Talk:Second Nagorno-Karabakh War/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Is this unbiased?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qarada%C4%9Fl%C4%B1,_Fizuli; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xat%C4%B1nbulaq; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qarakollu; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulutan; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melikcanl%C4%B1

They say "Liberated from Armenian occupation on 14 October 2020 by Azerbaijan army."

Is that an unbiased statement? Is it supposed to remain? Thanks. I hope this is the right place to ask. Bedfordres (talk) 18:42, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Bedfordres, take this discussion to the discussion pages of those articles. Not here. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 18:50, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Liberated is a loaded value term, shouldn't be used. Some of those locations are also contested, with control unclear. Vici Vidi (talk) 06:37, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Of course 'Liberated' is extremely biased. All these towns now have an Armenian population, and they don't feel 'liberated' by the Azeri armed forces killing them in their homes.
User178198273998166172 (talk) 10:37, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

@Rosguill:, doesn't this violate wikipedia rules? Beshogur (talk) 18:15, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I thought so..Anyway, another editor removed it for being unsourced. Bedfordres (talk) 18:04, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 October 2020

78.185.49.11 (talk) 10:54, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Iran’s arms supplement to Armenia: https://eurasiantimes.com/iran-deploys-200-heavy-armor-tanks-to-help-armenia-take-on-azerbaijan-reports/

PKK involvement (sides Armenia) in Karabakh conflict: https://www.eupoliticalreport.eu/pkks-involvement-in-the-armenia-azerbaijan-conflict-would-jeopardise-european-security/

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Asartea ^{Trick | Treat} 13:01, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 October 2020

Please remove about the Syrian fighters participate in Azerbaijan side, this a big lie. There is not any proof about it. Thank you. Kenbozkurt (talk) 03:40, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Disagree. Here are three separate sources providing proof (e.g. geolocation from videos) that Syrian fighters are participating in the conflict from the Azerbaijan side (here, here and here)--Sataralynd (talk) 03:50, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Could I ask these sources to be integrated into the last paragraph of the Background section? The pieces in The Independent and The Guardian provide proof through geolocation of Syrian fighters being present in Azerbaijan, whereas the last paragraph just lists the denial of the Azerbaijan Government--Sataralynd (talk) 03:50, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

As per earlier DRN decision, consensus was reached that the Syrian fighters presence is backed up by enough 3rd party reliable sources and is to be included in the infobox, but with a footnote that emphasizes Turkey and Azerbaijan's denial of their presence. EkoGraf (talk) 09:38, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Answered as per above. Johncdraper (talk) 10:14, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Specifically referring to the Background section. The last paragraph's last sentence provides an incomplete picture. It now reads "The governments of both Azerbaijan and Armenia have denied allegations of involvement by foreign fighters." Suggest to append it with "despite several sources claiming presence of Syrian fighters in Azerbaijan to have been confirmed by geolocation". Obviously if there is similar proof that YPG and PKK fighters are present in Armenia, that could be included as well.--Sataralynd (talk) 15:59, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Strong Disagree. The Autoconfirmed users supply lots of valuable sources. What is important is the quality and reliability of the sources.Fullscaledx (talk) 12:11, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Clarification on Nothern Cyprus' status

In the article section Countries, the sentence about Northern Cyprus wrote: "The partially recognised Northern Cyprus expressed support for Azerbaijan.". Considering that Northern Cyprus is an internationally unrecognized state except its own founder, Turkey, who had sent the troops to invade and occupy the island, and considering that absolutely none else, be it UN or non-UN states (and by that, I mean not even non-UN states which enjoy actual partial recognition, such as Taiwan, Abkhazia and South Ossetia, do) the sentence was clarified now by adding "Recognized only by Turkey": [1]. Thanks to my edits, the sentence reflected what the articles Northern Cyprus and Partially recognised states do say on the matter, where it is explicitly mentioned that the country is totally unrecognized by everyone except its own founder. However my edits were now reverted by an editor and I was pointed to using the talk page. OK then. So... Any reason we wouldnt use a helpful clarification for avoiding POV-pushing interpretations over Northern Cyprus's international recognition? --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 22:08, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree with your interpretation. "Partially recognized" is potentially misleading here, as "partially recognized" can imply recognition by a large number of states. "Recognized only by Turkey" is much more precise. Khirurg (talk) 04:57, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

@SilentResident: I also agree with your interpretation. Johncdraper (talk) 08:54, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Maintaining semiotic NPOV on casualties, cultural heritage, and destruction

My understanding is that maintaining NPOV on this issue in the images on this page is important from a semiotic perspective. At one point, we had a picture of a mosque, the historical contextualization of which appeared to be highly contentious and relevant to the broader Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, based on this non-belligerent source and extensive supporting sources. I am interested in opinions as to whether the semiotics of the page are in balance, and if not, how that could be improved. Johncdraper (talk) 08:44, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Like I have stated earlier, I have no problem with that (I can't speak for others), as long as the context is added, but these have to be treated outside of timeline. From the link provided with the mosque picture, you could read the term Armenianized being used for other monuments. The publication was few days old, that shows that Azerbaijani authorities still maintain the claim that medieval monuments (including monasteries) that are generally recognized as Armenian, were originally not. This sort of info provide more context in regards to the conflict surrounding the nature of the concerns surrounding the mosque (of the sort, you deny monuments being Armenian, and I deny your heritage). It's also more background to some of the reasons why Armenians don't trust in handing Baku any control and the handling of their cultural heritage. They view Baku position as an implicit admission that those Armenian monuments will either be altered, to remove any Armenian elements, or even maybe destroyed like in this case. Hemşinli çocuk 15:08, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Spelling issues?

