Talk:Armenia–Azerbaijan border crisis (2021–present)

Lead, whether to describe this as a "border conflict" or "invasion/incursion/assault/occupation"

It is not possible to claim that Azerbaijan invaded territory of Armenia, because there's no established border at the moment, and no investigation has been conducted. Macron and EU parliament only express their opinion, but an opinion is not a fact, in the absence of a fact finding mission. So any opinion should be attributed, and not presented as a fact. Grandmaster 16:28, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Despite the border not being demarcated, advancing several kilometres into Armenia proper isn't an acceptable margin of error in any logical sense to argue this. Secondly, Macron and EU representatives are high level state representatives and their statements hold factual value (they aren't random partisan nationalistic analysts), also it shows a consensus of opinions on the matter. I don't think even Turkey's Erdogan, who usually unconditionally supports Azerbaijan has released a statement about this incident. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 18:41, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

First off, it is not possible to say where exactly the border passes, and where Azerbaijani troops are located. There are different Soviet era maps that show different border arrangement. And both the EU and Macron are politicians. Macron certainly has his own issues with Azerbaijan and Turkey, and the EU has not conducted any investigation on the matter. The views should be attributed to each party, and not presented as a fact. Grandmaster 22:13, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

A mere glance at all unequivocal international calls to withdraw the Azerbaijani forces from Armenia's territory is enough to say that Azerbaijani servicemen crossed into Armenia's territory. Only the Azerbaijani government denies trespassing, and in Azerbaijani government vs the world argument it is natural for Wikipedia to give preference to what the the world says. "Macron certainly has his own issues with Azerbaijan and Turkey and that is why he is saying Azerbaijan is trespassing" idea is WP:Original - I don't think you can present a reliable non-partisan reference that would support it. The "EU has not conducted any investigation on the matter" statement is WP:ORIGINAL, too - how do you know this and why do you think a serious organisation like European Union or European Parliament would take any information from any of the sides without checking? Countries and international organisations have many ways of checking the information they need (like via accredited military attaches); who says a special fact-checking expedition is a pre-requisite for confirming that each kilometre of Armenia is truly in Armenia? Regards, --Armatura (talk) 01:48, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Those statements are made by politicians, which have their own political agenda. The only power that has boots on the ground in that region is Russia, and Russia does not say anything about border violations. As for politicians, we remember how the USA claimed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, and he had none. At this point, it is not precisely known where exactly the border passes, due to existence of conflicting Soviet maps. Therefore any claims of trespassing must be attributed to the party who made them, and not presented as facts. Grandmaster 16:34, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

I am sorry but that is not the case - it is not "just Russia with boots on the ground". See the the link I provided - 1) military representatives (from US, France, Greece, Ukraine, and Georgia) visited that area to get familiarized with the situation on the ground, and 2) a group of ambassadors (including France, Germany, Italy, Poland and Greece) visited that area to get acquainted with the situation on the spot and the 3) EU delegation headed by EU Ambassador Andrea Victorin also went there for the same purpose - to witness the situation on the ground. So, no, the situation is objectively very far from "only Russia's there and it's staying silent" situation that you are describing. As you can see - a diverse lot of third-party people are there, with a lot of on-the-ground first-hand familiarization with what's going on there and a lot of third parties not staying silent but openly saying Azerbaijan is trespassing and should withdraw its forces. So let's avoid conspiracy theories on hidden political anti-Azerbaijan agendas and original research about silence, please, as per WP:OR policy. Thanks. --Armatura (talk) 18:23, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

We don't know what the findings of those visits were, they did not publish any reports. Therefore in the absence of precisely established borders we cannot claim something as a fact just because Macron or State department speaker said so (the official statement by US state department did not accuse Azerbaijan, btw). That is why proper attribution of claims would be more in line with WP:NPOV. Grandmaster 20:56, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Disagree, I am afraid it's a claim for Azerbaijani government only, and pretty obvious fact per the rest of the sources. And it's not just "Macron and State department speaker" (who, btw, also said Azerbaijan to withdraw its forces). The calls from European Parliament are straightforward and unequivocal - if you have a reliable reference that says all those voices are biased for some reason against Azerbaijan or are based on fabricated / non-existing evidence - you are welcome to bring those references to everybody's attention here. It's good for the article lead to reflect the mainstream info and it does so currently. You are welcome to request a third party opinion or RfC or whatever else would suit the purpose. Regards, --Armatura (talk) 21:38, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

I think the argument that "because the borders were never formally demarcated there cannot be an invasion, incursion, or occupation" is tantamount to saying that because we cannot formally define a grain of sand from a heap of sand, there is no difference between the two. Let's focus on how Azerbaijan's actions are reported by independent parties.

The following independent parties either a) called for Azeri forces to withdraw from internationally recognized Armenian territory OR described Azerbaijan's actions as "invasion," "incursion," "seizure," or "assault" of sovereign Republic of Armenia territory:

1. European Parliament
2. United States
3. France
4. two of three co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group.
5. openDemocracy: "Azerbaijan has made further incursions since the 2020 ceasefire, advancing at least 45 square kilometres into Armenia"
6. Russian Analytical Digest Journal: "Azerbaijan’s military incursion into Armenia in May 2021 as well as other occasions"
7. International Crisis Group / FP: "In September, Azerbaijani forces seized territory inside Armenia proper."
8. nationalinterest.org: Azerbaijani soldiers’ border incursions into Armenia
9. Human Rights Watch: "in mid-September, when Azerbaijan made incursions into Armenia and along the border."
10. Institute for War and Peace: "in light of Azerbaijan incursions into Armenia back in the summer of 2021 and a flagrant attack on Armenia only last month"
11. Eurasianet: "Azerbaijan launches wide-ranging attacks against Armenia"
12. Time Magazine: "a democratic nation that was recently invaded by its authoritarian neighbor."
13. Foreign Policy: "Azerbaijan’s Aggression Has Forced Armenia Into Russia’s Arms...Prior to Azerbaijan’s brazen assault on Armenia’s sovereign territory"
14. The Boston Globe: : "The world failed to act in 2020 when Azerbaijan attacked Armenia. What’s happening to Ukrainians is similar to what happened to Armenians. These are not mutually exclusive events. The parallels could not be starker."

How do you feel about the word "incursion" to describe this in the lead section? I'm fine with "invasion" but "incursion" is less polemical and accurately describes how this event transpired and is reported by independent news outlets and official representatives who are independent from the conflict (EU, US, France).

