Talk:Blockade of Nagorno-Karabakh/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Arrival of Ruben Vardanyan

I am unsure if having this as it's own section is appropriate or NPOV: undue weight: e.g., "depth of detail, the quantity of text, prominence of placement"

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I don't see most reliable sources reporting much on a direct connection between his arrival and the blockade. And when such an alleged connection is mentioned, it's reported as opinion rather than as fact. Are there many reliable sources that state Vardanyan's appointment has escalated the tensions between Baku and Artsakh? By adding this section, by the way, I interpret this as a tacit admission on your behalf that this blockade has very little if anything to do with environmental claims -- i.e., since Vardanyan has virtually literally nothing to do with mining (unless I am mistaken).

This Vardanyan section relies heavily on Eurasianet article and the Financial Times article. I do see a lot reported in partisan Azeri sources describing him for instance as " a rat that escaped from the ship called 'Russia' "

I think the whole section can be summarized in 3 sentences.

Ruben Vardanyan, a Russian oligarch born in Yerevan was appointed in October to be the PM of Artsakh. His appointment has aroused suspicion in Yerevan and Baku, with certain political analysts and government officials accusing him of being a Russian puppet. Vardanyan has denied these accusations, saying that his motivations for coming to Artsakh are due to his patriotism for his ancestral homeland.

If we are dedicating a whole sub-section to Vardanyan's Arrival as part of the Background, then we should also give a sub-section to why Artsakh residents do not want to live in Azerbaijan as Azeri citizens: i.e., anti-Armenian sentiment, the fact that Azerbaijan shoots Artsakh farmers while they do agricultural work, denial of the genocide, the autocracy. Humanatbest (talk) 14:10, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

@Grandmaster Humanatbest (talk) 14:24, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

The mainstream reliable sources that I quoted say that arrival of Vardanyan led or contributed to escalation. It is a hotly discussed topic in highly reliable international sources that cannot be reduced to just a couple of lines. In fact, analysts see this person as a major, if not the main reason for the present stand off. And since you requested citations, see below, even though they are all available in the sources that were linked.

The Financial Times: The arrival of a Russian oligarch in the disputed enclave of.Nagorno-Karabakh has added to escalating tensions in a volatile region where Moscow is struggling to maintain its influence. ... The oligarch was appointed as Nagorno-Karabakh's first minister by its president Arayik Harutyunyan last October. But analysts see his arrival as part of Moscow's attempt to reboot its regional leadership. ... Russian-Armenian Billionaire Ruben Vardunyan was appointed last autumn as first minister in the South Caucasus enclave, which is claimed by both Armenia and Azerbaijan, but his longstanding ties with the Moscow elite have aroused suspicions in both Yerevan and Baku.

Time magazine: But the standoff between the two sides has only worsened in recent weeks after an enigmatic Russian-Armenian oligarch, Ruben Vardanyan, announced he was moving to Nagorno-Karabakh in September. The Yerevan-born billionaire was initially coy about seeking political office but, two months later, was suddenly appointed State Minister of the unrecognized Republic of Artsakh, making him effectively the most powerful man in Stepanakert overnight. Since then, talks with Azerbaijan have broken down, with Aliyev accusing Vardanyan of having been “sent from Moscow with a very clear agenda.” Officials in Baku point to the fact that he has been sanctioned by Ukraine as proof of his close ties to the Russian state. Kyiv says his business interests “undermine or threaten the territorial integrity, sovereignty, and independence of Ukraine.”

Broers for Der Spiegel: The fact that this blockade is taking place now might have to do with the leadership change in Nagorno-Karabakh itself, in particular with Ruben Vardanyan taking office as minister of state of the de-facto republic in November. This Russian-Armenian businessman appears to be close to the power elite in Russia. In the fall, Vardanjan made a surprise announcement that he was giving up his Russian citizenship and moving to Nagorno-Karabakh. Many in Azerbaijan see him as a Russian puppet, someone who intends to advance the transformation of Nagorno-Karabakh into a Russian protectorate along the lines of South Ossetia and, in the longer term, possibly also challenge the current leadership in Armenia.

Grandmaster 15:57, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

If Vardanyan is a major contributing factor to the "standoff", then the blockade and protests probably have little to do with environmental activism and more to do with him. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 21:41, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Many analysts see this as a political stand off, as is clear from the above sources. Grandmaster 14:24, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

''analysts see this person as a major, if not the main reason for the present stand off."

'"The mainstream reliable sources that I quoted say that arrival of Vardanyan led or contributed to escalation"''

If this is true, then it should be mentioned in the lead section

My issue with having the alleged Vardanyan-blockade connection as it's own subsection are as follows:

1. This is merely gossip/speculation among a few analysts, and reported in very few publications
2. Only one reliable source has directly said that Vardanyan has contributed to the tensions
3. Of the gossip among the analysts that does exists, there is no consensus (see the JAMnews article
4. The quotations you added are cherry-picked. There are contradicting opinions even within the very articles you selected Grandmaster

1. It's speculation not sufficiently covered by reliable sources

A google search of "Ruben Vardanyan''"'' AND "blockade" returns 85 results, of which there are only five articles from reliable sources, linked here:

Eurasianet :::, :::FinancialTimes :::, :::Time :::, :::Der Spiegel :::, :::JAM news

.

2. Only one reliable source has directly stated that Vardanyan has contributed to the tensions

Of the five articles mentioning a connection between the blockade and Vardanyan, only one of them (FinancialTimes) directly states that Vardanyan's appointment has escalated tensions.

1. FinancialTimes: "The arrival of a Russian oligarch in the disputed enclave of.Nagorno-Karabakh has added to escalating tensions"
2. Times: Since [Vardanyan's appointment], talks with Azerbaijan have broken down
3. Der Spiegel: "the blockade...might have to do with...Vardanyan"

3. There is disagreement among the speculations of analysts:

While I agree with you that it is "hotly debated" about why Vardanyan moved to Karabakh, this does not warrant it's own sub-section to this article on the blockade. Both de Waals and Evstratov have provided alternative theories for why he moved to Karabakh and his appointment to the region: including nepotism and connections to British:

Anton Evstratov, Russian historian, journalist, and lecturer, also states (link:https://wgi.world/armenia-and-artsakh-2022-results/)

"The appointment of Ruben Vardanyan as Artsakh’s state minister is also an undoubted result of 2022. Despite the fact that Vardanian has been in his post since November, versions about the nature, motives and expectations of his appointment still emerge.

According to the most common one, Vardanian, a major Russian businessman, is a Kremlin protégé.

Another one says that being a personal friend of the former and current heads of Artsakh – Baku Sahakyan and Araik Harutyunyan, the new state minister was appointed without consulting Moscow and Yerevan.

The third version points to Vardanian’s ties with British business, calling him nothing less than “England’s protégé.  Presently, it is impossible to seriously discuss either of these or other points of view."

4. The quotations in this sub-section were cherry-picked by you:

a) FT: I already added Vardanyan's response from the FinancialTimes.

b) Der Spiegal:

The analyst you quoted from Der Spiegel, Laurence Broers, himself does not agree with the theory that Russia can transform Nagorno-Karabakh into something South Ossetia. From the same article: "Broers: Russia is hardly in a position to be able to influence developments in and around Nagorno-Karabakh in the same way as in South Ossetia ... – for geographic, logistical and political reasons, to say nothing of more contingent reasons relating to the Ukraine situation.

The analyst you quoted, Broers, also in the same article provides other reasons for the escalating tensions and why Azerbaijan initiated the blockade, but you did not include them in the background:

- Broers: Indeed, Azerbaijan has been promoting for some time the narrative that the Republic of Armenia is located on ancient Azerbaijani land, and this trend is accelerating. Just recently, Aliyev announced the opening of a research institute for Western Azerbaijan, and when he says Western Azerbaijan, he means the Republic of Armenia

- "Broers: Russia’s standing...have been greatly diminished by the Ukraine war. That has given Azerbaijan an opportunity to challenge the Russian peace."

Broer's also says that Azerbaijan has "three objectives" for this blockade a) "remind the Armenian population of Nagorno-Karbakh" that "separation from Azerbaijan is unviable" due to "their enclave geography" b) "exert pressure on Armenia to make concessions on the...Zangezur corridor." c) "to discredit the Russian peacekeeping mission."

c) Eurasianet:

The Russian agent theory, however, has lost some credibility as the blockade has dragged on.

His [Vardanyan's] arrival in Karabakh in the fall was widely welcomed by locals

@Grandmaster

Please do not cherry-pick quotes to support a borderline fringe theory. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or medium for opinion pieces. If you are interested in this, Wikinews is more appropriate.

You said the suspected Vardanyan-blockade connection "cannot be reduced to just a couple of lines" but it can.

I showed how it could be. Providing undue weight violates NPOV. If we are going to add a sub-section to this alleged Vardanyan-blockade theory (it is a theory), then we should add whole subsections to how Azerbaijan has increased it's irredentism lately (claiming all of Armenia as "Western Azerbaijan") and invaded the Republic of Armenia in September 2022 (on both the eastern and western borders) and occupies 65 km² Republic of Armenia territory.

All of these points contribute to tension between ethnic Armenians and Azeris, but they do not merit their own subsections. Humanatbest (talk) 12:09, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Vardanyan's role is mentioned by major sources, who dedicate whole articles to his role, as FT and Eurasianet did. FT is a top international source, and it makes the connection between his arrival and the blockade. The article in such a top source as FT alone justifies the discussion of Vardanyan's role in the article. But we also have Time magazine and top expert Broers who finds plausible the connection between Vardanyan's arrival and the blockade, Eurasianet discussing the attention that Vardanyan gets because of the blockade, and de Waal also discusses him, though he does not see Vardanyan as Russian puppet. The fact that there is so much discussion among the experts and in the mainstream media about this person shows notability of the topic. Citing major international sources is not undue, or soapbox. And Google hits are only for article titles, not for article content. For example, the present title is not the common name used in international media, but we still have it. And we do not need to add any other sections, if the connection between some other fact and the topic of this article is not made by reliable third party sources. Also, Evstratov is not an internationally acclaimed expert in the region, like Broers and de Waal. He is a quite an obscure person, and should not be quoted on par with better known experts. Grandmaster 14:19, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

"Google hits are only for article titles, not for article content." This is simply false; please read how Google search results work.

There is not much discussion among experts. Only 3 experts have been mentioned, and one of them has actually dismissed the Vardanyan-Blockade theory. That is, only two analysts can be named that believe this Vardanyan-Blockade connection: [1] Richard Giragosian; [2] Laurence Broers

Moreover, as I showed above, there is only one article that has explicitly said that Vardanyan has contributed to the escalation. A single mention in a single article does not merit a whole sub-section.

"We do not need to add any other sections, if the connection between some other fact and the topic of this article is not made by reliable third party sources."

I agree with you on this, currently we don't need more sub-sections in the Background.

But we also don't need a whole sub-section dedicated to the opinions of two analysts (literally only two) which can be named.

There are dozens of reliable sources that imply or outright state that Azerbaijan has started this blockade because Russia is distracted in Ukraine. There are also probably a many sources (even the ones you added yourself) that say Azerbaijan started this blockade to pressure the opening of their so-called Zangezur corridor. These background issues are peripheral and do not merit sections of their own.

Please remove this sub-section, and move the content to the main Background section. Humanatbest (talk) 15:39, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia article content is not determined by Google search hits. I don't know why you quote Google itself, Google does not establish rules on how Wikipedia articles are written. Russia being weakened in Ukraine could be mentioned too, if experts make that claim. Broers, de Waal and Giragosian are 3 experts discussing the role of Vardanyan, even if they come to different conclusion. That already makes the topic notable. I will make suggestions on how to shorten the section below, I agree that it takes too much space as it is now. Grandmaster 10:39, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

@Grandmaster you're right, Google does not dictate Wikipedia policy. But popularity, notabolity, and notoriety of ideas, reports, and theories do play a role when determining how much weight we give to each idea, report, or theory.

You can ignore my mentioning of Google. I brought in google hits in order to provide a more quantitative representation of the fact that the Vardanyan-Blockade theory is fringe and not a mainstream idea as mentioned also by @ZaniGiovanni If you can show that this Vardanyan-Blockade theory is more mainstream or actually a fact and not a theory then i would agree that it might merit it's own subsection. Humanatbest (talk) 21:56, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

It does not get more mainstream than FT and Time magazine. Those are not some fringe sources. Grandmaster 13:14, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

My suspicion is that this Vardanyan section as it currently stands constitutes borderline original research. Obviously, the theory has been covered by some reliable sources, but only some, and it's just a theory. The information is probably valid, but the subsection that you've created is currently so large that it's basically the same size as the rest of the background section, which seems like a case of UNDUE. Since, being just one factor among numerous factors, it doesn't have more of a right to be discussed than the other factors. If the factors were to all be discussed equally, the entire background section would probably double or triple in size, to match the proportional size of the Vardanyan subsection. My recommendation is to reduce the size of the Vardanyan section and remove any information that is pure speculation. Stick to the facts. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 20:08, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

@Grandmaster - I think the quote of yours above, "so much discussion", is somewhat exaggerated. There is really only a little bit of discussion about Vardanyan at the moment. Even though it is coming from reliable sources and respected academics, it's really only a small amount so far. Furthermore, the blockade only started in December, so it is still recent. It's also still going on currently with no end in sight. There hasn't really been enough time for experts to formulate a definitive theory as to what is exactly happening. And, due to the blockade still being ongoing even now, the Azerbaijani government is obviously working overtime to obscure information about the blockade before they can obtain the concessions that they desire from Artsakh and Armenia. Obviously, the blockade is a bargaining chip for Azerbaijan currently, and there is probably a media blackout in Azerbaijan at the moment surrounding the blockade. So, presumably, after the blockade ends, it might become clearer what the goal is (after Azerbaijan acquires its desired concessions). The current speculations will become more grounded in facts once this event moves out of the present tense and into the history books. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 20:26, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that quoting reliable sources could be original research. The role of this person is discussed by mainstream media, and FT and Eurasianet dedicated whole articles to his role. But I agree with Jargo Nautilus that the text in the section needs to be shortened. The text is bloated by addition of irrelevant quotes, such as this:

He said, "Leaving Russia for Artsakh because of sanctions is a real stretch of the imagination... If it was because of sanctions, I would go to Uruguay. The weather is amazing, the food is cheap, and the football is great." When asked why Azerbaijan's suggestion that Artsakh residents live as Azerbaijani citizens is unacceptable, Vardanyan said, "The Azerbaijani state is not a democracy. It's an autocratic state... It's one family controlling the country. So we say, 'How do you want us to live as citizens of a country where violations of human rights against their own people are so routine, let alone national minorities?'"

What is the informational value of all those statements, like about weather in Uruguay? Or his criticism of democracy in Azerbaijan? These could be summarized in one line. Something like: Vardanyan denied that he arrived to Karabakh to evade sanctions. In his opinion, Karabakh residents could not live as Azerbaijani citizens due to the violations of human rights in the country.

I think that the opinions of analysts could also be shortened to summaries, to convey key points. And this one should be removed [1], the author lacks notability to be quoted along with the recognized experts on Armenia-Azerbaijan relations. In short, I agree that the section needs to be reduced. I will post my proposal here shortly. Maybe we also need a short subsection to discuss connection of this blockade with Zangezur corridor issue, it is also being discussed by the expert community.

Also, the Background section contains this text: Since the end of the Second Nagorno-Karbakh War, Azerbaijan has increasingly promoted irredentist claims to Armenian territory which it describes as "Western Azerbaijan." After Azerbaijan attacked Armenia in September 2022, pro-government media and certain Azerbaijani officials promoted the irredentist concept of the “Goycha-Zangazur Republic” which claims all of southern Armenia, including the region that borders the Lachin corridor. What is the relevance of all this to this particular article? Which expert makes the connection? Grandmaster 10:39, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

@Grandmaster The connection between the blockade and Azerbaijan's push for their so-called Zangezur corridor makes it relevant bc the irredentist claims (Goycha-Zangazur Republic) are another way to make the corridor happen. Not to mention Boer's himself said that Azerbaijan has ramped up its irredentist claims after the second nagorno karabakh war. We have agreed that this blockade is perceived as part of the nagorno-karabakh conflict rather than a genuine ecological protest. I agree we should add a bit more about the zangezur corridor as a bargaining point (and juxtaposition to the lachin corridor) to the blockade section, (eurasianet has a couple articles on this, let me look and get back to you) Humanatbest (talk) 19:20, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Could you please quote reliable sources that make a direct connection between the blockade and “Goycha-Zangazur Republic”, etc? If no such sources exist, then we cannot have this in the article. It is OR. Grandmaster 13:14, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

The connection is that A) Azerbaijan has increasingly drawn parallels (accurately or not) between the lachin corridor and the zangezur corridor it wants; B) many have speculated that the blockade is related to the zangezur corridor

Only a few weeks before the blockade started [November 2022]

"Baku is not prepared to wait indefinitely on its demands for the handover of the Zangezur Corridor and the disbanding of Karabakh Armenian forces, a senior Azerbaijani official told Eurasianet. “Diplomatic options have almost been exhausted,” the official said on condition of anonymity. “What if we were to install a [border] post at the entrance of Lachin and finish the whole process? How can you breathe with no air?”

https://eurasianet.org/fears-for-new-nagorno-karabakh-crisis-as-azerbaijan-threatens-key-road-link

[September 2022]

https://eurasianet.org/the-rise-and-fall-of-azerbaijans-goycha-zangazur-republic

"Member of parliament Hikmat Babaoghlu wrote: “The so-called ‘Goycha-Zangazur Republic’ is a political-ideological terror against Azerbaijan.”

He argued that it weakens Azerbaijan’s public case to create what it calls a “Zangezur corridor,” a transportation route connecting Azerbaijan’s exclave of Nakhchivan to the mainland crossing Armenian territory." Humanatbest (talk) 19:40, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

https://eurasianet.org/armenia-and-azerbaijan-stalled-in-negotiations-over-corridor

"Azerbaijani officials have consistently drawn parallels between that road and the would-be Zangezur Corridor."

"Azerbaijan's blockade of the Lachin Corridor comes as it accuses Armenia of dragging its feet over the fate of another critical route, the would-be Zangezur Corridor."

To be clear, I never drew the connection myself (that would be OR), it's background, not synthesis. Humanatbest (talk) 19:43, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I suggest we remove the bloated quotes and shorten the section as follows:

The arrival of Russian oligarch Ruben Vardanyan to Nagorno-Karabakh, although welcomed by locals, has added to escalating tensions. Vardanyan relinquished his Russian citizenship and was appointed as Nagorno-Karabakh's state minister by its president Arayik Harutyunyan in October 2022. Since then, talks with Azerbaijan have broken down. Vardanyan's longstanding ties with the Moscow elite have aroused suspicions in both Yerevan and Baku. President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev refused to talk to Vardanyan, stating that Vardanyan was "sent from Moscow with a very clear agenda." In Azerbaijan, Vardanyan is seen as part of a Russian scheme to derail the negotiations over a peace agreement between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Baku officials point to the fact that he has been sanctioned by Ukraine, which they believe shows his close ties to the Russian state. Many in Armenia distrust Vardanyan too because of his connections with the former Armenian ruling regime and his opposition to the current government. Certain analysts see his arrival as Moscow's attempt to reassert its regional dominance.

