Talk:Second Nagorno-Karabakh War/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

It is not neo-ottomanism, it is panturkism

I have raised this issue before, but I was promptly shut down. I will do it one more time. Turkish involvement is not related to Neo-Ottomanism but to Pan-Turkism.

Neo-Ottomanism is a general AKP doctrine, adopted after 2010 which suggests Turkey to be more active in the region where Ottomans survived mostly after Crimea war. It was firstly more about the said region being the hinterland of Turkey. However, with Turkey's involvement in Syrian Civil war, more people see it as a form of expansionism. Yet, this does not include Armenia proper or Azerbaijan. Even the current Neo-Ottomanism article is wrong. Countries that Turkey effectively came to a clash are Greece (only per Rhodes and Dodecanese, not for Greek mainland), Cyprus, Syria, Iraq and Israel. Armenia is not included in this ideology, and the current page does not include any reference, let alone a reliable one about Neo-Ottomanism and Armenia. Neo-Ottomanism gathers support of only AKP and MHP voters.

Pan-Turkism is older and needs less elaboration. Turkish involvement with Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan are Pan-Turkic. Pan-Turkism gathers support from all major parties, except HDP.

Turkish population sees Azerbaijan as its closest friend. Similarly, all major political parties but one support Turkish involvement in Azerbaijan, including the main opposition party CHP. The only exception is HDP which remains silent other than Garo Paylan. However, AKP and MHP are alone in Turkish involvement in Syria, and both CHP and HDP being very vocal about their critics of Turkish foreign policy regarding Syria. This is an indirect proof that the issue is not about Neo-Ottomanism but Pan-Turkism.

Replacing Neo-Ottomanism with Pan-Turkism would not downplay Turkish role in the conflict. It just makes the article more accurate and gives the readers better links for further discussion. 131.111.5.153 (talk) 14:27, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Please provide reliable source that mention pan-Turkism in the context of the current conflict. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:57, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Currently subsection titled Turkey and Russia, has no mention of Neo-Ottomanism, and the Neo-Ottomanism article has no source about its relevance to Armenia. Basically, a low quality and disputed article with the title Neo-Ottomanism is dangling on the main article.

I don't have a reliable source for Pan-Turkism. It is a direct and obvious conjecture from the expressions of political parties operating in Turkey. I suggested it for two reasons:

• It is relevant for Turkey's foreign policy.
• In such hot articles, it is better to give something while you take something away in order to please everyone. Although everyone claims they are fighting for NPOV, no one does.

So, feel free to remove Neo-Ottomanism altogether. 131.111.5.153 (talk) 16:23, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

See this prior discussion about including Neo-Ottomanism in the background section. I don't have a strong opinion on whether to include it as a see also in the Turkey and Russia section, but RS have mentioned the concept in the context of this conflict. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:27, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this to me. I did some search on the sources you provided in that discussion. One is ANF, which is heavily pro-PKK. The article doesn't have any author so it is an opinion of an indirectly involved party. Modern diplomacy article is signed by Sojla Sahar. She doesn't have an active twitter account, only three people follows her. She doesn't have an academia page, she doesn't mention about any institution and she doesn't back his claims in the modern diplomacy. It feels like a very weak article to cite in an ongoing conflict.

I found two articles from scholar google about Neo-Ottomanism. The first one focuses on Ozalism, named after Turgut Ozal which is suggested as the ideology preceeding Neo-Ottomanism. It only mentions Karabakh in terms that Turkey wanted to support cultural allies rather than ideological allies, hence Pan-Turkism. The second one gives explicit mention of Syria but not Armenia. The second article is cited by seven people and is not authored by an ethnic Turk.