@Grandmaster @Armatura @Ավետիսյան91 @Dallavid Humanatbest (talk) 14:44, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Many of the above sources are just opinion pieces that cannot be used in Wikipedia for statements of facts. The last 3 in particular. The vast majority of reliable sources report on border clashes, for example Euronews, france24, Reuters, The Guardian, CNBC, CNN and many others. Grandmaster 15:19, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

• When Armenia refuses to start the border delimitation and demarcation negotiations, and when Armenia and Azerbaijan border is not fixed and determined, it is BLATANT violation of WP:NPOV to state "Azerbaijan OCCUPIES parts of Syunik and Gegharkunik provinces on the Armenia–Azerbaijan border[1][2][3]". Wikipedia mut not be a tool for one-sided views of the racists of either of the parties in dispute. 212.174.38.3 (talk) 07:52, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Question

Hello Grandmaster, can you please explain your edit here [1] ? You changed from "establish it through the use of force" to "compel Armenia", claiming "Inaccurate translation from Russian. Added link to original speech". While Aliev clearly said “The creation of the Zangezur corridor fully meets our national, historical and future interests. We are implementing the Zangezur Corridor, whether Armenia wants it or not. If she wants, we will solve this issue easier, if she does not want, we will solve it by force" on his April interview [2]. You also linked an unrelated to his April quotes article from March 6. Kindly explain your rationale here, as this just seems like a whitewash attempt (and a bad one I might add). Regards, ZaniGiovanni (talk) 10:00, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

That is inaccurate translation. If you check his original speech in Azerbaijani or Russian, he said "we will compel them". In Russian it sounds like "мы их заставим". I provided a link to his full speech on official state news agency Azertag, which you removed for unknown reason. It is always better to refer to the original source. Turan translated inaccurately. In general, quality of English translation on Azerbaijani news sites is not that good. They often use google. Мы заставим их does not necessarily mean the use of military force. There are different ways of compelling. Turan made it sound as if he talked about military solution. Grandmaster 10:14, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

As I said already, I saw your link of [azertag], and it is from March 6. I repeat, it is not related to Aliev's April statements. The translation from his April statements is in fact correct, "Necə ki, mən müharibədən əvvəl və müharibə dövründə demişdim ki, bizim torpağımızdan öz xoşunuzla rədd olun, yoxsa sizi zorla çıxaracağıq. Belə də oldu. Zəngəzur dəhlizinin taleyi də eyni olacaq." [2]. "Zorla" meaning by force, forcibly, violently, coercively, hardly, under compulsion. If you are fluent in Azerbaijani as claimed in your page, you shouldn't had a problem in understanding this. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 10:37, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

In any case, transport corridor and border demarcation are 2 different issues. What is the connection between these statements by Aliyev and border delimitation issues? Any connection must be supported by a third party reliable source, and I do not see any. Grandmaster 16:26, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

As it is highly relevant to the background section, being an invasion threat before the actual invasion of Lake Sev? Grandmaster your chain of replies here are so strange. At first, you complain about “translations being wrong” for unknown to me reasons. Then when I show you, an Azeri, Aliev’s exact words in Azerbaijani and even in the Official President of Az website [3], stated “expel them by force”, now you change your argument to “not being relevant” here somehow. May I suggest you to be a bit more objective, and to take off the Az POV lenses for a second. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 07:56, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

This is not about my objectivity. You cannot just drop unrelated statements of Aliyev, because you think that they are relevant to this issue. It is a WP:OR. A connection between the events needs to be established by a reliable source. As for Aliyev's statement, the article originally stated "through the use of force", which is not exactly what he said. "We force them" or "compel them" is the exact translation, so I have no objections to present wording. But that does justify the relevance of this statement to the border demarcation issue. Grandmaster 13:56, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Basic judgement and common sense is enough to connect the two because they're obviously related and a source isn't needed to connect the events. If someone promises to do something and then proceeds to fulfill that promise or act on it a few months later it doesn't take geniuses to link the two together. Read WP:you don't need to cite that the sky is blue. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 14:56, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Just as before and during the war, I said that they must get out of our lands or we will expel them by force. And so it happened. This part is about 7 occupied districts, not the corridor. We are implementing the Zangazur corridor, whether Armenia likes it or not. If they do, it will be easier for us to implement, if not, we will enforce it. This part is about the corridor. The quote needs to be accurate. And the connection needs to be demonstrated not by your own assumption, but by a reliable source. No original research is a rule. Grandmaster 19:21, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Full quote We are implementing the Zangazur corridor, whether Armenia likes it or not. If they do, it will be easier for us to implement, if not, we will enforce it. Just as before and during the war, I said that they must get out of our lands or we will expel them by force. And so it happened. The same will apply to the Zangazur corridor. [3]. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 20:15, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Exactly. "We will expel them by force" was about occupied territories. That is not about about corridor. Better just to quote it as it is, though I still see no direct connection between this quote and border demarcation. Not a single reliable source made this connection. Grandmaster 20:37, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't think that you read the full quote. Did you miss the part where Aliev followed up with The same will apply to the Zangazur corridor ? The April statement in the background section was completely fine, and was reflecting what was said in his statements, as evident by his "Zangezur Corridor" followup, and how "the same will apply". Please, don't change the stable version again before reaching consensus. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 22:25, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

That is your personal interpretation of the source. Why remove the full quote, so that the reader could judge for himself? And there was no consensus, you just made your edit 30 minutes ago. Grandmaster 22:54, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Just as before and during the war, I said that they must get out of our lands or we will expel them by force. And so it happened. The same will apply to the Zangazur corridor. Wikipedia isn’t a “personal interpretation” website, and the statement was represented perfectly fine before your additions. Let me get this straight, at first you say that the “translations were wrong”. I then present to you the Official Website of President of Azerbaijan stating precisely the language “expel them by force” and followed up by “the same will apply to Zangezur corrdior”. By the most basic deduction, if someone says “If you don’t do X I will expel you by force. The same will apply to Y“. Then logically, it means that “expel by force” is going to be used in regards to Y as well (“the corridor”), as it is literally said and implied in the next sentence. Wikipedia isn’t just “exact quotations” only, the statement was objectively and neutrally represented as I explained. There also wasn’t quotation template used as far as I could tell [1]. You made those unnecessary additions, some of them being a clear POV like changing the wording to “compel” (this is from someone who all of the sudden wants “the exact quote” now). I’m sorry Grandmaster, but your arguments just seem like WP:JDLI at this point. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 18:07, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Grandmaster, an international expert on South Caucasus Laurence Broers views the advance of Azerbaijani forces in Syunik as a pressure on Armenia to get the Syunik corridor Azerbaijan desired, pointing to the connection between what president Aliyev threatened and what the Azerbaijani troops currently do at Am-Az border, please have a look at the BBC Russia (a reliable source) article I added. Regards, --Armatura (talk) 16:47, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, that is a good source. And Broers is a good scholar. But president's statements are not mentioned. In particular, what is the relevance of Aliyev's statement about past ethnic composition of Yerevan to the border demarcation? That is a problem here. Grandmaster 19:23, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Deliberately adding false information

Hello. Someone is deliberately adding false information to the infobox. First, they used multiple reports of the same incident to raise the number of injured Azeri servicemen to 5, then they used Armenian claim that Azerbaijan denied (https://publika.az/news/nida_xeber/364261.html) as Per Azerbaijan. Can someone intervene in this? 185.81.80.130 (talk) 07:32, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

You are using a source that does not even match. Next time learn the rules before trying to make a report and read the sources. Azerbaijan did not deny the one drone shot down over an hour ago with picture evidence. It denied a separate incident.

