Talk:Peacekeeping operations in Nagorno-Karabakh

List of Russian reports

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.

---

@Granarkadis reverted my edit with no edit summary. If this was not a mistake, please explain the rationale.

My original edit was a removal of a list of Russian “peacekeepers’” reports sourced only by dead links to mil.ru, the website of the Russian Armed Forces which appears to be currently not working at all: replacing table with a description: not supported by reliable sources, and WP:NOT a directory or collection of Russian reports.[1]  —Michael Z. 17:59, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Agree, list of Russian reports, which potentially will grow endlessly, has no encyclopedic value and will not be useful for the readers. Instead of picking from the Russian reports we should refer to the independent reliable sources analyzed and described those. A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 05:58, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Disagree - The Russian peacekeepers, whether we like it or not, are the only official 3rd/neutral party present on the ground and, in fact, they are the go-to source used by the international media outlets, which quote them to report any violations for the lack of any more reliable sources. RSF in fact has issued a report complaining about independent reporters not having access to the area: https://rsf.org/en/after-three-month-blockade-rsf-urges-azerbaijan-and-russian-peacekeepers-let-reporters-visit No other international monitoring missions are present on the ground (Armenia keeps calling for international monitors – Azerbaijan keeps refusing it, so not likely to happen any time soon).

I understand that there can be doubts about reliability, but if we take the list out then we are left with mutual accusations of 2 conflicting parties without confirmation or denial, which makes the reporting and the text much more confusing for Wikipedia readers and hardly adds on neutrality or reliability of the article.

The list is useful also in terms of keeping things short and simple as it provides a compact listing of all violations vs. a much lengthier account of events, when 2 conflicting parts and their narratives have to be reported on every single, even minor incidents…

Furthermore, this is an article about the peacekeeping contingent and not the conflict (there are plenty of other articles on this conflict, where the Russian PK remarks could be deemed less relevant) but in this case the relevance of the PK reports is obvious as it’s the main topic of the article!

I am not sure what you mean when you say it's full of "dead links" - I just checked all the links and they are all functional as far as I can see.

In conclusion, I believe that unless there is another monitoring mission or independent/international media access provided to the region - this remains not only highly relevant but also the least biased/unreliable information available on the topic and deleting it makes no sense whatsoever. Vanezi (talk) 11:45, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

The Russian military and mil.ru is a primary source, and not a WP:reliable source. At the moment that server is returning 403 forbidden errors for me, and I believe it was doing so back in January. If you disagree, let’s take it to WP:RSN.

If it is a go-to source for so many international media outlets, then why aren’t we citing them?  —Michael Z. 19:54, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I never said mil.ru is a WP:reliable source, on the contrary I believe that in most cases it shouldn’t be used as we can and should use better sources.

My argument is that context matters and context is provided by experts at RSF, which say: "Nagorno-Karabakh is turning into a news and information black hole" – in this particular context, unfortunately not much choice is left but referring to mil.ru, as done by most independent media e.g. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (which however report on ceasefire violations only occasionally, providing haphazard information and no complete/regular reports).  BTW - mil.ru has been used as a reference in other parts of this article way before I added the list of ceasefire violations.

As to the tech problems you are describing, it’s very strange indeed as I’ve been accessing the site for months without problems. I also checked with a few friends of mine from different corners of the world and got confirmation that people in Norway, Sweden, Canada, France and Italy are able to open the link. So it looks like the issue is specific to your computer or your specific geo-location? May I ask if you are having trouble with the specific bulletin links only, or cannot access mil.ru or eng.mil.ru homepage altogether?

In any case, if we can figure out the tech issue – can we agree to keep the list? Vanezi (talk) 18:45, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

If reliable sources don’t provide a list of ceasefire violations, then we cannot publish a list of ceasefire violations. That’s how it works. If no one else has that information, then that does not justify relying on unreliable sources.

All the more so when the unreliable source creates the information! This is not a list of violations, but a list of Russian army reports.

It must be deleted.  —Michael Z. 22:06, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

In that case why cancel only the list of violations and not also all the other information in this article that uses mil.ru as a reference?

How about all the other instances when mil.ru is used as a reference in a number of other wikipedia artilces + other sources which are similarly not WP:reliable source, (for example  mod.gov.az) but are referenced in this and similar articles?

It is a list of reports presented exacly as what it is - a list of reports by the primary source i.e. the Russian peacekeepers in an article about the Russian peacekeepers and their activity. It isn't presented as fact/obective reality and the article does include several paraghraphs of detailed criticism of the PK mission + you’ve already tagged it as “unreliably sourced” - so further action seems unnecesary. Vanezi (talk) 21:51, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Why not? Who said not? Please go ahead and delete everything that’s inappropriately supported only by this source.

Further action is necessary. Tags are not meant to remain indefinitely. The tag means it is to be removed if not properly sourced. I would remove it today, since the possibility of sourcing all of it is nil. Also, it doesn’t meet the criteria for an acceptable WP:PRIMARY. Also, the list is not encyclopedic because WP:NOTLINKFARM.  —Michael Z. 22:10, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

@Vanezi Astghik are you abandoning this conversation? I want to remove the table which is not properly sourced according to guidelines. Okay?  —Michael Z. 03:04, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Since you are failing to apply the same interpretation of Wiki rules elsewhere, it seems like the problem is not the non-compliance of this list with the wiki rules, but rather the intention to find fault with it at all cost. Referring to WP:NOTLINKFARM is yet another example of referring to wiki rules as an excuse rather than a real reason for deletion, as the list is clearly not just a repository of links and is no different than many other lists in wikipedia relying on a single website as a source (for example List of Eurovision Song Contest host cities) and follows the same guidelines as other lists.

I would really appreciate an answer to my question of why you are singling this list out for deletion, considering there are other examples of mil.ru along with similar even less reliable sources (like mod.gov.az or gov.am) that are referenced in this and similar articles.

As far as I can see their use is fine as long as they are properly attributed to the government entity, as government position doesn’t need to have top quality RS to stay, especially when clearly attributed as per WikiVoice guidelines. Vanezi (talk) 12:52, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I am editing this article because I am editing this article. If you can point out other examples of reliance on this unreliable source, perhaps I will be able to address them too.

I disagree with your assessment and interpretation of the guidelines. Since you’re intransigent, I will take this to WP:RSN.  —Michael Z. 16:20, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

You are editing this article and you are singling out the list of violations to be deleted as it's using mil.ru as a source, yet not deleting other info with the same source in this same article. It's not intransigence to ask for an explanation, but simply a question based on basic common sense. Vanezi (talk) 22:35, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Why is it not obvious that the list is the most egregious problem? It’s intransigence to continue to insist it remain, despite it violating more than one Wikipedia principle.  —Michael Z. 22:46, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

There is an RFC related to this topic at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 403#RFC: Russian defence ministry as source for ceasefire violations in Azerbaijan. —Michael Z. 16:53, 24 April 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.