Wikipedia

Talk:Second Nagorno-Karabakh War/Archive 18

< Talk:Second Nagorno-Karabakh War
Latest comment: 3 years ago by Jbrosenasad in topic "CNDec12"
Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20→Archive 23

Dilgam Asgarov & Shahbaz Guliyev

Latest comment: 3 years ago23 comments3 people in discussion

This sentence "Dilgam Asgarov, a Russian citizen of Azerbaijani descent, who was detained by the Armenian-allied forces alongside Shahbaz Guliyev, an Azerbaijani citizen, in 2014, during an incident in Kalbajar, in an interview he gave after being released, also stated that the Armenian captors had tortured the Azerbaijani POWs.[542]" is placed by somebody at the end of the Armenian section of Suspected War Crimes. Both were detained long before the 2020 war, and do not have anything to do with this war. Whoever added this sentence, can this be removed, please? Thanks, Armatura (talk) 16:38, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Armatura, yes, they were detained in 2014. But after his release, Asgarov, as a person who was in Armenian imprisonment for six years, stated that the Armenian captors had tortured the Azerbaijani POWs. It is very related to the mistreatment of Azerbaijani POWs during the war. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 17:36, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Solavirum Did he specify that Azerbaijani POVs from this ( 2020 September 27-Nov 9) war were tortured? This wiki article is about 2020 war and the section is about suspected war crimes by Armenia during 2020 war. Regards, Armatura (talk) 17:52, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Armatura, you are free to check the reference. But I can translate the quote for you. For the background, he says that he was transferred to Goris during the war.

Original:

Həbsxananın təcili yardım maşınında gördüm ki, bir nəfər də var. Bildim ki, azərbaycanlıdır. Gorusda onun əşyalarını gördüm. Yaralı olaraq əsir düşmüşdü. Yevlaxdan idi. Bizi 3 kameraya saldılar. Sonra həmin soydaşımızı harasa apardılar. Ona da işgəncə vermişdilər, döymüşdülər. Sonradan ailəsi və özü ilə maraqlandım, onu tapdım. Bu müharibədə əsir düşən hərbçilərimizə İrəvanda işgəncə veriblər. Özləri danışırdılar. Şprisin içinə spirt doldururlarmış, ayaqları kəsilənlərin qollarına, ayaqları olanların ayağına vururlarmış.

Translation:

I saw that there was a man in the prison ambulance. I knew he was an Azerbaijani. I saw his belongings in Goris. He was wounded and taken prisoner. He was from Yevlakh. They put us in 3 cells. Then they took our compatriot somewhere. He was also tortured and beaten. Later, I became interested in his family and himself, and I found him. Our servicemen captured in this war were tortured in Yerevan. They talked about it themselves. They filled the syringe with alcohol, hit the arms of those whose legs were cut off, and the feet of those who had legs.

--► Sincerely: SolaVirum 17:59, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks very much for translation. Thant article gallantly portraying Armenians as Nazis in Treblinka and going as far as claiming that "the PKK militants imprisoned in Shusha prison were later released and sent to fight." looks like a pure piece of confabulation for propaganda purposes. No wonder that BBC Azerbaijan did not mention all of that, whereas Virtual Az does. Unchecked, uninvestigated, unsupported by any other source, it has undue weight in this article. As all the other "torture" references from Azerbaijani media which has one of the worst index of media freedom in the world have the same features. Torture of prisoners is a serious allegation that requires more than just purely one-sided sources to be in the article. Armatura (talk) 19:14, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
To clearly adress your unconstructive statement, I have to notify you that we're not talking about the source itself. The article covers Virtual Azerbaijan's interview with Asgarov, who's notable enough. These are Asgarov's words, not Virtual Azerbaijan's. Also, unrelated, but might ease your concerns, Asgarov, in his latest interview with Kanal13, compared the police brutality in Azerbaijan with the Armenians' mistreatment of him during his imprisonment in Shusha. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 20:23, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Also, the reason why BBC Azerbaijani Service didn't mention it was because, one, the interview was given after BBC's coverage, and two, the interview itself is not in BBC's ownership. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 20:25, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
You are very kind to "notify me" what you are (or not) talking about (although just telling would be fine), Solavirum, but I am talking about the source itself. Are you able to provide even a moderate-quality non-Azerbaijani/Turkish source that cites that interview? If we leave the details of the torture aside, the article suddenly starts telling about "PKK fighters imprisoned in Shusha who were freed to fight on Armenian side" - something extraordinary that does not appear in other sources. I am asking as it is not a secret that media in Azerbaijan is almost entirely controlled by government, and while there is no reason to doubt it when it cites government positions, there is a valid reason to reasonably doubt everything else, especially with extraordinary statements incriminating Azerbaijan's archenemy in multiple aspects. And, yes, a self-respecting news outlet would have at least a mailbox within its domain, instead of "To place an ad, please contact virtualaz.org@gmail.com Regards, Armatura (talk) 01:50, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
For the future, know that you're not forces to mention the situation of the media and the Armenian Genocide on every thread. Secondly, Virtual Azerbaijan is heavily used by Eynulla Fatullayev, who is a dissident and was previously arrested for his comments on Khojaly massacre. Day.az has also published the same interview.[1] --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 10:00, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://news.milli.az/society/909904.html

Solavirum, in implausable future, when Solavirum finally stops speaking to others with that unacceptable tone, I may consider taking advice from Solavirum. Till that happens, I view the constant attacks as a method of discouraging editors with views different from yours to work on this and related articles. You're the first one to mention genocide in this thread, completely unrelatedly and inappropriately, using a sarcastic tone. There is a reason not to trust non-free media sources, whether Azerbaijani or a different county with known non-free media, mocking a reasonable doubt raised by an editor who doesn't automatically believe in everything what president Aliev/his propaganda machine says, is unacceptable. You know better than me that Day.az is one of the frontline parts of that machine, praising the "Master and Margarita" day and night. Armatura (talk) 03:15, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I will not reply to you furthermore unless you stop that tone (Aliev/his propaganda machine says) and accuse others of doing what you're actually doing. And, as I saw here, you don't have real arguments apart from "Azerbaijan bad dictator country terrorist" rhetoric. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 03:59, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Azerbaijan is an authoritarian state where the same family has been in power almost non-stop for half a century already, where son inherits presidency from his father and makes his wife a vice president, where media is heavily controlled by government and where the voice of dissent is almost unhearable. Freedomhouse is just one of the hundred links I could provide about authoritarian regime in Azerbaijan. One of the admins here also mentioned many times that media in Azerbaijan is not free, as a reason for scrutinising materials published in Azerbaijani sources only. Loving one's country, one can do two things about that situation: take the reality as it is and try to make it a better, free-er country or try to falsify Wikipedia, fill it with Azerbaijani government's POV and hope that nobody will notice (WP:notthere). I am sure you'll eventually chose the first (mature) option and refrain from second (immature) pathway. And so you don't think I'm specifically denigrating Azerbaijan, I recognize that Armenia was oligarchic state till 2018, and that the judiciary system is still utterly corrupt and that core issues such as human rights have a long way to go to become a core value, and that patriarchal society is yet to be replaced with equality and fair competition. Also, even if all North Koreans attack me in Wikipedia, it wouldn't change the fact that Kim is a dictator, and that sources published only in North Korean media need utmost scrutiny. Can't pretend blind, sorry. Have a good day. Armatura (talk) 12:48, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