Azerbaijan surely won't comment on every single one of Armenia's obscure claims. Armenia said that it shot down two UAVs and Azerbaijan denied this (https://report.az/qarabag/azerbaycan-ordusuna-mexsus-iki-eded-pilotsuz-ucus-aparatinin-guya-basarkecer-uzerinde-vurulmasi-barede-ermenistan-terefinin-yaydigi-melumat-yalandir/). Armenia showing some random metal pictures doesn't mean that it is true. Also, do you realize that you're adding Armenia's claim as Azerbaijan's statement? If you want this to be covered, add it to the timeline section (and all parts of the incident, not just Armenian government claim). Armenian government literally hide their dead soldiers from the previous war (https://news.am/eng/news/646607.html), how are they a reliable source? 185.81.80.130 (talk) 09:47, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

User:ZaniGiovanni, you've done the same exact thing. Please read above. That's not Per Azerbaijan. 185.81.80.200 (talk) 23:46, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Focus on the content/sources displayed in this article. Nothing you linked here was added by me, and "per Azerbaijan" doesn't mean everything must be cited from the Az sources, which you don't seem to comprehend. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 00:14, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 30 July 2021

Put {{pp-dispute}} at the top lomrjyo^{(talk•contrib)} 11:32, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

 Done — xaosflux ^Talk 13:10, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 31 July 2021

Armenian Ministry of Defence claims that Azerbaijani forces fired upon a a logistic support vehicle delivering food to the Armenian military positions in Yeraskh. As a result, this vehicle was seriously damaged (source: Armenia Today). This information should be added to the timeline section, and the text "1 military truck damaged" should be added to the infobox. 185.81.82.110 (talk) 19:57, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done this page is no longer protected and may be edited directly as appropriate. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:35, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 31 July 2021 (2)

Grammar fixes:

"in Armenia–Nakhchivan border." to "on the Armenia–Nakhchivan border."

"The clashes then spread to Gegharkunik–Kalbajar area." to "The clashes then spread to the Gegharkunik–Kalbajar area." AntonSamuel (talk) 18:36, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done this page is no longer protected and may be edited directly as appropriate. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:36, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 18 October 2021

"On 11 October 2021, an Armenian civilian named Aram Tepnants was shot dead by Azerbaijani snipers in the village of Martakert."

"On 15 October 2021, Azerbaijani MoD reported that an Azerbaijani soldier was killed by an Armenian sniper fire."

These are not related to the Armenian-Azerbaijani border crisis, but the Artsakh conflict. Also, "On 15 and 16 October 2021, Azerbaijani forces undertook shelling measures against the village of Yeraskh, causing fires which damaged crops belonging to the Armenian villagers." Change this to a neutral tone, all sources are Armenian and Azerbaijani denied this [1].

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. This is clearly a controversial request. As for "Azerbaijan denied this", well, duh, of course they did, and so long we clearly attribute the statements to the Azerbaijani MoD, readers get all the information they need to be able to judge the validity of this. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:54, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Untrustable sources used by non-objective users

The source "Armenpress" is being owned directly by Armenians. The source is not Trustable. Please try to consolidate your claims about civilian injuries with objective media. BerkBerk68 (talk) 15:08, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

It is really hard to understand why User:Mr.User200 reverts the edits without giving a straight answer and making "whataboutism" instead, and removes this section from talk page. BerkBerk68 (talk) 16:55, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a WP:FORUM. You started your rant with a header of "Untrustable sources used by non-objective users", already using personal attacks not even against one but against some perceived group of users. The news agency Armenpress which is the oldest in the country is used for Armenian claims, per Armenia, just like Azeri sources are used for Az claims, per Azerbaijan. WP:BIASED sources can be used if attributed properly, like here. Now take your rants out of this talk page, and stop unduly characterizing fellow editors. Lastly, you would highly benefit from reading WP:NPA and WP:AGF. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 17:27, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

The source usage is not openly described. It is not visible that the claim belongs to Armenians or "per armenia" in every part of the page, despite using Armenian sources. BerkBerk68 (talk) 08:31, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 16 November 2021

Update casualties on infobox. Today, 15 soldiers were killed, and 12 more were captured on Armenia's side. This means that overall 23 soldiers were killed and 18 were captured. Source.

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:38, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Here I've provided you a source for it. What more? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.81.81.225 (talk) 17:52, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 17 November 2021

Update casualties on infobox. Armenian government reports that one of their soldiers were killed, 13 became POWs and 24 are missing source.

It have been added, however is a contradictory statement since other official Armenian sources, Parlamient and MOD officials have said that the clashes left over 15 dead, not only one. Most likely in those 24 missing are included some KIA, not present in your source. For that reason and to avoid double counting of casualties. Let's wait for a final/latest source. Preferably Armenian MOD.Mr.User200 (talk) 12:35, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Those were preliminary reports. This is the latest one. 24 MIA are either dead or captured, but they are still casualties. It should be added back, or add 15 killed instead of 1 killed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.219.164.91 (talk) 11:13, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Done but the previous report have been dismissed. Armenian MOD changing numbers every time they gave a release. Seems they don't have a final number and changes will continue to take place.Mr.User200 (talk) 11:43, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Azerbaijan casualties

After the 44-day war in Karabakh, the irretrievable losses of the defense and security sector of Azerbaijan from November 10, 2020 to January 31, 2021 amounted to 110 people, Turan reports citing the Caspian Institute of Military Research.

According to the institute, 15 soldiers died in combat conditions, 10 were blown up by mines, the rest died in non-combat conditions.

Most of the deaths of the military were confirmed by the Ministry of Defense of Azerbaijan and other law enforcement agencies.

In addition to 15 soldiers who died in combat and 10 who were blown up by mines, another 14 people died as a result of a helicopter crash, 12 in car accidents, 12 as a result of accidents, 10 died of diseases, 9 died unknown reasons, 9 - from war injuries, 5 - as a result of hazing, 2 - during special operations, 12 - committed suicide.

Of the total losses, 84, including 11 combat and 73 non-combat, occurred in 2021.

At the same time, in the pre-war 2019, according to the Institute, irretrievable losses amounted to 47 people, including 9 of them who died in combat conditions, 38 - non-combat.

In January 2022, the losses already amounted to 11 people, including 1 military man died in combat conditions, 3 died as a result of hazing, 2 - for unknown reasons, 3 - due to illness, 1 - as a result of an accident, 1 - committed suicide.

The Caspian Institute of Military Research notes a trend of increasing losses, and especially non-combat ones. https://caspiandefense.wordpress.com/2022/01/31/vətən-muharibəsindən-sonra-azərbaycan-azi-110-hərbcisini-itirib/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by SoadCore1 (talk • contribs) 15:49, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

The institute compiles casalties in both the NK conflict and the border crisis. To explain further, an Azerbaijani soldier killed near Shushi is not related to the border crisis. Makes no sense to reference it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.219.166.126 (talk) 15:55, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Impact of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine on the crisis

What is the impact of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine on this crisis? Is it getting worse due to it, or is a distraction of Russia making it less bad? MaitreyaVaruna (talk) 20:14, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Worse. Russia in this space acted as a moderator in recent years, not an instigator. With Russia occupied elsewhere, there is a flareup. Vici Vidi (talk) 18:37, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Can you guys add the recent Azerbaijani attack on Armenian border and cities that happened today?

