Talk:Second Nagorno-Karabakh War/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Map

Shelling/bombardment by Azerbaijan
Shelling/bombardment by Armenia

Speaking of maps, I made one about the shellings and bombardments during the war. It may also find its place in this article or the timeline. --Don-kun (talk) 12:52, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Don-kun thank you for your effort. The targets are used based on Azerbaijani and Armenian statements? We don't have enough WP:RS for most of the cities and towns. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 16:50, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, based on the statements of either side. I used those documented in the timeline (only those with sources) and added some not mentioned there, that are mentioned in the German article which was in part written by me. So I was familiar with the sources. Listing every source for every target would be a mess though. --Don-kun (talk) 18:51, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Don-kun Well, we would need reliable sources because, for example, attacks on Mingechavir is serious accusation. I would like to see what other editors think. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 11:46, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Honestly, I feel like we can show it in the war crimes section with the caption clearly noting and emphasizing that these are alleged bombings and not confirmed. It would be very hard to confirm each bombing, and it's not something that regular Wikipedia editors like us can do. On another note regarding design, Don-kun, great job on the map. I do have one suggestion. Currently cities in Azerbaijan are half anglicized and half native. Could they all be anglicized? — CuriousGolden (T·C) 15:30, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! As the description of the map says, these are all the reported bombings and many of them were contested. We cannot verify them without doing original research (even then it would be hard to do) and showing only the confirmed bombings would lead to showing only a ridiculously small number. Of course, this should be mentioned in the image caption. The cities in Azerbaijan should all be written in their local name. Is there any error besides Baku? --Don-kun (talk) 11:30, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Don-kun, There's also "Beylagan", but honestly I'd prefer if it was anglicized as this is the English Wikipedia (similar to how Armenian cities are in English names). If you do agree, then I could help you with the anglicization. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 11:55, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I wanted to create a map as international as possible, so it could be used in man languages. That's why there is no caption in the map. Armenian names had to be transcribed of course, but the Azerbaijani names should stay as they are. Now all are written like in Azerbaijan. --Don-kun (talk) 17:38, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Btw: I also created File:Karabakh war 2020 I.svg, which shows the events prior to the war, from July to September. Maybe there is also an english article where this is useful. --Don-kun (talk) 17:41, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Kommersant has an RFC

Kommersant has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:15, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Infobox countries' positions

I want to request comments from editors about changing positions of the countries on the infobox. In particular, changing sides from left to right and vice versa. In all the previous articles concerning the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, Armenia and Artsakh (Nagorno-Karabakh) were shown on the left side of the infobox and Azerbaijan on the right side. [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25]. It comes from the fact that on the main map of military operations Armenia and Artsakh are on the left side and Azerbaijan on the right side respectively.

I think it would be more correct if we switch the countries' position for this article as well: Armenia and Artsakh on the left side of the infobox, and Azerbaijan on the right.

I would be glad to see other editors' opinions.

Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 08:26, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

This really doesn't need to be an RfC, if there aren't any objections from regular editors to the article you could just go ahead and make the change. It's a pretty insignificant (and unnecessary tbh) tweak. Jr8825 • Talk 18:53, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Jr8825 As far as I remember, there was a discussion in which the editors were against the changes. That is why, I raised RfC. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 13:51, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

This seems pretty unnecessary and minor. As far as I know, the side that started the offensive is shown as combatant1, while the side who the offensive is against, is shown as combatant2 and this is the norm in most Wikipedia conflict articles (it should probably be changed in other Karabakh clashes articles too). — CuriousGolden (T·C) 15:45, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. I've went ahead and done this change. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:05, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, now it looks a bit messy when the previous version. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 08:56, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

@Գարիկ Ավագյան and CuriousGolden: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:57, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 March 2021

Firstly in map showing state name Artshak this illegal name illegal structure this territories world recognised Azerbaijan territories and name is Nagorna Karabagh Secondly it's been stated Syrian terrorist fight in Azerbaijannian site this not true not been proven yet all this mast be changed 185.69.144.93 (talk) 23:08, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ~ Aseleste (t, c, l) 08:03, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

"Arms suppliers" section?

This section sounds pretty pretentious. 90% of what Azerbaijan used in the war is a combination of Turkish/Russian hardware. Even if we say this isn't the case, then whoever Azerbaijan bought substantial amount of military equipment from, should be included in the list, in this case Turkey and Russia.

And since when conflict numbers have "Arms suppliers" section anyway? 88.230.172.123 (talk) 20:42, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree, I've never seen this on a page about a war. I'm also sure both countries have purchased their arms from more countries than just Russia/Turkey/Israel. Where do we draw the line of who gets added to the section and who doesn't? This section is very unnecessary and leads to confusion. Sinnikk (talk) 02:05, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Sourced reports of arms supplies during the war are notable and worthy of inclusion. Lightspecs (talk) 03:09, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Reports of arms supplies from different countries are common within the article, but this is in the right side box, whatever it is called.

- War is over.

- Israel doesn't even rank in the top 2 countries in terms of what origin of arms Azerbaijan used.

- It gives a wrong impression as if Israel supplied weapons to Azerbaijan, and that's why they won the war.

- If we are to add "arms suppliers", we should be adding them all. For example, Why is not Russia there? Why is Turkey not there?

