Talk:2012 Armenian–Azerbaijani border clashes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Notability box[edit]

There are enough sources now, notability is not a problem here--Reader1987 (talk) 16:10, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Notability is NOT about sources alone...good sources could mean its good for Wikinews not WP.(Lihaas (talk) 19:15, 7 June 2012 (UTC)).
"Please help to establish notability by adding reliable, secondary sources about the topic." I did what the box asked. over.--Reader1987 (talk) 07:19, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
The merge houl take care of this. Seems unananimous(Lihaas (talk) 12:52, 9 June 2012 (UTC)).

Merge[edit]

Should we merge those articles, since it's clearly a cycle of connected violence, as commented by Clinton--Reader1987 (talk) 16:32, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree; these seem to be stemming from the same root. Parishan (talk) 11:29, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
I've merged only the page created by you for the time being--Reader1987 (talk) 12:36, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Merge them all, 3 articles of relatively small events are needless. Seperate section could do fine as 2012 Azeri-Armnenian clashes(Lihaas (talk) 19:15, 7 June 2012 (UTC)).
Before anything is merged, maybe both should be given more work on their content. In the article on the 2012 Tavush skirmishes it is unclear whether the Armenian soldiers were killed as a result of the initial firing at the village or as a result of a later confrontation (and one source I came across said nobody had died during the firing at the village, suggesting that there were two separate but related incidents). Meowy 01:57, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support the merge. There is no reason to have more than one article at this moment. VartanM (talk) 16:48, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support I support the idea of merging the articles as well. The events are relatively small and could be addressed in one article.--KHE'O (talk) 13:16, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - As a result of an editor trying to remove some content from the background section that had bridged the timeline between the two incidents, I now think a merge is the best way to avoid future editing conflict. Meowy 14:38, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Merge everything here, there's no point in duplicating content. Grandmaster 18:44, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I think we have a strong consensus for merge, don't we? Grandmaster 08:47, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

POV[edit]

This is not notable to say that users from X said that because even if a few did all didnt. further they are not notable people; and its all in all a dubious allegation

Above all that is absolutley not an RS source "community of bloggers" is certainly not known for factual verifiable accuracy(Lihaas (talk) 12:55, 9 June 2012 (UTC)).
First, bloggers are not the source but globalvoicesonline.org IS. News regarding the blogosphere hoax as trivia is really NOT THAT BAD to be included. It really seems you are going after my edits. Every sentence needs time for the writer, and I lost mine, it seems. Hah, discussing now, after deleting.. Since I have a life beyond this, I'm quitting. Thanks a lot, it is because of users like you why wikipedia still sucks.--93.137.199.167 (talk) 17:00, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Well thats really your wish if you want to quit without further discussion, but as you said its your life beyond this.
"not that bad to be included" is not asserting the source as credible. Globalvoices explicitly states it is a "community of bloggers" and per RS it needs editorial oversight as opposed to being a personal page/opinion. Alternatively you can take the discussion of the source to RSN if you wish.(Lihaas (talk) 11:29, 10 June 2012 (UTC)).

Recent edits by Grandmaster and by Lihhaas[edit]

Grandmaster's first.

He changed "The most recent tensions have been concentrated along the section of the Armenia-Azerbaijan border that runs between Tavush Province and Qazakh Rayon and started in April when cross-border firing from Azerbaijan at the border village of Dovekh in Armenia resulted in the deaths of three Armenian soldiers" to "The most recent tensions have been concentrated along the section of the Armenia-Azerbaijan border that runs between Tavush Province and Qazakh Rayon and started in April with cross-border firing." This event is the 2012 Tavush skirmishes and it clearly states in that article that three Armenian soldiers were killed. There are no sources that dispute this. Moreover, there is no content in that article which indicates there was any Armenian firing into Azerbaijan. The whole point of having the article is because of the seriousness of the incident (the three deaths) so it is both perverse and wrong to exclude mention of them in the Background section of this article, and to exclude mention that the firing came from Azerbaijan.

