Talk:Stepanakert Airport/Archive 1

Preliminary discussions
Dear Neftchi, Armenian officials accusing Baku of state terrorism in regards to the threat to shoot down civilian planes flying from/to the Stepanakert Air Base, which is incidentally what the article is about, is related to the article. Azeris accusing Armenia of terrorism for shooting down an Iranian plane 20 years ago is not related to the Stepanakert Air Base. How is this not clear? I'm gonna assume good faith that this is not simply another case of "I don't like this so let's just keep it out"." - Fedayee (talk) 17:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That is not entirely correct. The Azerbaijani comment on past airspace attacks by Armenia was a reaction to the Armenian comment of state terrorism. So its part of "dialogue" and its not fair to only include one side's reaction. I removed both accusations because it basically comes down to this: both sides accuse each other of terrorism. So either we should include the accusations of both sides or leave all the accusations out. I prefer to keep it out, because its only political show and it doesnt add anything of value to this article. Can we agree to this? Neftchi (talk) 21:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Dear Fedayee, you didnt respond for several days. So I assume you agree to the changes. Neftchi (talk) 13:57, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Or, what is more likely, he didn't have time to respond to your query. I agree with Fedayee that the comment by the Azerbaijani state official is irrelevant to this article and the matter should deal with what's taken place over the past few months. Azerbaijan threatened to shoot down the aircraft and Armenian and NKR officials responded - this isn't an issue of mutual threats when it was the other side which threatened to resort to violence to stop commercial aircraft from landing and taking off from there. It would be a mistake to omit or willfully tone down distort the comments made by the Azerbaijani officials, considering that is what trigged the recent dispute in the first place.


 * On a side note, I remove the source which says that the NKR is de facto indepedent, but de jure recognized as part of Azerbaijan - that much is not in dispute so we don't have to add this on every article related to Nagorno-Karabakh.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 05:13, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The statement is relevant as its related to the history of Armenian/Azerbaijani airspace disputes. Also it the full qoute by Azeri officials. You cannot take words from out context, this makes the article POV. Also the NKR officials respond was also a threat. There is no other way to put it. Also the source eurasianet is more reliable and objective then armenianow. I changed the information accordingly. Neftchi (talk) 12:34, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The statement is not relevant because the article's title is not "Armenian/Azerbaijani airspace disputes" but Stepanakert Air Base. True, the spokesman is trying to compare Azerbaijan's position to what had taken place during the Nagorno-Karabakh War (and even then, it's doubtful, if not outright improbable, that the Armenian government, which was still a part of the USSR in 1988, had given orders to shoot down a civilian airliner) but in the end he's simply on a digression. Nor am I taking any words out of context: please note that even Azerbaijani websites have quoted Azerbaijani officials to the effect that they made threats to shoot down the aircraft (see here ). Further, it is inappropriate to term the Armenian response as a threat in this case because it is coming on the heels of what another entity has sworn to do. It is simply a reaction to their verbal actions and to characterize it as a threat is truly stretching it.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 16:40, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Statement is relevant as Neftchi already wrote. It is a dialog between Armenian government figure and Azeri and that's why both quotes has to be included not just one sided. Also threat from Armenian figure to retaliate by also shooting is also a threat. So, don't do WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Dighapet (talk) 19:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Exactly, it is part of the Armenian and Azerbaijani officials dialogue. By only allowing qoutes from the Armenian side you are taking information out of context and thereby you make the article POV. Whether you agree with Polukhov or not doesnt matter. ALso the mentioned Armenian attacks have articles which are well established. A redirect will be useful to the reader.
 * Another thing is "various officials", even the website you gave says the threat came from Arif Mammadov. So its not from "various officials" - that is a very broad term and misleading. The sources say it came from Azerbaijan’s Civil Aviation Administration and I adjusted the article accordingly. The source (eurasianet) is a neutral source but you replaced this source with an Armenian source (armenianow).
 * Also this article is in need of more objective sources, of the 14 given sources 9 are Armenian websites. Only 1 is Azerbaijani and the remaining are neutral. 9 Armenian sources makes this article lean towards Armenian perspectives. This is not your personal page. So please find objective sources. Neftchi (talk) 19:35, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I added the Turkish response, since there is also mention of U.S. response. Neftchi (talk) 21:13, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Please note that this article is about an airport in the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic which de-facto has nothing to do with Azerbaijan. Furthermore, no Azeri media representative is allowed to show up in NKR (and hence on on the airport territory) without visa issued by authorities of the NKR. Additionally, Azeri sources (those under direct or indirect control of Aliyev) are objectively not inclined to reveal the negative reaction to Arif's threats. There was objectively a sick threat from Arif and it is very difficult to reasonably rephrase or reinterpret that sickness for any government controlled media, even Aliev's. Given these 2 realities, don't get surprised that there are more Armenian sources. As per the NKR official's response, I agree that it is inappropriate to term it a threat (especially when compared to what kind of statement it was a response to). It was rather a warning to cool down some hot and sick heads in Azerbaijan. @Dighapet, Please, don't just leave a note on the talkpage and make changes in the article. Be kind to wait for a response and achieving a consensus. I hope you now understand that you cannot simply "give consensus" to one of your peer Azeri editors and ignore other participants of the discussion as you did previously. --  Ashot  ( talk ) 05:24, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * An article that has this many Armenian sources is simply POV. We should either add the POV tag and warn the readers or find objective sources. And NK is not an exclusively covered by Armenian sources. In just a day, I found a source from RFERL and eurasianet, so please dont tell me there are no objective sources. As for the Armenian official statement, he said: "Artsakh's armed forces will give an adequate response" - that is an obvious threat because in this qoute he explains how this threat will be backed up. He mentions that NK will attack with its armed forces. There is no other word than threat for this statement. It would be ridiculous to say that Azerbaijan threatens but Armenia warns. Neftchi (talk) 17:36, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It depends on how one interprets adequate/respective response. Anyway, it is a response to threat and not a threat, and obviously it should not be a text like "Oh, we are sorry, we beg you not to shoot our civil planes...".
 * It's good of you to have found other sources. The more one finds, the more we (all editors) will have to choose from. As per POV, mathematical calculation of sources of certain origin doesn't matter. --  Ashot  ( talk ) 05:56, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Babayan specifically said NK armed forces will attack Azerbaijan. That cannot be interpreted merely as a response. The response is a threat in itself. As for sources, like I said earlier: 14 of the sources 9 are Armenian websites. That shows most of the information here is from Armenian perspective. And NK is not an exclusively covered by Armenian sources, I have good faith you can find more objective sources, so please do so. Neftchi (talk) 07:48, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Babayan said "if Azerbaijan makes an attempt to shoot down an aircraft about to land in Stepanakert airport, Artsakh's [i.e., the NKR's] armed forces will give an adequate response. We would not indulge such provocations of Azerbaijan and would respond respectively" (as it is quoted in the article). That's it. He didn't say about "attack" (as you say), it's a matter of interpretation. And obviously, it is a response to an already stated threat by Arif.
 * I am very much OK with the existing sources. If you are not, then be kind to bring new ones for consideration. --  Ashot  ( talk ) 08:58, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Lets not act childish. "NK armed forces will give an adequate response" - what do you think that means? NK army will write a complaint letter to Azerbaijan? Offcourse it implies military attack by NK against Azerbaijan. It couldnt mean anything else. And since you are defending the Armenian statements, I ask you search for objective sources. Or else we have to add the POV tag.
 * I also want to know is this an military "airbase" or an civilian "airport"? It says civilian airport is every news article, so why does this article say airbase operator is NK army? That implies military. We need clearity on this matter.Neftchi (talk) 18:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I added the standpoint of the OSCE with Reuters source. Neftchi (talk) 19:41, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Further I added the PACE resolution which condemned the airport, it was adopted just today. The source is official site of PACE. Neftchi (talk) 20:17, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Neftchi you know full well that it is highly misleading to entitle a section "Contrary to International Law" and support it with a single source, whose controversial contents seem to have been written from by a small group of representatives. At the top of the document it is clearly written that "This written declaration commits only the members who have signed it" and since there were only handful of supporters it is very misleading to say, as you did, that this was a decision passed by the entire representative body. I cut down the body of the text because it is virtually irrelevant to the airport itself and interested readers can simply click on the link if they wish to read it in full. The same goes for the disproprtionately long section on Turkey's position. Noting their position should suffice as the "Disputes" section is becoming long enough.