- Wikipedia is very commonly used for propaganda purposes, and this is one of them. 88.230.169.99 (talk) 14:45, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I have been notified of this discussion here (permalink). ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 07:40, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

It will help your case if you can provide wp:reliable sources for your claim. You may want to read wp:verifiability, not truth. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 08:30, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Aseleste We have reliable sources for Turkey, but how is it correct to include Turkey three times in the infobox as alleged belligerent, support [for Syrian mercenaries] and arm supplier? I also do agree that showing only Israel gives wrong impression. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 15:33, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

In that case, this might be a WP:NPOV problem instead. You might be able to obtain consensus to remove some information. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 14:13, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

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

• Damaged apartment in Shikharkh.png (discussion)
• Destroyed hallway in Tartar (cropped).png (discussion)

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:18, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

RfC, change the word "recaptured" to "captured"

This article is based on the 44 days of conflict. This is not a copy or alternative of the broader Nagorno-Karabakh conflict article that takes a span of 30 years. From start to the end of this war, Azerbaijan only "captured" territory. Using the word "recaptured" for this 44 day conflict is hugely misleading and makes readers believe that Azerbaijan lost territory and then recaptured it in the 44 days of conflict. Not sure how this hasn't come up in a discussion yet. 176.55.64.59 (talk) 19:45, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Have you tried talking/asking about this before opening an RfC (which should one of the last steps of dispute resolution)? This has already been thoroughly discussed and reached consensus on Talk:Shusha#Capture/Recapture in Demographic Table and Elsewhere in Article, so a separate RfC for it is really unnecessary. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 19:54, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

There hasn't been an RfC on this significantly misleading wording problem in the article yet and only a few users joined that discussion. I opened the RfC in the hope that more editors see and share their thoughts on the wording. Unless you have a POV against the discussion of this, assuming good faith. Feel free to share your opinion. 176.55.20.243 (talk) 20:28, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

You haven't even opened a discussion about this topic and immediately jumped to opening an RfC. That's not how dispute resolution works (we don't even know if there's a dispute as there already was a consensus on this). — CuriousGolden (T·C) 20:31, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. "taken under control" may be an option. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 08:26, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
• What do the reliable sources say? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:05, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
• Use "recaptured" per the majority of WP:RS's wording. EuroNews, RFE/RL 1, RFE/RL 2, NY Times, Vox, Al Jazeera 1, Al Jazeera 2, Reuters, MoscowTimes, France24, Wall Street Journal, National Geographic, Thomas De Waal (EurasiaNet) (one of the most significant scholars in Nagorno-Karabakh conflict). — CuriousGolden (T·C) 16:18, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
• Placeholder to remind myself to offer input. Please feel free to comment above this. Similar discussion at Talk:Shusha#Capture/Recapture in Demographic Table and Elsewhere in Article. Jr8825 • Talk 23:52, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

State of the article

Some quick notes of current state of the article, and the biggest tasks that need to be undertaken:

• The three longest sections are Suspected war crimes#Armenian (34,950 bytes), Allegations of third-party involvement#Turkey and Syrian National Army (30,401 bytes) and Aftermath#Azerbaijan (25,986 bytes). All three are significantly longer than the rest of the sections and need to be reduced in size in the interest of readability, avoiding too much detail and maintaining balance (for a neutral point of view).
• The official statements section should go, it doesn't serve much purpose and is made up of primary sources when secondary ones are available. It can probably be removed outright, any important information can be added to the course of the conflict section.
• The course of the conflict section would probably benefit from being separated into chronological sub-headers.

I've updated the do-list to reflect these tasks, feel free to make adjustments. I'm deliberately setting aside the controversy over Turkey's involvement as it's being discussed above. Jr8825 • Talk 23:48, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Turkey as Belligerent

I'm not sure how it can be justified to add Turkey as a direct belligerent of this war. It is common knowledge that Turkey supported Azerbaijan, however, there is no evidence of Turkey being directly involved as a belligerent of this conflict. Even the sources provided for adding Turkey as a Belligerent don't actually don't confirm/support Turkey's direct involvement.

1st Provided Source Cited summary states: "Strongly condemns the destabilising role of Turkey which further undermines the fragile stability in the whole of the South Caucasus region; calls on Turkey to refrain from any interference in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, including offering military support to Azerbaijan, and to desist from its destabilising actions and actively promote peace; condemns, furthermore, the transfer of foreign terrorist fighters by Turkey from Syria and elsewhere to Nagorno-Karabakh, as confirmed by international actors, including the OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chair countries; regrets its willingness to destabilise the OSCE Minsk Group as it pursues ambitions of playing a more decisive role in the conflict"

First source is in regards to Turkey offering military support - which is fairly common knowledge, but source does not state that it went anywhere farther than just offering support.

2nd Provided Source Cited summary states: "Armenia has said that Turkey was directly involved in the fighting in and around Nagorno-Karabakh, and that a Turkish F-16 fighter shot down an Armenian jet. Turkey denied those accusations."

This is straightforward nothing but hearsay and clearly should not be considered as reliable source. This information was not confirmed by any other reliable body, and has no evidence to back it up. The summary of the source itself states that Turkey denied these allegations.

Another source by RT of denial of allegations: "Armenian claims that a Turkish F-16 warplane attacked and destroyed one of Yerevan's Su-25 fighter jets are false, a spokesman for President Recep Tayyip Erdogan insisted on Tuesday evening. His remarks echoed those from Baku. “The claim that Turkish F-16s shot down an Armenian plane is not true,” Fahrettin Altun told the press. Altun also urged Armenia to call a halt to the “cheap propaganda games” and withdraw its troops from “occupied territories” in the disrupted Nagorno-Karabakh region. His assurances were backed up by Azerbaijani Defense Ministry spokesman, Vagif Dergahli, who blasted reports of Turkish jets fighting for Azerbaijan as “lies and another fantasy of the Armenian military-propagandist machine.”

3rd Provided Source Cited summary states: "Turkey’s support for Azerbaijan has been vital, and Azerbaijan’s superior weaponry and battlefield advances have reduced its incentive to reach a lasting peace deal. Ankara denies its troops are involved in fighting but Aliyev has acknowledged some Turkish F-16 fighter jets remained in Azerbaijan after a military drill this summer, and there are reports of Russian and Turkish drones being used by both sides."

This is another source used that clearly does not really indicate anything. Turkey's support was once again clear to everybody - however, nothing here indicates that Turkey was a belligerent of this conflict.

This page is being used for propaganda purposes by some. If we were to begin adding all of the propaganda information from both sides during the war into the infobox, we would require a separate dedicated page for the infobox. Allowing these unsubstantiated rumors from one side of the conflict to be added into the main infobox contradicts the NPOV rule.

Upon reviewing the previous RfC regarding this topic, it looks to me like the consensus even then was that Turkey should remain in Support and not be included as Belligerent. Why was it still added as belligerent?

