Talk:September 2022 Armenia–Azerbaijan clashes

Ceasefire failed

@Dunutubble: The Russian broken ceasefire was broken within minutes and the clashes are continuing. These two Twitter accounts are giving updates. [1], [2]. Viewsridge (talk) 14:00, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Name

Invasion? No one is calling it an invasion. ([3] [4] [5] [6]) It should be changed back to clashes. All Azerbaijan has done (as of now) is capture some heights on the border, not invading it's neighbor. Nothing in the article as well says anything about an invasion. Yes, Azerbaijan has moved into Armenia's recognized borders but if they were launching an invasion, they would have (or at least tried to) take more Armenian land and villages. As more time passes, if it turns out to develop into an invasion or not, we will have to see, but clashes between Armenians and Azerbaijanis are not rare. (If it does develop into an invasion, remove "September" from the title and change "Invasion" to "invasion" as well.) Mtcat101 (talk) 23:31, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I've moved it myself back to clashes. Mtcat101 (talk) 23:39, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

@Mtcat101: Shouldn’t it be titled September 2022 Armenia-Azerbaijan border clashes? Blaylockjam10 (talk) 00:50, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, I completely missed that. It's fixed now. Mtcat101 (talk) 01:09, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

@Blaylockjam10 and Mtcat101: The clashes are not necessarily limited to the border, Armenia has said that the city of Martuni was shelled by Azerbaijan. The towns of Jermuk and Goris were also shelled which are not adjacent to the border. Viewsridge (talk) 06:24, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

It's well known that the media report on this in a very pro-Azerbaijan way. Looking at this objectively, parts of Syunik, Vayots Dzor and Gegharkunik provinces (UNCONTESTED AREAS OF THE REPUBLIC OF ARMENIA) are being invaded, civilians have been killed. How the hell is that not an invasion??? If for example, the USA randomly invaded Toronto, started shelling canadian military sites etc, by your logic, you would then say that "clashes have taken place in the disputed territory of Ontario"., even though there is no international consensus that these lands are disputed, beyond the most fringe propaganda of the state of Azerbaijan. Mikeo34 (talk) 10:40, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

@Mikeo34: This has not been described as an invasion by any third party or even first party source for that matter, including by Armenians themselves. Even in the case that it had been, such a change would require a renaming discussion first. I am reverting the article back to its old name, please discuss first before making such changes. Viewsridge (talk) 11:06, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

@Viewsridge: Media uses different descriptions, including “Azerbaijan has attacked Armenia” [7] or "war"[8], while human rights organisations like Lemkin institute call it a “war of aggression” [9] and Freedom House calles it "Attacks on Armenia" [10]. A number of government/parliamentary statements describe it as a "large-scale attack"[11] [12], or “aggression” [13], on the "sovereign territory of Armenia". Most US senators/congressmen refer to “(unrpovocked/unwarranted) attack/aggression/offensive/assault on/in Armenia” by Azerbaijan [14], [15] [16][17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22][23] The US state department also confirmes “significant evidence of Azerbaijani shelling inside Armenia and significant damage to Armenian infrastructure"[24] , while Armenia has reported already 4 civilians wounded and over 2500 displaced[25] and the fact that it’s been brought up in the UN Security Council also suggests more than just “border clashes”... Hence the current title seems misleading as it does not reflect the scale of the attack (if you see the maps[26] it's basically covering 30-40 percent of the entire territory of Armenia) and the fact that Azerbaijan is recognised as the instigator of the attacks and that the fighting is inside internationally recognised borders of Armenia. So I would suggest renaming it to something more appropriate, like a "large-sale military aggression/attack/offensive on Armenia by Azerbaijan" or similar. Vanezi (talk) 16:01, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

@Vanezi Astghik: There is no dispute that Azerbaijan is taking offensive actions in the clashes. This has been admitted by their government. However these actions are still not called an invasion by any references. It can be stated in the article that Azerbaijan is accused of launching an unprovoked attack. Viewsridge (talk) 18:47, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

@Viewsridge:That's why I did not suggest to revert it back to "invasion" but to use another, more appropriate name. I was suggesting the title "Military aggression on Armenia by Azerbaijan" or "Large-scale military attack on Armenia by Azerbaijan" as both "aggression" and "attack" are terms that have been widely used by media, as well as official/government entities. The term "clashes" fails to communicate both the massive scale of the attack and its nature. Can we agree on that? Vanezi (talk) 20:44, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

These aren't border clashes. It has been confirmed by both sides and by independent media that Azerbaijan has advanced to territories deep within Armenia. --Antondimak (talk) 14:43, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

@Antondimak: Please see the discussion above. Viewsridge (talk) 16:32, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

UNDUE?