I was reading the section for Russia and Turkey and it seems written with haste because there are several spelling mistakes. Can we please get a proof-written updated version.

Jesus Christ I read a bit more and it gets worse, there are wrong dates, dates in the future, and what's with the celebrities section? Can't we just put that under international response? Kwondyke (talk) 15:23, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Partially done. In the future, please specify corrections using the numbered list function in the edit toolbar. Celebrities are discussed in a separate section. Johncdraper (talk) 16:39, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Polite notice

It has recently been brought to my attention that at least one editor may have had his or her own personal perspective compromised through direct contact with a military propaganda unit deliberately seeking to influence the POV on this page, as part of a much broader attempt to influence English-language media. Based on my own experience of being directly targeted by one or more militaries, I suggest two courses of action. The first is to step away: take a short break, uncheck this page from your Watchlist, edit other pages, and take walks or bike rides in the natural environment, like a forest. The other takes somewhat more time. Realise it for what it is and counter it with discussion, logic, method, and reason. Thank you. Johncdraper (talk) 07:59, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Thats what I have been saying since the creation of the article, for all editors; just keep personal opinions out of the encyclopedic content of the article, take a time and let it go.Mr.User200 (talk) 17:10, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Including 'Armenian diaspora volunteers' in the infobox

If Armenian diaspora volunteers are fighting under command of Armed Forces of Armenia, I think that should be removed from the infobox and a mention in the body of the article is enough. Pahlevun (talk) 16:23, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

No, these people are not Armenian citizens. Originally, we had it labelled "Armenian mercenaries from the Middle East". It was then changed to volunteers, which includes Lebanese and French (and other) citizens. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 17:29, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Execution of Armeni POW in Hadrut.

Just in case someone would like to update the page. Here a source. [2] --Nicola Romani (talk) 17:33, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Not done already in the article. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 19:44, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Fuzuli, wrong grammar

In the article it says:
"Subsequently, Azerbaijani President announced that retake on Fuzuli city and Qoçəhmədli, Çimən, Cuvarlı, Pirəhmədli, Musabəyli, İşıqlı, Dədəli villages.". I think, the following is better (whickh reflects the source):
"Subsequently, Azerbaijani President announced that Azerbaijani controlled Fuzuli city, Qoçəhmədli, Çimən, Cuvarlı, Pirəhmədli, Musabəyli, İşıqlı, and Dədəli villages, and finalized Armenian occupation."Fullscaledx (talk) 09:04, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Partially done. Copy edited. Johncdraper (talk) 09:23, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Map perspective

Why are the disputed territories not in the center of the map? Seems very weird to have the map's center be Armenia. — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 09:31, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

UK arms suppliers to both Azerbaijan and Armenia

We should add the UK as arms suppliers in both the Armenia section and the Azerbaijan section. source: https://aoav.org.uk/2020/uk-arms-in-armenia-and-azerbaijan/

Please update the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:ED0:5902:E500:BCF8:8595:CA24:DF47 (talk) 10:59, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

From the source "The UK has approved exports for military equipment and ammunition to both Armenia and Azerbaijan in the past year" No connection to the current conflict. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 13:43, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Military Observer Mission by Russia - Ceasefire Violations section (since 10 October 2020)

In the third paragraph of Ceasefire violations (since 10 October 2020), specifically after "[Russia] reiterated its appeal to both sides to end fighting and readiness to deploy a military observer mission to the front to assist in securing the truce", there has been development on that topic. Armenia has affirmed its readiness for the deployment (see source), whereas Azerbaijan wants them only towards the end of the conflict (see source - which defeats the purpose of truce observers if you only need them after conflict is over). I suggest the sentence to be appended with "this has been affirmed by Armenia, but not Azerbaijan"--Sataralynd (talk) 13:52, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

@Sataralynd: As far as I see, both Armenia and Azerbaijan want to end the conflict, and because of this they signed an ceasefire. But also, they are accusing each other for violating ceasefire and they say that this (military observer mission) must be with ceasefire (it also mentioned in your sources). I think that a statement about it is not necessary right now. Ahmetlii (talk) 14:43, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

it is true that both sides have signed an agreement to a ceasefire. However, it is clear that at least one of them is not abiding by the ceasefire. Having a third party on the ground to observe it is a good way to help enforce the ceasefire. When one side agrees to the presence of a third party, and the other only after the conflict is towards its end, I think that is useful information. We should not interpret it, but should basically mention as reported in third party outlets. @Johncdraper: perhaps you could give your 0.02$? --Sataralynd (talk) 15:26, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I have WP:BRD a form of words on this; it may need some work. Johncdraper (talk) 18:11, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

SecState Pompeo's Remarks

I'll just leave this here, but I think it should be included in the article: "Yeah, it’s a longstanding conflict. The resolution of that conflict ought to be done through negotiation and peaceful discussions, not through armed conflict, and certainly not with third party countries coming in to lend their firepower to what is already a powder keg of a situation. We – we’re hopeful that the Armenians will be able to defend against what the Azerbaijanis are doing, and that they will all, before that takes place, get the ceasefire right, and then sit down at the table and try and sort through this – that is – what is a truly historic and complicated problem set." Source here. Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:30, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

@MarshallBagramyan: I have included the full quote to provide better context. This will need paraphrasing, but I do not have time right now. Would you oblige? Johncdraper (talk) 18:35, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Sure, be happy to look at it as soon as I can squeeze it in. Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 20:05, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