In short, I believe Turkey should be removed from the belligerents section of the Infobox. Sinnikk (talk) 00:46, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

References

RT (Russia Today) (RSP entry) was deprecated as an unreliable source in a May 2020 request for comment, so it would be better if you could find an alternative source for that information. No comment on the rest of the request. — Newslinger talk 05:05, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Have you reviewed the recent RfC on this? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 19:02, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

The recent recent RfC on this supports including Turkey as a support rather than a belligerent. I just do not get why it was decided Turkey to be inlcuded as a direct belligerent. If this is something alleged by Armenia (direct involving party in the conflict) only, then what is the need to include this in the infobox? It could have been easily included in the main body body of the article.KHE'O (talk) 16:44, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

What Steverci is trying to do goes against what was agreed. According to the RFC result, Turkey was not supposed to be included as a belligerent, yet it was included as "Alleged by Armenia". Now Steverci is going even further by trying to add Turkish commanders, but alleged belligerents cannot be listed as actual belligerents. Grandmaster 21:47, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Btw, how come that Turkey was included as "Alleged by Armenia", despite there being no discussion on this, and no consensus about this reached in RFC? Allegation cannot be listed in the infobox, it is not a fact, but just an allegation. Should we list every allegation in the infobox, because there were many allegations in this conflict about involvement of various forces on both sides? Grandmaster 21:58, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Did you even read the RfC result? Mikehawk10 said the consensus to list Turkey "as providing support and separately as an alleged belligerent" was equal and that "the sources provided by those who argue Turkey are a belligerent do not seem to strictly indicate anything beyond support, but it should be noted that support does not preclude Turkey from being a belligerent". If there are no reasonable objections, I will add the Turkish commanders (and also the terrorist leaders) back with a line break above them for the time being. There are many reliable citations provided that confirm they were overseeing the war, and also enough due weight that Turkey was a belligerent. Turkey's role is described as "decisive", "vital", and "critical" by these various sources, which also say Turkey "denies" its involvement.

Stratfor states that Turkish F-16 fighter jets "demonstrate direct military involvement by Turkey that goes far beyond already-established support". Reuters confirms the involvement of the fighter jets and seems to be calling the Turkish government liars: "Ankara denies its troops are involved in fighting but Aliyev has acknowledged some Turkish F-16 fighter jets remained in Azerbaijan after a military drill this summer". And the New York Times confirms the presence of Turkish fighter jets would mean direct involvement: "Armenia has said that Turkey was directly involved in the fighting in and around Nagorno-Karabakh, and that a Turkish F-16 fighter shot down an Armenian jet." If anything, the "alleged by" footnote should be dropped. --Steverci (talk) 03:14, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

The conclusion was that "there does not appear to be consensus at this time among editors that Turkey qualifies a belligerent". So Turkey is not belligerent. Even if Turkey is included as "alleged belligerent", you cannot list alleged commanders as real commanders. And Turkish jets did not take any part in fighting, so those sources are pointless, plus 99% of reliable sources say that Turkey provided support, including the EU parliament resolution, which you for some reason included as reference to support Armenian allegation, when it clearly says the opposite. Also, why not include PKK and its commanders as belligerents on Armenian side, as alleged by Azerbaijan? Grandmaster 07:33, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Two of the users that wanted support are now topic banned and blocked, respectively, so the consensus for belligerent is now practically even. Not that it's a vote. Even if involvement was just "support" (which is subjective), they can still be the masterminds behind the operation, as the sources confirm. Most sources just say Turkey denies involvement, essentially none of them say it was only support. As Mikehawk10 said, the consensus can change as more sources become available. I added sources from Columbia University's Institute for the Study of Human Rights and even the Azeri source Turan Information Agency confirmed one of the Turkish commanders. By comparison, claims of PKK involvement have only come from Turkey and Azerbaijan. Unless you have any objections to the reliability of these sources, please do not remove the commanders again. Calling sources that verify something you don't like "pointless" means you are WP:NOTHERE. --Steverci (talk) 16:24, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

If someone got blocked, it does not mean that consensus changed. Their votes still count, they did not make them in violation of ban. Second, one or 2 sources are not enough, I can bring hundreds of sources that say Turkey only offered support. The EU resolution also talks about support, btw. The fact remains that the vast majority of sources only mention support by Turkey, therefore you cannot list Turkish commanders. And I suggest you stop edit warring, your edits have no consensus, and trying to force your version by reverting is against the rules. Your next revert will be reported. You must reach consensus on talk first, before making edits that clearly cause objections from other involved editors. Grandmaster 21:24, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Also, Turan source you refer to does not prove that Turkey was involved in combat operations directly. It says that a Turkish general "was one of the authors of the strategy used by Azerbaijan to succeed in the Second Karabakh War". So he may have created a strategy that Azerbaijani officers learned in academies or joint training exercises, but that does not mean that this particular person was present in Azerbaijan during the war. According to many sources, Azerbaijan used tactics and strategy that Turkey employed in other conflicts, but that was a knowledge that Azerbaijani military acquired from their Turkish colleagues before the war, during the training and exercises. Grandmaster 22:49, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

@Steverci: I'm against adding the Turkish commanders to the infobox as things stand. It feels to me like an attempt to override the previous consensus at the RfC regarding Turkey's status in the infobox without a fuller discussion. I think the correct way forward is to continue looking for authoritative sources discussing Turkish involvement and adding them to the section in the article body on this. I don't think the sourcing is strong enough yet. The source, the Institute for the Study of Human Rights, is in some cases merely reporting what Armenian officials say, e.g. "The Armenian delegation at OSCE say he “took part in planning and conducting” Artsakh operations". While the institute is connected to a reputable US university and looks like it may come from an academic perspective, it seems to be a university department's website/blog, which makes it very difficult – essentially impossible – to ascertain whether the authors of the content it posts may have personal bias or interests. Most importantly it isn't peer reviewed like an article in an academic journal would be. Basically, I don't trust the source by itself and don't think it's authoritative enough per WP:EXCEPTIONAL. If you can find multiple, strong sources corroborating its claims (or they appear over time), then I think you'd have a strong case for including the commanders in the infobox and looking to overturn the previous consensus. Jr8825 • Talk 00:24, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

