Talk:Second Nagorno-Karabakh War/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Casualties

Kheo17, please revert yourself. The new list also includes Babak Samidli, who surely died after the war. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 13:20, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

The number is still going to increase for sure, as there are more than 60 unidentified killed servicemen. Do you think it is more accurate to show 2,801 (not 2,802) instead of 2,783 for now? --KHE'O (talk) 19:17, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Kheo17, Babak isn't the only post-war casualty that was added here. I say we shall remove the number of the killed during the December clashes. Six soldiers have died in landmine related issues, and other four died during the ceasefire violations. That makes ten. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 00:53, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Going to engage in the discussion here (saw it only after I made my edit last night). As I stated in my edit summary, I agree with Kheo17. However, I would add I agree with Solavirum as well that those who died after the war should not be included in the infobox. The currently cited official source, which is newer and updated, all of the soldiers killed on the list died during the war itself and not after the war. However, if any of the 2,802 died after the war, the relevant sources confirming it need to be provided and we will make the necessary changes based on them. Just changing the figure, while the cited source continues to say 2,802, would not be in accordance with Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. Thus, I will make an edit where, as Kheo17 said, put the figure of 2,801, while citing the Azeri MoD list, with the inclusion of the source for Babak that he died after the war. After you provide sources for the names of the remaining nine that were said to have died after the war, and we confirm they are indeed on the MoD list, we can make further updates to the figure and reference. EkoGraf (talk) 12:19, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Made the necessary changes [1][2] by excluding Babak Samidli. After you can provide the sources for the names of the others (you can leave them here at the talk page), and we cross-reference them with the list, we can make the necessary changes, hopefully bringing the figure down to 2,792 as you say. EkoGraf (talk) 12:22, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm currently very busy irl and can't access my PC. Maybe CuriousGolden can help with this? --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 16:41, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Don't really know what I have to do. If someone tells me, I'll try to help. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 16:45, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

EkoGraf, as the one to propose this method, may you explain what needs to be done? --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 20:03, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Solavirum CuriousGolden So we could properly source/reference and verify, as per Wikipedia's policy/guidelines, that the other nine soldiers who died after the end of war (beside Babak Samidli) are also indeed on the current Azeri MoD list of fatalities and we could exclude them from the 2,802 figure in the infobox (as Solavirum suggested and since the infobox is for fatalities from the war only) then we need their names. After you can provide the sources for the names of the others (you can leave them here at the talk page), and we cross-reference them with the list, we can make the necessary changes (by adding those sources to the citation like I did for Samidli), hopefully bringing the figure down to 2,792 as Solavirum suggested. EkoGraf (talk) 21:40, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Ah, I understand. I'll get on to it today then. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 06:11, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

@EkoGraf and Solavirum: I've done some calculations and research. It seems that 5 people on that list are ones that died after the ceasefire. I examined each mine death cases separately and only in one of the cases, case of Babak Samidli is included in the new list. Apart from this, 4 additional soldiers who died during clashes in Chaylaggala/Khtsaberd area are also included in the list. Therefore, the number of casualties from Azerbaijani sides comes down to 2,797. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 10:51, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

CuriousGolden That's good, if you can provide us with some links to their names so we can add it to the citation for verification and bring down the number to 2,797 that would be great! EkoGraf (talk) 14:58, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Note, MoD has updated the list to 2,823 dead, with another 80 still missing or unidentified [3]. So we are going for 2,818 if you manage to provide us with the sources for the names of the four killed in the post-war clashes (although its been reported now that a fifth also died yesterday, but I have confirmed his name [4] and he is not on the newest list). EkoGraf (talk) 20:39, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

EkoGraf, I'm still unsure on how fair it is to include post-war deaths of Azerbaijan, and not include Armenia's post-war deaths. We've already confirmed that the list includes post-war deaths, why should've just use the existing statistics to alter the numbers? --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 19:10, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

References

Solavirum I agree that post-war deaths shouldn't be included. However, as per Wikipedia's guidelines on verifiability, sources are needed to confirm that other post-war deaths are also in the Azeri's MoD's overall figure. At the moment, we have managed only to secure a source for Babak Samidli. We need the sources for the names of any other soldier that has died after the end of the conflict, so we could cross-reference and confirm that they are actually on the MoD's list. Then we can scale down the number. EkoGraf (talk) 02:06, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Exiled Turkish journalist confirms role of Turkey

Exiled Turkish journalist Cevheri Guven disclosed in a video report the names and activities of three Turkish Generals who had a decisive role in leading Azerbaijan’s war on Artsakh.

Also, it is odd that the Syrian mercenaries are listed under Azerbaijan on the infobox, when it was Turkey that hired and deployed them. --Steverci (talk) 19:53, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Exiled Turkish journalist is this a new fancy word for Gülen movement? Beshogur (talk) 19:53, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

That's not a basis for anything. The opposition can say anything. In Armenia, the opposition says that Armenia launched the July clashes, sold Shusha for millions of dollars, and that Pashinyan is a Turk. Come with better stuff. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 16:40, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Agree with SolaVirum. Also the sources are not reliable, the first article is even by an armenian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.135.144.173 (talk) 17:48, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

