Talk:2008 Mardakert clashes

Day.Az source

There was a typo in English translated version of the news source, the original is Day.Az in Russian is here, so the wounded soldier was born in 1988: "Во время боев ранение получил Алжанов Ровшан Хазар оглу 1988 г.р., призван в октябре 2006 года военкоматом Гобустанского района.", not 1998. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 16:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Armenia as a belligerent?

There is no evidence that Armenia is a belligerent in this engagement. Just because Armenian officials make statements about what happened doesn't mean that their soldiers were there. I don't dispute that Armenian citizens may have worn the uniform of the Nagorno-Karabakh Defense Army and serve in Karabakh but that's original research if we try to add that in the article. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 04:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Pocopocopoco, you're pushing POV with this rv, because the first statement on Armenian side came from Armenian Defense Ministry, in fact, this is the article from Armenian source citing Armenian DM(!) - [1]. So if Armenia is not an involved party in the conflict and skirmish, then how is the statements in this regard are made not only by FM, President but also Defense Ministry of Armenia? Atabek (talk) 10:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I see nothing in that source that indicated that Armenia was directly involved. Just because the "head of national military investigation institute of the Defense Ministry" in Armenia makes a statement doesn't mean that Armenia was involved. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 11:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, Armenian sources claim otherwise:

• On March 3, 2008, in the Martakert Region of Nagorno-Karabakh, the Azerbaijani armed forces attempted a serious attack on the Armenian positions, also note this statement by Foreign Minister of Armenia in the same article:
  • "The Minster added, "At a certain moment we lost a position, but regained it and restored the status quo on the frontline. We strongly condemn this action of violence and consider it as a provocation of the Azerbaijani side in connection with the destabilized political situation inside Armenia. Probably Azerbaijan counted upon taking advantage at the moment when all of Armenia is focused on its internal problems. Luckily, Azerbaijan’s plans failed".

Do we need more proofs of Armenia's involvement after Oskanian's: "we lost a position"? Atabek (talk) 11:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Just because the foreign minister in Armenia is referring to the engagement in the first person doesn't mean that the military of Armenia was involved in any of this. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 16:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Popocopocopoco, in addition to above, your change that Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh were involved in conflict with Azerbaijan during NK War does not reflect the complete picture. The fighting during the war went all along the border of Armenia and Azerbaijan, and no only NK. In fact, Armenian exclave of Artsvashen (Bash Kend) fell under Azerbaijani control, while Azeri exclave of Yukhari Askipara and another one, in Nakhchivan, - Karki, fell under Armenian control in fighting. Up to 200,000 Azeris were deported from Armenia proper into Azerbaijan, and about 230,000 Armenians from Azerbaijan (excluding its NK region). Atabek (talk) 12:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I tweaked that background section as it was too long. Those sentences you refer to are discussing the begining of the war. If you read further down it does go into more detail. If you have a better idea, then WP:BOLD. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 16:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

When Oskanyan says "we," he is referring to the Armenian nation and Armenia as a country, not as a state. Armenia (not the much-larger historic Armenia, but Armenian lands under Armenian control) currently comprises the Republic of Armenia, the Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh, and the liberated territory around NKR. Armenians regard the entire 40,000 sqr km area as Armenia--one country, two states (plus the unincorporated territory).--TigranTheGreat (talk) 22:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Pointless?

In a couple of months I think this article will either be non-notable and up for deletion, or it will (if the event is a precursor to more serious conflict) survive. However, regardless of that outcome, much of the article is simply pointless. In the overly long background section there is simply no need to repeat, verbatim, stuff that already exists in dedicated articles. Do we see in articles about minor skirmishes in WW2 a summary of the entire history of WW2? All that is needed here are wikilinks to the main articles and brief, to the point, summaries. Meowy 21:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it warrants an article simply because there are a whole bunch of non-Armenian non-Azerbaijani sources written about just this incident. There are other military articles that describe just a single airstrike so why not also have this article? If the background is too long WP:SOFIXIT. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 21:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

As for WP:SOFIXIT, yes, sure I will. And then I will find some pro-Azeri administrator using my action as an excuse for banning me! Anyway, someone wrote all the overly long stuff I want cut, so it is appropriate to wait a bit to get a response from them first before I do the cutting. Meowy 17:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

That would be me. Go ahead and do what you think is right and perhaps I might modify your modification but we can come to a consensus without any pro-Azeri administrators :) Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 19:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Who won

I removed the claim on Armenian victory. Since no territorial changes were achieved, the claims for victory in this skirmish should be taken very cautiously. Grandmaster (talk) 11:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I've rollbacked the infobox to what I had originally. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 04:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Washington post article