About sources from Pan.am and Karabakh Records

Since these sources are unverified and probably have a lot bias, I want to open these sources' usage to the discussion. Here is a discussion that I opened on RSN, and here is a case from 2014 on RSN. I want to ping @Johncdraper  and @Գարիկ Ավագյան  for discussion. Ahmetlii (talk) 12:53, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you @Ahmetlii:. Well, I would say that www.pan.am is the most reliable website among the Armenian onces, that is why I use mainly Pan articles as a source here. Also, Armenia ranks 61th in 2020 World Press Freedom Index, compared to the Russian, Turkish and Azerbaijani press who are on the bottom line of the Press Freedom. Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 13:06, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

@Գարիկ Ավագյան: Ok, but the fact is the sources has dubious and improper writing when I thoughtfully researched, so I'm still having a lot questions (and also you indicated that "the most reliable source among Armenian sources"). I understand your point in general about freedom of the press, but this is a questioning about the sources. Ahmetlii (talk) 13:25, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

@Ahmetlii: could you send me the link which you find dubious? Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 13:40, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

@Գարիկ Ավագյան: Actually, I think that there's lots of dubious sources from this publisher, but here is one of the most dubious ones: [3]. It references to Telegram and Twitter, also to same dubious source. I have analyzed it and I don't even see any verification about claims from pan.am. That's one of my points.--Ahmetlii (talk) 13:49, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

@Ahmetlii: This is what I found about Karabakh Records [4]. Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 14:01, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Armenia having more press freedom does not mean news sources originating from Armenia are automatically unbiased or true. — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 13:34, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

The issue of using the information from the Panarmenian and Karabakh Records was already discussed earlier and a compromise was found to not include their figures in the infobox, but leave a footnote regarding their figure and present their information in the context of Armenian claims regarding Azeri casualties within the main body of the article. As a counter-balance of course we are also presenting Azeri claims of Armenian casualties as well. EkoGraf (talk) 14:21, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong in cosidering the names of Azerbaijani soldiers killed reported by Karabkh Records inside Armenian claims of losses. It complement the claims. Also why Azerbaijan have not updated their Armenian dead claims? Why Azerbaijan dont publish his own casualties?. Why Azerbaijani editors are soo scared with that? Maybe the number of killed Azerbaijani soldiers could be far higher than those 820 currently reported by Karabkh Records. Pro-Azerbaijani and pro-Turkish editors are so scared with the idea that English speakers have more information regarding Azerbaijani soldiers killed than their own families in Azerbaijan, that cant put aside their POV pushes.Mr.User200 (talk) 14:34, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

@Mr.User200: First, WP:POLITE; I'm inviting you to civility. Second, I'm not scaring from that you said, also I'm supporting that. That's how Wikipedia has a lot of unbiased information. Just, I pointed out that the reliability of these sources (because of Wikipedia's policies about tweets, we must not use tweets from unverified accounts, and we must replace it with a news source that also with quotes from other sources or from a reliable source if possible). Ahmetlii (talk) 14:53, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Although the twitter account in question is the official account of the Karabakh Records website, and not of an unknown twitter user, its already been agreed upon previously that as soon as a news source appears that carries over the information, like the Panarmenian did (and Sputnik before it), the twitter posts will be replaced. Which I just did. A Sputnik news report from a few days ago carried the story of the 619 figure (from before today's update). Accordingly, the Panarmenian report and three of the four Twitter posts have been removed. As for the reliability of the Panarmenian, its as reliable as any claims made by Azerbaijani media outlets that we are also using as sources in the article. If we started removing one sides' media sources as unreliable we would need to do it for the other side as well. For that reason, proper attribution is made to the claims made by both sides. And like its been said, this claim has been written in the article in the context of the Armenian allegations of Azeri casualties. EkoGraf (talk) 15:57, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Sputnik is a deprecated source and should not be used. Check. Johncdraper (talk) 17:56, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

The deprecation is in relation to, as per Wikipedia's summary, the publication of Russian propaganda. However, in this case, Sputnik is a secondary source, not primary source, and the information its publishing is not coming from it. EkoGraf (talk) 19:03, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Deprecated sources are considered "generally unreliable" and shouldn't be used for anything except "uncontroversial self-descriptions".--Staberinde (talk) 19:27, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

If you wish it so, we can replace it with another media outlet as soon as the Karabakh Record's figure is reported on by it. EkoGraf (talk) 20:17, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Syrian Mercenaries claim or allegation ?

Hello, I do not understand why unreliable and contradictory sources are used when referring to a very sensitive subject. If you really read the 42nd resource. Here they are called "Reliable sources" about their sources, but there is no indication of what their sources are. If I go and open a website myself and make such a statement, I think I can be considered a resource for you. Don't say they're not just a website, after all, a person writes all those news. Mslost (talk) 13:54, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

This pages changes so fast that it is not clear what you mean by 42nd resource. Would you please specify in more detail what you are suggesting? Johncdraper (talk) 18:25, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

if you are questioning the presence of mercenaries, this issue was discussed elsewhere. It has been decided that it is not an allegation and a fact. WSJ even interviewed a mercenary that admitted to being hired by Turkey.Expertwikiguy (talk) 02:10, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Convention on Cluster Munitions