References

Updated Armenian Losses

According to Armenian sources the current number of confirmed KIA stands at 3330Armenian Source, Bodies to be identified via DNA test is 871 which i assume would be added to total confirmed KIA, also Interesting enough de facto "NKR" sources have confirmed around 1800 KIA which from my understanding is not included in Armenian Ministry of Health number as technically they are two different entities any thoughts on this? Agulani (talk) 18:29, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Y done the first part. Agulani, I'm not sure about the second part, as you've not provided any sources on it. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 19:08, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Solavirum here you go, Kavkaz-uzel last available source is 1779 KIA as per "NKR" ministry of Defense, its mentioned separately from Armenian sources and is not complied together, also Armenian sources in news clearly always mention that 3300(latest figure) are Armenian soldiers which seems to indicate only citizens of Armenia not "NKR", i would understand why they would try to not compile the numbers as it comes closer to total tally that has been mentioned by Armenian opposition Agulani (talk) 08:28, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I got what you mean. We could add the casualties from Armenia and the Republic of Artsakh/NKR seperately. As both of them are seperate entities. Though other editors, like EkoGraf, also commenting would be useful. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 08:39, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Oppose. Cited source Kavkaz-uzel states the Armenian PM stated 2,400 Armenian soldiers were killed, while the "NKR" ministry of Defense published the list of names of 1,779 killed soldiers. Both figures can be originally cited to two earlier statements. The PM originally put out a figure of 2,400 Armenian soldiers killed on 16 November [5]. Also, on 11 December, [6] the NKR military's death toll was put at 2,996 dead (cited to the Armenian Ministry of Health), of which 1,779 were identified. Further, at the start of December [7], the NKR military's death toll was put at 2,718 (cited to the Armenian MoH), of which 1,746 were identified, and mid-November the NKR stated the bodies of 2,317 of their servicemen were examined (also citing the Armenian Ministry of Health), of which 1,586 were identified [8][9]. In addition, virtually all third party independent sources are citing only one (the higher) figure of Armenian dead. So, no indication these are two separate sets of figures for two separate entities. Instead, higher figure is the number of all bodies of ethnically Armenian servicemen examined/processed, while the lower figure is the number of those servicemen who have been identified. I would also remind, as per our earlier discussion, its well established that regular servicemen of Armenia who were killed during the conflict are on the NKR's lists of dead servicemen. One example, the Armenian Air Force pilot that was shot down at the beginning of the war is listed on the NKR's list of servicemen killed (we established this in an earlier discussion). EkoGraf (talk) 16:24, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

EkoGraf makes a good point, the Armenian and NKR lists are not disjoint. Vici Vidi (talk) 08:21, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

References

Post-ceasefire clashes

What about moving Post-ceasefire clashes to 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh ceasefire agreement to shorten the article? Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 07:13, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

@Գարիկ Ավագյան: sounds like a good idea. They should definitely be removed from the lead. Jr8825 • Talk 19:50, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Cheap vs. state-of-the-art?

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

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

Dear Jr8825, while the Economist is a respectable paper, I quoted two Wikipedia articles about costs of these military hardware, both of which with proper sourcing. A TB-2 is about 50x more expensive than a Harop. Adjective "cheap" is always in comparison to something, so when you use it within the same sentence in comparison with a radically cheaper drone, I would tend to say it is an incorrect comparison. The "large fleet of" is also misleading as Harops, being loitering munitions, have a single mission lifetime, hence, logically should be numbered more than a regular UACV fleet when used so extensively in a war. Note that number of TB-2s in Azeri inventory is classified information. I think there are two possibilities explaining this situation: Either the Economist makes a mistake (which could be the case about "large TB-2 fleet"), or you are creating a erroneous impression of "many cheap Turkish drones versus advanced Israeli drones" by bringing these adjectives in the same sentence, whereas the Economist uses them separately. By "cheap" they might be comparing a TB-2's value to the value of military items it destroyed. In any case, drones played a crucial role in this conflict so it might be a good idea to avoid misinterpretations in wording them. You might want to check these articles: [10] [11] Filanca (talk) 21:25, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

@Filanca: the sentence has been changed by someone else since you originally brought this up, "cheap" and "state-of-the-art" have both been removed. Jr8825 • Talk 19:47, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Russia-Turkey proxy conflict.

The 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War is not part of any proxy conflicts. There are no credible/enough sources to back that claim up. Even the Russia-Turkey proxy conflict Wikipedia page doesn't include the Nagorno-Karabakh war. So please, remove the "part of the Russia-Turkey proxy conflict" segment from the main infobox. It should not be stated as a fact. If needed, a separate subdivision can be created that talks about how it could be linked to the Russia-Turkey proxy conflict; but it certainly shouldn't be stated as a fact. Sweetkind5 (talk) 09:08, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree, there's not enough reliable sources that state this. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 09:20, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

There are plenty of RS describing it as part of Russia-Turkey strategic competition. The problem is that this relationship is much more complex than simply being "conflict" and there are elements of pragmatic compromise where interests align. The link belongs in this article on the basis that sources describe Turkey-Russia competition as key to the way the conflict unfolded and was resolved. It seems to me the problem is the outdated and rather shambolic Russia–Turkey proxy conflict article. I think the solution is a thorough rework of that article.

Some very quickly gathered sources describe the NK war in the context of:

• "managed competition"
• "broader Russia-Turkey competition"
• "Russia’s zone of influence at risk" Jr8825 • Talk 11:08, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

First of all, the sources you provided either aren't reliable or talk about a different topic. Secondly, there are very few (almost non-existent) sources that regard this war as a part of a proxy conflict (whether it be between Iran and Israel or Russia and Turkey). And lastly, neither Russia nor Turkey were involved militarily in the War and Russia didn't even support Armenia, both of which make it impossible to be considered as a proxy war. (Hence why the article didn't even mention the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict) Sweetkind5 (talk) 12:01, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

You'll find I'm partly in agreement with you. I don't think it's accurate to describe this as a proxy war between Russia and Turkey. However, saying it is part of a proxy conflict isn't the same as saying that it's a proxy war itself. Turkey and Russia are competing with each other through indirect means, and there are plenty of good sources describing how this competition was absolutely crucial to how the NK war panned out. More specifically, the sources I linked above (which are reliable and relevant) emphasise how Turkey's actions to alter the regional status quo (which favoured Russia) facilitated the outbreak of war and how Russia-Turkey relations played a formative role in (and enabled) the ceasefire agreement.

neither Russia nor Turkey were involved militarily in the War ... which make it impossible to be considered as a proxy war the entire point of conflict by proxy is that neither side gets directly involved in hostilities

hence why the article didn't even mention the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict ...because you've personally removed the NK war from that article repeatedly over the last month? I'm capable of checking an article's history, you know... Jr8825 • Talk 19:34, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I think to label this as a proxy conflict would be a simplification. In fact, Russia and Turkey became sort of de-facto guarantors of the ceasefire agreement. So it is more of a cooperation, than a competition. Even the corridor to Nakhchivan seems to be benefiting both countries, as it opens direct rail and motorway communication between the two countries via Azerbaijan and Armenia. So it is rather a partnership, than a proxy conflict. In any case, the relations between two countries are very complex to label them simply as proxy conflict. Very often it is in fact quite the opposite, a cooperation between the two countries on the basis of mutual interests. Grandmaster 00:32, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with your points Grandmaster. I'll raise the issue on that article's talk page, it needs a more nuanced and up-to-date narrative – right now it has almost no narrative at all, it's just a list of events that doesn't get across the managed rivalry between the two. The thing is there are lots of high quality sources describing Turkey and Russia as being involved in proxy wars against each other in Syria and Libya, and at the time of the fighting in NK a similarly large number of sources didn't just describe it as being influenced by Russia and Turkey, they described it as having the potential to become another proxy war. The problem is how to express the nuances, without neglecting the important role the Russia-Turkey relationship had. Jr8825 • Talk 05:08, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Israel allegation