You seem to forget the point here. I don't want to divert the topic like you're doing here, but no one here objected Azerbaijan's problems with its politics and human rights. Anyhow, this is an interview of Asgarov. These are his own words. Nothing else to say here. Furthermore, no one is attacking you, you're not a warrior. I don't care if Armenia was an oligarchic state in the past. I'm not pushing an agenda here, as you've seem to imply. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 12:57, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

No. They may be his own words. Or may be not. One cannot possibly know, unless one interviewed him. Bring me a good, English language, non-partisan source that cites that interview and I'll have no further objections. You (as all pro-Azerbaijani / pro-Turkish editors) get agitated when something in the article (unless it is the official position of Armenia) is referenced by Armenian-only sources, don't you? Armatura (talk) 13:40, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Ermm, no? On 16 October, according to Armenia's ombudsman report, an Azerbaijani serviceman had called the brother of an Armenian soldier from the latter's phone number, saying that his brother was with them and that they had beheaded him and were going to post his photos on the internet; according to Armenian sources, they did post the image online, I don't get "agiated" by this, which is only referenced by Armenia. There is also a difference between a news report and an interview. In many other cases, someone's "agitation" is not enough for deletion of information. And, finally, you drop that "pro-Azerbaijani/pro-Turkish editors" rhetoric. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 13:51, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Also, Virtual Azerbaijan's editor-in-chief is Eynulla Fatullayev,[1] a dissident. So avoid seeing it as New Azerbaijan Party's tongue. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 13:53, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://m.virtualaz.org/aktual/138875

It's not a "rhetoric" (not that rhetoric is bad thing) but something I've come across in Wikipedia, the level objectivity and impartiality of pro Armenian and pro Azerbaijani / pro Turkish editors in matters involving the disputed territories - many of us chronically forget that Wikipedia is not a battleground, and assumption of good faith is difficult when I see, for example, pro Azerbaijani / pro Turkish editors have coordinatee their WP edits in NKR / Armenia related articles (see the link on my page). As for the subject, Azerbaijani sources, dissident or not, have similar "rhetoric" when it comes to Armenia - Azerbaijan hostilities, I can't assume objectivity on Fattulaev's side either, sorry. The fact that there's no nobody outside Azerbaijan (or its allies) addressed that interview means we should keep high suspicion index about its accuracy, especially with extraordinary claims about PKK in it. It's unreliable, and I'm happy to take this to wider discussion as it looks like we're not reaching any constructive outcome from this discussion Armatura (talk) 19:07, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Your example of Armenian ombudsman's official report is not equivalent to the thread's subject. The reports that are official announcement of government and its infrastructures (of which obbudsman is a party of) can and should be cited, az much as president's / PM's official announcement's can. Armatura (talk) 19:12, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

The fact that some Azerbaijani Wikipedians did coordinated work 11 years ago in another Wikipedia makes it hard for you to assume good faith now? — CuriousGolden (T·C) 19:17, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Something you've came across here doesn't mean its okay. You dig a deeper hole in every single comment you make, many of us chronically forget that Wikipedia is not a battleground, and assumption of good faith is difficult when I see, for example, pro Azerbaijani / pro Turkish editors have coordinatee their WP edits in NKR / Armenia related articles. Also, I'd like to remind you that claiming PKK's involvement doesn't particularly mean you're biased or unreliable, just like how mentioning the Syrians isn't. The fact that there's no nobody outside Azerbaijan (or its allies) addressed that interview means we should keep high suspicion index about its accuracy, no, Virtual Azerbaijan isn't a new or an non-credible website to claim that such interview didn't happen, which is apparently your issue here. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 19:46, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

The example of Armenian ombudsman's official report is not equivalent to the thread's subject. The reports that are official announcement of government and its infrastructures (of which obbudsman is a party of) can and should be cited, az much as president's / PM's official announcement's can. Armatura (talk) 19:54, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

PKK is speculation pushed forward by Azerbaijani media and a few bogus Russian magazines. No confirmation from parties without conflict of interest in this war. Imprisoned PKK fighters in Shusha released to fight for Armenians is a masterpiece of propaganda, it's something extraordinary that no other credible sources claim. What PKK fighters were doing in Shushi prison in the first place??? It's as science fiction as Martians imprisoned in Shusha released to fight for Armenians. Will take to wider discussion, okay Armatura (talk) 21:46, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

For Syrian's, see multitude of credible sources already cited. Trying to create a false balance by adding PKK on Armenian side , just because Syrian mercenary involvement in Azerbaijani side was heavily revealed by credible sources, is clear POV pushing. There are discussions about this in separate threads and no need to push PKK speculation here too. Armatura (talk) 21:50, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Noam Chomsky's interview

Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

CuriousGolden, you removed a fragment of Noam Chomsky's interview that was cited in Israel's arms supply section, with a comment "rv deprecated/non-reliable source (nothing about this alleged interview anywhere else other than this site". A couple of thoughts:

  1. a source cannot be called deprecated unless it is labelled as deprecated in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources
  2. removing a source without mentioning the reason why you would consider the source as unreliable, you are violating WP:IDLI principle
  3. not sure what search engine you are using that cannot find the interview "anywhere else other than this site", but simple search in Google gives same interview on Chomksy.info], and you can hear the podcast of the interview here. Try using TOR or a VPN in case Azerbaijani internet providers are blocking the websites that contain words Armenia and Armenian.
  4. Please re-instate the removed text, asking this to you instead of reverting your edit.
  5. Please refrain from reverting unless you see an open vandalism, habitual reverting in a highly sensitive article creates a non-friendly atmosphere, is a symptom of WP:OWNERSHIP and is a recognised trigger for WP:Editwarring

Regards, Armatura (talk) 14:21, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Sure, but I'm going to replace the Armenian source with https://chomsky.info/20201010-2/ so others don't get confused like I was. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 14:35, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
CuriousGolden I have already replaced for your convenience. Armatura (talk) 18:48, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
That section needs copyediting. "[quote], [x person] told [y publication]" is not how Wikipedia uses prose. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 15:00, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring for the paragraph