The statement in the article "[...] as well as by the use of cluster munitions (which are banned by most of the international community but not by Armenia or Azerbaijan), [...]" seems misleading. While it is true in the strictest sense of the word that most countries have signed this treaty it is only 56%, and many of the worlds leadign military powers are non-signatories; furthermore countries in the region are overwhelmingly non-signatories, though the statement in the article gives the impression that the status of cluster weapons for Armenia and Azerbaijan is exceptional. Perhaps this should be rephrased to simply mention there is a UN Convention against them, or be removed altogether. FireCrack (talk) 19:56, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, the powers that actually have vast stores of these type of munitions will not be dictated to by small, "third world" countries without the capability of producing these in quantity, if at all. Since there is no agreement between NATO, the Russian Federation, and China over these, it gives a misleading sense that such weapons are "banned." Thanks for pointing this out.104.169.21.247 (talk) 08:03, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I take your point about some leading miltaries. However, the most remarkable aspect of membership of the UN is that all countries, at least in the General Assembly and on paper in these treaties, are equal, no matter their power status. The statement appears to be factually correct. Why not suggest an improved form of words yourself here, using quotes? Johncdraper (talk) 18:23, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

But the reality is, the paper is just a piece of paper - the fist is all that counts. Until NATO/RF/China sign such a "ban" it doesn't exist. No matter what, for example, Somalia has to say on the matter.104.169.21.247 (talk) 23:24, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

@Contributions/104.169.21.247: I have posted to your Talk how you may help on this. Johncdraper (talk) 09:23, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Azerbaijan shut down Armanian Su-25 fighter jet (18 October)

18 October part must include the following as well:
Azerbaijan shut down Armanian Su-25 fighter jet.. The name of the pilot is Vyacheslav Vaskovsky (45-year-old). Fullscaledx (talk) 12:07, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Done. Johncdraper (talk) 13:16, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

References

I have Voskovsky Vyacheslav Valerevich, (Восковский Вячеслав Вальеревич) not Vaskovsky; lieutenant colonel and deputy commander of the unit based in Erebuni. --Nicola Romani (talk) 14:45, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

More attention to the two executed PoW's please.

I think it is horrible to ignore the fact two defenseless Armenian PoW's were murdered in cold-blood after being captured in Hadrut. (1 soldier and 1 conscripted older civilian) Executing unarmed prisoners is an evil sadistic crime, as sadistic as ISIS murdering captured Syrian and Iraqi soldiers or Nazi soldiers murdering Soviet PoW's. I think we should add to the infobox under the Armenian casualty tab 'Two PoW's executed' or perhaps create a new section under 'War Crimes' and give it more attention than it has now only with a few sentences in the timeline.
I realize in war many crimes often occur by both sides, but the fact this one has been recorded and celebrated on Azeri social media shows the evilness behind this act and I hate to say this but it is perhaps reflective of the Azeri people as well. The fact the Azeri MoD dismissed it as 'fake' etc. is equally horrible. It is a crime = murder. And the Armenians have done nothing close to this, and a missile hitting a residential area in Ganja is not as 'deliberate' as shooting dead an unarmed prisoner from a few meters away and Scud missiles are known for their inaccuracy.
I would have the same reaction if two Azeri PoW's were shown on video being brutally murdered and then the Armenians celebrating it on their social media. This is a question of what is right and wrong, and I ask for more attention to be given to this egregious crime.
User178198273998166172 (talk) 13:05, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Not done WP:NOTAFORUM. Also, the event was mentioned in the article with no further developments visible. And avoid WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 12:53, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@Rosguill: not the first time. Beshogur (talk) 13:34, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

This request has a WP:RGW attitude; our coverage should reflect the level of attention paid by RS, not social media. If you can provide evidence that RS are providing ample attention to this incident, it can be expanded. Right now we appear to just have bellingcat, which is ok but not great, and thus a brief mention is appropriate. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:08, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Turkey alleges arms supply to Armenia

The Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has stated that Russia, France, and the United States supply arms to Armenia [during the conflict]. At least that's what Google Translate says. Here's a RIA Novosti report on it: 1 --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 14:00, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Here's my translation of the original Turkish text from Euronews and Toplumsal:

They talk about the Minsk trio. What is this Minsk trio? US, Russia, and France. They were always with Armenia, they give all kinds of arms support to the Armenians. For 30 years they didn't finished these talks and didn't gave the lands our Azerbaijani brothers to themselves.

The original:

Minsk üçlüsünden bahsediyorlar. Nedir bu Minsk üçlüsü? ABD, Fransa ve Rusya. Bunlar Ermenistan’ın yanında yer aldılar, Ermenilere her türlü silah desteğini veriyorlar. 30 yıldır kalkıp da bu müzakereyi bitirmediler ve Azeri kardeşlerimizin topraklarını kendilerine vermediler.

--► Sincerely: SolaVirum 14:08, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Seriously? Any information on the piece of French and US equipment that the Armenian forces allegedly used, and how was it transported? Shows how without a filtering mechanism, there is no way to get rid of fancy info; obviously a sentence like this will never be balanced by a refutation from the sides concerned, because most of the time they will not bother replying to stuff that aren't even worth replying to. Hemşinli çocuk 15:39, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Ermenermin, you can, for as I'm concerned, open Gmail, Yahoo Mail, or any other that emailing service you prefer, add @tccb.gov.tr in the address section, and write down your concerns about the statement. Because I'm not the President of Turkey. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 17:38, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, the statements from Turkey, which is a party to the conflict, are not considered as an independent source. Also, it is not specified that the support for weapons was always or definitely at the time of the conflict. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 09:58, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Please delete the Yukhari Govhar Agha Mosque image

Johncdraper I find it completely ridiculous to include a picture of the mosque and caption that reads: Yukhari Govhar Agha Mosque in Shusha. The status and treatment of mosques is a subject of contention in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.
You can mention all the Azeri sources you want, but the fact is it has absolutely nothing to do with this current war (the subject of this page). The Mosque has not been damaged at all. Additionally, those sources are just pure evil propaganda meant to demonize Armenia. All the mosques Armenia has are under the care of Iran. See here: https://www.azatutyun.am/a/28915717.html
If Armenia decides one day to blow up that building to spite Azerbaijan, please by all means mention it. Until then, please do not use these irrelevant captions meant to demonize Armenia.
User178198273998166172 (talk) 13:05, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM and WP:OPINION for the "demonize Armenia" and "All the mosques Armenia has are under the care of Iran", as there are reports of Armenian seperatists using mosques for cattles (1, 2). --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 12:28, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