Similar attention has been paid to Elkhan Polukhov's comments. The most important sentence to quote from his statement is that "Azerbaijan did not and will not use force against civil facilities" and not the remainder, since it, after all, just a diatribe and long laundry list of allegations leveled at Armenia and has nothing to do with the airport. Also, please review Ashot's differentiation between the words "threat" and "warning." Azerbaijan threatened to shoot down planes flying to and fro Stepanakert; while Babayan warned that such actions would be interpreted as a move of agression on the part of Azerbaijan. It's a very nuanced definition but a very important one, nonetheless.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 02:05, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Bagramyan, you need to compromise. I have made neutral changes and you have not moved your position a bit. Polukhov's statement must be in full qoute because its related to the airspace dispute over Karabakh. You cannot take certain words out of context. This creates a misleading article for readers. Neftchi (talk) 11:53, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I shortened the qoute a bit because you think its too long. Eventhough the Armenian section is longer. Neftchi (talk) 11:56, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

@Neftchi, were Babayan's words a response to what Mammadov said or no? --  Ashot  ( talk ) 12:28, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Its a dialogue but both sides made threats to each other. Thats important to understand. We cant say if Azerbaijan uses the word force its a threat but when Armenia does it - its a response. Also the infobox still says "Airport type Military and civilian". Every source shows that its a civilian airport not military. Besides its very unlikely that an airport can be both civilian and military, there is no such thing. Neftchi (talk) 13:39, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You didn't answer to a very direct question. Was it a response or not? --  Ashot  ( talk ) 13:57, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * A response can be a threat, especially because Babayan explained "how they would attack". Based on your idea, we can leave out the usage of threats from both sides. So lets either use for both sides or just leave them out. Neftchi (talk) 16:13, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

It's much more nuanced than you make it out to be Neftchi. While a declaration to destroy civilian aircraft can safely be called a threat, the response by the Armenian side to Azerbaijan to refrain from such activity is much more open to interpretation. That is why the analogy in the last sentence of your comment is flawed - because you are choosing to take an extreme (and to an extent, exaggerated) interpretation of what Mr. Babayan has said. Perhaps it might be better to just leave this to those with a better understanding of the English language?--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 19:35, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There was no declaration of anything, only Arif made the statement. Mammadov is just one official just like Babayan. If you call the statement of Mammadov a declaration than so is the statement of Babayan. Babayan explained how Armenia would strike Azerbaijan and he put the notion on the armed forces. Do you expect the armed forces of Armenia to write a complaint letter to Azerbaijan? His statement is literal, so we cant interpreted things. Both sides made threats to each other. Azerbaijan made a threat and so did Armenia. Neftchi (talk) 10:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Firstly, Babayan represents a government body in NKR and not Armenia. Secondly, "Strike Azerbaijan" is just your opinion. It can be equally interpreted as "Strike Azeri rockets/plains on their way to shoot the Armenian civil plain" which is something very different. Thirdly, it is apparent that whatever Babayan said (regardless of contents) was a response to Azeri statement. He didn't say that reasonless, but in response to another statement. In the meanwhile there is no other interpretation of Mammadov's statement. It is what it is - a threat. --  Ashot  ( talk ) 13:26, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It is simply ridiculous to say Azerbaijan made a threat but Armenia made a statement. Both are military rhetoric statements. Since your not willing to compromise on this. I have a different suggestion. We can use a different term: Azerbaijan "warned" and Armenia "responded" - that is what EurasiaNet uses to describe the situation. Your recent statement supports this change. You put the notion on "reasonless". Mammadov used international law over airspace as his reason to warn and Babayan responded. This is an objective approach.
 * Also you added your own description to the PACE resolution - "19 of them Turkish or Azeri". It is very suspicious how the anon edited this and you reverted to him. Only minimum information about the resolution is added here. To add how many delegates signed it is very detailed information. It is biased according to your perspective, no sources support your claims of a biased PACE resolution. As I agreed with Bagramyan earlier, it is better to leave out the details of the resolution. The reader can visit the source and read in full detail the resolution. I also want to add: you made this change without any discussion. Lets not start a pointless edit-war here, I hope you will remain in good faith. Neftchi (talk) 17:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It cannot be ridiculous when a respond is termed respond and when the threat is termed threat. Ridiculous is when facts are stretched to meet certain goals instead of reflecting simple facts.
 * Secondly, it is a change of good info to worse to omit the fact that 19 of 23 members who signed that resolution were Azerbaijani or Turkish and hence almost no third party members partook in it. What else is that if not a clear indication of potential biasedness?
 * And finally what should really be shortened is the "elaborations" of Palukhov. The recalling of war-time air-plane shooting incidents is irrelevant, since they are not even comparable in circumstances. --  Ashot  ( talk ) 04:52, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Look we can change it into "Azerbaijan warned" and "Armenia responded", would you agree to this? I just think that is the best solution.
 * Polukhov responded to Armenia's claim of state terrorism by Azerbaijan. The reader should get the chance to read the statements and responds from both sides. Its all related to the "disputes" headline - disputes over airspace over Karabakh.
 * I dont think its wise to expand the PACE resolution description. If the reader wants to know who signed it, they can visit the source and read in detail. Neftchi (talk) 09:51, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Azerbaijan did not "warn", but its official made a threat. One can warn about rightful actions, but only threat to commit a crime. One cannot deny this. In the meanwhile, an official from NKR, not Armenia, responded. Interpreting that response as threat is subjective and not backed up with any third party sources.
 * Armenia did not claim "state terrorism by Azerbaijan." Armenia's president just said that such statements "have always been made by terrorist organizations. Threats to shoot down civilian planes are nothing but nonsense."
 * I wonder why you think that incidents taken place during the active war phase are relevant to the context (particularly in the light of the descriptive articles, links of which are provided in the article). Why should we include irrelevant quotes?
 * Yes the readers can further read who signed the Resolution, but they shouldn't make that efforts to reveal that the resolution does not reflect the opinion of PACE but only some of its Azerbaijani and Turkish members. --  Ashot  ( talk ) 10:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Karabakh is recognized as part of the Azerbaijani territorial integrity and sovereignty. That also means the Azerbaijan has the jurisdiction over the airspace in Karabakh. So it was a "rightful" warning by the Azerbaijani side. They did not threaten to violate the airspace of Armenia. In fact it is Armenian airplanes who want to violate the recognized airspace of Azerbaijan. You can see this is a warning. According to international law Azerbaijan is within its rights and thats exacly what Mammadov said, he pointed out: "According to the law on aviation".
 * The Armenian statement associated Azerbaijan with a terrorist organisation. Polukhov simply responded on this matter and elaborated his explanations with examples. It is very much related to the disputes over the airspace.
 * As for the PACE resolution. Such specific information is inrelevant to the article. We also did not include further information on the resolution, such as:"Armenian president Serj Sarkisyan to be the first passenger to land on the airport under construction also contradicts international law, the spirit of the commitments undertaken by Armenia before the Council of Europe and in Assembly Resolution 1416 (2005)."Neftchi (talk) 09:57, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You can't be that selective. In case of Polukhov you require unnecessary elaborations which, in fact, are not related to how Azerbaijan is or is not associated with a terrorist organization. In case of PACE, you require to omit info which directly indicates one of its key features: potential biasedness and the fact of not representing the vast majority of other members.
 * And if one thinks that any law can ever justify / make rightful a deliberate shooting of a civil airplane (with civilians on board), he/she can be nothing more than a sick maniac. I can't understand how that much hatred can rise and sustain in people. Meanwhile, people in Karabakh live their peaceful life and they don't care of Azerbaijan, hatred inflamed there and its laws. --  Ashot  ( talk ) 11:18, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Just because you dont like it doesnt mean we have to leave it out. The fact is Armenia did attack several civilian aircrafts in the airspace over Karabakh. And there are articles on those attacks. Polukhov's statements are related to the airspace dispute over Karabakh. Also Polukhov made a direct response to the Armenian statement. It is a neutral approach because we qoute both sides and give the reader the opportunity to listen to both perspectives. To leave out the response of one side means bias, and there already are more than enough Armenian sources in this article. I suggest a compromise, lets use the full-qoute of Polukhov and also include the majority Azerbaijani and Turkish delegate support for the PACE resolution. We can strike two flies in a single blow, what is your thought on this?


 * As for the justification, its not up us to interpret international laws. Mammadov did point out to international law when he made his speech and this makes his statement a warning not to fly over recognized Azerbaijani airspace.


 * Also let us not call each other name's or judge each other, it adds nothing of value. Both sides have problems, so lets also approach it as a mutual problem. Neftchi (talk) 12:40, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

This is not a place for bazar, I think. This article is about Stepanakert Airport. There are 4 points I claim: 1. Mammadov's threat is a threat (also identified as such by 2 US ambassadors). By the way he refers to the Law of Azerbaijan and not international, though this still doesn't matter. There is no international law that allows to attack civilian planes. 2. NKR's official's response is response, it's not a threat and it is streched to identify it as such, 3. Polukhov's (not Mammadov's) quotes should be shortened to the limit where they are directly related to Stepanakert Airport, 4. It should be clear for a reader that the resolution represents several Azeri and Turkish members and has nothing to do with those of most PACE members. --  Ashot  ( talk ) 18:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I think Ashot pretty much hit the nail on the head. While making concessions to achieve consensus is important here, he is right in saying that this isn't a bazaar. We're not going to sacrifice the facts and unnecessarily begin equivocating on the issues here. The fact of the matter is that Neftchi is stretching the limits to what should belong in this article and what should be cut or expanded. He insists on including the full quote regarding the highly misleading assertion that "Armenia also shot down planes" and yet refuses to mention to the reader that those who drafted the resolution were mostly representatives of Turkey and Azerbaijan, and so were more than partial when it came to drafting and voting on the measure.