@ZaniGiovanni: Please explain why AzMoD's statement is UNDUE. It is not displayed in Wikivoice and is explicitly stated to be *their* statement. There is nearly identical information in the section below the one you reverted, but from the Armenian MoD. How come you don't think that's UNDUE? — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 12:21, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure what "nearly identical" statement you’re talking about, I'm going to comment on my revert.

Saying Azerbaijan didn't enter Armenian territory is utter nonsense even if it's a MoD statement, WP:UNDUE applies here. Especially when Azerbaijan already occupies Armenian territory around Lake Sev. [27], [28] which makes such a statement even more UNDUE, WikiVoice or otherwise. Unless third party RS confirm such exceptional claims, it shouldn't be used in the article. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 12:45, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

You know, the one that was added just before mine. Anyway.

I really don't think you understand what UNDUE means. To omit statement from one of the two sides of the conflict is definitely not something that policy would support. But oh well. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 12:58, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

The Az MoD version is in the section already; September_2022_Armenia–Azerbaijan_clashes#12–13_September.

What was removed were exceptional and undue claims contradicting RS and current occupation of Armenian land near Lake Sev, making such statements even more UNDUE. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 13:07, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Aliyev's irredentist territorial claims

A paragraph I had added regarding Aliyev's irredentist claims over Armenia's sovereign territories which are currently attacked by Azerbaijan was removed by Golden. I need further explanation on why those statements don't belong to the background section as they are concering the currently attacked provinces which he continuously held territorial claims on over the years.

Hi, please read WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. Unless a reliable source has connected Aliyev's past irredentist claims to the modern clashes, your own conclusion that they're connected would be original research and not appropriate for Wikipedia. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 12:39, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Civilian casualties

Two azeri civilians were killed according to Azerbaijan, "Joint Statement of the Azerbaijan Ministry of Defense and the Prosecutor General's Office". This is given in the article, but not the information box. Please, add this to the information box. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.134.57.203 (talk) 15:58, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Not killed, but wounded. KHE'O (talk) 19:06, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

KHE'O yes please add it

Background section needs expansion

The background section needs to be improved, however, I'm unable to edit the source of the page. If any of the contributors would be interested in doing that I can provide more sources (User:Vanezi Astghik, User:ZaniGiovanni maybe?).

The first paragraph of that section should include some details about the dispute over the so called Zangezur corridor, with Aliyev's threatening statement from April 2021. Here are some analysis of the current events connecting both Zangezur corridor dispute, and Aliyev's threatening statements/territorial claims to the background of the current attacks. This can be restored as well with more details added about the corridor dispute. Yellowheawrt (talk) 18:15, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I guess the background section could be longer, especially if this article is going to grow (I hope it won't). Some sort of excerpt from the main article may be better to avoid content and discussion forks, allthough I don't see an obvious solution. The Zangezur corridor is currrently mentioned in the "Motive section" without a wikilink (which would be a simple and effective improvement) and mentioned and linked in the main article with different names (e.g. Syunik corridor). 109.119.227.84 (talk) 02:12, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Undue weight

Eurasianet, Deseret News, Reuters, The Jerusalem Post, and Laurence Broers have acknowledged that the clashes were started by Azerbaijan, so it is WP:UNDUE to "both sides" who started it. Dallavid (talk) 18:22, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Also, apparently The New York Times didn't bother to fact-check that this isn't in Nagorno-Karabakh.[29] --Dallavid (talk) 18:37, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

@Dallavid: These are not reliable sources since they are second party opinion pieces. As in they didn't collect the data themselves but are adding into the material that was shared from news agencies. Reuters has made no mention of these. Viewsridge (talk) 19:16, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Those sources are clearly third party (not relation to Armenia or Azerbaijan at all) and are not "opinion pieces". Eurasianet is probably the most qualified source in the entire article because it specializes on news, information, and analysis in the Caucasus. Eurasianet has won multiple awards for quality, such as the EPpy Awards. Desert News is also considered completely reliable.