On the comment by Thomas de Waal. Firstly, though maybe this is a side issue, it is not known if he was speaking specifically about this incident or even with knowledge of this incident. Secondly, in the wording in the article. De Waal is giving an answer to the question (posed by whom?) why the international bodies don't make direct statements "naming and shaming" whichever side started the violence. He sais it is becasue they can't know for certain because there are not enough OSCE observers on the ground. This is somewhat different from what is expressed in the article text, so I am going to rewrite it.

Grandmaster, please stop calling ArmeniaNow "the Armenian media". ArmeniaNow is owned and run by non-Armenians and is unconnected to any governmental media outlet. For example, the New York Times (another source used in the article) is not described as "the American Media" or "American sources", if it is anything it is "media based in America" and it is not even necessary to mention that fact. Meowy 21:35, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

ArmeniaNow is not even a reliable source. It should be removed altogether. It has no reputation for fact checking and accuracy, and is quite obscure. You cannot put it on the same level as NYTimes. Regardless of who owns it, it is an little known news outlet based in Armenia: [1] When presenting something as a fact in such a contentious issue, you must rely on a perfectly neutral and reliable source with no conflict of interest. Otherwise the opinion must be properly attributed. You cannot present something reported only in Armenian media as a fact, same as you cannot do that with things reported in Azerbaijani media only. And we don't know that it was the Azerbaijani side that fired first, that is only the claim of the Armenian media, while the international organizations don't know. So please mind NPOV and a whole bunch of other rules. Grandmaster 21:46, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
You have gone right out on a limb here and starting making outragous comments. If you continue on this line, I'll take it up with administrators. I think you are begining to exhibit racism. Meowy 21:50, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
You are free to complain wherever you like, but before you do, please read WP:NPOV. Also note that I treat Armenian and Azerbaijani sources the same way. Grandmaster 22:07, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
First you insert an incorrect "Armenian media" label to a source, then you start attacking the source. I'm sure there are plenty of things that are little-known to you, the mere fact that ArmeniaNow is little-known to you is not a reason to question the validity of the source. ArmeniaNow is the the most important and most reliable media outlet for news stories related to Armenia. Its neutrality, its independence, and its adherence to high journalistic standards is unquestioned. You know where to go on Wikipedia if you wish to raise questions about the suitability of a source. Meowy 23:48, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
You must be able to provide multiple third party sources for claims placing blame for the escalation of hostilities on one of the sides, or a very reliable one, with exceptional reputation for fact checking, such as OSCE, or a leading international news outlet, such as Reuters, NYT, etc, but even then it needs to be properly attributed. A news outlet based in Armenia (btw, strangely, its page "About Us" contains no info whatsoever: [2]) is certainly not such a source, as it clearly has a conflict of interest. I can cite a source based in Azerbaijan stating completely the opposite. But what are we going to get if we state as facts the opinions of Armenian and Azerbaijani journalists on who started the shooting? There will be no logic in the article, as it will be stating as facts 2 opposite ideas. Therefore any such claims must be properly attributed, but better yet, made only when supported by a third party source, such as NYT, for example, which is an American newspaper, btw, see The New York Times. Grandmaster 05:07, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Edits by Lihhaas
Based on the edits, I think there is a disagreement about what is meant by "background". I think that the background section should be a quick summary of events immediately prior to the events that form the subject of the article. So it needs to mention the reason for the incidents (the conflict and the aftermath of the NK war) and should mention past border incidents in that vicinity, but does not need to mention off-topic things like military spending. The background section will change if the proposed merge goes ahead, so it is probably not worth arguing too much over it. But it certainly should not include things that didn't happen (i.e., the Eurovision Song Contest content). Meowy 00:13, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

@Lihaas. Please be aware that a reference cannot consist of only the url, it must also contain the description of the source (name of the source, title of the article, name of the author, date of publication, etc). After your edits all such information often is gone, and only the url is left. That's not how it's done, please see WP:CITE for more details, in particular this: [3] Grandmaster 05:18, 13 June 2012 (UTC)