Verman1 you removed the Noam Chomksy interview paragraph twice within 24 hours, thus exceeding 1-revert limitation applied by admins specifically to this article in Armenia-Azerbaijan category (where as the usual limitation in Wikipedia articles is >3 reverts). I wrote on your talk page about this with no answer over 24 hours. Can you please self-revert the changes you have done to demonstrate that violation of 1-revert rule was not intentional? Many thanks. Regards --Armatura (talk) 02:31, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Andair stopping sales to Baykar

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

CuriousGolden, you reverted my addition of Andair stopping sales to Turkish Baykar. While this decision came on 11th January 2021, the company, as you can see from their press release was approached by Armenian Embassy in UK on 2nd of November 2020 (during ongoing hostilities of 2020 Nagorno Karabakh war) and the large online petition for Andair on Changedotorg to cease selling parts to Baykar was started during the war as well. Andair did not just suddenly stop sales out of blue, it stopped sales because they learned their products were misused on military drones 2020 NKR war, hence the announcement is as related to 2020 NKR war as other (US, Canadian) manufacturer's discontinuation of sales to Baykar during the war. If you think Aftermath would be a better subsection for Andair sentence, that is fine, but I think it has the right to stay in this article. I added to Baykar and Bayraktar TB2 articles as well. Regards, --Armatura (talk)

Next time, try to make sure to also add information about how it relates to this article either in the article (e.g. "after being approached by Embassy of Armenia") or in the edit summary to avoid any confusion. I've added it back now. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 16:32, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 January 2021

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Change "Israel, was reported by the Saudi-owned Al-Arabiya to had continued shipping weapons" to "Israel was reported by the Saudi-owned Al-Arabiya to have continued shipping weapons" in the Arms supplies section. < Atom (Anomalies) 11:14, 15 January 2021 (UTC) < Atom (Anomalies) 11:14, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

  Done Pupsterlove02 talk • contribs 11:42, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Non-reliable sources

Latest comment: 3 years ago26 comments6 people in discussion

The use of Al-Arabiya, a Saudi-owned news channel, on matters of Israel, like it was done in 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war#Israel is highly problematic. Al-Arabiya has been discussed in WP:RS and WT:V several times, with all of them coming to the conclusion that they're not a reliable source on Pan-Arabic and Israeli matters (1, 2, 3).