The problem is that I am trying to prove a negative. If Neo-Ottomanism is relevant to the current conflict, proper sources should be cited to this end and until that point, Neo-Ottomanism should be removed from this page. 131.111.5.153 (talk) 16:59, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

It seems like Modern Diplomacy is cited a fair amount of times in Google Scholar indexed papers [2], which may be enough to establish reliability per a WP:USEBYOTHERS argument. I'm not personally invested in keeping in this label in the article and won't object to its removal at this point, but others may be able and willing to continue arguing for it. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:48, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I used the same test for Sojla Sahar. Apparently no one cited her in their work per scholar google. Modern diplomacy article is not cited in the Neo-Ottomanism page. It states that Turkey has territorial claims from Armenia but it doesn't elaborate on which part of Armenia Turkey claims. Turkish informal territorial claims are all parts of the Misak-i Milli or National Pact that Turkey failed to acquire in 1923 and no part of Armenia is claimed by any party in Turkey. Turkey has no formal territorial claim other than maritime territorial claims.

Long story short, the source is very weak and if Neo-Ottomanism is to be kept as a further reading, it needs to (a) be explicitly mentioned in the relevant subsection. (b) be backed up by better sources. If you don't really care, feel free to remove it and point to the discussion here. 131.111.5.153 (talk) 18:48, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Note I updated Turkey's role in Azerbaijan, but didn't exclude Neo-Ottomanism, which is clearly linked with the ruling AKP at this point. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 18:29, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Neo-Ottomanism is not AKP foreign policy. It is a distinct ideology which AKP upholds. Turkish foreign policy shaped by many things, including Neo-Ottomanism and Pan-Turkism.

Better wikipedia articles, such as Armenia Turkey relations doesn't mention neo-ottomanism. Foreign_policy_of_the_Recep_Tayyip_Erdoğan_government#Armenia doesn't mention Neo-Ottomanism. Neo-Ottomanism is blurted out when this page is first constructed and it remains for no good reason whatsoever. 131.111.5.153 (talk) 18:54, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

They're expanding their influence in former Ottoman Territory, which is pretty much the definition of Neo-Ottomanism. I think it is fine as is. Flalf^Talk 19:01, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Armenia proper was an Ottoman territory only for 22 years, from Treaty of Constantinople (1590) to Treaty of Nasuh Pasha. Turkey also wants to expand its influence to Turkic states, which is Pan-Turkism. Current use is not really NPOV, it is just wrong. 131.111.5.153 (talk) 19:13, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Azerbaijan was barely few decades part of Ottomans. Beshogur (talk) 19:15, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

@Rosguill:, here from afp: Turkey and Azerbaijan are bound by strong ethnic, cultural and historic ties and refer to their relationship as being one between "two states, one nation." / another from Turkey GNA speaker: "Turkey's support for Azerbaijan is underpinned by friendship and brotherhood. Your Excellency, as you said, there are no other countries in the world that would be as friendly and brotherly as Azerbaijan and Turkey. We say "one nation, two states"." Beshogur (talk) 19:20, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Unless a reliable source explicitly mentions pan-Turkism in its analysis of the current conflict, we should not use the term. It would be fine to note their cultural connections without using that phrase, however. Similarly, arguments about whether or not Azerbaijan was part of the Ottoman Empire are irrelevant: we mention these ideologies if and when RS do in the context of the conflict, not because we've made an original analysis and decided that Turkey's actions fit one definition or another. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:25, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

It is not about original research. There is an obvious lack of sources regarding Neo-Ottomanism with many red flags.

• There is no mention of Neo-Ottomanism in 2020_Nagorno-Karabakh_conflict#Turkey_and_Russia, the article for which Neo-Ottomanism is supposed to be further reading.
• There is no mention of Neo-Ottomanism in Armenia Turkey relations
• There is no mention of Neo-Ottomanism in Foreign_policy_of_the_Recep_Tayyip_Erdoğan_government#Armenia
• There is no reliable reference for Neo-Ottomanism. The most reliable one is the Sojla Sahar article, which is neither elaborate nor by a traceable author.