The Washington post article is a response by the two politicians to the election protests. There's no connection with this ceasefire violation. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 04:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The WP article is directly related to Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict and outlines an important recognition by Sargsyan ("who will control NK, Armenia or Azerbaijan") about the essence of the conflict. It was given in the aftermath of violent crackdown on opposition in Armenia as well as ceasefire violation on Karabakh front, obviously aimed to distract attention from the former event. This should be properly noted in all articles, where it's claimed that some "NKR" is fighting with Azerbaijan. So far all military, diplomatic and otherwise political statements on the clashes in Karabakh came from Armenian and not so called "NKR" officials. Atabek (talk) 15:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

But the article never mentions the ceasefire violation and I see no connection between the passage you quote and the ceasefire violation. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 17:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The article is absolutely relevant to the fact that ceasefire violation was not between Azerbaijan and some unknown/undefined "NKR" but between Azerbaijan and Armenia, which are "in conflict over who should control Nagorno-Karabakh" - quoting Sargsyan Atabek (talk) 09:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

But I see nothing in the article that connects the ceasefire violation with what Sargsyan said. My understanding is that you want that quote in this article to show that the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is a battle of control between Armenia and Azerbaijan, and hence this skirmish was between Armenia and Azerbaijan. It's seems like a big stretch to come to that conclusion based on the passage you quoted. I think the background already sufficiently describes the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan as well as the OSCE Minsk Groups efforts to get the two countries to come to an agreement. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 04:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Tags on closed POV NK project are no longer relevant [2]. Removed. Atabek (talk) 07:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to let know that 149.68.31.146 and other edit warring IPs are banned Azad chai (talk · contribs). Grandmaster (talk) 09:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I am not sure why link to Sarkissian's article in Washington Post is being removed. That establishes prima facie evidence that NK conflict is between Armenia and Azerbaijan over control of NK, not between Azerbaijan and some "NKR". Perhaps, we should restore that and list all involved parties. I think the words by Sarkissian below, tell it all:

Armenia faces a series of external challenges that we hope to address. First among them is the long-standing conflict over who should control the Nagorno-Karabakh region between our country and Azerbaijan.

Thanks. Atabek (talk) 18:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be misreading the sentence you are quoting. The sentence says that the Nagorno-Karabakh region is located between Armenia and Azerbaijan, and that the conflict is over who controls the NK region. It does not say that the conflict is between Armenia and Azerbaijan over control of NK. Meowy 21:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

How is that related to Martakert skirmishes? Unless you have an adequate source that proves Armenaia's involvement in the skirmishes, I suggest you stop adding irrelevancies to the articles. VartanM (talk) 19:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Those are the words of Armenian President, acknowledging the essence of Karabakh conflict, the one of control over it by Armenia and Azerbaijan. In addition, the following quote from Vardan Oskanian, reaffirms the fact that it was in fact Armenia and not some unrecognized "NKR" involved:

• On March 3, 2008, in the Martakert Region of Nagorno-Karabakh, the Azerbaijani armed forces attempted a serious attack on the Armenian positions, and a statement by Foreign Minister of Armenia in the same article:

• • "The Minster added, "At a certain moment we lost a position, but regained it and restored the status quo on the frontline. We strongly condemn this action of violence and consider it as a provocation of the Azerbaijani side in connection with the destabilized political situation inside Armenia. Probably Azerbaijan counted upon taking advantage at the moment when all of Armenia is focused on its internal problems. Luckily, Azerbaijan’s plans failed".

I am not sure how much of this OR VartanM and Meowy are going to push, but I didn't remove unrecognized "NKR", I only added Armenia as a party to skirmishes, based on facts listed above from the words of Armenia's officials. Atabek (talk) 23:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused, are you saying the positions under attack weren't manned by Armenians? Nobody is saying the population of NKR isn't composed of Armenians, are they! And why are you trying to turn this article about a small skirmish into an exploration of the level of ROA support of NKR? Meowy 01:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I am still waiting for you provide an explicit source rather than your interpretations. Thanks VartanM (talk) 00:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Editors who are altering the accepted usage of conflict infoboxes