Aside from this, Arutz Sheva is used as a source for an alleged statement by Jewish scholars calling Israel to stop arms sales to Azerbaijan. Arutz Sheva itself has been discussed in WP:RS and has been mostly identified as a non-reliable source. (1, 2). Not only this, but the alleged statement is impossible to find anywhere else on the internet except deprecated Armenian media sources, which greatly reminds me of this discussion about a source that published an alleged statement by well-known scholars, but it turned out at the end that it was made-up. The language in the article by Arutz Sheva is also obvious WP:POV. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 09:26, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with CuriousGolden. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 13:03, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Neither of those sources are deprecated, which is an important distinction to make. The linked discussions weren't RfCs and didn't come to a formal consensuses. It would definitely be preferable to replace them with better, more independent sources, but it's not a necessity – biased sources are acceptable as long as they're used carefully and balanced out. You could seek deprecation at the RS noticeboard if you felt strongly they need deprecation, but the bar is quite high (well, low). I haven't read the specific text you mention in the second example, but it sounds as if the issue is lack of relevance to the article as a whole and undue weight, rather than verifiability. You could remove it on those grounds (again, I haven't checked it myself). Jr8825 • Talk 14:30, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
I've renamed it to "non-reliable" instead of "deprecated" as that wasn't the correct terminology. And I don't think Al-Arabiya itself is unreliable all the time, but it surely isn't good to use a Saudi-owned news channel for news about that government's enemy, Israel. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 14:47, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
CuriousGolden It wouldn't not look good if it was the only source cited, but it looks okay when it is in the multitude of the sources saying the same thing, including the Israeli ones. Same way, Azerbaijani sources do not look good when they say something incriminating Armenia (like the ones about torture of Azerbaijani POWs), but they can be okay when multiple third party sources state the same. Regards, Armatura (talk) 16:05, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
I disagree CuriousGolden, and I will explain why (instead of just voting to create a majority or agreeing with anybody without explaining why I agree):
  1. there is a lengthy discussion about Al-Arabia on this talk page already, no need to duplicate a discussion. Adding Saudi owned and UAE-based is fine as well, that info is openly available.
  2. none of the sources you are disputing are deprecated on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, and that is what matters on Wikipedia. The fact that somebody discussed it at WP:RS noticeboard , without the source being deprecated as a result of that discussion, means that they can be used on Wikipedia, including this article. If you want them to be deprecated, as a whole, or in questions related to Israel or NKR, you are welcome to create a discussion on the relevant noticeboard, letting less emotionally involved editors to reach a conclusion.
  3. when I see you removing information written in Azerbaijani-only sources (from a country with one of the worst media freedom indexes in the word), I may understand why you are vigilantly removing everything that you think is written in Armenian media only. The rest is WP:IJDLI
  4. The open letter of Israeli Academics, apart from Israel National News and Armenian media, is cited by Eretz,Institute on The Holocaust and Genocide in Jerusalem, Gagrule.net and you can find it on academic publications index Academia.eu.
  5. If you want to add something from the disclaimer "The following represents the personal views of a group of Israeli scholars of Caucasian and associated studies from different institutions of higher learning, and does not reflect the positions of the Hebrew University nor its Armenian Studies Program" for better attribution that is absolutely fine, keeping the already excessive length of this WP article in mind though. Regards, Armatura (talk) 14:58, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
And how exactly is 8 professors and 2 Doctors' call to end arms sale relevant to a section dedicated to Israeli arms sale to Azerbaijan? As you already pointed out, the article already has excessive length and this is clearly WP:UNDUE as Jr8825 pointed out above. This also applies to the Chomsky interview, you added which doesn't provide any new information rather than repeating same WP:UNDUE. We're not supposed to add every interview/statement about the conflict here, especially when this article is too long already. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 15:11, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
CuriousGolden I am afraid your efforts of removing/deprecating sentences that incriminate Israel in this war (from main text and infobox), unless well-supported by good sources, are consistent with WP:IJDLI. May I advise you not to misuse WP guidelines or senior member Jr8825's words, especially when he says he has not read the specific text you mention? The letter of Israeli academics asking to immediately cease arms sales by Israel to Azerbaijan in general and during the active war in particular is highly relevant - it highlights the problem (which some editors here are denying despite multiple sources, as they deny, for example, the Armenian Genocide ) and, along with Israeli publications and Jewish students' association's announcement demonstrate the fact that intellectual circles in Israel/Jewish world are aware of the problem and openly condemn it, unlike the Israeli government which puts money above humanity by continuing those sales. Same for Russia, as a matter of fact, that arms both sides, and everybody else who thinks it is a good idea to arm warring countries to the detriment of human lives on both sides, If there was a little shame left in the worlds' governments, an arm embargo would have been be in place both for Armenia and Azerbaijan since the very beginning of this chronic conflict. And if you are worried about excessive length of the article, look at Musayev's paragraph that itself represents an article, and then ask that question to yourself. This article's length does not mean you should remove relevant, confirmed, concisely written text. Armatura (talk) 16:00, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
It'd be nice if you kept your comments' content strictly about the thing this discussion is about rather than accusing me of random things, which I'm used to from you by now, as you do it in almost all of our interactions, and bringing in random topics such as Armenian Genocide (which you seem to be accusing me & others editors of denying when I don't) or expressing personal opinions about what foreign governments should've done. The only possible argument about the actual topic I could find from your comment is that you seem to imply that the statement of a few Israeli professors somehow shows that all intellectual circles in Israel condemn Israeli arms sales, which obviously isn't the case. It's still obvious to me that its inclusion is WP:UNDUE. And your last sentences are just whataboutism, therefore I won't respond to them. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 16:15, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Kudoz for the courage of not denying something that is denied by your government, you are a rare exception then, I am only glad to hear that. As for the topic, it'd be nice if you don't look for implications where there aren't any - the text I added to article clearly describes who says what with proper attribution, without generalization for "all intellectuals". The counterarguments, though, appeared to try to trivialise those voices who had the courage to go for humanism against their (Israeli) government's foreign policy, hence the response that followed. Have a good day. Armatura (talk) 16:48, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Still not sure how this makes it any more relevant. Do we just add every statement/interview by anyone in foreign countries who disagree with their government's position on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict? This is exactly why it's WP:UNDUE and doesn't actually help in adding anything of value to the question of Israeli arms supply to Azerbaijan during the war which the section is supposed to be about. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 16:57, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
And aside from these, you've also added a statement from World Union of Jewish Students. Literally a statement by just students. How is this any different than adding a statement by a random celebrity/blogger to a section about arms sales? — CuriousGolden (T·C) 17:20, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
CuriousGolden, a non-deprecated Israeli (non-Armenian, non-Azerbaijani) source is provided, linking to the letter itself on WUJS Facebook page (also available on their Twitter page, it is apparently not invented by Arutz Sheva or Armenian media. You are welcome to discuss it on noticeboard if you want Arutz Sheva deprecated. If you have problem with the newspaper being Israeli, or Zionism (a legal school of thought) which the newspaper is associated with, there is a Greek media, for example. I don't think CNN or BBC are going to write about it, but hey, not everything in this article is referenced by world's top 10 news outlets (look at the multitude of small Azerbaijani and Armenian sources used). I am not sure what do you mean "just students" and "random celebrity/blogger", sounds like triviliasing again. It's not just a couple of random students commenting in Reddit, it's World Union of Jewish Students with announcement on their rejection of Israeli arms sales (and also on recognition of Armenian Genocide). The organization is large and notable enough to have Wikipedia article about them, WUJS is an umbrella association with member organisations all over the world, with 41 National Unions and 2 Regional Unions (Latin America and Europe), representing the Jewish students of over 55 countries worldwide. Albert Einstein was their first President. If you are still not convinced about their notability or if you think they're just a random bunch of spoiled kids, then see WP:IJDLI Armatura (talk) 18:46, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
It indeed is a World Union. Of students. Having an article about them on Wikipedia doesn't justify the fact that their statement is irrelevant to the question of Israeli arms sale to Azerbaijan and is an obvious WP:UNDUE on an already-too-long article. And it's not "triviliasing", it's a fair comparison. The opinion of a student organization on state matters of arms sales is just as relevant as a random blogger's opinion on a conflict. And the fact that you're using "Einstein met with their president" as a way to justify their relevance speaks for itself. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 18:58, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
There is just no point in trying to convince me with those methods (WP:IJDLI-ism), CuriousGolden. Students are people, not a disadvantaged voiceless meaningless bunch of nobodies. Young Turks were students, you know. If you want to discuss WUJS notability, there is a separate talk page / noticeboard for that. Open a dispute resolution if you like. And Einstein did not meet their president, Einstein (one may argue - just a random guy) was their president (removed the redundant "with"), as well as David Ben Gurion - first Prime Minister of Israel. Good day. Armatura (talk) 19:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Labeling every argument you don't like as WP:IJDLI won't get this discussion anywhere. Students are people, but their opinion isn't relevant enough to be featured in a Wikipedia article's section about one country's arms sale to another (unless they're a military expert or a prominent political figure). I'm not questioning WUJS's notability, I'm questioning it's relevance to this article's Arms supply section. I see no way how this is useful information to the section or helps in any way to prove or disprove the alleged Israeli arms sale during the war, which is what the section is supposed to be about. I'd open a dispute resolution if I knew that you were ready for a compromise (since that's how DRs work), but since you've demonstrated above that you're clearly not, I'd rather ask the opinion of other editors here. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 19:27, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
CuriousGolden Feel free to go ahead. Make sure the other editors are free of strong Azerbaijani / Turkish / Armenian / Israeli / anti-Isaraeli POV please. Armatura (talk) 01:58, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Let me remind you that we're not here for genocide denying or recognizing. You have to stop talking about everything else but the topic. Our personal opinion on stuff are unrelated and no one is obligated to satisfy one another. There was an Armenian here who systematically denied Khojaly massacre, did we care about it here? No. Just stick to the topic itself and don't focus on others' personal stuff. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 19:30, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
May I remind you that you should not attack / bully editors as per WP:HARASS and you should focus instead on the topic yourself, Solavirum. The methodology of attacking somebody when weak arguments do not work is not going to work for long in Wikipedia. Simply voting "I agree with my wiki-pal" is not an argument Armatura (talk) 19:53, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
You did it again. For the last time, I have nothing personal about you and I don't care (I don't have a reason to care) about your personal opinions. You're the one to divert the topic and then claim victimhood (seriously, bullying?) for many times. We're not here to say "X editor is a person, Y editor is a good person." CuriousGolden is not my "pal", like the editor who accused me of working for the government, if you have serious evidence, don't go for such heavy accusations. The reason why I said I agreed with him was because I believed that his/her argument was good enough. Again, for the millionth time, stick to the topic. Nobody here cares about others' personal life or opinions. We're talking about the Wikipedia article, not someone's personal thought. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 20:12, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Please keep civil tone as per WP:CIVILITY, and focus on the topic, giving an example so others can follow, Solavirum. Or is this a case of "do what Romans say not what Romans do"? When a person feels attacked by yourself, and tells you about it, and your reply is "I am not attacking" instead of "sorry, did not want you to feel like that", it does not help. Reflection of what the others may feel, after the devastating war, is what's lacking. And derogatory comments about "victimhood" (for the millionth time, as you say) make it worse only. If you have problem with my behaviour, raise it on my talk page or the noticeboard of your taste, please. Armatura (talk) 20:42, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Armatura, I do not know, and do not care, about the strengths of either of your arguments - the Nagorno-Karabakh war is not in the least my area of expertise and I have literally no idea about the workings of NKR, Armenia or Azerbaijan. Wrangle about whatever it is you're wrangling about, it isn't a problem. However, I must ask you, what on Earth are you on about in this thread? What was uncivil in what Solavirum said? I am very sorry to say this, but you are the one who cast the first stone of hostility here starting with "I disagree CuriousGolden, and I will explain why (instead of just voting to create a majority or agreeing with anybody without explaining why I agree)". What is that even supposed to mean? It is a very well-known fact that arguments on Wikipedia are not won by number of !votes but by strength of arguments. Solavirum's blunt comment that they supported Golden may or may not have been needed, but why did you have to make a scene out of that, when you already knew that that !vote was pointless? You did not WP:AGF, I'm afraid, and from what I've seen elsewhere in this talk page, there has been literally zero 'uncivility', as you keep claiming for heaven alone knows what reason, on the part of CuriousGolden or Solavirum. Mere opposition to you does not amount to uncivility, nor does pointing out that you're bringing up stuff that is not particularly relevant to the discussion. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI converse | fings wot i hav dun 14:00, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI I don't know how you ended up taking the role of mediator (and sides) in a thread that discusses a topic that you have no idea about or care about, sorry. We care about the topic, and there is a lot of sensitivity to it. If I was you, I'd refrain from doing that, and from too much emotionality too ("what on earth", "heaven alone knows", etc). There is a long history of toxic interaction between Armenian and Azerbaijani editors preceding this thread (including, for example, a confirmed coordinated action of some Azerbaijani editors in Russian Wikipedia in Armenia / Nagorno Karabakh related topics - see my personal page), and you won't have complete understanding of it looking at things in isolation out of context. Have a good day Armatura (talk) 18:54, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Armatura, per every single comment, fails to provide a fair point or argument and wrongfully cites the guidelines. We care about the topic, and there is a lot of sensitivity to it; There is a long history of toxic interaction between Armenian and Azerbaijani editors preceding this thread, these are unrelated comments and undue at its best. And, just because several ethnic Azerbaijani editors did something in a different project more than a decade ago doesn't give a basis to engage in tendentious editing. You've mentioned that for God knows how many times, and you think that somehow that makes your point legitimate. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 19:49, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

