerned about how POV this article is, both from an Armenian and Azerbaijani point of view. There needs to be some reevaluation of this. Official sources are actually the very sources we should refrain to use, as both sides tend to exaggerate for political reasons. I recommend using Thomas de Waal's analysis as a guiding point: [1][2]. Étienne Dolet (talk) 17:21, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I'd support de Waal inclusion. Brandmeister^talk 19:37, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

@ԱշոտՏՆՂ: Claims like these should be either verified by third parties per WP:SOURCE and WP:REDFLAG or removed in the absence of independent reliable sources. News.am is an involved source here. Otherwise we might fall into the swamp of informational warware. Brandmeister^talk 14:52, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

We will not swamp of informational warware because that claim confirmed by President of the Republic of Armenia. It is not written like that it is a absolute truth, it is what the Armenian side claims. If you want, you can note that Azerbaijani side did not confirmed that--ԱշոտՏՆՂ (talk) 14:58, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I propose waiting until the dust settles and the situation becomes clearer. At this point, the UN confirmed only 3 civilian deaths, which is already stated in the article. Brandmeister^talk 15:10, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but this article is not only based on UN. There are many "according to"-s in it. As a neutral article it most have clams from all sides--ԱշոտՏՆՂ (talk) 15:16, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

If we put all claims of the involved sides, the article would become a mess. We already have various casualty claims in the infobox. But such exceptional claims as executions of civilians should be corroborated independently and not merely by sources "with an apparent conflict of interest" per WP:REDFLAG, as I stated above. Brandmeister^talk 15:22, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Brandmeister. In addition, we have a news report published on a third-party website where an Armenian official clearly states than the entire population of the villages in question had been evacuated: [3]. This makes claims of civilian executions even more sketchy. Parishan (talk) 15:28, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

This is not an ordinary claim. It is a crime and have been confirmed by Serzh Sargsyan, news.am and hetq.am--ԱշոտՏՆՂ (talk) 15:29, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

It's cleary a war crime by the azeris, I saw few videos of Azeris executing Armenians while pushing the genocide on them. They are thieves. And how you can be neutral in a war article edited like now by Azeri and Armenian speaking people? I am for neutral, source based journalism type of editing and semi-protecting of the site. EDIT: There are of course still some staying despite the evacuation, elderly for example... "Only a few residents were in Talish when Azerbaijani soldiers entered."--2A02:8108:1900:170:9404:9AD5:9878:6364 (talk) 15:53, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Azeri soldiers also beheaded a Yazidi and posted the video online. http://ezidipress.com/en/karabakh-conflict-azerbaijani-soldiers-behead-ezidi-soldier-from-armenia/-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 17:44, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Guys, why can't we write the official views of the Republic of Armenia? If there are Azerbaijani reliable sources that reject this claim, please put them in the article to make English Wikipedia more neutral․ Unfortunately I do not know Azerbaijani language and can't do it by myself.--ԱշոտՏՆՂ (talk) 19:15, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

It is a misconception to believe that neutrality is achieved by opposing a partisan source to another partisan source. Neutrality would require to not have an article at all on a subject which is standing solely on partisanship and bigotry. This way we won't be feeding the officials who think they can get away with bad state management by instigating a conflict with their neighbor. I don't have any difficulty imagining both officials discussing privately when it is appropriate to fight with each-other to shot their political opponent by creating a common enemy to rally the population. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 19:16, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

In the section on Talysh village, the article currently states as a fact that Armenian forces retook Talysh. There are no reliable unbiased sources for this statement. So for sake of being objective, it should be stated that Armenian media outlets and/or Armenian officials claim that Armenian forces retook Talysh (and claim to have found mutilated corpses there). 84.138.87.219 (talk) 19:52, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Also, according to Azeri media reports, the Azerbaijan ministry of Defence claims that Azeri forces recently took Madagiz/Sugovushan [4], south of Talysh: [5] [6]. 84.138.87.219 (talk) 21:08, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

This is not a reliable source, but here is a video of Armenian TV in Talish and Madagiz, indicating that the two villages are (back) under Armenian control: [7]. 131.188.48.174 (talk) 13:55, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2016

Samo405 (talk) 14:52, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Armenian allies

Hey guys! May someone add a hint in form of a sentence or in the box about the allies of Armenia like the Greeks and CSTO military alliance? Thx --95.90.252.104 (talk) 02:50, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Request for opinions

It was proposed to merge Armenian–Azerbaijani border conflict -> Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, please discuss at talk:Nagorno-Karabakh conflict#Merge. Thank you.GreyShark (dibra) 19:11, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I would not merge it, at least not yet. It is the greatest violence there since 1994, it marks a new round in the conflict. Those articles are already cluttered, and this one is becoming cluttered too. 37.186.122.81 (talk) 09:52, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Title

The clashes are not along the Armenia-Azerbaijan border, but mainly in Nagorno-Karabakh. So perhaps the correct title is the "2016 Nagorno-Karabakh clashes" or "2016 Karabakhi-Azerbaijani clashes"?

There are reported clashes surrounding Tavush: http://armenpress.am/eng/news/842222/soldier-wounded-in-tavush-province-of-armenia.html-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 11:01, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

neutrality?

it states in the article that armenia is involved as a belligerent, but that is not reported in the news. what is the source for armenian involvement and support for the unrecognized nagorno karabakh republic as a co-belligerent? sources? any?

Is there any independent source for this clash? And no I am not referring to the media which recycles what both parties report. All of this article comes from partisan sources. There is no available casualties figure which we can trust or what went on. What tells me that the entire story wasn't created by both sides en manque d'attention? I propose deleting the article and stop feeding either side of the conflict until both government agree on what happened (including casualties figure) and come up with a usable story with a happy ending, including kisses and a marriage between a daughter and son of officials from each side. You know, the big thing with Pachelbel's Canon concluding with a neutralized Lavash as food with candles on a huge presidential table. :) I don't like the plot of the movie, and as a citizen of the World, I am boycotting the theaters where it is played. Where are mother Alyiev and mother Sahakyan? It's about time mother takes them by the ear and punish them by throwing their toys (aka guns) and some strong red pepper in their mouth like mothers in the region used as punishment. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 18:45, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Having been active on the List of ongoing armed conflicts for several years and monitoring this conflict for several years as part of that page, Armenian and Azeri sources are generally reliable in regards to their own casualties but are not generally all that reliable as to information regarding their opponents losses.XavierGreen (talk) 00:25, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

How do you assess it is reliable, in comparison with what? Let's take president of NK alone, is he not an ex-military who got elected on the basis of national security, isn't this mandate not feeding his position? What would he be doing as the head of state if he admits failure of the very thing which got him in power? As for Alyiev, see this [8] from the Irish Times why we should not trust them either. While the clash preceded the official leak, this should suffice to say why the population won't excuse any more Azerbaijani victims in a country where a family and its acolytes are possessing the entire wealth of the nationstate and the opposition is growing stronger and stronger. We can make an educated guess that the Armenian side will be making accusations to the effect that the government of Azerbaijan is using this clash to distract the attention from the Panama papers. See my comment here [9] and that's what at least I found after this comment, from one partisan newsource (I recall panarmenian) even claiming Alyiev knew it was comming. An accusation similar (but more direct) to the one I found from an opinion article from Forbes [10] which hints the Kremlin could have known already on March 28 about at least the part involving Putin. Should we then think likely that no such information was relayed by the Kremlin to their acolytes from both sides regarding Alyiev family to cause enough abrasion by broadning the Russian influence in the regions and new arm deals being signed. And about Armenia, do we really need a reference to add that Armenia is involved? I renew my proposal to delete this article, as there is no way to have anything there which can be trusted. For all we know all the footages and pictures could have been made in a studio from the presidential basements.:) Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 02:45, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

i have no clue what you're going on about. i was pointing out that for neutrality in a forum such as wikipedia, an encyclopedia, every effort should be made to verify information or at least, not disseminate incorrect information or presumptions. sure, it's likely armenia is helping, but where is confirmation? armenia has stated that they WOULD help if this continued, while the ethnic armenians within nagorno karabakh are obviously belligerents. my argument is that 'armenia' should be removed from the list of belligerents as it hasn't been proven

Muhammad is reported saying that true knowledge is not acquired by extensive learning of reported experiences (which is tainted by the point of view of the authors) but what our untainted heart tells us as a guide. The obvious is the obvious and this transcend sources which are all tainted. Under Sufi order all branches of knowledge can be categorized with the following:

1-The science of the heart, which is acquired cross culturally and which is invariable no matter who you are. They also call it the science of the hereafter. What a child with no cultural identification (Christians call him the son of man) will answer you after you read him the material without any form of selection.

2-Hard science (or worldly), which is directly bound to the person who is practicing it and require the knowledge of an a priori construct which is temporal. And therefor is a point of view which feeds on names (which under Islam is a form of polytheism). Exactly like reptiles feeding from the environment to regulate their own metabolism (reason why several religions present a reptile, particularly the snake, as a symbol for the devil) According to Islam this science survival depends on egoistic and selfish motives.

So if by sources you mean names, the French have this expression called secret de polichinelle, an Open secret. I assume you are a Christian, so lets put it this way, if the child of man could read those [11] [12] [13] what obvious conclusion he will be having if he could speak? This child will just tell you that Russia dragged Armenia in its conflict with Turkey. The father of the child forced to agree(since he is only Joseph his earthly father, and could not question the divine child) will point to December 23 deal [14] which according to Alexander Luzan, the former deputy undersecretary of the Russian land forces was directly linked with the tensions between Turkey and Russia. [15] Now reread what I already posted above and come up with the obvious conclusion.

In ancient time the names had their statues and their words were considered as those of Gods. The city of Palmyre was such a place, countries parliaments placard their walls with those Gods after voting to remove religious symbols, because they want their faces instead (Back to Ataturks Turkey). Do we understand now the intention of those Jihadists in the city of Palmyre (even though they too have shown that they can't comprehend the simplest precepts of Islam). Newsources are all biased, publicly founded sources like CBC filtrate everything and any balanced opinion is removed without them having to justify anything. Maybe the Panama papers will wake up the population. See more about the so-called Saudi King who hides behind a created Salafist movement to straighten his position when he trespassed every possible Islamic law, particularly those regarding estates (alas with Alyiev) documented in those paper or Syrian president entourage, the puppet ex-interim prime minister of Iraq. Well every ego is mortal, right? here is the fatal weakness of those sources, they have to be replenished regularly. And cloning them won't make it because unless scientists can change one physical constant (gravity) the telomeric loss is unresolvable, no matter what lies some laboratory is feeding us because it is bound to the second law of thermodynamics :) this is the hard science the science of the ego, but the solution lies in the first form of knowledge which is cross cultural and not bound to any temporal constant and does not rely on the mortal ego for its own survival.

Ask me any source, with names, but know that those are only temporal and tells little about its truthfulness, the better question to ask, what purpose will that be serving and whom is it feeding? The very reason why I switch the i and y in the name of one of the belligerent is avoid feeding his ego and that's the only way you defeat him. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 16:42, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Background

The main reason for clashes stem from continuing Armenian occupation and 600.000 Azeris displaced because of the Armenian Agression as it stated in the refernces from UN. I see some users just call all refernced information as propaganda and remove it.--Abbatai 07:47, 6 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yahya Talatin (talk • contribs)

I think that the whole background section is off topic. There is no need to rehash or copypaste content that is fully covered in other articles and which is just going to make for needless argument here. All that is needed are links to the main articles. The subject being covered here is a post-NK war ceasefire clash. So all that is really needed is a mention of the ceasefire's circumstances, the frozen conflict lines, and the political rhetoric and ongoing low scale violence along the ceasefire lines that has culminated in this event, the largest outbreak of armed oonflict since the ceasefire. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:33, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

How come off topic? Just read my first post here it clarifies reason for clashes. Plus stop putting Armenian websites to article inserting one sided claims. What's more Madrid Principles cites followings:

- return of the territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh to Azerbaijani control;

- an interim status for Nagorno-Karabakh providing guarantees for security and self-governance;

- a corridor linking Armenia to Nagorno-Karabakh;

- future determination of the final legal status of Nagorno-Karabakh through a legally binding expression of will;

- the right of all internally displaced persons and refugees to return to their former places of residence; and

- international security guarantees that would include a peacekeeping operation.

Not Karabakh has never been part of Azerbaijan something... --Abbatai 11:06, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Status of positions

With Armenian news agencies taking pictures of azeri atrocities and Armenian journalists walking in the positions freely, the more credible claim seems tro be Armenian forces retook them. --Oatitonimly (talk) 20:00, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Unless there is confirmation from a third party, such as confirmation of the earlier casualties by the Red Cross, one cannot talk of any "atrocities" with certainty. Parishan (talk) 20:23, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Footage from Armenian TV seems to indicate that the villages Talysh and Magadiz are under Armenian control. Geotagging the footage, the first ten seconds of this video here [16] appear to really have been shot at the entrance to Talysh, looking to the west: [17]. The overly specific dementi of Azerbaijani media states that the Armenian videos are montaged and that the Azeris control the Talysh *heights*. My guess is that Azerbaijan captured and still controls most of the area north and east of Talysh while the Armenians retook the actual villages Talysh and Magadiz (where it is unclear whether the Azeris ever had control of Magadiz). Lots of propaganda in this conflict. 84.138.87.219 (talk) 00:06, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

You are violating the rules by only nitpicking sources for what fits your personal agenda. You cannot mention the half truth that the Armenian side acknowledges the positions were temporarily lost when their full position is they were regained. Melik-Shahnazarov is an ambassador to Russia, not "officials", and he's not even in Artsakh and cannot make that high of a claim, but even so he is referring to before the positions were retaken and you're taking the words out of context. Azerbaijan Defense Ministry acknowledged that Armenia's official position is the territories were reclaimed that [18] and this was most recently confirmed by Armenia Defense Ministry as well in a neutral source.[19] The territory bar should remain as it is, summarizing both sides completely, or it should be removed until a third party confirmation is made. --Oatitonimly (talk) 13:58, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't know, who you are referring to. I mentioned neither Melik-Shahnazarov nor "officials". 84.138.87.219 (talk) 20:37, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Israel Barouk, a third-party RS?

Israel Barouk, a blogger out of Israel, has been writing biased articles for quite some time now. In this specific article "Azerbaijan under siege: A friend of Israel in need of our support" is explicitly one-sided and is nothing but WP:ADVOCACY. The article contains language such as:

"one that engages in actual and inhumane warfare on the ground while simultaneously terrorizing the media and the public with a different set of weapons."
"While Armenia terrorizes Azerbaijan"
"Armenia is inserting a deceitful narrative in order to obtain Western public sympathy for something very wrong, namely unlawful occupation and brutal ethnic cleansing."
"The Armenian occupation and campaign of terror against Azerbaijan’s Karabakh region..."

This is just from this article alone. The rest of his articles has a similar language and tone. If a user finds it reliable or wants to prove that it is...please take it to the WP:RSN. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:23, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

When the sole reason why a source is considered as third party is because the writer is neither Azerbaijani nor Armenian, it means that its credibility is fed from the name (in this case Jewish, but it could be his title too, etc. ) but not the knowledge he transmits. A real third party source will be agreed as such regardless of the ethnic makeup of the reader. In simple terms, if his identity was not exposed (Jewish), would you have claimed he was Azerbaijani? By the simple fact that you could have leveled any such claims would render this source as obsolete. But if we are going to set such a standard most articles will crumble on their own weight.

Just to give you an example, which I have updated in modern language from ancient Islamic alchemy. Imagine that one day, someone produce an eutectic alloy which was reverse engineered to have all the properties of gold. The only claim to reject it as real would be that gold is a distinct element in the periodical table with a distinct atomic structure. But the atomic structure relies entirely on process since we rely on machines to observe them. But here is the thing, someone who knows the precepts of the machine will know exactly what to do, so that this gold is identified as gold. Mind that this was impossible back when the periodical table was created. With any currently available computer with any basic software, it is theoretically possible to throw in several available cheap resources so that it returns you with different process and compositions. It can always be updated to accommodate variations of the availability and the market.

