Talk:Second Nagorno-Karabakh War/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20

Source Bias

Please keep track of the sources added, the overwhelming majority of them comes directly from Azerbaijani media and has a strong bias. Almost like someone is intentionally trying to inundate the references for propaganda purposes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan149 (talk • contribs) 22:25, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Genocide Watch

I added the following today.

Humanitarian organizations On 23rd October 2020, "Genocide Watch" international humanitarian organisation published "Genocide Emergency: Azerbaijan in Artsakh" report, stating that it considers Azerbaijan to be at Stage 9 (extermination) and Stage 10 (denial) of genocide. https://www.genocidewatch.com/single-post/genocide-emergency-azerbaijan-s-attack-in-artsakh My addition has been reverted twice as "POV, redundant, and non WP:RS". Is this a consensus of this article's editors? How is POV, how is it not a reliable source and who decide whether it is redundant? Best regards Armatura (talk) 14:48, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

"Genocide Watch" is too minor of a organization for their report to be added. Calling them a "international humanitarian organisation" isn't gonno make your point valid. And your reaction haven't been better either, accusing other editors of propaganda, which I left a warning for. Also, their 'assessment' is also absurd. People die in the battlefield and they call it a genocide, jeez. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum

Editors who diminish and remove information that does not suit their national interests should be warned, not a user who simply quoted a neutral source - a large (coordinates 70 organizations in 24 countries), international (not national, non-Armenian, non-Azeri, non-Turkish), humanitarian (caring for humans regardless of their nationality, or beliefs, or color) organization. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_Stanton#Genocide_Watch

In 1999 Stanton founded Genocide Watch,[10] a non-governmental organization campaigning against genocide based in Washington, D.C..[16][17] Genocide Watch is the Chair and Coordinator of the Alliance Against Genocide, which includes 70 organizations in 24 countries, including the Minority Rights Group, the International Crisis Group, the Aegis Trust, and Survival International.[18] Its board of advisers includes former commander of United Nations peacekeeping forces in Rwanda Roméo Dallaire, former Nuremberg Prosecutor Benjamin Ferencz, and former US Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power.[19]

I ask for support from senior editors, to make sure verified / reliable sources are kept, even if Azeri / Turkish editors do not like them.

Best wishes Armatura (talk) 15:24, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, because I'm a government official or something. I think your comment above should be enough to present the nature of this thread. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 15:26, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Even if for a moment we accept that "too minor" organizations cannot be cited in this article, GW is not a minor organization. It is not only a member of the Alliance Against Genocide which includes more than 60 International NGOs but also their Chair. As to its credibility, here are sources in the Guardian (1, 2 and 3) and CNN (1 and 2) quoting Genocide Watch with one going back to 2002. NOTE: the cited topics are NOT related to the NK conflict. I hope Guardian's and CNN's reliability metrics are better than that of any of the participants in this conversation--Sataralynd (talk) 15:43, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Genocide Watch's reliability is probably a good discussion to bring to WP:RSN. As an advocacy group, there's reason to be cautious when citing them, although the use by others demonstrated above is a potential indication of reliability. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:15, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

@Rosguill: Sure, let's have a discussion there. I would suggest though we reinstate the edits made by @Armatura: as we yet don't have evidence on unreliability, and try to get more info from the community--Sataralynd (talk) 17:49, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

I also support. I don't see anything violating the rules of Wikipedia if we add this now. Also, would like to ask Armatura to bring discussion to WP:RSN. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 18:57, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

@Sataralynd:, @Գարիկ Ավագյան:, @Rosguill: Thank you very much for your support. How do I bring discussion to WP:RSN, please? Can one of you do that on my behalf, please?

Best regards , Armatura (talk) 19:41, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Sataralynd will you be able to start discussion there? Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 19:46, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

@Գարիկ Ավագյան: Will do. Can someone add back the edit? --Sataralynd (talk) 20:06, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks @Գարիկ Ավագյան: and @Sataralynd:, I re-added my edit on Genocide Watch, as discussed. Armatura (talk) 22:01, 24 October 2020 (UTC)Armatura

Armatura as discussed by whom? There are more people than two of those here. Respect the WP:CONSENSUS. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 22:55, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

@Solavirum: Please undo your edit and head to WP:RSN to discuss the reliability of GW. I have created a topic there. There is nothing to establish consensus on here or in the article. It is actually you who is claiming non-reliability of GW, and you have to produce evidence to back up that claim (again with sources, please)--Sataralynd (talk) 23:31, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

@Armatura: please reinstate your edit. @CuriousGolden: and @Solavirum: I see both of you have reverted the Genocide Watch inclusion. Please refrain from entering into edit/revert cycles, and to go to the RSN page to discuss, where the topic is open. You will be able to remove the inclusion if warranted as soon as you establish the non reliability of GW--Sataralynd (talk) 23:51, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Sataralynd, until its reliability is agreed, it must be kept away from the article. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 09:01, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

@Sataralynd: I did re-add but Solavirum and CuriousGolden keep reverting it. The last stage of genocide, as we all know, is the denial of it. There have been emotions, "I don't like it"s but no arguments that would convince uninvolved editors about the unreliability of the provided source, yet this piece of information is being reverted the moment it is entered, by two specific users. I will continue in WP:RSN.Armatura (talk) 11:36, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

@Solavirum: Agreed by whom? By you and @CuriousGolden:? The reliability of GW is not under question, until you provide evidence that it is, in the WP:RSN page where I directed you before 3 comments ago. Please post your concerns there, but as usual before rushing to post a non-argument without any sources, read the handful of comments/sources that were already posted there by other users. Until the unreliability is established, the comment goes to the Article as per the original edit. @Armatura please reinstate--Sataralynd (talk) 13:52, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Sataralynd the issue of unreliability is superior than the issue of reliability. So it is you that must prove its reliability so we can add it to the article. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 14:48, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

@Solavirum: No, the exact opposite. The edit has been made first to include GW, and you reversed it. You must prove unreliability. Besides, I provided you ample sources above (not related to NK) that bolster the reliability of GW, and other users reported more on RSN. I would suggest you start engaging with the sources/comments provided before it is too late (and the discussion on RSN is closed)--Sataralynd (talk) 14:52, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

@Solavirum: the GW paragraph has been reverted 4-5 times already, by two users interchangeably, despite asking politely. What is next? Armatura (talk) 18:15, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Armatura before continuing with that lame rhetoric, let me remind that the latest revert was carried out by an admin. You're in the wrong here, ask that question to yourself. For the last time, respect WP:CONSENSUS or I'm reporting. Enough with the recklessness. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 18:30, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

@Solavirum: Feel free to go ahead and report. I have reasonable doubts about impartiality of a particular admin and I am entitled to report what I feel is reportable as well. Attacking me directly calling my comments "lame" is a breach of civility. Blackmailing me with threat of reporting is a breach of harassment policy. RegardsArmatura (talk) 18:41, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Not at all. Haven't violated any guidelines here. Also, calling that comment "blackmailing" is yet again ridiculous. I don't want to deal with WP:TENDETIOUS edits. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 19:05, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

@Sataralynd: Please use {{u|name}} to mention names instead of {{re|name}}. Getting pinged each time about random comments is annoying. — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 14:53, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

@Solavirum: "the issue of unreliability is superior than the issue of reliability." Where is the rule in Wikipedia you derived this statement of yours from? Regards, Armatura (talk) 18:23, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

I also agree with the fact that Genocide Watch can't be reliable source. Moreover, Azerbaijan army don't have any contact with villages that armenians live. This is bias report and can't be included in the article. using this article as a reference and claim about genocide is against Wikipedia Rules. Moreover, genocide is a serious thing not like Armenians claims it each time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.26.50.47 (talk) 08:04, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Says the unsigned user who does not realise that Wikipedia records IP (which takes a second to geolocate) and who speaks about Wikipedia rules not realising that their writing is against all possible Wikipedia rules Armatura (talk) 09:03, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

@Armatura: Please adhere to WP:CIVILITY and don't do ad hominem to users who have not said anything rude/offensive and are only voicing their opinions. — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 15:08, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Nothing offensive, @CuriousGolden:, unregistered is not an offence but merely constatation of facts that a user is unregistered - it is techically hard to address a user without username. Why an unregistered user from a particular group of IPs would try to state openly POV opinions about an protected WP page about armed conflict - I have my own ideas, you may have yours. On the other hand, calling an NGO "absurd" on WP:RS page because it does not suit a particular POV is using ad hominem and is not a civil gesture. Neither is repeat-reverting additions of other users without inviting them to discuss the subject first. Regards Armatura (talk) 17:08, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Well thanks for your comment. For your information your comment is also against to Wikipedia rules as it shouldn't judge other side. Anyway, my IP is there and I know that wikipedia does record IP addresses. Hence, please focus on topic rather than showing yourself as a smart kid here. I am putting the link just to help you update your knowledge. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines Thanks.37.26.50.47 (talk) 11:13, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

You are welcome, unregistered user with recorded IP, and thank you for an epithet "smart kid". Focusing on content, if you are wondering why such claims won't go into the article is because they need to be supported by reliable sources rather than represent your own personal opinion or research. Wikipedia is not a place for personal opinions / research, it is an encyclopedia. Regards, Armatura (talk) 14:47, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Author tries to refer to this article that claims Armenians may face genocide. https://www.genocidewatch.com/single-post/genocide-emergency-azerbaijan-s-attack-in-artsakh . Article itself contains templte words used by armenian social media propagandist users. The article talks about 1918 systematic extermination of armenian population but doesn't' talk about "March Genocide" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_Days conducted by Armenian Dashnak. Further, the article talks about Maraga events happened on April 1992, but doesn't say anything about "Khodjali genocide" happened 2 month before, 26th of February, 1992 where more than 600 civils were killed.

Article states that "Today, Azerbaijan denies displaced Armenians the right to return and forbids a person of Armenian heritage from entering its territory." but doesn't talk about 250,000 Azerbaijanians that can't return to Armenia as Armenian government rejects their enterance.

How this bias article can be used as reference in this Wikipedia article? It is clear that the article written by Genocide Watch corrupted by Armenian Diaspora money and even words and sentences used here are not different from those armenian propaganda machines 5.191.53.154 (talk) 18:11, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I personally think that the below statement must be removed from the article as Genocide Watch can't be reliable source. The statement is one sided and doesn't reflect truth about the conflict.

Humanitarian organisations On 23rd October 2020, "Genocide Watch" international humanitarian organisation published "Genocide Emergency: Azerbaijan in Artsakh" report on its website, stating that it considers Azerbaijan to be at Stage 9 (extermination) and Stage 10 (denial) of genocide. [660]

Mirhasanov (talk) 18:50, 26 October 2020 (UTC) @Mirhasanov: This is not voting. Contrarguments have to supported by cited third party sources. Even if 1000 users say "needs to be removed" without citing a reliable source that contests the reliability of the primary source provided, it still does not mean that it is unreliable. This is not a battlefield to preval with nnumbers, but WP discussion. Regards Armatura (talk) 19:44, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Armatura (talk) Wikipedia reflect community view as well my dear friend. Therefore sometimes it is about majority. Moreover, you were not able to prove that the "Genocide Watch" is reliable source. It is not me to prove it is unreliable. The site even doesn't follow international law not stating word of "de facto" when they refer to Nagorno-Karabakh republic. Mirhasanov (talk) 20:19, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

@Mirhasanov: Sigh. for the third time in this thread I will paste sources that would confirm GW's reliability.

As to its credibility, here are sources in the Guardian (1, 2 and 3) and CNN (1 and 2) quoting Genocide Watch with one going back to 2002. NOTE: the cited topics are NOT related to the NK conflict. I hope Guardian's and CNN's reliability metrics are better than that of any of the participants in this conversation GW IS reliable not because of what you think about them or I think about them, but because of what reputable outlets like Guardian and CNN think about them. The onus is on you to prove unreliability--Sataralynd (talk) 21:41, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Sataralynd (talk) I wouldn't agree with you because nowadays we can't not relay or refer to media thinking that they are independent. CNN is well know with its Fake news. Guardian specially as it sustains itself with donations. It is nonsense to refer unreliable media to prove reliability of some other organization like Genocide Watch. Unfortunately, your references are not reliable source. Usually, claims like "genocide" need extensive study of the situation and the conflict, not just issue 1 paper statement. Moreover, If you will check Alliance list of the Genocide Watch you will see Armenian National Committee. The content itself clearly written by Armenian person because it lucks objectivity and not clearly details sequence of events. How we can talka bout 1918 September days by neglecting March Genocide conducted by Armenian armed groups in territories of whole Azerbaijan? Moreover, according to media bias chart The The Guardian even doesn't exist in the list and CNN scorred as having "Some reliability issues and / or extremism". Another organization called Media Bias Fact check also classifies CNN as Bias also The Guardian. This is my prove that your sources and any link you are referring as independent is bias. Mirhasanov (talk) 04:57, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

@Rosguill: the statement below needs to be removed as user who included this information is no able prove the reliability of sources and refers to newspapers to claim reliability which is against wikipedia rules. Any Genocide Claim and scoring must be referred to extensive study not to one paper bias, unchecked report.

Humanitarian organisations On 23rd October 2020, "Genocide Watch" international humanitarian organisation published "Genocide Emergency: Azerbaijan in Artsakh" report on its website, stating that it considers Azerbaijan to be at Stage 9 (extermination) and Stage 10 (denial) of genocide. [660]

Please provide RS that CNN is "fake news." (You sound like Trump) Please provide RS that the bias you report is directly related to the ongoing war in NKAO and not about domestic issues. Please elucidate why the Armenian National Committee (I may take the liberty to remind you that the Armenians suffered genocide some time ago) being part of a genocide watch org immediately invalidates said org. No one is denying that Armenians slaughtered Azeris in 1918 or 1992 or whatever. Also no one should be lukewarm about mentioning Azeris slaughtering Armenians in 1918 or 1988 or whenever. I honestly don't see what a 1918 war has got to do specifically with the reliability of Genocide Watch. Mentioning Genocide Watch should not be an issue, as it is not "pro-Armenian." (If you are going to argue that however, again, please provide RS stating its partiality) Perhaps they are not right, but it is most definitely not your or my job to decide that on Wikipedia. It's what RS says, and so far the RS provided allow its placement in this article. 2601:85:C101:BA30:FDBB:852E:A1F:5DB3 (talk) 05:54, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

@2601:85:C101:BA30:FDBB:852E:A1F:5DB3: I already provided links if you will click that assesses and proves that these organizations are bias or semi-bias. As per Wikipedia WP:RSprinciples Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). If no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.

Nowhere does it say the bias is pro-Armenian however, so the sources are irrelevant in regards to the discussion at hand. 2601:85:C101:BA30:FDBB:852E:A1F:5DB3 (talk) 15:23, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

• This discussion has become a bit of a sprawl, and is much harder to follow than the one on the same topic at WP:RSN, but I want to note that the question here isn't just binary reliable/unreliable, but also questions of WP:DUE and relative emphasis. Moreover, the onus is on editors in favor of including new content to form a consensus for said content: simply establishing that a source is reliable does not mean that any and all content cited to that source is automatically worth inclusion and treated as the status quo. I for one would lend my support to including a mention of GW's perspective alongside that of other human rights groups, and with care to not make WP:EXTRAORDINARY claims that are backed exclusively by GW. I would not support the original content that was proposed and which started this discussion, because it does not respect due weight and makes an extraordinary claim of genocide on the basis of a single advocacy group that does not appear to be echoed by any other reliable source covering the conflict. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:40, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

@Rosguill: However, Forbes just published this piece today: [2]. This should be a game changer. The Genocide Watch report is gaining traction among third-party reliable news outlets. I do not understand why it shouldn't be considered in all its details on this project. Étienne Dolet (talk) 04:22, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. 2601:85:C101:BA30:FDBB:852E:A1F:5DB3 (talk) 16:49, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. This is exactly what I was trying to say from the start. — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 17:09, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. This was the point Rosguill. Thanks for objectivity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirhasanov (talk • contribs) 17:24, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

@Rosguill: could you suggest a wording here so that we put this to bed?--Sataralynd (talk) 01:19, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

@Armatura: here are third perty reporting about Genocide Watch's call in Nagorno Karabakh in the last 24 hours. Here and here in ITV of UK. This is in Forbes but the author is Armenian though it is listed in WP:MBFC as reliable.@Rosguill: what's your take here?--Sataralynd (talk) 02:47, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with Sicurezza Internazionale but their editorial board appears to be academics with a non-trivial amount of citations. I don't really know much about ITV's coverage. That's a Forbes contributor piece, which is not a reliable source (see its entry at WP:RSP). I think that the additional coverage pushes me towards making an attributed claim of a threat of genocide, similar to the way it's phrased in the ITV source. I don't have time to draft a suggestion right now but can try to write one tomorrow. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:34, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Oppose.::@Rosguill: ITV citation itself talks and proves that Armenian state actions against International law. It talks about Syrian Armenian Refugees that were illegally settled in Nagorno-Karabakh, which is against Geneva Convention IV . Claims about genocide under this topic is disrespect to understanding of terminology of "Genocide". So far more Azerbaijani civilians died compare to Armenian. How we can claim that Azerbaijan side conducts genocide? Moreover, Azerbaijan side already showed that they are not against Armenians in Karabakh and they can continue to live there under cultural autonomy . Hence, I personally think we should stop discussion here about Armenian claims of genocide and focus on developing the article and make it unbiased. As I stated before, the main aim should be to make the article informative not the tool of war propaganda machine by making one side evil the other side victim. Mirhasanov (talk) 10:03, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

@Mirhasanov: Please open another thread about what the Armenian side did, refugees, etc. We are talking about reporting from GW, which has just been reported by third parties. The intention is not to compare number of casualties. Also, brining in "claims" from the Azerbaijan side that Armenian could live happily in NK under Azerbaijan rule does nothing to expose the unreliability of GW's claim. If you have a reliable source making a similar claim about Armenia please start another thread--Sataralynd (talk) 12:56, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

• @EtienneDolet: You probably didn't see that, but the citation that you provided hasn't published by Forbes itself, and most likely includes third-party opinions. See WP:FORBESCON.--Ahmetlii (talk) 14:09, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
• @Sataralynd:, @Rosguill: and others, taking the discussion in WP:RSN and above into account, I drafted a text for including into War crimes > Azerbaijian subsection, in the bottom of this talk space, feel free to comment: On 25th October 2020, Genocide Watch, an alliance of 75 organisations, has issued a statement describing a ‘genocide emergency’ in the region, citing Azerbaijan’s “denial of past genocide against Armenians, its official use of hate speech, and the current targeting of civilians in Nagorno-Karabakh)” Armatura (talk) 18:03, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

  Armatura, I think it should be included as part of a subsection devoted to human rights groups' reactions. I only have a short amount of time to write right now, but I'm thinking something along the lines of Human rights groups have called for an end to the conflict and objected to the targeting of civilians and the use of cluster munitions. Amnesty International has criticized both Armenia and Azerbaijan [cite], and Human Rights Watch has criticized just Azerbaijan on these grounds [cite]. Genocide Watch has described the situation as a 'genocide emergency' for Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh, citing attacks on civilians, denial of the Armenian Genocide, and denial of return for Armenian refugees to Azerbaijan as risk factors leading to their assessment [cite]. The description of Genocide Watch as an alliance of 70 organizations appears to confuse Genocide Watch for the Alliance Against Genocide so I think it would be sufficient for us to just wikilink Genocide Watch. I may have gotten AI and HRW's claims backwards, but you can find citations to back up the correct claims in the RSN discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:58, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, @Rosguill:, expanded on the suggested skeleton. Regards, Armatura (talk) 04:05, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

CuriousGolden had reverted it again and kept only the mention of Genoicide Watch without clarifying what it is about. He mentioned in the summary "as per consensus," which is not accurate. Could you please revert to what you agreed here, @Armatura:?--Sataralynd (talk) 22:11, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

@Sataralynd: The excessive reverting by CuriousGolden has been reported by another user and his is now barred from editing NK-related articles for two weeks. As Rosguill thought additional polishing is required, I am going to post my text for human rights organizations in the bottom, naming and please make your suggestions. Armatura (talk) 23:23, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

@Armatura: I agree with the green wording used by @Rosguill: three comments up. Thank you--Sataralynd (talk) 23:32, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I see small problem with that wording, Sataralynd - Amnesty International did not criticise Armenia about cluster munition, as they did not confirm use of cluster munition by Armenia. Armatura (talk) 23:41, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Armatura, Sataralynd, that could be resolved by splitting up the claims about targeting civilians and cluster munitions. Based on the sources currently cited in the article, it actually looks like HRW and AI are reporting pretty much the same story: criticize both sides for attacking civilians, just Azerbaijan for cluster munitions. So we could go with something like Human rights groups have called for an end to the conflict and objected to the targeting of civilians [3] [4]. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have criticized Azerbaijan for its use of cluster munitions [5] [6]. Genocide Watch has described... (the second and third source link are the same). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:12, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill, Sataralynd Thanks very much, please see below

@Armatura: there has been a new piece from AI today criticizing Armenia. It is already reflected in the Article and you might want to maintain @Rosguill:'s original wording. Otherwise, the write up is good, thank you--Sataralynd (talk) 01:47, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Oppose @Rosguill: I think we make mistake here. I don't want to discuss Armenian Genocide as it is out of the topic but for your information term of Genocide appeared in 1944 and adopted by UN on 1948. Even the report publicated and that our Armenian users are so happy to refer in order claim that Azerbaijan side conducting genocide against Armenians is not systematic. It refers clashes that happened 100 years ago but some of this clashes happened due to causes initiated by Armenian armed groups in the beginning of 20th century. Denial of so called "Armenian genocide" can't not be justified to state that country supporting genocide against armenians as the event itself was recognized only by 32 countries in the world. Even Israel doesn't consider the event as "genocide". Again i would like to reiterate, the accuse of genocide can't be referred with single one paper statement and must refer proper conducted research scholars sources and studies, which Genocide Watch statement is missing. It refers to https://armenian.usc.edu/baku-pogroms-in-context-of-the-karabakh-conflict/ which is not independednt source. If you really want take responsibility and consider yourself as objective third party spectator from the side, I would suggest you to read and deepen your knowledge about the conflict before writing anything about genocide. I am ready to discuss it in any platform that you suggest but without consensus I am not favour of adding any statement of genocide in this topic. Best Regards, Mirhasanov (talk) 06:10, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

My Suggestion: Human rights groups have called for an end to the conflict and objected to the targeting of civilians and the use of cluster munitions. Amnesty International has criticized both Armenia and Azerbaijan. However, the report about use of cluster munitions was one sided and Human Rights Watch has criticized just Azerbaijan on these grounds. Officials of Azerbaijan invited Human Rights Watch to conduct site assessment of Armenian crimes in order to issue more balanced report. This is my initial proposal Mirhasanov (talk) 07:25, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

@Mirhasanov: Please open another thread about cluster bombs. The topic is about Genocide Watch--Sataralynd (talk) 21:56, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Comment If media outlets like The Guardian and CNN quote GW, then i think that GW shoud be considered reliable and cited in this article. However, in order to fit with WP:WEIGHT, other sources would be welcommed about this topic.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:57, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Sataralynd (talk) What I wrote was suggestion by @Rosguill:. You have changed article without agreeing. It is POV. Consensu was not reached and it must be reverted. Mirhasanov (talk) 05:39, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

@Mirhasanov: @Rosguill: What are you talking about Mirhasanov? I haven't changed anything. Please check before throwing accusation around--Sataralynd (talk) 11:59, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Genocide Watch as a source. There is no third party references or bibliography provided, raises transparency issues. Hemşinli çocuk 23:04, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Dear all @Rosguill: @Sataralynd: @CuriousGolden: @Hemşinli çocuk: Finally after several complain to Genocide Watch, it changed some wording and also issued genocide report for Azerbaijanis, which has already happened. Thanks for those who bombarded email box of GW for being bias. However, I still believe that the below description of the situation referring to GW in our article is not balanced, as first GW alert talks about possible genocide emergence but, GW alert about Azerbaijan proves that genocide has already happened. Could you please give your suggestion how we should change the phrases in order make below paraghraph more balanced?

Genocide Watch has described the situation as a "genocide emergency" for Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh, citing Azerbaijan’s current targeting of civilians in Nagorno-Karabakh, denial of past genocide against Armenians, and its official use of hate speech as factors leading to their assessment.[463][464][465] While for Azerbaijanis, GW has described that current Armenian and Artsakh governments deny involvement in past crimes against Azerbaijanis, erase their history from Armenian textbooks, preventing Azerbaijani IDP's the right to return to their former homes and villages, and denial of war crimes such as the Khojaly massacre and the current shelling of Azerbaijani civilians.[466]

So why have more civillians died on the Azerbaijani side than on the Armenian side? Why is there no talk of genocide against Azerbaijan? KY-Acc (talk) 16:39, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Solavirum's edits - removing Putin's reference to Sumgait

@Solavirum: you have removed Putin's reference to Sumgait Massacres in the Russia Section of International Reactions, which provides an important historical context for this conflict. We keep saying that we should avoid providing a one sided view of events in this article, but unfortunately the same behaviours of cherrypicking or removing comments that paint a flattering image of one side on the expense of the other keep occurring. You mention that "Putin's every single comment is not noteworthy" where it is obvious you just WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Could I hear what others have to say? Here is the section that has been removed
On 22 October, Putin indicated that the root of the conflict lines in interethnic clashes between Armenians and Azerbaijanis in the 1980s, and specifically referred to the massacre of Armenians in Sumgait.--Sataralynd (talk) 00:12, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Sataralynd (talk) Sumgait event and Khojali massacre that conducted by both parties has nothing to do with current 2020 war article. They are both covered on different wikipedia pages and information may be added there. Hence, removal of this part is fair. If we don't want to remove it, then all Putin's speech including support of territorial integrity and unacceptability of Armenian occupation of Azerbaijani lands must be included as well, which will be more logical.

Mirhasanov (talk) 09:38, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

@Mirhasanov: if you want to bring in references to Khojaly into the article please start another thread. If you want to include additional words by Putin from the same speech, please start another thread. Putin's comments about Sumgait, which happened at the beginning of the conflict in 1988 which was why he referred to it, were in reference to the 2020 War and they should be included.

Sataralynd, Putin is not a historian. Avoid POV-pushing. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 15:47, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Solavirum Aliev's is not a historian yet he's cited all over the article, (to me) regardless whether what he says is supported by any other source. What Putin said was an overview of the big picture, and it has direct relation with this war (and this article), as this war is not an isolated event, but part of the bigger continuum - Nagorno-Karabakh War. And please avoid accusing editors of "POV-pushing", as per WP:CIVILITY and WP:Goodfaith. Saying "I see this as an unsupported point of view" instead would sound much nicer, to everybody . Regards Armatura (talk) 03:58, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Armatura, he was cited for the things he should have been cited for. Like, let's say, he states that "X party is good, Y party is bad". His statements aren't strong enough to add as a contextual background of the conflict. It is, without a doubt, a POV. Erdoğan highlights the Khojaly massacre, you know, when the Armenian soldiers slaughtered hundreds of Azerbaijani civilians. But why don't we mention that? Because, yet again, he has no say for the background of this conflict. Regardless of that, I've seen more violations of WP:CIVILITY on your behalf than any others in this talk page. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 04:03, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Solavirum, an opinion about civility of others with the background of constantly reverting of others' edits is obviously highly valued. If Pakistan's and Afghanistan's presidents have a say about Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, Putin (good economic partner of Azerbaijan, btw) has a say for sure. You are welcome to cite Erdogan in anything what you think has brought to this war, obviously the historical accuracy of his claims will be scrutinised by the community here. After all, Erdogan is far more involved in the conflict than Putin, so, yes, he does have a say, too. This article belongs to no single editor and no single editor can be the only one who decides who has a say and who has not. Armatura (talk) 12:47, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Armatura, Putin's relations with Azerbaijan is not related to this issue. When did we add Pakistan or Afghanistan's opinion on the contextual background of this topic anyway? Try to attract mediators to this thread. I'm sure they'll say the same. Putin, Erdoğan, or any other leader, they are not historians or would ever voice neutral historical background on this conflict. And again, their close or far involvement aren't related too. This article belongs to no single editor and no single editor can be the only one who decides who has a say and who has not, I hear this every time from Armenian editors only, this ain't the first time and if it would help you to form up better arguments, let me just say that it isn't working. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 12:55, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

FYI @Solavirum: and @Armatura:, here is Eurasianet mentinoing Putin's words about Sumgait. Here is OC_Media doing the same. This is not about Putin, it is about Sumgait_Pogrom being a major catalyst of the conflict. Here is the Economist mentioning Sumgait in the context of the conflict. If Wikipedia is not going to mention it, I don't know who is! --Sataralynd (talk) 22:45, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

The argument "somebody is not a historian" reminds me of Erdogan's "let's leave history to historians" trick everytime he denies Armenian Genocide... If you could please prepare the text for inclusion into the article, @Sataralynd:, backed with your new sources. I support the inclusion as it transcends the very source of this war in NK war continuum, and I don't see a reason why it has to be kept out of this article which is full of quotes of Azerbaijani officials (non-historians). Armatura (talk) 23:30, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

@Armatura: Thanks, the wording has been reverted back in the article as per my original post, so no change needed now. I'm sure tomorrow we'll get a reversion though! --Sataralynd (talk) 01:54, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

@Solavirum: and @Armatura: guys Putin's citation can't not be used as proof as he is not historian, he is politician. If we will start to justify or analyse the root of conflict based on politicians, the world will be more mad place than it is now. Hence, I wouldn't use this statement to explain roots of the conflict as, the root of this conflict is much more deeper. Mirhasanov (talk) 10:29, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

@Mirhasanov: I am not aware of Wikipedia rule that does not allow citing politicians for conflicts root analysis. If you know such a WP rule, provide it. If you cannot provide such a ruke, then what you are saying is your just point of view (POV) Armatura (talk) 13:46, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

@Mirhasanov: @Armatura: the important point is not the job of Putin, but the weight of his comments as someone familiar with the conflict and the content of his words. He says that the origin of the conflict can be traced back to the Sumgait massacres, which is what is mentioned in the article. Further, in my source above from the Economist (very reliable source), they make the same point. Here is the phrase as it may not be accessible to all (paywall): "the descent into war began with a horrific pogrom of ethnic Armenians in Sumgait in 1988". I think this is important information to be mentioned. I think with the Economist reporting on it now (it is new while the Putin words are more than a week old), we may have to move it to the Background section because it is in fact a precipitator of the whole conflict--Sataralynd (talk) 04:59, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I support moving that citation from Economist into this article's background, as it not just "Russia's reaction" but the key to the start of the continuum of Nagorno-Karabakh war (of which the current conflict is a part of). Regards. Armatura (talk) 07:07, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

@Armatura: I propose to change "Ethnic violence began in the late 1980s, and the region descended into a war following the dissolution of the USSR in 1991" to Ethnic violence began in the late 1980s, with a series of massacres against Armenians in Sumgait, Ganja and Baku and the region descended into a war following the dissolution of the USSR in 1991. --Sataralynd (talk) 02:44, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Oppose ::@Armatura: and ::@Sataralynd: Of course there is a rule if you read clearly and don't twsit the fact. İn above you mention that ethnic violence began in the late 1980s, but you don't describe the drivers of the violence. Could it be because, Karabakh Armenians started to support separatist ideology such as Miatsum, "Hye Dat" demanding annexation of Nagonor-Karabakh to Armenia?