 * Neftchi should also be reminded that he does not make more than one revert a day on articles relating to Armenian, Azerbaijan, and Nagorno-Karabakh (which he has amply violated on this article and others recently) as it appears that he has been under such a sanction since December 2009.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 19:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * We are having a discussion to reach consensus, it will contribute to an objective article. So there is no need to begin hostility and point my arguments as a "bazaar".


 * There is an international law that unauthorized planes who enter the airspace of another is in violation of the security of that country. The violated country is in its right to stop the plane, either by forcing it to land or in extreme cases by shooting it down. Both scenario's have happened before in the world. And please do not confuse things. Mammadov did not refer to Azerbaijani law, he said: "law on aviation", the aviation law is part of international law. It even says so in the main article. In your earlier argument you said it was an "unrightful" and thats what made it a threat. I have proven it is "rightfull" therefore a warning. Thats why I suggested a concession from both of us to change it into "Azerbaijani warning and Armenian response". Yet you do not seem to have moved one inch of your first standpoint. All I say is "threat" is not an appropriate word here. It's subjective and judgmental. "Warning and response" is neutral and we havent changed any facts here.
 * You asked for more detail on the PACE resolution, I also suggested a compromise on the Polukhov and PACE resolution. Let us keep both the details and we can be done. But you seem to want everything according to your personal perspective.Neftchi (talk) 10:04, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * We cannot compromise on the basis "you give me this, and I give you that". This is not a barter trade forum. We can't keep Polukhov's quotes just because we put details about PACE resolution. Each case should be discussed separately.
 * I claim that there is no aviation law that allows to deliberately shoot a civil plane (that even sounds as nonsense). We know of incidents in the past, but in those cases there was no a deliberate intention to shoot a civilian plane. Otherwise it is nothing but a crime. And though this is very secondary, but in some sources I noted that Mammadov referred to Azerbaijani law . I am still almost sure, that there is nothing like that even in Azerbaijani law.
 * For PACE and Polukhov's quotes I insist the same. Please provide arguments instead of making this discussion a trade. --  Ashot  ( talk ) 13:14, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It were your own words (21 April 2011) when you said that we shouldnt be so selective on Polukhov and PACE. You did ask for this earlier and now you suddenly changed your mind. So dont compare with with a barter or bazaar.
 * You may claim what you like, but you again misinterpreted my words. I never said there is a law to shoot down civilian aircraft. My exact words were: "unauthorized planes who enter the airspace of another is in violation of the security of that country. The violated country is in its right to stop the plane, either by forcing it to land or in extreme cases by shooting it down." - you changed my words and thereby attempt to misguide the discussion. Please refrain from doing so. And again we are not talking about Azerbaijani law, that is something you made up, its called "law of aviation" part of international law, I even sended you the wiki article. If you want we can ask a 3rd party opinion?
 * I also find it very suspicious how an anon suddenly pops up just after your response and reverts this article. Neftchi (talk) 17:46, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You really shouldn't be that selective then. But not being selective still doesn't mean starting a bazaar-like discussion as each case needs own argumentation. Removing Polukhov's quotes has one argumentation, adding details about PACE resolution another.
 * I don't know the source of the words of yours about "unauthorized planes". And it is even more ridiculous when we take into account that NKR military do what they want in the NKR air and they never care of Azerbaijan. To threat to shoot a civilian plain is more than an absurd in the light of this. There is only one thing I don't understand. Instead of firing that Mammadov for not having any control over own mouth, Government and some society representatives keep supporting him. This hatred is just incomprehensible. As per Wikipedia, please note that you shouldn't take that personally and give in when facts and reality tell you to do so. This will only add up to respect towards you. --  Ashot  ( talk ) 17:52, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Arzumanyan please watch WP:NPA as your "bazaar" comment violates it. Reaching concensus is part of Wikipedia and your constant bazaar reference to my arguments doesnt help. So I ask you for the second time to stop it.
 * You contradict your own arguments when you state that specific information should be included and certain information excluded from the article. Right now the article includes both the PACE resolution and Polukhov's statement. I maintain that the PACE details are indirectly supported and unrelated. As for Polukhov, we cant take his words out of context. Sargsyan's unrelated words: "have always been made by terrorist organizations" is also included. We do this keep give the reader the fair context of his words. The same applies to Polukhov. Besides the section of Armenian statement is longer than the Azerbaijani section.
 * We have established that Mammadov clearly points out to international law in his statement. The section on Mammadov is directly from the source, which writes that is was a warning. Also the word "threat" indicates judgement. Thats not allowed according to Wiki policy. For example its globaly accepted that al-Qaeda is a terrorist organisation; but the main article of al-Qaeda does not even mention the word of terrorist in the lead. Because its judgemental terminology. The word "threat" is perceived from Armenian perspective. This is Wikipedia not Armeniapedia. Thats why I suggest warning and response. Its a neutral word and doesnt chose sides. Personally I dont like Mammadov statement either but that doesnt matter. You have to remain objective and stop accusing Azerbaijani authorities and society of hatred. I hope we can reach concensus. Neftchi (talk) 14:19, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Bazaar like discussing is an unacceptable way of discussion, and notifying an editor about that is not a violation of WP:NPA.
 * If you see problems with Sargsyan's quote we can discuss it provided that you have any arguments. As per Polukhov, I argue that his quotes should be limited to the extent where they are related to the dispute over Stepanakert Airport (i.e. unrelated mentioning of other airplane shots taken place in very different contexts should be removed).
 * Mammadov's threat is identified as such through its content. It was also identified as such by 2 US ambassadors (not an "Armenian perspective" by the way). "The threat or use of force, including against civilian aircraft that pose no threat themselves, is unacceptable," said US ambassador to Azerbaijan. "Such threats are wholly unacceptable," said US ambassador to Armenia. Things should be called what they are based on their contents. As per al-Qaeda, just have a look how many times the term threat is used throughout the article. Should one go there and replace it with warn? --  Ashot  ( talk ) 16:37, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Polukhov's statement is already shortened. Please read his compleet statement. You will see we use only what is related to airspace disputes over Karabakh. The Azerbaijani warning is based on international law that airplanes violating the Azerbaijani territorial integrity and sovereignty can be destroyed. We allowed the Armenian side to give a statement on this warning. They associated the warning with terrorist organisations. It literally says: "Armenian officials also accused Baku of pursuing state terrorism in their threat to shoot down civilian planes landing at the airport" So now we also must allow the Azerbaijani side to respond to this accusation. Thats what Polukhov does by pointing out that so far only Armenia has actually shot down civilian aircrafts. Its all part of the dialogue and we cannot remove one side and only mention the Armenian side. That would take information out of its context and make it a non-neutral article.
 * If you had looked at the provided sources you should see that many Armenian sources also say it was a warning by Azerbaijan. This Tert.am source, which we use for Bryza's statement, also says: "It comes after top Azerbaijani aviation officials warned that Azerbaijani forces..." Because the terminology of warning is more neutral than threatened. If even an Armenian news site sees it like this, why cant you? Neftchi (talk) 08:52, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Version 1
I suggest that we put it the text as follows:

The new version reflects the following important points:
 * 1) Arif's statement is not an official position of Azerbaijan, but probably that of a single official. I also put "declare" there, though this is probably a temporary solution, as along with the logic of its content and opinion of the US ambassadors, even Turkish sources mention it as a threat.
 * 2) "Armenian officials also accused Baku..." is irrelevant, they are not officials as it becomes clear from the source. Hence this should be removed as overloading info.
 * 3) Polukhov's "elaborations" are of propaganda nature. The shootings he recalls took place in very different contexts. Hence all we need to leave is that Azerbaijan's official position doesn't back the threat of one of the country's officials.
 * 4) "Turkish officials, including the" should be removed as the source indicates only Davutoglu.

Hope this can be a common ground version for all parts.

--  Ashot  ( talk ) 10:57, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Its a good start, I have a few suggestions:
 * We must mention the name, Arif Mammadov, and that he pointed out to international law in his statement.
 * Immediately after the NKR Civil Aviation Department's statement announcing the May 9, 2011 opening date of the newly-built airport in Stepanakert, Arif Mammadov, director of Azerbaijan’s Civil Aviation Administration declared that according to the law on aviation, flights from Yerevan to Stepanakert are not authorized and may be shot down.
 * Combine the statements of Bryza and Yovanovitch as its the position of the US.
 * The United States ambassadors to Azerbaijan and Armenia said it was "unacceptable" to shoot down civilian planes; and advised that issues related to the security of the airport should be solved before its opening.
 * Polukhov's full response to accusations made by Armenian president and other officials. They said that the “Azerbaijani announcement is a state terrorism”. We also must allow the Azerbaijani side to respond to this. Thats exacly what Polukhov does. We can link Polukhov's response to Sargsyan accusation.
 * The Azerbaijani presidential administration condemned Sargsyan's statement as possible provocation on the part of Armenia. A few days later, spokesman of the Azerbaijani Foreign Ministry, Elkhan Polukhov, rejected the Armenian accusations of state terrorism. He said: “Azerbaijan did not and will not use force against civil facilities, unlike Armenia.” Polukhov elaborated that in the past Armenia had shot down a civilian Azerbaijani helicopter over the occupied territories, an Iranian plane with civilians on board, as well as shot down an aircraft with 78 Azerbaijani volunteers on board on their way to help the victims of the Spitak earthquake.