It is well known Israel and Azerbaijan are Allies, however Azerbaijan has other allies, and the references Haaretz and Alarabiya doesn't cite OFFICIAL statements. The point I make is that the information should be deleted untill there is trustworthy evidences of substantial Israeli involvement. Otherwise we are presenting speculations as facts.--Vanlister (talk) 22:57, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Unless there's no objection, I will delete it. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 19:34, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Is there any criticism?--Vanlister (talk) 00:19, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Solavirum What exactly have you deleted about Israel and from where if I may ask? Was it the Israeli arms supply to Azerbaijan from infobox by chance? It disappeared after some time. Regards Armatura (talk) 22:55, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

The infobox mentioned Israel as an arms supplier to Azerbaijan during the war. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 23:46, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

And there are two articles cited in the body of the article saying precisely that. So there is objection to their removal from infobox. Could you please restore Israel to infobox as arms supplier to Azerbaijan? Many thanks. Armatura (talk) 10:00, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Ahahaha, no. This thread is basically closed, open a new one, also don't forget to tag Vanlister. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 10:10, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

I see nothing funny about a polite request of bringing the sentence deleted without sufficient justification back. And no thread is closed until it is closed. If I decide to open RfC then I will open a new thread; I see nothing wrong with this one for general discussion. I tagged Vanlister as you asked and you are welcome to tag anybody else whoever you think is worth tagging, preferably not from one side. I'd perhaps tag Steverci who also saw injustice to history in the removal of Israel as arms supplier to Azerbaijan and holding Russia as arms supplier to Armenia in infobox, looks like frequent changes to these two aspects are interconnected. For everybody on this talk page, a polite reminder about the benefits of using the word please - Please is a word used in the English language to indicate politeness and respect while making a request. Regards, Armatura (talk) 13:06, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Check out the dates between the comments by editors here. You like popped up here a month later. Also, can you please stop dramatizing stuff? Me writing ahahahah isn't the end of the world. And the reason why I asked you to tag Vanlister was because he was the original applicant. And, finally, we're not obligated to "please spam" here, and it will be better if you stop diverting the topic on hand. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 15:45, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Please keep the discussion to the point and avoid attacking the editor who questioned your removal of a piece of this article per WP:AVOIDYOU. If there is nothing convincing to justify the removal with, other editors are entitled to restore it. Regards, Armatura (talk) 16:30, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not attacking, I'm just saying that stop diverting the discussion to other places and embracing victimhood. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 17:06, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Discuss the content, not the editor, Solavirum, keep on the topic and adhere to WP:CIVIL. Please. Armatura (talk) 19:05, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree, Israel should be returned to to infobox, their arming of Azerbaijan is well documented. --Steverci (talk) 00:07, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

How did you reach to such a conclusion? Which documentation is that? Are you able to provide sources? The Israel had sold arms to Azerbaijan before the war, and there's not enough sources (except for Yerevan-based ones) on it. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 03:50, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I've checked out the single source mentioned by Armatura above. No, we're not going to use Al-Arabiya, a Saudi government owned media outlet based in Dubai, for allegations towards Israel. If we must, we can also use Turkish and Pakistani sources on Armenia. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 04:11, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

"We" and "I, Solavirum" are different on Wikipedia, though. Al Arabiya is not a deprecated source, hence editors are generally allowed to use it as a source. You are welcome to take it to "Reliable sources" discussion if you are questioning their or their article's reliability with reasonable proof for unreliability, rather than just not liking its contents or perhaps having anti-Arabic sentiments. Turkey and Pakistan openly, actively, partisanly supported Azerbaijan, at least politically, in Azerbaijan's attack on Artsakh, when all other the countries in the world were calling for peace, hence no need for comparing Turkey and Pakistan to other countries in this aspect. But there's also the Haaretz (Israeli) article pointing out the same thing, in its very title, and Haaretz is considered good, reliable source. Regards Armatura (talk) 13:45, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I advise you to first avoid that sarcastic rhetoric. Then, you should check the discussion archives on Al Arabiya and its anti-Israel bias before making assumptions. And there are articles on this issue too. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 15:36, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for the notification. My first message was clear, if there is no formal statement it is not a reliable information, and it cannot be presented as a fact, because it is an allegation. An article of Haaretz arguing about the issue, is not a proof of anything. The article do NOT claim to have evidence that Israel is behind Azeri war effort. Rather it cite "anonymous sources" and formulate hypothesis. Presenting speculations as fact is problematic, as it is misleading. --Vanlister (talk) 14:59, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Solavirum, there's no need for advice or, as a matter of fact, attacking tone. When you state something that is your own opinion, there is no need to show it as collective opinion. You are welcome to put a link to archives you are referring to and I'll have a look, there is nothing in the Reliable/Perennial sources page about not citing Al Arabia on Israel related issues. And as you are questioning it's reliability, you're welcome to take it to Reliable Sources discussion, as I said above. I understand you have no argument against Haaretz article. And unfortunately in Vanlister's argument I cannot conclude anything apart from IJDLI. Israel is never going to officially admit that it carried on arms supply during war, as it's a bad thing to do, one doesn't need that official confirmation or refutation as long as there are reliable third party sources. Regards, Armatura (talk) 23:09, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I think you didn't understand my arguments and you continue giving your opinion on geolpolitcal matters. It is fine in real life to have strong beliefs without evidence, but it is not the case on Wikipedia. That's all. You can translate for example this article for an other point of view on the issue : https://www.israeldefense.co.il/he/node/47511

Best regards. --Vanlister (talk) 13:21, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