And are you aware that you made five reverts in less than 24 hours? Please do not remove sourced content again without discussing here first. --Dallavid (talk) 19:40, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

@Dallavid: Yes I have been reverting unsourced additions on the article since there are very few editors watching the page. Please do not assume battleground behavior in this discussion. A source being reliable does not mean their publishings represents facts. Quite reliable sources such as NYT and CNN regularly publish opinion pieces to give their editorial perspective on the subjects, which is what the sources you have cited are including. Some of the others sources such has Reuters are apparent failed verifications, which means they don't include the material they are being cited for, that is why I have removed them. Viewsridge (talk) 20:24, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I reviewed all of the sources again, and at no point are any of them classified as opinion articles. How can you consider TNYT to be more credible than specialty sources like Eurasianet, when TNYT erroneously reported this is happening in Nagorno-Karabakh? What did Reuters fail to verify? Keeping in mind that it is being cited for the analysis of Laurence Broers, who is an accredited expert. --Dallavid (talk) 17:35, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

@Viewsridge: If you have a problem with the sources, please address it here. And please do not rollback my entire edits, unless you have an issue with changes such as Pelosi's statement. --Dallavid (talk) 20:14, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which neutrally represents infraction. The information you added was cherry picked from the provided sources and obviously distorts the neutrality.

• Euroasianet states that Azerbaijan carried out a wide-scale attack against targets in Armenia, but then provides both Azerbaijani and Armenian version, it does not state who started clashes.
• Desert source, first time hearing about that newspapper, but it refers to according to the Armenian Weekly, Azerbaijan launched an attack against the Republic of Armenia. and states that Laurence Broers said that Azerbaijan attacked, but Laurence Broers did not said that, he just attributed it to what Yerevan said.
• Reuters source just attributed it to according Yerevan
• Jpost source does not states that Azerbaijan attacked, but says that Azerbaijan and Turkish media have claimed Armenia is at fault for the clashes this week, but evidence and reports point to the opposite.

As I said sourced does not support the material you added, and cherry picking information would be WP:SYNTH and distort neutrality. Almost all sources agree that Azerbaijan started the clashes, but also all of them present it as "Clashes" and not "Attacks on Armenia", and almost non of the sources blame one side, but share versions of both. On the other hand, the previous version of the article was starting with clashes, which is truth, and then sharing both versions of what happened. I think adding up to it would be more appropriate. Thanks. A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 20:44, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Just to make it clear, version of the article, which I restored, already makes it clear that Azerbaijan attacked targets in the Armenia, but it does it while obeying neutrality, where your version is not following WP:NPOV at all. However, as I said, you can add up to what is already written. it would be better to add it to the body of the article and then summarize in the lead, we do not want lead of the article to be bigger that the body, do we? A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 21:02, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

@UserXpetVarpet, it is not “my complaints”, I provided policy based reason, please read it above. Also, page was created 3 days ago and no consensus reached yet on the stable version, if you adding material, please ensure that you reach consensus as per WP:BURDEN and WP:ONUS. A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 21:29, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Actually the only thing cherry picking are your bullet points. It very clearly declares who started the clashes in the very first Eurasianet sentence. Neither the Desert News or Retuers sources say Broers is just repeating "what Yerevan said", he clearly states this is his own conclusion: "I think there is a feeling in Azerbaijan that now is the time to deploy its power, its military advantage, and to extract the maximum that it can get". And Jpost was being cited for that exact quote. And neutrality is not put before WP:UNDUE weight. Per reliable sources, it should be stated in the opening sentence that Azerbaijan attacked Armenia, instead of beginning with a "both sides" narrative that will leave the reader confused. --Dallavid (talk) 17:37, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

I did not cherrypick, I analyzed sources. Im flattened that instead of discussing and reaching consensus you restored your edit despite of the fact that 3 users opposed you. Please revert yourself and start collaborating. A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 20:53, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Rename Page "Third Nagorno-Karabakh War"

Pretty clear that this is more than a border clash: due to Ukraine war Russia isn't doing anything to peacekeep, and Azerbaijan senses an opportunity to grab the remaining disputed territory that they didn't get in the last war.