Therefore for sake of being unbiased I would like to offer below change:

"Ethnic violence began in the late 1980s with an increasing sentiment of separatism by Armenians living in Nagorno-Karabakh. As a result both sides have conducted series crimes on an ethnic basis against each other, that eventually lead to pogroms and mass deportation of Armenians and Azerbaijanis from major cities".

Mirhasanov (talk) 06:00, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

@Mirhasanov: twist the facts? so these 3 pogroms didn't happen? You may entitled to believe so but the sources I gave are authoritative unlike your unsourced wording, with one of them, Thomas de Waal, having more than 70,000 citations. Your wording "with an increasing sentiment of separatism by Armenians" is the official POV of the Azerbaijan Government, which is that Armenians were punished because they wanted to be independent.--Sataralynd (talk) 16:20, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

@Mirhasanov: First of all if you want talk about background of the conflict under Nagonor-Karabakh 2020, it is not place to mention it and e should avoid convert current article to Nagorno-Karabakh conflict wiki article. Secondly, I believe that instead of your completely pro-Armenian sentences, my sentence is much more objective which describes suffering of both sides, than being one sided. Or you reject exitance of Miatsum that started all of this? @Rosguill: as a third independent party what do you think? How we can merge my sentence and Sataralynd in order to provide wikireaders with informative and unbiased information ? Mirhasanov (talk) 16:30, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

I think that the status quo wording of Ethnic violence began in the late 1980s, and the region descended into a war following the dissolution of the USSR in 1991 is preferable and about the level of detail needed for an article about the 2020 conflict. It is accurate, to the point, and avoids finger pointing in a conflict where both sides have committed ethnic violence. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:32, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

@Rosguill: if that is the case and we should avoid finger-pointing, could I ask why we are mentioning the Khojaly massacres 3 times in this Article? Do you think that is NPOV? we are mentioning a massacre — tragic as it is —- that happened towards the end of the first NK war, right in the middle of a war zone, without any mention of what the Armenian side has to answer for. On the other hand, three major massacres that happened between 1988-1990 — which major sources affirm and two well-respected 3P scholars on thte topic (Thomas de Waal and Laurence Broers) claim precipitated the NK conflict — are not being mentioned. Is that NPOV? I think Khojaly should be mentioned because it is a very significant event for the Azerbaijani side, but so are Sumgait, Ganja and Baku pogroms which are significant events for the Armenian side--Sataralynd (talk) 03:17, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Sataralynd, there are currently no mentions of the Khojaly massacre in the Background section; there very well may be an undue weight problem as far as the Khojaly massacre is concerned elsewhere in the article, but the way to fix due weight problems in entirely separate sections is best addressed in those sections, not by adding an equal number of references to acts of violence against Armenians elsewhere. Until someone writes an NPOV explanation of that chunk of history, the status quo wording does an adequate job of explaining to the reader why people are fighting in Nagorno-Karabakh. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:13, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill I also agree with your point regarding finger pointing. Hence, to avoid it I suggest the following sentence to be changed and added as:

Ethnic violence in the region began in the late 1980s, and the region descended into a war following the dissolution of the USSR in 1991. As a result both sides have conducted series crimes on an ethnic basis against each other, that eventually lead to pogroms and mass deportation of Armenians and Azerbaijanis from major cities.

Sataralynd what do you think?

@Mirhasanov please remind me and everybody else here what were the "crimes on ethnic basis" that Armenians have conducted that led to Sumgait pogrom in the late 1980s, according to your "both-sides" version. Regards, Armatura (talk) 22:50, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Armatura (talk) If we will start talk about back history what has triggered the conflict, neither you nor me will be able to finish the sentence without finger pointing. Articles is not looking who was victim or innocent side here. The only victim here is Azerbaijani and Armenian civilians!. We try build up informative content and at the same time keep the neutrality, as the article shouldn't serve to propaganda machine of conflict sides. Hence, I believe that the above sentence is good enough to inform reader that the conflict is based on revanchism which eventually evaluated to ethnic hatred leading both sides to be deported or conducting pogroms against each other. Mirhasanov (talk) 17:20, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

@Mirhasanov:, if you are claiming FACTs, you should provide SOURCES for those FACTs, rather than a personal opinion on what's good and what's bad. And neutral article doesn't mean no victims. In Holocaust articles there is a clear aggressor and there is a victim, don't confuse neutrality with artificial equalisation and apologetism. Armatura (talk) 20:04, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

@Mirhasanov: You call the independence movement "ethnic crime". Support for independence of the NK by Armenians in Sumgait is not an ethnic crime. The right for independence was written in the Soviet constitution. The same constitution that allowed Azerbaijan to become an independent republic also provided similar rights to autonomous republics. Supporting something that is written in the constitution is not an ethnic crime.Spinosaurus5 (talk) 08:41, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Very much agree with @Spinosaurus5: The pogroms as just desserts for Armenians of NK for wanting to be independent is the official POV of the Azerbaijani government. Everyone else believes that the question of NK Armenians wanting to be independent has no bearing, and is not a justification of violence let alone the pogroms. Hence, again, I propose to balance the Background section by including a piece of information that major outlets, and 2 key scholars think relevant, as follows:

Ethnic violence began in the late 1980s, with a series of massacres against Armenians in Sumgait, Ganja and Baku and the region descended into a war following the dissolution of the USSR in 1991. --Sataralynd (talk) 05:49, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

• Done Very important information. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 13:32, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Revert Why you are doing what you want ? Why you are pushing your POV and try make the article as part of pro_armenian propaganda? It always been discussed and the best sentence is advised! Rosguill could you please advise what we should do with such users that pushes their POV no matter what is discussed and agreed? Mirhasanov (talk) 15:18, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

@Mirhasanov: Your questions have been answered already, see above. Its is allowed to cite an opinion of a political leader, as long as it is not misserved as a hard fact. It would be nice if you could follow WP:GOODFAITH, WP:CIVIL, WP:NOTTRUTH WP:IDONTLIKETHEM principles and stop calling names to editors who add things that you just don't like. And as you always ask Rosguill for help, I am interested in what he thinks we should do with Mirhasanov who does what he accuses other in all the time, virtually in every talk topic. Armatura (talk) 23:01, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

References

For the moment, I don't think anything needs to be done to anyone. If I was inclined to block people for every time they argued for content that could be construed as POV or for accusing people of the same, there would be no one left to write the article. If either of you thinks that there's been enough persistent serious disruption, such as edit warring, deceptive edit summaries, or egregious harassment, you can make a case at WP:ANI. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:32, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Gents, the below sentence is more constructive and balanced instead the last one was offered:

Ethnic violence in the region began in the late 1980s, and the region descended into a war following the dissolution of the USSR in 1991. As a result both sides have conducted series crimes on an ethnic basis against each other, that eventually lead to pogroms and mass deportation of Armenians and Azerbaijanis from major cities.

I want again to reiterate that the content shouldn't work for propaganda machine of war sides. We are not looking for who is victim and who has started the war. We are trying to create content in order properly inform the wiki reader. Hence, I again call all sides not to change any disruptive content without consensus under Talk page. Mirhasanov (talk) 09:13, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Disputed or occupied

Should the Nagorno-Karabakh region be called "disputed" or "occupied" territory? 18:22, 2 November 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by VZkN9 (talk • contribs) 18:22, 2 November 2020 (UTC) — VZkN9 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Opinions

• Support Occupied:, @Rosguill:; sorry to bother you, in similar articles related to Israel, Turkey, Russia, etc. every single article uses the word occupied, and nothing such as "disputed". For example nobody calls Donbass a disputed region, but Crimea can be called, because it is been recognised by some countries as part of Russia as well. However Artsakh is not even recognised by Armenia. This is not NPOV, but POV-pushing by other users trying to romanticisation the occupation. See UN res 62/243: 1. Reaffirms continued respect and support for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Republic of Azerbaijan within its internationally recognized borders; 2. Demands the immediate, complete and unconditional withdrawal of all Armenian forces from all the occupied territories of the Republic of Azerbaijan. I really do not see any reason why this area shouldn't be called occupied. Beshogur (talk) 11:45, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
• Agree. We can't stop calling occupied things "disputed" to stay "neutral" even when international law calls it occupied. This isn't being neutral, this is POV-pushing. — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 11:53, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
• @CuriousGolden and Rosguill: There are two parties to a conflict right now. One is saying they control a piece of land and the other is saying they should control it. When discussing directly about the dispute, you have to maintain WP:NPOV. In the article about the area, it would be more appropriate to discuss the recognition.WMrapids (talk) 12:00, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

If that's NPOV, we have to change the entire articles regarding the occupied territories anywhere in the world. Beshogur (talk) 12:06, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

WMrapids, international organizations and reliable sources also call it an occupation. Occupation won't makes a party the bad guy, it just says that "X's army came and seized control of Y's internationally recognized territories." See: Occupation of Iraq (2003–2011), Allied-occupied Germany, Turkish occupation of northern Syria. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 12:58, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

• Use of disputed vs controlled is a question that should be resolved based on an assessment of how reliable source refer to the region. A cursory Google Scholar search suggests that "disputed" is used more frequently, but this issue could probably benefit form a more careful analysis. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:13, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

@Rosguill:, I mean disputed or controlled being used instead of occupied. UN and OSCE refers to this area as occupied, not controlled or disputed. Beshogur (talk) 15:21, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

The searches I conducted were disputed vs occupied. I think that the UN and OSCE declarations can be considered, but should be considered in addition to RS coverage, not to its exclusion. That having been said, I did another round of searches and found the opposite result of my previous round.

Google Scholar search results:

• "occupied territory" "Nagorno Karabakh": 579 results
• "disputed territory" "Nagorno Karabakh": 886 results.
• "disputed" "Nagorno Karabakh": 4950 results
• "occupied" "Nagorno Karabakh": 7550 results _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:31, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

@Rosguill:, thanks. So what is the conclusion? Beshogur (talk) 15:42, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Seems like the term "occupied" is two times more popular than "disputed". --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 15:50, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

based on the above data points, I would lean towards "occupied" based on the second search and the OSCE/UN wording. I think there's room for others to dispute that if they can make an argument based on more recent news sources covering the conflict, or can find additional search terms at Scholar that complicate the data points listed above. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:56, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

• Support "Disputed". It is not judgemental, and it currently better reflects the fact that the de facto control of most of the territories in question by Republic of Nagorno Karabakh actively clashes with de jurerecognized borders of Republic of Azerbaijan, the fact that neither side has de-facto and de-jure control of these lands in one place. Disputed is more frequently heard recently in international media due to the active warring, where as occupied was more more frequently in (relatively) peaceful times. Artsakh disputes the occupied status of these lands and yes, occupied does make Artsakh look like "the bad guy", as nobody wants to be called the occupier in its political sense. E.g. Azerbaijan does not occupy Baku, Baku belongs to Azerbaijan and nobody disputes it. It's different from being an occupier of a flat which clearly has a neutral meaning (e.g. I receive letters addressed "to occupier" in my rented flat). Armatura (talk) 01:43, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support "Occupied" Occupied has a neutral meaning, this used in other articles before (and its usage is more than "disputed" per conclusion on Google Scholar search).Ahmetlii (talk) 05:52, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support "Occupied" not because I think, but because it is clearly stated in UN resolutions 822,853,874,884.Mirhasanov (talk) 05:58, 30 October 2020 (UTC) — Mirhasanov (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• I suggest Breakaway, or Unrecognized state, depending on context. The territory is indeed not "Disputed" (even per Armenia's official version) as Armenia does not claim Karabakh. As for it being "Occupied", apparently, there are two versions. The Azerbaijani version it is occupied by Armenia. The version of the local Armenians is that Nagorno Karabakh is an independent state. Such a state is, however, not recognized by any other state (see Unrecognized state). So, the correct neutral way is to refer to the territory as a "Breakaway" - i.e. it has goals to achieve independence and actually controls some territory but is recognized as a part of Azerbaijan by law. Clearly, this Republic of Artsakh has no "undisputed territories" and its independence is questioned as a whole - it is not like with territorial disputes elsewhere where some territory is disputed but both countries have undisputed "proper" territories. The context in which the Republic of Artsakh was established needs to be explained for it to remain neutral - namely, that the Azeri population, that used to be larger than the Armenian population, was expelled to make Armenian majority, and that Armenia and Armenian diaspora supported the Artsakh militarily. Ruĝa nazuo (talk) 02:08, 31 October 2020 (UTC) — Ruĝa nazuo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Support "Occupied" UNSC, UNGA, and PACE resolutions clearly state Nagorno-Karabakh as occupied. See PACE res 2085: the occupation by Armenia of Nagorno-Karabakh and other adjacent areas of Azerbaijan and areas of Azerbaijan occupied by Armenia SteelEvolution (talk) 07:57, 31 October 2020 (UTC) — SteelEvolution (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Support "Occupied": The legal status is "occupied" according to UN. The territories belong to Azerbaijan. "controlled" would be only reasonable in case of Lost, mislaid, and abandoned property. Irredentism is not Wikipedia:NPOV. Many Wikipedia:Single-purpose accounts push for "controlled" and "disputed" instead of "occupied" in articles related to the topic. --Geysirhead (talk) 15:10, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support current wording ("disputed") – given its context within the sentence, "disputed" is used here in a descriptive sense, rather denoting any official status. It's common sense that there's a dispute over the land, otherwise there wouldn't be a conflict in the first place. "Disputed" and "occupied" are not incompatible terms, and to change the wording within the opening sentence would in my view skew it in a non-neutral direction, by suggesting that one side has no claim on the land whatsoever. The sources that Rosguill has gathered show that both terms have been used, and I think Armatura, irrespective of whether they may be engaging in advocacy (it appears editors on both sides of the conflict are engaged in advocacy at this talk page) raises a valid point: "occupied" fits better in a peaceful context, "disputed" better reflects an ongoing conflict. "Self-proclaimed" (used earlier in the opening sentence) could probably be strengthened to "unrecognised" or similar without affecting the NPOV of the sentence, if other editors feel that this change is necessary (I think self-proclaimed expresses this fine myself, but wouldn't have any objection if there was a consensus for this change). Issues over the legality/legitimacy of the Republic of Artsakh's claim should be covered (succinctly) in the article's background section, or (in a more detailed manner) within the articles on the region and the republic. Jr8825 • Talk 18:57, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

In addition to this, I've also noticed that the current wording of our article on Nagorno-Karabakh describes it as a "disputed territory". Jr8825 • Talk 05:12, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

It's not because there is a consensus about that. Beshogur (talk) 15:26, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Let me put my point this way: I don't think a consensus is required for a self-evident description, such as calling an area that is being fought over "disputed". I do think a consensus is needed to replace it with a term that some editors (me included) think affects the neutral wording of this particular sentence. To be clear, I'm not questioning the fact that the area is illegally occupied under international law. I simply think that spelling this out in the first sentence of this article is UNDUE. I think it minimises/does not do justice to a complicated issue and requires a fuller explanation. Stating that Artsakh is self-proclaimed/breakaway/unrecognised seems perfectly sufficient for the first sentence. Jr8825 • Talk 15:46, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

@Rosguill:, I am not asking for opinions. People putting their opinion here. You have seen what UN, OSCE and majority of sources refer to. Beshogur (talk) 19:05, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

@Beshogur:, if you are referring to my comment, I'd ask you to consider the benefit of having non-involved editors such as myself (I have no particular emotional investment in this conflict) offering their interpretation of the issues. Jr8825 • Talk 15:20, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: Beshogur provided the UN RES/62/243 as reference, but the transcript of the resolution that include voting results confirms what can be found on Political status of Nagorno-Karabakh article (On 14 March 2008, the United Nations General Assembly passed a non-binding resolution by a vote of 39 to 7, with 100 abstentions, ... was supported mainly by members of the OIC and GUAM, both of which Azerbaijan is a member...). Note the Voting bloc behavior (OIC and GUAM). Most states abstained.

The PACE resolution cited by a user has 98 votes in favor, 71 against and 40 abstentions. This is far from being a consensus.

@Rosguill:, you provided a google scholar search results. I tried replicating these results, and there is a significant cross-contamination. Also, your search did not include a contextual filtering. Because obviously, occupied+NK will yield many results for the territory that is outside NK, but controlled by NK. Not NK itself.

On OSCE Minsk Group position, see the six key elements for the settlement from the Madrid Principles. The principles and their wordings wouldn't be there, if NK wasn't disputed.

Conclusion: That what is surrounding NK but controlled by NK being occupied, can be debated. But NK itself being occupied, according to the sources provided, it's disputed. Hemşinli çocuk 21:21, 31 October 2020 (UTC) — Ermenermin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• @Geysirhead:, why is it that important who support a particular wording? Hemşinli çocuk 21:36, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

@Ermenermin: WP is En|cy|clo|pe|dists' Corner, not Speakers' Corner WP:NOTFREESPEECH. It is important to keep Wikipedia free of Wikipedia:Single-purpose accounts, especially if they support certain wording with Wikipedia:I just don't like it arguments. --Geysirhead (talk) 08:52, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

@Geysirhead: Yes but how who edit what is more important than valid arguments someone provides? Hemşinli çocuk 15:48, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

@Ermenermin:, This is far from being a consensus. Nonsense, abstain doesn't mean against. So there is a vote in favor. Plus PACE describes it as Armenian occupation. Yet again, dispute happens between two countries over a place. Armenia does not claim NK, neither does recognise Artsakh. Artsakh is not a recognised country. Beshogur (talk) 22:10, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

@Beshogur: Abstain does not mean against, but it does not mean in support to either. And PACE had a stronger opposition for the resolution. I myself will abstain voting, it doesn't mean that my silence means that I support the term occupation.Hemşinli çocuk 22:30, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

• Support Disputed are we seriously comparing Occupation of Iraq (2003–2011), Allied-occupied Germany, Turkish occupation of northern Syria with the Armenians currently in Nagorno-Karabakh? At least everyone including Azerbaijan agree that the area had a majority Armenian population for a very long time, unlike the US in Iraq, Turkey in Syria and Allied forces in Germany - where there was a clear time and place of occupation. This is according to census data by Azerbaijan during the USSR's life. The POV that is being clearly pushed here is that Armenia is occupying Azerbaijani land, which is the official position of the Azeri government. Could we please try to maintain the NPOV? We established already that the people of Nagorno-Karabakh don't want to be part of Azerbaijan weeks ago in this page, and here is the source that confirms it. However we understand that Azerbaijan doesn't agree with this, hence the dispute--Sataralynd (talk) 03:28, 1 November 2020 (UTC) — Sataralynd (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Sataralynd (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. tells us a lot. Where is the POV pushing when UN mentions this? Beshogur (talk) 22:26, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support "occupied" "At least everyone including Azerbaijan agree that the area had a majority Armenian population for a very long time" is wrong. NKAO together with Armenian-occupied territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh had a majority non-Armenian population. Red Kurdistan was populated by mother-tongue-Azeri Kurds. These people are now considered Azerbaijanis and are internally displaced people in Azerbaijan. Ethnic cleansing reduced the population of the territory now occupied by Artsakh from something around 500,000400,000 to 150,000135,000. 99,7% is of the population is now Armenian. --Geysirhead (talk) 09:07, 1 November 2020 (UTC) _{Already voted signed, Rosguill ^talk 03:09, 5 November 2020 (UTC)}

Both Armenia and Azerbaijan have committed ethnic cleansing against each other. NKAO alone was populated by an Armenian majority, but not the occupied raions around it.--Geysirhead (talk) 10:06, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

But seems that no one disputes that the raions outside of NK had non-Armenian majority. What is being voted here, from what I can understand, is not only calling these raions as occupied but also NK itself (that always had Armenian majority). Hemşinli çocuk 15:54, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

NK itself would never be able to occupy so much territory. It is an Armenian de facto protectorate Artsakh, which occupies Azeri territory. Artsakh is not NK.--Geysirhead (talk) 20:10, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

"The Armenian victory led to the emergence of Nagorno-Karabakh as an Armenian protectorate" https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14751798.2014.894297 --Geysirhead (talk) 20:22, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

"Finally, in the case of Armenia, the de facto state of Nagorno-Karabakh, which remains under Armenian protectorate, significantly reduces the government's political autonomy, making it especially vulnerable to Russian pressure" https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-658-26446-8_4 --Geysirhead (talk) 20:22, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

"Azerbaijani fighters downed the craft 12 November during joint exercises between the Armenian military and forces of the region, a de facto Armenian protectorate although internationally recognized as Azerbaijani territory" https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=455628 --Geysirhead (talk) 20:22, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

"Ruben Melikyan, a former human rights ombudsman of the Armenian protectorate of Nagorno-Karabakh who is now supporting the far-right activists, initially said his client had also been detained on weapons charges, but when Danielyan was released he said the charges were drug-related." https://eurasianet.org/several-leaders-of-armenias-far-right-detained --Geysirhead (talk) 20:22, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

"The hilly, landlocked stretch of land has been ruled as an Armenian protectorate since an early 1990s war, which left some 30,000 dead, even though it is internationally recognised as part of Azerbaijan." https://www.independent.co.uk/independentpremium/world/armenia-azerbaijan-war-conflict-b863585.html --Geysirhead (talk) 20:22, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

"All three countries canceled school for at least a week, as did the Armenian protectorate of Nagorno-Karabakh." https://www.afghanistannews.net/news/264192812/caucasus-shuts-doors-after-coronavirus-hits --Geysirhead (talk) 20:22, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

"The public movement, started in 1988, aimed to restore the Armenian protectorate over the autonomous republic of Nagornyi Karabakh, which was made a part of the Soviet Republic of Azerbaijan ..." https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/the-armenian-intelligentsia-today-discourses-of-self-identification-and-self-perception/viewer --Geysirhead (talk) 20:22, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

"President Ilham Aliyev and military officials openly link the arms buildup to the unresolved dispute over the Nagorno-Karabakh region, which nominally belongs to Azerbaijan but has been an Armenian protectorate in all but name since its ethnic Armenian population fought to ..." https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=164301 --Geysirhead (talk) 20:22, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Let me remind you, that this discussion follows what was said here.

The request was initiated by the same user, and you even commented there. The title says it, the territories surrounding NK. So what was discussed initially, seems to have been about the territories surrounding NK. But this discussion took a diverging course here, by becoming a vote to decide to indiscriminately call all territories as occupied, including NK. While there is definitely a differences between NK and the surrounding territories, and there is even an article here to prove that. And they are definitely different according to the Madrid principles.

Your search results are meaningless in this context, because all what those results mean is that this expression is used by some scholars, like other wordings or expressions. But is this sufficient to superimpose your preferred terms to draw your conclusion, by discarding other materials that are far from being mere fringes? Hemşinli çocuk 22:12, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

You confuse NK with NKR aka Artsakh, which an Armenian client state, precisely a defacto protectorate, on occupied territories. It did not break away by itself. It was broken away by Armenia.--Geysirhead (talk) 06:10, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Check the UN resolutions, it asks Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh to redraw from recently (on 1993) occupied regions. Asking the Government of Armenia to use its influence to achieve compliance by the Armenians of the Nagorny Karabakh. Protectorate, client state, or any other terms, are opinions. But this does not change that NKR and Armenia are two different entities. NKR has its parliament, its constitution, its laws, its government... It is it, that after a referendum declared its independence. If NKR occupies what is outside NK is a different question than NKR occupying NK. Hemşinli çocuk 15:28, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Check, what you just wrote! Asking the Government of Armenia to use its influence to achieve compliance by the Armenians of the Nagorny Karabakh Armenia can influence the dissolution of Artsakh? The "independent sovereign" nation Artsakh can be influenced by Armenia into dissolution as according to UN? UN makes surely no secret of Artsakh's client state status.--Geysirhead (talk) 16:28, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I am fully disclosing the whole sentence, without removing anything here. On the other hand, your arguments seems to be lacking consistency. The same terms were used by several governments asking Turkey to use its influence to convince Azerbaijan to stop its offensive in the current conflict. Does that mean that those countries are also making surely no secret of Azerbaijan client state status? Hemşinli çocuk 16:54, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

"convince Azerbaijan to stop its offensive" is different to "achieve compliance by the Armenians of the Nagorny Karabakh". Turkey is a regional power and might seal a deal with Azerbaijan about a stop of offensive. But the compliance of Armenians means the dissolution of Artsakh. Legally that would mean that Artsakh disappears and Amenians of NK get Azerbaijani passports (if they can provide Azerbaijani birth certificates). UN does not tell Armenians of Artsakh to evacuate. It is not an eviction. Then Azeribaijni (actually mostly ethnical kurds, see Red Kurdistan) internally displaced persons can return and everybody lives in peace.--Geysirhead (talk) 08:59, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

As of Russians in the Baltic states, birth certificates of pre-occupational origin might be the core requirement for citizenship and the post-occupational born persons will be declared as foreigners, who have to integrate in order to acquire citizenship. UN resolutions and all other international laws and practices do not order any deportations of Armenians.--Geysirhead (talk) 09:13, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

This was actually the most plausible interpretation of UN resolutions regarding Artsakh, especially the wording "occupied" in the context of the accepted real case of Russians in the Baltic states. Both the UN (Wartime_sexual_violence#Rape_in_contemporary_peace_operations_by_UN_peacekeepers e.g.) and the behaviour of the Baltic states towards the native born Russians are matters for harsh critisism. --Geysirhead (talk) 09:33, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support "Disputed" Per WP:NPOV. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:13, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support "occupied" As per UN resolutions İ mentioned before.Mirhasanov (talk) 19:48, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
  •  Note: User has already !voted. Jr8825 • Talk 21:20, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support Disputed Two parties claim one piece of land: disputed is the most neutral term. Flalf^Talk 19:52, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
• Use disputed, which is self-evidently accurate, and neutral. Occupied wouldn't make much sense here, anyway. The area is (last I looked) largely administered by a group who live there and are trying to form a break-away republic, so they are not "occupiers" in a military sense, but revolutionaries/rebels. If next week Azerbaijan exercised the most control over the area, they also would not be military occupiers in an undisputable sense, since they already have the better-world-recognized claim to the area. The term occupied simply doesn't apply here, in either direction.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:08, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support "Occupied" The region has been under Armenian occupation since the end of the last war and the term "occupied" is used by major international organisations. 194.211.118.18 (talk) 09:47, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support "disputed": Per WP:NPOV. This is a highly disputed issue no matter what recognition is at play. If people are willing to kill or die for a piece of land, best believe that there are very strong opinions and NPOV should definitely be a priority for those editing the article.--WMrapids (talk) 23:47, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM. Beshogur (talk) 23:57, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support Disputed, based on its neutrality. Idealigic (talk) 22:39, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: Nagorno-Karabakh is listed as an occupied territory here, and its status is listed as "Occupation by an armed group under the influence of a foreign power". Wikipedia should use terms consistently, so this article should also refer to Nagro-Karabakh as an occupied territory. VZkN9 (talk) 18:26, 6 November 2020 (UTC) — VZkN9 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Please note that this is not a "single purpose account", in the sense that I would be only interested about editing articles conserning Nagorno-Karabakh. I mostly make edits with a (dynamic) IP and this account exists just in order to participate in a longer discussion without the IP constantly changing. VZkN9 (talk) 20:48, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

• Close This is a poorly formulated and unconstructive RfC that has no clear rationale or application. The two words in question, "disputed" and "occupied", are not interchangeable. They are different adjectives that have different meanings and different uses. Their appropriateness and usefulness cannot be determined outside of the context of their use, and this will differ between different uses, making this RfC ludicrously vague. For a comparison, an RfC asking whether elephants should be called "grey" or "heavy" would be similarly effective. Upon closing in favour of heavy, the RfC could then be used as a cudgel to eliminate any mention of being grey. Alternatively, simple changes to sentence structure could make it entirely moot. This RfC should be closed as entirely inoperable. CMD (talk) 03:05, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis:, I took this to dispute resolution noticeboard, was not solved. What else do you propose? Beshogur (talk) 13:04, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

That would depend on what the dispute actually is, which is unclear from this RfC. I suspect DRN would have a similarly hard time if the dispute was presented in the same way. If the issue is not really defined, a discussion to figure out the actual issue would be useful. If it is, better formulated dispute resolution procedures may be a way forward. CMD (talk) 01:30, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

• Disputed per reasoning by Armatura, Jr8825 and  SMcCandlish. GMPX1234 (talk) 12:09, 8 November 2020 (UTC) — GMPX1234 (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Waskerton (talk • contribs).
• Disputed. I did a quick survey of reliable sources and found a few that describe Nagorno-Karabakh as "disputed" [7] [8] [9] (which is also how I think of the territory). Didn't find any that describe it as "occupied". —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:23, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
• Disputed, if this question is about the first sentence. Sources use the word "disputed" more than "occupied". But remember that they have different meanings! A place can be disputed and occupied, disputed but not occupied, not disputed but occupied, and neither disputed nor occupied. To phrase it for this article in another way, it is undisputed that the land is disputed but it is disputed that the land is occupied. < Atom (Anomalies) 11:33, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Yet again, Armenia does not claim this area, how is this disputed? Beshogur (talk) 11:36, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I did not say that Armenia claims this area. I said that sources use the word "disputed" to describe Nagorno-Karabakh and that is the most important fact here. Furthermore, a territorial dispute can arise from the partially recognized Republic of Artsakh's claim to sovereignty over the region which is disputed by Azerbaijan and unrecognized by most sovereign nations and most international organizations. By some definitions, an occupied territory is automatically part of a territorial dispute. The most important thing here is that reliable sources say that it is "disputed". < Atom (Anomalies) 11:45, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Comments

@Rosguill:, I suppose this isn't going to solve anything. Should I open a dispute resolution? Beshogur (talk) 15:02, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Beshogur, given the relative simplicity of the question and the number of editors who have given an opinion already, an RfC is probably more appropriate. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:34, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: administrators, be careful about one purpose accounts here, and please consider the result of dispute based on arguments, reliable sources and what third parties refer to. This is not an election. Beshogur (talk) 13:39, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

@Rosguill:, there are lot of new users came in October only editing here and other related articles. Do you think these opinions should be taken seriously? Beshogur (talk) 22:27, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Beshogur, that's up to the closer. This is neither the first nor last time that an RfC has attracted the attention of POV-pushers. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 03:21, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

@Rosguill:, the only account we can ask if it is single purpose or not is @VZkN9:, who opened this thread. And, Artsakh/ Nagorno Karabakh is a self-proclaimed Republic, why push Azeri and Turkish-pro POVs to be the voice of Wikipedia. --E badalyan (talk) 11:09, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