This is not about this or that. Both Neo-Ottomanism and Pan-Turkism is powered by xenophobia, expansionism and nationalism, with Neo-Ottomanism having a distinct Islamic part as well. By changing neo-ottomanism to pan-turkism, you wouldn't be praising Turkey. The article will just be more accurate and it will help readers to actually reach relevant content. 131.111.5.153 (talk) 19:33, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I think that your criticisms of the sourcing in this article are valid arguments for why neo-Ottomanism may not be a due term to include. The state of other articles isn't all that informative unless they're GA or FA quality, as in their current state it may simply be a sign that those articles are incomplete. My prior comment was more directed at the idea that we can infer the role of pan-Turkism from statements about Turkey and Azerbaijan's cultural connections, or that we can determine whether or not neo-Ottomanism is appropriate based on whether Nagorno-Karabakh was an integral part of the Ottoman Empire; neither of those are valid lines of argumentation for justifying or excluding content on Wikipedia, and do comprise original research. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:27, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Both of those articles have more reliable and better formed than Neo-Ottomanism. We are getting back to the same point, Neo-Ottomanism has a specific definition and it doesn't include Turkish-Armenian or Turkish Azerbaijani relations. More to your point, There is no reliable source backing it, not just on the page of an ongoing conflict but also not in the other wikipedia pages. So, please remove it, if there is no other prior discussion on Neo-Ottomanism. 131.111.5.153 (talk) 21:08, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I've removed references to neo-Ottomanism, although I don't think you've adequately responded to the WP:USEBYOTHERS argument regarding Modern Diplomacy; if a source is reliable, it's not necessary for every author writing in it to have a high pedigree. Nevertheless, I think you've made a solid argument for why neo-Ottomanism isn't due to include, as currently it is not mentioned by the best analyses of the conflict. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:16, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I will be watching here for some time and contribute from similar IPs. Cheers! 131.111.5.153 (talk) 23:34, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

• I'd like to mention Milliyetçi Hareket Partisi, which is in a faction with Adalet ve Kalkınma Partisi and supporting Pan-Turkism.--Ahmetlii (talk) 19:55, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

131.111.5.153, Beshogur, Ahmetlii, with all respect, I think you guys are missing the point. It is not that we believe that Turkish support for Azerbaijan is connected it's Pan-Turkic tendencies, instead of Neo-Ottoman beliefs. There is a WP:RS claiming that it is part of Turkey's Neo-Ottoman movement, and if there an another reliable source claiming the opposite (or as you put it, claim Pan-Turkic intentions within Turkey's influence), then please go ahead and put it out here. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 20:44, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

There is no reference in the main article, let alone a reliable one, that backs Neo Ottomanism. If you can provide one please insert it to 2020_Nagorno-Karabakh_conflict#Turkey_and_Russia, so that it can stay. If not, it staying here is a WP:RS issue. Until someone provides it, I believe it is better to remove it and disagreers can be directed to the discussion here. 131.111.5.153 (talk) 21:01, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

References

Recent picture from Jabrayil

@Solavirum:, or other users, is this picture appropriate? I mean of course it is, but with the copyright thing, not sure. We could replace that old Jabrayil bus stand picture. Beshogur (talk) 19:11, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

As for my knowledge, Agence France-Presse, unfortunately, copyrights images published under its name. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 19:28, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't believe that the use of this photograph would be appropriate given the potential copyright infringement. Unless you can source proof that the image is not copyright protected, it would be better to not use it or find another imagine that is not subject to restrictions for use on Wikipedia. Jurisdicta (talk) 00:09, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Write this in article, why israel believes armenia started

Write this article, it is from reputed israeli news outlet mentioning noted Senior advisor for energy at the Foundation for the defense of democracies. Check the link and hope you are not pro armenian and biased