Grandmaster and Atabek have both recently added the word "(unrecognised)" after "Nagorno-Karabakh Republic" in this article's conflict infobox. The addition of such qualifying words appears to be contrary to the accepted useage of conflict infoboxes within Wikipedia articles. For example, the word "unrecognised" does not occur in the conflict infobox for any other wikipedia entry concerning Nagorno Karabakh. Nor does the word "unrecognised" (or any similar qualifier) seem to be present in the conflict infobox on any similar wikipedia entries (see for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Gagra ). Maybe these two editors were not aware of these facts. If they now agree with my analysis, I request that both editors say here that they will refrain from re-inserting this word, or similar words, into the conflict infobox for this article, and in the conflict infobox for any Nagorno-Karabakh Republic-related article. If they do not agree, then the alternative will be to initiate a request for comment on the proper use of these infoboxes. Meowy 21:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Meowy, please, refer to facts above. I shall remind you that Karabakh conflict is qualitatively different from Abkhaz conflict, in that it's a subject of direct war between Armenia and Azerbaijan, which persisted not only on Karabakh frontline. Defining it in terms of Karabakh's Armenian Community (or how you refer to it as "NKR"), it would mean a war between Karabakh's Armenian community and Karabakh's Azeri community, in which the latter was ethnically cleansed from the region. And that's one of the reasons why "NKR" remains unrecognized internally and internationally as an entity, because it's illegitimate and is based on expression of one ethnicity's point of view only, after cleansing non-Armenian population. It's not recognized by Armenia itself nor by another state, hence it is unrecognized. It's wholly dependent on Armenia's budget, hence it's not independent either. Atabek (talk) 23:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Once again (or maybe I should start to say always) you seem to be unable to read what I have written. I am not objecting to the judicious use of the word "unrecognised" with the words "Nagorno-Karabakh Republic" inside the body of an article, I am objecting to your insertion of this word in an article's conflict infobox. You should not be using such words there. Meowy 01:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Meowy, the infobox should only show who the combatants/beligerants are. There are many different types of combantants that have been put in the infobox such as countries, unrecognized coounties, ethnic groups, breakaway regions, terrorist groups, rebel groups, or historical countries. Examples 2006 Lebanon War, War in Pakistan, People's Liberation Army invasion of Tibet (1950–1951) etc. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

"NKR" is not a country, so its flag cannot be included in the infobox. This entity does not exist de-jure. Therefore its inclusion should either be accompanied with the word "unrecognized", or "NKR" should be replaced with "Ethnic Armenian forces from NK". And there's no rule that does not allow inclusion of the word "unrecognized", so I don't understand what Meowy refers to. It is Ok to so, and it needs to be done for the sake of factual accuracy. Grandmaster (talk) 05:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, Armenia is a party to the conflict as well, see CIA factbook and many other sources. The flag of this country (a real country) should be included too. Grandmaster (talk) 05:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to make Atabek and Grandmaster see sense, but they seem to be so obsessed with inserting Azerbaijani dogma into this and other Wikipedia articles that they do not understand why they are wrong in this specific matter. Grandmaster's words also suggest that he is about to extend their misuse of the conflict infobox in this article into the misuse of the infobox in all NK-related articles that use it. I think a RfC is now required on the proper use of a conflict infobox, and I urge Atabek and Grandmaster not to make additions to any conflict infoboxes until such RfC is resolved. Meowy 14:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Meowy, I think you need to give up on Atabek and Grandmaster are "unable to read" or "tried to make sense" and other rhetoric and assume some good faith. It's clear that your position, as always, also now reflects Armenian POV at its core, and there is nothing wrong with that. However, the article on such sensitive subject shall be neutral. I brought reference from Sarkissian, where he admits that the conflict is between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Earlier I brought a reference from Panorama.AM where Armenian DM official made statement about Mardakert skirmishes, even before NK separatists, and furthermore here is RFE/RL piece [3], where news of fighting came first, and read the statement by Armenian FM Oskanian:

• "We condemn this challenge, and we think that this is an attempt by the Azerbaijani side to exploit the current situation in Armenia," Oskanian said. "Perhaps they thought we had focused all of our attention on our internal situation, and that this could provide them with a psychological advantage, but this hasn't proved the case."

I don't see NK authorities being mentioned anywhere. I only see the word "we" being used all over the place, meaning Armenia, since Oskanian represented the FOREIGN MINISTRY of this country! Now you may continue pushing Armenian POV as you usually do. However, realistically the negotiations on the status of NK as well as on future relations between Armenia and Azeri nations are carried out between Armenia and Azerbaijan. The fighting on frontline erupted after brutal crackdown of elections in Armenia, not after those in NK. Few separatists in NK, just like everyone in their own backyard, can still gather and proclaim themselves independent all they want, but in reality they're not recognized, are not party to negotiation, neither do they officially exist to insert such POV into encyclopedic articles. As I said earlier, NK is not an independent entity even by Armenian measures, since Armenia allocates NK's annual budget from its own budget. Atabek (talk) 00:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what change Atabek and Grandmaster want to make to the infobox. Here are my comments:

1) We shouldn't add Armenia as a beligerant for the reasons I described above many weeks ago. The rferl article doesn't add any evidence of Armenian involvement and TigranTheGreat explained adequately why Oskanian would talk about NKR in the first person.