@E badalyan:, it is me who opened this thread. Another new user made the request, then the topics were merged. Don't accuse me of that nonsense. Beshogur (talk) 11:11, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

WP:AGF, @Beshogur:, I didn't see your name in the request "RfC: Disputed or Occupied", only @VZkN9:'s. Plus, calling Nagorno-Karabakh occupied is pushing the Azeri POV. We can only debate its use while speaking about the seven districts surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh, but not Nagorno-Karabakh itself as it is a self-proclaimed republic. --E badalyan (talk) 16:14, 6 November 2020 (UTC) — E badalyan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Note: When I started this RfC, I followed the instructions here and added only the date and not a signature. "Sign the statement with either ~~~~ (name, time and date) or ~~~~~ (just the time and date)". A signature has been added later by another user, and I have now reverted it to the original as I believe that I followed instructions correctly. Feel free to change it back if it truly violates some policy. VZkN9 (talk) 22:35, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

• Question: @Beshogur: Now that the edit has been reverted again, how exactly does it violate a policy when the instructions say it is acceptaple. VZkN9 (talk) 00:05, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi VZkN9, I presume the guidance is for situations where it's clear from the context which editor has opened the RfC. I signed your original statement for you as I thought you'd made a mistake. While I appreciate you were following the RfC instructions, it's more helpful for other editors to see who was responsible and I've not seen an RfC opened with ~~~~~ before myself. I didn't add the SPA (single-purpose account) tag to your signature when you opened the RfC, but I did add it where you weighed in with your view below, in order to help the editor who closes the RfC gauge the responses. (Although, given the concerns CMD raised, it's possible this RfC will be closed prematurely). Jr8825 • Talk 08:22, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

• Relevant: Armenian-controlled territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh has been moved to Armenian-occupied territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh. Beshogur (talk) 17:20, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

References

CuriousGolden edit (removal of the bulk of human rights organizations reactions and artificial equalisations of the reactions)

@CuriousGolden: you removed the sheer bulk of human rights organizations reactions: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2020_Nagorno-Karabakh_conflict&type=revision&diff=986012184&oldid=986005851 You specifically removed all the parts that were specifically cricitising Azerbaijan's actions. You justified your edit as "per consensus" although there was no such consensus in this page or WP:RSN page. You removed the international association of genocide scholars' statement without justification (or caring for consensus). Oblige us all, explain the purpose of these edit, to avoid going into edit / revert cycle. CuriousGolden edit (removal of the bulk of human rights organizations reactions). Regards, Armatura (talk) 13:09, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi. Firstly, the consensus was on what Rosguill said: "Human rights groups have called for an end to the conflict and objected to the targeting of civilians and the use of cluster munitions. Amnesty International has criticized both Armenia and Azerbaijan [cite], and Human Rights Watch has criticized just Azerbaijan on these grounds [cite]. Genocide Watch has described the situation as a 'genocide emergency' for Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh, citing attacks on civilians, denial of the Armenian Genocide, and denial of return for Armenian refugees to Azerbaijan as risk factors leading to their assessment [cite]". You went on to go in detail about the Azeri parts of each report, giving them WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. Descriptions of the reports need to be short and precise, especially in an article that's way too long already. Secondly, a WP:CONSENSUS was not reached on IAGS open letter discussion. Don't add things without coming to a consensus. — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 13:15, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I think CuriousGolden is mostly justified with his argument as that section was pretty bias because of WP:UNDUEWEIGHT, but I think the content itself was okay, and it would have been better to just balance it out with expansion of both sides crimes. Also on the IAGS thing, I think since IAGS is a notable third party it could be put in the reactions category. Flalf^Talk 15:02, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't think a consensus for much of anything has been established yet: there was a deadlock over the original wording, I proposed what I think is better, more neutral wording; there was no actual consensus established for what I suggested, as it hadn't really been discussed. Armatura's interpretation was a WP:BOLD edit the further expanded my original suggestion. The claims in that paragraph that I checked are verifiable, but it does seem like the emphasis in that paragraph is more skewed than in the cited sources, particularly the Amnesty International coverage, so objections on the basis of WP:DUE are valid. Clearly more discussion is needed to come to a workable solution. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:20, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill, Flalf Thanks, please see below

Polishing the text of humanitarian organisations reactions

Ok, everybody who was interested in this subject, here is the text on Humanitarian organizations subsection that was reverted. It includes 4 essential parts - Amnesty international, Human rights watch, Genocide Watch and International Association of Genocide Scholars. Genocide Watch has extensive discussion on this talk page, along with suggestions for adding Amnesty international and Human rights watch, IAGS has a discussion, too, with the prevailing opinion that it should be included. There may have been reactions from other organizations, or new reports from the same organizations in these two days, if you are aware of any please suggest. If you think that somehow the details of cluster munition belong to another subsection please suggest which one.Armatura (talk) 01:10, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

• Version 1.0

Human rights groups have called for an end to the conflict. Amnesty International called Armenia and Azerbaijan to immediately stop the use of heavy explosive weapons with wide-area effects in densely populated civilian areas, and join the Convention on Cluster Munitions. Amnesty International has previously warned against the use of banned cluster bombs, after its experts found that Azerbaijan had likely used the weapons in the region, yet Amnesty International has been unable to verify Azerbaijan’s allegations of the use of cluster munitions by the Armenian side . They were able to identify Israeli-made M095 DPICM cluster munitions in residential areas of Stepanakert that appear to have been fired by Azerbaijani forces. While they have verified that 300mm Smerch rocket artillery systems do appear to have been used by Armenian forces, the photographic and video evidence available from the Azerbaijani side does not yet allow for conclusive analysis of its specific targets, nor whether the rocket warheads contained cluster munitions. . Human Rights Watch also urged both sides to join Convention on Cluster Munitions. They criticized Azerbaijan for repeatedly using cluster munitions in residential areas in Nagorno-Karabakh, documenting four such incidents, without being able to identify any military equipment or bases in the three neighbourhoods where the attacks took place. . Genocide Watch has described the situation as a 'genocide emergency' for Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh, citing Azerbaijan’s current targeting of civilians in Nagorno-Karabakh, denial of past genocide against Armenians, and its official use of hate speech as factors leading to their assessment International Association of Genocide Scholars issued an open letter, considering the air raids conducted by the Azerbaijani military on Shushi Holy Savior Cathedral as a part of policy of the cultural genocide, blaming Azerbaijani government in systematic destruction of the Armenian historical heritage” .Armatura (talk) 00:03, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

• Version 2.0 modified per Rosguill's very helpful suggestions which were supported by Sataralynd.

Human rights groups have called for an end to the conflict and objected to the use of heavy explosive weapons with wide-area effects in densely populated civilian areas and urged both sides to join the Convention on Cluster Munitions. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have criticized Azerbaijan for its use of cluster munitions. Genocide Watch has described the situation as a 'genocide emergency' for Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh, citing Azerbaijan’s current targeting of civilians in Nagorno-Karabakh, denial of past genocide against Armenians, and its official use of hate speech as factors leading to their assessment International Association of Genocide Scholars issued an open letter, considering the air raids conducted by the Azerbaijani military on Shushi Holy Savior Cathedral as a part of policy of the cultural genocide, blaming Azerbaijani government in systematic destruction of the Armenian historical heritage”. Armatura (talk) 00:03, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

• Version 3.0 with Sataralynd's suggestions, now that AI published cluster munition confirmation by Armenia, now ADDED to the article

Human rights groups have objected to the use of heavy explosive weapons with wide-area effects in densely populated civilian areas and urged both sides to end the conflict and join the Convention on Cluster Munitions. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have criticized Azerbaijan and Armenia for the use of cluster munitions. Genocide Watch has described the situation as a 'genocide emergency' for Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh, citing Azerbaijan’s current targeting of civilians in Nagorno-Karabakh, denial of past genocide against Armenians, and its official use of hate speech as factors leading to their assessment International Association of Genocide Scholars issued an open letter, considering the air raids conducted by the Azerbaijani military on Shushi Holy Savior Cathedral as a part of policy of the cultural genocide, blaming Azerbaijani government in systematic destruction of the Armenian historical heritage”. Armatura (talk) 02:08, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

• Support Thanks @Armatura:--Sataralynd (talk) 02:10, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

  Oppose Rosguill, CuriousGolden and Flalf IAGS letter doesn't refer to reliable source. I checked IAGS site and was not able to find any relevant publication or news regarding what is claiming "cultural genocide". I am not refusing the fact that someone could draft the letter but if it is not officially published in the site, can we call it a valid reference, which refers to voltairenet.org ? GenocideWatch is also not reliable source to refer to claim that there is a potential fact of Genocide as the paper they have published is one sided, doesn't describe whole story and trying to show events that were causes to victimize Armenians. As I mentioned before the term of "genocide" or any claim needs to be properly justified not through 1 paper statement. Hence, inclusion of this information is not necessary and creates questions about objectivity of the article. Imagine person who has no background information about the conflict reads the article, which automatically drives conclusion that Azerbaijanians doing genocide. We must avoid such POVs that effects the objectivity and informativity of the content . I think previous decision by Rosguill was right to completely remove this part. Mirhasanov (talk) 06:20, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

  Oppose the inclusion of Voltaire net, which is definitely not a RS, and I cannot confirm that IAGS actually published this letter. (t · c) buidhe 06:56, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

  Oppose per the reasons given by other users.--Ahmetlii (talk) 08:26, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

  Oppose Initially leaned toward support, but I had not checked the website, which is a deprecated source. I may be inclined to support it's inclusion in the future if another third party source brings this up. Flalf^Talk 12:44, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

  Comment Thanks all for your comments, I removed the sentence on IAGS letter ("International Association of Genocide Scholars issued an open letter, considering the air raids conducted by the Azerbaijani military on Shushi Holy Savior Cathedral as a part of policy of the cultural genocide, blaming Azerbaijani government in systematic destruction of the Armenian historical heritage”.") until a non-deprecated source becomes available: @Mirhasanov: Genocide Watch has already been extensively discussed in this talk page earlier and at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Genocide_Watch:_Unreliable_source? with a consensus reached. Armatura (talk) 15:19, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Armatura (talk) unfortunately I was not invited to participate in this discussion. GW may be reliable source but the main point here was their statement. The statement itself is completely one sided. I write an email to Genocide Watch to help me understand the basis of the statement they used to drive the conclusion but they never answered me. @Rosguill: may people here still believes that the information that refers to GW about genocide claims is bias. Please just read the stages :

Classification: Muslim Turkic Azerbaijani “us” vs. Armenian Christian “them.” - The current conflict doesn't have any religious basis and all organizations accept that it is ethnic conflict. The classification itself is not right from the beginning.

Symbolization: Artsakh Armenians have Armenian names (ID cards, passports), language, dress, churches. - This is not true. They may have Armenian names but holding Armenian ID cards and passports is illegal and all of them officially considered to be citizens of Azerbaijan.

Discrimination: Armenians were massacred, forcibly expelled, and now excluded from Azerbaijan. - Both sides conducted same crimes in a period of 1980-1994. Can the independent body say that it is one sided?

Dehumanization: Armenians are called “terrorists”, “bandits,” “infidels,” “leftovers of the sword.” - Well I simply want to refer to this link in order to answer the question https://www.jstor.org/stable/40395543?seq=1 Published by Royal Institute of International Affairs or https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9780230118874_3. Can bring more references.

Organization: Azerbaijan gets drones, and arms from Turkey, Russia, Israel. Turkish Air Force supports Azerbaijani attack on Artsakh. - ???? Is it logical???

Polarization: President Ilham Aliyev and social media use anti-Armenian hate speech. - Isn't armenia does that?

Preparation: 67,000 Azerbaijani troops invaded Artsakh; Aliyev wants “liberation” of “occupied” territory. - Firstly, The GW itself reject international rules by referring the area as Artsakh and calling it as invasion. Non of the international community called it invasion.

Persecution: Armenians in Artsakh live in bomb shelters due to Azerbaijani shelling. Thousands of civilians have fled Artsakh - What happened in Barda and Ganja is not same?

Extermination: Genocidal massacres of Armenians in Azerbaijan in 1918 killed over 23,000 Armenians. Massacres resumed in 1988. Armenians fled from Azerbaijan. Azerbaijani atrocities against Armenians are officially rewarded. - What about genocide of Azerbaijanis March Days which happened before September days?

Denial: Aliyev and Azerbaijan officially deny the Armenian Genocide during the Ottoman Empire. They deny current atrocities. - Only 32 countries accepted so called "Armenian Genocide". Shall we also mark these countries as well? The "Armenian Genocide" term itself is still disputed as Armenians rejects to create common investigation bodies with Turkish officials to investigate what happened on those days. It as multiple times offered by turkish officials and free access to Armenians to Ottoman Archives were guaranteed.

@Rosguill: Again I would like to reiterate that GW may be reliable source to refer but what they mentioned here clearly shows that they haven't done enough research and this 10 stage is not justified properly. Shall we still refer that?

Mirhasanov (talk) 06:29, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

References

@Mirhasanov, GW reference on Azerbaijan committing genocide in Artsakh was discussed and agreed on by concensus on this talk page and WP:RSN. Persistently and indiscriminately trying to remove parts of this article that criticize Azerbaijan is not "neutral view" and "keeping the article unbiased" but the contrary, and advancing agendas is not welcome in Wikipedia. Armatura (talk) 20:42, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

@Armatura: GW consensu was not reached yet as the reliability of this source is still questionable. As per your comment here you have mentioned that GW issued a statement confirming that IAGS issued an official letter about Azerbaijan conducting "cultural genocide". However, I officially got an confirmation from the IAGS that no such statement was made. It proves the fact that GW is not acting as independent part specifically in topic considering to "Nagorno-Karabakh". The deletion of the information from the link that you have provided https://www.genocidewatch.com/single-post/statement-of-genocide-scholars-on-the-%C4%B1mm%C4%B1nent-genocidal-threat-%C4%B1n-artsakh again proves that the organization is still a hoax. Moreover, the chairman of this organization is well known by his pro-Armenian and anti-Turkish sentiment. Mirhasanov (talk) 05:15, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

@Rosguill: Could you please advise what will be the right way. I personally doubt that GW is independent and there are a lot of sections in Talk page regarding to this even though it released another statement against Armenia. However, it looks like throwing dust in eyes. Mirhasanov (talk) 15:14, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Mirhasanov, I'm starting to get tired of you pinging me to every little issue on this page, particularly ones like this where it's not clear what you are even expecting me to do. Armatura has made a few proposals, and it looks like from discussion in this section that none of them have won consensus yet. The article includes a less detailed paragraph that people generally seem to agree with. The ball is currently in the court of whoever wants to propose a more detailed version or argue for its inclusion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:24, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill Sorry for that. The only reason why I continuously involve you into the discussion is because your health & fair approach to the dispute. Unfortunately, I don't have an access to create content and publish in this page. I would be very glad, if you could include me to the list of editors.Mirhasanov (talk) 09:30, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Mirhasanov, regarding the request to be added to a list of users that can edit the page, that's not how this works. The page is currently extended-confirmed protected, so that only editors with at least 500 edits and 1 month since their account creation can edit. Once you pass those thresholds, you'll automatically be allowed to edit. While technically as an admin I can confer EC status to editors early, in practice that's only ever done for editors who had EC on a different account and who are opening a second account for a valid reason. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:09, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict#UN resolutions

Beshogur May I know why you added UN resolutions to the Background? There have been lots of documents and resolutions during this conflict. Why specifically this one? Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 20:39, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

I do not know other resolutions besides these five. If you know more, feel free to add. Or I didn't understood what you mean. If you can elaborate. Beshogur (talk) 20:41, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) Thanks for raising it up. Could you please give other references as well? Mirhasanov (talk) 17:16, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

The reference to the UN document is abused in several ways. 1) It is not a Security Council Resolution. It is a General Assembly resolution (read the title). 2) It should be mentioned that all permanent Security Council members which also form the Minsk Group voted against it (USA, Russia, France). 3) It should be emphasized that this General Assembly document calls for withdrawal only from surrounding territories not from NK itself. This should be mentioned. Spinosaurus5 (talk) 16:11, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Really? Four Security Council resolutions adopted in 1993 demanded the immediate withdrawal of the occupying forces from Azerbaijan. Beshogur (talk) 17:15, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

References

Beshogur, yes really. Can you read the title of the document? Do you understand the difference between Security Council and General assembly? Spinosaurus5 (talk) 05:28, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

It seems that the General Assembly was corrected what about the other points I made? These resolutions call for withdrawal only from the occupied territories and not from the NK itself. Why this is not explicitly mentioned? Spinosaurus5 (talk) 18:49, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

I second the request from @Spinosaurus5:. Just read the linked wikipedia page of the resolution.

Further, reading the text in the article now, one gets the impression that the UN is 100% supportive of this war of "liberation" that Azerbaijan has been waging. However, the referenced source from the UN mentions as well the following:

The Government of Azerbaijan had forfeited its right to govern people it considered its own citizens when it had unleashed a war against them 20 years ago. Armenians would not return to such a situation. Just as victims of domestic violence were not forced back into the custody of the abuser, the people of Nagorno Karabagh would not be forced back into the custody of a Government that sanctioned pogroms against them, and later sent its army against them.

Therefore, I would suggest to amend the phrase:
The United Nations Security Council adopted four resolutions in 1993, and the United Nations General Assembly adopted one resolution in 2008, demanding the immediate, complete and unconditional withdrawal of Armenian occupying forces.
to

The United Nations Security Council adopted four resolutions in 1993, and the United Nations General Assembly adopted one resolution in 2008, demanding the immediate, complete and unconditional withdrawal of ethnic Armenian forces from Azerbaijani territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh. It also reaffirmed the right of the people of Nagorno-Karabakh to self-determination, and confirmed that the "people of Nagorno Karabagh would not be forced back into the custody of a Government that sanctioned pogroms against them, and later sent its army against them"--Sataralynd (talk) 05:55, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

The quotes above are not from the UN itself, but a paraphrase of the Armenian delegate. To suggest it is an official stance from the UN is quite dishonest. Kaiser matias (talk) 06:41, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

@Kaiser matias, the thing is the none of these documents calls for the withdrawal from NK and the suggested quote is much closer to reality that the current version on the main page. If you disagree with the suggested quote then you can suggest your version but it should mention the fact that there was no call for withdrawal from NK. 2003:CB:B710:2000:99B8:5FB0:79FB:BFB5 (talk) 08:02, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

@Kaiser matias: you are right, I just realized it. Please WP:GOODFAITH. Strikethrough added--Sataralynd (talk) 16:00, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

@Sataralynd: All good, and I certainly didn't bring it up to be accusatory. Mentioning the UN view of things is good, but it should be specific remarks from either resolutions or officials acting in their capacity with the UN. Kaiser matias (talk) 17:34, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

@Kaiser matias: Thanks for catch !Mirhasanov (talk) 15:08, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

@Kaiser matias, current version is written as if Armenians should withdraw from NK. However, there is no such statement in any of these documents. If you do not agree with the language of the suggested statement then you should edit it in a way that reflects these fact. If you have no suggestions then you should delete that sentence completely. What are your incentives of keeping that sentence if it wrongly reflects the content of the UN documents?Spinosaurus5 (talk) 20:02, 7 November 2020 (UTC) — Spinosaurus5 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

genocide watch

That website has been taken over by suspicious company called perfect privacy llc. No legitimate info is indicated on that website. check the whois database 1elvinn (talk) 06:31, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

That's because they are using LLC that act as the registrant on their behalf. This way Genocide Watch doesn't have to publicly provide to WHOIS any information like name, address,... Hemşinli çocuk 07:14, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Interesting. Why would they hide that information, any ideas? Armatura (talk) 13:33, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

I guess for protection against vendetta (for accusation of genocide). Hemşinli çocuk 15:59, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Gents could you please find more information about authors Nathaniel Hill & Gregory Stanton. I found that Gregory Stanton has very close connection with Armenian Assembly of America and gave frequent lectures there. He is known with its anti-Turkish sentiments . The neutrality of this person is questionable. Mirhasanov (talk) 17:39, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

My worst again proved with recent issue of GW alert about Azerbaijanis. This time name of Gregory Stanton is missing from the report and the alert produced only by Nathaniel Hill . Mirhasanov (talk) 18:52, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Every scholar has a bias of some sort. Full disclosure is what matters. If you scroll down genocidewatch page, you will notice that ANCA is one of the included associations. It is not as if there was no disclosure here. But ANCA relation with Armenia is unidirectional, from ANCA toward Armenia, not the other way around. As such, ANCA is like any other American organization, being funded solely by American citizens. It is true that this second alert has only Nathaniel Hill, but if you visit his profile, he is apparently a new member, and has added no info about himself (I also did not find anything about him in search engines), has no followers, no one following him... And on blog post, we find only one entry, that second warning you talk about. Not much different for the first warning, that was posted under an account containing both names that has also only one post, the first warning. So appears he may be a new member that coautored the first warning, and then under his own initiative posted the second one. You don't have to use questionable sites like tallarmeniantale to make your point. There are articles on the site posted by Thomas De Wall, better choice to use as reference. Hemşinli çocuk 21:11, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Mirhasanov, check the staff section under Nat Hill, there is more info about him. Hemşinli çocuk 00:42, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

The alert is co-authored by Gregory Stanton. Also isn't it a bit nitpicky to base whether a source is reliable on a co-author? It doesn't always have to be an award winning author to write for NGOs especially considering a lot of these are run by volunteers (not sure in this case.) Flalf^Talk 17:19, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Genocidewatch 2

This website is being controlled by unknown entities, filled with disinformation. Citing this website as a source in this article is not neutral, and biased information should not be here on Wikipedia.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 1elvinn (talk • contribs) 16:13, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

@1elvinn:Looked into genocidewatch's website and did some googling and it appears to be a reliable source, it also has ties to other notable NGO's. Flalf^Talk 16:42, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Are you an Armenian or what? Those websites are filled with fake information. I'm not suggesting you to read Azerbaijani sources, but look for the international media such as NYTimes, Washington Post, Reuters etc.

@1elvinn: I'm not armenian, not that there would be a problem if I was. Also provide examples of this fake information, I've looked through the website, I have not found this fake news. Flalf^Talk 17:01, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Asking the editor to reveal their nationality, especially in a topic about about a conflict involving that nationality, is not something that is encouraged in Wikipedia. Behaviour will be reported to admins if continues. Best regards. Armatura (talk) 17:04, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Take a look at this, multiple Gregory Stanton accounts on the Genocidewatch website. There is the original and presumably only real "Gregory Stanton" whose account was created on Dec 23 2019 and has 55 blog posts to his name [10], plus a "Gregory H. Stanton", joined Oct 24, 2020 and with just one blog post to date [11], and a "Nathanial Hill & Gregory Stanton", joined Oct 23 2020, and with just one blog post to their names [12], and another "Gregory Stanton", joined Oct 29 2020 and with just one blog post to his name [13]. Or has Mr Stanton suddenly, this October and this October only, forgot his account details on multiple occasions and needed to make new ones? Unlikely, I think! Content on the website cannot be RS if there is uncertainty about authorship. 88.108.77.10 (talk) 21:25, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Supported 88.108.77.10 (talk) I also support your view and other who call GW statement about this conflict as not reliable. Even thought they also released notice that supports Azerbaijanis, they still don't act as 3rd independent body. their the latest statement have the following sentence "When genocide threatens, only the stars can be neutral" which quite unprofessional and they try to cover and justify their biased reporting. @Flalf: can we believe neutrality of volunteers, when they invited by ANCA and other armenian organizations into different events? Mirhasanov (talk) 17:56, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm not saying the organisation's opinions are not RS or quotable in all circumstances, just that there is difficulty in knowing what those opinions are if there are multiple accounts posting articles under the same name. The opinion of Gregory Stanton would seem to be notable, but we first need to know if it really is his opinion. IMO, there has to be a big question mark over all those one article "Gregory Stantons". 88.108.77.10 (talk) 23:25, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

NOTE - just checked, and they seem to have ALL GONE! The articles authored by the various one-article Gregory Stanton accounts have been removed from the genocidewatch website. So has one by "Nathanial Hill" that was by himself alone. I don't know if these were "pro-Azerbaijan" or "pro-Armenia" articles or a mix of the two. The conflict is in Genocidewatch's genocide alert page https://www.genocidewatch.com/countries-at-risk and their opinion that Azerbaijan is at stages 9 and 10 has a supporting pdf file https://d0dbb2cb-698c-4513-aa47-eba3a335e06f.filesusr.com/ugd/df1038_7ff879b2434c4307a5b68e29e0049e5e.pdf 88.108.77.10 (talk) 23:39, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

References

Three Azeri peace activists called for questioning by SSS in Azerbaijan

Could we add this to Non-military_actions_taken_by_Armenia_and_Azerbaijan under Azerbaijan?

Here are the sources: Amrah Tahmazov: source Narmin Shahmarzade and Giyas Ibrahimov: source and source

Suggest this addition:
By 2nd of November, three peace activists from Azerbaijan have been called to questioning by the Azerbaijan State Security Service, due to their anti-war activism in Azerbaijan --Sataralynd (talk) 16:19, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Done Sataralynd. Eurofan88 (talk) 17:15, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Revert Sataralynd please revert it back as oc-media is not in the WP:MBFC list. Don't add anything without discussion and consensus please. Mirhasanov (talk) 17:47, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Oppose the Revert we have said this before WP:MBFC is not an exhaustive list, meaning not all reliable and unreliable sources are listed there. Now if you want to claim OC-Media, which is neither Armenian nor Azerbaijani, meaning a third party website is unreliable, please start a talk on this Noticeboard. Once the unreliability is established and OC-Media is added to WP:MBFC, we remove the above phrase.

Also, if you visited the OC media links that I provided, you would see relinks to these individuals personal accounts where you hear their own words and even posting summons letter from the SSS, making the question whether OC Media is reliable or not, moot!--Sataralynd (talk) 01:40, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Sataralynd (talk) No, we didn't state something like this. OC-Media considered to be yellow media/journalism. Hence, referring OC-Media as a reliable source is Opposed. Please find other reliable source in WP:MBFC before adding something. Personal accounts or statements of individuals can't be referred as it is their POV and subjective view to current process. Hence, please remove the text as consensus is not reached. Mirhasanov (talk) 04:40, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

@Mirhasanov: OC-Media is not the issue here. I could have pasted the direct links to these individuals twitter/facebook accounts, and they would still go to the article. See also here three new activists are questioned by the SSS as well. Again if you want to dispute OC-Media itself regardless of the peace activists, open a case on the noticeboard and I'll participate too--Sataralynd (talk) 05:00, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

@Sataralynd: I understand your enthusiasm but it is against Reliable sources rules to refer social media accounts or user generated contents. Mirhasanov (talk) 05:06, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

@Mirhasanov: Not sure what you mean by my enthusiasm, nonexistent as it is as we are talking about arrested people just becuase their expressing their anti-war sentiments. I would understand though the ASSS's enthusiasm to keep it under wraps. Now, here is another source listed in WP:RSP on the topic to hopefully close it. Without even having the CSMonitor piece, the news should go in the article because if I may remind you, as per Wikipedia's policy for a source to be considered unreliable, it needs to be proven unreliable by reliable sources and not solely on a personal opinions--Sataralynd (talk) 05:30, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

@Sataralynd: It doesn't means that if it is not proven as unreliable in by reliable sources automatically makes it reliable. Therefore, we have talk and consensu process advised by wikipedia. Sometimes even sources that are considered by reliable sources can be also bias, hence we need involve all relevant parties, reach an agreement. So far the only source you are proposing is twitter or personal accounts of these people. The link you mentioned interviews Bahruz Samadov (https://oc-media.org/authors/bahruz-samadov), which is writer of OC-Media. Mr. Yunusov has Armenian background and it also mentioned in the article at the bottom. Giyas Ibrahim is well known why his anarchist activities and got jailed once. You can't draw picture that Azerbaijan Security Service jailed someone because their anti-war sentiment by referring these people. Most of these people are member of Soros Open Society Foundations and get funding from there, which prohibited not only in Azerbaijan but countries like Hungary, Russia. Similarly members of today's Armenian government , which are funded by Open Society Foundations. Mirhasanov (talk) 06:56, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

@Mirhasanov: I believe I have said all there was to say on how sources are proven unreliable. Yunusov btw is quoted by both Thomas de Waal and Laurence Broers extensively in their work (see the Notes of The Black Garden), and both authors are hated as much in Armenia as in Azerbaijan. They are however, the go to scholars on this topic, giving me no reason to doubt Yunusov who I don't even know why is relevant to this topic. Your reasoning about the Open Society Foundations being banned in Azerbaijan leading to the removal of this OC-Media piece from the article is far from clear to me--Sataralynd (talk) 02:20, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

@Sataralynd: Yunusov has nothing to do with this topic anyway. I believe that we should close this discussion as references are not independent. Unless, you will find an independent one. Mirhasanov (talk) 15:03, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

@Mirhasanov: If Yunusov has nothing to do with this, I wonder why you mentioned him. I also believe we should close this discussion with the status quo of the phrase mentioned in the Article, as I said already what I had to say on this topic. If you disagree, or the change gets reverted, I'm happy to take it to dispute resolution and hear what the admins have to say on the topic--Sataralynd (talk) 15:22, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Proposal to balance out pictures by removing/adding pics of presidents

For the pictures representing Azerbaijan, excluding maps, 3 of the 6 depict the president of the Republic of Azerbaijan, Ilham Aliyev. To reinforce the Wikipedia guidelines of neutrality and proportionality, it would be helpful to also add at least one picture of the president of the Republic of Artsakh, Arayik Harutyunyan, since there are none at the moment. ----MarioLemieux999 (talk) 02:21, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, if one can be found. Regarding image captions, surely things like "Billboards in Yerevan have been displaying footage released by the Armenian Ministry of Defence since the beginning of the conflict" and "A pro-military billboard in Republic Square, Yerevan" and "Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev and Vice-president Mehriban Aliyeva during a meeting with wounded Azerbaijani servicemen." are OR. 88.108.77.10 (talk) 03:34, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

@Ahmetlii:, @Flalf:, @Brandmeister: I suggest keeping just one photo of Aliyev to maintain balance in the article. Also, I suggest replacing other pictures of Aliyev with another neutral ones from Azerbaijan. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 08:50, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Artsakh president Arayik Harutyunyan awarding an Armenian volunteer for capturing a Syrian mercenary on 2 November 2020.[309] - this picture must be deleted as there is no consensus about this and the source is from armenian site. @Beshogur:Mirhasanov (talk) 17:36, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Humanitarian organizations

GW has described that current Armenian and Artsakh governments erase their history from Armenian textbooks, preventing Azerbaijani IDP's the right to return to their former homes and villages

This is huge accusations. If there is no other third-party source to confirm this, then we must remove it. Also, it became clear from this talk page that Nathaniel Hill is not an experienced author. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 10:10, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

They have released a follow up report number 3 yesterday. Could you summarize and suggest an inclusion? https://www.genocidewatch.com/single-post/genocide-watch-statement-on-armenia-artsakh-and-azerbaijan Sataralynd (talk) 14:35, 3 November 2020 (UTC) @Գարիկ Ավագյան:, GW is third party. Beshogur (talk) 15:37, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Beshogur (talk GW is not neutral. I think we shouldn't refer them under this article as the statements the issue is against international law and UN resolutions considering that they use word of "arshak" and talks about invasion also accusing Azerbaijan being aggressor. It is completely bias view to the conflict even though they tried to cover it by stating point about "compensations". They still didn't understood the root cause of the conflict. If we will ask Armenia to pay compensation, the country will go to bankrupt. Mirhasanov (talk) 17:29, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

@Mirhasanov:, they are also criticizing Armenia. Beshogur (talk) 17:31, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

@Beshogur: Well they put Armenia and Azerbaijan two different side of equilibrium, Azerbaijan weighing more. It should be opposite as what they accuse Azerbaijan has already been conducted by Armenians. Use of the sentence, when there is potential genocide only star can stay neutral doesn't release them from the responsibility to address their accusation in a right and unbiased way. Mirhasanov (talk) 17:38, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Deletion in Armenia and Artsakh

Provided link is not independent or please provide independent link proving that OSCE monitoring was rejected:

On 27 September, the Prime Minister of Armenia, Nikol Pashinyan, accused the Azerbaijani authorities of a large-scale provocation. The Prime Minister stated that the "recent aggressive statements of the Azerbaijani leadership, large-scale joint military exercises with Turkey, as well as the rejection of OSCE proposals for monitoring" indicated that the aggression was pre-planned and constituted a major violation of regional peace and security.[274] Mirhasanov (talk) 18:08, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

This is from Prime Minister's official statement. No need for other source. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 14:16, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) I see but, if we mention that Azerbaijan rejected "OSCE proposals for monitoring" then the source also should be provided for this where OSCE officially issues report. So far I haven't seen any official statement about this hence, my proposal is to add:

However, OSCE didn't issue any official report or statement about one of the sides rejecting monitoring proposal.