These attacks happened several hours ago and I’m surprised nothing has been written about it. 159.250.110.3 (talk) 00:13, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a newspaper, it is way too early to adding this, lets wait for reliable sources to analyze and comment A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 00:26, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

How about now, Russki? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koseh nanat (talk • contribs) 15:07, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Causalities

I recently reverted some unsourced changes to the causalities numbers. I didn't really check the sources, but their multitude sugggest a WP:OR effort to sum them up, which makes already usually untrustworthy figures even more problematic. I think the numbers should be rechecked, updated and if possible supported by a single source. 109.119.205.238 (talk) 01:56, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

2023

Was there any discussion on the article move to include 2023? Last timeline update seems to be October 2022, there is no mention in the article for 2023 currently. - Indefensible (talk) 04:21, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

I believe it is because there were no new border incidents this year. A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 07:13, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

A map that actually shows Armenian territory that is ocupied, should be created.

For this article (and also in related articles), a map that actually shows Armenian territory that is ocupied, should be created and added. It would be useful, because it would show the precise location.

The map in the article only shows the border battles of 2021. More battles have taken place since then, including this year and this month.

For instance a map released by Armenia, showing its territories that have been occupied during this border conflict, could be useful:

https://oc-media.org/armenia-releases-map-of-territories-seized-by-azerbaijan-since-2020/

I sent a request in Wikimedia Commons to the original uploader of File:2021 Armenia-Azerbaijan Border Clashes.svg which is inside the information box of this article. Hopefully the user agrees and creates a map.

Multituberculata (talk) 09:34, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

File:Armenia-Azerbaijan Border Crisis.svg has been created by the user. Multituberculata (talk) 11:55, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Separation of incursions into Artsakh (Nagorno-Karabakh) vs Republic of Armenia

I notice the article has included military incursions by Azerbaijan into both Armenia and Artsakh.

However, the bulk of the article and its title suggest the crisis is specific to Republic of Armenia and not Artsakh.

These are different territories with different governments and different recognition from international bodies.

I will be moving the reports of territorial incursions by Azerbaijan into Artsakh into a subsection, that is distinct from the main article. Once this is done, it might be worth renaming the article or moving that section to its own article (depending on how much content there is).

any feedback? Humanatbest (talk) 16:23, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

"Run on sentence" use of colon and semi-colon

@Archives908

You have implemented the following change:

Original:

"Various countries, supranational organizations, and human rights organizations have called for an end to the hostilities: advocating for bilateral border demarcation, respect for the 2020 ceasefire conditions, and for Azerbaijan to pull back its forces."

Your version:

"Various countries, supranational organizations, and human rights organizations have called for an end to the hostilities and supporting bilateral border demarcation, respecting the terms of the 2020 ceasefire agreement, and for Azerbaijan to pull back its forces from Armenian territory."

Most English style guidelines (including the Wikipedia article on colons) state that colons are used before a list, a description, or an explanation.

"What follows the colon may or may not be a complete sentence, and it may be a mere list or even a single word."[2]

You cited "run-on sentence" in the edit summary, but a quick comparison of the original and your version of these sentence suggests that the original version is, in fact, more concise. You also have confusingly inter-mixed the list with commas and/or "and" conjunctions.

Also, it is common for a semi-colon to precede the word however.

[3] Using “however” as a conjunctive adverb: “However” can be used to join two simple sentences to make a compound sentence. “However” indicates the relationship between the two independent clauses is one of contrast or opposition. Use a semicolon before and a comma after “however” when you are using it to write a compound sentence: "The engineers claimed that the bridge was safe; however, they were still not prepared to risk crossing."

You are correct, however, that I should have put however in lowercase here.

This is mostly stylistic but I thought I would bring this to your attention given that you have a penchant for grammar :) I hope you have a great day! Humanatbest (talk) 21:54, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

You clearly have the time to write this paragraph, yet seemingly can't spare an extra minute to review your edits before clicking publish? From grammar and spelling mistakes within text of the photo you added, more and more MOS:CURLY violations, and a capitalization error. I'm getting tired of having to clean up these edits. I beg you, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE review your edits before publishing. Thank you and have a fantastic day :) Archives908 (talk) 22:12, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Armenian withdrawal per 2020 ceasefire

The lead and article go on about Azerbaijan’s violations, but from this article and related ones I can’t find any information about whether Armenian forces withdrew from Nagorno-Karabakh as agreed in the November 2020 ceasefire. If so, this should be mentioned for information. If not, Armenia would also be in violation, and this should be mentioned for NPOV.  —Michael Z. 16:27, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

The lead certainly has neutrality issues, and Armenian forces remained in Karabakh after the ceasefire. They surrendered in 2023. Grandmaster 10:53, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Number of villages

Ecrusized, regarding this edit: [4]. Azerbaijan does not control any villages on Armenia's territory. Azerbaijan only controls Armenia's exclave of Artsvashen within Azerbaijan since 1990s, while Armenia controls 8 Azerbaijani villages (4 border villages within Azerbaijan, and 4 Azerbaijani exclaves within Armenia, including Karki, Yukhari Askipara, Bağanis Ayrum, Barxudarlı and others). Armenia says that Azerbaijan controls agricultural lands in Armenia that belong to 31 villages, but not the actual villages. This is a better source:

Azerbaijani leaders regularly accuse Armenia of occupying “eight Azerbaijani villages.” They refer to border areas, most of them enclaves inside Armenia, which were controlled by Azerbaijan in Soviet times and occupied by the Armenian army in the early 1990s.

For its part, the Azerbaijani side seized at the time a bigger Armenian enclave as well as large swathes of agricultural land belonging to this and other border communities of Armenia. It occupied more Armenian territory during border clashes in 2021 and 2022.

The Armenian government says that a total of 200 square kilometers of Armenia’s internationally recognized territory adjacent to 31 communities is now controlled by Azerbaijan. It says that it is ready, in principle, to consider swapping the formerly Azerbaijani enclaves for those lands or seek other compromise solutions. [5]

Here's another source on those border villages: [6] I believe the background to the present tensions at the border with occupied villages and territories on both sides needs to be properly explained in the lead as well. Grandmaster 10:53, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

@Grandmaster: I see, thanks for the clarification. Ecrusized (talk) 13:01, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I updated the article with the latest news about agreement on the border demarcation between Armenia and Azerbaijan, which is a positive news for the region. But the lead needs updating too, because presently it shows the border crisis as something recent, while it was going on since 1990s, when the two states became independent. Grandmaster 09:36, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Suggestion to Rename the Article to Armenia-Azerbaijan Border Dispute

This article was written when there was an active conflict after a specific incident and war at the border. But things seems to have changed, the crisis itself is not a crisis, I feel like crisis refers to something that happens in a limited timeframe, as the border is being demarcated, and Armenia has returned 4 villages and there is an agreement to demarcate the border based on Alma Ata Declaration, I feel like crisis is the wrong word, its not like there are emergency talks in Brussels and Washington about a full scale war or something like that. outside of sporadic crossfire(which we see on many borders around the world), things are relatively quiet.

I feel like changing the article name and restructuring the article makes sense, Call it border dispute, give the background, mention the demarcation commission, the alma ata agreement that was agreed to recently as cited by Pashinyan in returning 4 villages. And then have subsections that mention the sporadic incidents that do happen from time to time.