Now, what would make the claimed real gold more expensive? It's name (real gold)! Chemists will deny (see how Sufi scholars predicted everything) it, because some men a hundred year or so claimed each elements are different structurally. Everything is telling you its real gold and even scientists can't distinguish it! To claim it isn't real you have to claim that few men words are intemporal, but only Allah words are. Models are condemned to change because they are dependent to a dying name.

Sufi alchemists have even gone further by claiming that what makes gold, gold, are its properties which don't rely on process bound to a model. What this means, is that since the real gold is claimed to be real because of a model not directly observable, it is the one which is actually fake.And they provide a proof for that. Which of the two gold is not bound to a name, and therefor renewable resource? The one the chemist will claim as fake. But no matter the changing availability of the resources, since it does not rely on one particular substance (which means its fate is not related on particular physical substance), it is intemporal. This gold not only does not rust, but its availability is eternal, which means that its true value is actually higher and therefor is the real gold.

Now project this here with the source you have provided, if this material which you do not agree with, is solely added because of its name, it should be removed because its standing there for no legit reason than because of the writers ego (name, or call it what you will). If knowledge is gold, the real gold (knowledge) will never rust it is not bound to any changing norms or rules of the names which are all mortal. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 23:42, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Would you PLEASE stop the meaningless rambling posts you are making on this talk page, Yaḥyā. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 01:56, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I already concluded with the meaningless rambling posts with the above. As I was yet unsure, with your answer I am set. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 02:28, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

It is a garbage source that is not suitable for anything. Specifically for its use here, this article is about an ongoing event, but its author has not set foot anywhere near the conflict event that is the subject of this article so it is not a "third party source" (to quote the only bit of content from Yaḥyā's post that seems on topic) for claims about what is going on in that conflict event. But the content it was being used for is now gone - I have deleted it since alleged targeting of buildings is clearly not an "atrocity" even if it was in a suitable source and it was not simply alleged. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:11, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

This is getting hilarious as we see those [20] [21] [22] Armenian websites as Wikipedia source in the same article and our Armenian friends complain about Israel Barouk.--Abbatai 10:58, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

You have not rebutted my core objection that it is not an impartial third-party source for ongoing events because its author has not set foot in the region so has no firsthand knowledge of these ongoing events and must simply be regurgitating at a distance the content of Azeri reports. And you also decline to rebut EtienneDolet's core point that the extreme language the author uses precludes it being taken as a serious and impartial work that is usable as a reference on Wikipedia. There are maybe too many Armenian-language sources being used though when there are alternatives. Armenianow.com has English-language articles and has a reputation of impartiality. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 13:58, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Repetitive diplomatic statements

Spirit Ethanol reverted my attempt to make this article a little less messy twice. What I did was basically reduced the diplomatic statements that are almost completely copy pasted from one another to a sentence listing those countries. Countries (e.g. Turkey, Ukraine) which issued meaningful statements were left intact. --Երևանցի ^talk 20:23, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

@Yerevantsi: How about listing in prose countries that issued statements (along with sources), without quoting statement itself for repetitive/"standard condemnations"? Spirit Ethanol (talk) 20:49, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

It's possible to convert all the reactions into smoother prose without removing anything. For instance, "Multiple supranational bodies, countries and diplomats expressed their concern about the clashes. USA said so and so, European Union said, that...", etc. Brandmeister^talk 11:46, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Background refugees

The Armenian refugees from Azerbaijan is distantly relevant to Azeris from Karabakh expelled by Armenian forces. And it does not overlapwith the pervious sentences in the paragraph. So I suggest mention Azeri refugges only. Otherwise we need to take Azeris from Armenia as well. Thanks. --Abbatai 12:28, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

The so called atrocities

I find this section quite biased as it is an ongoing conflict sides spread propaganda news to have more support in international area. Therefore we either should remove all claims or include both sides allaged crimes and denials. Thanks. --Abbatai 12:33, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

If they were not alleged but proven, the section title would not have the word alleged in it. The real "so-called atrocities" issue is that the section has had content that are not atrocities at all, even if they were not alleged but firmly proven. Shelling buildings is not an "atrocity", shelling an ambulance and injuring nobody is not an "atrocity". If you disagree, I suggest we take it to arbitration. Allegations of decapitating prisoners or mutilating the bodies of civilians, regardless of the exact circumstances being known or not, are unquestionably alleged atrocities so should be included (along with any accompanying denials) if they are appropriately sourced. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 13:52, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I looked at the sources provided for Sloyan, none of them indicates he was alive during decapitation (including video and photos, that show merely a severed head). I think the section should clarify, that it's not known whether Sloyan was alive at that time, especially when Azeri source says he was killed in action. We should distinguish between atrocity and mutilation. If he was decapitated alive, that's an atrocity and if not, it's a mutilation. Brandmeister^talk 16:04, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I have some reluctance to go searching for reports or images of this incident, so I can't say. However, I think that mutilating the bodies of dead enemy combatants would still be considered an atrocity by most. While to some extent, what is held to be an atrocity is a matter of personal pov I don't think there really is much doubt that decapitating a dead soldier and then, it seems, displaying the result would be in the atrocity category. It is certainly against the Laws of War. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:05, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Cutting off civilian ears and mutilating a soldiers body is an atrocity. I think what we can do is have the title changed to "Alleged War Crimes" and have a section say "by Armenia", "by Azerbaijan in order to be neutral. Although I do agree both sides are notorious for spreading propaganda especially in times like this.Nocturnal781 (talk) 19:25, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Some more blatantly obvious than others. This screenshot from a recent Azerabaijani State TV video posted on YouTube shows a sign indicating the name of the village of Talysh, with Azerbaijani soldiers loitering around the area to give the impression that they are in control of the area...even though most sources confirm that the village had only been briefly overrun and was restored to the control of the NKR several days ago. Anyways, I got a great kick out of this :) --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 20:03, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I am against "Alleged War Crimes" as a section title - atrocities are not necessarily war crimes. Plus, do you really expect to see some international tribunal sitting to decide whether some unknown Azeri conscripts actually cut off some ears or not? Because of this, the word alleged will always have to remain if the title is War Crimes, even if the alleged atrocity is confirmed to have happened by impeccable sources. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:52, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

There appears to be more decapitated heads: [23] Étienne Dolet (talk) 22:16, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Maybe keep a screen shot of the page (not just the image), for future record. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:44, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

In the interest of objectivity, I would like to ask: what justifies the inclusion of the section on "Alleged War Crimes"? As far as I know, there are no reliable or independent sources reporting on this, so we do not know anything *at all* about whether the incidents took place or not. The whole thing could as well be an invention of the Armenian side (notice: I do not claim that it actually is an invention, just that we cannot be sure). Will we also add sections to the article for all other claims that one party of the conflict makes without supplying any proof? Also: is the mutilation of 2-3 people so integral to the conflict that we have to include a whole hypothetical section about those completely unproven incidents? Do not mistake me - I condemn such acts, if they actually took place. However, this is an encyclopedia, not a collection of claims of partisan media. 84.138.87.219 (talk) 22:25, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I disagree, there are plenty of sources for the allegations and the media outlets that carry them seem generally reliable. We are using reports by the same outlets for much of the article's content. How about changing the section title to "Allegations of atrocities" for now? The allegations are integral because the incidents they describe (and the clashes themselves) could relate to the collective mentality of Azerbaijan, where race hate against Armenians has been carefully cultivated and encouraged at state level (there are sources for this). There is nothing surprising about these atrocities having happened if they are proven to have happened, they are predictable from a country whose president has, on record, praised the decapitation of a sleeping Armenian soldier in the past. 22:39, 8 April 2016 (UTC)Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk)

As far as I know, the media outlets that carry the allegations all are Armenian news outlets that are under - more or less direct - control of the Armenian government (i.e. state TV, reports of announcements of the Armenian MoD by Armenian media). I highly doubt that these sources are generally reliable regarding the conflict with Azerbaijan, since they represent an involved party in a bitter conflict that is known for its amount of propaganda and fog of war. However, I agree with your second argument that previous reports and the behavior of the Azerbaijani government indicate that "atrocities" committed by Azerbaijan would not be surprising. So you convinced me, though I think it would be reasonable to state that the allegations have not been proven at all and could not be verified independently. 84.138.87.219 (talk) 23:07, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I found this [24] which is third party. But it uses Armenian sources of course. The best we can do is say "According to Armenian sources" to keep it neutral.Nocturnal781 (talk) 23:44, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Armenianow is definitely not under the control of the Armenian government. It has an article on the atrocity allegations [25]. Has rather tabloidy language though: "deadly Grad multiple rocket launchers" - are there any military rockets that are not intended to be deadly? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 03:31, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Again, the article states as a fact that the head of this soldier was returned to Armenia by Azerbaijan via the Red Cross. The only source for this is some Armenian media outlet. Thus the section reads, as if there was reliable proof for the alleged war crimes, which however appears not to be the case. Please use reliable, unbiased sources, or if that is not possible (as no objective journalists are allowed on the ground), at least qualify the statements by adding that "according to Armenian/Azerbaijan media, ...". 84.138.87.219 (talk) 19:30, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

New clashes

Please update the article. [26] --78.1.74.196 (talk) 14:16, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

more: http://www.centralasiatimes.com/index.php/sid/242972497 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.1.74.196 (talk) 14:17, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Azerbaijani losses

the section is called losses Per Azerbaijani sources: (not official death toll). Meydan tv is a reliable Azerbaijani source. A reliable source is free to analyse and use any information including social media. OptimusView (talk) 07:13, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Do you understand Azerbaijani? if you do please take a look at comments section several users are commenting that some information is unreliable, names double count as well some deceased are from January not relating to April clashes, just because its opposition does not make it reliable, citing it along official losses does not make sense since MeydanTV is not MOD! please add that section to claims rather than official. Agulani (talk) 07:48, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

While using a source user comments couldn't be taken into account. See WP:NEWSORG. Lkahd (talk) 08:25, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Well that's interesting because that's what Exactly MeydanTV is doing they are taking into account comments and unverified pictures from internet i'm taking this source down as it has no reliability. Here is article on unreliability of MeydanTV either we list it as claim or we take it off [27], Lets keep this numbers as professional and official as we can in case you want to include this numbers we need to involve 3rd neutral parties and let the community until then they need to be down as they have no stable proof except from social media which you noted cant be taken into account Agulani (talk) 09:35, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree with @OptimusView: and @Lkahd:. So, I would ask you to please stop removing properly sourced information and its sources. A compromis was made in regards that the wording was changed so we are referring to any kind of Azeri or Armenian sources and not just official ones. Per WP policy, that they are citing social media does not matter if the source we are citing is itself a proper media outlet (which it is). In this regard WP:SECONDARY policy applies. OptimusView also explained this. PS I should also warn you, you made 4 reverts of editors (in 24 hours) in this regard, breaking the 3RR policy which can get you blocked. 1st revert of me [28] 2nd and 3rd revert of OptimusView [29] [30] and 4th revert of Lkahd [31]. So I would kindly, and in the best possible faith, ask that you refrain from any other reverts and stick to the discussion page or you will have to be reported. Cheers. EkoGraf (talk) 11:54, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Azerbaijani OFFICIAL losses estimates: Several indications which can hardly be refuted tell us that those numbers are bogus. Just to name two of the most obvious.

The extremely low wounded vs casualties ratio does not make sense.

From what was provided in this article, there was at no time any missing list provided. All casualties and wounded were immediately reported as such. Unless the Azerbaijani government has an innovative way of communication not even available from the countries which sells them all the equipments, this makes little sense.

Credible informations sit on the mass, they do not feed on solely one source which is prone to become obsolete. Like I wrote in my long comment [[32] on what adds virtue to knowledge (gold), is that its fate does not depend on one particular physical medium (name, source, call it what you want).

In this case the only reason why the only source which is included is its name (official), when common sense tell us that those same sources are those to reject. That's the reason I previously wrote that unless both sides agree with what went on, there is no other option than remove the article completely. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 13:52, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Edit request

Could someone add a sentence, the fact that in several instances this conflict has been called as the "Four-day war"?

Thanks, --93.137.185.229 (talk) 19:11, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Continuation?

I say the clashes have returned to pre-Apr 2 levels, this episode of excalation did end with the ceasefire. Any thoughts? User:EkoGraf and others?--93.137.185.229 (talk) 08:55, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

If it continues as it is for a few more days than yes. EkoGraf (talk) 10:33, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

IF all pro-Armenian side posts are included what do you expect? Legit words of Tedovsyan are out but hypothetical claims of Meydan TV are in, Talk about the neutrality obviously when the Moderators keep being biased that the result you get Agulani (talk) 19:57, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

This is something that would need sources, from the news reports, the fighting has not ended. There are still daily artillery duels between armenian and azeri forces.XavierGreen (talk) 01:28, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Abbatai is edit warring

I noticed the Background section mentioned the Azeris who were displaced by the Karabakh conflict originally, and I added the number of Armenians who were displaced as well. User Abbatai swapped (without comment) the numbers so that the Azeris were listed before the Armenians. I reverted and, he reverted, and then twice other people reverted him and he reverted back, never with a legitimate reason why Armenians shouldn't be listed first, the way I have added them. If he wants to include other numbers of Azeri refugees (the only reasoning he's brought up), that is still irrelevant to the order, which is what he has been swapping repeatedly (5 reverts in total so far). Can someone please put these numbers back in the original order and block him from reverting without a real, legitimate reason that has been agreed to here? Below is the edit history. Thank you, --RaffiKojian (talk) 13:51, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I added the Armenian refugees: (→‎Background: balancing a very one-sided section that only mentioned Azeri refugees and only mentioned the principal of territorial integrity, completely leaving out the Armenian perspective.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=2016_Armenian%E2%80%93Azerbaijani_clashes&oldid=713904887

Abbatai swaps the positions without comment:

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=2016_Armenian%E2%80%93Azerbaijani_clashes&oldid=714032118

I put them back to the original order with the comment: (→‎Background: why did it go from not mentioning Armenian refugees at all, to me adding them, then you swapping their mentions? is there any reason you should change the order?)

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=2016_Armenian%E2%80%93Azerbaijani_clashes&oldid=714044690

He immediately reverts with the comment: (Undid revision 714044690 by RaffiKojian (talk) armenian refugees from other parts of Azerbaijan is less relevant comparin refugees from Karabakh that the conflict occoured)

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=2016_Armenian%E2%80%93Azerbaijani_clashes&oldid=714046599

I revert it back: (→‎Background: the Armenian refugees from Karabakh are mentioned in my number, and you just reverted for a reason you invented, so please don't revert again without an *actual* reason AND discussing it on the talk page.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=2016_Armenian%E2%80%93Azerbaijani_clashes&oldid=714100030

Abbatai reverts: (→‎Background: Armenian refugees are not result of Armenian occcupation)

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=2016_Armenian%E2%80%93Azerbaijani_clashes&oldid=714219902

OptimusView reverts: (Undid revision 714219902 by Abbatai (talk) a result of conflict)

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=2016_Armenian%E2%80%93Azerbaijani_clashes&oldid=714222708

Abbatai reverts it again. (Undid revision 714222708 by OptimusView (talk) Armenian refugees from azerbaijanare less relevant to topic as i said before please explain why you change it before reverting in talk page.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=2016_Armenian%E2%80%93Azerbaijani_clashes&oldid=714223499

Baking Soda reverts it back to the original: (Undid revision 714223499 by Abbatai (talk) Please discuss on talk page this is fourth revert...)

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=2016_Armenian%E2%80%93Azerbaijani_clashes&oldid=714223589

Abbatai reverts it again: (→‎Background: see talk)

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=2016_Armenian%E2%80%93Azerbaijani_clashes&oldid=714235671

This is arbitrary, there is no legitimate reason why one or the other should be first.