This will make sentence more clear that the statement is not backed with facts. Otherwise it looks like fact. Isn't it? Mirhasanov (talk) 17:26, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Strongly Suggest Using a Dynamic Map Template

I would strongly urge all interested editors to consider using a dynamic map template such as Template:Iraqi insurgency detailed map. These offer much more flexibility and allow a larger number of editors to contribute. The maps can display villages, towns, cities, bases, industrial complexes, etc, and can be color-coded to denote positions, active battles, and factions. Each point can be linked to a Wikipedia article (if there is one) or have a infobox tell the reader what it is by hovering the mouse over. Here is another very detailed example for the Syrian civil war: Template:Syrian Civil War detailed map. I think it would be much neater than using an image file. -- Veggies (talk) 19:13, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

A source we should probably scrub from the article

In various places in the article, the source "armenpress.am" appears. Apart from the obvious bias which by itself is not neccesarily a criteria for exclusion, the site recently published this nasty "confession" of a fighter. Needless to say, forced confessions like this are a major red flag, and I believe that this, by itself, could be reason enough to exclude this source. This is propaganda and misinformation in a very pure form that is typically only seen in the media of hardcore dictatorships, i.e China, Russia, etc where entity who is an enemy of the regime is dragged onto TV and uncharacteristically admit to great wrongs. Eik Corell (talk) 20:45, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

In what way is it "nasty"? Also, as a mercenary from Syria, he is not a POW under the Geneva Convention - he is an individual accused of criminal acts and is being interviewed by law enforcement. 88.108.77.10 (talk) 23:56, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Oppose: That's not how this works. Unreliability needs to be proved by reliable sources and not opinions. Moreover are we to remove all the azertag.az and apa.az sources from the website? No. We need to ensure the NPOV by presenting a picture that is refined by editors, through arguments, sources and evidence. Finally, your comments about reporting applies to Azerbaijan way before Armenia, and that is not my opinion but the assessment and ranking of these countries by 2020 World Press Freedom index - 61/180 for Armenia vs. 168/180 for Azerbaijan--Sataralynd (talk) 01:43, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Oppose: If we removed armenpress.am we would have to remove all of the Azerbaijani media outlets as well from the article. As long as a claim is properly attributed to Armenia/Azerbaijan, so our reader knows its coming from one of the beligerents, everything is presented in a balanced manner. EkoGraf (talk) 13:19, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Oppose: It appears that this is a legitimate news source. Please see: https://armenpress.am/arm/about/ I understand given the nature of the recent war that there are strong opinions about the news being reported. However, I did not find evidence that armenpress.am is not a reliable new source. If you have any information that supports its removal, please provide additional information. The one article by itself does not support removing all citations from this source. Jurisdicta (talk) 23:48, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Funny how Armenian government propaganda is regarded as reliable here. Beshogur (talk) 23:50, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Admission of beginning military action from Azerbaijan

Currently the lede states "Some international analysts believe that fighting likely began with an Azerbaijani offensive, and that primary goals of the offensive were to obtain control of districts in southern Nagorno-Karabakh that are less mountainous and thus easier to take than the region's well-fortified interior". However Aliyev tweeted yesterday that "Basic principles demand, in fact, the liberation of Azerbaijan’s occupied territories. We were compelled to force them due to Armenia’s unwillingness to act voluntarily". This appears to be an admission of starting the war. Should the lede now state that Azerbaijan initially claimed that they were reacting to shelling from the other side but later stated that they initiated military action? Wrenhaven (talk) 06:08, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

I think that if we can find a source that mentions this tweet, we should definitely quote it. We cannot however, draw the conclusion that Azeris started military action from this tweet (even though it seems like a relatively straightforward conclusion); we must simply state what he said.--LOLCaatz (talk) 01:48, 8 November 2020 (UTC) — LOLCaatz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Something like "according to Aliyev, Azerbaijan started military actions as Armenia was unwilling to return occupied territories" should suffice? Juxlos (talk) 03:21, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes but we need to find a news article or something similar that quotes this tweet. This is a significant piece of information that should be included - with proper context (it is still not proven that Azerbaijan attacked first, but Aliyev has said such and such) - but twitter is not a source that we use here--LOLCaatz (talk) 07:41, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Kurdish extremists

Solavirum, I see you are not familiar with Mr. Naryshkin's statement made on 6 October. I will leave links here. [14] [15] Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 15:45, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Գարիկ Ավագյան, look, bud, Al-Monitor is a major source. If they make a whole article on the issue, this means that is noteworthy. It can be a interpretation of the statement, or not. But wholly removing the paragraph is simply WP:IDONTLIKEIT. If you want to change the text to something like A journalist writing for Al Monitor thinks that Russian FIS blah blah, you have the liberty to do that. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 19:31, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Solavirum While there is no direct evidence of this yet. From your source. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 15:20, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Գարիկ Ավագյան, Al-Monitor talks about Russian Intelligence Service's statement, while that quote talks with the PKK-involvement in general. Has nothing to do with what you're implying. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 16:42, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Գարիկ Ավագյան is there any direct evidence about Syrians Mercenaries in Azerbaijan? Of course not, if we refer to news then this information also should be there. Support.

Casualties of the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war

Why data from 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war infobox about equipment losses are lost (wasn't moved wth references from Nagorno-Karabakh war infobox to table in Casualties of the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war)? Eurohunter (talk) 16:19, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Eurohunter, I think WP:SIZE is the problem here. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 19:32, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

@Solavirum: I understand but it has nothing to do with removal of information. Why it wasn't restored in the other article? Eurohunter (talk) 21:33, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Eurohunter, I ain't the remover. You can take a look at the history page. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 07:19, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Arzakh losses ?

Why are they placed at Azerbaijan (!): Per Azerbaijan: Undisclosed[53] - That seems to be false. ----129.187.244.19 (talk) 07:34, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Requesting free images

If you happen to stumble upon any free-use images regarding Russia's and US's role in the conflict, please upload them to the Commons and insert them in the international reactions section. They're to bare atm. I uploaded ones regarting to Iran and Turkic Council. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 20:37, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Undue weight template

Beshogur May I know why you added undue weight template in Azerbaijani and Turks section with no additional explanations? Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 15:54, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

@Գարիկ Ավագյան:, hello, seriously think "Some of their chants included "Allah Akbar", “Where are you Armenians? Where are you? We are here… sons of bitches”, and "fuck Armenia, we will fuck you."" shouldn't belong there. Especially the curse words. Beshogur (talk) 16:11, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Beshogur, its literally undue weight. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 18:05, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Welcome back from 3-day block, @Solavirum:, would you mind explaining what makes it "literally undue weight"? Thanks Armatura (talk)

Armatura, I was here days ago. In any case, that doesn't matter. That part makes heavy claims on Wikipedia's name. Especially, quoting such remarks also gives weight to the article. If we applied the same thing all over the article, we'd get an unnecessary cluster of quotes. Its undue weight by definition. Also, for your quote below (12:46, 14 November 2020), avoid RGW, again. Wikipedia isn't a WP:BATTLEFIELD for anyone. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 19:25, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Solavirum I don't see why you send me to RGW when it's been reported in mainstream media in exactly the words that are cited and it is not a "claim" but fact. Those words are not made-up, they demonstrate the level of racial hatred and that is why they need to stay. Clearly pro-Turkish / pro-Azerbaijani editors cleaning the evidence of racial hatred by Turkish / Azerbaijani mob in the streets of Lyon may be seen as whitewashing of history. No other editors complained as far as I know. I wholeheartedly agree that Wikipedia isn't a WP:BATTLEFIELD and it is quite encouraging to see revert-happy users agree with it. Regards Armatura (talk) 19:52, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

@Armatura:, the independent doesn't use these words, this is what they use “Where are you Armenians? Where are you? We are here… sons of b*****s”., I do not see "fuck Armenia, we will fuck you.". I could agree putting with the first one. Second source "Lyonmag" doesn't look mainstream and it is translated from French. Beshogur (talk) 19:56, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

@Beshogur:, the citation was by Étienne Dolet and I'd wait for her comments. As for mainstreamness / reliability, I honestly don't think French makes a source unreliable, as Spanish or German or Chinese would not. Regards Armatura (talk) 20:03, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

What makes you think "lyonmag.com" is a mainstream media? Beshogur (talk) 20:27, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

@Beshogur: It is not mainstream but I am not sure why you want mainstream sources only. lyonmag.com is a magazine devoted to Lyon, reports the events in Lyon, in French obviously, and I see no reason to question its reliability. It is not a deprecated source in WP. Armatura (talk) 22:31, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

It looks more like a forum level news agency, citing a twitter. Beshogur (talk) 22:54, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

@Beshogur: see the bottom of this topic for other sources I provided. Regards Armatura (talk) 01:30, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

• Disagree with "undue weight" label or with attempts to "neutralise" it. The sentence cites the article and the events as they were, without any modification or interpretation. It clearly demonstrates the level of ethnic hatred towards Armenians and the level of religious upheaval in the Turkish and Azerbaijani mob that was looking for Armenians in Lyon in the night with apparent intention to lynch them. Concealing that hatred would be erasing the history from Wikipedia. Regards Armatura (talk) 12:46, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

@Armatura: you really think those curse words have place in wikipedia? Beshogur (talk) 13:03, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

@Beshogur: I think it is a rhetorical question. As a humanist, I think those curse words have no place in humanity at all. But they were expressed by Turks and Azerbaijanis in Lyon regardless of what I think. And I believe it is Wikipedia's job to document what has been said and done, not to modify what has been said or done. If you are questioning whether words/ phrases / phenomena of sexual or highly offensive nature have place in Wikipedia, let's not forget that Wikipedia has a articles on fellatio, anal sex and beheading, with highly graphic depiction. Wikipedia is not censored. I believe Étienne Dolet, who originally added the text, will have a say here as well. Armatura (talk) 13:25, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

"Clearly pro-Turkish / pro-Azerbaijani editors cleaning the evidence of racial hatred by Turkish / Azerbaijani mob in the streets of Lyon may be seen as whitewashing of history". Rosguill, as an admin mediating the discussions on this page, may I ask you, what do you think the quoted remark by Armatura? Surely, such remarks on fellow editors shouldn't be expected. Also, Armatura, French neutrality is your own interpretation. We've clearly seen pro-Armenian bias from France in an undeniable level. Same goes for Azerbaijani bias on Turkish media. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 20:20, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Armatura, casting aspersions does not aid in working towards neutral copy. Please be more collegial on Wikipedia or you may face sanctions down the road. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:05, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill Thanks, will try. I have nothing personal against specific editors, I am sure they are good people in their real lives, but attempts of removing important pieces of information worry me, and I am not alone in raising such concern. Anyway, what do you think of the subject itself? Armatura (talk) 22:25, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Armatura, I think I'd be more comfortable with inclusion if we could find another international level publication (or a particularly well-regarded French publication). There's nothing wrong with The Independent, but it's not clear how much weight we should assign to the local news piece, and additional sources to establish the content's relevance in the broader picture of reactions to the conflict abroad would make a stronger case for inclusion. I don't have a particularly strong opinion either way as is. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:52, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I noticed that The Independent only quotes "Where are you Armenians? Where are you? We are here… sons of b*****s", not the "fuck Armenia" insult – why don't we limit to the first quote? The second one seems like needless explicit detail and doesn't convey anything to our readers about the confrontational attitude of the marchers that the first quote doesn't. To be honest, I think we shouldn't even include a quote, as it can be summed up with WP:IMPARTIAL language. Regarding sources, I think very highly of The Independent and don't think other sources are needed for inclusion. Jr8825 • Talk 23:40, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

@Rosguill: and @Jr8825: the phrase “F*** Armenia, we’re going to f*** you” is reported by the following (Western, Greek and Turkish) sources accordingly 1, 2, 3. Moreover, The Armenian National Memorial Center in Lyon was smeared with the giant letters "F*** Armenia", along with “RTE” (in reference to Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan) painted in yellow and “Gray Wolves”, a leading Turkish nationalist movement, in French, as reported by 1234 Regards, Armatura (talk) 01:00, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with any of these sources. I think that Jr8825's suggestion seems reasonable. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:51, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Rosguill. Beshogur (talk) 12:53, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Suggest to add a section about use of social media bots and agents

One of the characteristic features of the information warfare of this conflict has been the use of social media bots and paid agents by Azerbaijan. Facebook recently shut down some farms: https://about.fb.com/news/2020/10/removing-coordinated-inauthentic-behavior-september-report/

--Terroire (talk) 20:07, 9 November 2020 (UTC) — Terroire (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I also agree with this proposal. It will be also good to describe information war that both sides conducted, not only finger pointing Azerbaijan but in balanced way. Mirhasanov (talk) 07:43, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

@Terroire: Thanks that is a good point. I suggest to put a small write up here, in light of the latest information in the article, and let the community improve on it, or clear it for inclusion--Sataralynd (talk) 18:49, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

check this part of the article as well

Kazakh military supplies to Azerbaijan

This looks like a noteworthy article. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 20:47, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Infobox Result Wikipedia Policy

Per Template:Infobox military conflict, the result field should not include terms such as "decisive", this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive", then Do not introduce non-standard terms like "decisive", "marginal" or "tactical", or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". I've not seen too many issues on this article yet, but I've had to change an edit where the term "decisive" was added to "Azerbaijani victory". Just thought I'd leave the Wikipedia policy here to avoid any future quarrels over this before they get a chance to start. This article is not covering individual battles in the war, where terms like "decisive" or "tactical" can be used, but is rather covering the entire war itself, so the aforementioned policy applies, as it has with previous wars' articles in the past.

— Zeex.rice (talk) 05:41, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

On Pakistan

Pakistan's alleged "involvement" was only given by the Armenian leadership. They also alleged that Uyghurs were in the battlefield too. And only labeling Pakistan as 'alleged' is yet again misleading; involvement Syrian mercenaries is also, still, alleged with no concrete proof. Furthermore, if you want to add Pakistan, don't forget to add PKK, YPG, Wagner Group, and ASALA on Armenia's side. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 07:14, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

The Pakistan edit was by me, my apologies. It has already been undone, but the Syrian mercenaries addition was not by me and I think it requires more discussion. Information about the war and subsequent post-ceasefire developments is still coming in so it's hard to get everything in accurately but it will be cleaned up with time. — Zeex.rice (talk) 12:40, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Pakistan support to Azerbaijan was as per UN resolutions. N\There is no proof of sending terrorists.

Ref https://eurasiantimes.com/pakistan-army-full-behind-azerbaijan/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azerbaijan%E2%80%93Pakistan_relations https://www.arabnews.pk/node/1746856 Mati-baleliMati-baleli (talk) 19:39, 17 November 2020 (UTC) (talk) 19:24, 17 November 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mati-baleli (talk • contribs) 19:08, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Discarding the Wikipedia article (because Wikipedia is not a reliable source), the other two links only report that Pakistan/Pakistan's military voiced support for Azerbaijan, not that it provided any practical military aid. Jr8825 • Talk 20:03, 17 November 2020 (UTC)l

This is a baseless accusation of Armenian National Security Service that Azerbaijan is smuggling in a significant amount of ammunition, mercenaries and terrorists from Afghanistan and Pakistan. There is no evidence. Please avoid to damage the image of a sovereign state on baseless accusations. are these two countries are terror states?? Please remove biased allegations. Mati-baleli (talk) 15:45, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Presently ref website is inaccessible https://www.panarmenian.net/eng/news/286679/Mati-baleli (talk) 15:58, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Deployment of observation points at Karabakh

Russian Ministry of Defense published map of deployment of observation points at Karabakh. This map could be used in the article and for updating the war map. https://t.me/SputnikArmenia/10137

According to the armistice "the parties stop at the positions they occupy." And according to the map part of the Karabakh south to the Shushi is ceded to Azeris. This implies that Azerbaijan had control over those area.--Yakamoz51 (talk) 14:23, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Provide WP:RS. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 16:18, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

I think Russian Ministry of Defense is a reliable source, since Russia is assumed to be neutral in this conflict. https://caucasus.liveuamap.com/en/2020/11-november-russian-ministry-of-defense-published-map-of --Yakamoz51 (talk) 10:49, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Russia and Turkey

Since the end of the conflict, the infobox is getting filled with misleading content. Turkey's arms supply is included within the Supported by section, no need to duplicate it. Also, the editors have failed to provide a source on the allegation of Russian arms being sent to Baku during the war. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 16:18, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Unexplained removal of referenced Azeri casualties

@Ulvi Rustam: I would please ask that you stop removing the sourced information along with its reference regarding Azeri casualties cited to the Azeri president without any explanation/edit summary. Please explain what is the problem you are having with the information so we may find a solution and refrain from unexplained full reverts which can be seen as edit warring. This is the exact quote the Azeri president made 'This year, the families of 1,500 martyrs will be provided with houses and apartments by the state. Today, I am instructing all relevant agencies to provide financial support to the relatives of those killed in the Second Karabakh War, the Patriotic War as we call, as soon as possible, and they are being registered now. After accurate registration, they will be provided with apartments and houses,' the head of state said.. Regards. EkoGraf (talk) 15:01, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

This might be not the casualties of this war, might be inclusion of others as well. It doesn't say this year 1,500 soldiers were fallen, only 1,500 soldiers' families will get housing. Let's wait more for exact numbers. Beshogur (talk) 15:22, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

@Beshogur: That sounds reasonable for now. Will reintroduce the "undisclosed" wording in the infobox. EkoGraf (talk) 15:38, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding. I was following the edits. Beshogur (talk) 15:41, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

The mention of the "Second Karabakh War" in the next sentence certainly makes it sound as if that Aliyev was talking about the number of deaths from this conflict, but I guess the edit-warring means this isn't indisputably self-evident, so we need to wait for a secondary source on this to remove any interpretive doubt. I suspect part of the reason for the unhappiness is because 1,500 deaths, sitting alongside the official Armenian estimate of 1,302, makes it look like Azerbaijan lost more soldiers. (For all we know, it could just be showing whose government is lying more). Jr8825 • Talk 15:50, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

@Jr8825: Agree, that was the same thing my understanding was based on from the source in regards to what Aliyev was saying. In any case, will wait a bit to see if the situation clarifies. EkoGraf (talk) 16:46, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Ceasefire map

The map (description page includes the legend).

Hi all, after a long discussion a map of the ceasefire has been finalized. I cannot add it here myself, but if an administrator thinks that it should be in the article, please add it! Mapeh (talk) 21:53, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm assuming that if this map has been "finalized" then there is consensus amongst everyone involved agreeing to use it? I'll add it to the ceasefire section. ➤ Zᴇᴇx.ʀɪᴄᴇ ✪ (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 03:00, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

A lot of the fine points were hashed out in a discussion with several editors and it's a good compromise. However, I don't think we should treat this map as having a firm consensus behind it, particularly as its unclear where the front lines were at the time of the ceasefire and what's happening in the area directly south of the Lachin corridor. Jr8825 • Talk 05:43, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Oppose change the Armenian names in the occupied territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh to Azerbaijani first. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 15:19, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

@Solavirum: for the sake of consistency and clarity, the same language needs be above the other for every label, and there's no more reason for Azerbaijani to be on top than there is for Armenian. C'mon, let this one go, it's a trivial issue. Jr8825 • Talk 19:23, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

@Jr8825:, it isn't a trivial issue. Per WP:COMMONNAME, we use pre-1991 names for the places of conflict in this war. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 19:25, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

we use pre-1991 names – both names are included, they are equal font size (trust me, we've already gone through this to ensure each language is treated as equally as possible, and to make up for Armenian being on top Azerbaijani is emphasised by italics). Other maps in the article place Azerbaijani first. There's no more reason for Khankendi to be above Stepanakert than there is for Shusha before Shushi. Haggling over this frankly a waste of time. Jr8825 • Talk 19:34, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

That long Armenian salient west of Hadrut looks fairly dubious.--Staberinde (talk) 19:38, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, this was my concern, and given that the boundaries are increasingly shown along these lines, I've asked Mapeh if they can update it when they're back on Monday. If anyone has the SVG known-how to do so beforehand, that would be great. Jr8825 • Talk 19:47, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi all, the frontline has been updated (by someone else over the weekend, and then I did minor corrections). Concerning the placenames, there are arguments for all opinions. If we look at some articles, Stepanakert uses the Armenian name, Lachin the Azeri name. My opinion would be to use bilingual names everywhere on the map (such as Jermuk/Istisu for example). Like @Jr8825: said, Azeri gets extra emphasis (italics), Armenian gets to be first, in non-disputed zones it's monolingual; it's a good compromise. Mapeh (talk) 13:08, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

@Mapeh:, you should edit your map. AJ report says Lachin will be handed to Azerbaijan as well. Perhaps you have to make a different indicator of the corridor, maybe thicker road. Beshogur (talk) 16:31, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Beshogur:, I don't exactly understand your comments, could you possibly rephrase them? The Lachin corridor (including Lachin town) is already in a distinct color (red) to that of the Armenian-controlled zones (orange). The article on the ceasefire agreement explicitly states that Lachin district (including the corridor and the town itself) will be transferred to Azerbaijan on 1 December. As I understand it, the information in the Al Jazeera article is already present here on Wikipedia. Mapeh (talk) 11:45, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

You explicitly show it as a kind of neutral zone, although it'll have a similar situation to Shusha. Which means under AZ control but Russian presence. So the cyan colour is more appropiate. To indicate the corridor, you need something else imo. Or we should change the description, not sure. Beshogur (talk) 12:05, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

@Beshogur: I wouldn't say that, although there would be an element of truth in such a description (limited exercise of sovereignty, third-party peacekeeping, specific restrictions on military presence). It would however not be the same as Shushi/Shusha, which's status is defined by explicitly different conditions in the ceasefire agreement, and so different colors are justified. We could possibly change the legend for the zone (maybe to "Lachin corridor, part of Lachin district, monitored by Russian peacekeepers"), however I would be against such a change. This is a introductory map, and it's space-constrained legend only aims to present a simplified version of the ceasefire agreement, which the current legend does (and is the result of a 4800 word discussion). There is a whole article just on the ceasefire agreement for those seeking more detailed information. It should be noted, in a similar vein, that the map omits other details (status of Qubadli and Zangilan Districts, Dadivank, for example). More detailed information on the Lachin corridor (or Shushi/Shusha, or any other zone) should go in the article on the ceasefire agreement or it's own article. Mapeh (talk) 13:44, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

How not? Even the agreement states Lachin is going to be handed. The Republic of Armenia shall return the Kalbajar District to Azerbaijan by 15 of November 2020, (this was later extended to 25 November), and the Lachin District by 1 December. Beshogur (talk) 14:05, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Well within days, we'll see who is right. Beshogur (talk) 14:09, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

@Beshogur: Please, let's refrain from unnecessary aggressive language, it only serves to decredibilize its author. At no point does the map, its legend or the article state that Lachin will not be transferred to Azerbaijan. All it states is that the zone around the Lachin road will also have Russian peacekeepers; if you think that that last point is ambiguous in the map, that is fine, but there is no need for pseudo-threats such as "Well within days, we'll see who is right.". I have noted your concerns however, and will try to see if an appropriate change can be made in the following days. Mapeh (talk) 15:05, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

@Mapeh:, where is the aggressive language? And it states that the district, ie the town center, will be handed to Azerbaijan. My respond was fairly normal, I don't know how did you interpret that. Beshogur (talk) 15:48, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Beshogur: following your comments, I have changed the Lachin corridor to stripes, so that the Azeri-blue below can be better seen (and therefore better imply the fact that the area is de jure part of the Azeri-controled Lachin district). Mapeh (talk) 14:42, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Also can you remove the enclaves and exclaves? I doubt there currently are. Beshogur (talk) 15:26, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Beshogur: I agree, it's done. Mapeh (talk) 18:35, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

About Syrian mercenaries in the infobox

Although we discussed it before, there's not any reliable news about it since the war came to an end (which must make to find it better); so I'm suggesting to remove the mercenaries from infobox.Ahmetlii (talk) 06:34, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Ahmetlii Don't start it again please. USA, Russia, France stated about this many times. The last United Nations' call made on 11 November [16] Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 08:12, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Գարիկ Ավագյան The same report states that there's allegations both for Azerbaijan and Armenia, and did not say anything about whether they're verified or not (and even I didn't see any response about it from USA, Russia or France officials.). Including minor allegations to infobox is not about Wikipedia. You didn't give any reliable source about after-ceasefire verifications.Ahmetlii (talk) 08:23, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Ahmetlii You may find all reliable sources in Turkey and Syrian National Army section. There is a conflict of interest that is why you are trying to remove what you WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Stop it, please. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 08:28, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Գարիկ Ավագյան I don't because I'm questioning whether it's dubious or not. As you can see, there's not a source after ceasefire, which is more easily situation to verify claims.--Ahmetlii (talk) 08:32, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

@Ahmetlii: no, the sources are not ambiguous. The UN report treats the "widespread reports" as fact, the Guardian reports 3 deaths of Syrian mercenaries. The BBC states the "Syrian Observatory for Human Rights reports that about 320 Syrian mercenaries have been transported to Azerbaijan by Turkish security companies. With this weight of reliable sources, you'll need to provide RS with information contrary to what we already have: RS saying that previous articles were erroneous or RS claiming that no Syrian mercenaries were fighting. I'm taking the liberty of reverting your dubious tag for now, as without RS to back up your claims this isn't going to go any differently from previous discussions. Jr8825 • Talk 08:35, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Right after the ceasefire was implemented, the UN itself noted the use of mercenaries and called on their withdrawal. Also see one of the previous discussions where a host of sources (around a dozen) was linked, including: AFP, Reuters, Guardian, Washington Post, BBC, Middle East Eye, etc. Additionally, the Syrian rebels themselves, Russia, France and even a Pentagon official acknowledged the presence of the mercenaries. In any case, as per the DRN consensus, which was based on a large number of verifiable sources, they are included in the infobox, along with the note regarding Azerbaijan and Turkey denying the presence of the mercenaries. Regards. EkoGraf (talk) 09:18, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

NONE of the sources listed confirm presence of so called Syrian fighters, only claims based on anonymous sources. Despite claims of thousands of Syrian fighters being killed not a single body or prisoner of war was demonstrated so far. Circular references are not references. Yet article repeatedly states presence of Syrian fighters as a fact, which is not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.221.241.44 (talk) 23:47, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

If we're going to cite the UN here, we shall change the wording of the article. According to the United Nations, Armenian Armed Forces have occupied 7 districts of Azerbaijan. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 15:16, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

@Solavirum:, that's exactly what the background section says: The war ended with a ceasefire in 1994, with the Republic of Artsakh in control of most of the Nagorno-Karabakh region, as well as occupying the surrounding Azerbaijani districts of Agdam, Jabrayil, Fuzuli, Kalbajar, Qubadli, Lachin and Zangilan. Jr8825 • Talk 19:29, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

@Jr8825:, I was referring to this. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 19:37, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Remove Gugark and Stepanakert "pogroms" from the background section

Please remove the Gugark and Stepanakert "pogroms" against Azerbaijanis from the background section. There are several issues with the mention as follows:

- The references provided either are not as such (meaning they don't mention any killings), behind a paywall, and when they work, they only mention 2 Azeris killed in Askeran. Tragic of course but not a "pogrom" and it is unclear whether they died by police fire instead of Armenians

- The Wikipedia link provided for (beside it being a clear instance of Circular Reasoning) Gugark Massacre don't pass mustard in terms of citations, and has issues with its tone as the article itself mentions

- The Wikipedia article provided for Stepanakert is actually one that is combined violence against both Azerbaijanis in Stepanakert and Armenians in Shushi but more importantly, has only one death which is a 61 year old Armenian man. Hardly a "pogrom" against Azerbaijanis

I hope it is clear that equating Sumgait and Baku Pogroms against Armenians which are on a totally different scale (hundreds dead) with the Gukark and Stepanakert events as mentioned in the article is not warranted. However, as there was clear violence against Azerbaijan, I would suggest we amend the sentence to read:

Ethnic violence began shortly thereafter with a series of pogroms between 1988 and 1990 against Armenians in Sumgait, Ganja and Baku, and violence against Azerbaijanis in Stepanakert--Sataralynd (talk) 03:47, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

@Sataralynd: Agree about the clear difference in scale / nature of events, presenting them without mentioning that difference is artificial equalization. As you have extensively studied the current references of that sentence, could you put the necessary links in your proposal, please, so I could copy-paste? Thanks Armatura (talk) 12:33, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks @Armatura: here it is

Thanks, @Sataralynd:, I will wait a bit for a concensus before making a change. Armatura (talk) 18:07, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Ethnic violence began shortly thereafter with a series of pogroms between 1988 and 1990 against Armenians in Sumgait, Ganja and Baku, and violence against Azerbaijanis in Stepanakert.