2) The flag of NKR should be in the infobox for the same reason that it's in the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic article.

3) We don't need to add unrecognized beside NKR as one of the combantants in the infobox as the body of the article already says it and it's not the practise within military articles. The infobox is a short summary of the combantants and the forces of each combantant and the results, it doesn't need to go into a complex description of each of the combatants otherwise we would be putting things like (Historical Country) (Territorist Group) (Rebel Group) in the combantants for infoboxes of other military articles. I hope this clears things up. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 00:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

First, Armenia is a party to the conflict, it stations troops in NK and the region is basically under the military control of that country. That is not my personal opinion, I can cite many sources about that. So Armenia should be in the infobox. Second, "NKR" is not a de-jure state, so clarification about its status is needed. There are no accepted rules for what infobox should contain and what it should not, unlike what Meowy claims, and I don't think that addition of the word "unrecognized" will somehow harm this article. Grandmaster (talk) 05:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I suppose, as an alternative to a RfC, we could drag Grandmaster and Atabek over to the side of the playground where the big boys play and discuss the matter either at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Infobox_Military_Conflict or at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history Meowy 15:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Please calm your tone, Meowy. That kind of rhetoric isn't necessary or wanted. --Golbez (talk) 16:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

What "rhetoric"? The editors at the Military History Wikiproject created the conflict infobox template, and I don't think they will look kindly on anyone they feel is distorting its use for petty purposes. Meowy 21:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

You know exactly what I mean - the part about "over to the side of the playground where the big boys play". Be civil. --Golbez (talk) 21:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, I get your point. However, and unfortunately, "playground squabbles" are exactly what a lot of arguments on Wikipedia are like! Meowy 01:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Grandmaster, if you can provide a source that shows that Republic of Armenia military units actually fought in this engagement then you can add Armenia as one of the combatants. Clarification of NKR's status is already in the body of the article. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 01:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure. See Radio Free Europe: The fighting appeared to be the most serious violation in years of the cease-fire agreement between Baku and Yerevan over the territory, which is dominated by ethnic Armenians and located within Azerbaijan. [4]

This source never mentions any "NKR", it mentions only Armenia as one of the combatants. I don't think that "NKR" should be presented as a de-jure state, which it is not. And note that none of the third party sources quoted in the article refer to the Armenian side as "NKR". They are called "ethnic Armenian" or "pro-Armenian forces", but not "NKR". So we should either refer to the Armenian side as "ethnic Armenian forces", meaning that they represent Armenian forces both from Armenia and NK, or add Armenia and show the accurate status of NK. Grandmaster (talk) 11:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Until you have a source which states that the soldiers defending the position were dressed in the uniforms of the ROA army or were under the immediate command of ROA officers, then they are solders of the NKR defence force. BTW, from reading the discussions at the Military History wikiproject talk page, on the conflict infoboxes it seems to have been decided (based on Geneva convention usage) that a "combatant" is an individual soldier, not a nation. Nations/states are referred to as "belligerents", and they have to be physically involved in the conflict to be called a belligerent. Meowy 21:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)Grandmaster, if anything that source tends to indicate that Republic of Armenia forces were not involved. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 01:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

How so? If ceasefire between Baku and Yerevan is violated, Armenia has something to do with it as well. And why none of the sources mentions "NKR", but the flag is there? "Ethnic Armenian forces" cannot be interpreted as forces of NK separatists only. Grandmaster (talk) 10:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Again you need to show that the Republic of Armenia was directly involved in the fight (it wasn't). Your quote shows that the '94 cease fire that was signed by Armenia and Azerbaijan was violated and nobody disputes that. VartanM (talk) 17:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Dates in the aftermath section

Hello, I could be mistaken, but shouldn't the dates in the aftermath section refer to 2008 rather than 2007? Cityraven (talk) 13:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC) Cityraven, June 18th (sorry if I missed the signature the first time around, this is my first entry in any Wikipedia discussion)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Cityraven (talk • contribs) 13:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 04:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Belligerents

We deal with two facts here.
1. The skirmishes took place on the territory of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, a de-facto independent Armenian state which has its own Nagorno-Karabakh Defense Army.
2. No source directly indicates that armed forces of the Republic of Armenia have taken part in the skirmishes.

One should keep in mind that both Karabakh and Armenia are populated with Armenians. Hence, Armenians of Armenia will not say "they" about Armenians of Karabakh. We are we, one ethnic group, but two different states. In the light of this, I don't see a reason why Armenia should be mentioned as belligerent in a fight taken place at the de-facto border of Azerbaijan and the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic.
If there are any objections, please leave a note here along with the relevant references. -- Ashot  ^(talk) 18:11, 9 April 2011 (UTC)