When you state something that is your own opinion, there is no need to show it as collective opinion, I've not shown an opinion, [12] this is enough for it too prove that many other users are in the same road when it comes to this. Also, the source doesn't solely needs to be a deprecated one for us to avoid its usage. As for the Haaretz, I didn't respond as I found Vanlister's reasons enough. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 13:49, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Solavirum, the link takes me to a list of discussions where somebody mentioned Al Arabia, that's all. I didn't see deprecation of it on Wikipedia. Again, if you are discussing Al Arabia's reliability as a source, Nagorno Karabakh war talk page is not the place for it - please dispute its reliability on the relevant noticeboard. You said the source doesn't solely need to be a deprecated one for us to avoid its usage. - What else do "we" need? Armatura (talk) 21:37, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Vanlister, the Hebrew article you provided a link to only mentions drones, not weapons sold during the war in general, I don't see how does it deny the continued arms sales by Israel during war. Please don't imagine that you are speaking the "honest truth" while everybody else just expresses their skewed "beliefs", as it's simply not the case. Armatura (talk) 21:37, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Solavirum, I'm for adding Israel back to the arms suppliers list. According to this Asia Times article, Israeli weapons exports to Azerbaijan significantly increased after the war began. This was also confirmed by the Israeli Defense Ministry. I quote from the article: "Moreover, the intensification of hostilities has not slowed Israeli arms sales to Baku. On the contrary, reports have flagged a significant airlift of arms and supplies from Israel to Azerbaijan over the two-and-a-half week conflict. The senior Defense Ministry source confirmed the continuous airlifts, probably the most extensive aerial resupply Israel has executed." I'm with Armatura on this one - I recommend adding Israel back to the list of arms suppliers. By the way, if you're wondering, Media Bias/Fact Check places Asia Times in its "least biased" category and confirms its high factual reporting. Arandomguy12345 (talk) 1:14, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Asia Times isn't listed in WP:RSP and that's what matters on Wikipedia. Asia Times is the publishing site that posted this horrible, unsourced article, which was subject to high controversy afterwards. I'd like to see your source for it being confirmed by Israeli Defense Ministry. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 08:35, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

CuriousGolden, if you have an issue with Asia Times you are free to nominate it to be added to the perennial list, but it is not currently listed as either a depreciated or unreliable source. That article you nitpicked is citing Russian press and doesn't state it to be fact. Meanwhile, Azeri media such as AzerNews and Capsian News have made completely unfounded claims of PKK supporting Artsakh, and yet are cited several times throughout the articles. --Steverci (talk) 17:37, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Every time those are cited, there's either a "Azerbaijan claimed", "Azerbaijan accused" or they're used as primary sources to tell what the Azerbaijani media are saying. So, your comparison is invalid. And since AsiaTimes is not on the perennial list, it's not WP:RS either, so we can't state what they claim as a fact until it's confirmed WP:RS, which you can nominate it for, if you want. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 17:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Steverci's whataboutism fails here as we're talking about the infobox here, not the article's text. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 19:15, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

The perennial list is just a "non-exhaustive list of sources whose reliability and use on Wikipedia are frequently discussed...If your source isn't listed here, the only thing it really means is that it hasn't been the subject of repeated community discussion." So, the fact no one has ever started a discussion about Asia Time's credibility is all the better.

Other sources confirming Israeli involvement are France24, Haaretz, and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty which also confirms that Turkey and Russia have supplied arms to Azerbaijan. --Steverci (talk) 19:59, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

CuriousGolden, what you implied "source x isn't listed in WP:RSP hence it cannot be used or is not reliable on Wikipedia" is just not true. As per WP:RSPMISSING, a source's absence from the list does not imply that it is any more or less reliable than the sources that are present, did you know that?. Solavirum, speaking of "somebody's whereaboutism" is not the best example of collegial or civil behavior toward the other user. Both, if you are questioning a particular source's reliability, you are welcome to do that on the relevant noticeboard please, rather than continuing here. Denying something that has been supported by multiple third party sources does not go with Wikipedia standards. Regards, Armatura (talk) 20:37, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

It's interesting that you understood that from my comment. I'm not saying sources that aren't listed in WP:RSP can not be used. I was replying to the comment of another user implying that AsiaTimes was a confirmed reliable source, which it isn't. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 20:41, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

CuriousGolden Asia Times can be used as a source to reference this article, including its infoboxes, as long as it is not deprecated by a community discussion on Wikipedia, this is what matters Armatura (talk) 20:51, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

When there's a WP:CONSENSUS for it, then sure. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 20:54, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

You're the one who claimed a source not listed on RSP cannot be used at all. And consensus doesn't mean brigading against everything you don't like. --Steverci (talk) 21:04, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Luckily, consensus in Wikipedia does not mean that CuriousGolden should necessarily agree to the proposed change, per WP:OWNERSHIP. Fighting against an article that one doesn't like the content of, without even trying to discuss it on the relevant noticeboard for the consensus one keeps advertising, falls below the Wikipedia standards. Armatura (talk) 21:16, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Jeez. It's surprising that you keep reminding other users to keep civility like here: Solavirum, speaking of "somebody's whereaboutism" is not the best example of collegial or civil behavior toward the other user., yet you still make comments like above. WP:AGF; I'm not interested in being involved in unconstructive discussions. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 21:22, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Looks like you missed my last comment where I explained precisely how I didn't say what you claimed I did. And consensus means reaching an understanding between two sides that disagree with each other. I don't appreciate your WP:AGF violations. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 21:18, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

CuriousGolden If you are adressing me, I may assume that faith back, when you finally start a dispute of the source reliability on relevant noticeboard (where there isn't a high concentration of editors with particular national POV, and where there are a lot of uninvolved editors who are extremely likely to conclude that there are no grounds for criticising the source at all), rather then denigrating it here, on this very talk page (with support from editors from your "side", with this pattern ). Armatura (talk) 21:31, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

It was addressed to Steverci, not you. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 21:46, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

It's hard to assume good faith when you're making up rules, and even sharing a guideline that states the opposite of what you're saying. Any input on the France24, Haaretz, and Radio Free Europe sources? --Steverci (talk) 22:46, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not even going to ask what rule you think I'm making up because this discussion is too toxic and unconstructive at this point. Follow WP:CIVILITY. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 07:46, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

When you claimed any source not listed on WP:RSP cannot be considered reliable. Since you dodged my question, I assume you have no problems with the other sources? --Steverci (talk) 05:20, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