Oppose WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 15:55, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

@SolaVirum: Would you mind explaining what and how is undue weight? Thanks Armatura (talk) 18:07, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

@Sataralynd: @Armatura: both Armenians and Azerbaijanis suffered in the ethnic violence during the late 1980s. Removing links to our articles on two acts of violence against Azerbaijanis, leaving only links to attacks against Armenians and one mention of violence (when it was clearly widespread), would result in a skewed narrative. This suggestion is a non-starter. This summary here is just a brief background anyway, it's not analysing who behaved worse, but providing the context to the latest war. There's already a 3:2 mention of violence against Armenians, which suggests that there was more of it (and of course, Sumgait was first, so it's completely right that it's listed first). The current layout works well. If you have issues with the individual articles on those events, you should raise these at their respective talk pages, not here. Jr8825 • Talk 17:07, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

@Sataralynd: @Armatura: The place that actually needs expansion is the background section of Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, it could do with a mention of Sumgait (remarkably the current revision doesn't include it) as well as the violence against Armenians and Azeris in each of the places we list here. Jr8825 • Talk 17:11, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

@Jr8825: Thanks. References for "clearly widespread violence" that you mentioned that would qualify as "pogroms against Azerbaijanis", please? "Just a brief background anyway" should not yet mislead a neutral reader, letting them think that there was equal scale of pogroms / violence Armatura (talk) 18:15, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

@Armatura: A very quick Google search finds these:

• "In 1988, the Nagorno-Karabakh National Assembly voted to become part of Armenia, sparking widespread violence between Azeri and Armenian forces and ethnic cleansing on both sides." (Atlantic Council)
• "The murders of civilians in April this year provided a chilling reminder of the massacres of the 1988–92 period, to date a primary source of mutual alienation between societies across the conflict." (p. 32). (Chatham House)

The first two expert, reputable sources I come across describe the violence as widespread and say both sides had the same intent. Jr8825 • Talk 18:25, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

@Jr8825: Thanks. The first text is from a BLOG that mentions PKK fighters (so far not confirmed by any third party), what is "reputable" about this source? In the second large document, a very quick CTRL + F search in the text you provided showed ZERO results for keyword "pogrom", though. As reading 40+ page document can be quite time-consuming, could you please copy-paste the fragments, that in your opinion, is equivalent to "pogroms" against Azerbaijanis? Thanks Armatura (talk) 18:38, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

It's an explainer posted on the Atlantic Council website by a senior fellow. The issue with most blogs, per WP:BLOG, is they're usually self-published and it can be hard to determine whether the author is a subject-matter expert; neither is the case here. It's a perfectly acceptable reliable source, and I'd suggest you brush up on WP:RS if you're unsure about this. I provided the quote and page number from the Chatham House paper so you wouldn't need to search through it. 'Pogrom' = "violent riot aimed at the massacre or expulsion of an ethnic or religious group". By describing the violence of both sides as massacres, the Chatham House paper is using a stronger word. If you want to change the wording from "pogroms" to "massacres", go ahead, although you'd be trading synonyms for no obvious gain to the article. Jr8825 • Talk 19:14, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

@Jr8825: I have my reservations about the "explainer" on The AtlanticCouncil blog by an Israeli / Jewish (Israel is ally and arm supplier to Azerbaijan and Turkey - ?COI) "senior fellow" giving undue weight to “Launching a new attack against Azerbaijan, Armenia has once again shown that it constitutes the biggest threat against peace and comfort in the region,” POV of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan (unsupported by third party analysts) and that does not cite a single source for its statements, so we could know exactly what (where) acts of violence it is implying. I am against citing it for anything related to NK War, due to mentioned reasons. As for the other large document, it will take me some time to read Armatura (talk) 19:37, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

@Jr8825:, @Armatura: I am wondering why we are using word 'pogroms' for violence conducted by Azeris but when it comes toGugark massacre, we are using word violence?Mirhasanov (talk) 20:42, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

@Mirhasanov: we're not. The text you're looking at/referring to is Sataralynd's suggestion, which hasn't been implemented (and won't be, as it's non-neutral). The current text is Ethnic violence began shortly thereafter with a series of pogroms between 1988 and 1990 against Armenians in Sumgait, Ganja and Baku, and against Azerbaijanis in Gugark and Stepanakert, which is accurate and neutral. Jr8825 • Talk 20:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Now that you have provided "Gugark Massacre" link, I hope other editors can appreciate that Wiki article mentioned by Mirhasanov (who, despite the topic ban, keeps commenting on this talk page) is very far from being reliable, looking at zero citations and the quality / impartiality of the "bibliography". As far as I know, wikipedia itself is not a RS to cite either. Regards Armatura (talk) 01:11, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

@Jr8825: My suggestion for the use of pogrom only in the Armenian case was based on the facts that were mentioned in my OP. Namely, that the Gugark article has reliability issues (see the markers on the article), and the linked Stepanakert article which is supposedly a "pogrom" against Azerbaijanis, has 1 death which is an Armenian 61 year old man. We are talking about several hundreds of deaths on the Armenian side, vs. injuries on the Azerbaijani side (I'm discounting Gugark becuase there is no reliable source for it and zero mention about any pogroms in Gugark in Thomas de Waal's authoritative The Black Garden that is referenced in teh article). I would appreciate if you engage with each of my points in the OP before calling my wording non-neutral.--Sataralynd (talk) 04:28, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree the Stepanakert link is misleading and the Gugark reference is unreliable and circular. I will remove them. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 17:21, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

References

Assyrian/Yazidi volunteers

Dear Sargon Gallu, please read the article carefully before reverting my edits next time. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 08:35, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Israel arm supply to Azerbaijan

There is no evidence that Israel has armed Azerbaijan for the conflict. It is known that Azerbaijan own Israeli weapons, they used during the conflict. But they own also russian weaponry and weapons from many sources. The mention of Israel is therefore undue. --Trixieybi (talk) 19:12, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

@Trixieybi: There is a citation in this article of Al-Arabia article about Israel continuing sales to Azerbaijan, especially drones, DURING the conflict. Something that some other countries selling arms to Azerbaijan before the war did not during the war. Hope this answers to your question Armatura (talk) 18:24, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

@Armatura: please provide evidence. Moreover, please consider that using Al-Arabia as a reference regarding the topic where we talk about Israel may sound a bit biased. Mirhasanov (talk) 20:28, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Elaborate on the use of mercenaries on the Armenian side

In Allegations of third-party involvement Section intro the following sentence is not in line with the source:

The OHCHR stated that there were reports about mercenaries on both sides, and called for their withdrawal from Nagorno-Karabakh.

With that sentence, the source is made out to be about the use of mercenaries on both sides. However, if you read it there is a clear indication on their use on the Azerbaijani-Turkish side, but only unconfirmed reports on their use on teh Armenian side.

Here are the relevant mentions:

"The UN Working Group on the use of mercenaries said there were widespread reports that the Government of Azerbaijan, with Turkey’s assistance, relied on Syrian fighters to shore-up and sustain its military operations in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict zone...The way in which these individuals were recruited, transported and used in and around the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict zone appeared consistent with the definition of a mercenary, as set out by relevant international legal instruments"

However for the Armenian side there is mention about foreign nationals, and no clear indication of mercenaries.
Here is the relevant mention:

"The Working Group also received reports indicating that Armenia has been involved in the deployment of foreign nationals to fight in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. The experts are looking into these reports to ascertain possible links to mercenary-related activities, such as the context in which these actors operate and their possible motivations."

Could we avoid equivalencing both sides in the Article and just state the facts from the source? I suggest to revise the sentence to: The OHCHR stated that there were reports about Syrian mercenaries trained by Turkey and used by Azerbaijan during the war. It has called for their withdrawal from Nagorno-Karabakh. It also stated that it is looking into reports about the use of foreign nationals by Armenian forces and whether they constitute mercenaries--Sataralynd (talk) 19:47, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Agree. Was thinking myself that the text needs rewording after reading the source. EkoGraf (talk) 12:27, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Turkish support

Turkiye politically supported Azerbaijan, not Azerbaijani Army. This is false statement, requires correction. Sunuba (talk) 21:28, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Armenian evacuation article

Could an article about the Armenian evacuation of Artsakh be made? Is there enough information? We already have similar pages such as Evacuation of East Prussia, Evacuation of Polish civilians from the USSR in World War II, etc. Super Ψ Dro 01:14, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

It isn't notable enough. The scale of it is just too small. This article covers the issue extensively, but still had only some 5K of text+ref. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 12:33, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Solavirum. If the evacuation gains significance in the future, or sources appear down the road emphasising it, this can be reconsidered, but for now it's appropriately covered here as the sources describe it in the context of the current war. Perhaps it should also be mentioned at 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh ceasefire agreement? Jr8825 • Talk 13:55, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it should. Super Ψ Dro 14:50, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Armenian Casulties

The casualties section is not very informative and for some reason most of the colonels and senior staff that was KIA was removed from Armenian side. There should be more informative section box highlighting their position, also several sources have already mentioned that Azerbaijan has taken 6 times more equipment that it has lost one of the sources which i found and seems to be neutral is Avia.pro also Mikael Minasyan has stressed that total casualties is around 5,000 can all these be added to casualties side? 37.211.153.197 (talk) 08:11, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Greek former soldiers fighting in Karabakh

I know this is like the 100th time this topic had been opened. But a Greek news agency claiming 2 former Greek soldiers died in Karabakh. I think we really should include Greek foreign fighters to the infobox. The source says: "Μεταξύ των οποίων και δύο ήρωες Έλληνες που έπεσαν ηρωικά μαχόμενοι κατά Αζέρων, Τούρκων και ισλαμιστών.", translated Among them are two Greek heroes who fell heroically fighting against Azeris, Turks and Islamists. Beshogur (talk) 19:23, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Two people acting on their own is enough to merit inclusion in the infobox? --Golbez (talk) 20:45, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

@Golbez:, two people foreign fighters, is two foreign fighters. This is only killed foreign fighters, we do not know the actual numbers.

Other reports: The source, wishing to remain anonymous but speaking exclusive to Greek City Times, revealed that the first batch to go to Armenia will consist of approximately 80 Greek citizens .... Beshogur (talk) 20:48, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Unless there is some kind of either official backing, or some organization that is doing this, it's giving way too much weight to the actions of a few random people. --Golbez (talk) 21:22, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Golbez, this is not suitable for separate inclusion in the infobox (technically it's already covered by the diaspora volunteers, as the article suggests the majority of these soldiers were Armenian). Jr8825 • Talk 21:45, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

See Nagorno-Karabakh War, foreign groups at infobox. Beshogur (talk) 22:17, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

@Rosguill:, sorry to bother you, one source saying 80 Greek citizens went to the war, and two of them died. Can they be added to infobox? Beshogur (talk) 23:17, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Just so we're properly representing the source, it quotes one anonymous source as saying that 80 Greeks citizens travelled to Armenia to sign up, 50 of which were ethnically Armenian. This doesn't seem very different from other cases of the Armenian diaspora travelling to fight. The groups listed at Nagorno-Karabakh War are all supported by published academic sources (and larger). Jr8825 • Talk 23:26, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I think that, at least with the current set of sources supporting the claims, Golbez and Jr8825 have a point with their weight concerns. I'd want to see media outside of Greece take note of this to justify its importance. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:05, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Neutrality disputed tag

I'd like to clear up the POV tag, which has been languishing at the top for too long. @Beshogur: as you added this tag, is the only issue that you have with the neutrality of the article as a whole the use of the word "disputed" to describe Nagorno-Karabakh? If any other editors feel there are systemic issues with neutrality across the entire article that can't be resolved on a sectional level, please raise them here. Jr8825 • Talk 22:00, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Why are you willing to remove it while it is not resolved? Beshogur (talk) 22:19, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

@Beshogur: I want to clarify whether editors feel there are any other outstanding reasons for the tag, and work to address any issues raised. I plan to do a top-to-bottom skim through the article over the next few days, copy-editing with the primary aim of making sure there are no egregious POV issues hiding in the body. My general impression of the text right now (prior to a proper comb through and cleanup) is that it's mostly well-balanced and doesn't appear to heavily lean one way or the other. I don't believe that a blanket opposition to using the word "disputed" to describe Nagorno-Karabakh (and the explanation given at the RfC as to why the current situation is problematic) supports the POV tag on the article (WP:WTRMT 6). If I still think the tag is unnecessary after looking more closely at the text and resolving any specific, actionable issues that others raise, I might ask for an uninvolved admin's take on this. {{POV}} is for articles "identified as having a serious issue of balance, the lack of a neutral point of view" that do not "fairly represent the balance of perspectives of high-quality, reliable secondary sources". Jr8825 • Talk 23:50, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

It does not represent the perspective of reliable secondary sources, please check the relevant discussion. Beshogur (talk) 00:57, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I know you disagree with me on "disputed", so let's focus on making sure that the rest of the article is top-notch and neutral. There's nothing more to be done on that issue until everything else is resolved and/or the RfC has been closed – I just wanted to be upfront with you about how I hope to go about addressing the tag. Jr8825 • Talk 01:07, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

@Jr8825:, I understand, if you "can" remove with my consent, do it. But I doubt. Beshogur (talk) 07:25, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

@Beshogur: I'm not going to take any action without your participation (and it wouldn't be possible for me to remove the tag unilaterally anyway). Jr8825 • Talk 19:55, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

@Jr8825:, what should I do? Beshogur (talk) 21:04, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

At this point, not much, unless you'd also like to scan through the text and bring any potential issues here for discussion. When I've worked through the article you can raise any issues you see with my changes. After that, perhaps we can seek a third opinion or ask at AN if someone is willing to take a look at whether the RfC means the POV tag should stay. Jr8825 • Talk 21:15, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Belligerents and Units involved in Infobox

If alleged Syrian mercenaries are mentioned in the infobox, why not mention Kurdish militias on the Armenia side? Also, diaspora volunteers are mercenaries too, according to the Wikipedia article " is otherwise an outsider to the conflict, and is not a member of any other official military.", which means they should be referred to as mercenaries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.26.38.218 (talk) 08:20, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

There is no proof of Kurdish militias on the Armenia side, while Syrian mercenaries were reported by USA, France, Russia, SOHR and many others. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 10:24, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Per Գարիկ Ավագյան. EkoGraf (talk) 14:12, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Reported does not mean confirmed, there are sources which reported the involvement of Kurdish militia too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.26.38.218 (talk)

Not verifiable ones, unlike for the Syrians. EkoGraf (talk) 13:39, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

What about this statement? http://defence.az/en/news/149042 Armenian side also says they have proof but they don't show it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.26.38.218 (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.134.61.149 (talk) 16:59, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Azeri source (beligerent), not reliable (plus the actual evidence isn't shown). Contrary to that, the few dozen verifiable (non-Armenian) sources on the presence of the Syrian mercenaries have already been verified by a Wikipedia dispute resolution noticeboard and have also been linked at this articles talk page during previous discussions (see archive). A number of these sources are also being used in the article itself. EkoGraf (talk) 18:12, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

This article https://www.syriahr.com/en/192201/ is in the references, but it does not provide any sources or proof backing its' claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.26.38.70 (talk) 12:23, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Edit request: Change colors on map legend

Hi, the colors of the ceasefire agreement map have changed ever so lightly. Could an administrator do the exact same edit as this one? Thanks, Mapeh (talk) 11:23, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done – a nice quick fix. Just so you're aware Mapeh, the correct template to use is {{edit extended-protected}}, the {{edit request}} template is for cases where the editor has a conflict of interest. Cheers, Jr8825 • Talk 11:36, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I see, thanks for the heads-up! Mapeh (talk) 11:52, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Add Pakistan reaction in International reaction > Countries (section 8.3)

Pakistan threw its weight behind Azerbaijan “Pakistan stands with the brotherly nation of Azerbaijan and supports its right of self-defence,” the Foreign Ministry said in a statement.

“We support Azerbaijan’s position on Nagorno-Karabakh, which is in line with several unanimously adopted UN Security Council resolutions,” it added. Ambassador of the Republic of Azerbaijan to the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, Ali Alizada, said in a tweet on october 19, 2020 "Love to Pakistan & Turkey is boundless in Azerbaijan,and requirements for Pakistani flag are also increased," tweeted the ambassador, thanking Pakistan and Turkey for openly siding with Baku in its conflict with Armenia. Mati-baleli (talk) 16:18, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

References

To do list

Hi all, I've made a to do list so we can focus on making practical improvements to the article.

I hope regular editors can channel some of their energy into these tasks. Feel free add any other specific, practical tasks that can be carried out. Cheers, Jr8825 • Talk 19:52, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

As far as I know, it was agreed that the international reactions section would not be split into a new article. Super Ψ Dro 14:41, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

@Super Dromaeosaurus: oh. I didn't realise that. I'll remove it for now. When was this agreed, was it early in the conflict? As this point it either needs splitting or cutting, as the section is hovering about 3.2k words. Jr8825 • Talk 23:59, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it was early if I remember correctly. I agree that the section is very long though, probably the best option would be to remove some parts. I don't know if it is really necessary to have a subsection for the reaction of Turkey, Russia and especially the United States. Maybe "Humanitarian organizations" could be merged into the "Supranational and regional organizations" subsection as well. Super Ψ Dro 00:49, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Colorblindness & Map Colors

Wouldn't it be better if we changed the map to colors that colorblind people can see better? This is just a suggestion so if not that's fine. Flalf^Talk 14:12, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

@Flalf: which of the maps are problematic? Perhaps it would be better to leave a message directly on the creators' talk pages? Jr8825 • Talk 18:17, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

I’m not colorblind so I’m not super sure, but a friend complained about this map. Flalf^Talk 20:53, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

İnfobox date offer

Wouldn't it be more beneficial to write 44 days instead of 1 month and 2 weeks in the date section in the information box?--45.135.206.195 (talk) 21:10, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Not Done Consistency Flalf^Talk 21:48, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

We need the opinion of others to simplify and uncomplicated. Wikipedia users, please share your ideas with me.--45.135.206.195 (talk) 00:40, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Its the Wikipedia system implemented in war article infoboxes. So, as flalf says, consistency. EkoGraf (talk) 13:37, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Armenian sources claim 5,000 casualties with 2-3 more time that number wounded

Several Armenian opposition leaders claim losses to be 5,000 as KIA ArmenianReport, This number was also sounded by Azerbaijani side as Armenian losses it seems there is some traction that these number reflects the actual losses. 37.211.153.197 (talk) 08:34, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Could you provide the names of those several Armenian opposition leaders (apart from Vanetsyan) and a few reputable sources that cite that number? Thanks Armatura (talk) 07:43, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Panorama Link Mikael Minasyan talks about 4750, Naira Zograbyan and a member of Dashnak Party member also mentioned of several thousand dead during the rally will be hard to provide sources for last two as it was no covered in the news but two prominent opposotion parties have already said it https://www.interfax.ru/world/734600 lham Aliyev also mentioned 5,0000 dead 37.211.153.197 (talk) 16:19, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Those claims, however, have not been confirmed by the state or independent third parties. It would be logical for opponents to try to hyperbolise the losses to discredit the government. In fact, those "prominent opposition leaders" are marginal figures in Armenian political society- Mikayel Minasyan (Serzh Sargsyan's son-in-law and the owner of Panorama.am media outlet ) is hiding from the law for crimes against the state security that he has masterminded together with former National Security Service Artur Vanetsyan, and Mikayel's father Dr Ara Minasyan is being prosecuted for large corruption in St Gregory Illuminator Medical Centre he led, and Naira Zohrabyan (known in Armenia as "Naradusus" / "Nara-shut-the-****-up") is the right hand of the oligarch Gagik Tsarukyan who is being stripped off his parliament mandate for continued business activities despite holding an MP seat. If a the ~5000 number claimed by those people is to be ever included, it would need to be included with all those details to demonstrate the conflict of the interest of the claimants, not adding anything to the credibility of this articles. "Over 2300" is the largest number I was able to find that was confirmed by the state and cited by a major news outlet https://tass.com/world/1223711 Regards, Armatura (talk) 14:20, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

You need to relax and take it easy, at this stage all Armenian politicians are comprised so I question Armenian MoD more than Armenian opposition since Armenian MoD has been lying throughout the war and is HIGHLY unreliable, also i would doubt that Armenian Russian opposition is in cahoots with Azerbaijan, another source that claims 4,000 as KIA https://www.armenianreport.com/ru/pubs/265841/ 37.211.153.197 (talk) 14:34, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

As Armatura says, we only work with figures provided either by official state sources or by independent third party sources. The Armenian opposition is neither. EkoGraf (talk) 18:15, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

References

Ok then an interesting question comes to my mind, why then 2016 April War article Meydan TV which is an opposition is used as official number, i still remember i was part of the discussions when i tried to put Azerbaijan MoD numbers it was removed because it was said "to be understated while opposition is more reliable", seems double standards while for Armenia only official numbers are used for Azerbaijan opposition numbers are portrayed as official 80.76.168.114 (talk) 09:35, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

The primary source on the fatalities in 2016 is the Khazar Institute for Military Research NGO, Meydan TV only relayed their findings. Their verifiability to be used in the article as an "Azerbaijani source" was additionally based on the fact when taking into account the Caspian Defense Studies Institute (CDSI) NGO also reported an almost identical number of deaths and by taking into account the US State Department's findings on the overall number of several hundred deaths from the conflict. Unlike in those cases, here the primary source is the Armenian opposition itself. In any case, considering the Armenian MoD has already stated hundreds of soldiers are still missing, the official number of dead may yet rise further. EkoGraf (talk) 11:27, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

PS Apparently someone removed at some point the MoD's figure of 31 for the 2016 conflict, which was also part of the original agreement to include both figures as cited per "Azerbaijani sources". Will reinstate the 31 figure and reference there. EkoGraf (talk) 11:40, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Not to lead or infobox, but to the causalities section. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 14:51, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

The map

Hey Ahmetlii, will you be able to change the colors of the map in the infobox? There should be difference between gained territories and the ceded ones. I would be very thankful. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 17:31, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Sure.--Ahmetlii (talk) 17:34, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

@Գարիկ Ավագյան:  Done.--Ahmetlii (talk) 17:52, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

@Ahmetlii: Thank you! Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 17:58, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Maps inconsistencies

FYI: There are four maps (infobox war map, liveuamap animation map, frontlines map, and ceasefire map) in the article and all of them show "Areas captured by Azerbaijan, to stay under its control" different. liveuamap animation can be excluded since it is outsourced but the others are all WP maps88.230.72.137 (talk) 08:19, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 November 2020 - Add new involved Unit

Units involved -> Armenia's side -> PKK (Kurdistan Workers' Party) Resources: https://www.eureporter.co/frontpage/2020/09/23/pkks-involvement-in-the-armenia-azerbaijan-conflict-would-jeopardize-european-security/ https://jamestown.org/program/reviving-a-forgotten-threat-the-pkk-in-nagorno-karabakh/ https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20201020-syria-tribes-condemn-armenia-alliance-with-ypg-pkk/ https://menafn.com/1101023451/Armenia-established-PKK-corridor-in-Nagorno-Karabakh-Azerbaijani-presidential-aide https://www.economist.com/europe/2016/04/09/a-frozen-conflict-explodes 89.67.252.18 (talk) 01:54, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 18:38, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Cheap vs. state-of-the-art?

"... and had also amassed a large fleet of cheap Turkish drones and state-of-the-art Israeli ones..." without source. Do we have any evidence that Turkish TB-2s are "cheap"? Wikipedia articles indicate a Turkish TB-2 unit cost US$ 5m whereas Israeli Harops were sold to India US$ 100k apiece. The same goes with numbers: I thought the number of TB-2s employed by Azerbajian was classified. But I would expect them to be less numerous than Harops as the latter is an expandable loitering munition. Filanca (talk) 13:26, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Filanca, I copy-edited that section recently. The language was adopted from The Economist which wrote "A fleet of cheap Turkish drones is slicing through Armenian defences", while another source cited in that para described the Israeli drones as "state-of-the-art". If I got the wrong end of the stick and incorrectly made it a comparison, please feel free to go ahead and reword it. Jr8825 • Talk 01:01, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Addition to International reactions

I'd like to propose the addition of the recognition of the Republic of Artsakh by an MEP. Martin Sonneborn, a German MP in the European Parlament publicly recognized the republic in October and called for others to follow. I don't know how relevant this is but I still think it might be worth adding under the category of "International reactions". Source --JonahF (talk) 01:11, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

It is the subject of the Republic of Artsakh article.--88.230.72.137 (talk) 07:49, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I see, but I thought it might be worth adding here too as it was in response to the war. --JonahF (talk) 02:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Pretty much irrelevant. Beshogur (talk) 07:53, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Armenian bombardment of Azerbaijani territories.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:54, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

name Second Nagorno-Karabakh war

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

---

Should this maybe be renamed the Second Nagorno-Karabakh war, what do you guys think?86.21.8.177 (talk) 16:20, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Are there sources which use this title? Wikipedia should not be inventing titles. Dimadick (talk) 16:31, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

https://twitter.com/presidentaz/status/1326552557402025985. Azerbaijani President calls it that way.Cem456 (talk) 17:53, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

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

10 November 2020 peace treaty; article renaming

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

---

I know that there is already a talk page section above that has had extensive discussion on what to name the article, but given that it has been a while since and there have been radical changes in the status quo, I felt the need to raise this topic again. As of 10 November 2020, Armenia, Russia and Azerbaijan have signed a peace treaty and Armenia is withdrawing from most of the territory it had control of. With the signing of the treaty, the war is "officially" over (although it seems like there is still a lot yet to unfold, given that the United Nations has been asked to supervise the rehabilitation of displaced persons and Russia is deploying a peacekeeping force to the region). Considering the fact that the war is over, at least officially, and all major media outlets are referring to the 2020 conflict as a war, I strongly suggest that this article be renamed to Second Nagorno-Karabakh War, as any further developments in the region will not be part of the war officially. I also propose that the original page be renamed to First Nagorno-Karabakh War, but that is not a priority, at least not until this article's name is figured out. I believe this conflict has gone on long enough to have the world aware of what it is (with all the worldwide protests by either involved communities) and enough people have died to term it a war. — Zeex.rice (talk) 08:07, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

• Not unless RS call it that. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 08:20, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
• I support the proposal Ehoah88880 (talk) 09:14, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
• I also support it but the first move discussion ended some weeks ago, I doubt that the war's name in sources has changed much from how they were at that time. Super Ψ Dro 11:00, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
• Move already happened, need to wait a time, don't know how much. Plus I am against, since that isn't a proper name. Beshogur (talk) 11:13, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
• Wait - per verifiability, we need reliable sources to call it the Second Nagorno-Karabakh War first. BCEVERYWHERE (talk) 07:46, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

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

Move (again)?

The Nagorno-Karabakh War page was, surprisingly enough, moved to "First Nagorno-Karabakh War" recently. I think this gives many points to propose a new change of the title of this article to "Second Nagorno-Karabakh War". This name is after all the name of the Wikipedia article in Azerbaijani (in fact, apparently President Aliyev himself used this term) and is displayed as an alternate name in bold in the Armenian Wikipedia article. Would it be appropriate to start a new formal move request? Super Ψ Dro 01:01, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

• Already overdue IMO. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 03:42, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

• I've seen a fair number of sources that don't even consider the 2020 fighting to be part of a separate war. But the reality is that there is no right answer of what to call the conflict(s) because at this point in time, even the most respected scholars' opinions of what happened are hot takes that haven't been tempered by research and discussion. I regret not having had the chance to participate in the other article's move discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:22, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

• I also think this is long overdue. Flalf^Talk|

• Agree, per Super Dromaeosaurus, Mikrobølgeovn and Flalf. EkoGraf (talk) 13:38, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

• Agree, it should be named "Second Nagorno-Karabakh War". Grandmaster 11:04, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

• Agree with the nom. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 05:59, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

• Agree with the nomination.--Yakamoz51 (talk) 11:25, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

• I would support if "war" is with a lower case. It's not a proper name. Beshogur (talk) 11:32, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

• Agree, it should be named "Second Nagorno-Karabakh War". With a capital "W." 2601:85:C102:1220:45D4:873:BCE8:AE25 (talk) 02:24, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Comment: When there are several names for a war, Wikipedia usually goes with the most common one. If "Second Nagorno-Karabakh War" is the most commonly-accepted name, which it appears to be, we should go for it. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 11:56, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose I still don't see widespread use of this term across RS – I'd change my view if one of the supporters of this proposal can gather a broad collection of RS that use "Second Nagorno Karabakh War" to demonstrate that it's now widely used. For example, the first source I come across from a Google search (ECFR) calls it the "2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war", as we currently do. My initial impression is that "Second Nagorno-Karabakh War" seems to be favoured only in Azerbaijan, not in third-party analyses (or Armenia). Jr8825 • Talk 00:56, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't know how did you get the impression of it is favored only in Azerbaijan, but Armenian WP also uses 2nd Artsakh war as an alternate name in lead. Check the Armenian Wikipedia article. Yakamoz51 (talk) 13:21, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

I may well be wrong about that, it was only a general, personal impression. I think the main thing is to wait for English language RS to start using the term, as a proper noun name confers accepted use. I'm not inherently opposed to the change, and I can see the argument for clarity and comparison with the first war, I just think we should wait to be guided by the secondary sources. Jr8825 • Talk 19:14, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

• Note: pinging Dimadick, Cem456, Zeex.rice, Ehoah88880 and BCEVERYWHERE as they commented on duplicate discussions above, which I've closed to consolidate discussion into one section. Jr8825 • Talk 19:08, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: I would support it if the title is already in use in available sources. I am not certain how widespread its use is. Dimadick (talk) 19:12, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support I've been advocating for this page to be moved to "Second Nagorno-Karabakh War" from the start and also took part in the talk page discussion for the original (First) Nagorno-Karabakh War. Fully support the moving of this page and it's kind of necessary at this point as it doesn't make sense to have a "First Nagorno-Karabakh War" and then what should be the second one (to follow up with the first) is named "2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war". ➤ Zᴇᴇx.ʀɪᴄᴇ ✪ (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 20:39, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

• Agreed, should be named "Second Nagorno-Karabakh War". Cem456 (talk) 11:12, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support If the war in 90s has "First" in it now, then this should be called "Second Nagorno-Karabakh War." It's a neutral term anyhow. 2601:85:C102:1220:B04E:3DDE:A275:C79F (talk) 03:10, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

• Agree. Wowzers122 (talk) 03:55, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Since many people supported the change, I've opened a formal move request below. Super Ψ Dro 14:28, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Desertion/Armenian opposition

I noticed none of the information mentions Armenian desertion, i only saw Azerbaijani desertion numbers which is baffling as Armenian generals have spoken about high number of desertions

1. Movses Akopian mentions 1,500 deserters on 5th Day of war https://www.bbc.com/russian/features-55005875

2. Levon Stepanian mentions mass desertions which led to situation where there is no way to punish them https://newizv.ru/news/society/16-11-2020/vseh-ne-posadish-v-tyurmah-armenii-uzhe-net-mest-dlya-dezertirov

3. Araik condemning deserters https://ru.armeniasputnik.am/karabah/20201014/24908414/Dezertirstvo-ravnosilno-predatelstvu---Araik-Arutyunyan-obratilsya-k-sootechestvennikam.html

4. New set of rules for more draconian punishment of deserters https://www.armenianreport.com/ru/pubs/263025/

I propose the following paragraph "Mass desertions were noted as one of the issues during the war, Movses Akopian mentioned during his press conference that 1,500 soldiers had deserted by 5th day of war while Levon Stepanian insisted that "What should we do in this situation? Of course, no one can forgive. But on the other hand, it will hardly be possible to bring such a large number of people to criminal responsibility. But even if it succeeds, Armenian prisons are simply not ready to accommodate so many prisoners.". Armenia also enacted several stricter laws during the war against deserters as means to combat high desertion rates.