Why not creating a bot account, with a calendar, which switch versions alternating between both? A known calendar accessible from the site. Those taking Azerbaijani sides will know not to visit at the page the given days and same for those taking Armenian side. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 20:31, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it's arbitrary. That's why there's no reason why it should be changed from the original way the numbers were added. --RaffiKojian (talk) 10:53, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

What is original way? The paragraph according to your edits says As a result of Armenian occupation of Azerbaijan 430.000 Armenians displaced that is nonsense. Please before changing it just read carefully what it says. And I am flattered to see my name here. :) I reverted pages by directing users who vandalize page to talk page for discussion. Thanks --Abbatai 11:29, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Really, I think this is not the proper talk page for this discussion or this article for this content. You do it in the main article, the trunk, not here, a leaf on a twig on a branch. Is there any need for any of the background section except for the wikilinks to the main articles? I suggest, to avoid needless waste of time, to delete the background section except for the Wikilinks and the very barest of a summary (mention of the ceasefire that resulted in the end of the war, and that there have been prior incidents, and that this is the worst clash since the war ended). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:27, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I am okay with removing most of the section and leaving the wikilinks. I am not okay with Abbatai reverting my wording just because he feels like Azeri's should come first. --RaffiKojian (talk) 07:24, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Dear RaffiKojian please stop blunt nationalism and get over you obsession with me. The only reason I change it to make paragraph coherent with all information and to avoiding misunderstanding that Armenians left their homes because of Armenian occupation of Azerbaijan. This is what you wrote: "NKAO region of Azerbaijan and the seven adjacent rayons (some of them partly) fell under the control of Nagorno-Karabakh republic, with help from Armenia proper. As a result, 430,000 Armenians from Azerbaijan and Karabakh had to leave their homes" This is the third time I explained it in the talk page. See sections Background and Background refugees. You changed it without discussing it here many times. And abruptly accused me of edit warring. Do not be ridiculous I do not change it just because I feel like. I really cant believe we are discussing that tiny thing still. Thanks. Abbatai 08:01, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I have added a few words to make it clearer if that is your objection. So I hope our work is done here. --RaffiKojian (talk) 07:03, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

This is not answer to my objection. You better explain yourself here and two other sections why Armenian refugees are so important.Abbatai 07:13, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

You're the one changing the order to give Azeri refugees "importance", so the onus is on you to justify the change. And by justify I mean a real Wikipedia reason, not an invented reason. --RaffiKojian (talk) 12:44, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Another revert [33] and a POV-pushing [34] by the same user. OptimusView (talk) 16:35, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, I'll keep an eye on that text as well. --RaffiKojian (talk) 18:13, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

You guys better discuss it in the sections "background" and "background refugees” here instead of blank accusations. And stating the areas are Azerbaijani territory is POV push? You better open your eyes and read the Wikipedia articles Armenia and Azerbaijan. At least check the Maps. You both vandalize page before responding me in the previous sections. Keep the spirit :) Abbatai 20:03, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

[35] another revert by Abbatai. Raffi and Yahya, I think it's time to report him. OptimusView (talk) 17:46, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Abbatai has vandalized the article=

He just removed the number of Armenian refugees from the article that up to now he's tried to move below the number of Armenian refugees with about 10 reverts.

There is no question that the Armenian refugee population is also a part of the background of this months clashes. You cannot remove that. And everyone here except you is for the original wording, so it's obviously blatant violation for you to ignore the 3 people reverting you and this exchange here and remove the Armenian refugee figure. Why are you even referring people to the talk page as if you've said something illuminating? It's just vandalism. Can he be banned from editing this article? --RaffiKojian (talk) 03:02, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, removing information about Armenian refugees is deeply concerning. I strongly suggest Abbatai resort to the talk page rather than edit-war. Étienne Dolet (talk) 03:31, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

You guys are just making drama here. I already explained it several times Armenian refugees from Azerbaijan is less relevant comparing Azeri refugees from Karabakh where the clashes going on. Azeri refugees are direct result of clashes in Karabakh but Armenian refugees were mainly because of pogroms and Armenian-Azerbaijani War. Of course the refugees from Karabakh are more important (relevant) since the demographic of Karabakh is changed. Instead of personal attacks you discuss the issue here. Thanks.Abbatai 17:10, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

No, we need to add both refugees to achieve balance. What you need to do is somehow prove, through reliable sourcing, that the Armenian refugees are not related to the Karabakh conflict. Yet, as of now, all I have heard from you are personal observations. I know of no source that claims Azerbaijanis are the only ones that had a refugee crisis due to the war. Étienne Dolet (talk) 17:57, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

This is an Armenian source says: 71,000 internally displaced ethnic Armenians live in the Nagorno Karabakh Republic. These refugees, along with hundreds of thousands of Armenians, were expelled from their homes in 1988-91, prior to the full-scale war in Karabakh.[36]

CIA: Refugees and internally displaced persons: IDPs: 622,892 conflict with Armenia over Nagorno-Karabakh[37] Abbatai 18:25, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Getting Too Pro-Armenian, All pro-Azerbaijani sources are removed

I cant notice that the article is getting very Armenian biased correct me if i'm wrong 1) Azerbaijan gained several heights which according to most Russian experts is important even so called "NKR"representative in Moscow said they were important heights and positions, however; once i include it it either gets removed or edited to "Limited gains" 2) The official death toll of Azerbaijan is 31, however, Meydan Tv mentions 87 which i repeatedly said is wrong since they collect any name of picture of person appearing online, some of this guys are spec-ops and they obviously will not post on social media saying they are still alive, MeydanTV even mentions the list is hypothetical and based on their assumption, my any attempt at bringing in some sense and being in "edit war" 3) Tedevosyan is Armenian Major General his words that state Azerbaijan gained its all initial goals is more important than any expert since its opposite side that is actually making the claim why is it being removed when it was there since the day he said the words? I'm having a hard time understanding all this, isn't Wikipedia supposed to be neutral? Agulani (talk) 19:54, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I removed the number 87 for you, because my understanding is that this info box is listing only official numbers and claims, not what TV stations claim, regardless if they're Azeri sources. Perhaps the box should say official? Please add a reference for the number 31 however. On Tuesday the number was 28 admitted deaths on the Azeri side and 29 soldier & 5 civilians on the Armenian side - http://www.armenialiberty.org/content/article/27655825.html

Regarding Tadevosyan, it would be relevant in an analysis section, rather than a section dedicated to summarizing the actual action/events. I see it's there now and really it doesn't fit in that section in my opinion.

I haven't gotten a look into the hill issue you bring up, but the article should certainly mention that some minor heights in the south were taken if I understand the situation correctly. I am not saying minor because they are or aren't important, but because they are not very high as far as heights go, just heights relative to an otherwise very flat area.

--RaffiKojian (talk) 08:29, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Actually no, if you would read the discussion up above, consensus was we are not including only official numbers/claims, but any Armenian or Azeri claims. Meydan TV was deemed as a well-established Azeri source and per WP policy on neutrality and presenting all points of view, their estimate was presented as an upper toll in the Azeri claim category, with the government's claim as the lower toll. EkoGraf (talk) 12:14, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not know this. But at the very least the formatting seems a bit off to add unofficial numbers in the way they've been added. --RaffiKojian (talk) 07:29, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Now [38] its no longer just Meydan TV, but also the Azeri media outlet Azadliq, citing the Khazar military research institute. EkoGraf (talk) 12:24, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

There is no justification for the Tedevosyan "opinion" being in the lead (or, I argue, anywhere in the article if it remains a one off). It is a clear case of undue weight. If there actually was a high level masterplan with set goals, and if those goals were achieved, the only people who will know it are in the Azeri military. If there are a number of acceptable sources purporting to know what was in the mind and the plans of the Azeri military, then that can go in the body of the article. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:39, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I proposed here [39] a way to resolve the issue by creating a bot account which follows a calendar. Neither sides will ever compromise because of the inherent limitations of any formal axiomatic system (simple extension of Gödel's incompleteness theorems), axioms which inclusions or exclusions rely entirely on arbitrary parameters. More so, when the open exposition (to assess credibility) of sources goes against the very principles underlying double blinding in research. In short, this edit war does not necessarily document malice in either side because both side are confronted to unresolvable limitations of the system itself. Answer is found in the conversion of analog signals into digital by alternating in time to form an accurate approximation. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 13:16, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

It is worth remembering that there are no independent media sources in Azerbaijan - they are all state owned or controlled. Press Freedom indexes class Azerbaijan as not free, Armenia to be partly free. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:32, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

You provide more reasons why alternation is the best option. The official casualties figure was already addressed here [40]. But numbers give more than numeral informations which are hardly quantifiable. Even figures such as death toll aren't quantifiable with a single numeral figure. Because what is observed and what is directly experienced are not necessarily the same. What a priori might sound non-sense because of the credibility of sources, can only make sense when added to the rest of the sample. Any set of source selection is therefor arbitrary, because the system is only stable when there is no biases at all. Homeostasis will only be achieved when all the elements are added. If later one name is removed because it base itself on one sole source which is discredited, the overall conclusion won't be much affected because it is divided across different alternating articles. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 21:55, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Dear Yaḥyā ‎ its pointless to argue with them over here, they have already made this article another "genocide" claim putting false media propaganda and everyone is buying the bait Agulani (talk) 05:20, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 12 April 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move. If more evidence comes to light, it can be presented later and a new move request opened. — Amakuru (talk) 10:20, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

2016 Armenian–Azerbaijani clashes → 2016 Nagorno-Karabakh clashes – WP:PRECISE. The clashes occurred largely in Nagorno-Karabakh with only minor spillovers in Armenia proper and Azerbaijan. The only article with "Armenian–Azerbaijani" in its title is the 2014 Armenian–Azerbaijani clashes, which is accurate as significant clashes also occurred outside the NK lice of contact. Երևանցի ^talk 09:26, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

My feeling is that it is too soon to decide. You have not provided much evidence to back the title change. Can you cite sources calling it by the name you propose, and an indication that it is the most common name? What are the titles of Wikipedia articles that deal with previous clashes along the ceasefire line? Having a consistency in titles would be a good. As well as the 2014 clashes article, there is also the 2012 Armenian–Azerbaijani border clashes, so it is not the only article using that wording - though as you pointed out for the 2014 one, the 2012 clashes also extended into Armenia proper. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:13, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Most English sources I have seen have used Armenian-Azerbaijani Skirmishes to described the title.XavierGreen (talk) 17:11, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Hundreds dead is not a skirmish, though. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:32, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

'Oppose per Wikipedia:Common names, online sources. Baking Soda (talk) 17:34, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps wait until more news comes in from the area. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:40, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Armenians mutilated and tortured their own soldiers?

This addition is dubious. I would like to know under what basis or evidence does the Azerbaijani MoD claim that Armenians mutilated and tortured their own soldiers. In other words, how and why did the MoD of Azerbaijan reach this conclusion? Étienne Dolet (talk) 01:46, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

You didn't understand. MoD of Azerbaijan didn't claim that "Armenians mutilated and tortured their own soldiers". According to MoD of Azerbaijan, Armenians mutilated transferred bodies of Azerbaijani soldiers. Armenian side did the same accusation. --Interfase (talk) 01:49, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Interfase My bad. Do you mind removing this section altogether? Étienne Dolet (talk) 02:44, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Or we should mention claims of MOD of Azerbaijan, or remove al section "Alleged atrocities by Azerbaijan" with "beheaded Sloyan", "mutilated oldmen from Talysh etc." as per NPV. As we can see Azerbaijan denied all these accusations and accusated Armenian side on mutilated his servicemen. --Interfase (talk) 03:45, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Azerbaijan off course will deny everything. it believes Armenia beheaded Armenian soldier (as well as they say Sumgait massacre was organized by Armenians themselves)... but the section "Alleged atrocities by Azerbaijan" uses many neutral sources like Ezdipress and The Sunday times, Azerbaijan has no neutral sources claiming any anti-azeri atrocities. If we delete anything just because Azerbaijan denies it, we should delete the Armenian Genocide page as well. OptimusView (talk) 05:16, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Neutral sources don't confirmed Armenian accusations. They are just news which cannot prove anything and just take the source of information from internet basicaly from Armenian sites and social networks. There is no any reliable research on these accusations. So as Armenian side accusated Azerbaijani, Azerbaijani side accusatied Armenian on provoction and mutilation Azeri bodies. And nobody says that Azerbaijani side accusated Armenian in mutilation their own soldiers. Probably these even didn't take place and Armenian side just lies. --Interfase (talk) 05:33, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm for removing it to keep the article s neural as we can Obviously Armenians want to include everything but i can throw the ball at their side and easily play on conspiracy theories saying that Armenians could have easily mutilated the bodies themselves and blame on Azers, Also please refrain from Genocide and Massacre claims this is not the article i have no idea why you guys lust so much of putting the Genocide and Massacre all in same basket any human loss is tragedy instead of making a tv serial out of it just calm down. Alright So are you guys for taking it off? It will keep it neutral until we have 3rd party verified sources Agulani (talk) 05:18, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

The whole section is basically junk. Sources like breitbart.com are NOT reliable. Primary sources cannot be used for controversial info. If this text has any reliability to it then actual reliable sources (rather than the governments accusing each other of stuff) shouldn't be that hard to find.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:10, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Primary sources can be used in Wikipedia (WP:SCHOLARSHIP). And breitbart.com is only one of 30 reliable sources used in the section (including The Sunday Times, Le Monde, Eurasianet, European Ombudsman Institute). OptimusView (talk) 06:21, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

"can be" does not mean "should be". They should not be used for anything controversial. As for the other sources. Eurasianet is not reliable. Le Monde is cherry picked. "Southfront" is not reliable. hetq is not reliable. The Sunday Times is only used to reference that some lawyer actually exists, not any of the substantial claims made in the section. What else is there? Somebody on twitter! Primary sources from the respective governments. Other sources of dubious provenance.

The paragraph cited to the European Ombudsman Institute is actually the one I kept. The rest is junk. The users above seem to share the sentiment.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:43, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Your deletion of the whole section is absolutely baseless. An editor who repeatedly restores his or her preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether their edits were justifiable. Lkahd (talk) 08:33, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

No, it is not "baseless", I explain the reasons above. It's highly POV and based on primary and crap sources. That's not "baseless".

And no, edit warring is when you try to restore text despite there being no consensus for addition. Remember, it's up to those wanting to *include* to get consensus.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:37, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

The content is all sourced and the consensus is include. Volunteer Marek needs to pack up his own crap and stick to edit warring in subject areas he knows he has a carte blanche permit to edit war in. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:18, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, first I'm not going to discuss this with you if you persist in making personal attacks. Second, the content is "sourced" unreliable sources and primary sources. Third, there's obvious objection to inclusion above. So no consensus to include.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:23, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't see how there's a consensus against the inclusion of this paragraph. I see no other user here who has gone so far as to remove an entire section, and whether there was an actual suggestion to do so is entirely unclear. The arguments by Agulani may amount to something of that sort, but there's simply no policy or guideline driven basis to his argument, and it amounts to nothing more than personal observations and WP:JDLI-like remarks. To use his argument in order to remove a 11,000+ character section consisting of 30+ sources and reports while edit-warring over its exclusion with at least 4 users in a 1RR article is clearly not constructive. The section is pretty well sourced and the language is neutral (i.e. "Armenian reports say this..." and "Azeris deny that..."). We simply cannot remove such reports and pretend like they don't exist. That's a grave disservice for the readership. These human rights violations have been raised to high diplomatic channels so all the details we can provide when it comes to what these violations consist of will be helpful for our readers. Étienne Dolet (talk) 09:09, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

there's simply no policy or guideline driven basis to his argument - yes there is, this is a completely false claim. This policy or guideline has already been given. It's called reliable sources. Specifically, breitbart news is not reliable. southfront is not reliable. kavkazcenter is not reliable. this is not reliable.

The rest of the text relies on primary sources which cannot be used for controversial material.

So sorry, Tiptoe and ED, my argument is ENTIRELY based on policy. Please don't dismiss arguments out of hand. Please don't engage in gratuitous personal attacks.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:20, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Just because you say something isn't reliable doesn't mean it should be determined as such. I can't see how Breitbart, Le Monde, Southfront, Kavkazcenter, Regnum, EKurd, EurasiaNet, Sunday Times, and other neutral 3rd party sources should be considered unreliable when they have no particular interest in taking a pro/anti-Armenian or pro/anti-Azeri stance over the conflict. As long as these reports are reflected in the article in a neutral and contextual manner, I don't see why there would be a problem. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:32, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek is misusing this talk page. He deletes, without discussion, a large amount of referenced material [41] - take note of the edit summary. Then, after making his edit, he resurrects this old discussion thread [42]. I think he does this to suggest that this discussion was about the material HE deleted (rather than it being about an unclear Azerbaijani claim) in order to support his deceptive edit summary that claims there exists consensus for his deletion. The consensus derived at here was actually for the removal of the unclear Azerbaijani claim, it was removed, and this discussion had ended. If Volunteer Marek is serious about working on this article, he should stop edit warring and start a completely new discussion section on this talk page to deal with the issues he is raising. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:48, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Tiptoe, how in the world is trying to discuss an important issue (POV, non reliable sources) on talk "misusing the talk page". That's what the talk page is for for christjakes.