It does, as a matter of fact, and I'll probably raise it on a noticeboard, as some of those editors (at least the same names) are currently editing AA / NKR topics on English Wikipedia, with same zealousness for pushing Azerbaijani POV forward, no change in behaviour, making assumption of good faith practically impossible Armatura (talk) 21:36, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Without sourcing it is claimed Hamza division and Sultan Murad division paeticipated in the war. What is the source? Numreddin (talk) 07:02, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Editing guidelines to reduce tensions

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I was recently made aware of the existence of Wikipedia:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation and I found its editing guidelines to be very sensible measures for reducing tensions between editors on different sides. The project was an apparent success, despite high tensions in Sri Lanka at that time. I see that another project Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration was inspired by it, and another one preceding it Wikipedia:Greek and Turkish Wikipedians cooperation board. The latter two, in my opinion, are probably the closest to the conflict around Nagorno-Karabakh.

While having such a WikiProject for Nagorno-Karabakh war is a subject for wider thought and discussion on WikiProjects Azerbaijan, Armenia and Artsakh, I thought we could start using those guidelines with immediate effect, to the benefit of this and related articles and the involved editors' nerves. Interested to hear opinions of all editors of this article. Regards --Armatura (talk) 12:21, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Units involved

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Please provide source for Sultan Murad and Hamza division or remove them from the list. KY-Acc (talk) 19:36, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Sources are provided above that. FlalfTalk 15:22, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Lead

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Why dedicate so much space in the lead to ceasefire violations? I think information about that does not belong to the lead, and certainly does not deserve taking half of the space in the lead. I suggest we remove that info from there altogether, and keep it in the main body of the article. It will help to keep the article more compact. Grandmaster 19:57, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that should be moved to the Aftermath section or trimmed down. The article itself is currently marked as too long and we should avoid bloating any part of it. Brandmeistertalk 21:12, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
I deleted that whole section from the intro, but I did not move it to Aftermath, because ceasefire violations appear to be described there in sufficient detail. However if any valuable information was lost, it could be readded to Aftermath section. Grandmaster 23:56, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 29 November 2020

Latest comment: 3 years ago69 comments49 people in discussion
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: not moved.

This is an interesting discussion to close. The supports have a majority in terms of numbers, however, as there is no tyranny of the majority we also need to take a closer look at arguments. To be valid, votes should either make or refer to arguments which have a sound basis in PAGs, or intentionally make a convincing IAR rationale. Around half of the support votes were not substantive; they were "per nom", "per others", "per my comments in a previous discussion", or literally just "support[]" with no rationale, or reference to a possible rationale, given. "Per others" is unclear, as is "per nom" as much of the nom did not have a sound basis in enwiki policy. I'm inclined to give such comments less weight than well-researched comments, in either direction (support or oppose), which tried to match this proposal to our policies and guidelines, and/or look to reliable sources. Further, some comments on both sides were outright original research. Whilst this does not mean the arguments were factually wrong, it does mean they were not sound as far as they related to this discussion and our policies.

The most sound of the support rationales, where they were given, was to be WP:CONSISTENT with First Nagorno-Karabakh War. Some opposers argued that the move of First Nagorno-Karabakh War was flawed, although this is probably not the place to redecide that. Opposers also made their own substantive arguments with a strong basis in PAGs, namely: (a) that there is no evidence given of the term being common in RS; (b) that the term is not easily recognisable; (c) that the term may be outright original research.

Opposers chose to provide evidence for their remarks - they did an analysis of existing sources which found a distinct lack of the proposed name's usage. I chose to value these arguments, ones which looked beyond the encyclopaedia for reliable sources, quite highly. Editors supporting largely did not produce or rebut such evidence (aside from one threaded discussion relating to think tanks), which is slightly surprising to me. I don't know if these were correct portrayals of available sourcing, but as these were the only arguments actually produced on this page I'm inclined to treat them as they were. Some opposers were explicitly not opposed to the title in perpetuity, but suggested waiting until RS's settle on a certain name.