Richard Giragosian, director of the Regional Studies Center in Yerevan, believes that Vardanyan's presence gives Moscow someone on the ground to influence policy, pointing to the fact that Vardanyan had never lived in independent Armenia and had no popular support or political power base there or in Nagorno-Karabakh. According to Caucasus expert Laurence Broers, many in Azerbaijan see Vardanyan as a Russian puppet, who intends to transform Nagorno-Karabakh into a Russian protectorate similar to South Ossetia and, in the longer term, possibly also challenge the current leadership in Armenia. However, Broers does not believe that presently Russia is capable of influencing Nagorno-Karabakh in a manner similar to South Ossetia for a number of reasons, including the Russia's war in Ukraine.

Political analyst Thomas de Waal disagreed with the allegations that Vardanyan is a Russian puppet, because the closure of the Lachin road and the fact that Russia does not actively demand its unblocking undermines the credibility of Vardanyan. De Waal believes that if Vardanyan had been a Kremlin project, this would not have happened.

Vardanyan denies the accusations of being a Russian puppet, saying his only motivation is patriotism for his ancestral homeland. He also rejects the claims that he arrived to Karabakh to evade sanctions, because he could have gone to many other places to do that. He refused to criticize Russian peacekeepers, saying that "we would not be here without them". Vardanyan does not think that Karabakh residents could live as Azerbaijani citizens due to the situation with human rights in that country. But analysts note that Vardanyan's appointment to one of the top positions without being elected undermines the claim that the Republic of Artsakh is a democracy that should not submit to the autocratic Azerbaijan.

The last line is not just Giragossian, but also Eurasinet itself. Thoughts? Grandmaster 10:56, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Your shortened version is not exactly short. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 18:07, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Furthermore, the reason I said that it's original research is that the theory is only discussed by a few articles, not "so much (discussion)". The part that is original research is where you said that this theory is being discussed so much, not the theory itself. The theory does exist, but providing undue emphasis on it and presenting it as "the one true theory" is original research. Also, bear in mind that you've been adding original research into this article in the past, such as when you added the unsubstantiated claim that "Russians are delivering humanitarian aid" into the lead section, backed up by a source that actually didn't support the statement. You subsequently claimed that it was "obvious" that Russians had delivered humanitarian aid. But, as I pointed out, information that is obvious to you may not be obvious to other people, which is precisely why it is necessary to back up your claims with evidence. Strong claims require strong evidence. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 18:15, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

This section should be shortened to the length of around one paragraph, consisting of around 100-150 words. And the subheading "Arrival of Ruben Vardanyan" should be deleted, and the paragraph should be merged into the rest of the background section. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 18:17, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Agree with the suggestion. "Blockade happening because of Vardanyan" is nowhere near the prevailing consensus among reliable sources, and most of the info is irrelevant to this article, undue and OR. Should be shortened considerably per WP:UNDUE, with no separate section to begin with and merged somewhere in the background instead. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 18:32, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Disagree with the Jargo's suggestion to remove Vardanyan Arrival section and shorten it to 100-150 words. Number of reliable sources and experts clearly links arrival of Russian oligarch Vardanyan to the Nagorno-Karabakh with escalated tensions and blockade. Vardanyan's arrival to the Karabakh escalated tensions to the level where Azerbaijan clearly complained about the Vardanyan's gold business in Nagorno-Karabakh, and even threatened (thought the media) hunt down and eliminate Vardanyan. This alone tells us much about how Vardanyan's arrival tied with current events.

@Grandmaster, I think you need to cut it down more. For example below irrelevant information can be removed, as it brings no value to the article: "Vardanyan denies the accusations of being a Russian puppet, saying his only motivation is patriotism for his ancestral homeland. He also rejects the claims that he arrived to Karabakh to evade sanctions, because he could have gone to many other places to do that. He refused to criticize Russian peacekeepers, saying that "we would not be here without them". Vardanyan does not think that Karabakh residents could live as Azerbaijani citizens due to the situation with human rights in that country. But analysts note that Vardanyan's appointment to one of the top positions without being elected undermines the claim that the Republic of Artsakh is a democracy that should not submit to the autocratic Azerbaijan." A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 21:07, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Your suggestion doesn't even make sense. You're saying to cut off the part when Vardanyan speaks for himself, and not the rest of irrelevant to this article section that should be cut off considerably and merged in the background. The consensus among reliable sources isn't that "blockade happened because of Vardanyan's arrival to Karabakh", so to dedicate an entire section to this notion is irrelevant and undue. Jargo Nautilus and Humanatbest make stronger points and the suggestion by Jargo should be implemented. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 21:19, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

It's original research to present Ruben Vardanyan as the primary cause of the blockade. There is no academic consensus that this is true. Furthermore, the blockade hasn't even ended yet, so it's not like we can draw definitive conclusions at the current point in time. We should not be speculating about the causes behind the blockade at the present moment; we should be sticking to the facts. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 01:46, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, Ruben Vardanyan actually has his own Wikipedia article, so any references to his involvement in the 2022-23 blockade would certainly have to be mentioned at that article as well (depending on how much of the information stays in this article and isn't deleted). Jargo Nautilus (talk) 01:48, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

We can attribute the claim to FT, it is a reliable source. FT says that his arrival added to tensions, not that he was the only reason for them. There is no academic consensus on anything in the article so far, because this event is too recent to be a subject of any academic research. There are at least 3 reliable sources who consider it probable that Vardanyan's arrival was a major reason for escalation. Broers is a well known expert in this area, and he finds the connection plausible. So we must mention it in some form anyway. And we do not say that it all happened because of Vardanyan. The sources mention him as one of the major reasons, but there could be more than one reason. We are not speculating here, we only report what reliable sources say. Quoting reliable sources cannot be considered an original research, OR is when you add your own ideas to the article. And Vardanyan's own article should be updated too, of course. Grandmaster 13:10, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

@Grandmaster Three analysts? I think there are only two. And it's NPOV:UNDUE to promote the salience of a theory that is not extensively covered. I am glad you added the arrival of Vardanyan to the background but it doesn't merit it's own sub-section. Most coverage of this blockade cite bogus environmental concerns, self-determination, "ethnic tensions", or the Zangezur corridor as key background elements to the blockade. The Vardanyan-Blockade theory is peripheral or fringe. Humanatbest (talk) 14:54, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Overwhelming majority of WP:RS do not state Vardanyan's arrival as a reason or "one of the reasons" for the blockade, not even close. And the current version of the article with Vardanyan's own excessive subsection is a major violation of WP:WEIGHT and should be cut/merged considerably to the background section. Jargo Nautilus I think you should proceed with your suggestion so the article complies with WP:WEIGHT. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 15:29, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it is fringe, the section is simply bloated with irrelevant information. Mentioning the role of this person does not mean that other possible reasons should not be mentioned. And talking about coverage, this event generally does not get front page coverage. But recent reports draw attention to this person. 4 mainstream sources discussing this person's role merit attention. And de Waal discusses him too, even though he does not see him as a Russian puppet. The section is not about whether he is a puppet or not, it is about Vardanyan's role in the escalation that led to blockade in general. We may merge it with the background section, if that solves the problem. But background also needs some structuring, I think. It contains some irrelevant information too. Grandmaster 16:02, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Ruben Vardanyan's Wikipedia article is currently more or less derelict and needs some serious attention. It doesn't make sense to have more in-depth information about Vardanyan over at the "2022-23 blockade of Artsakh/Nagorno-Karabakh" article than within his own article. Indeed, the amount of weight that's being given to Vardanyan at this article is disproportionately large in comparison to the state of his own article. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:47, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Btw, Vardanyan was repeatedly asked about being Russia's puppet in yesterday's interview to BBC. He denied, of course. [2] Grandmaster 17:00, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

The same BBC that publishes an article portraying the Armenian genocide as a debatable subject every year? --Dallavid (talk) 21:41, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Most coverage of th blockade focuses on self-determination, "ethnic tensions", "enviornmental" concerns, and "Zangezur corridor", not Vardanyan lol. It's too undue to have an entire section dedicated to Vardanyan who no notable source has attributed the blockade to. --Dallavid (talk) 21:41, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Thoughts: A shortened version makes sense; there is no need to overload the article with irrelevant details. A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 20:39, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

I propose the following summary, to keep it short:

Some analysts see the arrival of Russian oligarch Ruben Vardanyan to Nagorno-Karabakh as the factor that added to escalating tensions. Vardanyan relinquished his Russian citizenship and was appointed as Nagorno-Karabakh's state minister by its president Arayik Harutyunyan in October 2022. Since then, talks with Azerbaijan have broken down. Vardanyan's longstanding ties with the Moscow elite have aroused suspicions in both Yerevan and Baku. President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev refused to talk to Vardanyan, stating that Vardanyan was "sent from Moscow with a very clear agenda." In Azerbaijan, Vardanyan is seen as part of a Russian scheme to derail the negotiations over a peace agreement between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Baku officials point to the fact that he has been sanctioned by Ukraine, which they believe shows his close ties to the Russian state. Many in Armenia distrust Vardanyan too because of his connections with the former Armenian ruling regime and his opposition to the current government. Certain analysts see his arrival as Moscow's attempt to reassert its regional dominance. While some analysts consider that Vardanyan's presence gives Moscow someone on the ground to influence policy, and transform Nagorno-Karabakh into a Russian protectorate similar to South Ossetia and, in the longer term, possibly also challenge the current leadership in Armenia. Others point to the fact that the closure of the Lachin road and the fact that Russia does not actively demand its unblocking undermines the credibility of Vardanyan, and Moscow would not have let that happen if Vardanyan was its puppet. Vardanyan himself denies accusation of being Moscow's protege and having arrived to Karabakh to evade sanctions.

I do not name sources and analysts by name, for the sake of brevity, but each statement will be linked to the source making it. Grandmaster 17:04, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

This is still too much and doesn't warrant inclusion in this article per WP:WEIGHT. Also most of this isn't even relevant to the blockade itself, nor is the reason for it among majority RS. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 17:22, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

My general opinion on the blockade is that it is simply opportunistic and possibly only has a little bit to do with Vardanyan's arrival. If you connect the dots, Azerbaijan already took maybe 80% of Artsakh-occupied territory (including maybe half of Nagorno-Karabakh itself; imprecise numbers) back in 2020. For the next two years and counting, Azerbaijan's mission was to gradually take the rest of Artsakh; perhaps without a strict schedule, but waiting for the opportune moment. In February 2022, Russia launched a surprise invasion of Ukraine, which did not go according to plan; originally intended to be a blitzkrieg, it has now been dragging on for nearly a year as a war of attrition. The Russian peacekeepers were one of the only things standing in the way between Azerbaijan and Artsakh-Armenians. In September 2022, Azerbaijan launched incursions against mainland Armenia at the border, and the Russian-led CSTO (Eurasian version of NATO) was not able to come to Armenia's assistance. After this experiment, Azerbaijan realised that Russia was no longer strong enough to enforce an uneasy peace in the Nagorno-Karbakh region. As such, Azerbaijan is continuing to explore the different ways in which it can put pressure on Nagorno-Karabakh, and it is testing the limits of what Russia and Armenia are able to do in response. So, overall, when you look at it from this perspective, the ongoing 2022-23 blockade of the Lachin corridor is simply one piece of the puzzle, another step that Azerbaijan is taking to find a way through Artsakh's defences. The arrival of Vardanyan might be playing a role, but it seems more likely that the primary reason for the blockade is simply opportunism. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 20:36, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Obviously, my analysis presumes that the blockade is being spearheaded by the Azerbaijani government and isn't genuinely an environmental protest by peaceful Azerbaijani civilians. Logically, I believe that my analysis makes a lot more sense than the official Azerbaijani narrative. It doesn't make sense that the Azerbaijani government would be so strongly supportive of the protesters unless the protesters are pushing an agenda that is beneficial to the Azerbaijani government. Indeed, everything that the protesters are doing goes hand-in-hand with the Azerbaijani government's agenda. It doesn't take a genius to work out that everything is going according to plan, and that there is nothing spontaneous about all of this. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 20:42, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I will also point out that Grandmaster seems to be promoting two somewhat contradictory narratives. On the one hand, he is adamant that the protests are of a spontaneous nature and are not being spearheaded by the Azerbaijani government. At the same time, he is pushing the idea that Ruben Vardanyan is the primary cause of the protests, which obviously ties the protests into being something political (given Vardanyan's status as a high-ranking Artsakh politician and his potential status as a "Russian puppet"). Which one is it? Is this protest environmental or political? If Vardanyan is actually playing a major role in the protests both via his actions and the Azerbaijani protesters' responses to his actions, then that somewhat undermines the narrative that this protest is purely about environmental concerns. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 20:47, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Note: I suspect that the reason that Grandmaster is highlighting Vardanyan so strongly is that he is trying to place the blame for the blockade/protests on Artsakh itself, i.e. "you brought a Russian agent into your territory, so you brought this upon yourselves". When, in reality, the blockade/protests were going to happen anyway, regardless of the involvement of Vardanyan. Vardanyan is more or less a temporary scapegoat. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 20:58, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Also, looking at the history of Artsakh/Nagorno-Karabakh, I am fairly certain that they have brought Russian agents or suspected agents into their territory and into high-ranking government posts numerous times throughout history. However, the special distinction of Ruben Vardanyan is that he happened to enter into Artsakh politics at precisely the moment when Azerbaijan had the opportunity to cause this type of a crisis. For the previous thirty years before Azerbaijan's victory in the 2020 war, there was not much that Azerbaijan could do in response to the numerous Russian agents that have set foot on Artsakh's territory throughout the years. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 21:02, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Overall, I stand by my original position that the subsection about Ruben Vardanyan is UNDUE and is trying to place a large portion or even the majority of the blame for the blockade/protests (i.e. crisis) on Vardanyan, when this most likely isn't true in the grand scheme of things. I believe that Vardanyan is nothing more than a scapegoat, and I'm not really interested in wasting time "investigating" how we should properly write his subsection. The subsection is taking a very big tangent away from the rest of the article, to the point that it almost has nothing to do with the rest of the article itself. If the subsection were deleted, the article would not be reduced in quality; indeed, I think the article would be better off without this subsection entirely. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 21:15, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

@Grandmaster - "...I do not name sources and analysts by name, for the sake of brevity..." <-- This is not how brevity works. If you condense a large amount of information from an 1,000 words essay to a 300 words essay, the information is still equally dense, and only the presentation of the information is smaller. This reduces the size visually, but the smaller size of words packs an equally large amount of information compared to larger size. Compare this to population density of countries. A country can have a tiny area like Bangladesh with 100+ million people, or it can have a large area like Russia with 100+ million people. The same (approximately) number of people live in Bangladesh and in Russia, but one of the two countries is magnitudes larger than the other by geographic land area. So, in the same way, condensing a 1,000 words essay into a 300 words essay without reducing the amount of information that is being delivered really isn't the same idea of "shortening" as what I mean. When I said that the information should be shortened; I did not mean that it should be condensed, but I instead meant that it should be truncated. It's not the number of words that bothers me, but the amount of information. And shortening the words without removing the excess information does not shorten the part that needs to be shortened. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 21:26, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

First of all, lets assume good faith. Accusing other users of promoting a narrative is not acceptable. And further, what is included in that section is taken from multiple very reliable sources. I don't think we can simply ignore an aspect of the event that is reported in mainstream media around the world. Instead, could you please provide your own proposal how to better word this information? I already said that we can merge it into the background section, but removing information entirely is not possible, because it is supported bu such reliable sources as Financial Times, Time magazine, etc. Grandmaster 22:25, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

We can also take this to WP:RSN, to ask the Wikipedia community about reliability of sources about Vardanyan, if you wish. Or apply to any other dispute resolution forum. Grandmaster 22:44, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

You have now 4 editors including me, Humanatbest, Jargo Nautilus, Dallavid commenting that the Vardanyan section you've added is WP:UNDUE and largely irrelevant to the blockade, why did you restore it without even reaching slightest of consensus for a clearly contested edit? It was rightfully removed per WP:ONUS which is on you to achieve consensus. Among majority reliable sources (which Wikipedia is written based on), Vardanyan is neither the reason nor mentioned as one of the reasons for the blockade, so why do we even have a section on him, why do you keep cherry-picking a couple of sources and ignoring the overwhelming majority clearly saying the blockade started as continuation of Nagorno-Karabakh dispute, 'Zangezur corridor', Azerbaijan's desire to speed up the resolution of the Karabakh conflict and other contentious issues in its favor [3], [4], [5], etc? Please self-revert yourself, and if not, others may do as there is a clear disagreement with your undue addition. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 22:53, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I think Vardanian's role should be mentioned somehow per multiple RS provided, and he's wikinotable in his own right. But due to article's large size the current subsection on him could be condensed to a certain degree. Particularly, the Russian agent part and Vardanyan's own stance on being a Russian puppet could be trimmed down to 2-3 sentences each. Brandmeister^talk 22:57, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

It's abundantly clear that majority RS in fact don't even mention Vardanyan as a reason for the blockade, so it's clearly WP:UNDUE and irrelevant to have a section on Vardanyan in this blockade article, how more this needs to be repeated by multiple users? ZaniGiovanni (talk) 23:04, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Vardanyan is not the reason for blockade, but one of the contributing factors, as stated by a number of reliable sources. There are multiple users who find this information to be appropriate, because it is discussed in reliable sources. I suggest we take this to some dispute resolution forum, and ask for third opinions. Grandmaster 23:40, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

You seem to have completely missed the point that at the current stage, the undue section should be removed at the very least per WP:ONUS as: "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." – and this undue addition of yours is the definition of disputed, with 4 users now having a disagrement with the undue/irrelevant section of Vardanyan being in the article, while WP:ONUS is clear that ones seeking to include disputed content must reach consensus (which you don't have at the moment).

Vardanyan being a "contributing factor" isn't the consensus among majority reliable sources btw, I repeat that he isn't even mentioned as a reason/factor/etc in most RS to begin with, are you missing this fact and repeating yourself? ZaniGiovanni (talk) 00:18, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

This is an ongoing event. There cannot be an established consensus in the scholarly community, or in the coverage by reliable sources, as situation evolves every day. As you can see, the recent interview on BBC also revolved around the role of Vardanyan. And there is a number of users who find this information appropriate for inclusion, as it comes from reliable sources. If we cannot agree on how to best present the information on Vardanyan's role, maybe we can ask for outside opinions? I can take this issue to WP:RSN, or another dispute resolution venue that you suggest. RFC could also be helpful. Grandmaster 09:44, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't think RSN is the appropriate avenue. We are not disputing the reliability of sources but rather the weight of emphasis on the information. It's a different issue. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 09:50, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Third party editors there may advise on that too. Or we can do an RFC. Grandmaster 10:41, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Another proposal. How about we trim the information as follows, and merge it with Background section?