When you play the Game of Thrones, you win or you die 19:01, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

@Agnimandur: Has to be described as such by reliable references before such a change can be made. Viewsridge (talk) 19:21, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Well clashes are not in the Nagorno-Karabakh, and looks like they are stopped...so they were border clashes, not war. Third Nagorno-Karabakh War name not suitable . A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 21:04, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

There's not even an article titled Second Nagorno-Karabakh War. Super Ψ Dro 13:38, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

The 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war was the 2nd Nagorno-Karabakh War. It might be good for the sake of WP:CONSISTENT to rename it. However, these recent clashes weren’t a 3rd Nagorno-Karabakh war. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 21:03, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 September 2022

Change biased information of "Azerbaijani attack on Armenia" to "clashes erupted, whereas both sides blamed each other". 95.65.208.162 (talk) 22:36, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. This looks to be very well sourced, and will definitely be a contentious edit. Please discuss this with other editors. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:39, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Why does the date is saying ongoing

The clashes lasted from the 12 th to the 14th of September 2022 as of 16 of September the clashes were not reported why has it not ended 2600:6C50:1B00:119E:30E1:B544:EC1B:B8DA (talk) 21:45, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

False balance

My edit got reverted. I wanted to remove from the lead the following sentence: "Both sides blamed each other for the escalation", which preceded the Armenian side's statement and reference to its confirmation by NASA data.

The sentence creates false balance by insinuating both sides' claims should be taken equally seriously. If you, however, look into Western sources then you will see (just scroll above, a user has listed several ones - Vanezi (talk) 16:01, 14 September 2022 (UTC)), that they specifically state that Azerbaijani side assaulted Armenian side, or they avoid blaming either party. However, the Azeri version is always mentioned as what it is: just an Azerbaijani official statement that is confirmed by nothing. This, I believe this particular sentence right at the beginning of the article violates WP:UNDUE, false balance is also undue.

As to "consensus" which supposedly is necessary for such a minor fix, that I offered, well, I already know what to expect: it's probably impossible to convince the side that is here to represent Azerbaijani views. Knižnik (talk) 10:10, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

@Knižnik: Please see the discussion titled "Undue weight" above. The fact that Azerbaijan has shelled Armenian territory, as seen by NASA images, is not necessarily proof that it was responsible for the escalation. Viewsridge (talk) 15:06, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

I've never opposed mentioning the Azeri POV per se, but the way it is done is clearly biased. This particular sentence has no place in the lead. It violates WP:UNDUE in a sneaky way. The only reason for keeping this sentence is to advance the implausible "equal guilt" version, which Western mainstream media don't take.Knižnik (talk) 15:08, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree with this. It's also important to note that it's not simply a given for Western countries to always side with Armenia in a given dispute, considering Armenia's long-standing political ties to Russia & Iran, who have not been traditional allies of "the West." Western countries & human rights organizations specifically assigning blame to Azerbaijan for escalating, in itself, seems noteworthy. DJ (talk) 16:07, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes. My concern was that the view pushed by Azerbaijan alone gets too much coverage in the lead. We all know it's falsity, but what guides us are Wikipedia policies like WP:UNDUE. This particular sentence is clearly undue in the lead, meant only to fool the readers, and it should go.Knižnik (talk) 18:37, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

What are you referring to by "sneaky attempt"? There is neither a pro Armenian nor a pro Azeri point of view in the lede as it takes a neutral stance. Viewsridge (talk) 19:00, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

I was specifically talking about a "false balance". This sentence seems to give Azeri POV (more like propaganda) and the neutral observers' POV an equal weight.Knižnik (talk) 19:32, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Seems like multiple users here disagree with you. Please review WP:UNDUE: "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." --Dallavid (talk) 20:24, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

So both sides in fact blamed each other, what undue in this factual information? A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 20:38, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Azerbaijan was accused of being the aggressor by Eurasianet, the European Parliament, Freedom House, the Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention, Nancy Pelosi, Ned Price, Emmanuel Macron, the Cypriot Foreign Minister, and Laurence Broers. Armenia was blamed for the clashes only by the Turkish Foreign Minister and the Organization of Turkic States. The article needs to reflect this. --Dallavid (talk) 20:46, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