Brenda Shaffer, a senior advisor for energy at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, concurred, telling the Jerusalem Post that it is unlikely that Azerbaijan would have started the border skirmish because it occurred very close to the Southern Gas Corridor, which is supposed to supply Azeri oil to Europe. Shaffer argued that it is unlikely that Azerbaijan would want to sabotage that. [3]

Wikipedia is neutral but this article is neglecting all authentic news and mentioning heavily biased pro armenian right wing propaganda. Dont let people lose faith in wiki becoz of you guys. Nawaab Sahaab (talk) 16:16, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

As I stated earlier, an opinion piece written to steer the foreign policy discourse in a third party country is unlikely to be due for inclusion in this article. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:24, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Rosguill you have written on article "International analysts believe that fighting likely began with an Azerbaijani offensive,[81][83] and that primary goals of the offensive were to reclaim districts in southern Nagorno-Karabakh that are less mountainous and thus easier to take than the region's well-fortified interior."

And my link clearly mentions that Israel which is part of international commumity believes Azerbaijan did not started it as it was too close to it pipeline. Atleast mention this only. Close Write this in article, why israel believes armenia started Write this article, it is from reputed israeli news outlet mentioning noted Senior advisor for energy at the Foundation for the defense of democracies. Check the link and hope you are not pro armenian and biased

"Brenda Shaffer, a senior advisor for energy at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, concurred, telling the Jerusalem Post that it is unlikely that Azerbaijan would have started the border skirmish because it occurred very close to the Southern Gas Corridor, which is supposed to supply Azeri oil to Europe. Shaffer argued that it is unlikely that Azerbaijan would want to sabotage that [4] "

Please write both sides of international community and not one. Nawaab Sahaab (talk) 00:55, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

The Jerusalem Post reporting that this piece seems to allude to may be worth citing, but the Israel Hayom article itself is still a polemical opinion piece and not something we have any business citing. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:00, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I tried searching for that piece and found this, which is about the clashes back in July, not the current conflict. I haven't been able to find any other coverage of Shaffer commenting on this issue in the JPost written since then. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:02, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Restriction on Journalists in Azerbaijan - add to Non-military actions taken by Armenia and Azerbaijan

I asked this before but didn't get a response, probably because I posted in a different topic so reposting here. Please add to the Azerbaijan heading of the Non-military actions taken by Armenia and Azerbaijan, the fact that there exist restrictions on free reporting in the country. Here is a first hand source explanation by Catherin Norris Trent from France24. We seem to be mentioning the "cancellation" of a reporter's accreditation under the Armenia heading, but not mentioning this important fact about restriction on free journalism in Azerbaijan under the country's heading. --Sataralynd (talk) 08:56, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Not done. @Sataralynd: First, I cannot find the post in the link; second, the usage of social media services as a source is inappropiate according to WP:TWITTER. Can you link to it directly?--Ahmetlii (talk) 09:11, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

no it is posted on social media but the broadcast is from a secondary source - France24 itself. @EkoGraf:, @Johncdraper:, @Ermenermin: could you please check and provide your 0.02$?--Sataralynd (talk) 09:23, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

@Sataralynd: Ok, I found at here. But also, there's another news from same website that says an interview with Ilham Aliyev: here. So, I'm not sure that's a news about restriction (and the videoclip took part in Baku as far as I see on the first link), as the also news says that's about the France (as a country), not specifically France24.--Ahmetlii (talk) 09:31, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

There are all sorts of news on the website, and I am not referring to them. Please keep the discussion on the topic, and address what I posted in the OP - here it is again. The first source you provides has the same segment from 1:50 till the end of the video. She mentions also why it is important for people to know about these restrictions which is aligned to my original post --Sataralynd (talk) 09:41, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Not done. This is the second time you're asking this and second time I'm objecting it. I have opined in the previous thread. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 10:00, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

@Solavirum: Thanks for your input but I would like to get some more from the community. Besides, I checked the previous entry where I mentioned this in the archives, here is it, and I see that it was closed without consensus, and don't see an answer from you to my comment there --Sataralynd (talk) 10:29, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