For others' reference, the sources were also discussed in this AN thread. Jr8825 • Talk 00:32, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Jr8825, thank you for your comment. It would be good if other involved editors were made aware about closure review at WP:AN when it was taken there. Sorry, but to me it looks like forum shopping. I would just like to remind that to include something into the infobox there should be a general consensus in the reliable sources that a certain party was a belligerent. So 1 or 2 sources making such claim are not enough, an overwhelming majority of sources must agree with that claim. We don't see that happening at this point. Grandmaster 08:51, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I will start a new section for the discussion of the Columbia University source. --Steverci (talk) 01:16, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I would like to see those hundreds, though they will all probably be some variation of "Armenia stated/Turkey denied". I assume you meant hundreds of sources use the word "support" at some point in the entire webpage. As Mikehawk10 pointed out, saying Turkey supported does not also mean that Turkey is not a belligerent, which can also be what "support" refers to (i.e. there's nothing false about "the United Kingdom supported the United States in World War II"). Claiming every source that uses the word "support" must also be claiming Turkey hadn't participated at all is WP:OR. By the same logic, Turkey can be added to the belligerents because of the hundreds of sources that refer to Turkey's role as "decisive, critical, etc."

I added the European Parliament source to Turkey being a full belligerent because it confirms that Turkey is the one deploying the Syrian terrorists, something that was being disputed at the time in the RfC. Technically the terrorists should be listed under Turkey instead of Azerbaijan, which would make Turkey a full belligerent. Also, you could've simply moved the perfectly fine source to supporting Turkey below, instead of erasing it entirely.

Only Azeri and Turkish sources claim that Turkey's role was as marginal as you say. Even the RFE/RL source you just added does not claim anything you just cited it to, and this blatant misuse is something I cannot overlook. --Steverci (talk) 01:15, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

To be frank, these arguments are quite ridiculous. Infoboxes are not there to display information that is unconfirmed rumored/hearsay, and therein lies the problem. You shouldn't have to "stretch" the information provided from sources to come up with a summary that fits your narrative. That is what this looks like you are doing, Steverci, in my opinion, you are really stretching the info provided to come up with a narrative, and that is blatant misuse. Infoboxes exist for cold hard facts, not hearsay and rumors of unknown origin. I've never seen rumors and hearsay end up in the infobox, and Turkey clearly should not be up there as a belligerent since there is no credible source that provides evidence that didn't initially come from Armenia's unsubstantiated allegations. Sinnikk (talk) 03:34, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Turkey can be added to the belligerents because of the hundreds of sources that refer to Turkey's role as "decisive, critical, etc." No, Steverci, this is original thought/interpretation, as it's obvious that reliable sources do not currently say "Turkey fought alongside Azerbaijan" with any certainty. They do say "Turkey supported Azerbaijan", or "Turkey provided decisive support to Azerbaijan", and this is what we write, because we follow the sources. Writing what you infer the sources mean to say on a controversial issue such as this, rather than writing what they do say is unacceptable, sources must support the material clearly and directly. See WP:SYNTH. Jr8825 • Talk 03:59, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Well put. If there is no further credible evidence to support this claim, and as initially agreed upon in the previous RfC, I will remove Turkey as belligerent to leave it as support. Sinnikk (talk) 16:11, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

@Sinnikk: that's a misrepresentation of the RfC's outcome – have you read the closer's summary carefully? It was very explicit, "there appears to be a strong consensus to include Turkey as a party to the conflict, and a weak but present consensus to list them as providing support and separately as an alleged belligerent". Please don't try to unilaterally overturn a recent close that received considerable input, its outcome is the standing consensus text. My point above was specifically about the inclusion of Turkish officers in the infobox at this time, not about removing Armenia's allegation that Turkey was directly involved, a claim which is reported by strong sources (see the current cite 9 in particular). Jr8825 • Talk 16:29, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Regarding alleged belligerents, I believe there's more than 1 alleged belligerent. For instance, Azerbaijan alleges that PKK fighters were involved on Armenia's side. Should PKK not be listed too, as "alleged by Azerbaijan"? Grandmaster 16:58, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Because the allegation has been reported by essentially every reliable source, many of which took a 'neither confirm nor deny' stance. You interpret that to mean confirmation Turkey isn't a belligerent, but that's not the case. Only Turkish and Azeri sources even entertain the idea of PKK involvement, and it's clearly just intended as a counterweight after the Syrian terrorists fighting for Azerbaijan were exposed. --Steverci (talk) 16:02, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Turkish role is allegation of Armenia. Allegations by Azerbaijan were also reported by reliable sources. So why are we listing some allegations in the infobox, and making no mentions of others? Grandmaster 23:44, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@Grandmaster: could you link several of the RS you're referring to (which have reported on Azerbaijan's allegations of PKK involvement)? Thanks, Jr8825 • Talk 00:12, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, sure. The Washington Post: Turkey and Russia preside over a new age of mercenary wars: Ankara denies these claims and has wheeled around on Armenia, accusing the government in Yerevan of busing in Kurdish militiamen from the outlawed Kurdistan Workers’ Party, or PKK, to help train Armenian fighters in Nagorno-Karabakh. Whatever the veracity of these charges — and there are reasons to doubt them — they speak of a region riven with ethnic grievances and deep-seated political enmities.