It doesn't make sense for a crisis to have the timeframe of 30+ years. I feel like Crisis is something more immediate like something that happens, then it dies down or is resolved. On and off things, which have some resolution and some agreements here and there, where the leaderships meet sometimes in tense situations, other times in less tense situations over the span of several years, doesn't seem like a real "crisis".

What do you guys think? Midgetman433 (talk) 15:05, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I think the name could be changed. You may start a WP:RM on the proposed name. Also, the lead needs to be rewritten. The border dispute has a long history that is not reflected in the lead. In addition, the article is bloated with irrelevant information. For example, there is a whole section on Nagorno-Karabakh conflict which is a separate issue and has its own articles. It would make sense to create a section on the border delimitation talks instead. There have already been 8 meetings of the border delimitation commissions, and some progress has been made. Grandmaster 18:42, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Agree. Didn't see that you raised this issue before me. I already mentioned it on my previous edit. I'm also in favor of renaming the article. Aredoros87 (talk) 10:32, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

"Crisis" is the accurate word given it has included the killing of hundreds of people, the September 2022 attacks, which many observers interpreted as Azerbaijan trying to split Armenia in two, the fact that multiple observers consider the crisis as Azerbaijan + Turkey trying to turn Armenia into a rump state by seizing Syunik, that multiple Armenians in border villages have fled fearing their safety, that Azerbaijan effectively split Armenia in two when it seized the north-south route, that both Russia and the EU and Iran have increased their presence on borders in Armenia to deter an Azeri invasion and give "psychological reassurance" to Armenians.Vanezi (talk) 09:35, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Turkey??? source??

Where has Azerbaijan "split armenia in two", can I get a source for this as well? There was a road that passed into Azerbaijan that was returned to Azeri control after 2020, but that has little to do with this article which was created during the border skirmishes that happened many months after.

They are literally doing border delimitation. And the deputy prime ministers of both countries are meeting every two weeks to work on border delimitation. They just recently announced the first section of the border delimited, for the first time since the soviet era, today.

https://www.intellinews.com/armenia-and-azerbaijan-announce-first-border-delimitation-deal-since-the-collapse-of-the-ussr-322030

Quite a few things have happened and developed since 2022, idk if you have noticed. There is no "active crisis", neither stated by the Armenian leadership, nor the Azerbaijan leadership.

If you want to split the article into something like the Armenian Azerbaijan border crisis of 2021-2022 or something like that, with the full on fighting, thats a different story, but thats not what is present in 2024. As I referenced, both sides signed a papaer agreeing to border delimitations with Alma Ata serving as a general basis recently.

Iran has not "increased its presence", Iran does not have any presence on Armenian border infact no presence outside of an embassy and a consulate in Kapan.

And since you brought up the Russian presence on the border, you should know that Armenia asked to close their outpost that was present in the north as part of the recent delimitation deal.

None of this is indicative of a crisis, the crisis was there in 2022 and it has passed.

There needs to be a Border dispute article, that covers all the developments that are taking place currently. namely the delimitation and the return of the 4 villages as part of the delimitation.

No current new source is reporting anything with regards to a crisis, if anything I have seen sources saying

"Armenia, Azerbaijan begin marking border as foes normalise ties after Nagorno-Karabakh conflict"

https://www.scmp.com/news/world/russia-central-asia/article/3260076/armenia-azerbaijan-begin-marking-border-foes-normalise-ties-after-nagorno-karabakh-conflict Midgetman433 (talk) 14:28, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

1) Human rights orgs stated that Azerbaijan's attacks pose an existential crisis for Armenians

• “By turning a blind eye to such atrocities [during the Nagorno-Karabakh genocide, we risk perpetuating historical injustices and potentially facing similar tragedies within other Armenian communities, like those in Syunik or Tavush”.

"Now, as anticipated in our previous publications, the threat of genocide has extended to the sovereign territory of the Republic of Armenia itself.”,

it's not a dispute about borders, it's an existential conflict for the Armenians (sovereignty)

• "Armenia. Now, Azerbaijan is claiming this region as its historical land. Azerbaijan delegitimized the Armenian historical and legal claim to Nagorno-Karabakh (Artsakh). It is now using the same tactics on Armenia proper. In recent years, the irredentist political concept of “Western Azerbaijan” has emerged, which is now turning into calculated military action.”
• "Over 7,000 civilians have been displaced, and civilian homes and local infrastructure destroyed in an attempt to ethnically cleanse Armenians from a large portion of the Republic of Armenia.”

3) the splitting up of Armenia, more sources (Foreign Affairs, there are many more sources mentioning this)

4) the issue of Azeri occupation of Armenian territory is unresolved, there continue to be articles published on this

5) the European Parliament and PACE have both encouraged Armenia to seek alternative alliances since Russia has not done anything (many sources state this) Vanezi (talk) 14:20, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

The section on Nagorno-Karabakh conflict

This article is bloated with excessive and sometimes irrelevant information. For example, the information on Nagorno-Karabakh is duplicated from a number of articles we have on the conflict, including the ones on recent developments, such as 2023 Azerbaijani offensive in Nagorno-Karabakh. The Karabakh conflict is distinct from the border disputes between Armenia and Azerbaijan, and I see no point in duplicating information in multiple articles. Also, that section has NPOV issues too. Like, the title Territorial incursions into the Republic of Artsakh does not make much sense, because a country cannot make territorial incursions into its own sovereign territory. Subsection Current situation is not current all. I suggest we remove this section completely and keep the article focused on the border dispute, which is the actual topic of this article. Grandmaster 13:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I felt the same when I read the article. Therefore I agree with you. Moreover, the article is outdated. It claims there's still a dispute. What's happening right know doesn't seem to be a dispute. Good signals are coming from both sides. And demarcation process is ongoing. As far as I know >30 pillars have been installed on border.[1]

Another thing I want to emphasize is this map. It doesn't show the occupied enclave and other villages which is the main source of the border dispute. (Not to mention having "Artsakh", but not the most common and official name "Karabakh") I was about to write to file's talk page, then I saw it was created by an indefinetely blocked user. Sincerely, Aredoros87 (talk) 10:29, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree, we need a better map that would show the locations of all enclaves, exclaves and occupied villages that are presently being discussed in the talks between the two countries. And the article is indeed out of date. It needs a good rewrite. If there are no objections, I will remove the section on Karabakh, which is not the Armenia-Azerbaijan border conflict. Grandmaster 10:49, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

The map is for the September 2022 invasion and it's sourced [7], [8], the map is not an image for whole article but for September 2022 section so there is no problem.