On other note i noticed that Armenian Opposition leaders claims of 5,000 KIA as result of the war did not get any attention which is again surprising as to why 2016 April war Meydan TV's numbers are included in infobox as main number of causalities but there is no mention of Armenian opposition leaders numbers of 5,000. all sources i have posted in the previous section Agulani (talk) 12:42, 7 December 2020 (UTC) 14:54, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

War Crimes

I would suggest some modifications to the suspected war crimes section (I understand that editing such a section is rife with potential POV issues). As it is right now, the section on suspected Azerbaijani crimes focuses on the use of cluster munitions, while the first two paragraphs of the section on suspected Armenian crimes is largely listing the individual cases where one or two Azeri civilians were killed. Civilian deaths are not war crimes in and of themselves (targeting civilians is, although that is more difficult to prove). It is understood that a few dozen civilians were killed on each side; perhaps it would read better if that were explained more succinctly, rather than listing each individual case where one or two people were killed. (It would be different when discussing cases where larger numbers of people died in a single incident, like the Barda missile attacks). --Maryam.Rosie (talk) 16:14, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

@Maryam.Rosie: like many other current affairs articles, right now this is mostly a collation of reports that were added as they occurred. Rewriting it to be a brief, neutral overview is quite a challenging task. I agree that smaller individual cases of civilian deaths may be candidates for cutting down, but it's tricky as removing specific details could be seen as favouring one side over the other. If you'd be willing to take a stab at in your sandbox I'd be happy to take a look and help. Rewriting several sections of this article is on my to-do list but unfortunately I'm snowed under with real life work at the moment. Cheers, Jr8825 • Talk 00:46, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Recognition by French Senate

The page contains inaccurate info that French parliament recognized NK independence. It is not so, it only called on the French government to do so. This is just a recommendation, and the French government already declared that it will not follow the French senate's advice. [17] I don't know why I cannot edit this page, but someone who can please fix this. Grandmaster 23:30, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

@Grandmaster: it's only extended-confirmed protected, you should be able to make the change yourself – are you sure you're unable to do so? Jr8825 • Talk 00:37, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I did it now. For some reason my edits were not saved yesterday. Grandmaster 09:32, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

There is no difference in France view actually. https://www.commonspace.eu/news/france-clarifies-position-nagorno-karabakh-after-senate-vote--88.230.72.137 (talk) 09:38, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Azerbaijani casualties

Although officially undisclosed, the President of Azerbaijan has publicly stated that 1,500 Azerbaijani soldiers were killed (Relatives of those killed in the Second Karabakh War will be provided with apartments and houses - President of Azerbaijan, Relatives of those killed in the Second Karabakh War will be provided with apartments and houses - President of Azerbaijan), this is in fact already mentioned in the "Casualties" section of this article and in Casualties of the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war, but I think this deserves a mention in the infobox.--RM (Be my friend) 03:24, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Not infobox material imo. Because it is still technically undisclosed. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 04:38, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Maybe there can be an "as per the President of Azerbaijan" section in the Infobox and also state that its officially undisclosed? RM (Be my friend) 10:46, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Reenem, its an official statement by the president of Azerbaijan, so it should be included in the infobox (per Azerbaijan). Wanted to insert it earlier but after discussion agreed to hold of until more statements were given in this regard. More than two weeks later no new statements have been given so, no reason to exclude a figure provided by the Azeri president from the infobox. EkoGraf (talk) 14:53, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

The President of Artsakh, Arayik Harutyunyan, also agreed to end the hostilities.[98]

The President of Artsakh, Arayik Harutyunyan, also agreed to end the hostilities.[98] - this statement shall be deleted or rephrased. Nor Arayik Harutyunyan neither "Artsakh" took part in peace agreement. This fact proves that there is no "independent state", but just territories of Azerbaijan which were occupied by Armenia. Basically "Artsakh" is a puppet of Armenia, which created to annex territories of Azerbaijan and later add them to the Armenia territories. Basically no one asked Arayik's permission to stop the war and this statement should not create any false illusion that there is independent state. This war was between Azerbaijan an Armenia, and signed peace agreement which included only Armenia, Azerbaijan and Russia once more confirms that.

Also link stating that Artsakh is not recognized and self-proclaimed state, shall be provided in any place where "Republic of Artsakh" is mentioned. This is to prevent false illusion that there is such country.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Abrvagl (talk • contribs) 17:08, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Hi Abrvagl, I've not done this as the current structure deliberately separates Arayik Harutyunyan from the actual signatories of the ceasefire agreement, making it clear he didn't participate in the agreement. His response is important as Artsakh was a party to the conflict and reliable sources mention that he also agreed to its implementation. As for the Republic of Artsakh, it's introduced as "self-proclaimed", "a breakaway state" and "internationally unrecognised" in the first three mentions in the lead and background section, which explain what it is - this is sufficient to make it clear to the reader that it isn't internationally recognised. Additional mentions throughout the article are unnecessary as Artsakh has already been introduced and is being discussed as a participant of events, not as the object of discussion – for example, we don't explain that Aliyev is the Azerbaijani president every time he is mentioned (as it happens, we mention the fact that Aliyev is president far too many times because the article has developed piecemeal over time, and it needs thorough copy-editing to avoid repetition such as this). Repeatedly calling Artskah illegitimate, beyond the necessary explanation of its status that we already give at the article opening, could also be potentially WP:UNDUE, as by emphasising its lack of recognition it could be seen as a judgement in wikivoice about how illegitimate it is. Jr8825 • Talk 17:43, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Bayram Karimov

The Suspected War Crimes section mentions Bayram Karimov in a few places without mentioning the crime itself. Any insights please? Regards Armatura (talk) 20:49, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

As BBC reported, one of the soldiers was reportedly abused when he was taken as POW. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 21:32, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

@Solavirum: It was Amin Musayev who was reportedly cursed and kicked in the car, correct? Does BBC article specify how Bayram Karimov was abused? Regards, Armatura (talk) 08:48, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Armatura, I'm waiting for more clarifications here. But understand what you mean. Karimov's family stated that they weren't able to receive messages on him, but I will copyedit that part in any case. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 11:28, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

The reason why Karimov was specified is because he also was in a video circulating in the social network platforms, and was identified. And Armenia refusing to give information about both of their well-being initially got BBC's attention. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 11:30, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

I suggest the following abbreviated version that focuses on the report of kicking a wounded soldier, as that is what can count as war crime. In mid-November, a video of a Ukrainian journalist Alexander Kharchenko and Armenian servicemen administering first aid to wounded Azerbaijani soldier Amin Musayev was spread on social media, with a subsequently released video showing him being abused inside a vehicle, though. It is reported that Musayev, lying in the car, asked "where are we going?" and the alleged Armenian soldier responded "if you behave well, go home," and cursed, after which it became clear that the Azerbaijani soldier was kicked. On 18 November, a representative of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) in Yerevan said that information about Musaev was "being investigated." The Azerbaijani Foreign Ministry said in a statement that the issue was being investigated and will be reported to the relevant international organizations. " Azerbaijan had officially accused the Armenian side of ill-treating the Azerbaijani POWs. Musaev was returned to Azerbaijan on 15 December.

Armatura, I agree. I'll trim the paragraph shortly, but will have to fix some issues with your proposal (like it is Musayev, not Musaev). Thank you for the proposal. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 15:37, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

@Solavirum: Yes, my suggestion was a quick draft, improvements are obviously welcome, thank you. Regards, Armatura (talk) 17:01, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

@Solavirum:Somehow, the link serving as a reference for the act of kicking the soldier has gone missing. I don't remember the word "tortured" being there before. Where is the phrase "kicked and tortured" taken from if I may ask? It makes little sense to me, as on one hand kicking a wounded soldier is itself a torture, and on the other hand kicking was the only torture that could be apparent from the surfaced video. Regards, Armatura (talk) 17:41, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

It wasn't Solavirum who added the phrase "kicked and tortured". The text had "kicked" only, but then I added the word "tortured" with a new citation. I agree that the "kicked" part can be removed, as specifying that he was tortured is enough and there is no need for the kicking part.-Śαǿturα^💬 19:27, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Saotura Does the article you mentioned specifically say that Musayev was tortured, though? It appears to be your own conclusion (WP:OR), hence I am going to remove the "and tortured" addition and leave only the "kicked" part if that is okay. You may want to reposition your link if you are referencing a particular segment of the text rather than the whole paragraph, so the readers could understand what exactly is cited and what for. Regards, 11:21, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Armatura, I didn't add that though. Please, before accusing other of stuff, see the history section. No, the link (BBC source) isn't missing. Its this: "Videoda qohumu tərəfindən Amin Musayev kimi müəyyənləşdirilmiş azərbaycanlı əsgərin maşında yerə uzanmış halda olduğu və "hara gedirik" sualı verdiyi göstərilir. Erməni əsgəri olduğu güman edilən şəxs cavabında - "özünü yaxşı aparsan evə…" deyir, söyüş söyür, bundan sonra azərbaycanlı əsgərə təpik vurulduğu anlaşılır." Yes, it ain't saying "torture". --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 19:37, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Also, you may have to use {{u}} instead of {{re}}, as the latter isn't giving me any notifications. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 19:40, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Solavirum Nobody is accusing you, chill out, please. I asked a general question in the talk page about the paragraph in question and you were the first who responded, it is only logical to further clarify with you since you volunteered to discuss, don't you think? Anyway, the paragraph would benefit with more trimming, as it goes into too much details (seemingly copy pasted from the source) that are unrelated to the concept of war crime. Would you agree? Armatura (talk) 11:21, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Abusing a soldier you've taken to cure is a war crime, ain't it? --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 14:03, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Abusing a soldier (of any nationality, in any circumstances) is of course a war crime, but who questions that? What I'm saying, there is a long redundant text following the sentence about alleged kicking, that adds little to the case of alleged abuse. No need to copy-paste half of the cited article to make a point, is what I'm saying. Regards, Armatura (talk) 23:28, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Where are the cows?

Solavirum, if he didn't manage to photograph animals inside the mosque his accusation of Armenians using it as a barn is totally inappropriate, doesn't matter how well known he is, his job is to photograph not make accusations without evidence, thereofore we shouldn't use his Tweet as a source for an encyclopedia. Not to mention that his Twitter is full of retweets from Azerbaijani officials propaganda. The POV pushing statememt needs to be removed as it has no evidence to it, just accusations from a photographer without any visual proof (no pictured animals, no pictured people burning the mosque before leaving). Eurofan88 (talk) 08:54, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Eurofan88, you're engaging in WP:OR and violating WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH. Deghati is a journalist, to speak precisely, a photojournalist from France. He's notable enough and your claims of doesn't matter how well known he is inappropriate. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 09:05, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Just to note that I'd have to go offline within an hour. So, I might not able to give an answer to you until the day's over. Please respect the WP:CONSENSUS in that regard, while comments by other editors, like Jr8825, and CuriousGolden, would be appreciated. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 09:17, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:Burden, I have to prove his notability. Here's NATGEO and NYY. You all need to prove his so-called unreliability per the same guideline. You have to respect the WP:CONSENSUS for God's sake. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 10:00, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

As said above, I'm going offline rn. Respect the WP:CONSENSUS, and avoid discriminative remarks like the photographer is of Azerbaijani origin. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 10:01, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I can see the one revert restriction on this article, you don't have to type the same thing twice. And misinterpreting my comment on his Twitter clearly being biased towards Azerbaijan as "photographer is of Azerbaijani origin" ain't a good one either. Eurofan88 (talk) 10:30, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Eurofan88, that wasn't specified at you and not an misinterpretation. See the history section of the article, look for the edit comments. And is this discussion thread continuing, or? --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 17:22, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Then you should've tagged the person you were adressing to, it looks misleading. But i'd rather wait for Jr8825's and some other neutral users opinions on this, the former seem to share my concern as he thanked me for my edit. Eurofan88 (talk) 17:55, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Solavirum May I know why you are so willing to put this statement [18] of the photographer of Azerbaijani origin and make it voice of Wikipedia? I'm not saying about accusations from Azerbaijani officials that you want it to be presented as a 100% fact. We shall keep Wikipedia neutral and unbiased. Also, for the next time, please, first try to achieve consensus here and then revert it with all possible ways that you can find. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 18:31, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Գարիկ Ավագյան, when will you end accusing others of things they've not done. I'm going to evaluate this one by one:

1. of the photographer of Azerbaijani origin. So what? He could be of any origin. That's not case here, never was. George Bournoutian, and Robert H. Hewsen both have Armenian origin, but are cited all over Wikipedia. That's not an argument for unreliability. Read WP:NPOV, and WP:RS.
2. make it voice of Wikipedia. When? The text in question literally reads Reza Deghati reported. Here, reported is the key word. Again, doesn't fail WP:NPOV, but you violate WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH.
3. I'm not saying about accusations from Azerbaijani officials that you want it to be presented as a 100% fact. Continuing with this rhetoric makes it more visible that you don't even care about the guidelines and assuming good faith.
4. first try to achieve consensus here. If the users unjustly calls A WELL ESTABLISHED JOURNALIST (New York Times, National Geographic, University of California San Diego, University of Missouri, UNHCR, WPO) "unreliable" without any fact or argument, despite the other party doing their part per WP:Burden, you have to achieve WP:CONSENSUS.

Now, is there any more guidelines that I have to put here until you finally decide to abide them? --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 18:46, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't think this is a matter of his origin or notability, but his biased approach to this particular conflict in general which can be seen on his Twitter... the same Twitter you've cited as a source. Eurofan88 (talk) 19:02, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

but his biased approach to this particular conflict in general which can be seen on his Twitter. That's your opinion and not our concern though. I can also say the same thing about Michael Rubin cited in the article. Deghati is notable, and reliable enough to be covered by such enormous organizations.Anyways, going offline. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 19:11, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

One final note before turning this off. The article had used several French sources. Let me remind you that the French government (and media) had voiced its support for Armenia throughout the conflict, and even attempted to recognized the separatists. But, calling them unreliable wouldn've been my opinion. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 19:13, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

You just compared a whole government's desicion to some photographer's war crime accusation backed up with zero evidence. Got your point tho. Let's not make this thread too long and wait for some neutral takes on this. Eurofan88 (talk) 19:43, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Eurofan88's concern, WP:RS says we should use common sense to follow our sourcing guideline, and it seems like a reasonable judgement to make that an individual who is tweeting in a way that is exclusively in favour of Azerbaijan, and who has personal ties to Azerbaijani themself, is likely to be a biased in a way that could impact accuracy. Much more importantly though, Twitter is a self-published source, and being a photographer (or photjournalist) does not make you a subject matter expert – for all these reasons Reza Deghati's tweets are completely inappropriate for supporting extraordinary claims on Wikipedia. As for azvision.az, there are serious problems with citing any Azerbaijani media as a secondary source – Reporters Without Borders considers Azerbaijan to have one of the most restrictive press environments in the world (and ranks it 168th out of 180 for press freedom). Generally, we should be trying to avoid media sources from both countries as far as possible and sticking to reliable, third-party sources, for obvious reasons. Again, a claim like this with these two sources is just no good, so I've removed the offending sentence. Jr8825 • Talk 18:20, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

References

On Turkey

Գարիկ Ավագյան, your removals are yet again out of place. How's this "unrelevant" as you said? This is just WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Is France part of the conflict? So, in your terms, we should just simply remove the whole section? Yikes. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 08:57, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

It seems that, here, your problem is with Turkey. But, in preparation, I'd like to point out that the ruling AKP and its ally MHP, with their leftist opponents CHP (literally the founding party of Turkey, and the second most-popular), as well the right-wing IYIP making a joint-statement condemning is not "unrelevant" at all. Actually, it is a major thing in this minor case. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 09:01, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Solavirum Being the lead parties in third country doesn't make it notable. You put Reaction on the Reaction which has no encyclopedic value. Please, clarify what do you mean by saying Is France part of the conflict?. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 10:17, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Գարիկ Ավագյան, in your edit description, you wrote: Turkey is a party of the conflict? unrelevent. With your logic, the whole section has no encyclopedic value, as it mostly mentions France, which is also not a party of the conflict. "You put Reaction on the Reaction", what? The section isn't a reaction, it is about the proposed recognition of an unrecognized and possibly non-existent country. There are reactions from Armenia in the same section, too. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 10:31, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Solavirum This section is about Reaction to this war, in particular, how the cities, towns, states + French Senate and French National Assembly reacted and recognised the independence of Artsakh. I merges the names of cities, towns and states just one sentence and added info about France, while you put additional "reaction" to "their reaction". Huh? Should I add every thankful reactions from Artsakh and Armenia's officials respectively? This is redundant with no encyclopedic value. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 18:28, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Գարիկ Ավագյան, it isn't a reaction though. It is a whole different section on recognition of a breakaway state. They are two different thing, and putting Armenia's reaction to what you call a reaction, and removing Turkey's reaction, is basically WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 18:32, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Solavirum Armenia, Azerbaijan and Artsakh are part of the conflict. So is Turkey? Then let's move Turkey to Belligerents. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 18:35, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Գարիկ Ավագյան, you're literally going against your own argument here. Don't put a reaction to a reaction, and no, you can put a reaction to a reaction if its Armenia's. If you opposed a reaction to reaction here, you wouldn't had opened a whole new section to the article. A new section means wider coverage. And Turkey is already mentioned as a belligerent here. I'm stating this again, you're engaging in WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 18:42, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Syrian mercenaries and PKK terrorists

The infobox is pro-armenian in this context, both, the Syrian mercenaries and the PKK/YPG involvements are allegations, not proven facts. Either remove Syrians from the infobox, or add PKK/YPG to Armenian side. Also, Turkey's support to Azerbaijan is political, not military. Either remove Turkey, or add all countries that politically support the sides, and clarify with 'Politically Supported By:' or similar. Re: user1781.., you do not support the truth. Azerbaijan liberated it's lands at the cost of about 3000 Azeri lives. Armenia has literally lied not only to the world but right to the face of it's own people, till the very last day. I know it hurts you to accept the truth, but deep in your heart it's there. Buying drones and receiving training about them is not a military support. Armenia also bought weapons and got their trainings/exercises, it's not a sin if one can afford better weapons. Shusha was literally liberated with purely soldier vs soldier battle. The number of sources mentioned: US, Europe/France, Russia, all have a significant armenian population and are cristian majority, guess what their "reliable source" will be inclined to, a person must be super-ignorant or an armenian to blindly accept those. Despite the fact that Azerbaijan being the most secular muslim-majority nation. All are "reports" and "allegations", not a single proof. I don't say trust Turkish sources, I never did. My only wish is an un-biased wiki page, the way it is supposed to be. Which, I guess, is too much to ask these days.. (https://www.eupoliticalreport.eu/pkks-involvement-in-the-armenia-azerbaijan-conflict-would-jeopardise-european-security/)

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dian Nikolow (talk • contribs) 09:47, 3 December 2020 (UTC) 

Already discussed. See previous discussions here at the talk page and the relevant Wikipedia DNR discussion which reached a compromise consensus on the issue. EkoGraf (talk) 17:01, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I have to correct you, the PKK and YPG are not terrorists (in my country for example they are not designated a terror group just to appease Turkey). Turkish military advisors trained the Azeri army and piloted their drones, direct involvement there. (the full extent we dont know) And the YPG involvement is a total myth, part of this information-war when the Azeri side spread lies after their Syrian mercs were exposed. The evidence I have seen for that are videos from Syria with Armenians and Kurds in the SDF. No Kurdish PKK crossed the border with Iran and were recruited by the Armenians, simply ridiculous, but what we do know is the Turks used planes to transport hundreds of Syrian mercs. I may sound biased, but it's the truth. I support the truth. User178198273998166172 (talk) 22:17, 3 December 2020

All of this has been discussed extensively before. Enough reliable sources establish Syrian Mercenary involvement as well as Turkey's support was also miltary not just political. Also PKK involvement has been yet to be established by a reliable third party source. Flalf^Talk 04:19, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

There is no proof in any of those sources. Same with YPG/PKK involvement allegations. So please add or remove them to/from the infobox completely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.227.217.44 (talk) 12:24, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

If the PKK is not a terrorist organization and it is an organization that kills civilians, then Isis and Al Qaeda, they are not. For the West, the terrorist is a Muslim only, this is a shame. Ryu9888 (talk) 12:30, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Lachin

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

---

I would appreciate third party input into discussion about who actually controls the town of Lachin at the moment. Please see here: [19] Grandmaster 23:18, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

The district is in Azerbaijani control since the 1st. [20] and the corridor is being occupied by Russian peacekeepers. [21] Flalf^Talk 04:24, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Exactly. Could you please explain that at the talk page of Lachin? AntonSamuel (talk · contribs) claims that the region is under de-facto control of "NKR", and I don't find his position to be constructive, because he fails to cite any reliable source for the Armenian control, and reverts any attempts to include information about the Lachin corridor and town of Lachin being under control of the Russian peacekeepers, let alone Azerbaijani control. [22] I want to exhaust all means of amicable resolution before escalating this further. Grandmaster 12:39, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

There have been a lot of edits recently removing any mention of Armenians or the Republic of Artsakh from the Nagorno-Karabakh articles without sufficient reasoning or sources backing up the edits, and I identified the round of edits to the towns in the Lachin corridor (Lachin, Sus and Zabux) as a part of these. I've explained why I would argue that it is likely from the information that has been presented from other editors so far, and from the sources that I've presented, that there is at least some level of Artsakh civilian control in the Lachin corridor still in place, on the talk page of the Lachin article: [23] and why I don't consider there to have been sufficient ground to claim a partial or full Azerbaijani takeover of the Lachin corridor in some manner, which has been argued for on the talk page as well. I believe the situation will clear up further in the coming days, but I've also stated that if there is a need to clarify the ambiguity of the current situation on the articles - I don't have have an issue with that. AntonSamuel (talk) 12:53, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

The only thing that is certain at this point is that Lachin corridor is under the control of Russian peacekeepers. My attempts to include that verifiable info were reverted by you without providing any sources attesting to the contrary. In particular, you failed to provide any reliable source to confirm that the town of Lachin and Lachin corridor are under de-facto Armenian control. Just your own assumptions as to what the presence of former Armenian mayor might mean. That is not acceptable, and is a violation of WP:OR. Note that your opinion contradicts the opinion of multiple editors of that page, and an opinion expressed here. Grandmaster 13:42, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

As I stated on the Lachin talk page, I don't agree with your assessment - I reverted the removal of the mention of the Kashatagh Province and the Republic of Artsakh as no sources were provided to back up the edits and I've provided sources displaying employees (the mayor and the head of the Kashatagh Province) of the Artsakh administration continuing to be present and operating in Lachin. But again, if there is a need to clarify the ambiguity of the current situation on the articles - I don't have have an issue with that, mentioning that the area is under Russian military control, and that the nature of the civilian administration is currently unclear - if its Artsakhi, Russian or some other form of local self-governance. AntonSamuel (talk) 13:57, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

The mayor does not work in any official capacity, the "NKR" fag was removed by Russian peacekeepers, and Azerbaijani flag is raised over the city administration building. If the flag is gone, then he is just a private person. Grandmaster 14:51, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Syrian Mercenaries

Please remove this, most of the citations are mere accusations. There has yet to be evidence of Syrian mercs and the self-proclaimed Syrian merc in the confessional interview released by Armenian media has been exposed as an Armenian soldier. KY-Acc (talk) 15:15, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

     Re: Agreed. Also there is a sentence in the article "Evidence of the presence of Syrian fighters in Azerbaijan is increasing.". This is complete armenian lie and propaganda. How can evidence increase when there is zero (0) of it. This sentence should be removed, or, at least, the word "Evidence" should be changed to "Allegations". (Dian Nikolow, 5 December, 09.51 UTC)

As previously stated, this has already been discussed. See previous discussions here at the talk page and the relevant Wikipedia DNR discussion which reached a compromise consensus on the issue. EkoGraf (talk) 15:30, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

     Re: Yes, we know, it has been 'discussed', but the result reached is pro-armenian, wikipedia is supposed to be unbiased. That is the core problem. Also that sentence mentioned, 'Evidence of..', someone should have a look at that too.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.220.127.146 (talk) 16:50, 5 December 2020 (UTC) 

All cited third-party sources (non-Armenian) are verifiable as per Wikipedia's policy. EkoGraf (talk) 23:20, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

@EkoGraf: As I've brought up before is there a template we can use (or make) for all Syrian Mercenary related queries which states: "All queries relating to involvement of Syrian Mercenaries in 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war will not be replied to unless reliable sources supporting the argument are given." or something along the lines? I don't really know if there is a precedent for this but we are getting the same message over and over again. Flalf^Talk 04:58, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

      The sources are all allegations, no evidence. And all those countries have a significant armenian population along with being cristian or, like Syria/Asad, don't like Turkey, so sure those can be trusted. People won't trust wikipedia as an unbiased source of information with this. Shame.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.220.127.146 (talk) 11:39, 6 December 2020 (UTC) 

There are plenty of third party sources on Syrian mercenaries. Vici Vidi (talk) 06:45, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, for example, this:stj-sy.org --188.227.217.44 (talk) 06:36, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 December 2020

Azerbaijan was also supported by Pakistan. 120.21.9.232 (talk) 16:19, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Thank you very much for your input! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 17:45, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Armenian Casualties

Update Armenian Military Casualties to 2,718+, as per the recent Armenian Health Ministry statement.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/dec/05/armenian-protesters-demand-prime-minister-quit-over-deal-with-nagorno-karabakh Wrenwelch (talk) 02:50, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done - With the exception of the plus, because the casualties are per Armenia and since the claim makes no mention of it I won't add it. Flalf^Talk 05:05, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Kharkiv incident

Solavirum, by "it's related to Azerbaijanis abroad" i clearly meant the section not accused them of "firing at their own building" duh. The police hasn't identified the "two unknown individuals" as Armenians, therefore more suitable in that section as the incident is Azerbaijan-related. Eurofan88 (talk) 19:03, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Eurofan88, that section refers to actions by Azerbaijanis and Turks, not Azerbaijan-related incidents in general. And, as there is an accusation, we have a suitable section for it. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 19:34, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Number of refugees from first war

The article states:

The First Nagorno-Karabakh War resulted in the displacement of approximately 725,000 Azerbaijanis and 300,000–500,000 Armenians from both Azerbaijan and Armenia.[24]

It refers to an unreliable source. There could not be 500,000 Armenian refugees from Azerbaijan, because in Soviet times the entire Armenian population of Azerbaijan was that much, of which 150,000 lived in Nagorno-Karabakh. I think it is better to use a more reliable source, like OSCE report, which refers to UNHCR figures: [25] According to the report, On 1 September 1994 there were 304 000 refugees in Armenia representing some 12% of the total population. and The total number of refugees and displaced in Azerbaijan in July 1994 was estimated at approximately 900 000, out of a total population of more than 7 million. I updated the article with this info. Grandmaster 21:21, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Grandmaster, a couple of things of here. Firstly Wiener Zeitung is definitely not an unreliable source, and the author specifically cites a book published by an Austrian academic pubilshing house (Christoph H. Benedikter: "Brennpunkt Berg-Karabach", Studienverlag) for those numbers. The Council of Europe report you shared is a primary source from 1995: yes it's an independent, third-party source, but it's still primary – we favour secondary sources because they have the benefit of being removed from events. The ideal situation would be to actually have a copy of the book that the Wiener Zeitung quotes, in order to see its methology and references. I can see there's variation in the numbers reported in recent secondary sources (for example, in 2016 a Washington Post columnist put the numbers at 700,000 Azeris and 235,000 Armenians, although this appears less authoratitive than the Wiener Zeitung piece). Perhaps for the sake of accuracy ranges could be included with the numbers found in recent scholarship, and a search through JSTOR would be helpful. However, this is an issue that definitely needs to be addressed at the article on the first war, together with some digging into the secondary (ideally academic) sources, as all we're doing in this article is providing a quick summary and redirecting readers to the other article. The numbers there don't tie up – the infobox uses the same source as here with identical figures, while the lead text uses numbers similar to the WP article, and the cite provided fails verification (I'll add a tag now). It would be good if you could start a discussion there, or I'll eventually do so myself when I get round to it. For now, I think the numbers here are fine (it does specifically say 'approximately') and well-supported, just like the infobox at the first war. Jr8825 • Talk 17:22, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Jr8825. I see your point, but I do not mean tha Wiener Zeitung is not reliable in general, but it is not reliable when it comes to statistics of the first war. As I mentioned before, the total number of Armenian population in Azerbaijan was 500,000, which included the Armenian population of Nagorno-Karabakh, and therefore the entire Armenian population of Azerbaijan could not be refugees. At least those Armenians who lived in NK certainly remained, and there are also Armenians living in Baku and other locations in Azerbaijan. The source that I used is a special report of PACE on the conflict. It is indeed from 1995, but the numbers could not change since then. PACE report refers to UNHCR numbers, and this was an international organization that dealt with refugees in both countries. Therefore I think that it is the most reliable source on the number of refugees in the first war 1991-1994. Washington Post is not wrong either, 700.000 is the number of Azerbaijani refugees from NK and 7 occupied districts, and if we add to that 200,000 Azerbaijani refugees from Armenia, it would be 900,000. I agree that PACE report is a primary source, but we do not interpret the primary source here, which is against the rules, we simply quote the statistics from it. It is quite normal to use statistical information presented in primary sources, such as censuses, refugee reports, etc. Of course, if better source than PACE and UNHCR is found, we can use it instead, but this is the best that I can see at the moment. The number should be updated in the inforbox for the other article, the sources in that infobox are mostly unreliable. Grandmaster 18:17, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

This is original research/thought. The fact of the matter is that Wiener Zeitung is a well-respected, established broadsheet and it's quoting an academic text by a subject expert. We aren't qualified to call it unreliable or inaccurate – if you think the number is wrong, find a reliable secondary source that criticizes Wiener Zeitung's number, or a reliable secondary source that has a different figure for the total displaced persons, and include it as a range. The 300,000–500,000 number is the total of displaced persons, which doesn't seem incompatible with the Council of Europe report anyway, which says there were 304,000 refugees in Armenia: a large number of Armenians would've been displaced during the fighting before being able to return home after the war, it seems plausible that this included most Armenians within the zone of conflict and a number with Armenia itself. This is all a bit moot, as we need to be guided by the established sources, not our own arithmetic. Jr8825 • Talk 18:46, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

But why should we rely on sources that defy common logic? If the entire Armenian population was 500,000, of which at least 150,000 remained, then certainly Wiener Zeitung cannot be trusted on this matter. And the source that it refers to is certainly not well-informed. Please note that this newspaper is not an expert source on statistics or refugees, while UNHCR is. Grandmaster 18:56, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Also please note that our own article Armenians in Azerbaijan states that the Armenian population of Azerbaijan numbered 500,000, and now it is about 120,000. I believe we should have some sort of consistency of information throughout the articles on Armenia-Azerbaijan topic. Grandmaster 19:26, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

The source says where each of those displaced groups came from, and specifically says some Armenians were displaced from within Armenia or along the border. It seems perfectly plausible to me, but most importantly the numbers have a trustworthy, recent, sholarly origin. As it happens, CuriousGolden decided to adjust to unsupported lead numbers on that article to match the infobox, and I followed up on that edit by tweaking the wording so it accurately reflects the source. If you can find other recent academic sources that are just as precise, then go ahead and include them there. 300,000-500,000 is a very broad range, so I expect you'll be able to find other sources – you may want to start a discussion at the article if you think the issue needs closer scrutiny, it's a FA so I expect you'll get a decent amount of feedback. It may be the case that there's a weight of academic sources that favour the lower end of that range, in which case the wording can be tweaked to reflect that. Jr8825 • Talk 19:41, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I just copy-pasted the source and numbers from infobox to replace a bad source with verification tag. I don't really like tags. So, I have no idea about that source's reliability and can't comment on it as of now. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 19:54, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Grandmaster I've gone ahead and reverted the change you made to this article for now. I had a quick look on Google for that 900,000 figure and only found a small number of hits from the 1990s using the figure. I was considering whether this was enough to warrant a range with multiple cites (i.e. 700,000 – 900,000) but then I came across this 1995 journal article which says "the government of Azerbaijan estimates that more than 900,000 people have been displaced by the six-year-old conflict in Nagorno-Karabkah" (p. 1632), which suggests the number may have been provided to the UNHCR by the Azerbaijani government, and then quoted in the CoE report. The fact that I couldn't find more recent sources using 900,000 leads me to question whether it has since been revised down in scholarship. This is speculative, I'll admit, but the WZ secondary source is much better in the interim than the CoE primary source. Again, what I think this needs is a discussion over at that war's article and someone to do a methodical review of the academic sources. Jr8825 • Talk 00:45, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Alright. In the meantime, we can do some more research on the topic and see if we can find better sources. Grandmaster 10:23, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

2020 July clashes

Robert Kocharyan blamed Armenian side for escalation in July clashes i think it should be added to July Section https://ru.armeniasputnik.am/politics/20201204/25624716/Vlasti-Armenii-sdelali-vse-chtoby-priblizit-voynu-v-Karabakhe---Kocharyan.html, also Sergey Lavrov mentioned Armenian sides attempt to reinstate old border post reignited the conflict his direct quote in Russian "Плюс исключительная перегретость публичного пространства по обе стороны границы. Своего рода спусковым крючком послужил и географический фактор: решение армянской стороны" https://www.trud.ru/article/20-08-2020/1393051_sergej_lavrov_pandemija_uskorila_myslitelnye_protsessy_v_evrosojuze.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.76.168.114 (talk) 09:19, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree, this is an important information, and it should be in the article. Grandmaster 09:44, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

I was going to add this, got carried about I suppose. But consider that Kocharyan is in the opposition, but being an ex-president gives you a huge amount of notability. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 11:32, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes he is in opposition, i guess the other side of the coin might be that he is more tempted to reveal damaging information which Armenian government might be trying to cover. Thanks Grandmaster and Solavirum! Agulani (talk) 12:42, 7 December 2020 (UTC) 12:25, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Y done. See 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war#Frozen conflict and July 2020 Armenian–Azerbaijani clashes. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 12:55, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

@Solavirum: I've undone your addition to the background (frozen conflict) section here because this detail just isn't relevant to the 2020 war – the reader can follow the link to the clashes article if they want to find out more (per WP:SUMMARY). It's also controversial – I had a quick check over a selection of reliable secondary sources to see if they described the 2020 clashes as being Armenia's fault, and didn't find anything (they generally say both sides blamed each other). It would only be worth considering whether to include this if it was an accepted fact that Armenia was responsible.