This is France 24 with their video coverage. Johncdraper (talk) 10:08, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

@Johncdraper: I checked the video you posted it doesn't mention about restrictions. I would like to keep the discussion on restrictions mentioned on journalists on the Azerbaijan side. In this video form my original post, reposted on France24's website video 1:50 to the end. I propose to add a sentence about the restrictions to the work of international journalists in Azerbaijan. This could be mentioned under non military actions taken by Azerbaijan heading--Sataralynd (talk) 14:41, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I would like to hear more inputs on this than the above. In the meantime, let's look for sources to support or disprove the claim "there exists restrictions on international journalists in Azerbaijan reporting on the conflict". Please don't remove this thread until we get at least a few more inputs--Sataralynd (talk) 10:09, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

@Johncdraper: @EkoGraf: @AntonSamuel: @Mr.User200: @Գարիկ Ավագյան: could you please contribute to the original post? Please feel free to invite others to comment. My suggestion is to include "Restrictions have been reported on the work of international journalists in Azerbaijan during the conflict, with no corresponding restrictions reported in Nagorno-Karabakh" here is the main video min 1:50 onwards, and the same segment. --Sataralynd (talk) 04:05, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Done as per above. Johncdraper (talk) 07:06, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Old reference

Azerbaijan's report of Armenia and Artsakh's losses must involve the line "as of 30 September 2020". --88.231.65.47 (talk) 07:17, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Also, Azerbaijan's report on Armenian manpower losses are also very old. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 10:04, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Usage of Sputnik Armenia

EkoGraf, Sputnik (or its Armenian bureau) is not a reliable source and its usage must be avoided per WP:RS/P. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 19:32, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree, Sputnik Greek was removed a while ago, this should be removed as well. Beshogur (talk) 19:33, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Just what makes it unreliable? Russia was the major neutral party involved in negotiating the humanitarian truce previously agreed on. Russia has a great deal of influence in the region. It is unreasonable to totally exclude a major Russian news source. It is highly necessary that the article includes some sort of Russian source. Are there any major Russian news sources which have not fallen under some such sanction and are reporting on the Karabakh conflict? Beaneater (talk) 23:33, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Beaneater00, it has so far not shown unreliability on the issue of this conflict. Plus 3rd party sources can be found emphasizing Russia's neutrality so far in this conflict. Also, like I stated earlier, the Wikipedia designated deprecation is in relation to, as per Wikipedia's summary, the publication of Russian propaganda. However, in this case, Sputnik is a secondary source, not primary source, and the information its publishing is not coming from it. Proper attribution has been made so the reader knows from whom the information is coming. Finally, as I stated earlier, we can replace the source as soon as another one shows up. If we remove Russian sources such as this because it could contain propaganda (which it hasn't shown so far in relation to this conflict), then we would have to remove all Armenian and Azerbaijani sources from this article as well which contain propaganda most of the time. The current referencing and attribution has been previously agreed to. I suggest to wait for now and see if a more suitable replacement source shows up. EkoGraf (talk) 23:44, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

"There is consensus that Sputnik is an unreliable source that publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated as in the 2017 RfC of the Daily Mail. Sputnik is considered a Russian propaganda outlet that engages in bias and disinformation,[19] a significant proportion of editors endorse that view, with some editors considering it less reliable than Breitbart News. See also: RIA Novosti, whose international edition was replaced by Sputnik." Beshogur (talk) 23:47, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Does it engage in bias &c. with regard to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict? If not, then their activities in other fields, while resulting in the exercise of additional caution, should not incur total sanction from the entirety of Wikipedia. Beaneater (talk) 23:56, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Bias regarding Nagorno-Karabakh aside, Sputnik is known to publish disinformation. Just because Russia is publicly playing the role of mediator doesn't mean that it can't have ulterior motives with respect to the conflict (or even taking a relatively benign perspective, it could potentially benefit from downplaying the conflict to reduce tensions). There are more reliable Russian sources to use, such as TASS, RIA Novostii, Novaya Gazeta and Medusa. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:11, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Beaneater00. And again, the info from the cited reference is not being claimed by them, instead they are relaying (as a secondary source) the claim (from a primary source). If and when Russia shows any bias, I would be the first to say I'm fine with their removal. As for any possible current ulterior motives on their side, we shouldn't speculate on our own and walk into OR territory, unless confirmed by verifiable sources. EkoGraf (talk) 00:14, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