EtienneDolet, I'm sorry but if you think breitbart, Kavkaz center are reliable than we have a problem. We had a very similar problem over at Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War where you provided clearly unreliable sources (one of which publishes anti-semitic articles and another was far-right) and claimed they were "scholarly" [43] and then doggedly defended them. Same thing here. These sources are not reliable, look through WP:RSN archives if you must. And I already addressed the few reliable sources that you mention there - Sunday Times, Le Monde - these are not used to cite anything substantial in the article. They're just tacked on to provide legitimacy to an otherwise atrociously cited text.

I really have no POV here. All I'm doing is insisting that we follow Wikipedia's rules on reliable sources. And yes, the burden of proof for inclusion is on the editor(s) who wish to include the material.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:01, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

WP:RSN says nothing about Breitbert and Kavkaz. OptimusView (talk) 06:00, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Whether those journals were anti-Semitic or not doesn't negate the fact that the SOHR is a non-neutral party. Those sources you consider anti-Semitic were quite accurate in relating to its readers that the SOHR is a pro-opposition and anti-Assad mouthpiece, and to use the anti-Semitic card to dismiss that source in its entirety is useless and unrelated to the SOHR itself, especially considering that we aren't using it to report the Palestinian conflict or something where antisemitism would matter. Frankly, I'm glad I edited that article, it's a lot more neutral now. In fact, you backed off from your initial claims that it wasn't a non-neutral mouthpiece (thereby taking up the very position those anti-Semitic journals had presented) and ultimately thanked me for that. You're welcome. As for your claims about these third-party sources, they aren't only there to provide contextual details of the incidents, but to also readily demonstrate that this incident has been taken seriously and reported by notable third-party news outlets throughout the world. That serves to raise the notability of these reports and it furthers the significance of these incidents themselves. And again, none of these third-party sources have an interest in the conflict, nor do any of them deny that these incidents took place. There are notable politicians, NGOs, and other international organizations that have either commented upon these incidents, or entirely condemned them. Therefore, not providing details about what these notable news outlets, politicians, organizations, and parliamentary assembly members are commenting upon and condemning would be a grave disservice towards our readers. Hence the reason why I find it wrong to act like these reports don't exist. Nevertheless, if need be, I am in favor of reducing the size of the section and limiting the sources to more recognizable third-party news outlets. But this would have to be done through a constructive process, and not an outright deletion of 11,000+ characters of sourced material, nor the tag bombing of tags when no one ends up agreeing with you (OR tag? When was that ever discussed?). That's just not productive and causes grave instability to a 1RR article. Étienne Dolet (talk) 04:16, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

as I already have said previously, the Wikipedia's rules on reliable sources doesn't support your deletion of what you call primary sources. sorry, but your deletions look disruptive. OptimusView (talk) 08:07, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes they do. Do a search of WP:RSN for "breitbart" and "kavkaz", just to start with. And there are obviously primary sources being used to source controversial claims in the article. How can you even deny that? Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:27, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

There's no Wikipedia policy that says we shouldn't use primary sources, especially when there are reputable secondary sources such as notable third-party news outlets, NGOs, politicians, and international organizations that have commented upon them. As long as we reflect what the secondary and primary sources convey in an impartial and neutral tone, I don't see a problem here. Might I also add that the article has been doing a pretty good job at that (i.e. "According to Armenian sources...", "According to Azerbaijani sources...", "It was reported...", etc. etc.). Étienne Dolet (talk) 04:13, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

How is Eurasianet not a reliable source? They are neutral and reliable. Ninetoyadome (talk) 03:50, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARY says "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." This isn't the case here. The primary sources are being used to source controversial facts and portray them as true. And in general you shouldn't use primary sources since in most cases that involves original research. The use of primary sources is the exception not the standard. But I think you already know that. Also you can't put POV into an article just because you precede it with "It was reported...".Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:53, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

If you preach water, you should not drink wine, Volunteer Marek. — diff, diff, diff, diff. -- Tobby72 (talk) 16:45, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Wonderfully well put, Tobby72. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:05, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

No they don't portray them as true. Almost every claim in that section starts off with "According to Armenian sources..." or "According to Azerbaijani sources..." followed by, at times, "Azerbaijan denies this..." or "Armenia denies that..." etc. etc. Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:56, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

"can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge". yes, everyone have access to these sources and can check them. and stop calling the facts controversial as no any reliable source (including primary ones) deny them. OptimusView (talk) 06:00, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Armenian side might have kept civilian population in occupied areas forcibly

Hello, I added following sentence yesterday to alleged war crimes section."On April 11 UNHCR reported most of the people displaced along the north-eastern parts of Nagorno-Karabakh forcibly kept in occupied territories.[44]" Though, later I checked UNHCR's own page where the statement is not very clear. UNHCR has received disturbing reports of civilian casualties, destruction of housing and infrastructure, as well as limitations on the freedom of movement of those seeking to escape from the conflict zone.

I assume it is Armenian side leaving civilian population vulnerable to claim Azerbaijan committing war crimes. Anyway still I believe it should be mentioned in war crimes section. Thanks Abbatai 06:26, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

The UNHCR report is neutral, and "Armenian side" is not mentioned there [45]. the Azeri "Trend" just falsified the report as always. so please next time check the report before posting the Azeri side's misinterpretations. I assume it is the Azeri side leaving civilian population vulnerable in the conflict zone (the UNHCR report uses only this term). OptimusView (talk) 06:58, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Not at all. It is very clear Armenian side is doing it so that they can fabricate news such as war crimes by Azerbiajan in Wikipedia articles.Abbatai 07:28, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Have to agree with Abbatai, If armenian news media sources are included of "alleged atrocities" why then this can not be included. I'm for taking the alleged atrocities because it opens cans of worms, i can already see Armenians trying o include "genocide" claims and massacres here which have nothing to do with clashes, so yes again i'm for taking it down to keep it neutral and informative not biased and speculative Agulani (talk) 08:10, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I have to say, I don't really understand what is being said here. Are you guys (Abbatai and Agulani) implying that Armenians were not letting civilians leave the villages that were under attack? And if so, are you implying they were being forced to stay so that if Azeris captured the village, they would be unable to resist for example shooting the civilians and cutting their ears off? Or so that Armenians can pretend their ears were cut off? That's what it seems like you're implying to me. The only other interpretation I can get out of this is that the Armenians are being allowed to leave the village, but must then stay in one of the districts outside of Karabakh like Fizuli or something. That makes even less sense to me. So, what exactly are you saying, and please explain very clearly, with specific examples. Thank you. --RaffiKojian (talk) 18:33, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

These certainly isn't any logic in it. Probably because it is all just noise intended to drown out truthful reports. If it were not just noise, Azerbaijan is really saying "we were only following our natural behavior, we can't be blamed for that, its the victims' fault for allowing us to act out our nature by not getting well away from us". Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:33, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

P.S. I just came across this article from IWPR, which talks a lot about what happened to the Armenian civilians of the towns under attack during the fighting: https://iwpr.net/global-voices/karabakh-frontline-residents-count-cost-war --RaffiKojian (talk) 19:09, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

There are such problems in Azerbaijan (f.e. "the villagers of Gushchu Ayrum are claiming that they are neglected by Azerbaijani authorities, at the same time they are not allowed to leave they village." [46]), so Azerbaijanis believe the same is in Armenia. OptimusView (talk) 19:56, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I do not know why you have difficulty to understand. It is so clear. The source says Armenian side keeps civilian population in the conflict zone as a tactic to spread propaganda that Azerbaijan is targeting civilians. Plus all this atrocities are Armenian allegation so far. ThanksAbbatai 20:29, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

What source? The cited UNHCR source does not support the content. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:23, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

So it seems pretty clear nobody was being forced to stay anywhere on the Armenian side! --RaffiKojian (talk) 02:54, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

The UNHCR says nothing about "Armenian side might have kept civilian population in occupied areas forcibly". The language used in the Azeri source is highly exaggerated and doesn't reflect the very source it cites. In fact, I'm deeply concerned about this source being added over and over again to the article as it is borderline disruptive and fringe. Étienne Dolet (talk) 03:36, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Well I just put UNHCR statement and Azeri claims. It is vital as the whole section is full of Armenian allegations to see Azerbaijani side's views. Thanks.Abbatai 17:13, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

That is editorializing, taking selective content from two sources and using them together to produce content that neither source actually supports. And one of the two sources seems to be already misusing the second source (the UNHCR one). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:29, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Arkady Ter-Tadevosyan,

Why Armenian users keep deleting this information? I know the truth hurts but we are here to discuss this as adults! its very rare an opposition general of such rank and prominence acknowledges the results of clashes!Some users claim that the translation is wrong but if you understand Russian you will be sure that what he exactly said! The interesting thing is this article has dubious claims of alleged atrocities but omits such an important piece of information and none of the editors are doing anything to keep it here which again pushes me to believe the bias towards the armenian case which totally contradicts to the base principles of Wikipedia.Agulani (talk) 05:29, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Its a matter of POV. Wikipedia is obligated to present the POV of all sides, but, since it is the POV of one of the beligerents in the conflict its place is in the main body of the article (where I moved it now) and not in the lead. Otherwise, if it was in the lead it would not be per the WP: UNDUEWEIGHT policy. One editor who removed the sentence from the lead pointed this out I think, and he was right. EkoGraf (talk) 06:25, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Fine by me, Thanks for the edit! Agulani (talk) 07:07, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

It was definitely undue weight to have it alone in the lede, which is why I removed it. But it is arguably also undue weight to have it where it is now, as it is still the only opinion there. We have the opinion of an individual entirely unconnected to the Azerbaijan military claiming that the purpose of the clash was for Azerbaijan to do a "reconnaissance-in-force and stress test" its armed forces. There are other reasons circulating as explanations for the clashes having happened. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:57, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm fine with removing it from the main body of the article as well if an appropriate sourced counter opinion isn't presented, because yes, even in the main body of the article as a standalone POV it is still undue weight. EkoGraf (talk) 23:04, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I've moved it to the Aftermath section, where it is better suited I think, and where any other after-the-event opinions about why the clashes started would probably be. Though the undue weight issues still remain. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:24, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that Lalatapa be merged into 2016 Armenian–Azerbaijani clashes. Here is the discussion. Lkahd (talk) 10:39, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Four–Day War

I propose to rename the title of the article in the "Four–Day War". Al.xonder (talk) 19:02, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Disagree. Most sources say clashes. I'm fine with using it as an alternative name though. Étienne Dolet (talk) 03:37, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Most sources say clashes? Option "Four–Day War" is becoming increasingly popular. Therefore I propose to rename the title of the article in the ""Four–Day War". Al.xonder (talk) 09:11, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, given that the fighting never stopped, i wonder how long sources will continue to use that title. Most english language sources i have seen simply call it Aremenian-Azerbajian Skirmishes.XavierGreen (talk) 14:01, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

i tried to search for it under "4 day war" and couldn't find it. i had to keep searching. that is the term being used extensively to describe it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.49.6.225 (talk) 07:22, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 April 2016

This edit request to 2016 Armenian–Azerbaijani clashes has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

There are misuses of the sources in part where it talks about refugees. 1.Number in source says "400 000", while they have written it as "430 000". 2 Also, the source doesn't mention the area where they left, and the Karabakh territories are under control of armenian forces now, so they can't possibly be from Karabakh. But someone mentions Karabakh without source or any logical background. I advise all editors to be neutral, since wikipedia is not a personal blog or a propaganda site. I wish you consider these. Thanks Azerbaichan (talk) 18:30, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:38, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Note also that the emerging consensus seems to be to omit such details (whatever the true figure) from the Background section, that the wikilinks to the main articles are sufficient and the background section needs to only contain post-ceasefire content. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:56, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Removing sources, accusing others of removing sources

Re this revert. The source given, [47], clearly states:

"For starters, as a result of the Armenian occupation, around 1 million Azerbaijanis have been forced to flee their homes"

It does NOT state, as EtienneDolet's change claims "As a result of the fighting and related ethnic tensions, over 1,000,000 people have been displaced"

Now. Maybe a different source says something else. Fine, include it. But please DON'T remove this source and then accuse others of "removing sources". And oh yeah, the link to your source is broken.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:59, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

All of this sort of content is off topic for this article. So I have deleted it. The Background section is meant to detail the immediate background to this event, the clashes themselves. So it should detail the circumstances of the end of the war, the front line positions, the post-conflict peace process (or lack of), the continuing lack of a diplomatic settlement, ceasefire monitoring, aggressive rhetoric by Azerbaijan, something of the previous clashes, military spending and procurement of advanced weaponry by both sides, etc, etc. It is not there to cherrypick content from articles that already deal with the origin of and events during the NK War. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:31, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I partially agree with you. The paragraph can be reduced to a few sentences. However you miss lots of points. “Aggressive rhetoric by Azerbaijan, something of the previous clashes, military spending and procurement of advanced weaponry by both sides" they all stem from de facto independence of NKR and occupation of Azerbaijan. The entire world except Armenia and NKR call Armenian persistence in Azerbaijan as occupation and UN called withdrawal of Armenian forces from Azerbaijan several times. Technically all is happening within Azerbaijani territories. And 600,000 to 1 million Azerbaijani refugees are core point as it changed demographic of NKR drastically. Indeed this clashes stem from ethnic conflicts between Armenians and Azerbaijanis. So ignoring that facts makes hard to understand why all this happened. Thanks Abbatai 18:31, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

If you are going to, essentially, cherry pick the content you want from the main articles and insert population and refugee data here, in order to maintain a npov and indicate context there needs to be a mention of the massacres and displacements of the Armenian population of Shusha and surrounding villages in NK during the Armenian–Azerbaijani War, as well as the attempts by Azerbaijan to "Azerify" the population of Nagorno Karabakh during the Soviet period by settling ethnic Azeri citizens into the region. All this is detailed in the Nagorno-Karabakh War article. And similarly, if you are wanting to have content related to the status of the NK republic here, there needs to be mention of the circumstances in which the territory found itself within Azerbaijan, again to ensure npov and explain the context. All this content is fully detailed in the Nagorno-Karabakh War article, and the article is wikilinked in this article. So there is no need for any of it to be here. My proposal to restrict the "background" content of this article just to events that postdate the ceasefire is logical for content reasons, and will also save us all endless arguments over what prehistory content to add. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:12, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

BTW, my possible content suggestions were just that, suggestions. And open for discussion. I did not add any of them as actual content. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:11, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Abbatai once more removed any mention of Armenian refugees being expelled from Azerbaijan during the war and has re-inserted the highly exaggerated "1,000,000" figure for Azerbaijani refugees. The figure is placed much lower by other, more reliable sources, closer to 500-600,000. This is tendentious editing and disruption at its worst.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 19:13, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

MarshallBagramyan removed information about the footage again. Stop removing the information and keeping only one-sided report. Azerbaichan (talk) 19:47, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't think having the link does the article harm - the reality of who controls what territory will eventually become clear so maybe there is not really much point in arguing now about which claims to use. There are no shots of an actual village in the TV footage though - if Azerbaijani forces still had control of the village, surely they would have filmed it. (I find it a bit amusing though that someone probably pre-produced that road sign before the clashes - is there a warehouse full of such signs for all of Nagorno-Karabakh somewhere in Azerbaijan, I wonder!). Also, thank you for your support for my aim to restrict the background section to just post-ceasefire material. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:26, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, the video doesn't contradict the Armenian video. They are talking about height of Talysh village, Not the village itself as I wrote in wikipage.Azeri Mod never claimed taking control of the village,but heights near it. Such claims about taking the village were made by people on social-media. So I don't see any problem with video and what I wrote in page. Thanks Azerbaichan (talk) 20:53, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I added more videos for the height. This heights doesn't have anything to do with village where people live(d). It just belongs to area of village. Azerbaichan (talk) 09:12, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Why remove obviously true and important words?