As a result, I do not see a consensus to move this title to Second Nagorno-Karabakh War. As for next steps, here are some personal suggestions:

  • In the immediate future, if editors wish to reconcile First Nagorno-Karabakh War with WP:CONSISTENT a move can be proposed there. I suggest a small discussion beforehand to settle on a suitable title before formally starting the RM.
  • In the longer term, as consensus can change, editors may wish to try an RM on this title again at some point in the future:
    • If that title is to Second Nagorno-Karabakh War again, I suggest editors look to reliable sources and supply evidence, or to WP:AT/WP:NCEVENTS for alternative naming policies, to make their rationales. Although this is often done implicitly, as this has caused multiple RMs to fail here I would suggest doing so explicitly if a future one is to occur.
    • If that title is to something else, and assuming the "First" page hasn't been moved, I suggest doing an RM of multiple pages in the same discussion; rather than deciding on one and using WP:CONSISTENT to decide on the other, it may work better to do a holistic consideration of both pages together.

Hope this helps! (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:00, 20 January 2021 (UTC)


2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war → Second Nagorno-Karabakh War – By far the name most supported by editors, "Second Nagorno-Karabakh War" is the name of the article of the Azerbaijani Wikipedia page and is included as an alternate name on the Armenian Wikipedia page. I would also venture to say that it is the most popular name in Azerbaijan, and the country's President Ilham Aliyev has used this name already.

Furthermore, it makes no sense that the First Nagorno-Karabakh War was moved and this article was not. The first war happened 30 years ago, and it was never referred to as the "First War" until two months ago, and yet it was moved. Meanwhile, some people were already talking about this conflict as the "Second War" from the first days it started. Super Ψ Dro 14:27, 29 November 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. TheTVExpert (talk) 15:22, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