Neftchi (talk) 12:04, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * US ambassadors pointed out not only the shooting but also threats to do so, so the following (in the given context) is more correct: The United States ambassadors to Azerbaijan and Armenia, Matthew Bryza and Marie Yovanovitch, characterized that threat as "unacceptable"; and advised that issues related to the security of the airport should be solved before its opening.
 * There are no accusations of other officials in the new version proposed by me (as those who made the accusations were not officials). As per Armenia's president, there has been no accusation in his speech. As per Polukhov's so called "elaborations", they are of propaganda nature as the incidents he recalled took place in very different contexts and have nothing in common with the current context. So I argue that we should keep up with the version proposed by me earlier. --  Ashot  ( talk ) 14:34, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed we need to mention the names of the US ambassadors. But we have been discussing the usage of the word "threat" for a while now. Thats why its better to leave it all out. Its still the exact same content:
 * The United States ambassadors to Azerbaijan and Armenia, Matthew Bryza and Marie Yovanovitch, said it was "unacceptable" to shoot down civilian planes; and advised that issues related to the security of the airport should be solved before its opening.
 * Armenian officials did accuse Azerbaijan of state terrorism. It literally says so in the article. You also know this was just propaganda. So we must allow Polukhov to respond on such an accusation. The attacks Polukhov mentions all took place over the airspace in Karabakh. All the crashed planes were of civilian origins. We can mention that during the time there was a war.
 * Polukhov elaborated that in the past, during the Nagorno-Karabakh War, Armenia had shot down a civilian Azerbaijani helicopter over the occupied territories, an Iranian plane with civilians on board, as well as shot down an aircraft with 78 Azerbaijani volunteers on board on their way to help the victims of the Spitak earthquake. Neftchi (talk) 18:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you trespass reasonable limits with an attempt to deliberately omit the term threat. We have changed "threat" to "declare" in the beginning, but we cannot willfully alter the words of ambassadors.
 * No it doesn't say so in the new version proposed and multiple times explained by me. Reread it. As per so called elaborations, again, the incidents took place during war time but they were not deliberate shootings of civilian planes and "unlike Armenia..." is nothing but a propaganda. Besides, this article is about Stepanakert Airport and we don't need overloading it with nationalist propaganda which attempts to groundlessly byte Armenia. Both your proposals are wholly unacceptable in the light of this.--  Ashot  ( talk ) 05:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You deliberately want to keep the word "threat", its propaganda. Thats why I suggest to avoid any propaganda and POV words. My suggestions do not change the context at all. Also the word "threat" was not used by the ambassadors. Its a paraphrase from RFERL, not a direct qoute. Thus there is no altering of words. Thats why I suggest to have good faith and avoid controversial terminology. Also you just slam away my suggestion for Polukhov's statement, and you give no other feedback in return. I ask you to have a more constructive position, so we can solve all these issues. You say it happened during wartime, my suggestion mentions the Nagorno-Karabakh War. So there really is no argument to exclude the Azerbaijani response. Polukhov simply responds of the terrorist accusations made by Sargsyan. As you can see in his qoute he associates and links Azerbaijan to terrorist organizations. Neftchi (talk) 19:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You should behave more constructively yourself. I give argumentation for why your proposal is unacceptable. I don't slam it away. "Threat" is used by both ambassadors and hence your proposal is nothing but an altering of words and sense of their message. I am sorry to have to repeat the same things multiple times for you. Here again see the quotes of ambassadors' words (I'll copy paste from a previous message of mine):
 * "The threat or use of force, including against civilian aircraft that pose no threat themselves, is unacceptable," said US ambassador to Azerbaijan. "Such threats are wholly unacceptable," said US ambassador to Armenia.
 * You are not allowed to alter peoples' messages and I can't compromise with you and accept such practice. --  Ashot  ( talk ) 04:54, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * So it means you cannot alter the words of Polukhov either. What you're doing is selecting and altering a qoute by Polukhov. If you say lets not change qoutes than both Polukhov and so the ambassadors stay as they are. I have told you this multiple times. Neftchi (talk) 10:09, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course it means. But I have never made an attempt to alter his words. Again I have to recommend that you reread the text proposed by me. What I suggest is to limit (NOT change) Polukhov's quote to the extent, where it is directly relevant to the topic and is not of propagandist nature. We don't need to put everything what people say, but only that what is most relevant. Just an example. In addition to what is included in the article, Davit Babayan also said the following: "the threats are a proof that medieval psychology is prevalent in Azerbaijan. Those who issue them do not simply lack in self-possession, but openly support Nazi values." However I do not propose adding these sentences and reasonably limit his quote.
 * Why can't you help yourself from keeping Polukhov's biting quote? --  Ashot  ( talk ) 12:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * And exacly by limiting his qoute you change the context of the dialogue. He is not talking about medieval psychology but about the Armenian attacks on civilian aircraft over the airspace in Karabakh. That is directly related to the headline of this article "Disputes". Also Polukhov is giving a direct response to the Armenian accusations. On the other side, we did not limit any of the Armenian propaganda statements. But according to you, Azerbaijani response to accusations shouldnt be allowed. You seem intent to deliberately keep Polukhov out of the dialogue. I have explained and discussed every one of your arguments. Yet you give not a single solid argument to delete Polukhov's response. I have continuously made suggestions to solve this issue but you show no flexibility. Neftchi (talk) 21:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Another thing is, there is no peace treaty after the war thus no conclusion. The text should say since the cease fire agreement, that is more accurate. Neftchi (talk) 21:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but if Azeri side said they will shoot down Armenian planes which land in Azerbaijani territory under Armenian military control and it was considered threat, why is Babayan's reply not a threat when he said they will retaliate. To me it is a threat. He could say "we will defend or protect or planes" but he said they would retaliate. It's a direct threat and Polukhov replied to the Armenian government which accuses of terrorism? This is a dialog and of course it's not fair if part of dialog is cut off because some users disagree. Dighapet (talk) 22:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * @Neftchi, Polukhov's quote is propaganda, as he brings unrelated examples and tries to fit them in the context. This is what black PR is about. Wikipedia is not the place to put that kind of messages.
 * @Dighapet, please read the long conversation above (carefully). Hope you won't have questions then.
 * --  Ashot  ( talk ) 04:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Ashot's suggestions seem reasonable to me.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 19:56, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Version 2
Given the discussion of Version 1 I propose the following revised version:

--  Ashot  ( talk ) 04:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry but I do not see where Polukhov's quote about Armenians shooting civilian planes is in this version 2. Why do you think it is Ok for Serzh Sarkisyan to equal Azerbaijan's willingness to say things about it's legal airspace to "terrorist organizations" and it is not Ok for Polukhov to say that it was Armenians who were known to shooting down Iranian civilian plane? I don't understand. Do you see fairness in your version? I don't see fairness. Dighapet (talk) 13:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Dear Ashot, now you're just repeating yourself. I clearly explained to you that Polukhov's statement is part of the dialogue. Not once but multiple times now. I explained to you that Polukhov gives a response to accusations by Armenian officials of Azerbaijani state terrorism. You call Polukhov's statement propaganda and this shows your perspective. I told you be more objective, Wikipedia must show both perspectives. Not just the Armenian side.
 * Mammadov did not declare that the planes are unauthorized, the planes are according to international law already unauthorized. You know this. And you know that Karabakh is recognized within the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Azerbaijan. That includes airspace over Karabakh. So Mammadov could never declare anything, he made a warning and pointed out to international law.