When it comes to the Artsakh section, it was an incursion when Azerbaijan violated the 2020 ceasefire agreement which stipulated that it should not cross certain areas (e.g. the 5 km radius around Lachin corridor): "Azerbaijan has ignored calls from the Russian peacekeepers to observe the 2020 ceasefire conditions and return to their initial territorial positions behind the Line of Contact."[9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15] Vanezi (talk) 08:08, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Karabakh situation has no direct relevance to the border conflict. Not the same location, and not the border delimitation dispute. Grandmaster 10:12, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 30 April 2024

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Armenia–Azerbaijan border crisis → Armenia–Azerbaijan border dispute – Armenia-Azerbaijan border dispute has a long history that started in 1990s, when both countries became independent from the USSR. It is not a single crisis, but rather a continuous over 3 decades long border dispute that sometimes escalated to hostilities. In addition, there are currently border delimitation talks with parties agreeing on delimiting certain sections of the border. I believe the proposed name better reflects all those aspects of the situation. Grandmaster 10:51, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

• Support I already mentioned about it here and here. Aredoros87 (talk) 10:55, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: I assume a dash was intended rather than a hyphen, so I have updated the request according to that interpretation. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 21:43, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you. Grandmaster 07:49, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose I've already left two comments as two why [16], [17], the last one is still unanswered. Idk why this Move was launched when the discussion wasn't even close to being concluded, but here we are I guess.

The conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan began in 1918 when they seceded from the Russian Empire. Both Armenia and Azerbaijan applied for membership in the League of Nations in 1919. The League's consideration of these applications involved evaluating the stability and control over claimed territories, including Nagorno-Karabakh. Ultimately, neither Armenia nor Azerbaijan were admitted to the League, partly because the ongoing conflicts and lack of clear control over disputed areas like Nagorno-Karabakh made it difficult for the League to accept their applications.

However, the CURRENT crisis pertains to the conflict post-2020. Multiple reliable sources described it as such following Armenia's surrender in 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war. "Dispute" is not an accurate word, when multiple human rights organizations and governments have condemned Azerbaijan's territorial incursions into Armenia, noting that Armenians living in border areas are intimidated, kidnapped, raped, or disappeared [18]. Multiple analysts have also linked Azerbaijan's aggressions as challenging Armenian statehood and existence altogether, pointing out that Armenia could be severed in two. Genocide scholars have also warned that an invasion of Armenia poses genocide risks and/or states that the creeping annexation of Armenian territory is linked to PanTurkism, the same ideology that fueled the Armenian genocide: "Critics have argued that Azerbaijan's September 2022 attacks on Armenia undermined the government's official narrative of "territorial integrity", noting that for the last 10 years Azerbaijan has increasingly promoted expansionist territorial claims against sovereign Armenian territory (distinct from Nagorno-Karabakh)." [19], [20]

"Dispute" also suggests the conflict is between equal parties with equal aims and power: that is simply not the case. Vanezi (talk) 08:18, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose- per above rationale. Archives908 (talk) 12:10, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
• Comment. The rationale for moving the article is that this has been ongoing since the 1990s, though the current scope of the article is about the border conflict since 2021. If the scope is widened then I would think "border conflicts" would make more sense, to distinguish it from other disputes since there has been warfare. Mellk (talk) 19:56, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

• We have September 2022 Armenia–Azerbaijan clashes, then we have July 2020 Armenian–Azerbaijani clashes, and also 2018 Armenian–Azerbaijani clashes, 2014 Armenian–Azerbaijani clashes, 2012 Armenian–Azerbaijani border clashes, then there are exclaves of both countries and border villages of Azerbaijan occupied in 1990s, and the present delimitation talks. I don't really understand the present scope of this article, because it duplicates the content of other articles. I think it should either be merged into one of other articles, or become an umbrella article for all the border disputes and clashes. I think the second option is more preferable. I also think your proposed option makes sense, we can put it to community consideration as well. It should indeed be probably in plural, i.e. border disputes or conflicts. Grandmaster 21:51, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

  It may be possible to have a main article (such as this one) that covers all the border conflicts at a high level. But yes, ideally the scope needs to be changed first. Mellk (talk) 11:35, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

  The vast majority of the “clash” series articles you have provided occurred in and around Nagorno-Karabakh. In contrast, the majority of reliable sources point to the “border crisis” as beginning AFTER Armenia’s 2020 surrender. As I stated before, the Armenian-Azeri conflict dates back to 1918/1919 and this is not a simple matter of “border delimitation” (although it is relevant). The borders between Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia are not delimited [21], but there is no talk of “a Georgian-Azeri border crisis” because it is only between Armenia and Azerbaijan that people are getting killed or displaced.

  • Since late Spring 2021, this led to a creeping border crisis resulting from the attempt to build and reinforce favorable military positions ahead of negotiations on border demarcation, with reiterated Azerbaijani encroachments in Armenian territory and several deadly military clashes. [22]
  • Soon after the end of the war, the Armenia-Azerbaijan international state frontier became the focal point of new violence, with armed clashes taking place along the border. [23]
  • "Armenia and Azerbaijan in new border crisis." Eurasianet, 2 May. 2024,
  • "New Armenian-Azerbaijani border crisis unfolds." Chatham House – International Affairs
  • For the last week, Armenia has been discussing the escalation in the border region which erupted when Azerbaijani servicemen advanced their positions several kilometers into the sovereign territories of Armenia, towards the Syunik and Gegharkunik regions. [24]

  Vanezi (talk) 05:11, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

The sources that you provided are from 2021, i.e. from 3 years ago. Check the dates again. It's been quiet at the border for months now, and an agreement has been reached on delimitation principles. We have an article called September 2022 Armenia–Azerbaijan clashes, which covers the events that took place in 2021 as well, so I see no point in having 2 articles on the same topic. Also, if you say that the border crisis or dispute goes back to 1918, that is already a wider scope that could be covered in an overall article about the problem. Grandmaster 06:19, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

The September 2022 "clash" merits its own article because it received much more coverage, and was described as an invasion or assault by multiple third-party sources: governments and analysts. The September 2022 events also received condemnation from multiple human rights organizations, as Azerbaijani soldiers posted videos of them conducting extra-judicial executions of prisoners, mutilations, and desecration of corpses.

The sources I provided earlier verbatim describe the “border crisis” as the situation in the post-2020 period after Armenia's surrender of territory in and around Nagorno-Karabakh / Artsakh. Unless the situation fundamentally changes, then it is logical and appropriate that subsequent border delimitation content go in the existing article.

As far back as 2022, Armenia and Azerbaijan agreed that Soviet-era borders should form the basis of border delineation, but Azerbaijan has not agreed to any concrete maps. [25], [26], [27]. Nothing has fundamentally changed in that regard. However, the European Union Mission in Armenia continues to expand its presence monitoring Armenia’s borders, indicating once again, that this is an ongoing “border crisis” and not simply a “border dispute.”