Some analysts see the arrival of Russian oligarch Ruben Vardanyan to Nagorno-Karabakh as the factor that added to escalating tensions. Vardanyan relinquished his Russian citizenship and was appointed as Nagorno-Karabakh's state minister by its president Arayik Harutyunyan in October 2022. Since then, talks with Azerbaijan have broken down. Vardanyan's longstanding ties with the Moscow elite have aroused suspicions in both Yerevan and Baku. President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev refused to talk to Vardanyan, stating that Vardanyan was "sent from Moscow with a very clear agenda." In Azerbaijan, Vardanyan is seen as part of a Russian scheme to derail the negotiations over a peace agreement between Armenia and Azerbaijan, and transform Nagorno-Karabakh into a Russian protectorate similar to South Ossetia. Many in Armenia distrust Vardanyan too because of his connections with the former Armenian ruling regime and his opposition to the current government. Certain analysts see his arrival as Moscow's attempt to reassert its regional dominance, and believe that Vardanyan's presence gives Moscow someone on the ground to influence policy. Others point to the fact that the closure of the Lachin road and Russia's reluctance to actively demand its unblocking undermines the credibility of Vardanyan, and Moscow would not let that happen if Vardanyan was its man. Vardanyan himself denies accusation of being Moscow's protege and having arrived to Karabakh to evade sanctions.

Grandmaster 10:41, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

What do you mean by "the factor"? It should be "a factor". Jargo Nautilus (talk) 14:23, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I think this is a lot better than what was before. But It should be abbreviated even more.

How about this?

Some analysts see the arrival of Russian-Armenian oligarch Ruben Vardanyan to Nagorno-Karabakh, though welcomed by locals, as a factor that escalated tensions. His appointment in October 2022 to the position of State Minister has aroused suspicion in Yerevan and Baku, with certain political analysts and government officials accusing him of being a Russian puppet. Vardanyan has denied these accusations, saying that his motivations for coming to Artsakh are due to his patriotism for his ancestral homeland and points out that he is affected by the shortages caused by the blockade as well. Speculations that he is a Russian agent have lost some credibility as the blockade as persisted.

All of the other sentences are vague, redundant, or poorly worded.

1. Since then, talks with Azerbaijan have broken down. --> vague: it happened after, but it doesn't mean it was causally connected, not to mention that Azeris have consistently refused to formally talk to Artsakh officials
2. President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev refused to talk to Vardanyan, stating that Vardanyan was "sent from Moscow with a very clear agenda." --> this is redundant and it's already known that Azeris refuse to have formal discussions with Artsakh officials
3. In Azerbaijan, Vardanyan is seen as part of a Russian scheme to derail the negotiations over a peace agreement between Armenia and Azerbaijan, and transform Nagorno-Karabakh into a Russian protectorate similar to South Ossetia. --> redundant, not to mention the analyst you quoted disagrees with the plausibility of this view
4. Certain analysts see his arrival as Moscow's attempt to reassert its regional dominance, and believe that Vardanyan's presence gives Moscow someone on the ground to influence policy. --> redundant
5. Others point to the fact that the closure of the Lachin road and Russia's reluctance to actively demand its unblocking undermines the credibility of Vardanyan, and Moscow would not let that happen if Vardanyan was its man. --> I think this is poorly worded, the Eurasianet article, itself, says that "the Russian Agent theory has lost some credibility as the blockade drags on"

Humanatbest (talk) 14:43, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

At this point, it seems that Grandmaster's paragraph is a personal vendetta against Vardanyan, especially the clause "if Vardanyan was its man". This is not an encyclopaedic way to frame the allegations against Vardanyan, which are as of yet unproven. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 17:00, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Please bear in mind that this entire subsection and paragraph about Vardanyan likely falls under the purview of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. As I've pointed out above, Vardanyan has his own article on Wikipedia, where BLP obviously applies by default. A lot of the information that Grandmaster is adding to this article about Vardanyan can be considered "sensitive", and a lot of the info is especially rather negative, which would make BLP even more important. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 17:05, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

And, take a look at these two parts of BLP, in particular: Wikipedia:Attack page and Wikipedia:Libel. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 17:10, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I've already pointed out in a comment higher up that this entire subsection about Vardanyan, if it is allowed to stay in its current form, must be regurgitated back at Vardanyan's main article. In effect, this subsection is a subsection of both this article and of Vardanyan's main article (and, if it continues to exist, will likely have to have "Main article - Ruben Vardanyan" immediately below the subheading). On that basis, we can presume that this subsection indeed is covered by BLP, because it would be covered automatically were it to be a subsection of his main article. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 17:14, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

In my view, this entire subsection qualifies as an "attack page" (Wikipedia:Attack page) and should be closely scrutinized on that basis (and potentially even deleted outright). Some opinions on this matter would be appreciated. Does this subsection qualify as an attack page? Even with a few reliable sources, it is still highly disparaging, and most of the sources in and of themselves are grounded in speculation (or essentially rumours/gossip) rather than in concrete facts. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 17:22, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

"An attack page is a page, in any namespace, that exists primarily to disparage or threaten its subject; or biographical material that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced or poorly sourced. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, these pages may be removed immediately." Jargo Nautilus (talk) 17:24, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

From another perspective, I'm pretty sure that if Ruben Vardanyan himself saw this subsection, he would have every right to sue Wikipedia in order to get the subsection removed, and the Wikimedia Foundation would probably immediately comply with the request, no questions asked. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 17:37, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't think information from relaible sources could be considered an attack. Vardanyan will have to sue Financial Times, Time magazine and others first. We don't write anything that was not written in reliable sources. Grandmaster 18:17, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

@Grandmaster - It actually doesn't really matter whether the information comes from reliable sources. Libel is libel, regardless of whether it is attributed to a source or not. There is an exception to the rule, which is that if a person who is accused of something has either been (1) convicted in a court of law, especially wrt criminal activities or (2) discussed a considerable amount in the reliable/mainstream media, then such content might be acceptable for Wikipedia. Also, the negativity of the content is a major factor; if the information disparages the person, then it should be treated with much more caution and strictness. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 18:27, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

The user @Abrvagl has launched a personal attack against me at my talk page in response to my comments here. This situation is getting out of hand. I can see that @Humanatbest has deleted the majority of the subsection and replaced it with a single brief pragraph. If Grandmaster challenges the deletion, then we may have to take this situation to ANI. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 17:59, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Bear in mind that a large reason for all of this mess in the comments is that Grandmaster tends to completely ignore the comments made by other users, without addressing any of their points, and then continues to repeat his own points over and over again. This is not helping the process to move along. I'm sure other users can confirm this, such as @ZaniGiovanni. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 18:05, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

You reduced everything to one line that provides no information why he is considered an aggravating factor, nothing about his ties with the Russian government, etc. I don't think that is acceptable. Grandmaster 18:15, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, I've done more than that. I've deleted everything, on the charge of being libel. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 18:30, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

The information cited to the number of established reliable sources does not fall under Wikipedia:Libel or Wikipedia:Attack page. Not even close. I think you should restore sourced information you just removed. A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 18:34, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I believe that it does fall under libel, especially since it is detailing thing such as "the views of the Azerbaijani government against Vardanyan". The fact that it is detailing the opinions of certain people, rather than factual information, means that the paragraph is largely speculatory in nature. As you can see from the mountains of discussion in this thread, most of the allegations against Ruben Vardanyan of being a "Russian puppet" are merely allegations, with not much solid evidence. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 18:37, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

It would be libel if I wrote my personal opinion there. The information is taken from very reliable mainstream sources, such as FT, Time, Eurasianet, etc. Vardanyan himself did not accuse any of those sources of libel. If you insist that it is libel, you may wish to take the issue to WP:BLPN, and ask the community. Grandmaster 18:43, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Vardanyan accused the BBC of making false claims against him within that BBC interview that you yourself linked earlier in this thread. The BBC reporter specifically mentioned the Azerbaijani claims against Ruben Vardanyan of being a Russian puppet, among other things. Ruben Vardanyan vehemently denied all of the allegations within that very interview. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 18:52, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Of course he would deny everything. Who would admit to doing all those things? But there is a reason why BBC reporter questioned him about all those things. In any case, we also mention that Vardanyan himself denies all accusations. Grandmaster 19:08, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

The problem with libel is that the ONUS is on the publication of the accusations, not on the publication of the denials. If you write "Vardanyan is this and that and such and what", and then add the footnote "oh yeah, but he also denies everything obvs", then you've still written an entire paragraph of libel, which is still on display for the entire world to see. The denial of the accusations is meaningless when juxtaposed against the mountain of accusations. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 19:14, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

@Grandmaster

We will return to discussing the appropriateness of including the negative Vardanyan allegations after the potential for libel is addressed. But if it is determined that there is no potential for libel, then I want to address your comment below:

"You reduced everything to one line that provides no information why he is considered an aggravating factor, nothing about his ties with the Russian government, etc. I don't think that is acceptable."

We can easily include this with another sentence clause. See below:

"His appointment in October 2022 to the position of State Minister has aroused suspicion in Yerevan and Baku, with certain political analysts and government officials accusing him of being a Russian puppet, due to his ties with Russia."

Whether or not he does have ties with Russia needs to be demonstrated before this is included given the potential for libel, since calling someone a Russian puppet or abusing their power is very negative.

I want to re-iterate what @Jargo Nautilus @Dallavid and @ZaniGiovanni have said since I don't think you have directly responded: i.e., the majority of reliable sources do not include Vardanyan as a major factor related to this blockade. Among the factors that are covered: Azerbaijan's demands for a "Zangezur corridor", "ethnic tensions," and self-determination.

Only a single reliable source (FinancialTimes) has directly said that Vardanyan has been an escalating factor.

The other two sources you mention, are either vague or single-analyst speculation.

1. vague (Times: "Since [Vardanyan's arrival], talks with Azerbaijan have broken down": this is vague because it doesn't specify cause, just concordance. It's already reported that the AZ government consistently refuses to talk to Artsakh officials)
2. speculatory opinion from a single analyst (DerSpiegel: "the blockade...might have to do with...Vardanyan)

Regardless of whether or not it is libelous, it's NPOV:UNDUE.

@Grandmaster I look forward to hearing your response on this (not the part about libel). Humanatbest (talk) 16:23, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

@Humanatbest - In order to determine whether the content is libelous, we need to ask three questions: (1) "Is the content harmful to the POI's reputation?", (2) "Is the content supported by solid evidence?", and (3) "Is the evidence attributed to reliable sources?". In this particular situation concerning Ruben Vardanyan, the answers to the three questions are as follows: (1) "Yes, accusing Vardanyan of being a 'Russian agent' is harmful to his reputation", (2) "No, there is no solid evidence so far that confirms the allegations, and most of the commentary is speculatory or merely details the unsubstantiated opinions of the parties involved, e.g. the Azerbaijani government", and (3) "Yes, the content is attributed to reliable sources, although there are only a handful of them and they could be considered cherry-picked, and they also do not necessarily contain solid evidence within them, with some of the sources merely *mentioning* offhand that Vardanyan *might* be a Russian puppet". Overall, the rationale for placing such a controversial subsection within the article is very weak. There is very little evidence for the allegations, the allegations are harmful to Vardanyan's reputation, and there are only a handful of reliable sources that make some sort of mention of these allegations, but even this small sample of sources doesn't necessarily go in-depth into the allegations or provide solid evidence for them. So yes, in my view, this content can be regarded as libelous. I've chosen to delete the whole subsection, but it is possible that some of the info could be salvaged. Nonetheless, most of the content revolves around the libelous allegations, which is why I've deleted all of it together. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:50, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Bear in mind that the entire reason that the "Biography of Living Persons" policy is even relevant in this situation is that the subsection specifically names, shames, and targets one individual person, Ruben Vardanyan, as the central figure and a leading cause of the crisis. Typically, "libel" is applied to individual people or companies, but it is less applicable with regards to entire countries. So, for example, if the subsection was instead talking about how "Armenia/Artsakh is the primary cause of the blockade, not Azerbaijan", then it probably wouldn't qualify as libelous (but other policies such as the accuracy of information, bias/NPOV, notability/fringe, and reliable sourcing would still come into play). The mistake that certain editors have made here is that they have indeed decided to target one person, which automatically brings BLP into play. There are other ways to push a pro-Azerbaijani narrative (not that I want to do such a thing) that do not involve ruining the reputation of one individual person. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 17:16, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I suggest we summarize it as follows, to retain key points:

Some analysts see the arrival of Russian-Armenian oligarch Ruben Vardanyan to Nagorno-Karabakh, though welcomed by locals, as a factor that escalated tensions. His appointment in October 2022 to the position of State Minister has aroused suspicions in Yerevan and Baku due to his longstanding ties with Russia's elite. President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev refused to talk to Vardanyan, stating that Vardanyan was "sent from Moscow with a very clear agenda." Many in Armenia distrust Vardanyan too because of his connections with the former Armenian ruling regime and his opposition to the current government. Vardanyan has denied these accusations, saying that his motivations for coming to Artsakh were due to his patriotism for his ancestral homeland. Speculations that he is a Russian agent have lost some credibility as the blockade persisted.

I think it is important that Aliyev refused to talk to Vardanyan, because before his arrival there was communication with local Armenian leaders. It is also important to show what the reasons for distrust in Baku and Yeravan are. I toned down the language too. Grandmaster 18:40, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Do you have sources to back up Vardanyan's "longstanding ties with Russia's elite"? As far as I can tell, that sentence is disparaging towards him, and, based on the BBC interview that you linked in the thread earlier, Vardanyan has obviously denied his connections to Russia's elite. Are there any reliable sources that clearly describe and prove his ties with Russia's elite? Jargo Nautilus (talk) 18:43, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

The Financial Times mentions his longstanding ties with Russia's elite. It is a reliable source. Plus, Vardanyan was accused of money laundering for the Russia's elite, as you can read in the article about him. Grandmaster 18:47, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Do you not understand the difference between "mentions" and "describes and proves"? If the FT is simply mentioning his ties to the Russian elites, then that is not good enough. Has anyone actually conducted an in-depth special investigation into his ties to the Russian elites, and backed it up with irrefutable evidence? | EDIT: Also, it is Wikipedia policy to avoid writing about accusations, and to preferably describe convictions instead (i.e. in the context of criminal law). Jargo Nautilus (talk) 18:50, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

There is a reason why Vardanyan is sanctioned by Ukraine. Broers also says that Vardanyan appears to be close to the Russian elite. Grandmaster 19:02, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

"There is a reason why Vardanyan is sanctioned by Ukraine." - Now, you are back into original research territory. Ukraine certainly has sanctioned him, from what I can tell. But Ukraine might have its own reasons for sanctioning him that might have very little in common with Azerbaijan's negative views towards him. | Furthermore, if Vardanyan "appears to be close to the Russian elite", then that still is far from evidence and/or a conviction. It's just an opinion of one academic, namely Broers. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 19:10, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

This is an ongoing event. There cannot be an established consensus in the scholarly community, or in the coverage by reliable sources, as situation evolves every day. – Yet we have a simple rule on Wikipedia: it's written based on majority reliable sources, and currently, majority reliable sources' reported reasons for the blockade are Karabakh dispute, 'Zangezur corridor', Azerbaijan's desire to speed up the resolution of the Karabakh conflict and other contentious issues in its favor (just a few examples: [97], [98], [99]). Vardanyan (a WP:BLP no less) isn't even mentioned as reason/"factor" in overwhelming majority RS to begin with, so to have a section on him is irrelevant and WP:UNDUE. I have removed the undue/irrelevant information per WP:ONUS, WP:BLP – as it's abundantly clear that BLP should be written with extreme care (especially when Vardanyan is being unduly described here as a "reason/factor" for the blockade) and that those seeking to include disputed content (which is very clearly disputed per this discussion) are the ones who must achieve consensus, yet you don't have consensus for Vardanyan's section being suitable for this article. I agree with Jargo Nautilus and others that the section should be removed per the above reasons, specifically Vardanyan's arrival being very WP:UNDUE and irrelevant to the blockade. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 18:54, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

This is an ognoing event, and of course the majority of sources do not cover everything that happens on a daily basis. It does not mean that we should not update the article with recent information. This person came under scrutiny recently, and he was discussed in a number of mainstream sources that are highly reliable. And it is not a BLP issue, as we only report what the reliable sources say. Grandmaster 18:58, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a policy of steering clear of accusations and sticking closely to convictions. If there are speculation and rumours and gossip about Vardanyan, then they should not be discussed in the article unless they satisfy the NOTABILITY guidelines; i.e. to the point that the issue is unavoidable. As it stands, Vardanyan seems to only be on the sidelines in this blockade/protests crisis, so I doubt that he could be described as "unavoidable" currently. And, on top of that, there seems to be not much evidence for the accusations being made against him, which means that most of these accusations are merely unsubstantiated opinions of the various parties involved. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 19:35, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Majority reliable sources do cover and already covered the actual factors/reasons for the blockade, and Vardanyan clearly isn't one of them. If he actually was one of or the reason/significant for the blockade (as the leader of Artsakh no less), that's a major revelation that would've been covered in almost all RS - but this isn't the case because he's not a reason/factor, and adding him as such is highly undue and libelous especially when we already have actual reasons for the blockade in overwhelming RS, such as Karabakh dispute, 'Zangezur corridor', Azerbaijan's desire to speed up the resolution of the Karabakh conflict and other contentious issues in its favor. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 10:55, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

To put things into perspective, I could hypothetically add to the article that "Ilham Aliyev is a ruthless dictator who is orchestrating fake environmental protests in order to blockade the Republic of Artsakh", and I would probably have more evidence of my claims in comparison to the libelous/slanderous claims being made against Ruben Vardanyan by certain users here. Indeed, I do believe that Ilham Aliyev actually does hold more responsibility for the blockade than Vardanyan, because Aliyev is obviously the person who ordered the blockade to happen, whereas Vardanyan might have "triggered" Aliyev to orchestrate the blockade and the fake protests (but this doesn't mean that Vardanyan actually *caused* the blockade). Jargo Nautilus (talk) 11:51, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

t's written based on majority reliable sources, and currently, majority reliable sources' reported reasons for the blockade are Karabakh dispute, - There appears to be some confusion. We're discussing the Background section. Nobody here is claiming that Ruben is the cause of the protest on the Lachin road. There is nothing UNDUE in the information about Ruben cited to various relaible sources, especially when they imply and state that the arrival of Ruben escalated tensions. A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 19:49, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the protest on the Lachin road doesn't exist. That's a fundamental misunderstanding between the editors here. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 22:46, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

This is unnecessary short, and this Speculations that he is a Russian agent have lost some credibility as the blockade persisted. is original research. We can not make wiki-voice summary from statement of one person. Best we can do is quote him as it is, as it was initially. A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 18:55, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it is opinion of de Waal. Should be attributed. Something like: To some analysts, speculations that he is a Russian agent have lost some credibility as the blockade persisted, with a link to de Waal's interview. Grandmaster 19:04, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Although it is ok, I found source that supports that statement. A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 19:41, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I took this to WP:BLPN. Let's ask the wider Wikipedia community if there is a BLP issue here. Grandmaster 20:55, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Ruben Vardanyan Recap

I decided to make a new section regarding Vardanyan because the previous one is so flooded that it is virtually unreadable.