That first website is a heavily political-propaganda source, and I wouldn't trust it very much; information from such sites is sometimes accurate, but with all the surrounding POV tone, suspicion about accuracy should be high.104.169.21.247 (talk) 07:49, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

The Agdam mosque is located in a ghost town along the front-line buffer zone, so the Armenian authorities cannot manage it properly obviously and it has fallen into some disrepair. Azerbaijan has been known to purposely destroy cultural sites (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_cemetery_in_Julfa), while Armenia has never done that. This isn't based on an Azeri or Armenian perspective, this is based on what is right and what is wrong.
User178198273998166172 (talk) 13:42, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Okay, this is just an expression of a viewpoint, and is getting unrelated to the subject as it can get. If you want to label Azerbaijan as a "lying, killing, Christian-hating, church-destroying Shi'ite Muslim devil", go ahead. Do it. But Wikipedia isn't a place for that. Also, see the Saint Gregory the Illuminator Church for once. Ultimately, not done --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 13:06, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree, that mosque has nothing to do just at the right side on the timeline, and just under the Cathedral that was actually damaged in this war. While I don't see the purpose of including subjects not directly related to this war, if the treatment of monuments that were not damaged in this war has to be discussed, then a section has to be created for that purpose, that covers both positions. Hemşinli çocuk 14:15, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. There are already a number of third-party references confirming the damage sustained by Ghazanchetsots. Including an image of the mosque in Shushi or Aghdam or Ganja and saying that Azerbaijani sources allege that they, too, have been damaged or there is "concern" about their status, seems inappropriate to me since it elevates on a plane level with that of Ghazanchestsots. I would suggest removing the image of the mosque pending third-party confirmation. Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 16:16, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Someone, any comment? Sincerely. Hemşinli çocuk 19:10, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Already have posted below: the image and the caption are completely irrelevant within the section, at least. In fact, i would say the cathedral′s image should be a different one -- showing the destruction as this would make it relevant to the section. Axxxion (talk) 14:27, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

There are no neutral authoritative sources to confirm this. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 10:00, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Solavirum edits

Could you explain what is wrong with the description? Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 12:12, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Գարիկ Ավագյան, it is redundant to add more and more information about the cathedral in the image caption, which should've stayed short and exact. The article is clearly not about the cathedral itself. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 12:14, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

P.S. if you want too add that date so badly, you can add it to the body of the article, but not the image caption. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 12:15, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Solavirum I don't find anything redundant in adding the date (which is historical). If you look at the photographs of the monuments, you will see the dating in each image. So, this is your personal opinion and please do not impose your opinion here. We have clear Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The date is short enough to be included.

P. S. This is not the first time you remove/revert information about the church or the image itself. [5] Try to keep it more neutral, not biased. Please, self-revert. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 12:29, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Գարիկ Ավագյան, it being historical or not has nothing to do with this. I've stressed that the date itself is not the problem, but its addition to the image caption is unnecessary. We have clear Wikipedia policies and guidelines, but you don't dare to cite a specific one? Moreover, reverting stuff related to cathedral is not being biased, which other users have done the same. Stick to the WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH and don't refer to non-existent guidelines. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 12:40, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Here is Wikipedia's guidlines [6] Please, read them carefully. Your " it being historical or not has nothing to do with this " is still your personal opinion. If it did not have historical significance, we would not have included it in the article with the image. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 14:40, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree the particular info was redundant in this article. Much more so is the info about the Shusha mosque, which is completely outside this narrative.Axxxion (talk) 14:22, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

@Axxxion:, well, Johncdraper can provide better explanation about that addition, as he added the caption/image. In the meanwhile, there were reports of mosques getting damaged during the conflict, like the cathedral. I don't know why we should directly prefer the cathedral over the mosque to give it a Christian struggle vibe. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 14:25, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Axxxion May I know what you think about adding the word historical in the Ghazanchetsots Cathedral as it is historical monument based on the references. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 14:44, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Գարիկ ԱվագյանI am generally, as a matter of principle, against any wanton superlatives/characterisations, especially where the actual meaning thereof is not entirely clear, or precise, unless this is referenced as per Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. That said, i aint an expert on this particular issue.Axxxion (talk) 18:55, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Do we have reliable images of destruction to the mosque?Axxxion (talk) 14:30, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Axxxion No image/report confirming destruction of the mosque, but lots of international reports about the Ghazanchetsots Cathedral's destruction. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 14:46, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Hey Johncdraper, may we know what you think of adding the word historical under the title of Ghazanchetsots Cathedral image, since it was published in the world media because the Cathedral itself is a cultural and historical heritage. Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 09:50, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

@Գարիկ Ավագյան: I will have to check out its main article first. Heritage is universally important. Please take this to the Cathedral's Talk page. Johncdraper (talk) 10:21, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 10:01, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Rename page to "2020 Azeribaijan-Armenia Conflict"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This has recently spiked in media usage the last three days due to contensious issues on whether to call it Nagorno-Karabakh or Artsakh. So this has taken off recently. It also fits the criteria(Combatant names), fits the precedent set by "Russo-Ukrainian War", and is neutral.