The Guardian: Nagorno-Karabakh: Azerbaijan accuses Armenia of rocket attack

Russian state news agency TASS: Azerbaijan intelligence reports intercepted terrorist radio chatter in Nagorno-Karabakh

Grandmaster 15:16, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Washington Post says the claims are doubtful. The Guardian says Turkey "has also not produced any proof". TASS is just a brief summary of an Azeri news source. TASS also has no author and looks like it was made by a bot. The "radio chatter" claimed in Turkish and Azeri sources is very identical to the information leaked about the Syrian terrorists (complaining about high death rate, not being paid, etc.). Just further proof they copy/paste their own war crimes to make accusations of, which for example is what the whole white phosphorus section amounts to. --Steverci (talk) 18:16, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

It is not about whether it actually happened or not. We are talking about claims, and there can be no doubt that Azerbaijan and Turkey claimed that PKK fought on the Armenian side. Grandmaster 00:26, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I maintain my position that the infobox is not a space for allegations, but since we include Armenian allegations, then it would be unfair and inconsistent not to include Azerbaijani allegations as well, given these allegations were reported by multiple reliable sources.KHE'O (talk) 04:02, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Grandmaster, you were only able to dig up two third-party sources even mentioning the PKK, and both admit it's unlikely and there's no proof. By comparison, there are countless sources mentioning Turkish participation with a nonpartisan stance, and plenty of known evidence (Syrian terrorists, F16 jets, Turkish generals spotted, etc.) to support it. What's more, that same The Guardian source you cited gives confirmation that Syrian terrorists are fighting for Azerbaijan; it's not even presented as debatable. Yet below you're claiming the terrorists don't exist, while also citing a source confirming the terrorists exist. And there are countless other third-party sources with photos and interviews of the terrorists. It's becoming obvious that you're just trying to push an agenda with no regard for the guidelines except for when they align with your goals. --Steverci (talk) 22:28, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand or pretend not to understand what we are discussing here. It does not matter if allegations are true or not. The only thing that matters is that Azerbaijan made them. The sources I quoted prove beyond any reasonable doubt that Azerbaijan claimed that PKK was involved on Armenian side. Now if we include Turkey as alleged by Armenia, why should we not include PKK as alleged by Azerbaijan? And an allegation is an allegation, we either include allegations from both sides, or none at all. Grandmaster 00:12, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

You seem to be pretending not to understand the difference in due WP:WEIGHT. The infobox is not for every single allegation. The Turkey allegation has much more due weight than the PKK allegation does, and the sources you provided even confirm that. --Steverci (talk) 17:49, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

It is not about due or undue. It is about whether we should include allegations, and if we should, then we cannot include allegation of one side and ignore allegations of the other. General principle should apply to all sides involved. Grandmaster 14:29, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Just the allegations with due weight. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. --Steverci (talk) 22:22, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Azerbaijani and Turkish governments are not tiny minorities. Grandmaster 22:43, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

When not a single nonpartisan source even takes a neutral stance, let alone a supportive one, the view is of a tiny minority. --Steverci (talk) 03:06, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Government of a country cannot be minority or majority. It is one of the sides of the conflict. Grandmaster 16:48, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

If the one who created the claim is the only one claiming it, and what little coverage the claim receives casts doubt on it, it is of a very tiny minority. --Steverci (talk) 17:40, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

---

Turkey is not a belligerent in the sense of direct involvement of its forces (which is what the "combatant" infobox parameter is designed for, per Template:Infobox military conflict: "This is most commonly the countries whose forces took part in the conflict"). The allegation rests almost entirely on controversial F-16 claim which Turkey denies and the only country alleging Turkey's direct involvement is Armenia. So far I haven't seen a credible evidence that the F-16 actively participated in a combat during the war. Turkey is correctly listed as supporter, though. Brandmeister^talk 11:53, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

The thousands of Syrian terrorists fall under Turkey's forces. It is also based on the Turkish special forces reported and the Turkish generals spotted wearing Azeri military uniforms. And Turkey and Azerbaijan both denied even the presence of F-16 jets, which has been proven wrong by satellite images and confirmed by reliable sources. --Steverci (talk) 17:40, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

"Syrian terrorists" are not Turkish armed forces. Is there a third-party, bipartisan source mentioning "Turkish special forces" and "the Turkish generals spotted wearing Azeri military uniforms"? Brandmeister^talk 18:20, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Kommersant, Stratfor, Reuters. With Kommersant now confirmed as an official reliable source, there is an even greater difference in due weight between Turkey and PKK, and there is no point in discussing this any further. --Steverci (talk) 02:58, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Armenian casualties

Ardashir64, the list and the number of the killed servicemen are published by the Artsakh Defense Army, which is the official number and is published and regularly updated on their official website. Verelq News is not reliable source and doesn't represent the official number of Armenians killed in the war. The Armenian Ministry of Health has published the number of bodies, including both servicemen and civilians. Per official position for the infobox we should rely on official numbers by Artsakh Defence Army. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 15:30, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

That number only counts the KIA's of Artsakh. Without including Armenian soldiers. The current ref, like the one before is like the one you provided is from an Armenian Government agency and includes the number of Armenian soldiers killed. Ardashir64 (talk) 17:20, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

In fact, in the last forensic report dated 18 February there were 4,005 KIA's. Which was in the old ref.[26]. Since this report, only in the month of April Armenian Gov reported at least 50+ bodies found. So the number of announced KIA's is even higher than 4,028. Ardashir64 (talk) 17:41, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Here is the true figure, since the forensic examination of 4,005 bodies on 18 February[27] several new bodies have been found and were announced (all of which are military).. Current figure stands at 4,518. Ardashir64 (talk) 18:14, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

@Ardashir64: The list, regularly published by the Artsakh Defense Army, includes military personnel, volunteers and reservists. Here is the latest update on the official website. According to Armenian law, a person is not considered dead until the body is identified. So we come to the official number with updated names as of April 3, which I provided. In all the links that you have now provided, the official number published by the Artsakh Defense Army is written every time. Armenian Health Ministery doesn't count KIA. In the infobox of this article we write official numbers. For other numbers we have another detailed article. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 19:35, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Once again, by doing that you are including only number of "Artsakh" soldiers killed without including Armenian state soldiers. The number included in all the reports also includes the number of Artsakh soldiers. The link you provided is the main source of what I've lastly included above[28], and counts the names of 54 new Artsakh soldiers killed. Ardashir64 (talk) 06:41, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

@Ardashir64: What do you mean by saying "Armenian state soldiers". All soldiers, both from Armenia and Artsakh, represented as part of Artsakh Defense Army and is the official data. Look, If, for example, someone's body is not identified, then according to the Armenian law, it will not be included in the official list of those who died in battle, but as "a missing soldier". We just need to regularly update the official data presented by Artsakh Defence Army. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 10:10, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Artsakh Defense Army and Armed Forces of Armenia are two separate structures. Ardashir64 (talk) 10:17, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

@Ardashir64: They don't count KIA soldiers separately. The official data is published up to this day by Artsakh Defense Army. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 10:24, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Can you share this reference? The one above counts the names of 54 KIA's announced 3 Apr, the older ref just links to the main page. Ardashir64 (talk) 10:30, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

@Ardashir64: This is the latest update [29] and the primary source [30].