User:Baking Soda have removed and then reverted my undo about the "separatist" word before Nagorno Karabakh and its source. Nagorno Karabakh and its army fits in the generally accepted "Separatist" category :

"A common definition of Separatism is that it is the advocacy of a state of cultural, ethnic, tribal, religious, racial, governmental or gender separation from the larger group."

List_of_active_separatist_movements_in_Asia#Azerbaijan

I will provide more cites where it is referred as "separatist" army. Azerbaichan (talk) 17:24, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

The word of separatist is a redundant POV-pushing in this case. the sources call the region separatist, not the army. And also see WP:WTA: "There are no forbidden words or expressions on Wikipedia, but certain expressions should be used with caution, because they may introduce bias. Strive to eliminate expressions that are flattering, disparaging, vague, clichéd, or endorsing of a particular viewpoint". Thanks. Lkahd (talk) 05:54, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

>the sources call the region separatist, not the army.

Did you even read sources? they say "...not specifying if the soldiers belonged to Yerevan-backed separatist forces in Karabakh or Armenia's armed forces. " How is region separatist and not its army? It clearly fits into separatist definition. It is not POV-pushing, but clearing word. Removing it is POV-pushing. Azerbaichan (talk) 10:50, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

no need to push that word here. such a pov-description is needless in a case the page is dedicated to the clashes, not to the army. If Aliev is corrupt and we have a lot of sources on that, we don't write everywhere "corrupt Aliev" in different pages. OptimusView (talk) 18:27, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Agree with Lkahd, OptimusView. No need to describe army as 'separatist' in lead. 'Separatist' not even used on Nagorno-Karabakh Republic page (WP:WTA). Baking Soda (talk) 18:49, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

You don't write "separatist" before every Naghorno Karabakh army of course. But the word is making the situation clear that this army and region isn't recognized as legit government by any country. And is made out of separatist forces. Secondly, your comparison isn't right, Aliyev is surely corrupt, but it is not related to what he does as president. Writing "corrupt" before his name would be redundant. But writing separatist before Karabakh army is related to the conflict directly. It explains many things to reader related to this conflict. Or reader might understand the army as different force, for example as part of aggressor Armenian army. But it states it is made out of karabakh Armenians and its "native population". I am not the one pushing this word, by the way. It was here, and it had sources calling it separatist.Azerbaichan (talk) 19:07, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

please try to use less agressive wording next time. see WP:CIVIL and WP:Battleground. OptimusView (talk) 19:56, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Please, elaborate and tell me where i was being aggressive. No personal attacks, just make your point clear.. Azerbaichan (talk) 20:03, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

And please make an effort to capitalize "Armenian" and "Armenians". I don't know where this trend began, but it is at the height of disrespect when something so subtle and yet offensive is used to delegitimize another people. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 04:15, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Interesting but you will mention supposed "Armenian Genocide" anywhere you can! from Kim Kardashians home video to Kesab, N/K is separatist force at its best, just by looking at the definition but heck this place is too pro-armenian to get anything neutral across. Agulani (talk) 08:55, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry about the capitalization error , but i didn't capitalize word "Azeri" before on this Talk page too(Because we don't capitalize nation names in my language, i thought it is not a problem in English). It was not intention to offend anyone. I asked where exactly i was being "aggressive" ,to genuinely see if i really was. But i find you accusation and labeling this as a "trend" more aggressive than mere capitalization error. And to remind you of something :

"Claiming to be offended is not a value-adding opinion in a discussion"

Also i will correct this grammar mistake, thanks. Azerbaichan (talk) 11:14, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I added referenced information back. And it is definitely not a POV push as NKR is a 100% separatist state.Abbatai 14:22, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

It is a POV. NKR is rather 100% independent state. Lkahd (talk) 14:39, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Being independent has nothing to do with separatism. You need to provide reliable source if you think it is not separatist otherwise you push your POV. NKR is considered part of Azerbiajan internationally, indeed if it was not a separatist country there would be no clash.Abbatai 15:16, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Map of Azerbaijani Gains

Guys there is a map regarding the heights that Azerbaijan forces have gained, 2 days ago Armenian Media showed the video of new heigths around Talysh and Turkish Media filmed the gained territories around Laletepe, Also the term Limited territories should be changed to exact heights since both sides have shown them i recommend to change to "Azerbaijan gained heights around Talish and Laletepe" Agulani (talk) 09:21, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

No heights around Talysh are gained by Azeri forces. it is even not a fact that Lalatepe is gained (the only neutral source says "was under Azer control)". so let's stop doing original research. and please do not change the figures of losses unless reliable sources for them are provided. OptimusView (talk) 09:33, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

>No heights around Talysh are gained by Azeri forces.

There are videos from both sides. Azerbaichan (talk) 10:52, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

With All respect Optimius Prime, you seem to be very out of date with your information, Azatunyan clearly showed the gains of Heights around Talish you can check their video and Azerbaijni side has clearly filmed both heights and its surroundings so i don't know why you claim its "unverified" Also MeydanTV wrote about, interesting enough when its comes to bogus Azerbaijni casualties MeydanTV is reliable once its actual gains it becomes "unreliable"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fe1eZKeGM0Q - Azerbaijani side showing CLEARLY gained heights its obvious if you look at GoogleMap Earth,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQ4nilRApRc - Azatunyan showing the Armenian side and Azerbaijani flags,

https://vk.com/military_az?w=wall-2466663_431347 - Here GPS Locations, actual footages, pictures

any Questions? Also regarding Numbers i took them directly from NEWs.am or you consider your own media unreliable too?Agulani (talk) 11:46, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I have bad news. AZERBAIJANI ARMED FORCES Qarabag channel is not a reliable source. Azatutyun has an official channel on Youtube. and vk.com is just a Russian social network. again it is not a reliable source. so all you have are Azeri propagandist videos. OptimusView (talk) 18:18, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

And here is a RIA Novosti article proving that "In the vicinity of Talish settlement of Martakert region, on April 2 and 4 Azerbaijani forces managed to break the defense twice and briefly take Talish (but then they were pushed back behind the line of contact)" [48]. OptimusView (talk) 18:43, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

It seems like you are having hard time to understand difference between settlement and heights near it. Azerbaijani MOD never claimed that it has taken village but only the heights near it. Also the video was just copied from Azatyun YouTube channel to this channel. But here is the original channel's video as well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFPe8ByXka4

Also other video's source. its Lider TV youtube channel's video :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M18GOKuIoFo

Azerbaichan (talk) 19:25, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

if you read the quotation above, you will see that it is not only about the settlement of Talysh, but the vicinity too, and the reliable source says "but then they were pushed back behind the line of contact". that means that no heights, no rivers, no valleys are under Azeri control now, the Azeri forces are behind the line of contact, behind the pre-2016 border. that's all. no need for an original research of youtube videos. Have a nice day! OptimusView (talk) 19:46, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

So there is a russian cite saying there were no territorial gains, but all videos shows there are. You can check pre-2016 border as well on maps, and you will see it is far away from the height showed in video. I am not doing any "original" research. there are videos, sources, but somehow these clear sources are unreliable , but only pro-armenian cites are reliable. Facts are not azeri propaganda, they just are facts. If all azeri sources are unreliable for you, i should delete all armenian sources on wiki pages too. Please, be neutral as wiki demands us to be . Azerbaichan (talk) 19:58, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

So if there were territorial gains then why Armenian side is digging? why are there videos showing new Heights? Just because pro-Armenian website says there were no we should believe it? Turkish NTC just showed all the heights if you are using Russian source i can use Turkish as well.Also your rep in Moscow said that there were territorial gains. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agulani (talk • contribs) 08:51, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

We have reached the consensus here. You can change it to specific area names. Azerbaichan (talk) 18:12, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rdymv4Yd9bg This from Al Jazzera puts end to our discussion LeleTepe is taken as well as surroudings near Talysh which do provide strategic heights, i will wait until anyone from moderators has an objection with a source proving i'm wrong. Agulani (talk) 07:34, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Here is also this French cite confirming the gains.

http://www.lopinion.fr/blog/secret-defense/haut-karabagh-comment-l-azerbaidjan-a-change-donne-101092 Azerbaichan (talk) 08:36, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Everyone seems to have forgotten one thing. Per Wikipedia policy Youtube videos are not always acceptable as verifiable sources and thus are not always accepted as reliable sources. If you got pro-Armenian or neutral media outlets (preferably not videos) that confirm the Azeri gains that's fine. But, unverifiable videos or pro-Azeri sources on claimed Azeri gains wouldn't be verifiable or reliable. EkoGraf (talk) 20:57, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Well there is Al Jazeera video as well CNNTurk and NTV have already showed the two trench lines Azerbaijanis side have gained calling it strategic heights due to their position and visibility, regarding the Armenian side the Armenian bureau of Freedom called Azatunyan showed the digging of new trenches near vicinity of Talysh and Azerbaijani gains around the Talysh however, its unclear how many heights or trenches have Azerbaijani side gained. President Sargysyan has acknowledged loss of some territory on interview to Bloomberg calling them "pointless" but at the same time claiming they could be retaken but he feared the human casualties which begs question if they are pointless 1) why Armenian president wants to take them back 2) Why do they cost human lives if they are "pointless" positions Agulani (talk) 07:21, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

About losses and name of article

Should death happened after cease-fire be included in losses? The name is 2016 Armenian–Azerbaijani clashes and situation says "ongoing". So which dates should losses include? Only April 1-5? Or whole April? Or whole year? If it is only 4 days, then name of article can be misleading as there are (can be in future) more clashes. And what article shall include these numbers and information? I think we might either change name of article to specify exact dates or include other information regarding after 5 April. Azerbaichan (talk) 20:58, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

The ceasefire never actually took full effect, there has been continuous fighting since April 1st.XavierGreen (talk) 12:55, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Then, should we add casualties after it ? Azerbaichan (talk) 13:33, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

This article is about the so-called 4-day war (1-5 April). Events/clashes/casualties after 5 April are added in the article on the overall border conflict. EkoGraf (talk) 20:59, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2016 Armenian–Azerbaijani clashes. 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}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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} 00:13, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2016 Armenian–Azerbaijani clashes. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20160418074256/http://www.1news.az/politics/20160405124133220.html to http://www.1news.az/politics/20160405124133220.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}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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} 01:47, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Page protection

Due to edit warring by Lkahd (talk · contribs), 117.207.145.178 (talk · contribs), EkoGraf (talk · contribs) and Baking Soda (talk · contribs) I have fully protected the page for a couple of days. Please discuss your proposed changes here, not in the edit summaries. Note - since both sides of the argument have explained reasons for their changes, this is a content dispute, not a matter of vandalism. Once the page protection expires, please take heed of WP:3RR. If you can't come to a consensus here (bear in mind that a consensus is not a simple majority) do consider other forms dispute resolution. Do NOT resume edit warring. Thanks. Waggers TALK 09:50, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

What do you think if we use the term of unmanned drone (or drone instead of suicide drone) like here [49] ? Lkahd (talk) 09:55, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

The PANArmenian does indeed say a Azeri unmanned drone was among the losses, but it does not talk anything about a suicide drone. I'm in favour of changing the wording to unmanned drone or just drone. 117.241.116.238 (talk) 11:28, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Suicide drone as a loss

I see you people locked down the article to enforce your views. Anyway, here's the reason why I was deleting the suicide drone from casualty section. First of all this source http://panarmenian.net/m/eng/news/210323 doesn't talk about any suicide drone. The second one http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2016/04/09/suicide-drone-reportedly-used-during-skirmishes-between-azerbaijan-and-armenia.html clearly specifies the drone was meant for carrying out a kamikaze-style attack. Fox News reports it was a HAROP. A HAROP is designed for such attacks where it destroys targets by ramming into them. In addition, it is a claim by Pro-Azeri group. But anyway, a suicide drone is no different than a rocket or German WWII V-1 flying bomb, Now do you understand? It is not a loss. The drone was successful in destroying an Armenian bus carrying soldiers.

You people have been misinterpreting and falsely claiming it to be sourced even though it is not and is not in any of the sources given. Now will you please correct your own mistake. And remember one more thing, WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. Follow the rules and stop trying to enforce your POV. Stick to what the sources and do not misrepresent their info. 117.207.145.178 (talk) 09:56, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

there is a difference between the suicide drone that hits the target and the suicide drone downed by the Armenian side. A downed drone is a loss. see [50]. OptimusView (talk) 10:06, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I haven't read your source yet OptimusView but it isn't used in the article. None of the sources in article say it was "downed". In actual Fox News says it was successful in hitting the target, a bus carrying Armenian soldiers. The other source PANArmenian isn't even talking about any suicide drone, please remove that source from along the suicide drone. Hence the suicide drone as a loss is completely unsourced as of now. And it was right to remove it, unsourced material can be challenged and removed at any time. 117.207.145.178 (talk) 10:27, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I've read the article in your source. It's actually citing a statement by Nagarno-Krabakh's ministry confirming that the suicide drone HAROP did indeed hit its target, the bus carrying Armenian volunteers. Hence, it is not a loss. Regardless of that a suicide drone cannot be treated as a loss whether it hit its target was downed just like a missile. The sources anyway confirm it did hit its target. Therefore the suicide drone should be removed immediately from the "Casualties and losses". 117.199.81.75 (talk) 13:43, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

read: "Kamikaze (suicide) drones - the deadly new weapons - for the first time in the history of the conflict applied by Azerbaijan against Nagorno Karabakh. Armenians claim the destruction of six drones, one allegedly hit by a peasant with a gun." It is a loss. [51]. OptimusView (talk) 14:34, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

A loss per sources, OptimusView. Baking Soda (talk) 15:08, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Try reading the whole news article OptimusView and Baking Soda. Those six drones aren't mentioned as suicide drones. The heading could be separately mentioning the use of suicide drones for first time. The article mentions names of other non-suicide oriented drones as well. Here's from further down the article that specifies what the six drones are:

"As of April 7, Armenian media reported six killed Azerbaijani drones. On the eve of the Armenian blogosphere has become a real hero of the shepherd, the story is told journalist Khachatur Melkumyan from Stepanakert. He told that the shepherd, whose name was not reported, drew attention to the machine, to fly over the Martakert.

He thought that the Armenian drone in wartime flying over the city can not, and fired from a hunting rifle, knocking the unit."

And by the way it's loss of 6 ordinary drones, not 1 suicide drone. Unless they're specified as a suicidal drone they can't be entered as such. The article seems very unclear. Not only that the loss of 6 drones has to be under the Armenian claim, not Azeri claim since no such claim has been made by the Azeri side. And in addition all the sources confirm that the suicide drone hit its target. A loss of suicide drone is completely unsourced and should be removed. 117.199.84.63 (talk) 17:40, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

A loss per sources, OptimusView and Baking Soda. EkoGraf (talk) 01:37, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

It isn't a loss per sources OptimusView, Baking Soda and EkoGraf. The source isn't talking about the loss of a suicide drone, but about 6 ordinary drones. The NKR has confirmed that the suicide drone hit its target. Try reading the sources and the comment. Also note Consenus is a way to take in legitimate concerns of all editors and solve them, not enforcing what you want to through sheer numbers. Wikipedia is not a democracy or anarachy. 59.89.40.119 (talk) 10:38, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Also here's an expanded version including the previous article which mentions non-suicide oriented ordinary military drones. Translation might be a bit off:

Israeli interest in unmanned systems Azerbaijan became in 2011, and the cooperation between the two countries in the military sphere began in 2004, when the delivery started in Baku produced in Turkey Israeli weapons. In 2011, Azerbaijan was planning to buy from Israel 60 drones Aerostar and Orbiter.

As of April 7, Armenian media reported six killed Azerbaijani drones. On the eve of the Armenian blogosphere has become a real hero of the shepherd, the story is told journalist Khachatur Melkumyan from Stepanakert. He told that the shepherd, whose name was not reported, drew attention to the machine, to fly over the Martakert. He thought that the Armenian drone in wartime flying over the city can not, and fired from a hunting rifle, knocking the unit.