The discussion is toxic because an information has been removed in a rash, without even waiting for concensus, by one editor with strong pro Azerbaijani POV, upon the request of another editor with strong pro Azerbaijani POV, citing "no criticism to removal". And now, when there is a strong criticism, supported by multiple third party sources, by more than one user, every effort is made and every WP rule is (mis)cited in order to defend the denial of Israeli arms supply during the war, essentially owning the article to the detriment of its objectivity. Armatura (talk) 10:56, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

And don't tell me about assumption of good faith please as these action literally rule out any possibility of that good faith. Armatura (talk) 10:58, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

You do realize that these people opened a discussion, waited more than a week to allow any possible disagreers to voice their opinion, and after a month of no one saying anything against their proposal, you've arrived and are blaming them for removing something no one objected? Discussing unimportant things such as why they removed it instead of explaining why you think it should be added back won't lead this discussion anywhere and has created the toxic environment I talked about. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 11:06, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

CuriousGolden Hope you do realise that whatever changes they have made in the article, they are not written on the stone and are subject to change in view of accumulating evidence? Hope you appreciate that instead of going into the article and adding Israel back (and starting an edit war) attempts in good faith are made to reach a consensus based on the presented sources (and not the number of battling participants). Yet all I see is defending the current Israel "did not supply" arms (and Russia "did supply" arms during war in the other thread) baseless content of infobox, in view of evolving love affair between Azerbaijan and Israel and pro-Azerbaijani editors IJDLI-ing the articles that criticise Israel's involvement, as simple as that. You, a proponent of consensus, chose to not respond to the sources provided, but chose attacking the providers instead. If the practice of 1) disputing the reliability of disputed sources here instead of reliability noticeboards and 2) attacking the editors presenting the sources instead of reflecting on the content of cited articles continues, I will take this to dispute resolution and the attention of admins. Regards, Armatura (talk) 13:17, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Russia doesn't support Armenia

If Israel, which militarily supported Azerbaijan but made no official statements, is removed from the belligerents, then so should Russia, which did not offer Artsakh any support and even made an official statement that it would not do so.

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

If no reliable sources can be provided that Russia supported Artsakh, I will remove it. --Steverci (talk) 20:59, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree with you, but there is more than that: all allegations should be removed from the infobox. Remove Russia, remove Turkey and syrians. Because all those are allegations and have no proof. The source for Tukey says that: F16 presence shows that bla bla bla. Ilham Aliyev said that "the world powers have high tech satellites, don't they see? Of course they do, No one can prove that those jets were used, because they were not. Their presence is symbolic and a moral support, a message." Russia has a whole military base in armenia and no one says that it was a direct support to armenia. I always said that the infobox is inclined in favor of armenia. By removing only Russia you will make it even more inclined in favor of armenia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.135.144.173 (talk) 09:38, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Both Turkey and Syrian terrorists confirmed by multiple third-party sources. --Steverci (talk) 15:20, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

First, they are not alleged as "terrorists" but as "mercenaries". Second, sources, right? Have you read those sources? They only make things up out of thin air, and shamelessly multiply these allegations without poofs. Normally the sources must be analyzed one-by-one. It would be a very long discussion, longer then I can allocate my efforts on, but if you read them it's very clear to an unbiased eye. Take 1st source for example. BBC article editor claims to have talked with 4 Syrians and that "The men, many of them with no military experience, were being recruited for war". So, this editor wants a reader to believe, that Azerbaijani army with well-trained soldiers, better weapons and numerical superiority recruited syrians with no military experience to fight armenian soldiers which also were well-trained (maybe not as well as azeris, but they had their regular trainings too, including military exercises with Russia)? Unfortunately these "third-party sources" are affected by armenian diaspora, more armenians live outside of Armenia than in Armenia, mostly in US and France. More azeris live outside Azerbijan as well but those are mostly in Iran. 2nd source is Reuters: accusation by France, surprise! "Neither Macron or the French presidency provided evidence to support the accusation about the mercenaries." And it goes on and on. About Turkey, not selling military equipment to Armenia doesn't mean that it militarily supports Azerbaijan, Turkey isn't a major weapons supplier, not an only supplier, and doesn't supply best weapons out there. Armenia had plenty suppliers to choose. 4 Turkish jets doesn't mean it militarily supported Az, as Russian military base in Armenia doesn't mean the equal. Turkey have been sharing it's military experience and conducting trainings with Azeris for decades, as Russia was doing same with Armenia, doesn't mean there was a direct military support by any side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.135.144.173 (talk) 17:47, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

No one is inclined to adress the same issue dozens of times. See the result regarding your request in DRN. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 13:42, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Solavirum Nobody said "don't address this issue", though. The DRN was closed not because something was wrong with the dispute subject but because "editors made introductory statements, but did not reply within 48 hours to a question by the moderator". That DRN closure note says "The editors are advised to resolve their dispute on the article talk page", which is precisely what the editor continuing the discussion in this thread is doing. I suggest staying calm and answering the raised questions, please. Regards, Armatura (talk) 01:11, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry but ethnic Azeri protestors in Iran is not a reliable source. And why would you also supporting removing Israel, which has been confirmed by third parties to have armed Azerbaijan? --Steverci (talk) 15:20, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't know why are you confusing a phenomenon and a source. For the other thing, I clearly stated that in one of the threads that if no one objected it, I will remove the part several days later. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 16:47, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Armenians in Israel also protested against Israel's arm supplying Azerbaijan.[13] Do you have a reliable source that Russia supported Artsakh or not? --Steverci (talk) 19:46, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

So what? If you objected Israel's removal, you could've said that anytime. But here, you're just engaging in whataboutism. To explain how Wikipedia works, the same thing about your statement on having sources or not can be said about the Syrians, as there's literally no solid and factual proof of them fighting in the war, but only reports. Again, we had closed the case on Russian aid before. No need to spam it every single day. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 20:34, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

It's simply keeping the article consistent. If you're actually disputing the Syrian terrorists, which have been confirmed by many third party sources, but defending Russian support, which only Azerbaijan claims, then this is WP:POVPUSH. This section is just for Russia in the infobox, which only you objected to removing before. --Steverci (talk) 21:39, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