Alternatives are Armenian-Azeribaijani, Azeri-Armenian, or replacing Conflict with war. 206.174.216.170 (talk) 15:09, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Not done WP:COMMONNAME --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 15:33, 19 October 2020 (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.

Solavirum edits

He is the Commander of anti-tank battery. Whom we include in the infobox if not them? Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 16:09, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Գարիկ Ավագյան:, his rank is captain, and just leads a battery. Too minor to include. There are many Azerbaijani officers with minor ranks too, but we are not mentioning them in the infobox because it is redundant. Differently, Hikmat Hasanov, Hikmat Mirzayev, and Mais Barkhudarov lead the offensives. There is huge difference between being a corps commander and a anti-tank battery captain. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 16:43, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Celebrity section - really?

I do know there are people who think that the whole world revolves around what (primarily American) celebrities say in ephemeral social media messages, but do we really need a section on it? I know it's a much bigger conflict, but just for comparison, I see nothing on World War II about how Bob Hope and Vera Lynn backed the Allied side.

Most of the listed celebrities are self explanatory. Mkhitaryan is Armenian. Cher and Kardashian are Armenian Americans. West is married to Kardashian. Ozil is an ethnic Turk who is best friends with Erdogan [7]. And then there's Cardi B, who put up an Instagram story because the realtor selling her house was Armenian and asked for it. Then she backtracked by saying she didn't know anything about the conflict. [8] <- This source also mentions Serj Tankian and Alexis Ohanian. Can you, without looking, guess which side those celebrities support?

This is Wikipedia, not TMZ or the National Enquirer. Unknown Temptation (talk) 13:19, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Personally, i'd think that, if you'd make a citation about celebrity actions, you should talk about the activism supported by Serj Tankian, he promoted several fund-raising institutions on his social media, as he posted in Instagram , at least i found that useful, since it's not just saying, it's supporting existing movements like the Armenian Diaspora 2804:5C:4FE4:4A00:5831:F97D:567:E88E (talk) 14:31, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, celebrity section is silly and should be removed.--Staberinde (talk) 11:19, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

References

My position on this has been clear. A sense of proportion is important. I would not allocate more space to Celebrities than to supraregional organizations, major powers, mid powers, etc. Johncdraper (talk) 18:29, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I see your point that Armenian and Azeri celebrities obviously would post supporting messages for their own, but there is also Cardi B, Elton John, Peter Gabriel and Michael B. Jordan. But I just saw that someone has already removed it without a consensuses. What was posted before clearly represented both sides and it is important to cover their messages as them being such important figures and talking about the issue. Can we please start a voting process to KEEP or REMOVE? Expertwikiguy (talk) 02:25, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

(Move this if I've got the indenting etiquette wrong, delete if the discussion is over) In my own personal opinion, nothing else, these non-Caucasian (in the geographical sense) celebrities are the least important of them all. One user gave links to how Serj Tankian, a noted political musician, has been fundraising. Cardi B, who sings about other stuff, posted an Instagram story and then apologised by saying that she had no idea about the conflict. I'll accept good faith that all these celebrities had honest intentions, but I don't see the notability of their tweets apart from in a world that reduces everything to celebrities and Twitter. Unknown Temptation (talk) 19:09, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Important? Not really, there is a reason why one struggles to find celebrity sections in any wikipedia military conflict article. Not everything that gets mentioned in news is actually important here. Also one doesn't really need a consensus to remove something that was unilaterally added merely two days earlier.--Staberinde (talk) 07:40, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

BTW, this was discussed before in the talk page. One person had opposed and one person besides me agreed. So since it was 2-1 and no one else commented, I went ahead and added it. See details here. So based on prior votes and discussion above, I am counting 3 votes to KEEP, 3 to DELETE and one additional person is OK to KEEP as long as it is proportional to superregional organizations. I think there is no consensus yet. We need more people to comment. Expertwikiguy (talk) 08:46, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Analysis section completely biased

"Analysis" section is completely biased and propaganda against one party, it will seriously affect wikipedia impartial factfulness reputation. I am sure there are 100s of noted analysts saying same for armenian army. Please read below what is written about ajerbaijan, though we know ajerbaijan army is in more commanding position in war. It is written

"One analyst in the journal Foreign Policy predicted that Azerbaijan would have great difficulty in trying to occupy the entire area of Nagorno-Karabakh due to the extremely inaccessible mountainous terrain controlled by Armenian troops. In addition, he opined that the readiness of the Azerbaijani army was very poor, with morale low, its structure corrupt and inefficient, and a desertion rate as high as 20 percent. Furthermore, despite large investments in the purchase of military equipment from oil profits, the Azerbaijani army was said to lack adequate training for the use of new equipment.[84]"

Please edit and remove this "analysis" part. Wikipedia is not analyst, it presents the truth and facts from all sides and not propaganda of any party or individual. Nawaab Sahaab (talk) 16:41, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree that this particular Foreign Policy 'analysis' is ridiculous. The article just reads "Azerbaijan - bad, Armenia - good". --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 16:47, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Unclassified files (2018) shows that Azerbaijan had even more problems than what Foreign Policy claims:

(5) (U) Training. Roughly 18 to 20 percent of serving personnel desert their units. Another 20 % of the total number of conscripts are constantly in hiding. As a result, the Army has been undermanned. Consequently, Azerbaijan was forced to extend the service term for sergeants and soldiers illegally and this has brought about an increase in the number of deserters and poor discipline. In particular, instead of 18 month enlistments that are stipulated by the law, servicemen have to serve 36 to 42 months. In late 2013, the number of citizens of draft age who, in compliance with requirements of the law on the Fundamentals of the Military Service Draft, had been granted a deferment from the draft exceeded the number of draftees who had been called into active military service by the military commissariat during the course of the year. Poor living conditions and morale contribute to high desertion rates, and the short-term of service for conscripts adds to unit training burdens and problems at unit level.