"Military authorities have so far published the names of 2836 servicemen killed in action."

Here is the news section, where Artsakh Defense Army regularly publishes the names of the KIA soldiers [31]. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 10:39, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't see anything new here. Once again the number of ADA personnel killed. Feel free to discuss this with another user though. Ardashir64 (talk) 10:51, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Even in the report dated 1 February 3,330 bodies fallen in Karabagh were examined[32] so don't know how you reach the 2,836 number after nearly 1500 new were announced since 3,330 forensic examinations. Regards. Ardashir64 (talk) 10:57, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Again, it doesn't specify that all of them are only the Armenian servicemen. So, my point is that if we count official data then we should use official number published by the Artsakh Defense Army. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 11:48, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

This one is dated Dec 1[33], higher 2,800, this is 20 Jan number keeps going up [34] they are also per Armenian Health Ministry. Not sure how you don't comprehend or refuse to that your number is the number of Artsakh soldiers killed. Ardashir64 (talk) 12:53, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't comprehend or refuse. I'm saying that in the infobox we should follow official data. For other numbers "per Armenian Health Ministry", per "Armenian Prime Minister" [35] etc. we can include to this detailed article or in the casualties section of this article. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 16:59, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Jr8825 May we know your opinion as well to reach consensus? Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 11:48, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorry Գարիկ Ավագյան, but I'm not familiar with these sources and casualty-counting procedure isn't my area of expertise, so I'm not keen to spend my time trying to get to the bottom of this. My only comment is that adding together lots of individual announcements about bodies being found is WP:OR, we need to use reliable sources which state the total number of casualties in one place. It's preferable to have an out-of-date figure which states a complete number than trying to get a more recent number by counting up lots of individual articles. Perhaps the casualty figure could say "X deaths confirmed, as of X date"? Jr8825 • Talk 16:04, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Jr8825 Thank you for sharing your opinion!

Commenting here because I was asked to on my talk page, I think I'm in a similar position to Jr8825; I'm not familiar enough with the details of Armenian vs. Artsakh military casualty reports to quickly determine who is right above, other than to note the same OR concerns that have already been raised by Jr8825. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:27, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you!

Steverci could you share your thoughts about KIA soldiers? There are four different numbers regarding killed Armenian soldiers: by 1. Artsakh Defense Army 2. Armenian Health Ministery 3. Armenian PM 4. editor's WP:OR and all of them are different. Per my point of view, we should include in the infobox Artsakh Defense Army's official statement as of X day, however, I'm not sure enough. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 18:25, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Chipping in here, sorry I'm late to the discussion. I agree with Գարիկ Ավագյան. As he said, all Armenia and Artsakh soldiers are counted together and not separately, despite presenting them all as members of the Artsakh Defense Army. Just one example, the pilot of the Armenian Air Force who was killed when he was shot down early in the war is on the list of Artsakh Defense Army fatalities. This was discussed two times before already and consensus was reached both times on that point. They don't make a distinction between the two. Furthermore, the calculated and added number of additional 515 dead in the infobox after February 18 is a misscalculation. Not all were new bodies recovered. A large number of those were simply soldiers whose bodies were recovered before but have only now been identified and added to the official list of names. As can be seen from the February 18th report [36] they did a breakdown between the number of bodies examined or were being examined (4,005), those who were identified (2,364) and those whose bodies were recovered following the ceasefire (1,485). In the examples of the latest reports - when they reported on further identifications they updated the list of names to 2,808[37] and when they recovered more bodies they updated that number to 1,529,[38] 27 of which were said to be civilians so the number does not include only soldiers. So I reworded the reference in the infobox based on the available sources. Further, I agree with Jr8825 and Rosguill that we are entering the realm of OR (original research) with the addition of so many individual reports and maybe the best course of action would be to simply leave, as has been suggested, either the outdated figure of all bodies examined or being examined (4,005) or just the figure of those officially named as dead at the moment (2,808). EkoGraf (talk) 16:14, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

EkoGraf Thank you for your help! Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 07:46, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

References

RFL

Steverci removed reference to RFL from the article. [39] Could Steverci please explain what exactly is wrong with RFL? My edit contained no controversial information, it only described some tactics used by Azerbaijan in this war, in particular robotic warfare (corroborated by other sources used in the article) and commando tactics previously employed by NATO in Afghanistan. What exactly is wrong with that information that it could not be included in the article? Grandmaster 23:52, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

It would be dishonest to cite RFL when it is just quoting Turkish and Azeri sources with no input on them. By the same logic, TNYT confirmed Turkey as a belligerent. If this were added at all, it would need to cite the original sources, and be called the claims of the analysts, not presented as fact. And yet, this article is already too long and needs to be cut down, so there isn't much need for reason to be adding undue claims like this. --Steverci (talk) 03:20, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

As you were told at WP:AE, RFL does not quote only Azerbaijani and Turkish experts. For instance, Alex Melikishvili is neither of the above. And as I said the information in this article is not controversial at all. Everyone agrees that Azerbaijan won because of superior technology and tactics. The experts questioned by RFL elaborate on details of robotic warfare and commando tactics, which I believe would be of interest to the readers of the article. The nationality of authors and their potential bias would matter if they made some serious accusations of war crimes, etc. But I see nothing extraordinary or controversial in what RFL writes about the war. It only discusses military tactics. I would appreciate more opinions on this particular source. Grandmaster 15:32, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