I think we should stop arguing as you started labelling these mercs as "terrorists". Also, no, talking to "Abdullah" doesn't mean that the Syrian mercs were there. That's why we say "X outlet reported". Just like how the articles mention reports of Russian arms supply to Armenia. Both Syrians and Russia are reports. That's it. And, on my behalf, I can also accuse you of massive POV-push. But meh, I don't care. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 23:51, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

They've been called terrorists by Russian officials and the president of Iran.[14][15] And they've gotten enough third-party coverage to be treated as fact. BBC ran a sympathetic article for the terrorists that even said the evidence is undeniable.[16] Do you have a reliable source for Russia supplying arms to Artsakh or not? --Steverci (talk) 00:15, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Like it or not, we're not the Russian government or the Iranian regime. You can always check the Russian Wikipedia for promoting Kremlin's narrative. Calling them terrorists is just your POV, and only the pro-Assad sources like to label FSA terrorists for obvious reasons. Anyways, I'm not here to defend FSA. I again say that BBC's report, which cited a so-called FSA leader called "Abdullah", is not a direct and solid evidence for the involvement of the Syrian mercs. The sole reason why we add them is the coverage and their speculated involvement. The same goes for the Russian involvement. The removal of Russia from the infobox is blatantly misleading the readers. The issue is notable enough in the infobox just because of the fact that it was considered true enough to cause mass protests in Iran (with hundreds of arrests), and several official statements by the Iranian leadership. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 03:45, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

"Four Syrians have told the BBC that after enlisting for sentry duties in Azerbaijan" is not an "undeniable evidence" (even this phrase was never stated in the article). --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 04:09, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

İ don't see Russia listed as a belligerent in the infobox. Correct me if I'm wrong. It is only listed as an arms supplier. What is the argument about here? Grandmaster 14:21, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Grandmaster Russia supplied arms to both Armenia and Azerbaijan before the conflict, it is common, openly available knowledge. No proof that Russia supplied arms to either side during the conflict, so far only accusations by Azerbaijan, based on unverified footages on social media, as the text of the article says. The argument here is that Russia, being neither belligerent nor arms supplier during conflict, should not be in the infobox either as belligerent or arms supplier, for either side. It (despite Armenia and Artsakh asking for help) chose to remain neutral. If we are to list arms suppliers before the conflict, then there will be a decent list or countries under Azerbaijan's arms suppliers in the infobox. Solavirum To keep this thread focused, please see/discuss Israel involvement in Israel allegation and Syrian mercenaries in About Syrian mercenaries in the infobox Regards, Armatura (talk) 15:26, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

My comments on Syrians were solely to explain why we added Russia there. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 16:17, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Russia did not get directly engaged in the conflict, but it did supply arms to Armenia during the conflict. It was confirmed by Armenian officials, Movses Hagopian being one of them. See his interview quoted on BBC: [17] So Russia should not be listed as a belligerent, but only as an arms supplier. Grandmaster 17:37, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Grandmaster Where in that article is the proof of Russia's sale of arms to Armenia during the recent war? I don't think you can derive such a serious conclusion from "Россия полностью выполнила все обязательства перед Арменией и поставила ей все вооружение, даже то, о чем и не мечтали", сказал Акопян." If you read the article to end you will see the discredited general's announcements were deemed "made-out" and "absurd" and are subject to investigation. Regards, Armatura (talk)

Many in Armenia accused Russia that it did not fulfill its obligations under mutual defense treaty during the war. General was responding to that. Russia repeatedly stated that its obligations do not cover the territory of NK, however there were almost daily flights from Russia delivering weaponry, in particular advanced anti-aircraft systems. Armenia did not make a good use of those due to lack of skilled personnel. It was all revealed by Armenian officials. Akopian makes specific mention of Pole-21 systems supplied by Russia that Armenia did not have before the war. Grandmaster 20:06, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Btw, does the "arms suppliers" field cover only those countries which supplied arms before the war, or those who supplied arms before the war as well? Grandmaster 20:15, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Grandmaster. I don't think one can conclude from "Ранее об использовании "Поля-21" не сообщалось" ("no previous reports of Polya-21 use") that the Polya-21 system was supplied during this war, as it may have been supplied before war, just not used before that war. Do you have reliable references for "daily flights from Russia delivering weaponry, during the war, as revealed by Armenian officials"? As for who is the arms supplier, I think as long as we specify which countries supplied arms before the war and which ones carried on supplied weapons during the war, it should be okay. What is not okay - is leaving that important distinction ambiguous Armatura (talk) 20:29, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Akopian clearly says "from the first days of war": [18] Grandmaster 21:20, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Also an interesting source about Russian arm supplies: [19] Grandmaster 21:23, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Grandmaster I don't think we can safely include anything from Sputnik which is a deprecated source. And if even the general have said such a thing, it will be a sensational piece of allegation till supported by third parties. As for the Ng.ru article, the only citable phrase is "постоянные рейсы транспортных Ил-76 из российских Минеральных Вод в Армению" (regular races of Il-76 from Mineralnye Vody to Armenia), however with no proof that they were transporting arms supplies. The author himself calls the publication of AsiaTime about «Красуха-4» station wrong. Then same sensationalist piece of General Hakobyan about Поле-21Э stations follows... To blame Russia which was praised by Azerbaijani president for staying neutral during the war one needs more than an anti-Pashinyan general with sensationalist claims I am afraid. To demonstrate my point about sensatinal claims, I'd like to cite a paragraph from Pap of Armenia article: "Terentius sent two generals to capture and execute Pap. Both generals gave an excuse that Pap had used magical powers to avoid capture and used a dark cloud to mask his party. Faustus in his Epic Histories also claimed that Pap was possessed by devs (demons)." Armatura (talk) 21:52, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Bloomberg is not deprecated, as far as I can see. [20] Press-conference by Hokobyan was reported by many news outlets, and there are even video and audio footage of his statements. And this person was one of the top Armenian military officials during the war, and his statements were not refuted by the government of Armenia. Grandmaster 17:50, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

As I said earlier, allegations of one general are not enough for putting anything in the infobox as a "fact". You're welcome to cite him in the article text with appropriate attribution. I don't know what do you mean by saying "Armenian government didn't refute it", did you see Armenian PM's calling these allegations absurd above? And to be fair, one wouldn't need Armenian governments agreement or refutation, as one can't expect 100% honest reply from governments of Armenia and Russia who have conflict of interest in this issue. One just needs third party sources to support the allegations. Armatura (talk) 22:54, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