To begin, I'd want to point out that libel claims do not appear to have sufficient grounds. Because the statements about Vardanyan do not fit any of four criteria to be considered libelous.They are rather backed by well established sources such as euroasianet, time, financial times, and so on.

Secondly, it appears that there has been a misunderstanding, causing some editors to suggest that statements about Vardanyan are UNDUE, because Vardanyan is not the cause of the blockade. To address this, I want to establish that sources and no one here argue that Vardanyan is the main cause of the blockage, but rather that Vardanyan is a factor that escalated tensions. As such, given that this tension has been confirmed by a number of Azerbaijani media outlets, who have expressed concerns that Vardanyan illegally exports gold from Karabakh, information regarding Vardanyan is definetely DUE for the article's background section.

So, looking through the background part, I can say that the information about Vardanyan is more DUE than the majority of the information there, and we simply need to agree on how to portray that information. I believe there was a partial agreement that material regarding Vardanyan should not have a separate subsection and should be shredded to the size of 1-2 paragraphs, but this need further discussion.

@Humanatbest, @GrandMaster, @ZaniGiovanni, @Dallavid. Thoughts? A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 21:12, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Unless I am mistaken, the post that @Grandmaster made on the help board for BOLP did not receive any comments. I´m a bit unclear on due Wikipedia protocol, but wasn't the resolution to seek guidance from the greater Wiki community first? In particular, the WP:LIBEL issue that @Jargo Nautilus has not been addressed.

I think we should first resolve the BLOP before discussing WP:UNDUE.

There are more than "four criteria" for content to be considered libelous. The four criteria you mention refer to criteria about whether to remove a source. There are other policies: "Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true." Most of the sources we have cited on Vardanyan provide vague or speculation. The majority talk about Vardanyan in the context of the blockade are not presented as true but as theories.

I also don't think the source you have is considered neutral since it describes Vardanyan as "hiding" in Nagorno-Karbakh. While I have very little sympathy for billionaires, I think this remains to be proved? Humanatbest (talk) 21:47, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

As I stated above, there is nothing libel in the proposed statements related to Vardanyan, however, if you can specifically point out part of proposed information about Vardanyan which you think is libel - then it would be possible to address. I think @GrandMaster should post shirked version here, and after you will have chance to highlight specific points which you think are libel.

I also don't think the source you have is considered neutral - I pointed it out only to show concerns among Azerbaijani media, so neutrality of source is not a key factor. A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 22:56, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

@Abrvagl Neutrality/reliability is relevant for WP:DUE. The "prominence of a view point given mainspace is in "proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in published, reliable sources"

Again, this pertains to WP:DUE rather than libel. Let's stick to dealing with the latter before the former Humanatbest (talk) 23:51, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

This also is not a "recap." If anything, this "recap" section looks like an attempt to circumvent the process of consulting the opinion of the wider Wikipedia community. At the time you made this "recap" no third-party editor had voiced their opinion. Humanatbest (talk) 00:06, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Note: the source, which I pointed out above, not for adding to the article or to claim Vardanyan’s involvement to mining, but rather to provide an example to reflect increased tensions as part of this discussion for which above mentioned source is perfectly fine. Rest I will leave for other editors to discuss. I think I did my best to aid attempt of consensus over this discussion. A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 05:03, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. It doesn’t reflect anything what non RS fringe claims, especially when it’s clear libel. Unless third party reliable sources make even remotely close accusations, fringe like that is not relevant here per multiple policy violations. It can’t be used to reflect anything since it’s non RS, fringe and violates libel. In Wikipedia, you reflect something based on RS and weight. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 07:14, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

This was discussed already in the extensive discussion above. Any “illegal” gold claims are WP:fringe allegations unconfirmed by any reliable sources (and to allege Vardanyan is “illegally exporting” gold like the partisan website does is not only fringe, but a blatant violation of WP:libel), and Vardanyan being a “factor” for the blockade is highly undue as argued in numerous instances above (he isn’t even mentioned in most reliable sources connecting him to the blockade motives, no less as a “factor”). You’re not adding anything by creating a repetitive discussion, I’d suggest to wait what third party editors have to say since everybody here already voiced their thoughts. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 23:58, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

The background section contains plenty of information that has no direct relevance to the topic, or was reported only by a few sources. For example, this line is supported by a single source, Eurasianet:

Speaking about Azerbaijan's demand for the Zangezur corridor, a senior Azerbaijani official reported to Eurasianet in November 2022, "What if we were to install a [border] post at the entrance of Lachin and finish the whole process? How can you breathe with no air?"

Is it undue or not? It is not mentioned by any other source covering the topic. Grandmaster 16:23, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Numerous reliable sources reported the following:

A) that the Armenian PM said in the weeks beforehand that the PM of Azerbaijan was trying to invent pretexts for closing the Lachin corridor.

B) that Azerbaijan was pushing for the Zangezur corridor.

The quote has been mentioned several times by Eurasianet but remember it was specifically given to Eurasianet in confidence.

I think it's relevant given the blockade's often perceived and reported connection to the zangezur corridor.

According to these sources, Aliyev made similar remarks in December 2022:

"Today, there are no customs [posts] in the Lachin corridor. Therefore, there should be no customs [posts] in the Zangezur corridor. If Armenia would insist on using customs facilities to control cargos and people, then we will insist on the same in the Lachin corridor. This is logical," said Ilham Aliyev (link) (link2) Humanatbest (talk) 16:49, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Is the quote of an anonymous official due or undue? That is the question. The argument was that the views supported by the minority of sources should not be reflected. Grandmaster 18:54, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

@Grandmaster I think a single line is not WP:UNDUE, especially since other Azeri gov officials have made almost identical comments Humanatbest (talk) 09:19, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Also, regarding this edit: [6] I think it should be undone, because it is old news, from August 2022. Since then, the new road has been completed, Russian peacekeepers moved there, and Azerbaijan took control of Lachin and Zabukh. Again, no direct relevance to the blockade. It is about Lachin corridor in general. Grandmaster 18:54, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

@Grandmaster if it's completed then how come it's not getting used?? Humanatbest (talk) 09:17, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

It is. What road do you think is in use now? It bypasses the town of Lachin, which is back under Azerbaijan's control. Our own article about Lachin corridor mentions that. Grandmaster 10:12, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Suggestions on improving the article (+ inviting more input)

Hey all, I was making some edits to clean up the lead and started to look over the article and thinking about the current state of it. I don't have much time to work on improving it right now, but I wanted to raise some thought/suggestions I had and maybe get some conversation going about what could be done to raise the quality of the article and effectiveness/impact to readers who do not have context on the situation.

1. I think the article is a bit too muddled/dense in different areas while assuming readers may have more context than it should, might be good to work on this
2. The big thing is I think the article should be transitioned from revolving heavily around the timeline, to instead summarizing the different aspects of the blockade while reducing or completely removing the timeline section. I'd propose an outline something along the lines of that below. The big focus should really be moving to readable, effective summary that doesn't bog down with tons of unnecessary details, that someone can reasonably read. As it is now, someone who wants to learn about the blockade has to read thorough a huge list of points in the timeline that are not grouped by topic whatsoever and contains a lot of minor details. Even as someone who is up to date on the blockade, if I start reading that timeline my eyes start to glaze over. Proposed outline below:
   1. Background
   2. Start of the Blockade (summary, not timeline)
   3. Humanitarian impact/crisis (describes food/medical shortages, people being trapped, surgeries all being cancelled, classes being cancelled, etc)
   4. Infrastructure Damage (describes the different damage that has occurred, discusses background for prior possible sabotage, the possibility that this is sabotage)
   5. Overview/Analysis of the protesters (this is where it is discussed what they claim to be vs them possibly being Azerbaijani government actors, what their demands are, etc).
   6. Other Developments?
   7. Reactions
3. In some areas the content seems pretty weak/claim are unsupported, for a lack of a better way to put it. For example: "Turkey has also demonstrated some level of involvement in the blockade." being very vague, and based on an ambassador making a statement of support. Cutting down on things like this would help make the article more NPOV and higher quality
4. I recall reading that the nominations to the wikipedia front page were blocked for low quality and the timeline being the bulk of the article, which is partially why I bring these points up.

I think this would be a good direction to take the article in. Would appreciate feedback and other ideas from editors here. @Jargo Nautilus @Grandmaster @RaffiKojian pinging a few of the editors I see have been active on the page Achemish (talk) 07:47, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

1. Turkey sent people to the site of the blockade, rather than merely showed support. So, that's what it means by "some level of involvement". The fact that Turks were able to enter the sites obviously means they received special treatment from the Azerbaijanis, whereas Armenians are being blockaded.

2. The timeline was originally closer towards the bottom of the article, but one editor recently moved it above the humanitarian crisis and the analysis of the protests. I've already pointed out in a section above that the timeline is a bit clunky.

3. From what I can tell, the infrastructure damage has not been so severe that it needs its own section. That information can be summed up in one to two paragraphs. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 07:56, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

1. Am I missing something? The article I see cited (https://caucasuswatch.de/news/6811.html) only states that the Turkish ambassador visited. The wording is too vague in the wiki article and once the wording is improved I don't think this is significant enough to include in the lead
2. Sure but still, what is the purpose of the timeline here? I think it makes sense for very new events that are rapidly developing, since it is hard to summarize/catagorize information yet, but once an event has become somewhat mature like this, I think the timeline actually makes the article convey much less. At this point there is a substantial amount of information that is near-unreadable if presented as just a log, and all that information should instead be summarized and collected in corresponding sections. Is there any reason we should keep a timeline?
3. I think a few paragraphs is worth it's own section, or it could be a sub-section under a section like "resulting crisis/humanitarian impact". It would be a summary of the different damage/sabotage that has occurred and some summary of the damage vs sabotage claims. There's three different types of sabotage that have occurred, plus some background worth including, so there's a fair bit of content.

Achemish (talk) 08:03, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

...the Ambassador of Turkey to Azerbaijan, personally visited the Lachin corridor. - Here's one example of a Turk entering the blockaded area. There is also one other source in the article that mentions the involvement of Turkish workers who were already situated in Nagorno-Karabakh at the beginning of the blockade. Azertaj informs that Turkish citizens working in various reconstruction and reconstruction projects in the cities and villages of Karabakh also joined the action: "Azerbaijani and Turkish flags were raised in the area where the action took place.". Jargo Nautilus (talk) 08:01, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I did not see that. It still feels really vague and kind of lowers the quality of the article in my opinion, the language should be tightened up then. I think it also borders on WP:OR since this is extrapolating that because of these things, Turkey as a state is involved in the blockade. Achemish (talk) 08:06, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

What is an ambassador but a representative of a state? He might be acting on his own terms, but he is a pretty high ranking member of the Turkish government in that area of the world. And the reason I mentioned Turkey in the lead is that Turkey was already mentioned (briefly) in the article's body paragraphs. I mentioned Turkey in order to be consistent between the lead and the body. If you think Turkey's involvement is not significant at all, then the mentions of Turkey in the body paragraphs might have to be removed. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 08:10, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I think the timeline is too long and should be either moved to a lower-hanging section or it's own article. @Jargo Nautilus @Achemish @Grandmaster

The relevant parts of the timeline that should be kept in my opinion:

1. Summary of phase 1 and phase 2 of the blockade (the first pace was ended by the Russians). This would include who is allowed in and out and some of the "protestors" demands
2. Appeals to end the blockade by Armenia and Artsakh with Azerbaijan's response (i.e., the UN security council discussion, ICC application, and Azerbaijan's official stance on denying the blockade and the reactions from various Azeri foreign ministers which endorse the blockade and the failure of the UNSC meeting or the protestor's demands)
3. Proposed solutions by various parties [here we would include a) Armenia saying that UN peacekeeping mission should replace the Russian mandate b) calls for an air-lift from Artsakh officials, the Azeri government's officially endorsed conditions for lifting the blockade and statements from Aliyev saying (i'm paraphrasing here) "those who don't want to be citizens can leave"]

Humanatbest (talk) 16:14, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I do think the article is a bit long. However, splitting the timeline out into a new article may pose two problems: (1) unnecessary content-fork, and (2) article is not notable enough to be split into multiple core forks (as opposed to spinoff topics). \\\ By the way, it is somewhat strange that, as you've pointed out, Azerbaijan's official stance is to deny that the blockade even exists, and yet, in your words, some Azerbaijani officials "endorse the blockade". I guess, in Azerbaijani double-speak, the correct terminology is "endorse the blockade which does not exist". \\\ It's not happening , but if it is, then they deserve it. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:47, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

@Achemish Thanks very much for all these thoughts from a fresh pair of eyes. I appreciate the time you took, this is good insight and I will try to start implementing some of these suggestions this week. RaffiKojian (talk) 14:01, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

@Grandmaster

Thanks for finding the excellent source from the ICRC. In order to shorten the blockade timeline section, how do you feel about moving the aid given from the ICRC and Russian Peacekeeping forces to the Humanitarian Section?

i.e., we modify the timeline section to "ICRC and Russian peacekeeping forces began supplying aid and/or transferring patients on this date"

Then in the Humanitarian Section, we synthesize this all of this to "Since the blockade start, the ICRC has reported transferring X,Y,Z supplies and providing safe passage for X number of people." The Russian peacekeeping forces have also reported providing supplies on days X, Y, Z."

let me know what you think. Humanatbest (talk) 12:42, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I feel like we should mention in the lead that the Azerbaijani government denies that the blockade even exists. Obviously, Wikipedia has taken the stance that the blockade *does* exist, and two conflicting realities cannot be true simultaneously; the blockade either exists or it doesn't. So, effectively, we can say something like "Azerbaijan denies the existence of the blockade, but third-party sources have confirmed that it is happening" (perhaps worded a bit better than that). Jargo Nautilus (talk) 08:56, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

The blockade existing is so obvious and confirmed by virtually every country, organizations and reliable sources that the fringe denial should be in the Az Reactions only, which it is currently. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 09:11, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Limited number of patients

The lead section says: The ICRC has transferred a limited number of patients to Armenia for tertiary medical or surgical care. Do we have reliable sources to say that this number is limited, or it is a WP:OR? ICRC itself does not say that the number of transported patients is limited. Grandmaster 17:07, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Was it WP:OR when you added "daily" here when none of the sources use that wording or something similar? In any case, "a limited number" means ICRC doesn't just go around transferring however many patients they want, there is a limit to the number of transferred patients. Since the number changes, it makes sense to phrase it this way. Alternative would be putting the exact number of patients but it keeps being changed. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 17:25, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Then it is an OR to say that the number is limited. Therefore this word should be deleted. We should not engage in our own research with regard to whether or not there is a limit. As far as I understand, ICRC is free to travel back and forth any time they like, and they do not complain of any limitations, and we do not have a single reliable source to suggest that the number of transported patients is limited. I propose to rewrite this line as follows: The ICRC has transferred a number of patients to Armenia for tertiary medical or surgical care. Grandmaster 17:38, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

“A number of” is misleading as while one meaning of it is “several” or “a few” (which are ok to describe the dire situation) its other meaning is “several different” synonymous to numerous, countless, abundant, innumerable,  manifold (formal), profuse etc, which is clearly not the case. Hence I’m changing it to “several”, a very neutral word, unless you’re keen on “a few”. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 22:04, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

@ZaniGiovanni Another option would be to not qualify the number and simply say "has transferred patients" Humanatbest (talk) 08:53, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Yeah this is another neutral option alongside "several", and the number will likely change again. I'll implement this suggestion. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 23:42, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

@Grandmaster i don't think the ICRC typically complains about things (please correct me if i am wrong) be because they are a neutral intermediary. It would be against their own interests and goals if it looked like they were taking sides. If you read their post on the blockade they are extremely careful with their wording and say "the sides" which is very awkward english but was likely intentional Humanatbest (talk) 08:51, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

"Russian peacekeepers also delivered humanitarian cargoes"

@Grandmaster - Neither of the two sources that you provided actually says, anywhere or in any form, that the Russian peacekeepers have delivered humanitarian cargos. Read the two articles closely. Neither one of them precisely says that. As such, you have to look harder for a source that precisely says that the Russian peacekeepers have delivered humanitarian cargos. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:51, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Source #1 - ...some products are being imported through the mediation of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and the Russian peacekeeping forces... --> The specific phrase "through the mediation" makes no implication of direct responsibility. \\\ Since the blockade began on December 12, the only vehicles that have managed to pass through the corridor have belonged to the ICRC and the Russian peacekeepers. --> No comments at all about humanitarian cargos. \\\

Source #2 - The internet disruption lasted for a day, and was resolved with the mediation of Russian peacekeepers, allowing Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians to repair the damaged cable. --> This says absolutely nothing about the alleged delivery of humanitarian cargos by Russian peacekeepers. \\\ While Red Cross and Russian peacekeeper vehicles have been permitted to pass through the blockade, the region’s government maintains that supplies of humanitarian aid have been insufficient. --> This does not say anything about who is supplying humanitarian cargos, just that they are "insufficient". It also mentions that Russian peacekeepers have passed through the blockade, but it doesn't mention anything about the Russian peacekeepers bringing cargos along with them. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:58, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Exactly, it just says Peacekeeper vehicles passed. Neither did ICRC deliver "humanitarian cargos", ICRC delivered supplies to medical facilities in Artsakh and helped to transport patients (says "through the mediation of the Red Cross" and from official ICRC says "facilitated"). Should be changed to "The ICRC has delivered healthcare aid to medical facilities in Artsakh and has helped to evacuate medical patients". ZaniGiovanni (talk) 13:01, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