To reply to the last thing you said at AE, I didn't open the request because of a problem with the particular source itself, I opened it because you falsely attributed the claims of Turkish and Azeri think tank analysts to "RFE/RL experts". I never said the OSCE article was "a neutral third party source", I was just pointing out the claims of the analysts are highly contestable. Everyone agrees those "NATO commando tactics" are throwing Syrian terrorists on the front lines, which the article doesn't mention. The Syrian terrorists aren't even mentioned at all, which makes the discussion of military tactics highly flawed and invalid. As I already said, you didn't quote Melikishvili in your edit. And since the only thing he was quoted for was alluding to large-scale Turkish involvement, that's no surprise. --Steverci (talk) 18:35, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Who contested what these analytics said? Can you give me one example? I mean an example from a reliable source. If you had problem with wording, you could have fixed that without deleting the whole source. Rephrasing or discussing at talk is a normal way of dealing with it. As for the "terrorists", there's no actual proof that those "terrorists" existed. Not a single serious military analysis talks about them, because they played no role in actual fighting. It was Azerbaijani soldiers who fired artillery, drove tanks, flew planes, employed commando tactics, etc. Plus, it is up to the analyst to decide which factor he considers to be important for victory. If he points to drone warfare and special forces, then he has a reason for that. Grandmaster 00:23, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

It's your responsibility to prove the analytics claims have more due weight than single biased individuals. And the Syrian terrorists have been confirmed by countless sources, even ones that are typically pro-Turkish/Azeri. There are many photographs, videos, and interviews of them, and I don't see how anyone denying their existence could be able to contribute to the article. Any military analysis that chooses to censor them exposes itself as unreliable. Or could you explain how at least hundreds of them died if they "played no role in actual fighting"? --Steverci (talk) 22:41, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Not really. As you can see, most military analysis do not consider those mythical terrorists to be an important factor. Even if they existed, according to sources they had no proper military training, and unlikely to make any significant impact on the outcome of the war. It is not even clear why would Azerbaijan need them. If 50,000 strong Armenian army was defeated by 2000 Syrian militia, then it is even worse for Armenia's military reputation. But what exactly do you contest about this source? Did Azerbaijan not use drone warfare? Or special forces? What is so controversial about the info from this source? Grandmaster 00:21, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

You're calling something overwhelmingly confirmed by neutral sources to be "mythical". Clearly you're not here to contribute to the article and this is becoming a waste of time. Feel free to provide links to "most military analysis" though, if they exist. The Armenian army didn't participate in the war, Pashinyan only sent volunteers. And perhaps you can finally explain why you classified two people with no affiliation to RFE as "RFE experts". --Steverci (talk) 17:55, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

First off, mind WP:CIVIL. Comment on content, and not the contributor. I don't want to take this to admins, unless I really have to. Second, if you check the sources used in the article, you'll see that drone warfare was discussed by other sources. Of course, Armenian army did participate in war, all those 18-20 year old conscripts from Armenia were not volunteers. And lastly, I don't see any point in our further discussion about this. I would appreciate if some third party editor would share his opinion on RFL article as a source. Grandmaster 14:37, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Pashinyan holding back the regular army and only sending a handful of volunteers is confirmed by Movses Hakobyan[40] who is also the sole source for Russian arms supplying, which is possibly a single quote taken out of context instead of a statement like this is. --Steverci (talk) 22:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

---

I understand the concern that the article is mostly based on Turkish and Azeri experts' opinions. However the source itself is reliable and they found it fitting to include all those opinions. I'm not an expert on this but the statements removed from the article appear relatively uncontroversial, I think a lot of experts credited the Turkish technology and advice for the Azeri success.Steverci, do you have specific concerns about these statements, which of them do you find inaccurate?

Probably it would be best to find other overview articles answering the question "Why Azerbaijan won" and include the information from them and from the RFERL article. In the meantime we could restore the passage and attribute the words from the passage to the experts who said them. Alaexis_¿question? 07:37, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Nobody is questioning that Turkish technology won the "war", which the article already notes (Drone warfare subsection), and there are many better sources for. The problem is claims such as "commando tactics used by NATO forces in Afghanistan" and "surrender cities without major clashes", which Grandmaster lied about being claimed by "RFE/RL experts". Nowhere in the article does the writer endorse these claims. It cannot even identify which cities (of the only 3 they could be) were allegedly surrendered "without major clashes". And any source that fails to even mention the Syrian terrorists is not worth regarding. This is most likely just the official narrative Azerbaijan has invented that will exclude the Turkish special forces and Syrian terrorists, since the Azeri analyst is a government official. And with the article already marked as Too Long, there is no reason to be throwing on heavily biased claims that have the due weight of single individuals. --Steverci (talk) 22:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Once again, I remind you to mind WP:CIVIL. Accusing me of lying time after time is rude, and does not help resolving issues. If you have problems with particular wording, you could have just corrected it, instead of deleting the source. Coming to your comments, cities like Hadrut, Zangelan and Gubadli were surrendered without major clashes, as result of employment of the tactics described in the article. Turkish special forces were not involved in fighting, and other external powers, if there were any, also did not play any important role. You see that Russian experts, quoted by IISS, or Forbes, also make no mention of mercenaries as an important factor. If all those sources make no mention of them, that's for a reason, and it is not just one source. Grandmaster 22:41, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Then perhaps you can finally explain your "RFE/RL experts" claim? Give a reliable source for those locations; there's an article for a battle in Hadrut and Gubadli is a small town. You cite "Russian experts", but the most reliable news source in Russia confirmed the presence of thousands of Turkish special forces, which you deny. --Steverci (talk) 03:29, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

I think that the sentence about taking cities without major clashes can go if there are no other sources which make similar claims. Speaking of the Syrian mercenaries, while they were certainly present I don't see them mentioned as a decisive factor. I've looked at Russian-language sources too for a different perspective [41]. Can you provide sources who say it? Alaexis_¿question? 06:30, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