But he is not just any random person, and not just any general. He was a top Armenian military official, so he is a well informed person. If top Armenian military confirms arms supplies, then it is more than just an allegation. He even provides details of the type of equipment that was supplied, such as Pole-21. Grandmaster 21:45, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

It's your point of view, Grandmaster, which doesn't agree with my point of view, as simple as that. Armatura (talk) 07:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Let's ask other editors for their opinions. There are uninvolved editors here who may kindly share their opinions. Grandmaster 00:12, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Grandmaster That's a good thought. How to ask their opinons, though. RfC maybe? Armatura (talk) 04:24, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Levon Stepanyan statement with deprecated source

Somebody added "Former military commissar of Armenia major-general Levon Stepanyan stated that the number of deserters in Armenian army was over 10,000, and it is not possible to prosecute such a large number of military personnel." citing Sputnik [deprecated source]: "Степанян: нужно найти способ наказать дезертиров, бежавших с поля боя в Карабахе". Sputnik Армения. 13 November 2020. Retrieved 3 January 2021. Either self-remove or reference with a non-deprecated sources, please. Armatura (talk) 15:52, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I've replaced it with a non-deprecated source. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 16:01, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Regards, Armatura (talk) 16:05, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

"Operation Iron Fist"

The "Operation Iron Fist" is mentioned in the first sentence of this article, along with 2020 NK war, but I see no reference that would describe that operation's structure (goals->planning->realisation steps). Is there a source that provides those details? If not, then I would argue that while "Operation Iron Fist" should still be mentioned in the article, it should not be in the very first sentence, giving undue weight to a concept that is coined by Azerbaijani government after the war, perhaps only for the purposes of announcing on a military parade. Armatura (talk) 11:59, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

That isn't an undue weight though. See 2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria. And declaring it post-war doesn't mean that it was just decided after the war. operation's structure (goals->planning->realisation steps), I don't get it. We can't just show it in the Azerbaijani perspective, but sure that this is an Azerbaijani offensive. There's enough information on this in Analysis section. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 17:48, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Does the combination of 1)Azerbaijani government denying they attacked first and 2)Azerbaijani government speaking of a offensive special operation (that requires planning and cannot be just spontaneous) sound logical to you? To non-Azerbaijani editors, declaring it post war on a military parade, without description apart from a cool name, may sound a bit like coining a cool name for the war solely to the tribute of Azerbaijani president,hence my argument for giving it undue weight in the very first sentence of the article. I see no problem if it's mentioned in the body text though. Regards, Armatura (talk) 23:35, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Denying to attack first and accepting to launching an offensive are two extremely different things. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 16:02, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

In principle, Solavirum is right that one could have a fully drawn up plan in the drawer for an offensive that would be launched after one was attacked or after some incident. I don't know if that is the case here, but it is not impossible. Vici Vidi (talk) 08:37, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Vici Vidi, well, Azerbaijan claims that it had launched a counter-offensive against the Armenian forces when they shelled the village of Gapanly on 27 September. Counter- or not, that's still an offensive. And also, the ceasefire violations like in Gapanly was happening basically every day since the signing of the 1994 Bishkek protocol. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 15:26, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Vici Vidi, Solavirum Everything that is not against the laws of physics is theoretically possible, however apart from Azerbaijan nobody else claimed a counteroffensive and this very article states that International analysts believe that fighting likely began with an Azerbaijani offensive,with the primary goal of reclaiming the less mountainous districts of southern Nagorno-Karabakh.

It sounds doublethink to me. Where is the description of that "Iron First" special operation? Does it exist at all? Regards, Armatura (talk) 06:19, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

The key word here is to me. Give a guideline where it says we have to give a whole viewpoint of the side that launches the offensive. I've not even seen such thing in WW2-related articles. In any case, Azerbaijan disclosed everything after the war, no wonder why they do the same about the operation. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 13:17, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm one of the editors of this article and my opinion should be taken into account as every other editor of this article. Surely a credible operation should have more than a coined cool name available. Here's a WW2 special operation example https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Barbarossa#:~:text=Operation%20Barbarossa%20(German%3A%20Unternehmen%20Barbarossa,to%20repopulate%20it%20with%20Germans. And give me guideline that says everything that Azerbaijani president says as part of his propaganda should be included in the very first sentence of the article describing a war. Regards, Armatura (talk) 19:51, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Avoid stuff like Azerbaijani president says as part of his propaganda, we are not Reddit or something. I'm trying to help you out here, and understand what you want. Surely a credible operation should have more than a coined cool name available, is this a joke or something? Also, about the naming, we can't use Operation Iron Fist in the title, because the coverage doesn't mention it enough. Like Operation Olive Branch, or Operation Peace Spring, it is still a code-name for the offensive. If you have any legit arguments, come up with them, instead of you make Aliev propaganda. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 00:57, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Please avoid commanding language and ad hominem remarks as WP:CIVILITY. Saying "please" should not be that difficult in a civilized world. We both know well WP is not a place for jokes, neither it is social network, I'll leave to the judgement of uninvolved editors who's using emotional social media language on this talk page. I'm saying we shouldn't use an operation code-name in the first sentence of this article, as there's nothing else about that operation apart from code-name. So far, there is no publication that would describe that operation details, there's essentially nothing but a name. Mentioning that codename somewhere in the article should be okay, though. This conversation is likely to end up in a deadlock, hence I may take it to dispute resolution unless a concensus is reached with third party editors. Regards Armatura (talk) 01:18, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Please avoid commanding language and ad hominem remarks as WP:CIVILITY. Saying "please" should not be that difficult in a civilized world. We both know well WP is not a place for jokes, neither it is social network, no need for questioning this constantly and I'll leave to the judgement of uninvolved editors who's using emotional social media language on this talk page. I'm saying we shouldn't use an operation code-name in the first sentence of this article, as there's nothing else about that operation apart from code-name. So far, there is no publication that would describe that operation details, there's essentially nothing but a name. Mentioning that codename somewhere in the article should be okay, though, as it is something a president said. This conversation is likely to end up in a deadlock I understand, hence I may take it to dispute resolution unless a consensus is reached with third party editors. Regards Armatura (talk) 01:28, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Ugh, I can't believe you can claim victimhood after such a rhetoric. Anyways, ask any third-party editor you want. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum

Solavirum Nobody "claims victimhood" here. Asked for third opinions here Regards, Armatura (talk) 00:30, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

No changes should be made regarding the code-name Operation Iron Fist. I agree with SolaVirum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.156.71.30 (talk) 06:12, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Dear unsigned user writing from (Turkish) IP 212.156.71.30, this is not voting and simply supporting one of the editors in dispute without elaborating on the reasons of that support hardly counts as impartial addition to discussion and hardly helps in reaching a consensus. Regards Armatura (talk) 15:12, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

What a detective. Dear pro-armenian (maybe even an armenian), as I said I agree with SolaVirum's reasoning, you simply "wp:idontlikeit" the code-name. Most, if not all, war pages have a code-name in first sentence. And there is no dispute here. I am sure if armenia had a code-name then it would have been added too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.156.71.30 (talk) 18:42, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Dear user now writing from another Turkish IP 37.155.240.129 (Ankara, Turkey), then and then manually editing your ip to make it look like it is written from the previous Turkish IP (Kazan, Turkey, 50 km away from Ankara), and trying to accuse me of "Trying to steal last ditch piece of victory" please avoid ad hominem remarks, revealing the user's ethnicity, mis-citing WP guidelines, off-topic comments and under-cover editing (all violations of WP guidelines). Saying the same thing does not give more weight to the already said thing. First, most wars (unlike most special operations) do not have code-names (would be interested to see where you took that generalization from) and second, the claimed special operation should be credible/verifiable for its codename to be used in this article in general and in the very first sentence of this article in particular, to avoid undue weight to something that has no description beyond the code-name. There is a dispute here, as you can see from me disputing it, even if you do not like the dispute, sorry. A friendly advice - drop this behavior please, to avoid administrative sanctions. Regards, Armatura (talk) 19:39, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

You are not disputing it, you are "i just dont like it". Keep you "friendly" advice to yourself next time. Yes, I replied and then edited my own ip address so that it would be clear that I am the same person, it's just one was from work computer and now I reply from my home computer. It's unclear where you are going with this editing accusation, you are the first to be a "detective" and "reveal" my Turkish ip, no one was trying to hide. Uhh, Talking to you is useless. I won't reply to you anymore, in this topic. Go on with you personal likes/unlikes... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.155.240.129 (talk) 20:09, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

User 212.156.71.30/37.155.240.129 I see no reason why you would not login with a username, to avoid making "false impressions", unless your account has been banned. I am sorry, but this kind of activity may be unacceptable not only to me. You are welcome to defend your point to uninvolved admins on Administrators Noticeboard where you are invited for your activity surrounding the NKR-related topics here and elsewhere, as you can see from notices on your talkpages. Regards, Armatura (talk) 20:53, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Dear fellow editors, I am declining the invitation to provide a third opinion and have removed the listing from the 3O page: there are too many people involved already. Other options include WP:Requests for Comment, the dispute resolution noticeboard or one of the other WP:Dispute resolution options. With all respect and friendly regards to all, Springnuts (talk) 19:26, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Duly noted. Opened a discussion on noticeboard, everybody is welcome to participate. Regards, Armatura (talk) 13:18, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

As another noticeboard discussion involved the IP editor, the opinions are sought instead in RfC now. Regards, Armatura (talk) 20:13, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Dear Jr8825, would you be able to archive this thread now that a solution has been found by introducing Naming section in article? Many thanks, Armatura (talk) 16:53, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

RfC about including "Operation Iron Fist" in the lead paragraph

Should lead paragraph of this article include code-name "Operation Iron Fist", yes or no? WP guidelines state the lead section should be carefully sourced. So far, there is only a phrase from Azerbaijani military parade on 10th December (a month after the end of 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war on 9th November), referenced by two-sentence Azerbaijani-language stub in Report.az, which links to itself as its source. I suggest moving it to aftermath, into the paragraph of the mentioned parade. No consensus reached with involved editors. Armatura (talk) 20:07, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

• Yes it should. Does wp guidelines also allow same talk initiated 2nd time by the same user? https://mod.gov.az/en/news/a-victory-parade-dedicated-to-victory-in-the-patriotic-war-was-held-at-azadlig-square-baku-34045.html What better source than official Az MoD ? Since the sentance already says "code named Operation Iron Fist by Azerbaijan". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.155.240.129 (talk) 22:03, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

The operation's name was disclosed after the war, like literally everything else, including the casualties. There are thousands of sources mentioning that name, and Report IA isn't something small. Per manual of style, the attacking side's code-name for the ops is mentioned in the lead. You can see any other articles on warfare. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 16:43, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Solavirum, 37.155.240.129 RfC is designed to attract uninvolved editors. Regards, Armatura (talk) 22:24, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

And what stops me from pointing out my opinion? --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 22:30, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Your opinion is already extensively pointed out on this talk page. Regards, Armatura (talk) 22:44, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

• No - A case of UNDUE - there's no mention of the name in reliable sources whatsoever. A Google search turns up nothing but a handful of mentions in Azerbaijani media (which is controlled by the government). It's clear that nobody was aware of the name until well after the fighting had finished, let alone referred to the conflict by it, including in Azerbaijan. And given this, Armatura's original concern, that it could've been invented for propaganda purposes, is entirely plausible. Even if there were trustworthy sources, I don't see how it would be relevant or notable enough to include in the lead. In the previous discussion a military campaign was given as an example of including codenames, this is a false equivalence – while it may be relevant for an individual offensive, this article is about an entire conflict. As an aside, I'm not optimistic about the chances of this RfC, particularly as the statement isn't brief and neutral. Jr8825 • Talk 20:32, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Armatura I moved the whole topic to a separate section in order to avoid anything undue. I hope this works. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 16:20, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Solavirum Thanks, this looks better, I have therefore closed the RfC and I think this section in talk page can be archived. Armatura (talk) 00:01, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I personally liked it better as an {{efn}}. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 16:25, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Dear Jr8825, would you be able to archive this thread now that a solution has been found by introducing Naming section in article? Many thanks, Armatura (talk) 16:54, 10 January 2021 (UTC)