ZaniGiovanni - Yes, one of the sources did specifically say that the ICRC had delivered medical supplies (which, arguably, is a type of humanitarian cargo). "The medical system works in emergency mode. The hospitals are still operating thanks to the ICRC's assistance. If they cease deliveries, we will no longer be able to operate," Karen Baziyan, a doctor at the state hospital, told Eurasianet. (emphasis mine). \\\ In an interview with Eurasianet, the ICRC’s spokesperson in Nagorno-Karabakh, Eteri Musayelyan, reported that food parcels had been delivered to nine medical facilities and a boarding school for children from poor families. --> "Reported the delivery" doesn't exactly say that the ICRC did the delivery itself, but it is very close. \\\ Earlier, ICRC reported the delivery of 10 tons of cargo, including baby food, medicine, and food, from Armenia to Nagorno-Karabakh. --> Same as previous; "Reported the delivery" is close, but not quite there (it's a roundabout way of saying, allegedly, that the "ICRC delivered the cargo"). Jargo Nautilus (talk) 13:07, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't dispute that the ICRC has delivered medical supplies (again, arguably a type of humanitarian cargo). I do dispute that the Russian peacekeepers have allegedly delivered humanitarian cargos (of any type), since neither of the two sources provided by Grandmaster in the lead actually precisely backs up this claim. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 13:12, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Can not speak for @Grandmaster, but my intention is to use those Azerbaijani reports only as attributed statement of fact that vehicles passed though the corridor (without specifying what they delivered unless it is not precisely shown or supported by other sources). There is no doubt that peacekeepers and ICRC delivering humanitarian aid though, that is also confirmed by third party sources. For example the one from 15th of January:

Medicines and other goods for medical institutions have been delivered from Armenia to Nagorno-Karabakh, said Zara Amatuni, head of communication programs for the delegation of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). "The cargo does not belong to the ICRC, it was provided by the government. We only ensured safe transportation," News.am quoted her as saying. Earlier today, Azeri news agency APA reported that ICRC vehicles that left Khankendi (Azerbaijani name for Stepanakert) in the morning drove along the Lachin corridor in the opposite direction. "Besides them, another truck drove from Lachin to Khankendi," the agency said. Source: https://www.kavkaz-uzel.eu/articles/384981/

A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 14:09, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Abrvagl... The quote that you provided above (again) does not say that the Russian peacekeepers delivered the cargo. It says that the ICRC delivered the cargo, and only the ICRC. Again, you are entirely missing the point (whether intentionally or not, it's up in the air). Jargo Nautilus (talk) 14:49, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

There is no doubt that peacekeepers (and ICRC) delivering humanitarian aid though. - This is a statement that you've made above, and yet, there is still a doubt as to whether the Russian peacekeepers delivered the aid. At the moment, all of the sources are saying that only the ICRC delivered the aid, whereas the Russian peacekeepers essentially stood by and looked pretty. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 14:51, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

At this point, it is like the brick wall. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 14:54, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

@Abrvagl - This is another example of your English abilities being subpar. The source that you provided to back up your claim of "there is no doubt..." had the exact same problem as the earlier sources that I analysed. So, obviously, you didn't actually read my analysis or bother to check whether your source disproved my analysis (which, it evidently didn't). Jargo Nautilus (talk) 06:08, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

What's reported by WP:RS/officials is in the article already; this discussion is for whether Russian Peacekeepers delivered humanitarian aid or just vehicles passing through (per source), the former doesn't seem to be the case. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 14:57, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

In my mind, "Russians deliver humanitarian aid" is an oxymoron, and I won't believe it until I see it. It's not unusual that the ICRC is delivering medical supplies; that's their job. But I have a hard time believing that Russians are delivering anything except missiles. It's baffling that two pro-Azerbaijani editors at this talk page are pushing the idea of Russians delivering humanitarian aid, with absolutely no evidence to support their claims. All of the sources that they have cited don't actually say that the Russians have delivered humanitarian aid. So far, all of the aid has been delivered by the ICRC exclusively, according to the sources that we have. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 02:07, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Note: So far, the only source in the article that I can see which says that "Russian peacekeepers have delivered humanitarian aid (e.g. food and "necessary supplies") to Artsakh" is a monologue by Ilham Aliyev. This source is obviously not convincing. We would need independent third-party sources (at least some Armenian or Russian sources) to confirm what Aliyev is saying. Bear in mind that the simple fact of "four hundred trucks of Russian peacekeepers passing through the Lachin corridor during the past month" is not equivalent to "Russian peacekeepers have delivered aid". For all we know, the Russian peacekeepers were simply going on joyrides. Are there Russian, Armenian, and external sources which corroborate the claims made by Aliyev? Jargo Nautilus (talk) 03:37, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

In this monologue by Aliyev, which an editor has used as a citation in the "Involved parties" section of the article, he says "So, we see everything, and we know everything. We know the number of trucks of the Russian peacekeeping contingent – how many enter and exit each month and how many enter and exit now. Of course, they also take food and other necessary goods to the Armenians living there. We do not object to that. Our goal is not a blockade." (emphasis mine).

Bear in mind that this is a (would you believe it) +17,000-words essay, an interview, and the "Russian peacekeepers delivering humanitarian aid" is mentioned only once, in passing. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 03:49, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Separatist leader Ruben Vardanyan says that Russian peacekeepers provide humanitarian aid. While many Armenians have sought to present the blockade as a total strangulation of the territory, Vardanyan has instead repeatedly emphasized the exceptions: some humanitarian aid provided by the Russian peacekeepers or transport of seriously ill patients out of the territory with Red Cross escort. [7] Grandmaster 10:01, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Wait, the article you linked says that Ruben Vardanyan is a former Russian national who only recently renounced his Russian citizenship in order to immigrate to Nagorno-Karabakh. Shortly afterwards, he somehow gained a sort of position of authority within the Republic of Artsakh. Is this guy a mole or what? The fact that he himself is Russian means that there is a potential conflict-of-interest with regards to his statements about the Russian peacekeepers. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 10:27, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I will say, he certainly is a second opinion, but I'm not sure he is much more convincing than Aliyev. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 10:30, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Armenia's president said: Only 400 vehicles passed in 40 days, mostly for humanitarian purposes. [8] ICRC run only 3 supply trucks so far, and since most of the 400 vehicles belonged to Russian peacekeepers, obviously it was them who delivered humanitarian aid. Grandmaster 10:07, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Vardanyan statement is his statement and is in the article already. Also from the source, it says he downplayed the situation and was criticized for it:

• "But as the crisis has dragged on, Vardanyan also has increasingly attracted criticism for his public messaging."
• "In the interview, he downplayed the severity of the situation. While Karabakh was now deprived of many food products, notably fruits and vegetables, he said people were also able to deal with long-term deprivation during the first Karabakh War in the 1990s. "

400 trucks in past 40 days is still a miniscule amount (2.5% to be precise compared before blockade) as it used to be 300-400 trucks daily prior to blockade. We can't measure or tell if it was humanitarian aid by Russians or just their own supplies for their troops, the article doesn't specify this. Also ICRC has transferred patients as well, so trying to measure how much of the vehicles were Red Cross or Peacekeepers is impossible and OR.

All in all, the only person saying humanitarian aid from Russian Peacekeepers is Vardanyan, who btw says some aid and was criticized for visibly downplaying the severity of the situation. Secondary WP:RS such as HRW say "according to some media reports, several Russian peacekeeping trucks that allegedly contained humanitarian goods were allowed to pass, although it is unclear for whom the goods are intended."[9] ZaniGiovanni (talk) 10:30, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Grandmaster, I don't think we should be adding any info into the article on the basis of it being "obvious". Obvious to you, maybe, but maybe not obvious to others (this is borderline original research). Indeed, if the information was obvious, you'd think that there would be some major articles being written about the information. In my view, the information is important enough that there ought to be articles written about it, but so far, such articles seem to be few and far between. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 10:36, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Look, it might be the case that the Russian peacekeepers actually are delivering humanitarian aid (what that means exactly, I don't know; maybe food and pencils), but I don't think we should jump the gun and just add in any source that makes vague, indirect reference to such actions. We should wait for better sources to be released that detail this information precisely. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 10:40, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

We do actually have Vardanyan's quote in the article already who seems to be the only one saying "some aid" from Russian peacekeepers, but who was heavily criticized for downplaying the severity of the situation. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 10:44, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Sure, I think it can stay in the article as an opinion piece, but anything pertaining to facts, particularly in the lead as well as in the main body paragraphs, should be filtered with particular caution. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 11:02, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Agree. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 11:08, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

According to Le Monde: Along the Lachin corridor, the blockade is not total and a few vehicles from the International Committee of the Red Cross are managing to move around, carrying medicines and patients. Goods are sometimes transported by the Russian peacekeeping forces. [10] So it is not just separatist leader Vardanyan who says so. Russian peacekeepers themselves report today distribution of humanitarian aid to schools. [11] So it is not a total blockade, and Russian forces deliver humanitarian aid. Grandmaster 19:53, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

So it is not a total blockade - Commenting on this: according to most WP:RS, it's a blockade with a capital B. We're not going to cherry-pick a single source and ignore most RS, that's not how Wikipedia works. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 23:30, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Grandmaster, the sentence that you highlighted says "the blockade is not total" (emphasis mine). Do you not realise then that the source is still labelling these events as a "blockade", in its own words? Even your source which is supposed to refute the blockade still calls it a blockade. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 05:32, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I did not say it was not a blockade. I said that it was not a total blockade, as Le Monde writes. Indeed, if 400 vehicles passed the road, it is not a complete blockade. But the main point is that Russian peacekeepers do deliver humanitarian aid, as Vardanyan, Le Monde and Russian peacekeepers say. Grandmaster 16:02, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

The claims made by Vardanyan, Le Monde, and the Russian peacekeepers (actually, I haven't seen the peacekeepers claim it directly themselves yet) are not evidence that the humanitarian aid is actually being delivered (or at least not in significant amounts). Again, these are just claims. We don't have conclusive evidence; none of these sources is good enough for the lead, although they are okay for the "reactions" section. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 21:25, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Le Monde clearly says that Russian peacekeepers deliver humanitarian aid. Separatist leaders also admit that. And logically, 600 Russian trucks that arrived to Karabakh since 12 December could not run empty. They transported lots of cargo. Grandmaster 10:48, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

And HRW says "allegedly" and "unclear for whom" [12], what's your point? Most WP:RS in fact say blockade with a capital B and lack of supplies / lost supplies. We aren't going to cherry-pick a single source and Vardanyan's heavily criticized opinion (per Eurasianet) and ignore most RS especially for lead, but I agree with Jargo Nautilus that Vardanyan's opinion is suitable for Reactions section, as it should be. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 11:06, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Russian peacekeepers themselves report delivery of a humanitarian cargo by them. I don't think there can be any reason to question that Russian peacekeepers deliver humanitarian aid. Quote:

Осуществлено сопровождение одной автомобильной колонны российского миротворческого контингента с гуманитарным грузом по маршруту ГОРИС - СТЕПАНАКЕРТ.

One vehicle convoy of the Russian peacekeeping contingent with humanitarian cargo was escorted along the route GORIS - STEPANAKERT. [13]

So we have Vardanyan, Le Monde and peacekeepers themselves who confirm delivery of humanitarian cargo by the Russian peacekeepers. We can update the lead accordingly. Grandmaster 12:59, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm repeating again: and we have most RS reporting blockade with a capital B and with lack of / lost supplies [14], [15], [16], [17], [18] or "alleged aid unknown for whom" per HRW. So we write what most RS say especially for the lead. This is WP:PRIMARY btw, and using singe Le Monde article + Vardanyan's highly criticized opinion (which should stay in Reactions) to add "Russian humanitarian aid" to the lead no less is the definition of WP:UNDUE, especially when most secondary RS don't say this and report blockade with lost supplies or alleged passing unknown for whom.

Please be aware of WP:CRUSH, I'm saying this for the 10th time now. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 14:13, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

The situation constantly evolves, as it is an ongoing event, with new updates coming daily. It is now official that the Russian peacekeepers deliver the aid, with Karabakh leader confirming it. This information comes from the official website of the Russian ministry of defense, and WP:PRIMARY does not apply here, as we must report the official positions of the involved parties. Otherwise we must remove every official statement quoted in the article. Grandmaster 15:51, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Vardanyan's statment of "some aid" is already in the article in Reactions section + he's highly criticized for it per the source itself. This doesn't merit lead addition of "Russian humanitarian aid" per WP:WEIGHT and in contradiction to most RS. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 15:57, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Since 21 January, Russian peacekeepers report daily deliveries of convoys with humanitarian aid on their official website. Vardanyan also confirmed to BBC once again that Russians deliver aid. I think it is time to update the lead with info about Russian peacekeepers delivering aid. Grandmaster 17:11, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Why are you repeating yourself? Vardanyan's highly criticized opinion is already in the article.

It's not significant for the WP:LEAD what Russian peacekeepers report in their website since even WP:RS don't cover it. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS, at best the primary Russian bulletins should be summarized in the body, which currently is the case. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 17:34, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I already quoted Le Mond. There are more sources that confirm that Russian peacekeepers deliver aid. Eurasianet: With the vital link closed to civilian traffic, around 100,000 residents are dependent on humanitarian aid delivered by the Red Cross and Moscow's troops. [19]

RFRL: Before the blockade, 400 tons of goods were delivered from Armenia to Karabakh daily, and now, according to the state minister, only a small part of what is needed is supplied by the International Committee of the Red Cross and Russian peacekeepers. [20] It is important information to reflect in the lead, because it shows that some supplies are still being delivered. Grandmaster 01:05, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Your sources are problematic:

Azatutyun article mentions the supply by Russians tangentially - touching it only in the last paragraph, the article is otherwise entirely about something else. Furthermore, the article merely attributes that passage about Russians to Vardanyan, and what Vardanyan says is not unequivocally received as truth either in Armenia or in Azerbaijan or outside, as you can see from Kucera's article. Vardanyan is a Russian billionaire, and a man close to Putin, remember?

“Goods are sometimes transported by Russians” by Le Monde sounds more like a trivia which doesn’t seem to carry enough weight to be included in the lede.

Conclusion: This isn't about "confirming" anything – issue here is: the info about Russians may be ok in the body but still quite shady and most importantly WP:UNDUE to be in the WP:LEAD. An editor who has no significant conflict of interest with the subject should understand this without even me having to explain. I suggest you not to worry - as you say the situation is changing and evolving - with more (and more reliable sources) coming up this can be rediscussed but currently it feels a like stretch for inclusion in the lead. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 23:38, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Speaking of the lead and Russian peacekeeper "humanitarian aid", do you want to add this info to the lead as well (Az source, Arm source)? The question is rhetorical. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 23:52, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Zangezur republic

The background section has the following paragraph:

Since the end of the Second Nagorno-Karbakh War, Azerbaijan has increasingly promoted irredentist claims to Armenian territory which it describes as "Western Azerbaijan." After Azerbaijan attacked Armenia in September 2022 including areas around the Lachin corridor, pro-government media and certain Azerbaijani officials promoted the irredentist concept of the “Goycha-Zangazur Republic” which claims all of southern Armenia, including the region that borders the Lachin corridor. Azerbaijani member of parliament Hikmat Babaoghlu condemned the idea, arguing that it weakens Azerbaijan's public case to create the Zangezur corridor.

Which reliable sources draw a direct connection between the blockade and Western Azerbaijan idea, Zangezur republic, etc? Grandmaster 12:06, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

I honestly cannot see any connection between above information and the 2022–2023 blockade of the Republic of Artsakh. A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 19:30, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

There is more.

Artsakh authorities gave the residents of the villages along the corridor 20 days notice to evacuate [78][79]. While Aliyev promised that long-term Armenian Lachin residents would be treated as citizens, he branded the remaining residents as illegal settlers and demanded that they be removed

In December 2022, the Azerbaijan government inaugurated its "Great Return" program, which ostensibly promotes the settlement of ethnic Azerbaijanis who once lived in Armenia and Nagorno-Karbakh.[82][83] As part of this program, a natural gas pipeline will be built between Agdam and Stapanakert which will begin operation in 2025 which is also when the Russian peacekeeping forces' mandate in Nagorno-Karbakh ends.

How is the above information related to the blockade? It may be appropriate for another article, but are there any reliable sources that connect those events to the blockade? Grandmaster 20:08, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

I removed the above paragraphs, as they have no direct relevance to the topic of the article, and no reliable sources have been provided that make the connection between those events and the topic of this article. Grandmaster 16:47, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I also removed the following line, as it has no connection to the blockade of the Lachin road.

Turkey has blockaded mainland Armenia since 1993, in support of Azerbaijan's position in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.

Grandmaster 16:59, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

How is this related to the blockade:

Since the end of the Second Nagorno-Karbakh War, Azerbaijan has increasingly promoted irredentist claims to Armenian territory which it describes as "Western Azerbaijan."

Does any reliable source claim that the blockade is done because of Western Azerbaijan concept? Grandmaster 10:44, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Here is a source connecting them, which I added. And the other background information you removed is very clearly related to the blockade as just that, background information (i.e. happening before the blockade). --Dallavid (talk) 23:17, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Which part exactly says that blockade is happening because of Western Azerbaijan claim? Also, the section below is where the new Lachin corridor is discussed. Please explain why should the article say that it is still to be built? Grandmaster 23:32, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Also, what blockade of Armenia by Turkey has to do with Lachin corridor? What is the point in adding irrelevant information to the background? Background section is not a collection of unrelated facts, it should describe the sequence of events that led to the present situation. Grandmaster 00:02, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Maybe the part where a a senior Azerbaijani official directly compares cutting off the Lachin corridor to demanding a "Zangezur corridor"?

There is cited text confirming that Turkey supports the blockade, which makes the other blockade Turkey is behind in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict relevant background information. --Dallavid (talk) 19:57, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Zangezur corridor and Western Azerbaijan are not the same thing. And Turkish support has nothing to do with that country closing its border with Armenia in 1990s. That is totally irrelevant to this article. Grandmaster 10:40, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

The "East Zangezur Economic Region" was created right next to Synuik, and Broers source confirms it's an example of irredentism. And OC Media also disagrees with you about Turkish support being irrelevant. --Dallavid (talk) 20:05, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

How is the following related to Lachin corridor?

Caucasus expert Laurence Broers draws parallels between "the Russian discourse about Ukraine as an artificial, fake nation, and the Azerbaijani discourse about Armenia, likewise claiming it has a fake history", thus elevating the conflict to an "existential level". Grandmaster 19:18, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Bad faith editing/politicisation

It seems there is alot of bad faith editing on this wiki page, and alot of politicisation as we can, see with numerous edits by other users. Including humanatbest. From actively removing sources that share a view they don't agree with. To falsifying sources and their context.. Wether that's Amnesty International sources, BBC sources, Eurasianet or Atlas news.

Anyone scrolling past this thread can read these sources for themselves on the wiki page in short. Mrsecurity39 392 (talk) 02:52, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Mrsecurity39 392. Thank you for identifying the error that was made where the ICRC was incorrectly attributed to the claim that the supplies provided by the ICRC were insufficient. You are right that it should have been attributed to Amnesty International.

You are right that not all the sources were present to support the claim that "there is plenty of evidence." It has since been added back (I don't know who removed it).