I agree this is relevant to the July 2020 Armenian–Azerbaijani clashes article, but putting it in the lead there isn't appropriate as the lead should only summarise what's already in the article and been an undisputed, neutral overview of the topic. The bit you added should be moved to a new section on 'analysis' or 'claims of responsibility' etc., where we can describe the most important claims and counter-claims, as well as reliable secondary source reports and then significant figures' views (such as Kocharyan). It's unbalanced to add one politician's claim without attempting to build a more accurate, broad picture (politicians are not neutral experts, and if they aren't in office then they aren't even a primary source, plus they almost certainly have an agenda/POV). For example, the Guardian wrote at the time: "The latest incident began when Armenian and Azerbaijani troops exchanged fire in the northern section of their border. Officials in both countries blamed each other for starting the fighting and said sporadic shelling had continued." If you can find more recent independent commentators supporting what Kocharyan has said about Armenia being guilty of escalating/starting the July clashes, then great, add those in too to the new section. I haven't removed it from the lead for now as I'm quite busy, but I'd ask you to move it to a separate section (perhaps in aftermath) and try to expand it to include on other analyses/claims. Jr8825 • Talk 15:47, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Got it. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 16:30, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Solavirum edits

Here we go again. Please, explain this [26] Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 18:35, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

I had explained it. If you can't read it, I'll restate it. Your addition violates WP:RS/P. You can look for the source you've added there. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 18:56, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Solavirum, just to clarify, that source isn't necessarily in violation of RSP, the issue is that Medium is a self-publishing platform (it's a case of WP:BLOG, so the issue is SELFPUB). If you read the description there you'll notice that it says it "should be avoided unless the author is a subject-matter expert". So, if DFRLab (which appears to be connected with the reasonably well-regarded Atlantic Council) had a reputation for being an impartial expert in this field, the source would be acceptable.

That said, I agree with your revert of Գարիկ Ավագյան's addition, as the source isn't good enough for such an exceptional claim – it's ultimately original (i.e. not peer-reviewed) research based largely on interpretation of satellite imagery, as is clear from reading through the article. It's a tricky one, as within current affairs this type of investigative organisation is becoming more and more commonplace, but it's a fair revert – a journal article or news report picking up on the research would warrant inclusion, but the investigative arm of a think-tank (we should generally be wary of thinktanks anyway) is a weak source. Jr8825 • Talk 16:23, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

On such a widely reported war we can do much better than this Medium source. If there is a better source, maybe the same content can go in. Vici Vidi (talk) 06:49, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Other bloggers suggest that it was the Armenian side who used white phosphorus in order to create smokescreens against drones. Sounds plausible, but until a relaible source for such claims is found, they cannot be included in the article. Grandmaster 18:00, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 December 2020

Please remove the "part of the Russia-Turkey proxy conflict" content from the main template. It's a heavily discussed subject and should not be stated as a fact. Sweetkind5 (talk) 11:56, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Just as it was not stated as a fact in the article of "First Nagorno-Karabakh War". Sweetkind5 (talk) 12:02, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. Melmann 15:45, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Syrians were shipped off to fight as mercenaries alongside the Armenian forces in the war against Azerbaijan over September and October 2020

Please update information about Armenia. They were using mercenaries against Azerbaijan. Previous fake reports about Turkish backed mercenaries are fairy tales. From the Russia-operated Khmeimim Air Base, somewhere near Jableh city in Latakia province, Syrians were shipped off to fight as mercenaries alongside the Armenian forces in the war against Azerbaijan over September and October 2020, exactly as they were dispatched to Libya to lend the clashing parties there manpower earlier in the year. The Russian military carried out the enlistments in collusion with the Syrian government, according to the testimonies and accounts that Syrians for Truth and Justice (STJ) obtained from witnesses and several credible sources. The recruits are almost exclusively members of the 5th Legion and are particularly from the provinces of Homs and Deir ez-Zor. https://stj-sy.org/en/to-nagorno-karabakh-not-libya-how-did-russian-forces-trick-dozens-of-syrians-into-mercenarism-in-armenia/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1elvinn (talk • contribs) 18:49, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I doubt they will write anything about it. Since those are "diaspora volunteers." And unfortunately, they can't name them mercenaries, since that would make this page "biased". And I wonder who would read a "biased" page? Not like the Armenian side rigged Wikipedia enough and made it untrustable. This discussion will probably go to void too, like others wanting to stop making Armenians showed as victims. But I hope and believe they might read the article and edit a few things.--188.227.217.44 (talk) 05:18, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

stj-sy.org is not a reliable source. Vici Vidi (talk) 06:51, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

It is as much reliable as a verified source like BBC making an article on basis of "someone told someone about that."--188.227.217.44 (talk) 06:32, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Agree that the wikipedia page is very biased, in favor of armenia. With no proof of syrians fighting for Azerbaijan, they still included it in infobox. This only shows that some editors here are biased, sadly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.156.71.30 (talk) 07:16, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

STJ is an independent, nongovernmental organization whose members include Syrian human rights defenders, advocates and academics of different backgrounds and nationalities. And they are for sure doesn`t have any tendency towards Turkish as one would see from their several reports on Turkish role in Syria. Their reports are also used as a reference by several media outlets.78.163.118.69 (talk) 09:08, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Armenia Several hundred missing

Casualties and losses Armenia

Artsakh

• Several hundred missing https://armenpress.am/eng/news/1034974.html

why were the missing Armenian soldiers removed?--45.135.206.228 (talk) 14:31, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Several hundred were reported missing at the time when 2,425 were confirmed killed. Now, 2,996 are confirmed killed, so we can safely assume that this now includes the several hundred previously reported missing. EkoGraf (talk) 00:25, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

User:EkoGraf This is your opinion. Personal opinions cannot be added to Wikipedia

There are no official updates about the deficiencies. Bring the information back until the official release.--45.135.206.228 (talk) 19:20, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Officially, at the moment, they are stating 2,996 killed, but have not mentioned there are still several hundred missing. They have made two updates since then regarding their casualties (both times making no mention regarding any MIA), making the previous information outdated. EkoGraf (talk) 20:10, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Analysis

Azerbaijani aims section is poorly written, it refers to pre-war assessments of some "experts", who are clearly out of touch with reality, and failed to give an accurate forecast of the outcome of the conflict. Especially the Foreign Policy analysis is abysmal, it claims that Azerbaijani army was totally incapable of fighting. I would personally never use those experts to give their assessments for another war. I believe this section should be re-written with the use of better sources, and better analyses that reflect the reality. Grandmaster 11:08, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Amnesty/HRW recent additions

Why is it that HRW and Amnesty International's recent updates have been added in the Armenian section of suspected war crimes but not Azerbaijan? is there a purpose for this? or just not gotten around to it yet? maybe SolaVirum knows? Skishelpful (talk) 15:32, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm busy with other stuff atm. Anyone can WP:BOLD it. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 16:08, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

I brought it to the talk page as I do not have editing permissions, but if you're busy that's alright I'm sure someone will do it eventually Skishelpful (talk) 16:47, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

A reminder for any editors with editing permissions on this article to add the war crime information from HRW and Amnesty international under the Azerbaijani section as well, it is necessary for it to be a balanced section. Skishelpful (talk) 08:29, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Syrian Mercenaries for Armenia

https://stj-sy.org/en/to-nagorno-karabakh-not-libya-how-did-russian-forces-trick-dozens-of-syrians-into-mercenarism-in-armenia/ Please add Syrian Mercenaries to the "Units involved" and possibly "belligerents" section for Armenia. Also add the "Armenian Diaspora Volunteers" to the "Units Involved" section as they are only in the "Belligerents" section so far. KY-Acc (talk) 16:55, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Although I can not edit I would like to mention to you that Syrian-Armenians with Armenian passports fighting for Artsakh counts them as just Armenians, not Syrian mercenaries Skishelpful (talk) 17:22, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

The article says nothing about passports, where did you get that from? and clearly says "Aided by the Syrian government, Russian forces recruited hundreds of Syrians to fight in Armenia this time, again luring them with money. Simultaneously, and with the sole motive of fighting, other Syrians, from Armenian origins, flew to the battleground" which means, according to the article, some syrian-armenians flew with the syrian mercenaries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.156.71.30 (talk) 08:36, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Just because an article omits that information, does not mean it is not true, in addition, the site you linked's credibility is not known, if you were to add it at all, you can add it as an accusation/input by that website, not as a fact Skishelpful (talk) 08:52, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

The passport issue is totally your personal idea, has nothing to do with the article (and even facts). As for credible-or-not I don't want to say anything about that, It would be an opinion If I did, not only for this source but nearly around 90% of the sources fall in that category for me. There have been talks about this specific source and others on this page. A lot of sources are just accusations/allegations that shamelessly duplicate each other, but some editors here have presented them as facts. PS: by the way I am not the OP, please read carefully. The source wan't linked by me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.156.71.30 (talk) 09:12, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

The passport issue is a common brought up counter to this, regardless of it all, there is a difference between hiring Syrians from rebel groups vs. real Armenian diaspora volunteers (many of which have dual passports, hence the passport thing.) Secondly, with your logic wikipedia shouldn't exist as nothing is credible, but there is difference between an obscure Syrian website, and something like BBC for example. Third, yes I am aware you're not the OP, but you replied to me about the same topic, so I treated it as if you are agreeing with the OP. Anyways ,I do not think it is necessary to discuss it further, (for now, at least) as this topic has been brought up multiple times before on this talk page, to no avail.Skishelpful (talk) 09:46, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Note that Kommersant has also confirmed Nubar Ozanyan, as well as ex-ASALA members fighting on Armenia's side. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 11:48, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Keep reaching. Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:12, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

The white phosphorous video

Hi, the video in the war crimes section allegedly showing the use of white phosphorous is not actually white phosphorous. Several geo-locators, military experts on Twitter confirmed that the explosion in the video was not white phosphorous. 1, 2, 3. There have been no confirmations of that specific video actually showing white phosphorous, therefore keeping the video makes no sense. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 07:50, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Agree. It's not clear which side used phosphorus and also not clear if the video actually shows phosphorus. Also, Azerbaijani side has two videos, but Armenian side has only one lazy picture which doesn't reveal the scale of the actual bombings. Definitely imbalance here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.156.71.30 (talk) 08:50, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

I will copyedit the text for now. But I agree with the removal. Showing material from the Armenian defence ministry as truth ain't a good thing. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 11:50, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Not a single one of those Twitter accounts is verified, and cannot be considered reliable sources. Observer IL is based in Israel which is pro-Azeri, and Theiner, a "film industry executive", has a lot of blatantly Armenophobic tweets like this and this. --Steverci (talk) 15:28, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

"is based in Israel which is pro-Azeri" might be the single weirdest WP:OR I've seen on Wikipedia. Not sure if you didn't already know this, but not every citizen of a country supports their government's position on international matters. Could you please provide a WP:RS that confirms that what we see in the specific video is actually white phosphorus? — CuriousGolden (T·C) 15:38, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

It's not clear if this account is for a state organization or just an individual playing with Google Earth, but if it's the latter, their personal opinion doesn't count as a source. --Steverci (talk) 16:37, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Well-known Russian military expert Murakhovsky says that neither side used white phosphorus: [27] Grandmaster 17:06, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Removing the image. There's billion Azerbaijani-published images apparently showing Armenian using white phosphorus. No one dares to independently confirm it. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 17:58, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Please check section Post-ceasefire clashes [28]. It is messed up, reference is broken, and there's a text at the end from another section. Needs fixing. Grandmaster 18:46, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

I have no idea where the text from another section belongs, to be honest. Perhaps @Solavirum: knows? — CuriousGolden (T·C) 19:01, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Oops, my bad. Forgot to close ref. I fixed it. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 19:31, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

@Grandmaster:@Steverci: The use of White Phosphorus by Azerbaijan has been independently confirmed by L'Obs. the piece is behind a paywall but the title says it confirmed by a French doctor.--Sataralynd (talk) 02:07, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Recent edits

I have noticed that most of the edits in the past few days have been pro azerbaijan perspective, I do not have a problem with this, however I have an issue the consequence of the article no longer being as balanced. The Editors are not to blame, I just thought I would highlight this issue Skishelpful (talk) 19:45, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

how do you describe pro-Azerbaijani? a lot of edits that would be deemed "pro-Azerbaijani" are removed instantly while i would argue most "pro-Armenian" sources are left to balance out the article, i would say that this article is way more balanced that other articles on Wikipedia where some of the sources are from websites like Asbarez and Armenipedia and only describe Armenian narrative one such article would be Azerbaijani-Armenia war of 1918 if you read Russian wikipedia's article it is completely different and gives very good balanced narrative Agulani (talk) 05:15, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Agulani, you may have misunderstood what I am saying, I am referring to recent additions on the past few days, for example the HRW and Amnesty reports against armenia were mentioned but not the ones against Azerbaijan, I am not calling the article as a whole unbalanced, just the edits occuring in the past few days. And remember WP:AAGF Skishelpful (talk) 05:51, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Again, anyone WP:BOLD it. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 08:57, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

SolaVirum, I would not bring it up if I had the editing perms to do it myself, but Alas, I do not, so I bring it upSkishelpful (talk) 04:36, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Infobox belligerents changes

List Armenia as only being "Supported by:" for Artsakh

• "Armenia's armed forces have so far held back from entering the war alongside those of Nagorno-Karabakh"
• "Officially, Armenia is not at war with Azerbaijan and vice versa, and the fighting is ostensibly between Azerbaijan and the NKR."
• Leaked discussion of Arayik Harutyunyan saying that Nikol Pashinyan is refusing to aid Artsakh.

Remove Russia as a belligerent completely

• "The treaty envisages Russia's military support if Armenia is attacked - but it does not include Nagorno-Karabakh or the other Azerbaijani regions around it seized by Armenian forces."
• "Moscow has sought to remain neutral during the conflict, while consistently stressing its strong ties with Azerbaijan."
  • "In response, Russia’s ministry of foreign affairs released a statement that did not confirm talks would begin but stated: “In accordance with the treaty, Russia will provide Yerevan with all the necessary assistance if the clashes are transferred directly to the territory of Armenia.”"
• Link to official Russian government statement saying they will not support Artsakh
• “It should be said that our position is absolutely open with regard to the possibility of handing over these five plus two [surrounding] districts to Azerbaijan, alongside the provision of a specific regime for the Karabakh zone and the securing of a link with Armenia,” Mr Putin said on Thursday.
• "He [Putin] has referred to both Armenia and Azerbaijan as valued Russian partners. And he has specified that Russia’s treaty obligation to defend Armenia – both are members of the Collective Security Treaty Organization – applies only to Armenia itself, not to Armenian-controlled territory in and around Karabakh."

This makes about as much sense as listing listing China and Ukraine as belligerents too

Add Turkey to full belligerent and include Erdogan in leaders

• "Turkey’s support for Azerbaijan has been vital"
• "as Ankara sold crucial drone technology to Azerbaijan"
• Erdogan admitted that Turkey supported Azerbaijan in the war against Artsakh
• "Turkey played a critical role in Azerbaijan’s victory over Armenian forces in the fight for control of Nagorno-Karabakh"
• "This time the conflict was different, analysts and former diplomats said, because Turkey had offered more direct support to Azerbaijan....Turkey’s direct engagement in support of its ethnic Turkic ally, Azerbaijan, in an area of traditional Russian influence, turned the local dispute into a regional one."
• "The Azerbaijani military could not have reclaimed territory lost to Armenia in Nagorno-Karabakh without Turkish military support."

Especially if Armenia is still listed as a full belligerent, though there's a strong argument even if it isn't.

Remove Armenian diaspora volunteers

All of the sources are for individuals, not an organized gathered force. Feels like the trying to force an equivalent for the Syrian mercenaries. --Steverci (talk) 16:27, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Wow, you are super-biased to armenia with all this. "artsakh" alone couldn't stand a week against Azerbaijan. The war was between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Russia isn't even listed as belligerent but as arms supplier which is true. Turkey is one of arms suppliers to Azerbaijan, it's only an allegation that it somehow provided military support, but a fact that it provided political support, basically trying to neutralize some 3rd parties helping armenia. And half of the sources you listed are armenian sources, so surely they can be trusted as un-biased, right? This is not your everyday armenian forum, this is Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.235.34.165 (talk) 16:53, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Is this a joke?

1. Armenia fought in the war. Hell, they even decided the fate of "Artsakh". Pashinyan himself has said that in Shusha the Armenian Armed Forces had taken part. Even the Armenian National Security was fighting here. Also, Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights had reported that in early 2000s, of the 18,000 troops in Nagorno-Karabakh, 8,000 were personnel from Armenia. This application is, without a doubt, is an insult to our readers. Everybody knows that "Artsakh" basically serves as a protectorate of Armenia. To claim that Armenia did not take part in the war, is a joke. Not formally declaring a war has nothing to do with this and your source on the so-called leaked discussion is unreliable as it can get.
2. Russia, throughout the war, had financed the Armenian Army. You can see many references for it. Turkey's involvement was limited like Russia's. Sending weapons to Azerbaijan, like how Russia sold weapons to Armenia, won't make you a belligerent, but a supporter. You have no argument or proof that the Turkish Armed Forces did took part in the war.
3. Removing the volunteers part is also WP:JDLI. They're not citizens of Armenia, thus, they're a different party. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 17:09, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

1. Armenia never officially entered the war, as multiple sources confirm. Pashinyan prevented regular Armenian reserves from participating. Something from early 2000s is very outdated, Pashinyan has been criticized for reducing Armenia's involvement in Artsakh and rejecting thousands of volunteers. The leaked conversation has been confirmed real by Harutyunyan's deputy and been reported by several Atmenian news sites.
2. Russia has released an official statement they do not support Artsakh and took no actions against Azerbaijan, it's a plain lie to list them as a belligerent. There is no evidence of Russia financing Armenia, only Azerbaijan claimed that, and it was debunked by both Russia and Iran. A great deal of third party sources accuse Turkey of participating, and Turkish armed forces and military equipment were photographed.
3. The Syrian mercenaries come from two established divisions, and had a commander and chain of command. There were thousands of Syrian mercenaries, we don't even know how many Armenian diaspora volunteers there were. All accounts point to them acting as individuals. Should we put "Venezuelan mercenaries" under the Ottoman Empire for World War I because of Rafael de Nogales Méndez? --Steverci (talk) 23:19, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

References

Armenia is directly involved in the conflict. Otherwise, why is peace agreement signed between Armenia and Azerbaijan? And why thousands of Armenian conscripts died in Karabakh? And not a single Turkish soldier was killed in Karabakh, and there's no evidence of direct involvement of Turkey in the hostilities. And every report on mercenaries includes mention of Armenian diaspora fighters, because being non-nationals of Armenia makes them foreign fighters. Grandmaster 21:03, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

The United Kingdom and France signed the Treaty of Berlin despite not participating in the Russo-Turkish War (1877–1878), so that's irrelevant. A great deal of third party sources accuse Turkey of participating, and Turkish armed forces and military equipment were photographed. The Syrian mercenaries come from two established divisions, and had a commander and chain of command. There were thousands of Syrian mercenaries, we don't even know how many Armenian diaspora volunteers there were. All accounts point to them acting as individuals. Should we put "Venezuelan mercenaries" under the Ottoman Empire for World War I because of Rafael de Nogales Méndez? --Steverci (talk) 23:19, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

We're not only saying that Armenia had participated in the war because of the treaty, look at the other arguments we've put. "A great deal of third party sources accuse Turkey of participating". The two of the three third-party sources you've mentioned here are Armenia-based media outlets. Steverci, if you didn't know, this deliberately lying. The other Eurasianet thing was already discussed here. The Turkish forces conducted joint drilling in Azerbaijan in July, and when the war started, the Turkish planes could not leave (officially). There's really no confirmation of Turkey's direct involvement here. Just for clarity, I will also address the issue of one of the Armenian sources you've provided. The soldier there had passed the joint drills with Turkey in July, and every single servicemen who passed it received that badge. The image cought the eye of the Armenian government, and now, you're trying to show Armenian government propaganda as third-party sources. How's that right? Also, "we don't even know how many Armenian diaspora volunteers there were", so? There might be accounts of individual participation, but those numbers are at hundreds, maybe thousands (see here). Don't act like a single Armenian dude showed up at the Yerevan airport and then we decided to pour all of the diaspora's name there. If you don't object, I'm concluding this ridiculous application for good. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 23:39, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

References

Since when are Reuters, The Guardian, and Wall Street Journal considered "Armenia-based media outlets"? 1lurer is an Armenian source, but it merely quotes a public statement by Erdogan, where he admits that Turkey was involved in the war. And do you realize you just all but confirmed that Turkish forces were involved? That they just happened to be in Azerbaijan in July, when many news sources were reporting that Azerbaijan was mobilizing and predicting hostilities to resume? The volunteers are definitely not thousands, doubtfully even hundreds. What is that paragraph supposed to prove? Half of it is just Turkey and Azerbaijan projecting their own crimes by accusing the hiring of mercenary terrorists. The presence of Armenian volunteers has not received nearly as much third-party coverage as the Syrian terrorists fighting for Azerbaijan. I cited a more recent Greek City Times source, which revealed that the volunteers from Greece were rejected. Even if 500 Armenians in Lebanon did try to join the fighting, most of them were also likely rejected. Such a large number would go noticed by far more than one source. The Karapet Aghajanyan figure of 10 is far more likely, and not notable enough to include in the belligerents. Edit: sources confirming that the Turkish forces remained in Azerbaijan and participated in the conflict. --Steverci (talk) 00:02, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Don't play games here. You've cited PanArmenian and Asbarez as your sources. That they just happened to be in Azerbaijan in July, when many news sources were reporting that Azerbaijan was mobilizing and predicting hostilities to resume, when will you stop WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. Wikipedia is WP:NOTAFORUM for you. The presence of Armenian volunteers has not received nearly as much third-party coverage as the Syrian terrorists fighting for Azerbaijan, so? We're just going to avoid that non-Armenian nationals fought in the war, just because the Western media isn't in favor of depopularizing a Soros-backed leader? Even if 500 Armenians in Lebanon did try to join the fighting, most of them were also likely rejected, that's your sole opinon. There are legit sources for Armenian diaspora, Nuban Ozanyan, and ex-ASALA members fighting in Armenia's side. Even if that number consisted of 50 people, we still add it. Your application is just WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:POV. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 10:04, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

It's useless to agrue with a person like this. It's pointless, don't waste your time. My 2 cents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.235.34.165 (talk) 10:33, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Read my sources at the top again, all of those sources accuse Turkey of being involved. You're forgetting that claiming Armenia as a full belligerent is also original research. As I said in the beginning, I am more in favor of putting both Armenia and Turkey under "Supported by" than neither being under that. Western media isn't in favor of depopularizing a Soros-backed leader You're the one treating this like a forum. Western media is very pro-Azeri/Turkish and ignoring their war crimes because they don't want Turkey to leave NATO, but lets stay on topic. The Syrian mercenaries are a separate entity, they are from the Hamza Division and Sultan Murad Division. Armenian diaspora volunteers are acting as individuals. As an early discussion decided, Unless there is some kind of either official backing, or some organization that is doing this, it's giving way too much weight to the actions of a few random people. And you're seriously claiming someone who has been dead from three years was there? Lol. --Steverci (talk) 16:59, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Turkey is not directly involved. Officially parties to the conflict are Armenia and Azerbaijan. They are the ones who signed a peace deal, and no one has seen any Turkish soldier on the battlefield. And Armenian volunteers/mercenaries are directly involved, even Armenian side does not deny their involvement, so what is there to argue about? Grandmaster 19:42, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Read my point about the Treaty of Berlin again. Multiple sources confirmed the presence of Turkish soldiers. Either Armenia is listed as only playing a supporting role, or Turkey is listed as a full belligerent. You can't argue against both. --Steverci (talk) 20:05, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

1st source is WarGonzo (laughable source), the second one is a random kurdish website which is automatically marked as "not secure" by my browser. Third one is an unreliable greek website and the fourth one doesn't say anything about turkish soldiers on the ground and instead claims that turkey promoted the conflict. Do you honestly think these sources are reliable enough to build a whole argument on? — CuriousGolden (T·C) 20:11, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

What's wrong with Wargonzo? And all of the .az sources that still deny Syrian terrorist mercenaries are not laughable, right? Hawar News Agency is banned in Turkey, so that says more about your location than anything. GCT is used on this article already, and is used as a source for Armenian volunteers. And the Russian newspaper clearly states that Turkish forces remained in Azerbaijan and are involved in the conflict. --Steverci (talk) 20:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Holy moly, I'm sorry but I don't think discussion is going to go anywhere if you're asking "what's wrong with Wargonzo". — CuriousGolden (T·C) 20:32, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Interesting how you backtracked on the other sources. Wargonzo isn't blacklisted, why should it be considered unreliable? Even if they reported something that turned out to not be true, then by that same logic, all the .az sources need to be removed for still denying the presence of Syrian terrorists. I do think this isn't going anywhere, and it's probably time to get a dispute resolution. --Steverci (talk) 20:50, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Wargonzo is Aram Gabrilyanov's source. Extremely partisan. Once again, most mainstream sources do not accept Turkey as direct participant. If Azerbaijani source is used to quote a governmental official with proper attribution, then it is Ok. But not to claim something as a fact. And Russian source you refer to does not claim Turkish involvement as a fact, it refers to some anonymous source, and always says "allegedly", which means that it is not a fact, but allegation. Grandmaster 20:57, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

This article also has over ten sources from Aljazeera, which is also extremely partisan. I haven't seen a single mainstream source actually denying Turkey being a participant. Here are more sources for Turkish forces being involved. Once again, I'm arguing more for Armenia being listed as a supporting role, as has been confirmed by mainstream third-party sources I cited. --Steverci (talk) 23:47, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Aljazeera is a well-known source, and has no connection to either Azerbaijan or Armenia. If you have better sources, you can replace Aljazeera. The sources you refer to, Al-Masdar is pro-Assad publication, and national interest publishes op-eds, which are of quite dubious reliability. One of them, by some Mark Episkopos, claims that Azerbaijan dismissed Defense Minister Zakir Hasanov at the insistence of Turks, yet Hasanov is still in charge and commanded the parade on 10 December. How can such a source be taken seriously? Once again, it is not accepted in mainstream publications that Turkey is directly involved into the conflict. There's no solid proof that Turkey has boots on the ground in NK. Nothing but a few allegations, mostly from anonymous sources. Only when it becomes generally accepted that Turkish army fought in NK it could be listed as a belligerent. And Armenia is directly involved. 90% of Armenian soldiers are conscripts, officers and volunteers from Armenia. It is generally accepted, including by Armenia itself, that Armenia is directly involved. Once again, Armenia and Azerbaijan signed ceasefire agreement. "NKR" did not. How can Armenia agree to ceasefire and withdrawal of its troops, if it is not directly involved in the conflict? Grandmaster 10:45, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

There are plenty of citations on the Aljazeera article of accusations that it is a mouthpiece of Islamic terrorists, which are now fighting for Azerbaijan and Turkey. So it has a very clear bias. Not to mention that it routinely uses scare-quotes for the Armenian Genocide and portray it as debatable, like here. The GCT source is used on this article for Armenian diaspora volunteers, and is one of very few third-parties reporting that. Is it only a serious source when it supports what you want? Mainstream third-party sources like Reuters, The Guardian, and Wall Street Journal has all accused Turkey of playing a critical role in the war. Here are yet another two I found: "Turkey, whose military support for Azerbaijan was critical to the gains it made on the battlefield" and "Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who strongly backed Azerbaijan". I also found one from The New York Times: "This time the conflict was different, analysts and former diplomats said, because Turkey had offered more direct support to Azerbaijan....Turkey’s direct engagement in support of its ethnic Turkic ally, Azerbaijan, in an area of traditional Russian influence, turned the local dispute into a regional one." Do you have a source for that 90% claim? Steverci (talk) 21:33, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Direct support does not mean that Turkish army was fighting in Karabakh. Direct support could be diplomatic or support by supplying weapons or training of military personnel. Military support also does not mean direct involvement in hostilities. Supply of weapons and training is military support. At this point you need to seek dispute resolution, since there's no consensus for your proposed edits. Grandmaster 01:13, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

But Turkey has offered report even more ways that you leave out, such as recruiting mercenaries. Which is certainly "direct involvement in hostilities". --Steverci (talk) 00:45, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

That is not direct involvement. Direct involvement are boots on the ground. Let's continue this at WP:DR page, since you have already applied for it. Grandmaster 10:54, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

References

@Steverci: There are plenty of citations on the Aljazeera article of accusations that it is a mouthpiece of Islamic terrorists, which are now fighting for Azerbaijan and Turkey. where, on reddit? Beshogur (talk) 21:27, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

From the Wikipedia article:

• It aired videos it received from Osama bin Laden and the Taliban, deeming new footage of the world's most wanted fugitives to be newsworthy. Some criticized the network for giving a voice to terrorists.
• Earlier, Saudi Arabia and the UAE blocked Al Jazeera websites; Saudi Arabia closed Al Jazeera's bureau in Riyadh and halted its operating licence, accusing the network of promoting "terrorist groups" in the region; and Jordan also revoked the licence for Al Jazeera.
• On 24 November 2017, Dubai Police deputy chief Lieutenant General Dhahi Khalfan Tamim accused Al Jazeera of provoking the 2017 Sinai attack and called for bombing of Al Jazeera by the Saudi-led coalition, tweeting in Arabic "The alliance must bomb the machine of terrorism ... the channel of ISIL, al-Qaeda and the al-Nusra front, Al Jazeera the terrorists".