The issue isn't bias, it's reliability, and Sputnik isn't reliable. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:16, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I do not dispute that Sputnik is not reliable with regard to some sectors of international diplomacy, internal affairs, etc. That is why it has received a sanction, after all. But is there an incident in which it has published false or misleading information in the context of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict? Beaneater (talk) 00:22, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it's reasonable to demand proof that a deprecated source has been unreliable about a specific topic, particularly a topic as contentious as an ongoing military conflict; the burden of proof is on editors seeking to include the source to demonstrate why it is reliable in this context. Examples of cases where such a source could be usable would be if the author of the specific article has a reputation as a relevant expert, or if reliable sources are citing the specific report for their own coverage. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:31, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Here is Sputnik's interview with Ilham Aliyev. Would this be material for citation? Beaneater (talk) 00:40, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

That actually would be acceptable if we needed Aliyev's quote for something and couldn't get it elsewhere. But I wouldn't assume that anything in the interview is inherently due to for inclusion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:52, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

This discussion is useless, we have a clear consensus, I'm not going to hesitate someone defending Sputnik. Nuking Spitnik refs ASAP... --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 00:42, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I have requested a third opinion. Beaneater (talk) 00:53, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Beaneater00, there's already more than two editors involved in this dispute, 3O isn't applicable anymore. Next step here is to start a thread at WP:RSN. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:56, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't intend to dispute the reliability of Sputnik in general, merely in reference to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Beaneater (talk) 01:00, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill I've stated my opinion and won't go into further discussions or edits if editors like Solavirum are just going to threaten reversal of the references inclusion without discussion from the start and threaten reporting any of their fellow editors like he did here [5] which is in my opinion not in line with Wikipedia's policy on assuming good faith from other editors and open threat of edit warring. Although this appears nothing new since several other editors have already pointed out and reported this bad faith behavior in the last few weeks, which has not led to anything meaningful. Anyway, I will only additionally voice my opinion at a WP:RSN if needed. Cheers! EkoGraf (talk) 07:38, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

EkoGraf, y'all have the liberty of appealing for restrictions on me. If you're going to violate WP:CONSENSUS, of course I'm going to warn you about its consequences, which is not violating WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH. Furthermore, about the "since several other editors have already pointed out and reported this bad faith behavior in the last few weeks"; most or all of those reports were confirmed WP:BOOMERANG. I'm just going to remind that a group of users reporting a certain user "A" doesn't actually mean that the user "A" has violated anything. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 10:41, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Solavirum You have not warned, you threatened. There is a difference. As for your personal bad faith behavior, I did not take part in those reports at the noticeboards because I personally don't engage in those kinds of activities against fellow editors (always hoping that a compromise could be found), but generally agree with most remarks made by the editors who did file those reports or those who commented on your behavior here on the talk page. You should look at and follow the conduct of your fellow editor Beshogur during a dispute resolution with whom, despite a number of topics we disagree on, I managed to mostly find solutions over the years that were generally acceptable for all interested parties. In any case, like I said, I have nothing further to discuss on the issue here. EkoGraf (talk) 10:56, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

The fundamental problem with some deprecated sources is not that they are sometimes correct, but that they are sometimes correct in order to influence opinion when they are incorrect. Johncdraper (talk) 07:45, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand, it's the wikipedia's consensus to not to use Sputnik. Even you can not use normal sputnik links, they're blocked automatically. Beshogur (talk) 10:46, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Infobox territorial changes "claims" should be removed