And non of these change the fact that both sides blamed each other. Please revert yourself and reach the consensus as per wp:onus. A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 20:55, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

EU inability to mediate

Does anyone truly feel that this statement truly belongs in the article? Of course mainstream sources are going to say such things because they hold the EU in high esteem, but where is the proof that the EU would otherwise have taken an interest in the disagreements between two non-member and non-candidate nations? The EU has never once mentioned the word "peace" regarding the Ukraine-Russia war. It openly encourages the endeavour of Zelenskyy for whom the organisation is certainly in part responsible for the astronomical figure in Zelenskyy's offshore account as exposed in the Pandora Papers. --Coldtrack (talk) 19:36, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

The "ability to mediate" wording is supported only by the Politico source. I think the gas (and other) deals are worth mentioning in some way at least for the timing, most sources don't make direct connections and I don't expect any to make them. Not sure about the exact wording, but I would keep it short because this is part of a long conflict and the world doesn't exactly revolve around the EU. 109.119.205.238 (talk) 21:30, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Also both the Russia and EU statements could be moved lower (to the Background section?), this can probably wait untill the article gets a more stable structure. 109.119.205.238 (talk) 22:15, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

As per the user above has said. I think, Russia's weakened role, and the clashes coinciding with the Kharkiv Offensive should be kept in lede as references cited say this had a very large emphasis on the clashes. EU's weakened mediation, due to dependence on Azeribaijani gas could be placed into aftermath or background sections. Viewsridge (talk) 06:36, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

You're both missing the point. I never said that it was not reported, and I didn't deny the validity of the source. I am saying that it is a loaded suggestion that has nothing to do with the conflict in that it is nothing more than the projection of an illusion. Yes the EU looks here for alternative gas solutions, and yes if it had intended to mediate then it will have compromised its own neutrality. But where is the evidence of the EU mediating anywhere in this world where at least one nation is not a member state or confirmed candidate. I gave the example of Russia and Ukraine. To date, the EU has never called for the opposing factions to meet whereby the EU played mediator. Yet in the Greece-Macedonia agreement over the name, the EU was more than mediator as it had been the chief power broker: overseeing Macedonia amend its constitution retrospectively after the boycott proved to defeat a doubly loaded question so that the Zoran Zaev regime force the nation into the EU/NATO econimical and power structure. That's my point. The EU has no mandate to play peacemaker wherever two nations are at conflict, so why imply it? --Coldtrack (talk) 18:38, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

This argument seems like a bit of an original research, the references does highlight Europe's failed ability to negotiate due the gas shortage. I don't think there is a reference that compares EU mediation capability in this area to Macedonia, with or without in relevance to this conflict. Viewsridge (talk) 14:16, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Images in violation of WP:NPOV

All three images in the article are critical of one side and need to be removed until a balanced placement can be created. Viewsridge (talk) 06:37, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I fail to see how a removal of these pictures is justified under WP:NPOV. The pictures are presented in a neutral manner and add good value to the article. Is there something about the way the pictures are presented/described that you feel is non-neutral? They seem described in an objective manner to me but you are welcome to disagree and suggest/implement a change. If it is simply the fact that they portray an act by Azerbaijan that does not put Azerbaijan in a positive light, I don't see how that justifies a removal. Achemish (talk) 07:21, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

casualties

user:LechitaPL can you explain your removal of my edit? TASS is not Azerbaijani Ministry of Defence and Azerbaijan has not announced 80 KIAs (it is written 80+, but source doesn't even say 80+. The section says per Azerbaijan, so it must be per Azerbaijan, not per Russia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.134.56.78 (talk) 13:59, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 September 2022

"[...] bringing total number of the killed to at least 214." Unless I am reading this wrong, 135 and 80 sum to 215, not 214. So please change the text from "[...] bringing total number of the killed to at least 214." to "[...] bringing total number of the killed to at least 215." 2607:FEA8:A3C0:7280:245D:476D:3676:1B08 (talk) 23:31, 18 September 2022 (UTC)