The original is here:

• Eurasianet: "The protesters did not explain who they represented, and they were presented in pro-government media as “environmental activists,” but there was plenty of evidence of an official hand in the events."
• Eurasianet "On that day a group of Azerbaijani government-backed protesters began a demonstration"
• backed by Turkey, claim: Caucus Watch: "Cahit Bağcı, the Ambassador of Turkey to Azerbaijan, personally visited the Lachin corridor, stating on Twitter, "Karabakh is Azerbaijan."
• Eurasianet: "The Azerbaijani government-sponsored protesters who have imposed the blockade"
• dawnmena.org: "Azerbaijani protesters sponsored by the government have blocked the Lachin corridor, "
• opendemocracy.net: "Civil servants, disguised military personnel and members of pro-government NGOs and youth organisations are reported to be among the so-called ‘eco-activists’, none of whom appear to have taken part in previous environmental protests in Azerbaijan."
• referl.org: "Government-backed Azerbaijani protesters identifying themselves as environmentalists"

I agree with you that some of the sources need to be removed when they do not directly support the claim (someone must have moved them in the copy-edit process);

There is plenty of evidence to support the fact that the participants are backed by the government. Please remove the source and add "citation needed" if you have an issue with a particular statement instead of removing the whole section if you have an issue. Humanatbest (talk) 09:22, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Not sure how this can be even debated, multiple third-party sources directly say it. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 10:43, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Archiving

Hi all, that talk page seems to have become quite long now with lots of threads that haven't been touched for a while. Does anyone have an issue if I set up archiving on this talk page so that threads are archived after 30 days with no edits in the section? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:52, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

+ ZaniGiovanni (talk) 10:54, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

That would be good, thanks. Grandmaster 22:39, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Azerbaijani stance

ZaniGiovanni, I don't think Azerbaijan's stated reason for the blockade is worth removing altogether when clearly attributed. The blockade didn't start out of the blue and from the current lead it's unclear why those protesters gathered in the first place. Per WP:WEIGHT, " all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources" should be there. If a third-party source like Yahoo includes Azerbaijani position, then we can too. I'd be fine with this lead wording too. Brandmeister^talk 13:04, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

You didn't even attribute that fringe in your initial edit. The allegation/claim itself is bogus and is only made by Az gov and the so-called "eco-activists" sponsored by the Az gov. Moreover, both "illegal mining" and the authenticity of the so-called "eco-activists" are highly doubted, the former clearly described as "allegation" or "claim" in WP:RS, just a few examples: [21], [22], [23].

This fringe that is directly described as "allegation/claim" by RS is highly WP:UNDUE for the lead, and should be explained in the body at best [24] per WP:WEIGHT, which clearly says: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true, or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article.". This claim is fringe, undue and held only by Az gov/their sponsored "activists". A Yahoo article quoting what Az ministry says doesn't make it less fringe/undue, unless you can provide RS giving weight/truth to this fringe claim, which no RS do btw. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 13:29, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

See WP:IMPARTIAL- Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. Azerbaijan is one of the involved sides here and its official stance should be mentioned in the lead both per summary style of MOS:INTRO and WP:WEIGHT, regardless of how it was received by third-party RS. We can add "alleged" or something like that for what it's worth, but not remove the stance entirely. Brandmeister^talk 15:39, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

See WP:IMPARTIAL- Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. Azerbaijan is one of the involved sides here and its official stance should be mentioned in the lead both per summary style of MOS:INTRO and WP:WEIGHT, regardless of how it was received by third-party RS – Did you actually read my comment? The fringe of "eco-activists" is already in the article (here too) so WP:IMPARTIAL is irrelevant here. Neither does MOS:INTRO nor WP:WEIGHT say that such fringe which is doubted by multiple RS should be in the lead, where did you get that? Also isn't according to Az government, it has no involvement in the blockade and that these are just citizens "protesting" over "environmentalism"? Henceforth, this isn't even an "official stance", which wouldn't matter in this case since it's fringe and extremely undue for the lead to begin with, and at best should be described in the body which is the case. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 16:06, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

An eco-activist, whether genuine or bogus, protests against something. But as it stands, the lead gives an impression that the blockade appeared out of the blue - there's no mention of what the blockading side is demanding or what it is protesting against. In that regard the summary of the scrutiny of the protests should be included in the lead. Brandmeister^talk 16:34, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

This isn't a "protest" and there is no "illegal mining", only an unproven claim hence an allegation that no RS supports (in fact it's the opposite). This is a blockade per reliable sources, not a "protest", and the "eco-activists" aren't environmentalists to begin with (also per reliable sources), please stop parroting a fringe bogus on a talk page that literally no respectable source supports, neither you provided one. It's mentioned twice in the article what they allege/claim (1, 2) – that's about as much weight there is for this fringe as it's possible by any stretch of imagination. This isn't even remotely due for the lead. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 17:30, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

I would agree with @Brandmeister here. Whether true or not, it is necessary to show readers what the protestors claim to be protesting against and what they demand. Range of the sources (for example: [25]; [26]; [27]) make it clear that the protestors claim that they are protesting again illegal mining, hence there is nothing "fringe" in reflecting attributed position of the protestors. It is true that what the protestors claim is mentioned twice throughout the article; thus, it should also be represented in the lead, as the lead section should highlight the most important contents, and the protestors' reasons/demands, whether genuine or bogus, are important. So I am not sure how this can be even debated. A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 08:00, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Those reliable sources are merely mentioning the "ecoactivists" claims, but do not actually support them and even cast doubt on them, which is why the claims are WP:FRINGE. As the relevant section shows, reliable sources describe the "illegal mining" accusation as "allegation" or "claim".[28][29]For example, The Economist states:

• The protesters’ ostensible demand is that Azerbaijani environmental officials be allowed to visit mines in Karabakh that they say have been illegally expropriating the mineral resources of Azerbaijan. It is a pretext that few, including the leadership in Baku, Azerbaijan’s capital, take seriously. The real goal appears to be to ratchet up pressure on the Armenians to cede more sovereignty over Karabakh.

So there is no due weight at all for this accusation to belong in the WP:LEAD. Perhaps at best it could have a brief mention in the body, as long as it's attributed to the "ecoactivist" allegation, and then The Economist source could be included for the actual reason and explain the "illegal mining" is just a pretext and not true. --Dallavid (talk) 15:33, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

You are not getting the point. reliable sources describe the "illegal mining" accusation as "allegation" or "claim". - and we showing what those claims and allegations are. By writing short attributed information about what protestors say they are protesting against we are not claiming it to be true, we are not stating it in Wiki Voice, we just show what protestors say they are and this is important information to reflect in the lead, which should shortly highlight information from the article body. Moreover protestors and Azerbaijan are one of the main parties of this event, hence "WP:FRINGE" and "WP:UNDUE" are not an arguments here. A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 16:04, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I feel like before saying things such as "you are not getting the point", one should take a look at himself first. As it was shown above, there is no "illegal mining", it's a complete and utter nonsense, unproven WP:FRINGE that at best should be in the body very briefly with careful attribution (that it's a claim/allegation made by fake "eco-activists"), and as shown by WP:RS like The Economist [30], that the nonsense allegation is just a "pretext that few, including the leadership in Baku, Azerbaijan’s capital, take seriously. The real goal appears to be to ratchet up pressure on the Armenians to cede more sovereignty over Karabakh." (literally said in the article word for word). Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAP: something that's not only an allegation/claim, that's not genuine but a mere "pretext" doesn't belong in the lead in any shape or form (especially when the fake "eco-activists" claim/allege otherwise, that supposedly they're "protesting' against "illegal mining" of some sort which is completely unproven and as stated by RS, a mere pretext) and at best should only be explained in the body, in an appropriate section like this with appropriate attribution and very briefly, which the current article version more or less does. And The Economist source can also be added to clarify that this nonsense is nothing more than a pretext. There is not much else (if anything) to discuss here, and my advice would be to drop the stick. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 16:57, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Permission to enter Karabakh

@KhndzorUtogh, regarding your recent revert of the sourced content with following ES: he landmines are irrelevant - Azerbaijan has always considered entering Nagorno-Karabakh and surrounding territories illegal without permission from Azerbaijani authorities - I remember them blacklisting even Montserrat Caballé who visited Artsakh.

First and foremost, It would be better if you initiate the conversation and seek explanation before removing properly sourced content.

Secondly, this case is about a circumstance that emerged after territories returned to Azerbaijan's control, in which Azerbaijan does not allow entrance into those territories without permission owing to the significant risk of landmines. To be clear, it is about travel across the regions of Azerbaijan. This explanation is given by the official governmental body of Azerbaijan and supported by the UK and Australia governmental bodies. ([31]; [32]; [33]).

What you recall is an entirely separate case in which Azerbaijan considered entry into Azerbaijani territory from Armenia without authorization from Azerbaijan to be illegal, and hence what you recall is irrelevant to this case.

So, if the article reflects the point of view of some critics, where they make assertions about required permission to enter to the Karabakh, a brief explanation of why such a limitation exists is as relevant as hell. Now, if you do not have further objections or questions, please restore the sourced content. A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 05:29, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

@Abrvagl

1. It's not just about landmines, the Azeri government prohibits anyone from entering the region via air or land (not just its own citizens).

2. The explanation is irrelevant because its besides the point of the critique.

Whatever the reason is for prohibiting entry, the fact that there are Azeri "protestors" at this location shows that the Azeri government is implicitly or explicitly endorsing the participants.

That's all that is due. Humanatbest (talk) 11:38, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

1. It's not just about landmines, the Azeri government prohibits anyone from entering the region via air or land (not just its own citizens) - Azerbaijan prohibits unauthorized entrance to the recently returned territories because of the landmine hazards, that is clearly stated by the governmental bodies([34]). Here it the translation:

The Ministry of Emergency Situations, taking into account the existence of this threat, once again calls on the population to strictly observe the relevant safety rules and not to visit those areas without permission until the operations of demining and other explosive substances are completed

2. The explanation is irrelevant because it's beside the point of the critique. - How statement from OPED written by the literally unknown journalist is DUE, but properly sourced and directly related short pre-text about what he wrote is undue? The brief information is directly related to the restriction will give the readers understanding about why there is a restriction and chance to read more about related information, hence it is relevant. A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 12:56, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

The Azeri goverment is providing food to the "protestors" via source: Deconstructed podcast

@Abrvagl asked me to revise this edit on my talk page. See below:

You added “food” to The Azerbaijani government has openly sponsored the participants, such as by providing them with tents and food. while referring to an podcast transcript.

podcast: WK:Reliable source: "audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable sources". The source is from Deconstructed which is derivative of The Intercept, which the wiki community considers a reliable perennial source.

We could attribute the statement to Joshua Kucera (the journalist that made the statement) but since this was stated as a fact by the journalist rather than as an opinion, I don't understand why that's necessary. Humanatbest (talk) 10:38, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Because what he said during podcast is not the same as an article for example posted on the euroasia.net. Articles go thought editorial control, while podcasts do not. In other words, what was said during the podcast is just an opinion piece.

I think this is a case where we can you a little bit of a common sense. I guess food is supplied to the protestors in one way or another, so we could keep the "food" without attributing to it, or perhaps with adding attribution in the note so that it won't interference the information flow. A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 11:23, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Opinion from Simon Maghakyan

@Abrvagl asked me to revise some edits I made on my talk tage. See below:

You added “The Absheron Peninsula of Azerbaijan . . . ” while referring to an opinion piece written by Simon Maghakyan, who works for ANCA. Both ANCA and Simon himself are highly biased/partisan, propagandistic and have conflict of interest, hence Simon’s opinion is undue and it can't stay even if attributed.

Please be informed about WP:RSEDITORIAL (quoted below)

Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact.

My reply: Simon Maghakyan: I had to look up what ANCA is. Do you mean the "Armenian National Committee of America"? His opinion can be included if it is attributed as long as his opinion isn't fringe (it's not). His opinion is also published in the Times which is considered a reliable source. Maghakyan is also qualified (a PhD scholar of Tufts University). Other analysts and political commentators have described the use of environmentalism in this blockade as a facade, as greenwashing, as weaponizing. Moreover, the part that was included by Maghakyan was basically him editorializing an empirical fact from the CIA factbook, so it's also sourced rather than being a far-out opinion. Humanatbest (talk) 10:32, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Simon Maghakyan works for the Armenian National Committee of America, which promotes pure anti-Azerbaijani and anti-Turkish propaganda. As a result, Simon Maghakyan has a significant conflict of interest and his opinion is hugely UNDUE in this article. Also, his opinion was not published in the Times, it was published Time Ideas, so it is just an opinion piece of himself.

To be clear, this "The Absheron Peninsula of Azerbaijan, considered by local scientists to be "the ecologically most devastated area in the world" has also been ignored during the blockade." and this "In a Times article, Simon Maghakyan described Azerbaijan as a "petro-aggressor," writing that "[making] a mockery of the existential crisis we face as a species, [the blockade] serves to further corrode Azerbaijan’s civil society." are absolutely irrelevant to the article, and even more irrelevant when it is an opinion piece of Maghakyan. A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 11:09, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

P.S. Just noted this one "Mikroskop Media has pointed out that Azerbaijan itself has recently leased the extraction of minerals in Kalbajar, a region Artsakh surrendered to Azerbaijan in 2020.", which is also irrelevant to the article, since protestors claim to protest against illegal mining on the territories of Azerbaijan, and there is nothing illegal when Azerbaijan legally mining in its own territories.

Hence, all of above content that based purely on the opinion pieces, and not supported by the any established sources are fringe and undue since Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX. A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 11:31, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

The "protestors" have made several demands, one of which is an end to "illegal" mining. They also claim that mining in Artsakh is not complying with ecological standards and/or that it is leading to ecological damage. You can look at the photos of the protestors themselves; there are plenty of signs that say "eco-cide" It is these latter allegations about ecological damage in Artsakh which is why several critics have pointed out the hypocrisy of the rampant environmental damage occurring elsewhere in Azerbaijan.

The Azerbaijan government has also paid public relations firms to produce expert-signed op-eds which recite Azerbaijani propaganda that environmental concerns underlie the ongoing blockade. https://euobserver.com/world/156607 Humanatbest (talk) 12:20, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Also, to be clear Maghakyan's opinion (yes opinion) is not fringe and has been attributed. Humanatbest (talk) 12:21, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Blockade ?

Ministry of Defense of Azerbaijan: The movement of military vehicles carrying personnel of Armenian armed forces units and illegal Armenian armed groups accompanied by the Russian peacekeeping contingent on the Khankendi-Khalfali-Turssu land road was recorded by the technical surveillance tools of our units. In the presented videos, it is clearly observed that the movement of the military vehicles of the Armenian armed forces units and illegal Armenian armed groups on the mentioned route is accompanied by the ZTR-82A combat vehicle belonging to the Russian peacekeeping contingent and the security of the personnel brought to the combat position is clearly observed. source Samral (talk) 09:41, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

@Samral

Multiple independent sources all support there being a blockade. The exception is Azerbaijan.

The only people allowed through the blockade are the Russian peacekeepers and the Red Cross. This is already mentioned in the wiki article. Humanatbest (talk) 15:43, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Only twice?

The lead says:

The government of Armenia has been able to send limited amounts of essential supplies (medicines, hospital food, infant formulas) only twice, transported by ICRC trucks.

Do we have a recent source to say that it happened only twice? ICRC reported delivery of supplies a number of times since then. Also, do we have a source that ICRC delivers only supplies provided by the government of Armenia? Grandmaster 09:16, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

I don’t, but perhaps logically, if ICRC wasn't allowed to provide supplies further, surely there would have been some news about it. However, there is a thin line between common sense and original research though. A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 09:20, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

There are two instances of ICRC supply delivery cited in your highlighted sentence, both by Armenia (delivered by ICRC) per sources and Zara Amatuni, Communication and Prevention Program Manager of the ICRC Armenia office. If there are sources reporting more instances of supply delivery, please show on talk. Also, do we have a source that ICRC delivers only supplies provided by the government of Armenia – And for this too if there are sources you could highlight, as so far it seems to be supplies collected by the Arm gov and delivered by ICRC to ensure safe transportation. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 23:40, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

That is an original research. If we say that there were 2 deliveries only, we need to have a source to explicitly support that number, and not do our own calculation. There are regular deliveries by ICRC trucks, according to reports in local media. ICRC itself reports deliveries of supplies as a continuous process, and in particular distribution of supplies on 6 and 30 January:

The ICRC has been delivering medicine, baby formula and food supplies to health facilities and is also ensuring the continuity of emergency health and ambulance services. On 6 January, ICRC teams distributed food and hygiene items to eight hospitals, a physical rehabilitation center, an institution taking care of more than 300 destitute elderly people, and a center supporting children from socially vulnerable families. On 30 January, the ICRC started distributing food parcels and hygiene boxes to pregnant women. [35]

We should not provide any precise numbers unless they are supported by reliable sources. Grandmaster 10:34, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't have strong objections against removing "only twice" part. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 20:29, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

we don’t know was there twice or more, hence claims that there was more than twice or only twice are original research. A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 16:04, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

RFC on sources concerning Ruben Vardanyan

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.

---

Which of the following is the best way to present the sources that discuss the role of Ruben Vardanyan as a potential factor in escalation of the crisis? Grandmaster 20:13, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

• Option 1 - long version
• Option 2 - shortened (paragraph or two) version
• Option 3 - very short (a sentence or two) version
• Option 4 - no mention at all

Please enter Option 1, Option 2, Option 3 or Option 4, followed by a brief statement, in the Survey. Please do not reply to other users in the Survey. Back-and-forth discussion may be conducted in the Threaded Discussion section.

Survey

• Option 2. The sources discussing the Russian oligarch Ruben Vardanyan's role in the crisis could be found at User:Grandmaster/Vardanyan. 3 different wording options that I proposed could be found at User:Grandmaster/options. Alternatives could be proposed too. This person was mentioned as a contributing factor to escalation in major international news outlets, such as The Financial Times and Time magazine, and by Laurence Broers, one of the top experts on South Caucasus, in Der Spiegel. Vardanyan's role in the region was also discussed in such a reliable news outlet as Eurasianet, which covers the South Caucasus and Central Asia. These are not some fringe sources, they are known for fact checking and accuracy, and are generally considered reliable for the purposes of Wikipedia. Therefore, I believe this information needs to be summarized in a couple of paragraphs in the Background section. Grandmaster 20:27, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

• Option 4 - No mention at all and keep the status quo. This is the recently added edit in question, and it was challenged by multiple editors and discussed extensively in the thread above for anyone interested. Some key points for my vote:

1) The so-called "activists" self-claimed (and highly doubted) reason for the blockade is allegations of "illegal" gold mining by Armenia [36], [37]. Even Azerbaijani Foreign Ministry parrots the same thing [38]. Vardanyan isn't mentioned as a "reason/factor", not even in the fringe claims.