 * We have been discussing minuscule terminology for 3 weeks now. Exactly because of this, I made the suggestion in the beginning, to leave controversial words out. It doesnt change the context and it doesnt change the Azerbaijani or Armenian statements. So again I make this suggestion. I really dont understand your continuous insistence. Here is a more objective version:

Neftchi (talk) 13:31, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * How else I can convey 2 simple messages to you? 1. We cannot ALTER words of others (e.g. US ambassadors), 2. We cannot keep propagandist messages which overload the article (Polukhov's in this case).
 * If one follows your example, the article will grow into a bundle of biting comments from Azeri and Armenian sides, which is simply not reasonable. Try to comprehend this before explaining something to whoever. --  Ashot  ( talk ) 14:30, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You constantly contradict yourself, you want to change the statement by Polukhov yet you want to keep the ambassadors. Polukhov made a response to Armenian accusations. It is unacceptable to remove his statement. You want to show only Armenian side of the dialogue. You do not need to worry about an ever expanding article. The article will not be larger then suggested version by me. Neftchi (talk) 18:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I specially capitalized ALTER with the hope that you would comprehend the sense of the message... Polukhov's response might also contain accusation against killing Persian elephants in 451 AD, but we shouldn't add that either. This is not the arena for biting comments and propaganda by Azerbaijan (as well as Armenia). If Armenia had ever threatened to shoot a civilian plane or something of comparable caliber, then we probably should put "elaborations" on the topic. But Polukhov refers to events which are very different in nature and circumstances and hence he simply misleads and aims at groundlessly biting Armenia. --  Ashot  ( talk ) 04:56, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I say it again. Polukhov gives a response to Armenian accusations that Azerbaijan follow state terrorism. Polukhov's gives a normal answer to the accusations, which are all about the airspace dispute. So I really dont understand what you mean with elephants. In version 3, it also mentions that it was during wartime. So there is no misleading or whatsoever. Again Polukhov is part of the dialogue, the Armenian side made accusations and Polukhov responded on those accusations. Neftchi (talk) 07:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There is much more of that dialog, but we don't need to include all those biting comments from both sides. Polukhov's answer is not normal. He just backs away from a threat made previously and then adds bla-bla-bla, which has nothing to do with acts or threats of deliberate shootings of airplanes. We don't need to add that bla-bla-bla just because Polukhov said that. --  Ashot  ( talk ) 10:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * We have included all necessary part of dialogue. What you call "blablabla" is a genuine response to Armenian accusations of Azerbaijani state terrorism. How many times have I told you this by now? We also added the circumstances of warfare, If you dont like it, its unfortunate, but it doesnt mean you can just remove it. Neftchi (talk) 14:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You constantly refuse to refer to the new version. We don't discuss the article as it is, but the proposed version. What "state terrorism"? Where do you see it in the new version proposed by me. To further avoid this misconception, I change the relevant sections of the article. Polukhov's biting comment remains questionable and subject to discussion.--  Ashot  ( talk ) 15:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * In your edit you overwrote several unsettled things:
 * Warned - declared. Mammadov did not declare that the planes are unauthorized, the planes were according to international law already unauthorized. You know this very well. And you also know that Karabakh is recognized within the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Azerbaijan. That includes airspace over Karabakh. So Mammadov could never declare anything, he made a warning and pointed out to international law. I brought forward both these elements in the new edit.
 * Ambassadors. It is inconsistent to use various terms. I explained to you why it is a warning not a threat when we discussed on Mammadov's statement. But can you provide me with a qoute by the ambassadors in which they use the term "threat". And please keep in mind that it should be an objective source and no paraphrase. We need a source for this.
 * Polukhov. Sargsyan says: "have always been made by terrorist organizations" thereby he clearly associates Azerbaijan with terrorism. Its a bit too much dont you think, especcialy since everybody knew Mammadov did not represent the official position of Azerbaijan. You even said it yourself. I added mention of wartime in the sentence for more accuracy. Neftchi (talk) 23:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Text related to Mammadov's threat remains pending. As well as Polukhov's biting comment. Ambassadors' comments cannot be altered and there is nothing to dispute about. Identification of Mammadov's statement as threat is very clear in their statement.
 * President Sargsyan only says that threats to shoot civilian planes "have always been made by terrorist organizations". This is as true as 2x2=4. So what? --  Ashot  ( talk ) 04:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Ashot we have not reached consensus on the ambassadors. It is not your task to decide what is disputable and what is not. I kindly requested that you provide an objective source with a qoute on the ambassadors. You didnt do it and yet you changed the article anyways. The words of the ambassadors is already altered in the sources, because its not a qoute but a paraphrase. Thats why I asked you for a source which proves your qoute. Neftchi (talk) 09:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I put all international reactions underneath each other. It gets confusing as it jumps all over the place.Neftchi (talk) 18:21, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

RfC: Is Polukhov's statement worth being kept in the article?
Currently this article has a paragraph with the following contents:
 * A few days later, spokesman of the Azerbaijani Foreign Ministry, Elkhan Polukhov, backed away from the threat and said: “Azerbaijan did not and will not use force against civil facilities, unlike Armenia.” Polukhov elaborated that in the past, during the Nagorno-Karabakh War, Armenia had shot down a civilian Azerbaijani helicopter over the occupied territories, an Iranian plane with civilians on board, as well as shot down an aircraft with 78 Azerbaijani volunteers on board on their way to help the victims of the Spitak earthquake. 

I think that Polukhov's "elaborations" are simply biting and misleading, since they refer to events that have nothing in common with deliberate shootings of planes and refer to war-time incidents. Furthermore, adding that kind of biting comments from both Armenian and Azeri politicians is irrelevant. Hence, I suggest that this section be changed to:
 * A few days later, spokesman of the Azerbaijani Foreign Ministry, Elkhan Polukhov, backed away from the threat and said: “Azerbaijan did not and will not use force against civil facilities.” 

We had a long dispute with Neftchi, but couldn't find a mutually acceptable solution, hence I ask for a third party opinion. Thanks. --  Ashot  ( talk ) 05:21, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The Armenian president Serzh Sargsyan associated Azerbaijan with terrorism. Plus several Armenian officials accused Azerbaijan of state terrorism. Polukhov gives a response to these accusations. This is all part of the dialogue. Polukhov talks about earlier attacks over the airspace in Karabakh. How's that not related to the dispute-headline. We must show both sides of the dialogue, not just the Armenian perspective. Neftchi (talk) 09:13, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No Armenian officials accused Azerbaijan of state terrorism. At least there is no such info in the article. As per president Sargsyan, he said that threats to shoot civilian planes "have always been made by terrorist organizations" which is as true as 2x2=4. --  Ashot  ( talk ) 09:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sargsyan statement is clearly propaganda as he attempts to associate Azerbaijan with terrorism. That is obvious. Polukhov gives a response to this association and earlier accusations. Polukhov talks about the shot down civilian aircrafts and helicopters over this airspace. Its all related to the 'dispute' headline of this article, like you say 2x2=4 Neftchi (talk) 09:37, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * And yes. Armenian officials did accuse Azerbaijan of state terrorism. Just because you removed it doesnt mean it never happened. It literally said so on the April 22 version.Neftchi (talk) 09:40, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I have explained several times that they were not politicians but private experts. That's why I removed their statements as burdening and unnecessary. As per the rest, I look forward to getting 3rd party comments. --  Ashot  ( talk ) 09:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Support Change - After casting my eye over this, I think the "biting and misleading" comment is accurate. In the reference, the spokesman of the Azerbaijani Foreign Ministry is basically lodging a list of complaints and allegations against Armenia.  Reciting these is undesirable for two reasons.  1) Wikipedia shouldn't act as a mouth piece for non-notable political rhetoric & 2) the allegations lodged aren't really verified by the reference, and the current wording seems to suggest that accusations the spokesman is making are statements of fact, which may potentially be misleading and almost certainly isn't WP:NPOV. Anyways, haven't read too deeply into this, but my initial impression is that the controversial content in question is inappropriate and should be removed. NickCT (talk) 14:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Bingo. For all the blood spilled on this talk page, no one has really addressed the veracity of the statements and circumstances regarding the downing of those aircraft. This is largely because they were so blatantly inappropriate in the first place but for the sake of clarity, it should be noted that an independent Armenian military did not even exist during that time and that those shootings were largely accidental in nature. The small military groups operating in the region during that time did not have modern tracking equipment but for one reason or another they assumed those aircraft were part of the military wing of Azerbaijan or the USSR armed forces which were supporting it. Like you said, Wikipedia isn't supposed to act as the mouthpiece for everyone who has an opinion regarding a matter, especially when they are so charged with political controversy and contain misleading statements and are otherwise irrelevant to the article in question. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 20:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The source in this article is only about the statement of Polukhov. Not about the attacks themselfs. However both these attacks mentioned by Polukhov are recognized and well sourced in their main articles, see and .Neftchi (talk) 18:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I get your point. Saying that they are "mentioned by Polukhov" isn't really an argument for their inclusion. NickCT (talk) 13:43, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well I mean, what you call controversial content, is not controversial at all. These attacks are not disputed, they have their own articles with sources (see 1994 Iranian Air Force C-130 shootdown and 1992 Azerbaijani Mil Mi-8 shootdown). For example it was also reported by The Independent. My point is, the content is not under question.Neftchi (talk) 08:17, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - I looked it over and it seems perfectly fine. It all fits in the dispute section. TractorRU (talk) 19:21, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Just would like to draw your attention to the fact that what Polukhov recalls in his statement is something that took place in radically different circumstances. He recalls war-time incidents when civilian airplanes were shot because they were considered to be military, whereas current dispute is about deliberate shooting of civilian planes. In the light of this, isn't Polukhov's statement simply an attempt of black PR? --  Ashot  ( talk ) 06:08, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Important note: The author of the comment above (TractorRU) made their first edit on May 5, 2011, and the comment above is the only of their edits all over Global Wikipedia as of now (see: Global user contributions). --  Ashot  ( talk ) 08:47, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep. (sniff) (sniff) Smells like sock. NickCT (talk) 13:43, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Support Change per NickCT and Ashot. Current wording looks like an excuse to work in a partisan attack --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:20, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment I've been notified about this RfC by User:Ashot Arzumanyan. I have a little knowledge about the subject and I am just started reviewing the sources. My initial impression is that ref name="FM: Azerbaijan never to use force against civilians in contrast to Armenia " is a bit weak, since the source appears as a primary one and might be given undue weight. The quote is brought in a context which S.Agayeva summarizes Regarding the issue of possible consequences of the illegal flights to Azerbaijan’s occupied territories, which Armenia keeps discussing, Polukhov expressed surprise at a tizzy that the Armenian side has raised around this issue. and this summary is supported by large direct quote of Polukhov, which current article wording rephrases as Polukhov elaborated ....  Basically though the summary of the source is that Azerbaijani Foreign Ministry retracted their threat, so I am leaning towards Support the change and generally would like to see secondary sources like NYTimes or BBC reflecting on Azerbaijani Foreign Ministry position. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 15:55, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Reject change Both statements from both officials in Azerbaijan and Armenia/separatist government in Nagorno Karabakh have equal value and both have to be presented in the same light. One statement can't be presented in full light and the other be suppressed. Angel670   talk  02:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It would be great of you to follow the example of Marshal Baghramyan and refrain from this comment (being yourself a member of WikiProjectAzerbaijan) to keep this space for 3rd party (neither Armenian nor Azerbaijani) editors. --  Ashot  ( talk ) 05:00, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I would not mind trimming David Babayan/Serzh Sargsyan quotes. It would be interesting to hear User:Angel670 thoughts on what would constitute a fair and concise summary. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 12:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Dear AgadaUrbanit, thank you for expressing your position. I don't have too much to add because reading the long discussion on this page I agree that if declarations from both sides are made, positions and statements from both sides have to be made. But if the preference is to trim down the text, then both statements should be cut equally. That means, Serzh Sargsyan's statement about equalling Azerbaijani protection of its legal airspace to "terrorism" and Azerbaijan's response to that statement mentioning Armenia's shooting down of civilian Azerbaijani helicopter over Shusha, an Iranian plane with civilians on board in 1994, and a civilian aircraft with 78 Azerbaijani volunteers on board on their way to help the victims of the Spitak earthquake, can be trimmed down by deleting the above mentioned references to "terrorism" and shooting of civilian aircrafts in 1988, 1992 and 1994. Here is the version I propose:

Angel670  talk  14:32, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Reject change In my opinion, Azerbaijani government's view also deserves equal value as both must be in same format to avoid dispute between users. Moreover, one of this statements can't be presented in maximum coverage, while the other is being suppressed. --NovaSkola (talk) 15:59, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Question Agreed A&A deserve equal value, per WP:NPOV. Do we consider User:Angel670 quotation acceptable?  AgadaUrbanit (talk) 18:22, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Its a more balanced approach, so yes its acceptable. Neftchi (talk) 21:56, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't really see how this version is any different than Neftchi's original proposal. It dances around the threats made by the Azerbaijani official and resurrects the old canard that "Armenia shot down planes too!", something which neutral observes have already dismissed as not only unnecessary but also misleading, presented as if it's a fact and not a distorted interpretation of what took place.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 02:41, 14 May 2011 (UTC)


 * "Unlike Armenia" looks simply very bad in the text. If we say that then we have to explain what that means which leads to inserting black pr text in the article. Hence "unlike Armenia" should be removed. Additionally the text omits Philip Gordon and GUAM. Yet another problem is the sequence. It seems better to start with the threat, then continue with NKR and Armenian response, and then go on with international reaction (as it is now in the article).
 * And finally President Sargysan's comment. We can't shorten it just because the Azeri side has not come up with a worthy-to-be-included response. However, if some editors think Sargsyan's comment should be shortened we can discuss it separately. Please keep in mind, that Polukhov's statement is proposed to be shortened because it contains willfully misleading interpretation and not because it is the response of Azerbaijan (and this is what this particular RfC is about). --  Ashot  ( talk ) 05:50, 14 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with Agada and Angel. Again Ashot you are not willing to change your stance. Both sides need to compromise, how many times have I told you this? In this new version I added Gordon and GUAM response, plus corrected sequence. Shortened both Sargysan and Polukhov's statements accordingly:
 * Neftchi (talk) 09:44, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, User:Neftchi suggestion appears constructive and trying to avoid mutual finger pointing. Iterations for proposals on talk page are inline with WP:BRD and imho have a chance to produce a neutral description of this A&A dispute. I personally would not object continuation of this trim-summarize cycle, yet it would be interesting to know if User:Ashot Arzumanyan feels we are done here, would this section draft be acceptable? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 16:38, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The last proposal looks fine to me except for the part where Neftchi makes an attempt to willfully alter the US position where it identifies Mammadov's statement as threat. The US related wording should remain the way it is now.
 * The rest is quite OK. Though I'd like to know if Marshal has any objections.
 * Just one other thing. I think we can trim Babayan's quote and change it to following:
 * The NKR response came from David Babayan, head of the central information department of the NKR president’s office, who said that NKR armed forces "will give an adequate response" if Azerbaijan makes an attempt to shoot down an aircraft.
 * Hope this is OK. --  Ashot  ( talk ) 05:49, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response, User:Ashot Arzumanyan, bellow for clarity follows the draft which considers your remark:
 * Let's see if there are additional proposals for improvement. If there will be no further objections, within 48 hours, I'll publish the draft above. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 06:25, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, AgadaUrbanit, for your efforts. Just a note. This version doesn't reflect the more important remark of mine regarding the US position, which should remain as it is now in the article text. The rest seems ok. --  Ashot  ( talk ) 06:42, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you mind to posting new draft for clarity? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:21, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, AgadaUrbanit, for your efforts. Just a note. This version doesn't reflect the more important remark of mine regarding the US position, which should remain as it is now in the article text. The rest seems ok. --  Ashot  ( talk ) 06:42, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you mind to posting new draft for clarity? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:21, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Sure. Hopefully I haven't missed anything.

--  Ashot  ( talk ) 09:30, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no need to further lengthen the words of Babayan, it should be as:
 * The NKR response came from David Babayan, head of the central information department of the NKR president’s office, who said that NKR armed forces "will give an adequate response."
 * Regarding the US position, I suggest writing: said it was "unacceptable" because its much more simple than: characterized that threat as "unacceptable". There is no alteration of content here, the message is still the same, only more simple and shorter. Neftchi (talk) 14:52, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think in any reference work clarity is more important than simplicity when simplicity does not significantly change the space allowed for an information. Said it was "unacceptable", what is unacceptable? if those words are removed that sentence will remain with an imprecision. The same goes with will give adequate response, to what? Proper phrases should be self sufficient, readers should not be forced to check another phrase to make sense out of it. Vidovler (talk) 15:16, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Vidovler had you actually bothered to read, it says:
 * ...said it was "unacceptable" to shoot down civilian planes.Neftchi (talk) 14:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I am refering to your simplification of a phrase. Vidovler (talk) 15:15, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I am going to make the changes as suggested in my last proposal. If there are objections, please let me know. As per suggestions for further improvement, they can be discussed separately. --  Ashot  ( talk ) 10:06, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Support Change as per Ashot's proposal. The quote shoe-horned in allegations based on POV.  Nipson anomhmata   (Talk) 21:48, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

PACE Resolution
I think the RfC above should be closed as the change regarding Polukhov's statements is approved by all participants and particularly the third party ones.