  • Oppose Honestly, I cannot understand why the war was renamed to First Nagorno-Karabakh War. The very first Karabakh war between two countries was in 1918-1920. Karabakh was settled in favor of Azerbaijan, which didn't satisfy ethnic Armenians of Karabakh and which resulted to another war in 90s. I'm against of any renamings to First, Second, Third etc. as it is controversial regardless what media outlets write about this conflict. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 15:35, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
I don't know much about the 1918-1920 war, but from what I see, it was not limited to Nagorno-Karabakh, it was a full-scale conflict that also occurred in Nakhchivan, the modern south of Armenia and inner parts of Azerbaijan. The 1988-1994 and 2020 wars were, however, concentrated mainly in the Nagorno-Karabakh region. Super Ψ Dro 23:00, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Super Dromaeosaurus It is because no ethnic Armenians left in Nakhijevan, but the ethnic Armenians of Karabakh resisted. These all three wars are interconnected. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 09:46, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, they were, but still, I don't think the 1918-1920 can be exclusively considered a "Nagorno-Karabakh War". Super Ψ Dro 12:49, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
War numbering is wrong. This gives the wrong impression that the war of the 90s is the first war for the region and before that there were no wars. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 13:54, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Lot of sources refer to the first war as the first war, nobody calls that war happened 1 century ago the first war. Beshogur (talk) 15:41, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
So why in the Background section of every clashes between Armenians and Azerbaijanis we write about war for Karabakh in 1918-1920, which lead to another war? If we want to call 90s the First and 2020s the Second, it supposes that there was no war before. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 15:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Isn't there a discussion above? --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 15:36, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, in any case, I support the move. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 15:37, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
That discussion was just a proposal to see if there was enough support to start an actually formal move request, and since there was, I opened one. Super Ψ Dro 23:00, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Neither the discussion above nor this move request show this name being used by reliable sources, let alone becoming a common name. Even the Aliyev source above calls it the "Second Karabakh War", not the "Second Nagorno-Karabakh War". CMD (talk) 01:14, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Aliyev (or Azerbaijanis) does not say "Nagorno-Karabakh" because the region is called "Karabakh" in Azerbaijani. "Nagorno" is just a Russian word that means "Mountainous". And the war did not happen in only mountainous regions neither in the first or the second war. In fact, the first war is also called "Karabakh war" in Azerbaijani. The reason why he (or Azerbaijani people) does not call it as "Mountainous Karabakh War" is because the war did not happen only in the mountainous region. The region surrounding the mountainous region was also occupied. Tulparus (talk) 03:34, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Support First Nagorno-Karabakh war implies the existence of the second one. The main combatants are the same, the location is the same. The reason of this war is tightly connected with the previous war. Unlike the minor clashes since the first war that did not change anything, this time the result is a decisive victory, resulting in the capitulation of Artsakh and the surrender of Armenia. Tulparus (talk) 03:22, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
I consider 2020 being more vague as the July 2020 Armenian–Azerbaijani clashes also happened this year. Furthermore, this is the only major conflict since 1994, the others were clashes and skirmishes with few casualities (compared to this war) and few changes on the map. Super Ψ Dro 12:49, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Can't agree with you. July 2020 Armenian–Azerbaijani clashes took place far away from the Nagorno-Karabakh. Secondly, 2016 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict which was actually a war, took the lives of not "few casualties", but thousands of soldiers. --Ліонкінг (talk) 11:12, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Yes, that conflict had heavy casualities, but its consequences are not comparable to those of the 1988-1994 and 2020 wars, Azerbaijan only regained a few lands. It cannot be considered one of the "Nagorno-Karabakh Wars". Super Ψ Dro 11:43, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Not all wars have in final result a large victory of some party. Some terminate at status-quo. Once again, you have initially told that there were "few casualties" in 2016. There were over 1,000 deaths in 2016, compared to over 5,000 in 2020. For sure, there were fewer casualties in 2016, but 5 times, not 50 times. In 2016, it wasn't a local skirmish, it was a large-scale offensive of Azerbaijani Forces, using combat aviation, tanks, and artillery systems with attempts to take the positions along the entire frontline. Somewhere they managed to succeed, from some taken positions they were forced to flee by Armenian counter-offensive. I hope that I have responded to all your arguments. --Ліонкінг (talk) 07:57, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support It makes sense to call it Second as the territorial changes are akin to First, the losses for 44 days are comparable to losses of First(taking into account obviously the non active phases and the change in technologies), Its being actively called Second by Russian and Azerbaijani Media, i have also seen across most of Media and some Armenian Political Analyst calling it Second war as well, also it helps to to remove the confusion between two wars. Regarding the war of 1918-1920 unlike Frist and Second N/K War it was not limited to Qarabaqh region but was all over Azerbaijan and Armenia as well parts of modern Day Turkey Agulani (talk) 12:43, 7 December 2020 (UTC) 12:09, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I've not seen any evidence presented to show that reliable secondary sources have started using this term since the previous discussion on renaming was closed just under a month ago, with a consensus against using "Second" or "War" (proper noun). I've searched through a collection of standard news sources (BBC, The Guardian, NYT, Al Jazeera, The Economist) and none of them call it the "Second Nagorno-Karabakh War", preferring to simply describe it as a war or conflict. So far, I've not seen any use of the phrase among well-established current affairs publications, let alone widespread use. There's no rush to change the name – we should wait to see if it becomes adopted over time, at which point it can moved with uncontroversially without the need for discussion. It would be WP:OR to make this change now with no precedent in the secondary sources. Jr8825 • Talk 20:05, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Support First war implies the existence of the second one.Yakamoz51 (talk) 08:08, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support as consistent with first. Vici Vidi (talk) 08:20, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose There were wars in Karabakh between Armenians and Azerbaijanis in 1918-1920, 1991-1994 (1987-1994), 2016, 2020. How should we count them, and whether should we count them at all? Even here, there are disputes on that, so what for should we give the original number of the war, creating disputes and inaccurateness, instead of linking it to the year which no one can doubt that the war has happened in 2020. --Ліонкінг (talk) 11:52, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
As someone pointed out before, nobody calls the 1918-1920 war (which wasn't limited to Nagorno-Karabakh) as the "First Nagorno-Karabakh War" or something like that. And again, the 2016 war did not have the scale of the other two wars or its consequences, nor have I seen anyone referring to it as the "Second Nagorno-Karabakh War" or similar. Super Ψ Dro 11:43, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
You are right, that the war of 1918-1920 wasn't limited to Nagorno-Karabakh. But it is a great fault to say that the first war in Nagorno-Karabakh between Armenians and Azerbaijanis occurred in 1991, because the war of 1918-1920 was widely affected Nagorno-Karabakh with major battles happening there. The terms "First" and "Second" war are attempting to establish Azerbaijani state-funded media, that's why no one called the other wars by numbers. As for 2016 war, many sources called it "Four-Day War" or "April War" - there are respective references in the main article. I've mentioned above, that Azerbaijan has launched a large-scale offensive along the entire frontline, using aviation, artillery systems and tanks. Over a thousand soldiers died. I can't stand, why in this uncertain dispute situation with the numbering of Nagorno-Karabakh wars, we should provide the article names with the dispute and unreliable names with numbering, instead of just putting the year which is completely reliable and undisputable. --Ліонкінг (talk) 08:08, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose the reasons proposed for moving are either OR or OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I agree that it's less than optimal that this page and First Nagorno-Karabakh War follow conflicting naming schemes, but the solution to that is a discussion that addresses both at once, not a knee-jerk mimicking of the other article, especially when the discussion for renaming there didn't take into consideration parallel arguments made about titles at previous move discussions here. signed, Rosguill talk 16:49, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Conditional support: If this is going to be named to First Nagorno-Karabakh war, not War, because it is not a proper name like the first one. Beshogur (talk) 17:05, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Though much shorter in duration, this was a major war, and it reversed most of the results of the first war.--RM (Be my friend) 17:56, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support I support. Because this war is second full-scale war in Nagorno-Karabakh and the Azerbaijani people call this war the “Second Nagorno-Karabakh War”.EljanM (talk) 21:29, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Second Nagorno-Karabakh War sounds rad, eh. A lot less clunky as well than 2020 and also is widely used in the media. -- Abbasi786786 (talk) 16:37, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose and comment. Jr8825 put it best: there has been no evidence presented to show that reliable English secondary sources have started using this term. The recently-closed move discussion at First Nagorno-Karabakh War was similarly light on evidence, and did not sufficiently argue a case backed by WP:COMMONNAME.
Some of the arguments I see in this thread are that we should rename based on "what people are saying", "what Aliyev has said", "what the Azerbaijani Wikipedia is doing", and what is "less clunky", but none of these represent "a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources". We should instead be looking at standard news sources (BBC, The Guardian, NYT, Al Jazeera, The Economist) and well-established current affairs publications, none of which have started using this name.
I think naming these conflicts the "First" and "Second" Nagorno-Karabakh Wars (with capital W, no less, which indicates a proper noun) is getting way, way ahead of the sources – we should wait longer for the significance of this new conflict to forge a clear WP:COMMONNAME. — Goszei (talk) 01:36, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Support, with a capital W. "Nagorno-Karabakh War" was a proper name, I fail to see why that has ceased to be the case just because there's now a first and a second. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 23:06, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment The all-capitalized term "Second Nagorno-Karabakh War" seems to have gained some currency among think tanks and specialists in military and foreign policy matters. For example, it has been used in a publication of the Royal Australian Air Force (link here), and of the Valdai Discussion Club (Moscow think tank, link here). It was used by the Director of the Russia Studies Program at the CNA think tank in Arlington, VA who wrote an article entitled "The Second Nagorno-Karabakh War, Two Weeks In" which is listed in his bio page at the CNA website (click on "See more" until October 14, 2020); this is not necessarily a "reliable source" strictly speaking but it's indicative of usage in specialist circles, in this case by a Washington-based military analyst. It has been used by Armenpress (main state news agency of Armenia, link here) in all-capitalized form, and in case-insensitive form by various Armenian, Azerbaijani and Turkish sources. On the other hand, the term "2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War" (or "war") is used in a publication of the European Council on Foreign Relations (link here), and of the American Enterprise Institute think tank (link here). This is a very plausible renaming, although usage seems to be split. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 04:16, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
    @P.T. Aufrette: Thank you for locating these sources. However, I think the usage by think tanks at large is still dwarfed by other options. For the following, I used the specialized Google think tank search engine provided by Harvard's library [1] (capitalization insensitive):
    • "Nagorno Karabakh war" – Captures results about the old fighting as well. Usage appears largely descriptive, as in the phrase "the new Nagorno-Karabakh war".
    • "2020 Nagorno Karabakh war" – Only returns the AEI and ECFR titles that you provided, from what I can see. Note: both the AEI and ECFR articles are using it descriptively in the body instead of as a proper noun, i.e. lowercase.
    • "Second Nagorno Karabakh war" – Almost no results, one of which is the CNA link you posted. The story doesn't appear to be endorsed by the think tank, though, just written by its expert, who was writing for warontherocks.com.
A simple unqualified search for "Nagorno Karabakh" and a look through the results reveals that there is clearly no proper, capitalized name for this conflict, only various descriptive ones ("fighting", "violence", "conflict", "war"). A similar confusion is the source of the multiple RM's that have transpired at Talk:Syrian civil war.
My conclusion from this is that there is not yet a proper name for this war, which will likely take time. Think tanks are generally more long-term/history-minded than the media (which certainly has not decided on a proper name), so we should continue to look to the think tanks moving forward. As I said above, I think we should remain at a non-judgmental descriptive title per naming policy, either "2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war" or "conflict". — Goszei (talk) 22:03, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
@Goszei: A newer example from December 7: OC Media used the term "Second Nagorno-Karabakh War" (link here). "OC" = "Open Caucasus", this publication specializes in the region and has some very major European donors and sponsors including governments and Soros-style NGOs (scroll to the bottom of their About Us page). Also, for what it's worth, the podcast Radio War Nerd by Mark Ames and John Dolan used the term (fully capitalized on the podcast episode's web page) back in October. It's an example of specialist usage, in the sense that these two guys have considerable background (journalistic rather than academic) in both the post-Soviet sphere and warfare. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 18:14, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Some more usage by think tanks or specialized publications focusing on geopolitical matters:
  • Support The conflict is clearly a sequel to the 1988-94 Nagarno Karabakh war and most sources call it that. Even more sources will call it the second nagarno karabakh war as time passes, since the conflict has just occurred . Ridax2020 (talk) 10:55, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War: RT, Azer News, The Atlantic, Catholic News Agency

Just Nagorno-Karabakh War: Al Jazeera, National Geographic, The Wall Street Journal, Foreign Policy, The Guardian, Washington Post

Obviously just calling it Nagorno-Karabakh probably won't stick in the future because once it is further in the past they will need to clarify between the two, whether they do that with 2020 or second--Pithon314 (talk) 19:50, 15 January 2021 (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.