Just add the facts. All the major town that are "claimed" to be captured are confirmed captured. Add it as such. Only add the confirmed number of captured villages. Remove the confusing claims and report the facts. HersiliaAramazd (talk) 10:06, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Not done. @HersiliaAramazd: If you want to participate ongoing discussion about it, see Talk:2020_Nagorno-Karabakh_conflict#The_map and Talk:2020_Nagorno-Karabakh_conflict#The_map_(part_2). Ahmetlii (talk) 11:46, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Campaignbox Issues

I don't know if this is the right place to discuss this, but right now there happens to be two campaignboxes for this conflict. One is titled Template:Campaignbox 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War (which can be found at the bottom of the infobox on this article: 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict), and the other is titled Template:Campaignbox 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict (which can be found at the Battle of Hadrut article). One should be kept and the other deleted, because they are redundant. In addition, the articles listed in it should be in chronological order, so: Stepanakert bombings, Ganja bombings, and Battle of Hadrut. Also, for every article listed in a campaignbox, that article must have that campaignbox in it, for ease of access. Cheers. 2601:85:C101:BA30:CC7F:7F44:3C94:97EE (talk) 14:37, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Background

Turkish media close to President Erdogan claimed that YPG and PKK members from Iraq and Syria were transferred to Nagorno-Karabakh in order to train Armenian militias against Azerbaijan

More than two weeks have passed since the start of the war, and there is still no confirmation from authoritative sources about the participation of foreign mercenaries, particularly YPG and PKK members, on the side of Armenia. I think that this statement should not be included in "Background". In Background we write past facts, not uconfirmed allegations. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 09:43, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Johncdraper, sorry for taking your time again. May I know your opinion about this as well? Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 09:45, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

That claim is renewed every week by Azerbaijan. Whether it isn't, should we remove everything that's not updated in 2 weeks? Beshogur (talk) 10:05, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Background is not for claims. The past facts, confirmed by other sources, should be included there. AntonSamuel, would be nice to know your opinion as well. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 10:11, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Գարիկ Ավագյան: I understand your point and I'm supporting your idea in a point, but also I want to point out all of the article need a cleanup; especially about my previous concerns about social media services - especially when thinking both sides of the war has used effective propaganda techniques. Here is a good article about it. Ahmetlii (talk) 10:36, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Գարիկ Ավագյան: We need to do a perennial reliable sources (PRS) check for mercenaries on the side of Armenia. I remember noting one of the PRSs mentioning the issue, but I cannot recall what it said (my check was only for war), and I am not tracking mercenaries. Would you oblige? Johncdraper (talk) 11:33, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Գարիկ Ավագյան: While I think the Background section should be balanced and fair in its depiction of both sides - I haven't seen any reliable and neutral sources reiterating the claim regarding YPG/PKK fighters being present in NK/Artsakh. In my view it's likely a statement that was made with the intention to discredit the other side because of the designation of the PKK as a terrorist group by a number of countries and supranational organizations - similar to Turkey arguing that ISIL fighters were among the SDF/YPG combatants during Operation Olive Branch. AntonSamuel (talk) 10:47, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Agree The claim that "YPG and PKK members from Iraq and Syria were transferred to Nagorno-Karabakh in order to train Armenian militias against Azerbaijan" needs to be proven by a reliable secondary source in order to keep its place in the Background section. There has been firsthand reporting by New York Times, VICE, AFP, The Guardian and others in NK, and none to my knowledge confirmed the claim. If anybody has sources to prove the claim please post, or remove the sentence altogether --Sataralynd (talk) 22:24, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

-- Summary since there are no opposing opinions, also no authoritative sources, I will remove the statements Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 15:52, 21 October 2020 (UTC)