The borders between Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia are not delimited [28], but there is no talk of “a Georgian-Azeri border crisis” because it is only between Armenia and Azerbaijan that people are getting killed and displaced. No reliable sources mention or suggest that Georgia poses an existential threat to Armenia or Armenians even though the Georgian-Armenian border has never been delimited fully. Vanezi (talk) 18:14, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to have 2 articles on the clashes after 2020. One is more than enough. This article is poorly written, reads like news, contains lots of irrelevant information, like outdated section on Nagorno-Karabakh that duplicates 3 other articles. And if we are talking about border crisis in general, it started back in 1990s, when Armenia invaded Azerbaijan's territory, occupied villages of Qazakh district within Azerbaijan's borders (the ones that are being returned now), killing and displacing their inhabitants, and also occupied border districts of Lachin, Gubadly and Kalbajar, displacing hundreds of thousands Azerbaijani inhabitants. The title of this article does not limit it to any particular time period. Grandmaster 08:50, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Again, the sources verbatim describe this as a NEW border crisis post 2020. And after looking at the article history, this was literally in the article title (2021-) until it was moved with no discussion/consensus which violates WP:RM. Also, the 1990s border incursions by Armenia/Azerbaijan were ALL about Nagorno-Karabakh even if the regions are not super close to it. Vanezi (talk) 15:08, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

That explains why this article had such an ambiguous title. But I still see no need for 2 articles on the same topic, this and September 2022 Armenia–Azerbaijan clashes. Grandmaster 08:43, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

It’s not the same topic, this article goes as back as May 2021 and as further as October 2022-present. So by definition, it’s not the same as September 2022 attacks, it covers the September 2022 events AND all the other events over the past 3 years because that’s what this article scope represents, the post 2020 NK War border crisis. Vanezi (talk) 08:50, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Ans why cannot it cover an even wider period, i.e. the entire history of the border disputes and conflicts? Most of this article is news style updates on every incident, an irrelevant section on Nagorno-Karabakh, etc. This could be made into a more informative article. Grandmaster 14:03, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Yet again, I have to repeat that because multiple reliable sources verbatim describe the "border crisis" as a NEW epoch AFTER Armenia's surrender in 2020 NK War, and is qualitatively different. Multiple RS describe the post-2020 incursions and threats by Azerbaijan as a threat to the very existence of the Armenian people and/or a sovereign Armenian state. Vanezi (talk) 10:47, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

*Oppose- seconding the rationale provided by Vanezi. Syd Highwind (talk) 04:22, 9 May 2024 (UTC) _{Non-EC users may not vote, per WP:GS/AA. Grandmaster 08:57, 9 May 2024 (UTC)}.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lead

The information that was removed from the lead is actually the most important recent development on the border. And it is not just news, but a real change of the situation. There has been no active conflict and no shooting at the border for months now. And the fact that the two countries agreed on principles of delimitation and installed over 40 border markers is very important to mention not just in the body of the article, but also in the lead, because the reader now only gets the impression of some ongoing conflict, while there is a practical work underway to resolve the border disputes. Grandmaster 14:03, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

“There has been no active conflict and no shooting at the border for months now.”

This is simply false. Azerbaijan has shot and killed Armenian servicemen on the Armenian-Azeri border in October 2024 and February 2024.[29]

Armenia and Azerbaijan have agreed that Soviet-era borders should form the basis of border delineation based on the Alma-Ata 1991 Declaration, as far back as October 2022.[30]

As you stated in your own words this is a “recent development” but -- so far -- is only news and is not appropriate for the leed. The situation remains volatile (as indicated by your own words in the edit, the surrender of land is “an initial step” and no actual transfer of land has occurred yet). Vanezi (talk) 10:51, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Archives908 (talk) 12:05, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Actual transfer of land has already occurred on 24 May. So it is the most serious development on the border for decades. I believe it is time to update the lead now. Grandmaster 11:50, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Your eagerness to update this article is appreciated; however, your statement that this land transfer "is the most serious development on the border for decades" is inconsistent with the focus of this article. In addition, this is your own POV; Wikipedia requires reliable sources to back superlative statements such as these.

In addition, as discussed in the RFC, this article is about events that occurred AFTER 2021, so talk about events that occurred prior to 2021 ("for decades") is not appropriate for the foci or lead of this article. Please take some time to recognize that there is a consensus that this article is about the border conflict that arose after 2021. Vanezi (talk) 10:17, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Return of the villages took place in 2024. Time to update the lead, as it is not a minor development, and it's been over a month now since the agreement was made. Grandmaster 08:22, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah but the villages were captured and controlled since the 90s. I fail to see how’s that relevant to the lede of all places of this article which is about events after that happened post 2021, not in 90s, that would be out of place and undue for the lede here. Moreover, that info is mentioned already in the lede of Armenia-Azerbaijan border article, which is a more suitable lede placement. Vanezi (talk) 11:47, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

The return of these villages happened in 2024, i.e. post 2021, and presently the parties are trying to resolve the problems by negotiations. It is an important development, welcomed by the UN, EU, USA and other important parties, and as such it needs to be mentioned in the lead. Grandmaster 15:13, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

The consensus was that this article was about the conflict post-2021.

Your original edit stated that [31]

• "The four villages were on the Azerbaijani side of the border and occupied by Armenian forces in the early 1990s in the First Nagorno-Karabakh War."

However, you have also argued in Talk under "The section on Nagorno-Karabakh conflict" that border issues relating to Nagorno-Karabakh should be removed:

• "The Karabakh situation has no direct relevance to the border conflict. Not the same location, and not the border delimitation dispute." [32]

You cannot have it both ways.

In your own words, the issue of these villages is specific to the Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict, which -- according to your own words -- has no direct relevance to the current border conflict.

The issue of these villages can stay in the article, but it does not belong in the Lede since the article is specific to the post 2021 border, and it doesn't summarize the article either per MOS:LEAD, these villages are only a small part of the article. And when it comes to duplicating the article with same info that you reverted and restored (which is basically the SAME thing of "since First Karabakh War" control), that's just not an improvement; either it's in Background or Timeline because you're re-adding the SAME thing. Vanezi (talk) 15:23, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

It is not having it both ways. The villages were occupied in the first war, but it was a part of the border conflict that started at the same time. The villages are not in Karabakh, but in Qazakh. I never said that the villages are not relevant to this article, I only said that Karabakh is not, which other users also mentioned above. Karabakh and border are 2 separate conflicts that the two countries have, even during the two Karabakh wars. If the border villages were occupied in the 1990s, it should be mentioned in the background section too, as it was one of the events that preceded the present stage of the conflict. Grandmaster 09:37, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I think we should try dispute resolution at this point. Grandmaster 09:58, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Also, this information is appropriate to the background, otherwise it is not clear why Armenia is returning these villages in 2024. Since they were occupied in 1990s, this should be mentioned in the background section, as the events preceding the present stage of the border dispute. Grandmaster 10:22, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

"otherwise it is not clear why Armenia is returning these villages in 2024" - it is pretty clear if you see the relevant timeline section Armenia–Azerbaijan_border_crisis_(2021–present)#April_2024, it even mentions the time period of 1990s and First-Karabakh War. Why are you blindly reverting and restoring something that's already in the article? Vanezi (talk) 11:51, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

The occupation of these villages took place in 1990s, so clearly this information belongs to the background section where the events before 2021 are discussed. And the return of the villages happened in 2024, so it should be mentioned in the timeline, and the lead too due to the importance of this development. Information needs to be presented in a chronological order. Grandmaster 15:08, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

RFC on the lead

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the lead section mention the border delimitation agreement reached between Armenia and Azerbaijan in April 2024? Please see this section: [33] Grandmaster 09:58, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1 - Yes
• Option 2 - No