Splitting proposals

Latest comment: 3 years ago6 comments6 people in discussion

The article is reaching 500K at this point. So, I propose to trim and split some parts of it. For example:

  1. Suspected war crimes; split to War crimes in the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war.
  2. Official statements; trim to other sections.
  3. International reactions; split to International reactions to the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war.

--► Sincerely: SolaVirum 07:31, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Good suggestions, Solavirum Armatura (talk) 20:29, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, I think #2 and #3 are particularly high priorities. I'll try to help if I can find the time. Jr8825 • Talk 19:40, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
I support all. First priority should be the international reactions. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:37, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
I fully support splitting this article in any of the ways suggested. We can also shrink it by throwing out the pointless archiving on live references. pauli133 (talk) 18:54, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
The timeline's already split off, so it wouldn't be a huge decision to split off other parts of the article; I would suggest keeping #2 in the article and maybe splitting off #1 or #3. User:Heyoostorm_talk! 18:44, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

"which was also referred to by various other names" in the lead

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
The 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war, which was also referred to by various other names

sounds lengthy, somewhat English-as-second-language to me, perhaps a literary translation from Russian которая также известна как x y z ?) and gives only 8,9K results in Google. I suggest ditching the which is and paraphrasing to: 

The 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war, also known by several other names

which has 187k results in Google Regards, --Armatura (talk) 16:21, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Might sound like that to you, but I believe otherwise. I've seen the usage of referred to more often than also known in English Wikipedia. Furthermore, I've very clearly stated in my edit description that I adopted it from this article, which I doubt it being translated from the Russian, as the topic is very unrelated and I don't know how the user got that idea from. It was untouched for many years as of now. Though, editors that posses professional level of grasping the English might take a look into it. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 16:28, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
I've removed this clause entirely, as the section on names is directly below and I think it was overcomplicating the first sentence. Jr8825 • Talk 13:10, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Causalities

Latest comment: 3 years ago12 comments5 people in discussion

It is still not clear if official Armenian casualty statistics include losses of both Republic of Armenia and Karabakh, or just the Republic of Armenia. It is not clear even for Armenian experts. So it is hard for us to decide how to reconcile two statistics of the casualties on the Armenian side. [2] Grandmaster 10:57, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps we should add both with a note near them saying (per Armenia) and (per Artsakh) ? — CuriousGolden (T·C) 11:05, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
That could be done, because at this point it is not clear if the two statistics are mutually inclusive or not. Grandmaster 11:33, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
No, because that would be double-counting. This was already discussed very recently. See the previous discussion here [3]. The statistics cited by the Armenian Ministry of Health and other Armenian officials refer to all ethnic Armenian military fatalities, while Artsakh cited those same figures as referring to Artsakh military fatalities and also additionally says how many of have been identified by this point. We had a discussion regarding this during the war as well. At the time, we established that regular servicemen of Armenia who were killed during the conflict are on Artsakh'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 Artsakh's list of servicemen killed. By December 11 [4], Artsakh was regularly citing the Armenian Ministry of Health's overall figures as presenting the overall death toll of the Artsakh military and additionally said how many of those were identified. After that, Artsakh has only periodically announced the figure of those identified, while Armenia announces the overall toll of all soldier bodies recovered. So these are not two separate sets of figures, one refers to the overall number, and the other refers to those who have been identified. Further, all third party independent sources are citing only one (the higher overall) official figure of Armenian dead. EkoGraf (talk) 13:32, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Nope, we cant draw that conclussion based on a assumption, the best thing to do is to use the current number provided by Armenia since they refer to ethnic Armenians, regarding double counting or not, we should wait if another official Armenian official indicate otherwise. We are using the official Azerbaijani number of dead (Az MOD), why we should use another non-official source for the Armenian losses?.Mr.User200 (talk) 14:10, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you @Mr.User200:, that's the other thing I wanted to mention. Until now, we have used only official Azerbaijani figures and thus we should use only official Armenian figures, and avoid using non-official analyst speculation. EkoGraf (talk) 14:15, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
It's not an unofficial figure, it's Artsakh's figure. But I agree with what EkoGraf said and Armenia's list probably includes Karabakh Armenians as well. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 14:18, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
On my part, when I said unofficial, I was referring to comments by the military analyst. EkoGraf (talk) 14:36, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
It would be good if an Armenian official gave a clarification on this. If Armenian military experts are not sure about the figures, then how can we definitely know what those figures mean? Grandmaster 22:49, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

The Armenian casualities are counted and listed by Artsakh Defence Army; the number is changing as according to the Armenian law you can't consider someone dead if you don't have his body as evidence. So, this number is periodically updating and publishing by the Artsakh Defence Army. In the list published by Artsakh the groups divided into Artsakh regular army, volunteers and reservists. Per Artsakh and Armenia would be an option to mention in the infobox, but not separately. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 16:35, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

But then the list of NK does not include the army of Republic of Armenia, right? It is very confusing. Grandmaster 22:46, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
It includes, just official authorities claim that participants were Artsakh Defence Army, reservists and volunteers. It's a more likely a political thing. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 19:21, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

"CNDec12"

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

There's a cite error on this page, which reads as follows:
Cite error: The named reference 'CNDec12' was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Does anyone know what this source is/was? Maybe it was from another article (like a lot of the cite errors were on List of University of Pennsylvania people)? Finnaboing (talk) 15:22, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I think it was a CivilNet article added by AntonSamuel. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 15:33, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

International analysts believe that fighting likely began with an Azerbaijani offensive,[86][89] with the primary goal of reclaiming the less mountainous districts of southern Nagorno-Karabakh, which were easier to take than the region's well-fortified interior.[90] - this should be changed to Some international analysts believe... because there is no consensus about the beginning of the hostilities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbrosenasad (talk • contribs) 02:03, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Second_Nagorno-Karabakh_War/Archive_18&oldid=1137178600"