I didn't say Syrians were a decisive factor, although Turkey was a decisive factor (as many sources confirm), and the Syrians were recruited and deployed by Turkey. I said it's odd that a source doesn't even mention them at all when so many reliable third party sources (cited throughout the article) confirm their presence and don't even portray it as something debatable. --Steverci (talk) 15:26, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Alaexis, thank you for joining conversation. We really need a third partly input here. If taking cities without major clashes is problematic sentence, we can remove it. But is there a problem with mentioning commando tactics? And Alaexis provided a Russian source that also makes no mention of any mercenaries. In fact, most serious analyses of the war make no mention of those mercenaries, or mention them in passing, as they were not a major factor in victory. So I don't see why Steverci keeps bringing them up to challenge reliability of a source. Grandmaster 16:33, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Because the commando tactics are only claimed by two individual Turks and Azeris. Citing RFE for simply covering it would be a lie. As for "most serious analyses", I'll repeat what I said earlier: Feel free to provide links to "most military analysis" though, if they exist. --Steverci (talk) 17:40, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

This Meduza.io article doesn't explicitly say that the use of special forces was a major factor but lists a lot of important operations performed by them. Alaexis_¿question? 19:55, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

That is only for Shushi and it isn't a post war analysis, a lot of it seems to be speculation. The road to Shushi was opened after Armenian troops were withdrawn from favorable positions in Sghnakh without any fighting, as Edik Baghdasaryan reported. A lot of Armenian analysts (and most of the population) suspect Pashinyan committed treason because he has always wanted to get rid of Artsakh so that Armenia could get extremely rich from having open borders with Turkey. This is likely why Armenia only sent volunteers and never got directly involved. Of course, Pashinyan's betrayal hasn't been discussed much outside of Armenia. But even so, here's your explanation for how the Turkish special forces could've possibly captured anything without any fighting, although that is still only something claimed by Turkish and Azeri analysts. --Steverci (talk) 02:58, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

The above is your personal opinion, not what the reliable sources say. Regarding RFL, an admin at WP:AN also told you that the source is acceptable. But you still insist that it is not. [42] Grandmaster 08:21, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

And claims of magically capturing cities without fighting is the personal opinion of one Azeri with governmental connections. RFL may be acceptable, but the person who wrote the article is not the one making these claims. And you still haven't explained why you attributed the claim to "RFE experts". --Steverci (talk) 16:18, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

You are the only person on this site arguing against inclusion of this source. Even admins told you that it was Ok to use. Please see WP:IDONTLIKEIT. If we change the wording to "experts questioned by RFL", would that be Ok for you? Grandmaster 13:30, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't see anyone campaigning to add it besides you. What admin said it was okay to use? As I already said, the article is already flagged as Too Long, and doesn't need the claims of partisan individuals being added. The Azeri analyst even works for a government agency. Also, RFE just published an article quasi-denying the Armenian Genocide, so it's reliability is in question. Afterall, the author didn't feel the need to speak with any Armenian analysts. --Steverci (talk) 00:10, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Please read once again what was said about RFL by an uninvolved admin: [43] Grandmaster 08:52, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I see that he mistakenly thought you never wrote "RFE/RL experts" and hasn't responded after I pointed out you did. RFE may be generally reliable, but the source doesn't claim what you cite it to. Citing RFE for what partisan analysts are claiming would be like citing this New York Times article for Turkey being a full belligerent (which it simply reports allegations of while giving no input on the matter). --Steverci (talk) 00:14, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

A third party admin clearly said: RFE/RL is reliable enough (I know it is US government run, but Azerbaijan has no love for it) and so can still be used in combination with other sources for an analysis of why Azerbaijan won. But you still insist that RFL cannot be used. Grandmaster 08:04, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Cannot be used for something actually written by biased partisan individuals, yes. --Steverci (talk) 21:00, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I'll leave it for now, as this argument goes nowhere. I will take it to RS board later. Grandmaster 19:40, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Update on POWs

Western sources indicate that there are 200–260 Armenian POWs in Azerbaijan. The infobox should be updated. 54 returned back to Armenia so far. Eurasianet says about 200, Micheal Rubin says 260 POWs. National Interest. 185.81.81.245 (talk) 07:23, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

The sources above include both civilians and servicemen. OC Media reports about 40 civilians being held as POWs, so that actually makes 160–220 Armenian servicemen being held as POWs. Update it, please. 185.81.81.245 (talk) 07:25, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

The 60 or so servicemen captured after the war ended (at the end of November) should also be excluded since this article is specifically for the war up to 10 November 2020. EkoGraf (talk) 13:59, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

National interest is not a reliable source. The author of the highly partisan article refers to the Armenian sources. There's no confirmation from any reliable third party source that Azerbaijan indeed has such a number of POWs. Grandmaster 23:21, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

This surely should be added as this infobox reflects "per Armenia/Artsakh" claims so we don't need third-party reliable sources for this. For other statements we have Casualties of the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war article. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 08:03, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Also, to the number of POWs, we can add a detailed description and explanation (same with Armenian casualties) of the fact that some soldiers were captured after the announcement of a ceasefire. Speaking about the fact that we consider only those soldiers who were captured during the hostilities to be war prisoners, this reflects the Azerbaijani official position, which considers these people "terrorists" and "saboteurs", which, in my opinion, may be a violation of the WP:NPOV. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 08:12, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

We could attribute the views, explaining official positions of both sides on POWs taken after the ceasefire. Grandmaster 16:52, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, and which number needs to be shown in the infobox? What about "62-200 servicemen captured". Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 17:52, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

If we could make it 62 (Azerbaijani claim); 200 (Armenian claim), I think it would solve the problem. Grandmaster 18:08, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Whatever the case, like I pointed out, the 60 or so servicemen that were captured after the war ended shouldn't be included, just like we don't include servicemen killed after the end date of the war. They have been killed and/or captured as part of the overall and long-running Nagorno-Karabakh conflict yes, but not as part of the conflict's phase that is the subject of this article. EkoGraf (talk) 01:49, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Hard agree on this. Armed persons captured after the signing of the ceasefire fall under the category of unlawful combatant, and hence, do not qualify as "Prisoners of War" under the Geneva Convention. The topic of those captured after the end of the war should not be included at all. Sinnikk (talk) 19:28, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Personally I consider them to be prisoners as part of the overall Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, but not taken as part of the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war phase specifically. In any case, their classification is another/separate topic. EkoGraf (talk) 20:31, 26 April 2021 (UTC)