A suicide drone is as much a loss as a bullet shot at an enemy. It makes absolutely no sense to list it under "Azerbaijani losses per Azerbaijani sources" when the only existing claim that it was downed comes from Armenian sources. Azerbaijani sources claim it did hit a target, which makes it not a loss. Parishan (talk) 10:19, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

What Parishan said, also see my comment below. Grandmaster 16:26, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

3 Armenian Senior Generals Sacked

3 Armenian senior Generals have been sacked despite Armenia not officially partaking in the clashes, adding to that this move again sheds light on seriousness of both territorial and human toll on Armenian side. Source I again stress on the point that we should include the territorial gains of Azerbaijan Armenian president on his interview to Bloomberg makes several interesting remarks :1) He calls the gains as pointless heights and then goes on saying that they wished to take them back which mains they do have some sort of importance 2) he mentions taking them back would cost great human loss which again proves my point that if they are pointless how come can they cost great human loss? Agulani (talk) 13:12, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

"Armenian army command (both in Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh) has been criticized by political and public circles over the high death-toll" (in your source) you interpret as "both territorial and human toll". no WP:SOAPBOX. OptimusView (talk) 13:54, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

are you that naive? You expect government of Armenia to acknowledge the fact of loss of strategic heights, weren't they ones who said they gained new ones in April 3rd and 4th. The fact is recent developments are only proof that Armenia has actually lost some important positions. The high death toll is fact but sacking chief of the Communications and Automated Management Systems Department speaks more than just high death toll, i'm not stating we should say something about Azerbaijans absolute victory but indicating the loss of strategic heights is becoming more obvious Agulani (talk) 17:43, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

We follow the sources just like OptimusView says and don't base our edits on our own conclusions (OR). Any edits must be explicetly confirmed by sources. EkoGraf (talk) 01:40, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

That's funny coming from you EkoGraf since in the other case about the suicide drone you're basing your edits on your own conclusion despite none of the sources ever saying there was a loss of suicide drone. I've already clarified your misunderstanding but you still stubbornly persist over thinking that your thinking is the correct one. 117.214.244.142 (talk) 04:24, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not basing any edits on my own conclusion, instead on the two cited sources. One source cites the Azeris admitting to the loss of a drone, while the second source describes it as a suicide drone. And I would appreciate if you would stick to WP: Civil and WP: Goodfaith. Thank you. EkoGraf (talk) 23:27, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

You are basing your edits on your own conclusion User:EkoGraf. No source cites the Azeris saying it was a loss. Infant all of the sources cite the Azeris saying it was a success. Your comment shows that you aren't even properly reading the sources. And I would instead appreciate that instead of trying to silence others from your criticism, you acknowledge it and don't make any edits based on your WP:POV about what the sources are saying and try to read them properly. 59.96.134.86 (talk) 11:11, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Nobody seems to be trying to silence you considering everyone is discussing it with you even though you are behaving hostile to everyone and not per WP: Civil and WP: Goodfaith. I read your message on my talk page. First source quote [52] The Azerbaijani side has admitted the loss of...1 unmanned drone, second source quote [53] Suicide drone reportedly used. Also, while a discussion is being made at the talk page, WP policy is not to make changes to the article until the discussion is resolved, so again I would appreciate if you did not make changes until the discussion has ended per WP policy. Thank you. EkoGraf (talk) 21:37, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Made attempt at compromise, per the first source clearly citing Azeris describing it as a LOSS, listed just 1 drone, without the suicide. EkoGraf (talk) 21:48, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree with your latest edit as it is sourced. The earlier edit about there being a loss of a suicide drone wasn't sourced. I've been saying it since the beginning that none of the sources mention any loss of a suicide drone. With your edit the dispute has been properly resolved and unsourced content has been removed. Thank you. 59.90.72.248 (talk) 23:39, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Armenian sources being used to cite Azeri claims

I've recently noticed that an Armenian source PANArmenian is being used for Azeri claim of loss of a drone. We shouldn't be using any of the sources belonging to one of the warring nations to cite claims of losses of another warring nation as it is highly possible the sources might be biased against the other party. This should be avoided and only international independent sources should be used for any claims by a warring party. Please be careful about the sources. 117.214.154.228 (talk) 03:23, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Read above discussion about the agreed compromise on the drone. EkoGraf (talk) 04:08, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Have you even read carefully what I said? I'm talking about not using Armenian sources for Azerbaijani claims of losses. 117.214.246.37 (talk) 14:47, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree that PANArmenian cannot be used as a source on Azerbaijan admitting something. For that you need to refer to the official statements of the ministry of defense of Azerbaijan. Also, a suicide drone cannot be lost, if it hit a target. It is the purpose of this weapon, as it is pretty much a missile controlled by an operator. You don't count missiles used as "lost". If you have an official Azerbaijani source admitting the loss of a drone, then we can use it in the article, if not, the claim must be removed. Grandmaster 16:23, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Strategic Heights

Now article in Jamestown also mentions it as strategic heights inline with most Russian experts, I believe the wordings of "limited" have to be changed to "strategic". It's not a compromise but a stated fact can we agree regarding the importance of heights? I hope we are done discussing the fact that they have been taken or not the videos produced by both sides have confirmed loss on Armenian side. the link for the article Link Agulani (talk) 09:35, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Where you see the "strategic heights" wording there? no such thing. OptimusView (talk) 09:56, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I also see no such wording in the cited source. The term "strategic heights" is highly pov and highly time specific. Strategic for what and for who? Presumably for defense, if the position was formerly held by Armenian forces. But it is still a strategic height if there is now new Armenian-held "strategic heights" higher up a neighboring hillside to replace the lost positions? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:36, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

According to Arkady Ter-Tadevosyan the heights that were left by Armenian side on the north were "strategic very important heights"[54]. I think we can add this into the article. After the Armenian official statements that the heights have "no strategic significance" (as per WP:NPV). --Interfase (talk) 05:52, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

We can't do it by the same reason (see below). we're not going to use double standards here in WIkipedia. I'm personally agree with Ter-Tadevosian (that any height is significant and needs to be liberated), and some Armenian political figures and generals agree too. But we're including only official statements and opinions of neutral experts from RS's. The POV's of Armenian and Azeri Generals are not the first nor the second per WP:NPOV ("discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news."). By the way, there are much more hursh criticizm by an Azerbaijani opposition leader which is more significant per WP:Weight [55]. OptimusView (talk) 06:40, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Please don't change the topic. We speak about the significance of the heights that were lost by Armenia in Nagorno-Karabakh. Now there is presented only official Armenian version (the heights were no strategic) that is very dubious. Without opinion of another expert (Ter-Tadevosyan is expert in military issues by the way and was participant of Karabakh war) that the heights were strategic we have violation of WP:NPV here. Ter-Tadevosyan is not Azeri general. So we cannot say that he is non-neutral. He presents Armenian side that is presented in article only with claims of its officials. I think it is wrong. --Interfase (talk) 08:08, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not changing the topic. You want to cite a retired Armenian general, then I think any other Armenian general could by cited as well, and a leading Azeri opposition leader should by cited to represent the whole views in Azeri society. This page is not just about heights, this page is about clashes. OptimusView (talk) 11:09, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

If you have another opinion (of military expert of course) about the significance of the heights let's discuss. But as I said we are not discussing in this topic opposition claims against Aliyev or Sargsyan. For example, claim of Zauri Postajyan that actions of Sargsyan during clashes were actions of traitor[56]. Here we discuss opinions of experts about strategic significance of the heights lost by Armenia. Do you have another one? Show it. --Interfase (talk) 11:36, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Ter-Tadevosyan is not an expert, he is a veteran. He was never published by any RS as a military expert. you're pushing a non-RS as an expert view. We have other veterans who say the heights have no importnace. F.e. Colonel Rustam Gasparyan, a Member of Parliament (a member of Defense, National Security and Internal Affairs Committee) and a former Commander, who even visited the frontline [57]. OptimusView (talk) 12:02, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

If you want, let's add opinion of Gasparyan as well with the opinion of Ter-Tadevosyan of course. --Interfase (talk) 12:17, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't want to add any opinions by war veterans. this page is not a forum. Azerbaijani political experts and former government leader's are much more notable and important, so if we push Ter-Tadevosyan's view, then we must include the critics of Azerbaijani official statements too. OptimusView (talk) 12:23, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Don't mesh all situation in this topic. We speak about the estimation of the significance of the heights. If you want to add opinion of politics who critics Azerbaijani official statements then we must add criticisms of Armenian president, where his actions were estimated as an actions of traitor[58]. But here we discuss the opinion of military experts. I think opinion of Ter-Tadevosyan is notable. If you don't think so, let's leave a request on WP:DR. --Interfase (talk) 12:36, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

off course if we add Azerbaijani critics, we should add Armenian critics as well. We can't use double standards to use a POV by a retired General when it is ok per pro-Azeri propagand, and do not cite Azeri political experts and opposition leaders while they are more significant per WP:Weight. Here is the Karabakh war Commander and military analyst (he has his own radio-cast on military analytics for several years) Vova Vardanov, who visited frontline and also confirms that that heights have no strategic importance and are just part of "neutral zone" [59], so if we include Ter-Tadevosyan, we should include experts' opinion too. And you're free to leave a DR request. OptimusView (talk) 06:48, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I have already said that if you want, we can add another opinions of Armenian commanders with the opinion of Ter-Tadevosyan about the importance of the heights. --Interfase (talk) 09:40, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Arkady Ter-Tadevosyan 2

OptimusView, please explain why did you remove the view of Arkady Ter-Tadevosyan as there was a consensus on this information? --Interfase (talk) 07:13, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

First of all, per your AA2 restrictions, for any reverts you make that are not of clear and obvious vandalism, you must go to the article's talk page and give your reasons for your revert before making any further edits anywhere on Wikipedia. Ter-Tadevosyan in his interview explains that Azerbaijan has a purpose of imitation of large-scale aggressive actions ("широкомасштабные агрессивные действия "), and in this meaning Azerbaijan achieved its goal. So he is cited out of context. And what's the reason to cite Armenian General's personal opinion at this page? many Armenian and Azeri generals expressed their views on clashes, but we're including only official statements. OptimusView (talk) 07:51, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

First of all, I didn't make a "revert". The information was removed because of "mistranslated from Russian". I put the text with correct translation that was explained by me in comments. As you can see the text added by me is differ from the text that was removed by anonymous user. I don't see here any violation of sanction. Secondly, the general's personal opinion is notable for the results and character of the clashes as a view of millitary specialist who was participated in previous Karabakh war. If you want we can add that according to Ter-Tadevosyan, Azerbaijan has a purpose of "imitation of large-scale aggressive actions" that was reconnaissance-in-force and achieved its goals. --Interfase (talk) 08:05, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it is a good idea to include General's POV. such a decision could be destructive. what about other Armenian generals [60] ? f.e. Vitaly Balasanyan is an acting General and an eyewitness of clashes. OptimusView (talk) 08:23, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Balasanyan in this case is not neutral. He is on the side of the army that lost their positions. Of course he will try to show the situation in such POV that Azerbaijan's army lost the clashes. But, as we know, Azerbaijan's army gained several heights on north and south directions. Also there was a consensus on Ter-Tadevosyan's POV because it was not so dubious as Balasanyan's POV. --Interfase (talk) 08:36, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

"He is on the side of the army". Do you think Ter-Tadevosyan is neutral (sic!) and not on the side of his army? "there was a consensus on Ter-Tadevosyan's POV because it was not so dubious as Balasanyan's POV": there wasn't a consensus on Ter-Tadevosyan's POV and both are not neutral because both are Armenian Generals and Heroes of Artsakh. a military general can not be neutral, he is obviously on the side of his army and country. And even per WP:WEIGHT Balasnayan's announcement was more popular and even was published by international media [61], while for Ter-Tadevosyan's POV you have just a Youtube video. OptimusView (talk) 09:07, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

[62] and here is an overview of Ter-Tadevosyan's views. OptimusView (talk) 09:22, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Skirmishes Ongoing

Should the article still say this as the situation is mostly calm now? D3RP4L3RT (DERPALERT) (talk) 22:38, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Neutrality once more

The article becomes less and less balanced. Per WP:YESPOV, we shoud prefer nonjudgmental language, while Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them. I suggest the following:

remove "took a huge number of casualties" from the lead. "Huge number" is a relative phrase and the number of casualties is already provided both in the lead and in the infobox, so let the reader decide what constitutes a "huge number". Besides, the lead also provides the estimated casualties number from the US State Department.
Reference to Ramil Safarov is not directly related to the clashes and is a classic WP:UNDUE, so should be dropped.
Section "Political persecutions" should either be renamed to a neutral title or merged into some other section. Brandmeister^talk 07:41, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

I think "took a huge number of casualties" is appropriate for the lede. Firstly, it accompanies the US State Dept's comment on the total number of casualties, and secondly, it provides appropriate balance to the very low official casualty estimate provided by Azerbaijan. There is currently no content in the article body that deals with the casualty estimates, so the lede is the only place this well-sourced content can go. 16:51, 28 May 2016 (UTC)Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk)

BTW, the State Department estimate was 350 casualties. Armenian Weekly interpreted this as meaning 350 dead, but it is not especially clear to me that this is the case (although 350 seems a bit small for dead AND wounded if Armenia admits to 124 wounded). Anyone know if when the State Department talks about "a casualty", do they normally mean "a death"? 16:54, 28 May 2016 (UTC)Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk)

It looks like those "estimated 350 casualties including civilians" includes the killed and the wounded from both Armenian and Azerbaijani side. It's rather impossible they come only from Azerbaijani side, even if the wounded are included. Besides, even considering the upper bound of 93 killed Azeri soldiers, "huge number" is contentious compared to other military clashes worldwide. So having this "huge number" doesn't really improve the article, especially since the article already provides sourced estimates for both the killed and the wounded Azeri soldiers. Brandmeister^talk 17:10, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

It, the "took a huge number of casualties", provides a source to contrast against the very small official Azerbaijan casualty figure. It is an important neutral source claim, and there is nowhere else in the article to put it. Maybe all the casualty figures in the lede should be moved into a new section in the body of the article? The "Political persecutions" content about the criminal case against Meydan TV might also go into it. The other content in that section could be merged into reactions and the section deleted. The 350 seems overly high for deaths (unless they know something other sources don't), but too low if it also includes injuries. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 18:27, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Non-official estimates of Azeri casualties are also provided in the article for comparison. In the abscence of State Department's own numerical estimation of Azeri casualties the "huge number" from that source falls under the scope of Template:Vague, so I don't think it's helpful. Agree to merge the Political persecutions section somewhere as an obvious NPOV breach. Brandmeister^talk 19:29, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

If all the casualty content is moved from the lede to the body, it would be nonsense to insist on a pov tag on the basis of a quote from a State Department report, a source that is to date about the only entirely outside source on that content. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:45, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

In that sense I just propose to drop "and that Azerbaijan "took a huge number of casualties", so the sentence would be simply "The US State Department estimates that a total of 350 people — military and civilian — died". Brandmeister^talk 08:07, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

The US State Department gives the only serious estimation on casualties of Azerbaijani side (not the official figure of 31) so it should remain anywhere in the page. Just choose where. Lkahd (talk) 05:40, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I can't see it anywhere, if you mean this source. It only says "an estimated 350 casualties", but once again, doesn't specify on which side. Brandmeister^talk 07:09, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL specifies that Azerbaijan "took a huge number of casualties, including comparatively".source That means that comparatively the major part of 350 casualties are Azerbaijanis. It was said in response of what Armenia claims that "this is simply hundreds of meters, where Azerbaijan paid a very high price for land that’s not particularly important." [63] So the US State Department Official confirms that Azerbaijan paid a very high price for that hectars mentioned in the article. Lkahd (talk) 07:43, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

That's WP:OR - the sources must directly support the claims, without personal interpretation. The context is "There have been, over the past 20 years, repeated incidents along the so-called line of contact and along the international border between Armenia and Azerbaijan. There are literally dozens of casualties each year, and as you may know, fighting flared up dramatically in early April, April 2 to April 5 – so-called 4-day war – with hundreds of casualties – an estimated 350 casualties including civilians". So, again, there's no clarification whose casualties these are and without it mentioning "huge numbers" of Azerbaijani casualties is meaningless. Brandmeister^talk 08:05, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I quoted State Department Official, that's not my interpretation. Try WP:RFC. Lkahd (talk) 09:06, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