As per Neftchi's suggestion, I think that simplifying cannot be a goal in itself. It willfully omits that fact that the US has clearly identified Mammadov's statement as "threat". As per Babayan's trimmed quote, it just loses its sense in the proposed version and becomes simply ridiculous. Hence, I insist that both parts should remain the way I suggested earlier (at least not be worsened).--  Ashot  ( talk ) 15:26, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think this sentence is accurate: document stresses that the construction of the airport by Armenia in Azerbaijan’s occupied territories... No real independent source claims an area within and inside NK as occupied territory. This has to be reworded. The Armenian population of NK did not enter there to occupy it, they always lived there. A better wording would be: The document stresses that the construction of the airport by Armenia in what it claimed as Azerbaijan’s occupied territories is contrary to the norms of international law. Vidovler (talk) 15:32, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The resolution, though signed by a small number of Azeri and Turkish PACE members, still contains that wording, so I don't think we should make that change. Though probably, being signed by so little number of members, it deserves less space in the article text than it currently occupies. --  Ashot  ( talk ) 05:09, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I just didn't get your point at first. --  Ashot  ( talk ) 05:27, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Vidovler there are enough sources inc UN, etc.
 * As Ashot said, the source writes it like that. The same principle goes to the statement of the US ambassadors. However regarding Babayan. You want to add "if Azerbaijan attempts to shoot down an aircraft." - at the end of the sentence. That would be only fair is we also accurately point out that Mammadov meant territorial integrity and sovereignty. So I say:
 * "Arif Mammadov, director of Azerbaijan’s Civil Aviation Administration warned: the airflights violate the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Azerbaijan according to the law on aviation, flights from Yerevan to Stepanakert are not authorized and may be shot down."Neftchi (talk) 14:47, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The fact that Arif's statement is put inappropriately (as you think), doesn't mean that we have to change Babayan's part so that it become ridiculous. Do you have any sources which support what you say or think? We can't put your name the references, can we?... --  Ashot  ( talk ) 17:29, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if there has been a centralized discussion regarding the term "occupied territories" related to NKR. This might be helpful in addressing Vidovler's point. --  Ashot  ( talk ) 17:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I said we must also change Arif's statement as I suggested. And you contradict yourself again. One side you say qoutes must remain untouched and on the other side you want the edit the PACE resolution.Neftchi (talk) 09:55, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Neftchi, the term occupied is used (from the UN resolutions) for the buffer zone, linguistically it is not accurate to use it for NK. The PACE document authored by the Azeri side of the conflict is just an opinion and no one is talking about authoring it. My proposition only clarify that that's what the document say, while the other proposals make it as if NK is occupied. Vidovler (talk) 15:19, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * As Ashot explained earlier, no alteration for words, that means sticking to words used in source for the US ambassadors and the PACE resolution. If you dont agree with the UN, that is your personal opinion, you are free to write a complaint letter to the UN and ask them to change it. Neftchi (talk) 15:27, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not questioning the UN, what I am saying is that the UN has used the word occupation for the buffer region, not the NK proper. The population of NK can not really occupy NK, it can only occupy what is outside NK. There is no alteration of words here, since that statment is not a quotation, it claims that the PACE document condemned doing that in an occupied region, the way it is worded makes the term occupation as a statment of fact it does not attribute that wording to PACE. So your justification does not make sense because my proposed version clarify what that resolution considers as occupation. Vidovler (talk) 18:47, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * We already reached consensus on this matter on the principle by Ashot. Please read the entire discussion, I do not want to repeat myself. Neftchi (talk) 21:57, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I just read it, and don't see my points addressed at all, so your reply won't be a repeat. Vidovler (talk) 22:12, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Vidovler. I think it should be simply put as follows: The document stresses that the construction of the airport by Armenia in Azerbaijan’s occupied territories is contrary to the norms of international law. --  Ashot  ( talk ) 04:59, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You contradict yourself. You didnt want to alter words with the US ambassadors yet you want to alter the words of a PACE resolution. We also musnt alter the words of PACE, that means to remove the 23 Azeri or Turkish members. Your contradictory point of view is unacceptable because there must be consistency in principle.
 * The statement by Mammadov: flights from Yerevan to Stepanakert are not authorized - why not authorized? Because it violates the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Azerbaijan. I added that. As we did with Babayan for clarity. Neftchi (talk) 09:40, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Says who? Unlike the case of Babayan, there is nothing like that in the sources. Will explain the PACE part later. --  Ashot  ( talk ) 10:28, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Indefinitely: The launch of the first commercial flights to the breakaway Azerbaijani region of Nagorno-Karabakh in two decades has been postponed indefinitely, RFE/RL's Armenian Service reports. - There is your source.
 * Territorial integrity and sovereignty: This was a good faith edit, because Mammadov's statement on law on aviation (international law) must be eloborated with what he refers. Obviously that is territorial integrity and sovereignty, that is why the flights are not authorized. This must be explained or else the sentence does not make it clear why its not authorized? Neftchi (talk) 10:44, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The word "indefinitely" has more than one meanings. The RFE/RL refers to its Armenian Service report where we can see this: . Apparently the RFE/RL means "for unknown period of time" and not "forever". This is also supported by numerous original sources, which are the interviews of officials in NKR. Hence we don't have to add the ambiguous wording in the text.
 * Will address the rest later. --  Ashot  ( talk ) 12:15, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Please do not change any quotes to your liking. The source says “occupied” which has to be similar in the article. Also, why do you revert to version where it says “23 members (19 of them Turish or Azeri)”??? If you do that, then please add “1 from Georgia, 1 from UK, 1 from Bulgaria, 1 from Belgium” to make it clear who else voted and signed. Dighapet (talk) 14:28, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

To Neftchi and now Dighabet: There is no quotes here, that statment says: The document stresses that the construction of the airport by Armenia in Azerbaijan’s occupied territories is contrary to the norms of international law. It does say nowhere that it is the document which says occupied, what it says instead is that it is occupation which is an opinion and not a fact. Since both of you claim that it is the document which says that I don't understand why you are debating since the only thing my modification did was to clarify that it was the document which says that. If you two can not agree in that important clarification, enutral users should come here, because your version is obviously unacceptable. Vidovler (talk) 15:42, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I reworded it to a wording that I think both of you might accept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vidovler (talk • contribs) 15:46, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Vidovler, one more this kind of edit and I will report you. I dont understand what your saying. Have you even bothered to check the source? Here it is for you. And it says occupied, nothing else:
 * Armenia is leading the construction of an airport in the occupied Nagorno-Karabakh region, thus ignoring the norms of international law. Besides the norms of international law, the indicated activities fully contradict 4 UN Security Council Resolutions on the liberation of the occupied Azerbaijani territories, the commitments undertaken by Armenia before the Council of Europe and in Parliamentary Assembly Resolution 1416 (2005). This action also hardly damages the negotiation process on peaceful settlement of the conflict of Nagorno-Karabakh dealt by OSCE Minsk Group, thus much more straining the tense situation in the region. The statement by the Armenian president Serj Sarkisyan to be the first passenger to land on the airport under construction also contradicts international law, the spirit of the commitments undertaken by Armenia before the Council of Europe and in Assembly Resolution 1416 (2005).
 * Considering all this, we resolutely condemn the construction by Armenia of an airport in the occupied Azerbaijani territories. We call on and demand Erevan’s authorities to stop the construction of the airport, to refrain from such activities and statements, to implement its obligations on conflict-resolution undertaken before the Council of Europe including Assembly Resolution 1416 (2005), to withdraw from the occupied Azerbaijani territories, thus enabling 1 million refugees and IDP-s to return to their homeland. Neftchi (talk) 19:04, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I also edited the PACE resolution, as Ashot said himself, no altering of words. So it applies to all sources. Neftchi (talk) 19:08, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Why wouldn't you read what Vidovler writes? Yes to no altering to words, and no to misintrepretation of facts. The text is not in quotes, and the narrative should not contain misintrepretation. Vidovler's version does not deny that the document terms the territories occupied, but also points out that it is a priviate opinon and not a fact. --  Ashot  ( talk ) 19:16, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I give up, as I don't have the intention to repeat myself over again. I'll bring that to a neutral user. Vidovler (talk) 21:18, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I partially reverted edits by User:Ashot Arzumanyan which neither sounded right nor followed the sources. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:15, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Neftchi reverted a much discussed part regarding PACE, and I reverted him back ("19 of 23 members"). He also filled the talk page space with lots of text without addressing the main point of Vidovler. Except for "no altering of words principle", there is also a principle not to alter facts. As per the word "indefinitely" and its sourcing, please be kind to read this. Assuming good faith, I think you simply lacked the time to investigate the case. --  Ashot  ( talk ) 05:17, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Ashot dont play games. The US ambassadors are not qouted either. But fine, I qouted their exact words. Considering "no altering of words principle" this is settled.
 * You also undid the sourced information of AgadaUrbanit. Your interpretation of terminology is not sound, it is your personal opinion. You cannot remove sourced information, you know this. Neftchi (talk) 11:38, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Altered? It is time to report you, which I will be doing the minute I have time. On April 14, 2011 a resolution (12590) by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) condemned, this is not only a fabrication (it is not a resolution), but any such documents by PACE, indiviually include the statment that they are not endorsed by PACE. If you are able to write to us in English, you should also be able to read what you use as a source. Vidovler (talk) 22:21, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on PACE politics. The document is not signed by 642 members, is it custom to vote in PACE? It would be interesting to see a secondary source reflection on this primary document.Is there BBC or Washington Post discussion of Doc. 12590 asserting the document notability. If secondary source could be found, we'd know how to interpret the document and how to describe it in this article. AgadaUrbanit (talk)
 * To answer your question, yes it is common. Groups from one country draft something than seek endorsers. The document writes: This written declaration commits only the members who have signed it. It is not a resolution, a resolution imply there were discussions and members came to a decision for the possible resolution of a problem. It imply a voting process, not endorsers like it is the case here. In this situation, the Azeri members have drafted it signed it with the Turkish group mostly. The best term is to claim that it is a written document endorsed by..., then clarify, since in the case most of those who endorsed it represents Turkey and Azerbaijan. Even including this information is a concession in itself because there is nothing significant with 23 names, usually documents get more than 80 endorsers. Vidovler (talk) 23:16, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Agada this issue has not received much attention from western media. However regional media (Azerbaijan, Turkey, Armenia, etc) have refered to PACE document as a "declaration". So we should replaced "resolution" with "declaration". It also says so on the document itself. And giving the "no altering of words principle" that we have used in many issues, it applies to this one aswell. There must be consistency. Neftchi (talk) 09:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The reason this document has not received any attention is because there ae several documents by countries being drafted and voted each day, and most of them have more endorser. And if you really believe that by only changing the word resolution it will become acceptable, this only shows that you don't even care what others have written. It is not a PACE declaration, the document clarifies: This written declaration commits only the members who have signed it It is only a declaration by those members who have signed it. Vidovler (talk) 14:23, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The declaration has a number and its in the PACE database. You can search for it. First you played games by saying its not a qoute and removed it. I adjusted it. Now your again playing games by saying its not a PACE document. Than why is it on their official website? You need to reach consensus before removing such sourced information, I adjusted accordingly. Neftchi (talk) 16:16, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I have played no games at all, and your reply has nothing to do with what I have written. Reread it. Vidovler (talk) 16:43, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