2) What's most important is that majority reliable sources (the due WP:WEIGHT) write actual reasons for blockade as the following: Azerbaijan's desire to speed up the resolution of the Karabakh conflict and other contentious issues in its favor as the reasons for the blockade [39], Azerbaijan's pressure regarding "Zangezur corridor" [40], The Economist calls the allegations of what Azerbaijanis claim to be illegal mining in the NKR as just a pretext; "The real goal appears to be to ratchet up pressure on the Armenians to cede more sovereignty over Karabakh."[41], French scholar Jean-Yves Camus , who specializes in radicalism and nationalist movements in Europe, calls the blockade a slow strangulation designed to provoke a mass exodus of Armenians from Nagorno-Karabakh, with the subsequent settlement of hundreds of thousands of Azerbaijanis in their places. Thus, according to him, Azerbaijan aims to finally change the demographic balance, after which it will completely absorb the region through a referendum, the result of which will be known in advance [42]. Among many other WP:RS that don't even mention Vardanyan in the context of a blockade factor/reason/escalation (see below for more sources).

3) Additionally, Vardanyan isn't even mentioned as "reason/factor/escalation" in overwhelming majority of WP:RS; [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49].

Thus, in conclusion, adding Ruben Vardanyan as anything even remotely close to "reason/factor/escalation" for the blockade would be highly WP:undue, WP:libel and probably would violate WP:blp as well. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 21:20, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

• Option 4 -- Only one article (FinancialTimes) directly states that Vardanyan's appointment has contributed tensions. The remaining articles that one editor attempted to introduce:

A) make vague claims,

B) are presented as opinion ("the blockade...might have to do with...Vardanyan"); or

C) in the very same article the theory is introduced, it is criticized ("The Russian agent theory, however, has lost some credibility as the blockade has dragged on")

There is debate about various analysts and political spectators. Speculative opinion belongs in the Reactions section, not the background section of an ongoing currents event article.

WP:BLPGOSSIP: "Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true"

WP:VOICE:"Avoid stating opinions as facts" Virtually no sources directly say it is a fact that Vardanyan's arrival contributed to the blockade.

As pointed out by the Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention specifically in the context of the blockade: "Since the time of the Hamidian Massacres in the 19th Century, violence against Armenians has been justified through the framing of Armenians as Russian stooges and sympathizers. "

We should not be repeating such speculation, unless they are majority or are not speculation but fact.

If we include anything about Vardanyan, it should be limited to a single line and put in the Reactions section where it is clear that this is opinion not fact. Humanatbest (talk) 13:24, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

• Option 2 Enough reliable sources describing Vardanyan's role in this event have been presented. I think mentioning it in one short paragraph in the article would not constitute WP:UNDUE. But no more than that due to current article's size. Brandmeister^talk 10:10, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

• Option 2. The arrival of Vardanyan did escalate tensions, and this was one of the factors that contributed to the current situation, which means that 1-2 paragraphs about Vardanyan's role is due for the article's background section. Here are some more sources that support this: [50] - Vardanyan formally took office on November 4 [...] at a time when Armenia and Azerbaijan have said that they intend to sign a peace agreement by the end of the year that could spell the end of Armenian control over the territory. The source also highlights that Azerbaijan was irritated with Vardanyan's arrival to the point that publication associated with Azerbaijan’s Ministry of Defense, posted a video calling for Vardanyan to be “liquidated.”

Vardanyan's role in relation to the current situation is also explained in various opinion pieces by political scientists, analysts:

1. www.jam-news.net [51] The article features excerpts from an interview with Azerbaijani political scientist Farhad Mamadov: The Vardanyan Project is Russia’s desperate attempt to stop the peace treaty process and bring the Karabakh issue back into negotiations. On the contrary, this has led to the acceleration of Azerbaijan’s control over the Lachin road.
2. www.washingtontimes.com [52]. The commentary from Janusz Bugajski which explains arrival of Vardanyan as Russia’s manipulation of the Armenian minority in Azerbaijan’s Karabakh to stir ethnic conflicts in the South Caucasus and to replace the Armenian government with a Moscow proxy.
3. www.politico.eu [53]. The analysis of Maurizio Geri states that Vardanyan uses Lachin road to to export his minerals as well — and Moscow’s peacekeepers aren’t hindering these exports. [...] Just last month, things came to a head when Azerbaijani activists appeared at snow-covered Lachin to protest the mines reopening, and the demonstrations had the effect of squeezing the route into Armenian-controlled Karabakh near shut. A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 07:08, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

• Option 4, per Humanatbest. The four additional sources presented by Abrvagl don't support this claim either; only one is a reliable source, and that one doesn't directly support the claim. BilledMammal (talk) 15:24, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion

• I was invited by the bot. I see that I am being asked to vote on four options, but it is not at all clear to me what those options actually entail. I doubt you'll have much luck generating further participation this way. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 20:53, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi. It’s regarding this recently added edit and the RfC is for whether it should stay at all or other options. If interested, you can see detailed back and forth in the discussion above. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 08:15, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. Indeed, it was the edit that ZaniGiovanni indicated, and here's a proposed shortened alternative: [54] It is difficult to navigate through the long discussion at this talk, so maybe I should create a separate sandbox page with proposed wordings. Grandmaster 09:52, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I collected 3 different wordings that I proposed here: User:Grandmaster/options. However, alternative wordings can also be proposed. We need to decide in principle whether the information on the role of Vardanyan in the crisis should be reflected in the article, and in which form. The final wording could be agreed later. Grandmaster 10:06, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

However, alternative wordings can also be proposed – Yeah agree. Naturally, if editors want, they can vote no mention or propose their own version for any other options. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 10:28, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. Grandmaster 10:56, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

• @Humanatbest:, please add signature to your comment. Also, I would suggest removing the last paragraph (about Zangezur) because it is unnecessary to the RfC and takes up a lot of space, but that is solely up to you to decide. Thanks. A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 19:37, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

• @Humanatbest:, Michael Rubin is not a good source to use in Wikipedia. He frequently changes his opinion, and writes things totally opposite to what he was writing before. He himself called NK a fictional state, propped up by Russia. For example, a few years ago Rubin wrote that "In December 1991, Armenians living in Nagorno-Karabakh declared their own republic, one of those fictional states that the Kremlin has helped prop up with increasing frequency-for example, Transnistria in Moldova, Abkhazia and South Ossetia in Georgia, and more recently Crimea and Donetsk in the Ukraine." So which Rubin do we trust? And which one should we quote? [55] Grandmaster 19:46, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

  @Grandmaster @Abrvagl Thanks for the feedback. I agree that the Zangezur corridor is a distinct point of which does not necessarily impact the decision of whether to include this, but since (to me) this is about due weight I think more sources cite other factors than Vardanyan. (im not sure how to add my signature on mobile but am looking into it)

  Re:Michael Ruben; it's not necessarily a bad thing if a scholar changes his mind, given new evidence thats what scientists do all the time. Also, since these are all speculations from analysts its more likely for them to change with the wind. Again, I never suggested that Ruben's comments be treated as fact because they clearly are just speculation just like all these other analysts comments. Speculation does not belong in the background section of an ongoing current events article. Humanatbest (talk) 20:06, 1 February 2023 (UTC) Humanatbest (talk) 10:07, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

  People can change opinions, but not like this person, making a 180 degree turn. First he said that NK was a Russian puppet, now he says that it is not. That is not a serious scholarship. We cannot even quote him, because which Rubin should we refer to? The one that says NK is a puppet, or the one that says that it is not? Grandmaster 20:16, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

  Any reliable sources calling Rubin’s publications unreliable? ZaniGiovanni (talk) 06:49, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

  Just to be clear, nearly 10 years have passed between the contradictory quotes that Michael Rubin has made. 10 years is a long time for the situation to have changed someone's opinion.

  2014 article: "Armenians living in Nagorno-Karabakh declared their own republic, one of those fictional states that the Kremlin has helped prop up with increasing frequency"

  2023 article: "Artsakh has a history that predates Putin or the artificial proxies he has sought to carve out from his neighbors’ territory."

  To be clear, they're not complete contradictory statements. A state can be "fictitious" simply because it doesn't have enough forces or recognition from others to legitimize itself. The "state" vs "nation" of Artsakh are different concepts and it is unclear which Rubin is referring to. Humanatbest (talk) 10:19, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

  Rubin is not a reliable source for statements of facts anyway. His op-eds could be used to illustrate his personal opinion, which he changes to totally opposite from time to time. He argued that NK was a fictitious entity propped up by Russia, and now he writes that "it is silly to suggest Artsakh is a Russian satrapy". But he himself wrote just that a few years ago. I don't see "fictitious entity propped up by Russia" being much different from "Russian satrapy". He also used to shower praises on Azerbaijan, and harshly criticize Armenia, and now made another 180 degree turn. Here's an example of his previous remarks. [56] His writings on the Middle East are also controversial, as is evident from our wiki article on him. In general, I don't think Rubin's opinion is the one we should consider due to self-contradictions of this person. Grandmaster 16:30, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

  The situation has changed in 10 years. Most notably, the Second Nagorno-Karabakh War happened and Azerbaijan started to attack and occupy the Republic of Armenia proper.

  I think these two events and Russia's response to it are sufficient to change anyone's mind.

  Aliyev and the Azeri government used to promise special privileges/status for NKR Armenians. Since the second nagorno-karabakh war, they no longer do that. So the situation is quite different than it was 10 years ago. Humanatbest (talk) 16:40, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

If other sources do not mention Vardanyan factor, it does not mean that we should not quote those that do. We are not talking about fringe sources, FT, Time and Broers for Der Spiegel are some of the most reliable sources out there. It is not a gossip, it is a discussion of the subject in the mainstream international media and expert community. Both FT and Time point to escalation occurring after the arrival of Vardanyan. Also, we do not have to write that in wiki voice, we can attribute the information to the sources. The proposed shortened wording says: Some analysts see the arrival of Russian oligarch Ruben Vardanyan to Nagorno-Karabakh as the factor that added to escalating tensions. Also, this is an ongoing event, there is no established scholarship on the subject, since no scholarly research of the blockade exists, and international media and experts only recently started paying attention to correlation between arrival of Vardanyan and subsequent escalation. It does not mean that we should not reflect any new information in the article. Regarding BLP, this is not a BLP issue, as it was discussed in the sources known for fact checking and accuracy, Vardanyan himself did not object to FT or Time articles, or Broers' statements, or sue them for libel, and our own article on Vardanyan contains information on his involvement in suspicions business activity. By that logic, we should not include any critical information about any Russian oligarch. Grandmaster 20:11, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

"is an ongoing event, there is no established scholarship on the subject, since no scholarly research of the blockade exists, and international media and experts only recently started paying attention to correlation between arrival of Vardanyan and subsequent escalation."

I agree with this part.

Only a single source (FinancialTimes) has directly said that Vardanyan contributed to escalating tensions.

If and and when the Russian Agent theory is reported more by reliable sources or Vardanyan's arrival is directly described as contributing tensions as a fact not a theory (that is, no qualifications like "the blockade...might have to do with...Vardanyan") then it should be put in the background section. Up until then, I think it belongs in the Reactions section.

"Regarding BLP, this is not a BLP issue, as it was discussed in the sources known for fact checking and accuracy"

I thought we were going to wait for third-party editors to chime in on this on the larger board? Humanatbest (talk) 10:26, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

The proposed version 2 attributes the claim to some analysts, because Broers sees Vardanyan's arrival as a potential factor that led to the present escalation, and Time magazine also writes that the situation worsened after arrival of Vardanyan. So it is not just FT that suggests a connection between arrival of Vardanyan to Karabakh and the corridor crisis, and it is an obvious fact that the escalation occurred after Vardanyan was appointed to a leading position in the region, which is mentioned by the sources. Grandmaster 16:52, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Even in the WP:UNDUE case of Broers interview, he puts these reasons as to what's Baku seeking with the blockade:

• "There are multiple objectives here. The first is to remind the Armenian population in Nagorno-Karabakh of their enclave geography, which makes separation from Azerbaijan unviable. Karabakh Armenians fear that Baku's intention is to make life so unbearable there, that people just move out in a form of "soft” ethnic cleansing. Second, Ilham Aliyev is exerting pressure on Armenia to make concessions on the transit route across southern Armenia, which Azerbaijan refers to as the Zangezur corridor. This corridor is supposed to connect Azerbaijan with its exclave of Nakhchivan, and Baku defines it as a virtually extraterritorial transportation route through Armenian territory. Azerbaijan cites the 2020 ceasefire agreement as the basis for this corridor, although this is a maximalist interpretation of the agreement text, which only refers to Armenian guarantees for secure Azerbaijani transit. The third objective is to discredit the Russian peacekeeping mission. Baku is trying to show that the Russians are unable to fulfill their mandate and are basically framing the peacekeepers as an occupying force that is denying Azerbaijan access to Nagorno-Karabakh."

Only after, he then goes to say: "The fact that this blockade is taking place now might have to do with the leadership change in Nagorno-Karabakh itself, in particular with Ruben Vardanyan taking office as minister of state of the de-facto republic in November." — might have to do is a speculation that can't be used again BLP to make such strong accusations, especially when it's a case of WP:UNDUE as only 1–2 sources even mention Vardanyan remotely in context of the blockade while overwhelming majority of WP:RS don't even mention him at all. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 17:07, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

@Grandmaster Correlation is not causation. My grandma died in November. That doesnt mean it triggered the blockade just because it happened before hand. The Times' quotation was extremely vague about this correlation. Humanatbest (talk) 08:45, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

An article in Forbes magazine also discusses the role of Vardanyan in the crisis: [57] Grandmaster 10:08, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

That's an opinion piece by a person who’s looking at the matter from the perspective of gas and money, ignoring the humanitarian aspect of the situation raved about by the whole world almost completely. Editors on Wikipedia should make conclusions based on cool-headed appraisal of the available publications, balancing their weaknesses and strengths, and not simply look for articles that would support the wording the editor believes is the right one. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 13:44, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, Vardanyan has been a minister in the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic since November 2022, that is when this whole issue started he was already a high-ranking official there. This corroborates the proposal that Vardanyan should be mentioned to a certain extent in this article. Brandmeister^talk 20:30, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Vardanyan was fired yesterday: [58] His removal was the condition set by Azerbaijan to engage in direct negotiations with Karabakh Armenians. According to RFRL: Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev said late last week that Baku will be ready to negotiate over the “rights and security of Karabakh’s Armenian minority” only if Vardanyan resigns and leaves “our territory.” I think the above information makes it necessary to discuss Vardanyan in the article. Grandmaster 09:49, 24 February 2023 (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.

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:

• Azerbaijani soldiers set up checkpoint to the Lachin Corridor.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:53, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Neutral POV

Just from reading the lede, this article seems to me as not being written in a neutral POV. Am I the only one that sees it that way? Paul Vaurie (talk) 20:34, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

@Paul Vaurie Can you be more specific? Everything in the lead has a citation and also reflects how the international community is describing the events. Even the use of quotation marks, i.e., "protestors" or alleged protestors, etc is how this is being written in reliable sources. Humanatbest (talk) 20:42, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

@Humanatbest: Although I appreciate your response, I'd be more inclined to get an opinion from someone who didn't write half of the article in question themselves. Nothing personal. But to be more specific, its some of the wording that I find to be biased, more towards the pro-Armenian side. Just some slight wording problems. Still I am looking for another opinion. Paul Vaurie (talk) 20:47, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

@Paul Vaurie you are very welcome to contribute and improve the article, Wikipedia is a collaborative project :) Humanatbest (talk) 02:27, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, the article employs provocative language and the sourcing for some claims seems dubious. Considering that the article is almost entirely written by a single user, this warrants a Template:POV, in my opinion. Tanz768 (talk) 15:31, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Removal of a source from The Conversation

@Tanz768 removed a citation from The Conversation stating that it was an opinion piece.

However, The Conversation is an independent and reliable source, according to both their About Section and to the Wikipedia community at large.

Their editorial policy: "We only allow authors to write on a subject on which they have proven expertise, which they must disclose alongside their article. Authors’ funding and potential conflicts of interest must be disclosed"

Wikipedia's consensus on the reliability of The Conversation: "The Conversation publishes articles from academics who are subject-matter experts. It is generally reliable for subjects in the authors' areas of expertise. Opinions published in The Conversation should be handled with WP:RSOPINION."

The author of the article that @Tanz768 removed is

Giulia Prelz Oltramonti Assistant Professor, Institut catholique de Lille (ICL)

She has no conflicts of interest to disclose as per the article:

"Disclosure statement Giulia Prelz Oltramonti does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment."

@Tanz768 please revert yourself. Unless I am mistaken, the source is considered reliable by The Conversation and The Conversation is considered reliable by Wikipedia, provided there is no conflict of interest and the piece is not an opinion. There is nothing in the article that says it's an opinion piece.

Thank you! R.Lemkin (talk) 15:38, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 August 2023

I request that the death toll of the Artsakh Blockade be changed. A 4th person has died from starvation.

Sources below: https://news.am/eng/news/775637.html

https://greekcitytimes.com/2023/08/16/azerbaijans-blockade-starvation/?amp

https://armenpress.am/eng/amp/1117440

(News articles may be distressing) Andrey I. Kuznetsov (talk) 01:08, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

 Already done The infobox says four civilian deaths, so it looks like someone already got to that update. Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 02:49, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Armenians are indigenous to Nagorno-Karabakh

The user @Paul Vaurie has removed the word indigenous two times.

He removed it a second time even after being shown citations that directly support the use of this term by reliable sources such as the Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention and the IAGS (International Association of Genocide Scholars) in this discussion topic. The editor was pointed this out(Link) and asked to respond but did not.

The editor removed the word stating: "Armenians are not the only ethnic group native to Nagorno-Karabakh, indigenous is not a word traditionally used for modern-day populations unless they are Indigenous peoples, this is not WP:NPOV wording."

• A) Definitional fallacy: calling an apple a fruit does not imply there are not other types of fruit. Stating that Armenians are indigenous to Artsakh does not imply that there are not other indigenous groups.
• B) There are aboriginal/indigenous/native populations that continue to exist today. If you're saying they're not "modern" then that is plain discrimination/racism. If, on the other hand, you're saying the use of the term is wrong, then a number of reliable sources (see point above for examples) say otherwise. The very article you shared on Indigenous peoples lists Armenian people as indigenous to the region under the subsection "West Asia."

Please engage in the discussion before introducing more changes. R.Lemkin (talk) 14:41, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

It's completely misleading to describe Armenians as "the indigenous group that historically lived in Nagorno-Karabakh". They are not the only native ethnic group to the area or even to "Artsakh". This is why it is both UNDUE and misleading. Describing them as the "majority ethnic [Armenians]" is completely accurate and does not give UNDUE weight while respecting the situation. Paul Vaurie (talk) 15:47, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

By the way, R.Lemkin, there is something called WP:BOLD. Not every constructive edit to Wikipedia has to be discussed prior to being implemented. My edits have only been constructive with full objectivity. Paul Vaurie (talk) 16:03, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

But the article lede never said "the indigenous" population. Rather, It said "an indigenous."