Please enter Option 1 or Option 2, followed by a brief statement, in the Survey. Do not reply to other users in the Survey. Back-and-forth discussion may be conducted in the Discussion section. Grandmaster 09:58, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Survey

• Option 1. I think the agreement on border delimitation and return of 4 occupied villages reached between the two countries that was welcomed by the UN, EU, USA and other major international actors is one of the most significant developments in the border dispute between the countries in recent years, and therefore it should be mentioned in the lead. Otherwise it presents the situation as an ongoing active hostility with no attempt at diplomatic solution. Grandmaster 09:59, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1. It should be mentioned in some form, unless superseded by future developments. Senorangel (talk) 04:42, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1. Yes, absolutely. This is a major development. My very best wishes (talk) 15:59, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2 - Armenia and Azerbaijan agreed that Soviet-era borders should be used for border delineation as far back as October 2022, see source. Both countries agree to the use of the Alma-Ater principles. It isn't finalized and is an ongoing development. Vanezi (talk) 14:43, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 Why are we even discussing this?! It's a very important occasion happened. Maybe that's the only occasion that both parties had an agreement. Aredoros87 (talk) 21:24, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

• Comment Is there a finalized border delimitation agreement between Armenia and Azerbaijan which covers the entirety of their respective border? Has it been signed by both parties and how much of it has been implemented? If there isn't a conclusive agreement, I fear giving it prominence in the lead may be giving undue weight to something that is still yet to be determined. Not opposed to briefly stating the recent developments, but we should avoid making any WP:CRYSTALBALL statements making it seem that the entire border has been delimited, because it most certainly isn't. Archives908 (talk) 22:14, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

  The parties reached an agreement on general principles of delimitation, and it was carried out on one section of the border so far. More to come in the near future, and it is a positive development welcomed by major states and international organizations. It is not something minor and unimportant, if the UN Secretary General and the EU leadership react to it. No one claims that the entire border was delimited. The sources make it clear that the section between Tavush and Qazakh was fixed. Grandmaster 14:36, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mention of returned villages in the lead

I think the return of the villages should also be mentioned in the lead. This edit removed that part, but the return of the villages is an important part of the delimitation deal, and I believe those users who voted in support also meant that this part of the deal should be mentioned. Grandmaster 16:37, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

These villages were taken by Armenia during the Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict in the early 1990s. The consensus was that this article pertains to the border crisis that emerged after 2021.

The consensus of the RFC was that "Consensus favours mentioning the agreement in the lede." Both Editors who opposed and supported the inclusion of the agreement as well as yourself, observed that "the parties reached an agreement on general principles of delimitation," but that it was a preliminary "development" ("not conclusive", "so far").

Therefore, it is WP:UNDUE to include the return of the villages in the Lede. It is more appropriate to include in the Lede "Armenia and Azerbaijan have agreed to separate their borders based on the Alma-Ata 1991 Declaration, although the exact maps is still undecided for most of the border." You yourself have stated "More to come in the near future, and it is a positive development...The parties reached an agreement on general principles of delimitation, and it was carried out on one section of the border so far." This isn't finalized and is an ongoing development.

Please review WP:NORFC "If, no matter how many times a neutral third party intervenes, you never seem to get your way, that suggests that your goals may be at odds with Wikipedia's policies, guidelines, community and purpose."

The vast majority of reliable sources post 2021 have focused on Azerbaijan's territorial incursions into Armenian territory, and the existential risk this poses to the Armenian state and to the Armenian people. It is WP:UNDUE to give Lede space to what is a preliminary, inconclusive "development" on one small section of the border. Vanezi (talk) 04:53, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

The villages were taken in 1990s, but returned in 2024 as part of the border delimitation agreement. The return of those villages was a major part of the deal, and it is mentioned by every source reporting on it. Moreover, the return of the villages even sparked a major political crisis in Armenia, so it is not a minor issue. Therefore, I believe that it makes sense to briefly mention the return of the villages, as it is a major recent development. Grandmaster 13:48, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

it is mentioned by every source reporting on it

That is simply not true. Both the United Nations and the European Union lauded the demarcation agreement but did not mention the villages. [34]

You yourself specified that the reaction from these organizations is what made the agreement notable.

Please review WP:NORFC: "If, no matter how many times a neutral third party intervenes, you never seem to get your way, that suggests that your goals may be at odds with Wikipedia's policies, guidelines, community and purpose." Vanezi (talk) 07:02, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

UN and EU are primary sources. While they are very important, we do not write the article only on the basis of the primary sources. The international media reports mention the villages. And I was actually advised to start this discussion by the admin. Grandmaster 09:46, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

So in one article talk page, when it suits you, the "prominent", "major" organizations like UN need to "make calls" in order for something to have significance, but in here, the same UN that doesn't even mention the villages in demarcation agreement is now reduced to a mere primary source? Who said we write articles based on them? We're judging the significance of something by the criteria you set (UN, etc.), the same significance criteria that you're so eager to bring up in other articles. Cmon now, you can't have your cake and eat it too. Vanezi (talk) 05:33, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

If you read my comments at that article, I'm discussing there your claim of supranational organizations making the call for release, when none did. What is the relevance of that here? I said that those organizations are very important for the purposes of this article, but there are other types of sources too that cover the event. Grandmaster 09:15, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Senorangel, My very best wishes, since you participated in the RFC, could you please share your opinion if the lede should also mention the transfer of the villages as part of the delimitation agreement? Grandmaster 16:13, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Including a statement in the lede usually requires significant coverage in the body of the article. Unless it is necessary to identify the topic or avoid misunderstanding. The scope of this article is much larger than the 2024 agreement. Even if a fact is important, it may not be among the most important ones. Senorangel (talk) 05:02, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Exactly, I agree with your assertion. The RFC close has consensus for delimitation agreement being in lede, it made no mention of villages in lede. This isn't finalized and is an ongoing development. As I said in my comment above, the vast majority of reliable sources post 2021 have focused on Azerbaijan's territorial incursions into Armenian territory, and the existential risk this poses to the Armenian state and to the Armenian people. It is premature and undue to give lede space to what is a preliminary, inconclusive development on one small section of the border. Vanezi (talk) 05:34, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Senorangel, thank you for your opinion. Much appreciated. The problem with this article is that it is quite outdated. There have been no clashes or casualties on the border for months now, and diplomatic activity is underway on settling the border dispute and signing a peace agreement between the two states. In fact, both sides state that the peace treaty is nearing conclusion, and only some details remain unresolved. But in any case, thanks for your input, I'll go with whatever you say on this. Grandmaster 08:49, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Grandmaster, I don't see a reason why this information should be omitted. There hasn't been any major escalations in the border regions for a while now, and Nikol Pashinyan keeps reiterating that a peace deal is about a month away from signing. I don't know if it'll actually come to fruition within that time frame or not, but to me, this is an important development between the two countries. The potential signing of a peace treaty isn't really mentioned at all in this article, which is quite strange. Archives908 (talk) 13:53, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

"peace" has been discussed for years now [35], and there hasn't been [36]. Wikipedia avoids WP:SPECULATIONs and guesses. And this article is about the border crisis, not the entire relationship between Azerbaijan and Armenia. Vanezi (talk) 06:22, 9 August 2024 (UTC)