There are 2 things we need to consider regarding this PACE resolution. Hence, if we come to concensus that the resolution is at all notable, we should be very careful in interpreting its contents. --  Ashot  ( talk ) 16:48, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) It is signed by a very small number of Azeri and Turkish (involved parties) politicians. Here we may validly express notability concerns.
 * 2) The term "occupied territories" is incorrect by default, as even the UN resolutions refer to the buffer zone and the airport is not there (by the way this is not the only incorrect wording there, e.g. the resolution addresses Armenia, but it is the NKR that constructs the airport).
 * Vidovler you're violating rules by removing sources information. Everybody here, except you, understand that we are talking about a PACE declaration. @Ashot you contradict yourself again. You apply "no altering of words principle" discriminatory. You use it whenever you want it and now you are saying lets interpret its contents. Thats unacceptable, you know this very well. We have settled many issues by using your principle so you cannot suddenly change your mind. There must be consistency or else we can start all over and "interpret every content". Neftchi (talk) 17:44, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

How many time are we going to continue this monologues? What are you not understanding, because obviously there is something wrong with your behavior. Read the first line before that documents content, do so once for all: This written declaration commits only the members who have signed it. What are you not understanding here, do tell me please?! On April 14, 2011 a declaration (12590) by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) condemned, this is not even close of being accurate, it is not a declaration from PACE, it is a declaration by 23 members of PACE, drafted by the Azeri members and mostly signed by Azeri and Turkish members. Again, it is not a PACE declaration because this written declaration only commits those who have signed it, which represents less than 4% of its members. I don't know how many time this circular discussion is supposed to run its course without outside intervention, but what I know is that you will have to continue this monologue without me. Vidovler (talk) 17:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree, attribution of Doc 12590 to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) does not follow the provided source. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 19:43, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * We are can change is accordingly:
 * On April 14, 2011, twenty-three members from the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) passed a declaration condemning “the construction by Armenia of an airport in the occupied Azerbaijani territories.” The document stresses that the construction is contrary to the norms of international law. The declaration required Yerevan to stop the airport construction. Neftchi (talk) 21:37, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for addressing attribution, however we're still missing secondary source reflection of Doc 12590, so we could establish notability of this primary source. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:52, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Here are two Armenian sources and  and a Turkish source . All are saying the same thing. It shows the qoute I provided is correct. Neftchi (talk) 10:04, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * First source:"Baku to raise Stepanakert Airport issue at PACE", it is about Baku's intention and not ultimate result. Second source is authored by today.az (see in the bottom). Third is a dead link. Author of the third is TREND Azerbaijan (again see in the bottom). --  Ashot  ( talk ) 10:11, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I gave a chronology of events based on sources. First one shows that indeed the issue was raised at PACE. Second and third shows the results. And the third link works fine, I dont know why you say its dead? Neftchi (talk) 11:32, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

It is really unacceptable that you will be changing the wording after a line of comment by a neutral user while you made me turn in circle. I have no problem with you adding the info, but it should be accurate. I'd agree if you change your last proposal from passed to endorsed. Also the secondary sources claims it is Baku which brought it, that too should be in the info, and finaly it should be clarified that 19 out of 23 were politicians from Azerbaijan and Turkey. Vidovler (talk) 15:25, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Agada is makes reasonable suggestions. We can compromise on endorsed. But we should also stick to no altering of words principle, how many times have I told you this? The readers has the source and can investigate it for further information. Such minuscule detail does not belong here. And why only Azerbaijani and Turkish members? Why so discriminatory? We should than also add 1 from Georgia, 1 from United Kingdom, 1 from Bulgaria and 1 from Belgium. Plus we could also add that this airport damages the negotiation process on peaceful settlement of the conflict of Nagorno-Karabakh dealt by OSCE Minsk Group. So we can use the sentence I suggested and replace passed to endorsed. Neftchi (talk) 17:47, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I see an effort to find an agreed compromise wording for a fair attribution of Doc 12590. The article is a good example of WP:RECENTISM: long-term, historical view is required. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:44, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Who spoke about altering words, the thing is that the secondary sources emphasis that it is Baku's written declaration, it would be misleading to remove that important information, particularly when both Azerbaijani and Turkish representatives made the bulk of the endorsers (except for the 4 voters, the one from Bulgaria if I am not mistaken represents Turkish minorities). When such a word as occupation is used for anything inside NK, you can not only use secondary sources to claim that it is notable, you also need to use those sources for what they say about it. In this case, that it was Baku's declaration which was endorsed mostly the Azerbaijani and Turkish representatives. Vidovler (talk) 01:43, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * So far we have been going on the "principle of no altering words", the words in the source should not be changed. We used this to solve most issues in this page. Its discriminatory to only add Azerbaijani and Turkish votes on this declaration. If you want to mention the voters - all of them should be mentioned. This would really overstrech the sentence. Neftchi (talk) 21:21, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Why are you repeating the same old broken record, who told you about altering sources, you still keep repeating this. Who told you I would be against including the others? besides the Azeri and Turkish delegation? Vidovler (talk) 14:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Your are altering the words when you add something in the qoute. Thats not allowed. Anyway, I propose: On April 14, 2011, twenty-three members from the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) endorsed a declaration condemning “the construction by Armenia of an airport in the occupied Azerbaijani territories.” The document stresses that the construction is contrary to the norms of international law. The declaration required Yerevan to stop the airport construction.  Neftchi (talk) 11:33, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Neftchi continuously ignores the messages he is conveyed to. His last post stating "Your are altering the words when you add something in the qoute" overfills the cup in the light of the discussion preceding to it. I think we should respond to Neftchi's messages only when he tries hard enough to relevantly address all the concerns and notes expressed earlier in this discussion (particularly those expressed by AgadaUrbanit and Vidovler). --  Ashot  ( talk ) 11:59, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * User:Ashot Arzumanyan, stop splashing dirt to Neftchi, especially, when you don't have constructive stance. PACE resolution part of diplomatic process and it should be included in the article. Of course, armenian users don't want this due this resolution is against their interests. However, PACE is a non-binding resolution as a sign of the international community's keen interest in a resolution of the Karabakh conflict, therefore shouldn't be ignored.--NovaSkola (talk) 12:10, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


 * You'd better control yourself (reading WP:CIV would be useful for you). There are a umber of concerns expressed by AgadaUrbanit and Vidovler. Be kind to address them, achieve consensus and make your edits afterwards.--  Ashot  ( talk ) 12:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Ashot you have gave no arguments to remove this source and sentence. You also did not eloborate your actions. All you did was to call on other Wikipedians to ignore me, which is against Wiki rules. So be mindful of that. Neftchi (talk) 13:12, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess everybody here is tired of circular discussions. I called to ignore your posts as long as you ignore those of others (WP:HEAR). This is NOT against Wikipedia rules. --  Ashot  ( talk ) 13:37, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I would add that I am doing as Ashot, there is no point in continuing any discussion with Neftchi, because he totally ignores my comments and that his answers are not answers to the arguments I provide, which he ignores. There is no point is discussing with someone in su circumstances. Vidovler (talk) 20:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It is mindboggling that such a long discussion was necessary over such a minor change. The RFC should be closed and the change should be implemented because the quote itself was weasel-worded and made an unnecessary implication that was based on POV.  Nipson anomhmata   (Talk) 21:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Ashot a call to ignore somebody is against Wikipedia regulations. Unlike you I suggested a compromise, which was ignored by Vidovler. Anyway, here is my compromise again:
 * On April 14, 2011, twenty-three members from the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) endorsed a declaration condemning “the construction by Armenia of an airport in the occupied Azerbaijani territories.” The document stresses that the construction is contrary to the norms of international law. The declaration required Yerevan to stop the airport construction.
 * We cannot remove the word occupied because its qouted, dont forget the no altering of words principle which we applied in the "threat" qoute by the US ambassador. Neftchi (talk) 22:13, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "Occupied" should not hurt anyone's feeling, IANAL, according to my understanding the meaning is along lines of "sovereign but de-facto lost control". The same point is raised by GUAM official just one sentence above. I guess Neftchi's proposal compromise wording could fly. I do not want to awake disruptive editing, but I am restoring the wording in the article, for the sake of WP:DR process. Though my opinion is that generally the article is WP:RECENTISM and should be reviewed accordingly.  Meanwhile the PACE discussion could be closed. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 09:05, 8 June 2011 (UTC)