There is a reason why Azerbaijan release no information on military casualties, to prevent desertion in the army, why foreign mercenaries were send there and the heavy use of drones. Azerbaijani mothers have already started requesting answers about their sons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ermenermin (talk • contribs) 18:06, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Ermenermin, firstly, the families of the dead aren't kept in the dark here. Everyone is informed about the KIAs, and they are getting buried in cemeteries with the involvement of the masses. Only thing that the Azerbaijani government undiscloses is the exact number. You're directly lying in this page, and you're statements are offensive to ones who lost their loved-ones, including me, and I will report you if you continue to do so. Also, Tolish Media is an Armenian-owned page, which even Facebook confirms. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 18:40, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Your rude comment was uncalled for. I replied in your talkpage. Hemşinli çocuk 19:17, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

• Noting that the above comment is sliding into WP:NOTFORUM territory, Foreign Policy is a well-regarded American global affairs publication, and its perspectives are generally appropriate to include in an Analysis section. Objections to the content should make the case for why the source is not reliable/due in this context, or present other RS that directly contradict FP's claims. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:17, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Map updates

This map indeed seems to be produced by the Azerbaijan Ministry of Defense. Most locations that were attacked by Azerbaijani forces but were repelled are shown as if they are controlled by Azerbaijani forces. For example, there was an unsuccessful offensive on Hadrut and since then this website shows that it is under Tatar control despite the fact that there were many videos of foreign journalist reporting from the city.

Emreculha, and others, the Azerbaijani authorities renewed their claims, as seen here. Green shows the areas under Azerbaijani control, while the red shows ongoing clashes. So, what we can do is adding areas captured by Azerbaijan and confirmed by third-party source with turquoise, and the claimed but not confirmed areas with grey. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 13:29, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Solavirum: So, this is exactly what I've argued is problematic in the thread above [9]. I repeat the problems with adding Azerbaijani government claims to the map again: There is an information war going on with regards to claims, claims are politically charged and seem to be used for arguing that fighting in a region is defensive with regards to the ceasefire(s) - therefore it is not proper with regards to neutrality to display these claims on a map featured on a high-profile Wikipedia page such as this. AntonSamuel (talk) 13:36, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I disagree with that. Adding the claims are appropriate, hell none of the claims by Azerbaijan have been disapproved at this point. But for neutrality sake, we add the confirmed ones in turquoise, and the claims in grey. It is absurd to not the add claims. Otherwise, the readers will not be able to see the full picture. I propose that we add the claims with a separate key, what the hell is wrong with that? --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 13:59, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Solavirum: I explained why I think it's an issue to include the Azerbaijani government claims - you haven't really addressed the points I made as to why it is problematic with regard to WP:NPOV. I still think the most prudent course of option is to keep the map as accurate as possible since it's supposed to depict the situation on the ground, with regard to that, the "full picture" does not include any government claims in my view. AntonSamuel (talk) 14:21, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Please stop treating the map as if this were the Azerbaijan Ministry of Defense website. We should be extra cautious with claims from both sides and until territorial claims are verified by a third party, maintain the WP:NPOV--Sataralynd (talk) 02:01, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Ceasefire Violations section (since 10 October 2020) - 15-17th of Oct

The Ceasefire violations (since 10 October 2020) section, specially the last two paragraphs, are solely reporting attacks on the Azerbaijani side. On the three days 15th, 16th and 17th of Oct, there has been attacks and shelling in NK side as well but these are not included in the section. 15th here and here, 16th here and here, and 17th here and here. These sources and what they report need to be added, to provide a holistic view to a casual reader --Sataralynd (talk) 15:56, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

@Sataralynd: Would you be prepared to conduct a rewrite in your sandbox and then invite comments? Johncdraper (talk) 18:02, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

You can WP:BOLD it yourself. Please feel free to provide alternatives. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 21:27, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

@Johncdraper: I will add a write up to the sandbox and tag you and Solavirum for comments. On a separate note, below the new announced ceasefire, we should mention that the spokesperson of Armenia's MoD declared that the ceasefire has been broken by the Azerbaijan forces both in the northern and southern fronts. Here is the source --Sataralynd (talk) 23:36, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

@Sataralynd: Nothing doing re Twitter. Have are you progressing on the rewrite? Johncdraper (talk) 09:18, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@Johncdraper: I wrote in my sandbox and tagged you. Could you check? Also regarding the violation of the ceasefire, here is a non-Twitter source and now both sides are accusing each other of ceasefire violation --Sataralynd (talk) 11:40, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@Sataralynd: I would need the link to your Sandbox. You can provide the link here or email it to me. Accusations of ceasefire violations are to be expected until the OM gets on the ground. We should be aware that there is a difference in scale between what is happening now and long-range heavy artillery and ballistic missile exchanges. Johncdraper (talk) 13:04, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello @Johncdraper: did you get a chance to work on the 15-17 of October reports from the Armenian side? Sataralynd (talk) 03:29, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Sataralynd: I have now made a first pass at this; Artsakh/Armenian sources may need to be better distinguished and places should be Wikilinked if it is their first mention. Thank you for the NPOV material. Johncdraper (talk) 07:04, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Johncdraper: thanks. I will review later and provide comments if any. --Sataralynd (talk) 12:33, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Sataralynd, well, sorry, but the tagging didn't work. Anyways, I found the sandbox myself and I have few comments on it. If it is not a mass-causality incident, we don't mention it on the timeline; and we've already summarized the civilian causalities. But we can add that the places mentioned in the sandbox were targeted, while changing the names of the settlements (like Berdashen to Qarakənd) per WP:COMMONNAME. I will more comments after I'm able to get some sleep. In any case, Johncdraper, here is Sataralynd's sandbox. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 05:16, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I disagree that only mass casualties are to be included. Besides, even if that were the case, here are entries under 16 October which are not mass casualty but are mentioned: The Azerbaijani MoD stated that Armenian forces shelled Goranboy, Tartar, Aghdam and Aghjabadi Districts. In the evening, the Azerbaijani MoD stated that the previous day Armenian forces had fired a missile at Ordubad, in Nakhchivan The 1,2,3 references don't mention any casualties, and yet the information is included. Again I repeat, we need to ensure to not provided a one sided view of the events to the usual Wikipedia reader. --Sataralynd (talk) 12:31, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