--Steverci (talk) 21:33, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Trump accused CNN too, doesn't mean anything. Saudi Arabia's and UAE's closure of AJ bureaus has doing to do with the recent crisis, also can't say these two countries are democratic and have freedom of speech either. Beshogur (talk) 21:40, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

From Al Jazeera controversies and criticism: The organization first received widespread attention in the West after 9/11, when it broadcast videos in which Osama bin Laden and Sulaiman Abu Ghaith defended the attacks. This led to accusations by the United States government that Al Jazeera was broadcasting propaganda on behalf of terrorists. The organization countered that it was making information available without comment, and several Western television channels later broadcast portions of the tapes. At a 3 October 2001 press conference, Colin Powell tried to persuade the emir of Qatar to close Al Jazeera. --Steverci (talk) 21:56, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Can a third-party user interfere and tell this user that we're not not the Armenian State Encyclopedia? --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 20:18, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

@Steverci: Ridiculous proposal. First, Rafael de Nogales Méndez is a single person, not a number of people. Second take your WP RS concerns about AJ to the noticeboard. AJ is a reliable source. See this. Beshogur (talk) 12:26, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

References

--► Sincerely: SolaVirum 10:03, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Note for editors

The section for the [suspected] Armenian war crimes needs cleanup. I think there is duplicate information too. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 17:32, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

What clean-up would you like to see specifically Solavirum? I am more than happy to edit the section but need specific items to consider before editing an article. Jurisdicta (talk) 17:02, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Jurisdicta, I think there are many duplicate points there. A general copyediting would do the trick I suppose. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 10:07, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Solaviru, good to know, I will review the section and see if I can resolve some of the duplicated issues. Thanks for the heads up! Jurisdicta (talk) 22:18, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Hin Taghlar

@AntonSamuel: The WP:NPOV name for the Köhnə Tağlar/Hin Tagher village seems to be Hin Taghlar as it's the name used by Russian peacekeepers' leader Rustam Muradov to refer to the village and was the name used in Soviet times, therefore I suggest using that instead of Kohne Taghlar or Hin Tagher. The name is also used by several major Armenian news organizations such as hetq.am and armradio.am. If you don't mind, I'll go ahead and change the name to "Hin Taghlar". — CuriousGolden (T·C) 17:15, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

"Hin Tagher" seems to be the common name for the village (Hin Tagher: 31,700 Hin Taghlar: 9,110) as well as the correct transliteration of the Armenian name: Հին Թաղեր [29], so I would argue for the usage of "Hin Tagher". AntonSamuel (talk) 17:24, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Ah, okay. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 17:32, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Changes in Map

As of today it became obvious that villages of Kohne Taglar, Çaylaqqala, Arpagədik, Petrosashen, Nəbilər are under control of Azerbaijan, this is indirectly shown on updated map of Russian peacekeeping forces (http://mil.ru/files/morf/2800nkrffssdsdfsdf.jpg) and Razminfo's today post that those 4(5) villages are under Azerbaijan's control (https://news.am/rus/news/619015.html) hence can moderators update the map accordingly Agulani (talk) 09:12, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

We've also mentioned it in the article's text. The map needs to be updated --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 10:04, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Hin Taglar and Khtsaberd under Azerbaijani control second day in a row on the Russian map (http://mil.ru/russian_peacekeeping_forces/infograf.htm). Also I think it makes sense to paint the Lachin corridor in stripes as is shown in the map (meaning free pass secured by the Russian peacekeepers). Mastersun25 (talk) 16:40, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

AntonSamuel, you've edited the map in the past. Might give a hand? --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 19:08, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

I've discussed the issue of control of Khtsaberd/Hin Tagher a bit with CuriousGolden here: [30]. The reason for the map being changed back and forth like it was is a bit unclear - the situation still also remains somewhat unclear when we're talking about the ultimate fate of the area with regard to the terms of the ceasefire agreement and the continued presence (as far as I have heard) of Russian peacekeepers in the area. When there is a bit more certainty - I'll have a look at the map. AntonSamuel (talk) 19:15, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Liveuamap states both villages under Azerbaijani control as of today, saying Armenians are leaving Khtsaberd (https://caucasus.liveuamap.com/en/2020/16-december-big-group-of-armenian-combatants-left-khtsaberd). I don't know what other evidence we need to provide so the map can be finally changed. Please edit the map someone. Mastersun25 (talk) 09:56, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure why the map is still not reverted to Russian peacekeeping maps, its is clear that all those villages are/will be under control of Azerbaijani forces at this stage pretty much everybody has said it(even Araik said it), for the sake of neutrality i even offer to either cross color it to show contested area or portray another color but keeping it under Armenian control is definitely being one sided and obvious to all direct and indirect sources, this kind of actions really puzzle me and question neutrality of some moderators on Wikipedia Agulani (talk) 12:45, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

My bad - looks like Liveuamap made the same mistake: [31] AntonSamuel (talk) 17:28, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Emreculha, may you? --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 16:03, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

AntonSamuel, BBC already says that both are under Azerbaijani control. Can you please just update the map? --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 17:02, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

See discussion here [32], I'll keep looking at the situation as it develops. The BBC article bases the report on the Russian MoD maps, not on reports from the ground from what I can see. If Azerbaijani troops have entered Khtsaberd - they'll probably want to post a video of it, as they did for Hin Tagher [33] - so if the Russian peacekeepers have left or are there together with the Azerbaijanis, I'm sure it won't be long before final confirmation. AntonSamuel (talk) 17:19, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

That video is from Böyük Tağlar, not Köhnə Tağlar/Hin Shen. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 17:26, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

My bad, I missed the discrepancy with the Azerbaijani official name - I saw it linked on Liveuamap for Hin Tagher, but its actually Mets Tagher - looks like they made the same mistake: [34]. AntonSamuel (talk) 17:32, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Yep, liveuamap is pretty unreliable. I also saw several Armenian accounts on Twitter make the same mistake. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 17:37, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

AntonSamuel, CuriousGolden, LiveuMap simply relies on self-published sources from Twitter and Telegram. Try to avoid citing it. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 18:55, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Map should be reverted to the original version. Both villages are under Azerbaijani control, Russian Kommersant newspaper confirms it: [35] Russian peacekeepers left, 160 Armenian soldiers surrendered to Azerbaijan. Grandmaster 00:06, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

RFE/RL as a source for the article

@Beshogur: Wikipedia:Potentially unreliable sources may be useful - but be aware that it's an essay and not a Wikipedia guideline, while I agree that one should tread carefully when using state-associated or state-controlled news organizations, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL) is not included on Wikipedia:Deprecated sources, like some Russian state-associated news organizations are, such as RT and Sputnik for example. Media Bias/Fact Check (while perhaps not ideal in itself) lists RFE/RL as "least biased" and "mostly factual": [36]. I would like to point out that RFE/RL is quite widely used as a source on this article already for a variety of purposes. I would argue that using RFE/RL to report on the arrival of Russian peacekeepers in the Hin Tagher/Khtsaberd pocket would be well within the realm of reason. AntonSamuel (talk) 15:23, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't think we put Azatutyun in the same place as RFE/RL. If you check its reporting, it has a huge pro-Armenian bias, as it should be. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 15:59, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Well as Azatutyun is the Armenian branch of RFE/RL it will inevitably report in a language suited to its main audience - Armenians. However, I doubt that one could legitimately argue that this particular branch of the news service would be less factual than the rest without any specific proof to back up such a claim - so for a report regarding a factual claim - the arrival of Russian peacekeepers in a specific area, any issue of pro-Armenian bias wouldn't really be relevant I would argue. AntonSamuel (talk) 16:04, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

@AntonSamuel: my adding about RL was also removed a while ago. So I didn't wanted a double standard. Let's listen to other users. Beshogur (talk) 16:13, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

@Beshogur:, @Solavirum: with that logic, shall we regard BBC Azerbaijani Service (currently cited in the article) as a source with huge pro-Azerbaijani bias? Regards Armatura (talk) 19:04, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Can you point out the so-called huge pro-Azerbaijani bias you're talking about? --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 19:06, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

@Armatura: BBC is considered generally reliable. This includes BBC News, BBC documentaries, and the BBC History site (on BBC Online). However, this excludes BBC projects that incorporate user-generated content (such as h2g2 and the BBC Domesday Project) and BBC publications with reduced editorial oversight (such as Collective). Statements of opinion should conform to the corresponding guideline.[37] Beshogur (talk) 19:07, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

@Beshogur:, @Solavirum: I am speaking specifically about BBC Azerbaijani service in contrast to the main English-language BBC service, providing parallels to your comparison of Radio Liberty vs Azatutyun. My argument is that if BBC Azerbaijani service is allowed, so should be Azatutyun, for obvious reasons - both are local/local language services of well-regarded international news hubs. RegardsArmatura (talk) 19:18, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

@Armatura: the issue is not the local versions, as you see RL is not listed as reliable. Beshogur (talk) 19:19, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

@Beshogur: RL is apparently not listed in Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources at all. It says "If you're concerned about any source in particular, you should start a discussion about it at the reliable sources noticeboard (RSN)". I was able to find only one dedicated archived discussion on the noticeboard, without decision for deprecating. Regards Armatura (talk) 19:39, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

@Armatura: see my last edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Potentially_unreliable_sources: "Similarly, Voice of America, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and other US state media sources may also be unreliable as to facts, as they have been described as propaganda, but may be reliable regarding the official position of the United States." Beshogur (talk) 19:45, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

@Beshogur: Please see AntonSamuel's contr-arguments. If you are concerned about the reliability of Radio Liberty Europe, I would suggest you start a discussion about its reliability at the reliable sources noticeboard (RSN), as per WP policy, focusing on RL service as a whole and not on NKR. RegardsArmatura (talk) 20:00, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

It seems like RFE/RL has been brought up a number of times on RSN [38] - the general conclusion from what I can see from the discussions is that RFE/RL is generally reliable and factual, but one should bear in mind that it's state-associated and therefore attribution may be advisable sometimes. AntonSamuel (talk) 20:10, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Civilians. Captured, taken hostage, or missing?

Armenia states that about 40 of its civilians who are missing are held captive by Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan says that three of its citizens are held captive by Armenia. How do we write this in the infobox and the article's body? --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 12:10, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Victor Murakhovsky's general claim on white phosphorus use

The article contains Russian military expert Victor Murakhovsky claim that "phosphorus is not used in modern incendiary ammunition". IMHO this is a single-expert opinion, too bold to go alone / unopposed. White phosphorus munitions wiki article contains well-referenced reports on white phosphorus munition use in Syrian Civil War and Afghanistan in 21st century. I inserted the white phosphorus use reports from Syria, however Besoghur reverted my edit labeling it as "original research". Besoghur, could you please explain? May I use the opportunity to remind you that wikipedia encourages discussing before and above reverting? RegardsArmatura (talk) 14:49, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Putting unrelated things with unrelated sources is original research. If the source you've provided doesn't specify your points about this war, then it is OR. Please, just read the guidelines. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 15:01, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

The "expert" makes an extraordinary claim (going beyond this war) by saying white phosphorus is not used in modern times as a weapon (like, at all), yet there are plenty of reports that it is indeed used. That is the relation of those reports to the "expert's" claim. None of the references are my own research as you can see. The alternative of providing counterarguments to an extraordinary claim is deleting the extraordinary claim, would you rather go for that solution? And, sorry, I find "read the guidelines" kind of remarks a bit patronising. Regards, Armatura (talk) 17:26, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

You relating those things is WP:OR. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 13:14, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

@Solavirum: Your repeating the same thing does not add an extra weight to your earlier argument which we have already heard. Regards Armatura (talk) 16:33, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

You not understanding the basic guidelines despite us citing them several times by now is the reason why this discussion is continuing. If you relate stuff out of your own liking, this is original research. Wikipedia is not a forum, not a place for info war, and most importantly, not a battleground. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 16:49, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

I would be grateful if you could also follow the principles you are so tirelessly citing, instead of just citing them. Your approach is far from collegial and your remark of my "not understanding the basic guidelines" goes beyond those very principles. I would be grateful if you could stop commenting under virtually every post I write, regardless of the subject or who it is addressed to, otherwise your behavior may be viewed a as an attempt of harassing an editor, making Wikipedia a battleground and owning the article with its talkpage. Regards, Armatura (talk) 17:07, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Again, if you understand the guidelines as you put it, why are we continuing to discuss this? If you want a third-opinion, ask for it. Any experienced editor can confirm that such edits are WP:OR. I would be grateful if you could stop commenting under virtually every post I write, is this a joke? I can respond to any change proposals you give, that's why they are proposals and that's why Wikipedia is not your property. If responding to someone is harassing, you might have to read that word's definition. I don't have anything personal with you and don't think to have some. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 17:29, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Also, do not misguide the users. Wikipedia's guidelines state that as the editor who've added that information, you need to achieve consensus for that in the first place. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 15:02, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

I disagree. Wikipedia encourages to go for it WP:BOLD. I don't have to ask for your opinion before posting, and you do not have to seek mine before posting, either, as neither of us own the article, as per WP:OWN. Reverting is different, though, it is better to discuss with the contributor if one decides to nullify a person's contribution, it is simply a good tone (citing from WP:OWN, "be cautious when removing or rewriting large amounts of content, particularly if this content was written by one editor; it is more effective to try to work with the editor than against them"). Regards, Armatura (talk) 17:26, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

I've been here for years. If I did any controversial additions, I was reverted. Like it or not, you will be reverted for such edits. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 13:14, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

@Solavirum: I would be grateful 1) if could please allow the editor whom my query was directed to a chance to respond, here and elsewhere 2) if you could please save me your (patronising) story of how many years of you have been here and what deeds you have done, 3) if you could please reduce your use of bold font in words you, will etc, in this talk page, in an attempt to make it more tolerable place for collaboration, 4) if you could please remember your history of being blocked for revert warring, before telling me about the inevitability of reverts... nowhere else in Wikipedia I have seen such high level of revert-happyness as in some editors of this article. Regards Armatura (talk) 16:23, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't have time for redundant comments. If you have an argument, present it. If you don't, stop tagging me. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 16:49, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Solavirum I would be grateful if you could adhere to WP:CIVILITY when talking to me and others here. Please do not talk to me with a commanding language, may I remind you that I am not your subordinate? Tagging you is necessary to respond to your comments, otherwise you will not know that I responded. My arguments are already presented throughout this section, Regards, Armatura (talk) 17:22, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Your rhetoric creates a basis for such comments. if could please allow the editor whom my query was directed to a chance to respond, here and elsewhere just means bugger off, and if you could please remember your history of being blocked for revert warring, before telling me about the inevitability of reverts is just redundant. My past blocks won't give a weight to your non-arguments. If you avoid such sarcastic and offending rhetoric, I'd gladly adhere to the civility rules (which I didn't violate here). --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 17:29, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

I would suggest letting the third party editors to judge what you do or don't violate and whether they see "sarcastic and offending" rhetoric where you claim it exists. Regards, Armatura (talk) 17:41, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Not going to comment on anything else that's being said here but bringing up past ban history to prove a point is not only wrong, but humorous. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 18:02, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Would prefer to finally see a comment that is about this section's title. Sorry to say I don't share you sense of humour in this case, certainly bans are not something laughable but something to derive conclusions from, for everybody's benefit. Regards Armatura (talk) 18:09, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

I wasn't the one who asked other editors to comment on your "sarcastic and offending" rhetoric and this last comment does prove it. A good way to keep the discussion on topic, as you seem to want, would be to not bring up irrelevant things, such as people's past ban history as that will only make it harder for the other editor replying to you to assume any WP:GOODFAITH & it's only going to halt any progress in a discussion, not forward it. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 18:20, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

CuriousGolden By saying third party editors I don't mean editors with expected pro-Azerbaijani or pro-Armenian stance. You were the one who said you were not going to comment on anything else, yet you continue commenting. And instead of commenting on the topic, the subject of discussion continues to be my person. Do you have anything to say on Victor Murakhovsky's claims on white phosphorus? Armatura (talk) 11:35, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Who you think I support or not is your POV and it frankly doesn't matter. As you mentioned earlier, no one here is someone else's subordinate and no one's going to ask anyone else whether they can comment or not. I said I wasn't going to comment on your and Solavirum's discussion and will comment only on your irrelevant mention of past ban history and that I did. It's quite fascinating that you keep getting surprised that people are commenting on your behaviour after you asked them to. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 11:44, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

I think Russian expert is qualified to make such an assessment about the ammunition used in the conflict. He explained that "contrary to common misconception, phosphorus (white or red) is not used in modern incendiary ammunition, because combustion temperature of phosphorus does not exceed 1000 degrees Celsius. For comparison, thermite mixtures (aluminum mixed with iron oxide) burn at a temperature of 2.5 thousand degrees". It is an interesting observation from a specialist. White phosphorus is not a banned substance, but it is not really effective for incendiary purposes, and is not used in modern incendiary ammunition, because there are more combustive and more effective substances. It is very unlikely that either side used such ammunition. And I see no reason why this expert opinion cannot be included. However, if there's another military expert opinion that supports the use of white phosphorus in the conflict, it could be included too. But not a personal research about what was or was not used in another conflict. Grandmaster 10:43, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

@Grandmaster:I have serious concerns about Victor Murakhovsky's credibility as an expert and I argue that his opinion regarding phosphorus munitions should not be cyted in this article at all, as:

1. He is basing his (hard) opinion that white phosphorus "was not used in Karabakh" on theoretical considerations understandable only to him rather than first-hand analysis of the evidence and his generalization that white phosphorus "is not used in modern munitions" are contradicting with the evidence of white phosphorus use in recent wars 1,2 (reiterating again, this is not my personal research but published reports).

2. He is called Russian propagandist 1, 2.

3. He is known for scandalous / extraordinary opinions such as 1) the Ukrainian passenger carrier plane was not hit in Iran 1,2 (and later holding a contradictory opinion 3), 2) Russia should invade the "Nazi state of Ukraine" 1, 2 3) the superiority of Turkish military UAVs is a "myth" 1

4. Even his opinion on white phosphorus flame temperature contradicts the available scientific data, according to which 1) white phosphorus burns at a temperature of up to 2,760 degrees Celsius (5,000 degrees Fahrenheit [F]) - page 22 of 1, 2, 3and 2) that white phosphorus does cause significant burns 2 Regards, Armatura (talk) 12:51, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Murakhovsky is not cited as a political commentator, only as a military expert. He may have controversial political views, but we do not refer to his political opinions. And proving or disproving his views on whether or not phosphorus was used is not what we can do, that is an OR. What could be done is quoting another military expert who holds a different opinion. In any case, this is a very minor issue, as phosphorus is not a prohibited substance, there's no restriction on its use, and both sides are being accused of using it. The issue takes too much space in the article, in my opinion. Grandmaster 20:46, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

I would argue that one cannot be both as an expert and a political commentator with sensationalist claims, as that harms the expert's credibility / impartiality. But that is not the only problem. Even his claims in the areas where he poses himself as an "expert" are highly unreliable - he was trying to convince people that the Ukraine plane disaster in Iran was a result of natural causes, and his claims about the combustion temperature of white phosphorus are in plain contradiction with the available scientific data referenced above; one does not need to be a military expert to see how unreliable his statements are. White phosphorus posesion per se may not be prohibited but its use on humans definitely is prohibited and constitutes war crime, hence this by far not a minor issue. If you are worried about too much space being taken, perhaps you could take a glance at how much space the Azerbaijani allegations of white phosphorus by Armenia take, without support from third party sources. And the logic of putting Murakhovsky's "white phosphorus use is a myth" denial in the section of suspected Azerbaijani war crimes and not in suspected Armenian war crimes is also something I question. I therefore suggest removing Murakhovsky's opinion from this article altogether. Regards, Armatura (talk) 11:35, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

In case of Karabakh, Murakhovsky does not support either side, so he is quite impartial so far. He said that neither side used phosphorus munitions, and also that Soviet military, whose arsenals both parties mostly used, did not use phosphorus in its incendiary ammunition. As to whether his opinions on practicality of use of white phosphorus as incendiary weapon are valid or not, we cannot engage in OR, but if any other expert disagrees with Murakhovsky, we can include that too. And like I said, I do not mind a third opinion on this source. Grandmaster 10:58, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

In general, the claims of white phosphorus appear to be nothing but propaganda on both sides. There was no independent verification by any impartial and trusted organization like HRW or Amnesty, or some other authoritative international organization. Therefore, I think the claims on use by both sides take disproportionately large space, considering zero neutral evidence. Grandmaster 11:02, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Grandmaster, No original research policiy does not apply to talk pages though - This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources. If I see someone who claims the Earth is rectangle is cited as an expert on the subject, that raises questions, and it is my right as an editor to dispute the inclusion of that "expert"'s opinions into the article. And I disagree with the absence of trusted/impartial organisation mentioning phosphorus use - not all of the 51 organisations that signed the Transparency International's announcement are Armenian. Neither is the French burns specialist, who independently confirmed that the deep burns / hypocalcemia / sudden deaths were result of phosphorus use. If you still insist on keeping Murakhosvky's opinion, I may take this to dispute resolution in a few days, as it does not look any neutral editors are interested in this discussion. Armatura (talk) 11:44, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Murakhovsky is not alone, here's 2 other military experts questioning the use of phosphorus: [39]. So it is not just one expert expressing his doubt on the dubious evidence provided by the Armenian side. Indeed, there's no reason for Azerbaijan to use any form of incendiary weapons, because smoke would hinder operation of drones, while it would be in the interest of the Armenians military to set the forests on fire to create smokescreens. And those 51 organizations are so obscure, none of them appears to be notable, and none of them conducted any serious investigation. Unless there's a thorough investigation by an impartial international organization, phosphorus use cannot be taken seriously. Grandmaster 16:08, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Transparency international is well known, credible organisation. I sense a lot of bias and propaganda in the article that you mentioned to prove your point. The implied claim of Armenians using the phosphorus to blame Azerbaijanis later is really far fetching, and there's already an expert who commented implying that phosphorus use is intentionally denied. Perhaps if one searches the internet carefully one may find a sensational article that claims Jews burned themselves in concentration camps so they could blame Germans later. I will take Murakhovski's claims to dispute resolution, unless uninvolved/impartial editors help to reach a conclusion here. Regards, Armatura (talk) 23:49, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

But it is not just Murakhovsky, 2 other military experts also say that phosphorus was not used. And they do not imply that Armenians used the phosphorus to blame Azerbaijanis later, quite the contrary, they all say that neither side used phosphorus, and what is shown on the pictures and videos does not look like phosphorus at all. We can actually rewrite that part, remove mention of Murakhovsky by name, keeping him as a reference, and write that "Military experts did not find evidence provided by the Armenian side to be convincing, and expressed their doubts that white phosphorus was used by either side of the conflict". And I do not mind if we take this to WP:DR. And Transparency international is an organization that fights corruption. What does phosphorus have to do with that? TI did not investigate the issue in place, it just published a statement of a bunch of obscure organizations no one ever heard of. Grandmaster 10:55, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

@Grandmaster:@Armatura: The use of White Phosphorus by Azerbaijan has been independently confirmed by L'Obs. the piece is behind a paywall but the title says it confirmed by a French doctor.----Sataralynd (talk) 02:11, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Sataralynd, I am aware of that fact and cited it with free-to-access sources. My argument is against those experts, who, without actually conducting expertise, are claiming that no phosphorus was used, basing their opinions on theoretical titillations (apparently anti-scientific in the case of Murakhovsky) Regards, Armatura (talk) 13:09, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

L'Obs refers to the same French doctor, who was brought to Yerevan by Armenian diaspora (already mentioned in the article). I would not count that as an independent proof. Independent verification would be someone like HRW or Amnesty International making an expert assessment, and that has not happened so far. However the point here is not whether or not phosphorus was used. We only report what the sources say. 3 military experts say that they see no evidence of that, and Murakhovsky is only one of them. Even if Murakhovsky is removed, it does not change anything, the other 2 say the same thing. Murakhovsky did not say anything extraordinary, that was not said by other experts. Even if Murakhovsky is gone, how about the other two? Grandmaster 19:39, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Grandmaster I took this to Dispute resolution board. "French doctor, who was brought to Yerevan by Armenian diaspora would not count that as an independent proof" sounds like a baseless conspiracy theory +- anti-an French sentiment to me. The French (as other European nations) have many humanitarian missions in many countries, who says the doctor was brought by Armenian diaspora? And even if we imagine for a moment that it was the case, who says the French doctor was going to lie about he saw? Are you aware of the fact that in developed countries doctors' professional behavior is strictly regulated and dishonesty is strictly punished? What proof can you bring that puts that doctor's credibility under question? Why, only after finding out that Murakhovsky severely lacks credibility, you try to prove your concept by referencing another article that includes an opinion of Azerbaijani expert (and no Armenian expert), how is the cited article a "balanced" one? And why (I have not received an answer to this question yet) is the phosphorus-use-denying sentence in only in Azerbaijani war crimes section but not in Armenian war crimes section? How is this "balancing" the 2020 NKR war article? Feel free to answer to these questions in dispute resolution if you please and I suggest keeping the rest of discussion there, to avoid duplication. Regards Armatura (talk) 00:07, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

The French doctor is there, I did not ask for his removal. And doctors in all countries do so many shady things, Western ones are no exception, you cannot vouch for each one of them. In any case, I think it is quite normal that we include alternative opinions. If there are people who claim the use of phosphorus, why should we not cite third party sources who express their doubts about this fact? I do not mind if it is included with both Azerbaijani and Armenian claims. Maybe some restructuring would be good to make the phosphorus issue into a separate section. And the fact that the source quotes an Azerbaijani expert does not invalidate the opinions of the Russian experts. The reference is to them, and not to the Azerbaijani expert. In any case, I'm pretty sure that this whole phosphorus issue will be laid to rest pretty soon. There's no convincing evidence, and no international organization showed any interest in this issue, even though they investigated cluster munitions, indiscriminate shelling and other war conduct violations. But until then, let's just present whatever information is available from both sides and third party sources. I don't see why you are so concerned about skeptical opinions, if they apply to both sides, and if evidence about phosphorus use is so compelling. As for WP:DR, I think we have sufficiently elaborated our opinions there, so let's wait until an uninvolved editor comments, and not inundate the resolution board with too much argumentation. A question. If Murakhovsky is gone, are you Ok with the other military expert opinions? Grandmaster 00:43, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

RT.com citation of Putin's statement

Grandmaster, Russia Today piece that you used to cite Putin's statement is a deprecated source. The concensus of WP is that RT is an unreliable source, publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated. Many editors describe RT as a mouthpiece of the Russian government that engages in propaganda and disinformation.. It is automatically tagged as deprecated/unreliable source by Wikipedia when somebody tries to save the article with RT link, and I do not follow the logic of including it despite surely having received the WP automatic warning on deprecated source. Instead of just reverting your edit, I am instead asking you to either remove or change the link with a non-deprecated one, as a gesture of WP:Civility. Regards, Armatura (talk) 13:34, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't think using it as a quote is harmful in any case. But, that source can easily get replaced. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 13:42, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

In general, RT is not a reliable source. However, it could be trusted for quote of Putin's speech. Speech is available online, and you can see that it was accurately conveyed by RT. But I would not trust RT as a source of information in general. I only used RT because it was in English. But I replaced it anyway with another source. Grandmaster 20:23, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Grandmaster Thanks for replacing the link with a non-deprecated source. Regards, Armatura (talk) 12:01, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

No problem. Grandmaster 16:23, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Map in inforbox

Map in infobox should be updated. It shows incorrectly the areas under Azerbaijani and Russian control. This is the latest map of the Russian peacekeeping force: [40] Our map should be updated to match the realities. Grandmaster 10:26, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 19:42, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Can we use the map of Russian peacekeepers? It is a free image? Grandmaster 16:44, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it is since it's already used in the article body and exists on Commons. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 16:48, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Destroyed apartment located in Shikharkh.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:31, 20 December 2020 (UTC)