The State Department official says merely "350 casualties including civilians", you add that those are Azerbaijani casualties. Besides, it's not the same guy who mentions "huge numbers", he's marked as "Official One" and the other one is "Official Two". I don't think RfC is needed in this obvious case covered by existing Wikipedia policies. Brandmeister^talk 10:05, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Read: "The US State Department estimates that a total of 350 people — military and civilian — died, and that Azerbaijan "took a huge number of casualties, including comparatively"." Those 350 are not only Azerbaijani casualties. If the text is still questionable for you we can write: "The US State Department estimates that a total of 350 people — military and civilian — died.(Full stop! Forget about these 350 people.) According to their estimates Azerbaijan "took a huge number of casualties, including comparatively". Actually we can separate these sentences and move the second sentence to any other place. Lkahd (talk) 11:16, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Per above I prefer to remove "took a huge number of casualties, including comparatively", just leave the State Department estimate. If the "huge number" part is to be retained, it could moved to the Analysis section, but, again, I doubt such vagueness would be encyclopedically helpful. Brandmeister^talk 11:28, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I cannot agree. It looks very plain and helpful. Lkahd (talk) 11:46, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Then it could be moved lower, to the said Analysis section, for example. Brandmeister^talk 11:58, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

It's not an analysis, it's just a statement on casualties and so should be with all the other casualty statements. The "including comparatively" part is meaningless though - presumably since it is a transcript of a press conference, the sentence was interrupted and is incomplete. It was probably going to be a statement on the comparatively large number of casualties in relation to the small size of the territory captured, but we have no way of knowing for certain, so I think "including comparatively" should be deleted. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 13:47, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

"merge the Political persecutions section somewhere as an obvious NPOV breach". before putting the POV tag please consider what is wrong with the current naming. Political persecution is a political persecution, the whole section is sourced and uses neutral wording. If you have other version for the name, present it. otherwise you don't know what you want, and you just dontlikeit. To merge something somewhere you don't know where is not a reason to put a POV tag. OptimusView (talk) 06:36, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

When it comes to Kerimli, both references say he just faced protests of pro-government youth. Contact.az says "в последние дни группы проправительственной молодежи проводят акции протеста перед домом Керимли" ("in recent days groups of pro-government youth are protesting at the house of Kerimli"). Meydan TV also speaks of "a series of protests". That's hardly a political persecution, so I think the section could be named "Azerbaijani opposition" or "Political harassment". Brandmeister^talk 08:07, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

That's fine to call it "Political harassment" as a consensus. OptimusView (talk) 09:50, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Are there objections to removing all the casualties content from the lede and creating a new section in the article's body, perhaps called "casualty figures", for that content and also for the " political persecution" case regarding the Azerbaijani casualties claim and the US State Department comment. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:21, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

"Political persecutions" section was renamed to "Political harassment", and it is ok to me. "casualty figures" could be a separate section although I don't see serious reasons to remove them from the lede as casualty estimations are always for the lede. OptimusView (talk) 05:35, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

That section would be gone because the prosecution and protests related to the Azeri casualties claim would be incorporated into the casualties section since it is closely related to it. Lede content is meant to summarize article content, but there is currently nothing in the article regarding casualties. Also, given that the casualty figures are complicated and pov depending on the source, I think they could be better dealt with and explained in the article. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 13:39, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Could you read the section before discussing it here and POV-pushing? Kerimli has nothing to do with casualties. And if Meydan's case is somehow related to casualties, it is your personal POV that it should be under "casualties" section while it is an obvious persecution/harassment, not casualties. OptimusView (talk) 14:00, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I can see the article as well as you can. I am talking about the Meydan TV content, which is in that section, and which is directly related to the casualties data because it concerns the release of its estimate of the true figure of Azerbaijani casualties. The existence of that section is a case of over emphasis, and its title is clearly pov. In many countries, particularly anti-democratic ones like Azerbaijan, casualty figures amongst its armed forces are considered state secrets - the label "Political harassment" is not an appropriate title to give to a decision to prosecute sources that beak a country's laws. The Kerimli content seems like trivia as it currently stands - and better suited to somewhere in the reactions section if it is notable. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 13:18, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Section break

Apparently "Nagorno-Karabakh hectare losses" in the infobox's Territorial changes is a wording from the NKR perspective. Both cited sources, the Armenian one and Azerbaijnai one, mention several hundreds hectares, so I propose changing to "Azerbaijan gains several hundreds hectares of land in Nagorno-Karabakh". That doesn't seem to be disputed, as both sources agree on several hundreds hectares. Brandmeister^talk 11:58, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I do not think that wording would be correct. The territory lost was formerly held by Nagorno Karabakh forces but (unless you are seeing sources that say different) it was all in the "security zone", so not in Nagorno-Karabakh proper or in territory claimed by the Nagorno-Karabakh republic. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 13:08, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

It was held by Armenia, since most of the dead on the Armenian side are conscripts and officers from Armenia, and not NK. So Azerbaijan gains, Armenian forces lose. I think "Armenian forces" is a better description, and "Nagorno-Karabakh losses" is not accurate, as it obscures the involvement of Armenia. Indeed, what Brand proposes is more neutral, as it does not go into details of who on the Armenian side controls the military forces. Grandmaster 18:51, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

It's not neutral, let alone factual, at all and it seems you just don't want to make any mention of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, as is often the case in Azeri media. There is no confirmed reliability to either number of hectares your previous "Limited Azeri gains" was the most vague and uninformative description given. The current description is too the point and just the facts. --Oatitonimly (talk) 21:40, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

The Armenian/Karabak side claims they lost control over 800 hectares, the Azeris claim they took 2000 hectares. The only neutral thing to do is to list both figures in the infobox and let the reader decide for themselves which to believe. I have been bold and tweaked the infobox to reflect this.XavierGreen (talk) 21:14, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

The reliability of either is uncertain, and going by history there is more than likely no truth to the Azeri claims. We are best off waiting for a third party to get involved. The template isn't meant for that large of a description. As I said, keep it short and simple and let the reader continue reading if they want to learn more. Unless a consensus to make a change can be reached, it will remain as it is. --Oatitonimly (talk) 21:40, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with XavierGreen. "Disputed Nagorno-Karabakh hectare losses" is not even proper English. And there never was a consensus for "Disputed Nagorno-Karabakh hectare losses" to begin with, why should it remain? Grandmaster 23:16, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

And your version is less consensused. OptimusView (talk) 02:16, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

The version that I support has 3 supporters, and yours has 2. How come that your version is a consensus one? Grandmaster 19:13, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Just saying "Azerbaijan gains" is the least clear because it leaves out where exactly this land was gained from, whether part of the Armenian Republic or NKR. --Oatitonimly (talk) 16:35, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

And what does "Disputed Nagorno-Karabakh hectare losses" mean? What language is it? "Hectare losses" is a weird word combination. Sounds like disputed hectares in NK were lost to some unknown force. One cannot loose hectares, one can lose a territory that is measured in hectares. And if there are sides to the conflict, it should be pointed who gained territory. It was not lost to extraterrestrials. Grandmaster 19:13, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Given that the Armenian/Karabakh side had clearly admitted to 800 hectares of territory lost, and the Azerbaijani's clearly claim 2000 hectares of territory gained these claims constitute the floor and ceiling of the amount of territory Azerbaijan gained.XavierGreen (talk) 20:52, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

There's a source saying 800 and a source saying 2,000, but there are no sources giving a range between 800 to 2,000. That's original research, which is forbidden. --Oatitonimly (talk) 17:55, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Its not original research, citations are provided establishing that the minimum figure is 800 and the maximum is 2000. Original research would be giving an unsourced exact numerical figure between the two.XavierGreen (talk) 18:11, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Read what I said again more carefully. There is no source putting the figure at any number from 801 to 1,999 and that's why it's original research. Like I said, it's best to be as neutral and straightforward as possible. --Oatitonimly (talk) 21:07, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Its not original research, both the 800 and 2000 figure are listed in the sources. The only neutral thing to do is to list both.XavierGreen (talk) 19:01, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

The only neutral thing to do is to stop your unconsensused POV-pushing. OptimusView (talk) 19:18, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

How is citing both sides claims POV? Both viewpoints are cited.XavierGreen (talk) 19:27, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

it is your personal POV that different viewpoints should be cited in the infobox. per WP:Infobox an infobox is for facts, not for viewpoints and doubts. OptimusView (talk) 19:40, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Who exactly disputes those statements? If there are no reliable sources challenging those claims, then it's reasonable to include them, until proven otherwise. My proposed wording is "Azerbaijan reclaims several hundred hectares in Nagorno-Karabakh", "several hundred" satisfies both cited sources. Brandmeister^talk 10:04, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

PS @OptimusView: In the statement of the European Ombudsman Institute, per WP:V, the material must directly and clearly support the claim. Besides, civilians also died on the Azerbaijani side. The European Ombudsman Institute mentions neither Azerbaijan, nor Armenia or NKR, so their statement fits into the Aftermath section. Brandmeister^talk 10:37, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

read the source again, it mentions Nagorno-Karabakh several times (f.e. "civilian citizens of Nagorno-Karabakh were inhumanly treated without any respect and by that offended in their dignity": it says nothing about Azerbaijani civilians). The only side that attacked NK civilians is Azerbaijan (or you have other info??). and the EOI site also includes the report by the NK Ombudsman for the Wiki users who still have questions. OptimusView (talk) 10:56, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

"Civilian citizens of Nagorno-Karabakh" may also mean Azerbaijani civilians living in Nagorno-Karabakh (and according to the infobox, six Azeri civilians died and 26 were wounded there). Besides, in the preceding sentence from that source "The European Ombudsman Institute condemns any violation of human rights regarding civilians and attacks on civilian objects in Nagorno-Karabakh", so this is not only about ethnic Armenian civilians there. Brandmeister^talk 11:21, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

no ethnic Azeris are "citizens of Nagorno-Karabakh". all 6 allegedly killed Azeris are citizens of Azerbaijan, not NK. it is an OR by you, which is disruptive and not serious. OptimusView (talk) 11:36, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

OR is extending the rest of EOI claims to Azerbaijan while the source doesn't specifically mention any side. For instance, as EOI mentions targeting of ambulances by an unspecified side, Azerbaijan also reported a shelling of its ambulance during the clashes. It looks like there was a reason why EOI doesn't mention any side, and that's because many claims are equally relevant both to NKR and Azerbaijan. So my proposal is: either we move the EOI part to the Aftermath section, or, if it's to be retained where it is currently, then only the "civilian citizens of Nagorno-Karabakh" should be kept, as the rest is classic OR in that section. Brandmeister^talk 12:17, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

By the way, Azernews you cited is not a reliable source, but a part of Azeri propagand. the part about targeting ambulances was added by another user, and I agree it is not enough significant to be here. other parts are direct quotations and everywhere NK is mentioned as the attacked side so the text shoult remain in it's section. OptimusView (talk) 13:18, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

@Oatitonimly: "Several hundred" is in agreement to both Azerbaijani and Armenian sourced statements on that and conveys more meaning than simply "disputed losses". "Retakes" doesn't seem to be POV, because before the outbreak of the Nagorno-Karabakh War those regions were located inside Azerbaijan SSR. Brandmeister^talk 07:22, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Comment: The Azerbaijani SSR wasn't independent, it was a part of USSR, as well as the Armenian SSR. These lands never were a part of Azerbaijani state. So it is a clear POV. OptimusView (talk) 07:49, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

As you probably know, USSR had defined borders of its subnational republics, as well as Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast. Anyway, what's your suggested wording? Brandmeister^talk 08:27, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, what do you suggest other than "hectare losses", which is not even proper English? Grandmaster 17:16, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Hectar losses are disputed, as some Armenian sources write that the lands were of neutral zone, the word of "Retakes" is completely pro-Azeri POV, it is unappropriate. The current text is the most neutral. And if the English wording is not good for you, we can correct it by your suggestion. OptimusView (talk) 17:46, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Losses is a clear POV, as it's an NKR perspective, so isn't helpful. My alternative suggestion is "Azerbaijan gains several hundred hectares in Nagorno-Karabakh". Even if that was a neutral zone, it's still an impartial statement about the territorial change. Brandmeister^talk 18:09, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

OptimusView, while reverting, you claim no consensus, but your version has less consensus than any other. I find your repeated reverting unacceptable. Which Armenian sources say that those lands were a neutral zone? Can we trust the Armenian president and the Armenian military on this? Armenia officially confirmed the loss of 800 hectares in the conflict zone. I don't think there's anything to dispute here. Both countries agree that Azerbaijan established control over some territories, the only thing that is disputed is the size of them. That's what the version that you reverted said. It provided both official estimates. And you repeatedly restored a totally incomprehensible version, that makes no sense whatsoever. And most editors here oppose it. I think it might be a good time to take it to the wiki community. Grandmaster 18:13, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

"several hundred" can mean any number above 200. And "retakes" is bad because it sounds like saying the land 'rightfully belongs' to. --Oatitonimly (talk) 02:32, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, and the cited Armenian source (as well Sargsyan himself) acknowledges the loss of 800 hectares, so "several hundred" is in agreement with both Armenian and Azerbaijani statements. I've changed "retakes" to simply "takes". Brandmeister^talk 08:14, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

"And most editors here oppose it." Do you mean 2 Azeri users opposing 2 Armenian users? I dont know if "my" version was a full consensus, but it existed much earlier than your POV. And you both are not discussing it, but pushing your POV here and editwarring at the page. "Retake" could be a good word if used by Azeri propagande, for me it is unappropriate. OptimusView (talk) 18:23, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't think XavierGreen has anything to do with Azerbaijan, and it was his version. Plus, the nationality of the editors is not a good reason to discount their opinions. In any case, at least 3 editors oppose the version that you restore time after time. As a compromise, I propose to write "Azerbaijan establishes control over several hundred hectares of territory in the conflict area" or something similar, on the basis of Brand's proposal, as the territories were in and outside of NK. Grandmaster 18:33, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
If anyone restores non-consensus "Hectare losses" once again, I will have to take this to WP:AE for admins to review. Oatitonimly and OptimusView, what is your opinion on Brand's latest proposal? Instead of reverting, it is better to reach a compromise. We can also ask for the community opinion. Grandmaster 22:10, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Brandmeister proposition is the only reasonable one, because it will stand unaffected if more estimates are provided. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 19:11, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

That makes no sense, if another estimate is below 800. On the other hand this is actually true for the current state. --Oatitonimly (talk) 22:06, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Anything below 200 would not have been reported by the Armenian side as loss (and they report 800), and anything above is covered in the wording proposed by Brandmeister. The buffer region is vast and requires resources to manage, a war might have given the pretext to get rid of some pieces sucking too much energy for their size, so anything less than a thousand would be senseless as it would have defied the purpose of the entire manoeuvre and been a loss for both sides. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 23:33, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

FYI, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/OptimusView. Grandmaster 19:31, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Yevseyev

Too much text, with two paragraphs is dedicated to a single pundit, Yevseyev per WP:UNDUE. In fact, his another interview from the second paragraph essentially repeats his claims in the previous paragraph. The "if Azerbaijan shelling Stepanakert, the Armenian side can destroy Azerbaijani gas and oil pipelines, so give a great blow to Azerbaijan economy. He says that Armenian side has appropriate position to attack Azerbaijan and pass the border" part is especially speculative, remember WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Yevseyev's opinion should be made more succinct, like other opinions. Brandmeister^talk 23:24, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Yevseev, Ingilizian, etc. Who are these people, and how notable are they? We cannot dump here opinions of obscure persons just because they were published on bellingcat or other sites. This Yevseev guy now takes almost half of the analysis section, and he is nobody. At least Felgenhauer is a well known military expert, who is regularly quoted by BBC, CNN and other well known news outlets. Most of the other people in the section have no reputation whatsoever. I suggest we remove all non-notable opinions and keep only the notable ones. Grandmaster 23:29, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes. Aside from bad grammar, Ingilizian's claims are contentious at best when he says that "Azerbaijani offensive was not as effective as anticipated because Azerbaijan no succeeds to occupy villages, has not managed to keep the majority of his territory gains and suffers heavy losses (between 400 and 500 fatalities and many destroyed vehicles)comparatively to Armenian side (more than 70 deaths )". At least, that should be trimmed. Where did he get "between 400 and 500 fatalities", I know not. Brandmeister^talk 23:41, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Vladimir Yevseyev is not "nobody", he is one of the most significant experts of Transcaucasus region in the world. he is the Head of the Caucasus Department of the CIS Institute [64], Ph.D, Military expert [65], Lieutenant Colonel, Academic Secretary of the Coordinating Council of the Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS) on forecasting [66]. If you don't know him, he doesn't become "nobody". Inglizian seems to be a reliable expert too [67], as well as Bellingcat is a serious source. OptimusView (talk) 13:18, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