Numerous independent reliable sources describe Armenians as indigenous to the region both in the context of the blockade and independent of it (you unknowingly provided an article that supported this).

In your edit summary you said "Please do not revert WP:BOLD and sensible edit, and just respond on Talk page directly." This goes both ways yourself included and for all editors. Talk is essential when there is disagreement. Instead, you unilaterally re-introduced a change after it was essentially reverted and after the rationale was brought to your attention. R.Lemkin (talk) 16:16, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I would argue that since indigenous means "the first inhabitants of an area and their descendants", that Armenians cannot be considered indigenous peoples of Artsakh, because they were not the first in the region. That would be people of the Kura–Araxes culture. People and populations have moved around so much, have evolved, and many ethnic groups consider themselves native to the region, both Azerbaijanis and Armenians among others, that it would be inaccurate to describe any ethnic group that is not strictly indigenous to a region as such. We should only look at the population today, which is majority ethnic Armenian, and that's enough in this context. Artsakhi Armenians are neither an or the indigenous group of Nagorno-Karabakh, by literal definition. Paul Vaurie (talk) 00:09, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

The cited sources directly state 'indigenous' when referring to Armenians of Artsakh, so I don't understand why it should be reworded or removed. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 17:48, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

The timeline section needs to get updated

The "Blockade timeline" section doesn't list any events after August 1. That section needs to get updated, and such a disclaimer should be added. I don't have extended-confirmed account status, so I can't add it myself. IkiEneng (talk) 23:40, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Lemkin Institute

It seems that the Lemkin Institute is an institution that shares completely biased and propaganda purposes.

https://twitter.com/LemkinInstitute/status/1704869173648592937 They are openly sharing the posts of the Armenian lobby in America. https://twitter.com/LemkinInstitute/status/1704694675070709817 Additionally, they share many false claims and accusations. I demand the removal of all texts based on this source that contradict its impartial point of view. 31.223.58.117 (talk) 22:25, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Blockade of the Lachin corridor

It is incorrect to talk about the blockade of the "Republic of Artsakh" when humanitarian supplies are expected in Aghdam and Barda towards the Armenian-populated region of Karabakh. I think the title of the article is misleading (although the sources write mainly about the "blockade of Nagorno-Karabakh", especially not "Artsakh"), because in fact there is a blockade of the Lachin corridor for cargo transportation. The Armenian residents of Karabakh block any possible humanitarian routes from Azerbaijan. Accordingly, it would be logical to call the article "blockade of the Lachin corridor". Moreover, there are many sources that call it that. Or to introduce a clarification in the text that the blockade of Nagorno-Karabakh is both on the part of Azerbaijan and on the part of the unrecognized NKR. Thanks Khan Afshar (talk) 14:22, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I would rather prefer that option, having proposed it sometime ago. Brandmeister^talk 20:51, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 7 September 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Blockade of Nagorno-Karabakh. There is consensus that Nagorno-Karabakh is the common name in this situation, also consensus on the alternate proposed name. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 07:03, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

---

Blockade of the Republic of Artsakh (2022–present) → Nagorno-Karabakh blockade – Most common name in sources, no need for parenthetic disambiguation.  —Michael Z. 20:12, 7 September 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Lightoil (talk) 08:09, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Some news items do say “what locals call Artsakh” by way of explanation, but very few use the name. In the results page of a Google News search for “blockade Armenia Azerbaijan,” Artsakh appears 5 times, Nagorno-Karabakh 36 times, and Karabakh 45 times.  —Michael Z. 20:18, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

For those who say that Artsakh, and not Nagorno-Karabakh, has been blockaded, Art. 1, Para. 2 of the Constitution of the Republic of Artsakh says “The names ‘Republic of Artsakh’ and ‘Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh’ are identical.”[59] (If you want to continue the argument, then your next point would be that the constitution of Artsakh is not a source on what is Artsakh, and some citations of better sources.)  —Michael Z. 17:19, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

• Support, that is indeed the most common name in sources, and disambiguation is totally unnecessary.—Alalch E. 20:25, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support: Per WP:COMMONNAME. Whether or not Nagorno-Karabakh as a region includes areas currently not controlled by Armenian forces is irrelevant based on policy. Article titles in English Wikipedia is based on what most English-language reliable sources use, not what WP:OR any user comes up with. --StellarHalo (talk) 21:24, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

  Also, Wikipedia:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:CONCISE. The previous blockade from the first Nagorno-Karabakh War does not even have its own article for disambiguation to be relevant. Furthermore, Wikipedia:PRECISION says that Exceptions to the precision criterion may sometimes result from the application of some other naming criteria. Most of these exceptions are described in specific Wikipedia guidelines or by Wikipedia projects, such as Primary topic with the second example being Energy is not precise enough to unambiguously indicate the physical property (see Energy (disambiguation)). However, it is preferred over "Energy (physics)", as it is more concise, and precise enough to be understood by most people (see Primary topic, and the concision and recognizability criteria). StellarHalo (talk) 23:47, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

  Presence or absence of Wikipedia article cannot be a criteria of relevance/importance, people write Wikipedia articles about all sorts of seemingly unimportant things, whereas seemingly more academically important subjects may not currently have a wiki article. Unlike in the case of Energy, I see no grounds for such optimism here - Nagorno Karabakh conflict and current Artsakh blockade are one of the most complex military-political subjects of the modern world, an average reader wouldn’t know what to make of them if we end up with wrong generalisations and oversimplification. Vanezi (talk) 15:26, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

  You’re missing the point. WP:disambiguation is only used if a conflicting article title exists.  —Michael Z. 17:23, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

• Support: Just searching "Nagorno-Karabakh blockade" vs "Blockade of the Republic of Artsakh" shows how much the quality of sources changes. Every major news outlet has used "Nagorno-Karabakh blockade", "Blockade of Nagorno-Karabakh" or something similar to describe the blockade NMW03 (talk) 06:32, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
• Blockade of Nagorno-Karabakh if anything. This is the format, see Blockade of Africa, Blockade of Yemen, Blockade of the Gaza Strip, Blockade of Germany... Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 06:49, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

  Okay by me. If it improves WP:consistency, then it’s preferable. —Michael Z. 12:58, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

  Same. —Alalch E. 15:49, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

  I prefer this option as the first choice. StellarHalo (talk) 00:57, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose This is a blockade of the Republic of Artsakh specifically. Other parts of Nagorno-Karabakh such as Shahumyan and Hadrut are not being blockaded, so “Nagorno-Karabakh blockade” is a false premise. Perhaps it could be moved to "Blockade of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic", but we have the official name which is Republic of Artsakh. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 17:58, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

It is very unorthodox to use proper names different than the one used in the subject's article in titles. I think that if we can't keep "Republic of Artsakh" we shouldn't name the entity's official name in any way. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 20:18, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

So the constitution of Artsakh says "The names 'Republic of Artsakh' and 'Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh' are identical" [60]. I personally don't see a problem with either "Blockade of the Republic of Artsakh" or "Blockade of the Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh" / "Blockade of the Nagorno-Karabakh republic". - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 21:59, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Like I stated above, Wikipedia is not based on what any user believes to be "truth", "false", or "misleading" based on their personal WP:OR. Per WP:Verifiability and WP:NPOV, Wikipedia publishes and gives due weight to significant views published in RS based on their respective prominence. For article titles, this means the most common descriptors and terms used by English-language RS win out per WP:COMMONAME. Since "Artsakh" and "republic" are not commonly used by English-language RS, none of your suggestion is acceptable. StellarHalo (talk) 00:55, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

You don't have an official name. It is the name of an informal structure. 31.223.59.158 (talk) 12:18, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

• How would the users here feel about the proposal Blockade of Armenian-occupied Nagorno-Karabakh? This uses the most common name for the region in English-language sources while also keeping the precision that the current title has. It is quite long but that didn't stop us from titling Armenian-occupied territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh that way (also wanted to mention this article to show that it is not POV to call Nagorno-Karabakh as Armenian-occupied). I was actually thinking of opposing this proposal as I'd rather have the current precise title but it already had three supports so I was discouraged, I also believe this proposal might get the best of both titles. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 20:15, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

  Regarding precision, is the territory controlled by local forces and Russian forces exactly the same as the claimed borders of Artsakh, and guaranteed to be the same in the future? I think the use of “Nagorno-Karabakh” is nominal, and not equivalent to a detailed map.  —Michael Z. 21:07, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

  

  

  The article Republic of Artsakh has a map of “Territory controlled by Artsakh shown in dark green; territory claimed but not controlled shown in light green.” The lighter green appears to be closer to, but not the same as the borders of Nagorno-Karabakh (which article’s lead says is “also referred to as Artsakh by Armenians”).

  I don’t believe using either name is meaningfully more or less precise enough to override using the COMMONNAME.  —Michael Z. 21:13, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

  I would argue against use of the "Blockade of Armenian-occupied Nagorno-Karabakh":

  A) it's wordy, not concise and also not recognizable. No one talks about this blockade in WP:RS like that.

  B) Many countries do not necessarily categorize Nagorno-Karabakh itself as "occupied territory" in the same way they do with the surrounding districts. The majority of diplomatic statements on this issue do not mention the alleged "occupation" of NKR itself, so it's simply inappropriate in this context. And of course the lack of its usage in WP:RS covering the blockade, as I said already. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 21:45, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

  If we're talking about commonality, I'd go for "Blockade of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic", which is correct in sense of what is actually being blockaded and by Artsakh's own constitution too, and it is common. This provides Precision, Recognizability, and Consistency within the larger subject of the Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict. Keeping "Republic" clarifies (disambiguates) that the area blockaded by Azerbaijan is distinct from the remaining 33% of Nagorno-Karabakh that it captured in 2020. Multiple sources (including Wikipedia articles) specifically mention Nagorno-Karabakh. Republic is still needed though to describe the fact that this is not internationally perceived as just a road closure. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 21:55, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

  In the page of Google News search results I mentioned in the second post above, “republic” does not occur even once. In the text of the first five results, republic of Artsakh is mentioned in two. Some mention that Artsakh is the Armenian name for Nagorno-Karabakh, but none mentions republic of Nagorno-Karabakh.  —Michael Z. 22:35, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Blockade of the Republic of Artsakh refers to the blockade of the government that represents a group of people, which is an accurate description of the situation at hand. Conversely, Nagorno-Karabakh blockade is ambiguous and it may be referring to the entire Nagorno-Karabakh, however only the Armenian-controlled parts are being blockaded. Moreover, it implies that a territory is being blockaded, not a group of people who are being restricted from basic human necessities. The status quo is definitive as it implies that a group of people represented by a government are being blockaded, the latter vaguely implies that a vast swath of territory (which is controlled by multiple parties) is being blockaded (what does this even mean without any additional context?). Henceforth, the status quo is a better option to keep. Ultimately, I won/t object to "Blockade of the Nagorno Karabakh Republic" though as it's also a name for the republic. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 22:48, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
• All this talk about needing to make it clear from the title that not all of Nagorno-Karabakh is under blockade is very unnecessary. It's widely understood that Azerbaijan isn't blockading the parts of Nagorno-Karabakh under its control. The logic of some of the commenters implies that we should change the "Second Nagorno-Karabakh War" to "Second Parts-of-Nagorno-Karabakh-and-occupied-regions-surrounding-it war" since most of Nagorno-Karabakh remained untouched during the war. The term "Artsakh/NKR" covers more than just the areas currently under its control, according to its own constitution, so using "Republic" doesn’t disambiguate anything. NMW03 (talk) 06:17, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

  It’s not just an area (as Azerbaijan’s government wants it) we’re discussing, it’s a specific political entity and ethnic group blockaded, and not making it clear would mislead the reader. There’s nothing “widely/well understood” in NK conflict - a complex tangled confrontation in a less-known area of the world, we should be as specific as possible.

  I see that these kinds of arguments were brought forward in the previous name change discussion without consensus. And nothing has changed since then. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 11:54, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

  This discussion thread, about the semantics of historical details regarding boundaries and organizations, doesn’t relate to our guidelines or to naming in reliable sources.  —Michael Z. 14:07, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

  I’d argue that focusing on territory / geography only is wrong - have a look at all the content of most serious articles referenced here - all of them focus on the fact that the local Armenians as a self-organised group are blockaded, not just some vague area with arbitrary borders. Look at the alerts about genocide. Why focus on geo (less essential) and ignore the ethnic / political entity (the key factor)? - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 17:19, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

  Focus on naming of the article’s subject in reliable sources as per WP:TITLE, not on either local Armenian organizations nor on geography.  —Michael Z. 21:47, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

  One of the article naming rules is precision and disambiguation, and disambiguating the current blockade from early 1990s blockade, disambiguating the blockaded ethnic group from vague territorial name with imprecise borders is what the proponents of move tend to ignore. Quoting - "Precision – The title unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects." Vanezi (talk) 16:42, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

  The previous discussion got a bad close that should have been challenged in a move review. The side supporting the move use arguments based on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines while the opposing side do not meaning your and their opinions hold little, if any, weight. StellarHalo (talk) 15:57, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

  That’s also an opinion, and one that doesn’t comply well with Wikipedia standards - it reduces the discussion to “sides” as if this was some kind of battleground or election voting, instead of focusing on the editorial content, detail and precision. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 17:19, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

  What standards? The people opposing this move request have not advanced any argument that is based on any of Wikipedia's policy or guideline. StellarHalo (talk) 23:15, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Nagorno-Karabakh is a term with multiple different meanings - it is first of all a geographical area with vague borders, for international sources it short version of "former Nagorno Karabakh Autonomous oblast" based on Soviet-time oblast, it is used as a synonym of "Republic of Artsakh" in Armenian sources. What is blockaded is precisely the Republic of Artsakh (aka Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh) - the Armenian populated 2/3 of the Nagorno-Karabakh region - areas under Azerbaijan's control (Shushi, Hadrut) are not blockaded.

I prefer "Blockade of Nagorno-Karabakh Republic (2022–present)" if there will be any move at all. We have to make it clear it is a specific ethno-political entity (2/3 of the NK region) that is blockaded, not the entire Nagorno-Karabakh region. We should have a properly disambiguated title that does not mislead the reader due to ambiguity. Also this move proposal doesn’t include the ”2022-present” part in the title, which is important to keep as it’s not the first time Azerbaijan blocks isolated Artsakh / Nagorno-Karabakh, see starting two paragraphs of Lachin corridor#History. Vanezi (talk) 16:39, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Oppose: As others have stated, the current title more precisely (WP:PRECISE) describes the subject of the current blockade TheThighren (talk) 09:58, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Support: Blockade of Nagorno-Karabakh per Dromaeosaurus. Obvious and concise. Also, complies with WP:COMMONNAME — Toghrul R (t) 12:28, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Support: Almost all the main sources used it as "Nagorno-Karabakh blockade".--Qızılbaş (talk) 13:37, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Current events has been notified of this discussion. UtherSRG (talk) 16:01, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Armenia has been notified of this discussion. UtherSRG (talk) 16:01, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Azerbaijan has been notified of this discussion. UtherSRG (talk) 16:01, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject International relations has been notified of this discussion. UtherSRG (talk) 16:01, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

• Support since the NKR occupies most parts of the region which is known as "Nagorno-Karabakh". Also (2022-present) is simply redunant. Beshogur (talk) 18:22, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support While it could be argued that Azerbaijan can't blockade its own region, calling it the Republic of Artsakh adds redundant legitimacy to the internationally unrecognized breakaway area. My own proposal was "blockade of the Lachin corridor" to address both concerns, but it didn't gain traction. Brandmeister^talk 20:47, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

  Calling it the "Republic of Artsakh" / "Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh" does not imply a position on its status. Rather, it provides clarity and ease to the reader. Numerous reliable sources indicate that this blockade is about more than a mere "road closure" and instead is about one entity (Azerbaijan) trying to achieve de facto control over another entity (the Republic of Artsakh/Nagorno-Karabakh). - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 08:01, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

  FYI

  • Nagorno-Karabakh blockade 171.000 results
  • Artsakh blocade 115.000 results (an mainly Armenian sources)

  Beshogur (talk) 11:20, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

• Support. The present title is not used by any reliable source. According to WP:COMMONNAME, we must use commonly recognizable names, and the most common used by reliable sources are "Nagorno-Karabakh blockade" or "Blockade of Nagorno-Karabakh", and also "Blockade of Lachin corridor". I support the use of any of those 3 commonly used titles. Grandmaster 08:04, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. Only the Republic of Artsakh is being blockaded, not the whole Nagorno-Karabakh region. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 16:41, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah because Azerbaijan controls part of the former NKAO. "Nagorno-Karabakh" is a loose definition. Beshogur (talk) 21:58, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

• Support "Blockade of Nagorno-Karabakh", not "Nagorno-Karabakh blockade", because the latter is as if blockade is done by NKR. Wikisaurus (talk) 08:35, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

  That is a good point and I would endorse this option just as well.  —Michael Z. 13:28, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

• Support Blockade of Nagorno-Karabakh, I sympathize with other editors as the 'more' correct term would be Artsakh but the overwhelming use of Nagorno-Karabakh in sources leads to an obvious support based on WP:COMMONNAME. Less sure on the removal of the dates as I could see events during the conflict being reasonably interpreted as a blockade. Yeoutie (talk) 16:54, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
• Comment. Nagorno-Karabakh Republic (or Artsakh Republic) officially declared that it ceased to exist. If we consider this event to be ongoing, the present title makes no sense now, in addition to not being used by any reliable source. Grandmaster 08:08, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support After checking the sources mentioned in the discussion above, it really does seem like most of the sources refer to it as "Nagorno-Karabakh" rather than "Artsakh". It just makes more sense to implement the name change. - Creffel (talk) 05:11, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
• Strong support for moving to Blockade of Nagorno-Karabakh. This is clearly the COMMONNAME in sources. Nagorno-Karabakh blockade also works, but it just sounds off. Paul Vaurie (talk) 19:58, 30 September 2023 (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.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 October 2023

The 2023 Azerbaijani offensive in Nagorno-Karabakh should be put in the resulted in section. Napalm Guy (talk) 00:27, 5 October 2023 (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. Andumé (talk) 01:00, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Verification and removal of redundant references

I'm going to go through the article a bit now. Because this is already WP:REFBOMBING.

• Merging equal references (580 -> 497) ✅
• Solving reference technical errors ✅
• Removal of redundant references ✅
• Excessive citations tag removed ✅

If you disagree with my specific actions, please write here so we can discuss. Thanks. Colaheed777 (talk) 16:15, 11 October 2023 (UTC)