You can disagree as much as you want, that's what we've agreed on per WP:SIZE. Also, you didn't get my point above. We can add the fact of shelling, but not include someone getting a paper cut. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 13:05, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Solavirum: I have seen you removed sentences about injured and killed civilians after changes made by @Johncdraper:. Your words paper cut is a value judgement that should not be made here. Please report the sources without interpretation and assessment on injuries whether they are paper cuts or not. @Johncdraper: could you help defer this to a third party for resolution? The timeline section as it stands is one-sided. Thank you. --Sataralynd (talk) 16:06, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Sataralynd: do you even realize how many people have been injured from both sides? Nearly 400, and Wikipedia isn't a memorial for them. There are 282 injured Azerbaijani civilans, do we mention every single of them? No. The timeline section is not one-sided and you're just being WP:TENDENTIOUS. Yet again, I'm saying this for the last time, avoid mentioning minor injuries and non-mass-causality incidents. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 16:46, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I would not comment on opinions. I would ask this to be resolved by someone other than you and me. @Johncdraper: could you nominate a third party? --Sataralynd (talk) 17:01, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello solavirum. "If it is not a mass-causality incident, we don't mention it on the timeline" has there been any discussion and a consequent mutual agreement on this somewhere? That "we don't mention it"? If so, could you please provide a link. Another thing, "changing the names of the settlements (like Berdashen to Qarakənd)" and using the word "settlement" itself demonstrates strong bias. I suggest adding both variations of names per your example, and refer from using the word "settlement" (even in the talk section). Sincerely, --Alex662607004 (talk) 23:09, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Alex662607004, ah yes, the person who reports me to every page he or she knows. Anyways, if you check the archives, you can see that several users wanted to the trim the info on causalities due to WP:SIZE, and Johncdraper was one to comply to that. Also, for the settlement name, if you think that WP:COMMONNAME guideline is biased, you can ask the community to alter it. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 04:28, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Turkey/Russia Analysis is Shallow

"Turkey, driven by President Erdogan's ambitions to improve his popularity and divert attention from his country's economic issues..."

Quite a bit subjective -- also overlooks historical/cultural ties between Turkey-Azerbaijan and does not afford Turkey the same rationale (military alliance, etc.) as it does to the Russia-Armenia analysis.

— MaviLight (talk) 06:23, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@MaviLight: Agreed. I understand from @Solavirum: that the issues involved date back a over a century and include the Moscow Treaty of 16 March 1921. Would you kindly help out with a form of words and citations? Johncdraper (talk) 07:18, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, Turkey and Azerbaijan are bound by strong ethnic, cultural and historic ties, and refer to their relationship as being one between "two states, one nation." In short, ethnically, they have the same origin. In 1918, during the late stages of WW1, the Azerbaijani Government was formed. The two parties formed officials relations with the Treaty of Batum. Then, when the Ottoman Turks were campaigning in the Caucasus, many local Azerbaijani irregulars and commanders joined their ranks (See: Battle of Goychay, Battle of Baku, and Mürsel Bakû, the latter leading the 5th regiment only comprised of Azerbaijanis). During the Turkish War of Independence, the newly formed Azerbaijan sent economic aids to Turkey, using its vast oil reserves. In 1920, Bolsheviks occupied Azerbaijan, with many prominent Azerbaijanis escaping to Turkey, with some rose to prominence in Turkey (see: Ahmet Ağaoğlu). In the late 80s and early 90s, Azerbaijani and Turkish relations started to reform, as Azerbaijan was trying to get its independence. Turkey was the first country to recognize Azerbaijan's independence in 1991, while in 1992, Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic within Azerbaijan recognized Turkish Cyprus' independence. About Nakhchivan, the status of Nakhchivan was determined by the Moscow Treaty of 16 March 1921. With this treaty, it was decided that Nakhchivan (under the protection of Azerbaijan) should be an autonomous region. In addition, the Soviet Union and Turkey, the countries have been the guarantors of Nakhchivan. In 1992, Azerbaijani leadership were divided between Azerbaijan proper (Abulfaz Elchibey) and Nakhchivan (Heydar Aliyev; who would later overthrow Elchibey). The Armenian forces attacked Nakhchivan, which caused a political crisis between Armenia and Turkey. At the end, with the meditation of US, a ceasefire treaty was signed between Nakhchivan and Armenia. And Armenia's alleged rocketing of Nakhchivan caused some discussions over this treaty's terms.

Johncdraper, hope I've been able to explain it. But this feels like a WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. Might able to find real analyses from Western sources though. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 13:01, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Solavirum: We might need to update Moscow Treaty of 16 March 1921 with these more contemporary references. This could be taken to that page's Talk? Johncdraper (talk) 06:00, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

References