That does not mean the whole two paragraphs should be dedicated to him. Particularly, his claim about Stepanakert is just a speculative consideration, as Azerbaijan never shelled Stepanakert during the clashes and Armenia never destroyed Azeri gas and oil pipelines. Per WP:DUE, all experts should be cited more or less equally. As for Ingilizian, his claim about "between 400 and 500 fatalities" is fantastic and is not supported by third-party sources, even Azerbaijani opposition haven't stated that, putting the upper bound of Azeri casualties at 93. As Grandmaster noted, we just can't dump every expert opinion there without editorial judgement. So if Yevseyev and Ingilizian are to be kept, one or two sentences from either guy would suffice. Brandmeister^talk 14:05, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

"claim about "between 400 and 500 fatalities" is fantastic and is not supported by third-party sources". you just deleted two third-party sources (Regnum and Ostkraft) that write about 800 killed Azeri soldiers [68]. "one or two sentences from either guy would suffice". I see no problem, if you can present here at talk the abridged versions where all their important conclusions are presented. OptimusView (talk) 16:29, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

For example, we can rewrite Ingilizian's part to something like this: "By the opinion of Masis Ingilizian, a researcher of Bellingcat, Azerbaijan prompted a strategy of intensification of cross-border clashes and blitzkrieg tactics to reclaim territory, but both sides (and especially Azerbaijan) suffered greater loss than anticipated. According to him, Azerbaijan didn't succeeds to occupy villages, had more fatalities and lost many vehicles comparatively to Armenian side." OptimusView (talk) 16:51, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

In that case just leave what Ostkraft and Regnum claim instead. In the first paragraph about Yefseyev, I propose removing "Also he claims that if Azerbaijan shelling Stepanakert, the Armenian side can destroy Azerbaijani gas and oil pipelines, so give a great blow to Azerbaijan economy" per my concern above. The second paragraph could be removed as it basically repeats what Ostkraft says. Ingilizian also basically repeats what Ostkraft and Regnum have wrote, so what he said until "both side suffer greater loss than anticipated, especially for Azerbaijan" could be kept, the rest removed. Brandmeister^talk 17:00, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Why was Felgenhauer removed? He is a million times more notable than any other "experts" quoted here. I restored him. The argument that his analysis was dated 8 April is not a reason for removal, he still stands for what he said back then, read his recent interviews to the Armenian media. Also, who says that one cannot make an analysis of the situation on this particular date? Babayan is also notable as a former top official, and he does not have to be political analyst to make an analysis. And Ingilizian is not a "researcher of Bellingcat", it's a blog where anyone can post, they do not employ any researchers. It is just a personal opinion posted there, it does not represent the position of Bellingcat. Grandmaster 22:13, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree that a reference to Ingilizian does not belong to this article. What are his merits? Posting an a semi-anonymous blog and being cited in an Azerbaijani source once does not assign notability. Parishan (talk) 19:50, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

800,000 hectares

Someone has to report those who change this for 800 for not reading what they are editing. The source does claim 800 out of 800,000 and this is what is written on the article here. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 18:21, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it is really strange that some people don't even read the source before reverting. Is it really that difficult to read before reverting? I will surely have to report the next instance of such an rv. Grandmaster 20:28, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

maybe removing 800,000 and leaving just the 800 loss would be a solution. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 23:42, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I don't mind. If some have trouble with reading the text, maybe simplifying the quote could be a solution. Grandmaster 09:14, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Done. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 23:55, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Atrocities section

Is there any opposition to just name it Alleged atrocities? Or else the title will be changed regularly. Those who want to know more about it, have just to read the section for further info. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 23:55, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh I see, there were changes on the article since last time I have read it. I think separating atrocities by nations is not justified. Also why is the reference to the photo posted on Twitter account relevant? Many material on that section can be merged as to minimize the impact of opinions of some individuals. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 00:13, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Subcatogories on uses of prohibited weapons.

...accused of using 122-mm calibre white phosphorus munitions ...accused of dropping rocket-dispensed cluster bombs

Those two merged, because they are related, more so than separation by nations.

Merging all the material about beheadings in one paragraph, many materials are redundant, reported by different sources of basically the same thing. Also, beheading soldiers after they have been killed, is a questionable conduct of war, but is not an atrocity by itself.

As for the rest, atrocities on civilians has no name, there is no reason to separate them here. The same goes for the number of casualties on the lede, dropping all figures (including US) from the lede and just include hundreds without specifying sides. More precise estimates and official figures left for elsewhere. Just an opinion. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 01:18, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I'd support merging them into one section titled either Atrocities or perhaps Atrocities by the involved sides. Just keep separate paragraphs. The white phosphorus munition has been independently verified in situ by military attaches from 13 countries and a third-party source is provided for that. Besides, Azerbaijan called for an independent investigation of that, so apparently it has nothing to hide. Brandmeister^talk 14:10, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

white phosphorus munition, by merging I meant that they'd go in a same subcategory which would cover prohibited weaponry, not that we remove them. It is relevant info and I am not questioning it, uses of prohibited weapons is the norm rather than the exception, even the US has been accused of using prohibited weapons. They ought to be reported. The reason I did write accused in my previous reply, is that white phosphorus by itself is not a prohibited weapon (unless this was updated), it is when using it for its chemical toxic properties to cause human losses that it is considered prohibited (equivalent to cluster bombs). So confirmations of uses by different organizations and uses on civilian targets are different, the later is always prohibited while in the first case, white phosphorus has other uses not related to its toxicity, blinding the other sides sight.

by the involved sides. We should avoid using such terms. Also, atrocities might be avoided altogether. While there are reported misconducts, generally this word is used for larger scale, say at least several not for incidents which are commonplace (and expected) in situations like these. Therefor Misconducts of war (or similar) is a more appropriate term for the title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yahya Talatin (talk • contribs) 16:55, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't mind and was actually thinking about alternative title. Perhaps "Military misconduct" or "Violations of the rules of engagement" would do it. Brandmeister^talk 17:24, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I prefer the first, as the second requires an a priori knowledge of rules of engagement, which might be too restrictive and bound to change. Guess we have to get consensus... I will not be editing until next week, but if in the meantime there is a vote, count mine as either the first choice, or something similar which does not require the use of a legal term. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 18:02, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I have deleted the OR "Violations of military necessity" section title and have restored the former wording. No consensus exists for such a major change in title, and more significantly no sources have been presented that use this term in relation to the 2016 Armenian–Azerbaijani clashes. In addition, use of white phosphorus or cluster bombs are not "atrocities", the issue with them is that they are either inappropriate or disproportionate military actions. I have moved that content into a new section, and have, for now, borrowed the Violations of military necessity term to name that section. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:25, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:STRUCTURE and WP:IMPARTIAL, we shouldn't outline a particular side when both sides claimed military misconduct and introduce personal interpretation of what consitutes an atrocity. I'm content with either simply "Atrocities" or something like "Military misconduct" as the section header about the claims of the warring sides. Brandmeister^talk 10:31, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

The use of the phrase "Violations of military necessity" here is OR without sources. We cannot arbitrarily call something by a particular term if no sources call it by that term. I think it is also a POV usage because I see no reading in the military necessity article that covers the alleged deliberate mutilation of dead enemy combatants or the face-to-face murder of elderly civilians. For your suggested alternative, to euphemistically call the alleged actions mere "Military misconduct" would be diminishing their extreme nature to the extend that it would be weasel, not impartiality. As for the title my edit inserted, I'm fine with placing the qualifier "Alleged" (or "Claims of", or something similar) into it. However, I see no allegations of atrocities committed by Armenian forces during these clashes, so I see no reason to not mention that the atrocity allegations concern acts allegedly committed by Azeri forces. To not clearly mention who the allegations are directed at would be strange. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:05, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I've put "Claimed atrocities by the belligerents" as a balanced header accommodating claims of both sides in one subsection. The usage of white phosphorus munitions against civilians stated by the Azerbaijani side might also be regarded as atrocity, as long as we use this word. Brandmeister^talk 14:40, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Neither the white phosphorus allegations, or the cluster bomb facts (their use have been confirmed by third parties) are "atrocities" - nobody was killed or injured, no sources concerning the incidents have used word "atrocity" to describe them, and these weapons are routinely possessed and used by numerous armed forces worldwide. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:20, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

The article has an official sourced statement that those munitions were used against civilian targets. Brandmeister^talk 15:30, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

And? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:23, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Since you have failed to explain why the use of these munitions, a use in which nobody, civilian or combatant, died or was injured, should be classified as an "atrocity", I have again removed that content and placed it in a separate subsection. Perhaps you should initiate a request for comment if you want to continue to insist that the mere fact of their use should be classified as an atrocity. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:01, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

There's nothing to explain. Azerbaijani side claimed the usage of those munitions against civilians and civilian objects, which is an atrocity, so there's no need to label them differently, implying that such actions aren't that bad. Brandmeister^talk 13:47, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Who is saying it is an atrocity? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:15, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

From the cited source in that section: "The Republic of Azerbaijan Military Prosecutor's Office has initiated a criminal case upon this fact under the following articles of Azerbaijan's Criminal Code: Article 29,120.2.7 (attempt to kill two or more people), 29,120.2.12 (attempt to kill on ethnic, racial or religious grounds) and 116.0.16 (use of weapons, means and methods of warfare prohibited by interstate agreements during an armed conflict)"... Weapons containing white phosphorus are extremely toxic when inhaled, ingested, or absorbed through burned areas and can have severe negative impacts on human health. Such weapons cause severe, partial to full-thickness thermal and chemical burns upon contact with skin, often down to the bone. Absorbed through the skin white phosphorus can survive long enough in the human body to damage the heart, kidney or liver, leading to multiple organ failure or death. Consonant with general international humanitarian law, attacks on civilians or civilian objects as are attacks on forests or other kinds of plant cover (like cultivated area in Askipara village) with white phosphorus shells are prohibited under the Protocol III on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons of the United Nations Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW or CCWC) of 1980". Brandmeister^talk 06:44, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. No atrocity at all. Not even from the propaganda source. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 01:36, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

So everything aforementioned does not constitute an atrocity, because that's your personal opinion, thanks for clarification. Brandmeister^talk 07:07, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

It seems to be YOUR personal opinion that that the mere fact of the use of certain munitions should be classified as an atrocity. This is an unsourced opinion and also an extreme opinion. You accepted earlier that the use of cluster bombs or white phosphorus should be classed as possible "violations of military necessity". What has changed? It is because this new position also allows you to delete the "Claims of atrocities committed by Azerbaijan" section title because you now have a single "atrocity" committed by Armenia that you can insert amongst all the Azeri ones? I had suggested earlier that you should start a RfC about whether the use of cluster bombs or allegations of the use of white phosphorus munitions should automatically be classed as an atrocity, regardless of there being no actual casualties resulting from their use. However, I think it will be a position unlikely to attract a consensus because it is extreme and absolutist. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:25, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:SKYISBLUE - if someone, for example, decides to throw an acid on a person's face, but misses, I don't think you would say to the targeted person: "that's just an accident, not an atrocity". So no RfC needed here. Besides, the claimed beheading of Sloyan's dead body is more properly called a mutilation, not an atrocity, just like Armenian claims of other mutilated corpses. Brandmeister^talk 07:10, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Maybe in the parallel world that Azeris live in, the murder and mutilation of civilians, and the decapitation of dead soldiers and having fun with the resulting heads, are not atrocities, but fortunately most of us don't live in that strange land called Azerbaijan. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:01, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

If you are not willing to let the matter rest, and will not start a RfC, in order to move things to a conclusion I will start one (in the Politics, government, and law category) with the wording "Should the use of cluster bombs or the alleged use of white phosphorus shells in armed conflicts be called an atrocity, even if no casualties resulted from their use?" Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:21, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

If you wish and ready to do that, I wouldn't mind an RfC. Brandmeister^talk 07:23, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Reactions - Georgia

".... In a telephone call with her Azerbaijani counterpart Zakir Hasanov, Defense Minister Tinatin Khidasheli reaffirmed Georgia's support of Azerbaijan's territorial integrity ...."

- any non-Russian / Azeri source on that ? because I couldn't find a single Georgian one .... also, in that article Khidasheli supposedly says Georgia supports the territorial integrity of it's neighbours, not solely that of Azerbaijan. TheMightyGeneral (talk) 16:29, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I think it is pretty much established that Georgia supports the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan. It is a predictable given its own territorial conflicts (the contrary would be surprising). The source provided only confirms an information easily accessible.

I do however agree with you that to maintain such a wording more sources are preferred, unless the wording is changed to make it less source dependent.

Changing it with something like: The Defense Minister of Georgia, Tinatin Khidasheli, supports its neighbors (including Azerbaijan) territorial integrity.

Here is the reason, if the phone call is a fabrication, the status-quo is Georgia's official position. Tinatin Khidasheli as a high ranking official is bound by his government, not only official, but also predictable position. If the source is challenged, the source will be changed and not the wording. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 21:16, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

No such thing is established and why is something not even correctly translated a confirmation of anything ? The official, general and predictable position of the Georgian government is to maintain complete political neutrality in that particular conflict. There is no siding in that issue at all. Neither from the MOD nor the gov, especialy not the MOD. The MOD isn't even authorized to make controversial political statements in the first place and the gov still mainains the position that both countries should find a peaceful resolution to their conflict. TheMightyGeneral (talk) 12:50, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2016 Armenian–Azerbaijani clashes. 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/20130324034357/http://www.mfa.gov.cy/mfa/mfa2006.nsf/index_en/index_en?OpenDocument to http://www.mfa.gov.cy/mfa/mfa2006.nsf/index_en/index_en?OpenDocument

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) 16:50, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 18 November 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. There are slightly more opinions for having the date first instead of using it as a disambiguator. It is a judgment call whether this article should be specific to NK or just listed as AA clashes. Notice we already have *2014* Armenian–Azerbaijani clashes. I am leaving a redirect in place so that 2016 Armenian–Azerbaijani clashes will redirect here anyway. EdJohnston (talk) 20:45, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

2016 Armenian–Azerbaijani clashes → 2016 Nagorno-Karabakh clashes – WP:PRECISE. The clashes occurred largely in Nagorno-Karabakh with only minor spillovers in Armenia proper and Azerbaijan. The only article with "Armenian–Azerbaijani" in its title is the 2014 Armenian–Azerbaijani clashes, which is accurate as significant clashes also occurred outside the NK lice of contact. Երևանցի ^talk 16:50, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Support – the lede at the article supports the view of the move request. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:59, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Support – proposed title correctly reflects the events described in the article. - Kareyac (talk) 07:33, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Mild Support This proposed title was discussed back in April [69], with consensus being it was too soon to decide. I think it would have been better to wait until the year ends to revisit this - but as long as the old title is retained as a redirect I don't think using the proposed title would be a significant issue, and I see the point that it is more precise than the current one. However, I would like the move request to run on a bit longer than the minimum 7 days in case there are objections. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:15, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Mild Support – I think Nagorno-Karabakh clashes (2016) is way better. Beshogur (talk) 19:16, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Support parenthetical disambiguation per Beshogur. In fact, I could type in the word first instead of the year. George Ho (talk) 20:57, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Doesn't that sort of title format imply a list of all clashes in 2016, which the article is not. This article is about incidents comprising a single event that took place over several consecutive days. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:51, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Battle of al-Hasakah (2016) Here is an another example. Beshogur (talk) 20:10, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Support move to 2016 Nagorno-Karabakh clashes, per nom. I oppose the parenthetical disambiguation, since that isn't the naming convention for article titles for events. JudgeRM (talk to me) 01:50, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.