Talk:Second Nagorno-Karabakh War

6 a.m. or 8 a.m.?

Not clear from the current version of the article: did the armed conflict (attack) begin at 6 a.m. or 8 a.m., and which side started it? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 22:12, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

173.88.246.138, the Azerbaijani side claims that it started at 06:00, when the Armenians violated the ceasefire and shelled Azerbaijani villages, and then the Azerbaijani forces launched a counter-offensive. While the Armenian side don't mention what happened at 06:00, and state that the clashes started when the Azerbaijani forces launched a "pre-planned" attack on Karabakh. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 06:43, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the detailed explanation. Which of the two stories is the true one? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 23:46, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Copy-editing basics for military engagements

Unless and until the peace is re-established, so that the bodies of both civilians and soldiers can be counted and properly buried by their children, wives, husbands, and grandparents, nothing either side says is verified unless by secondary sources. Thus, especially in the timeline, the respective ministries 'claim' and 'state'; they publish footage 'apparently showing'. They do not 'report'; reliable news services 'report'. I emphasize that 'state', as in 'official statement', should be generously employed. Furthermore, Wikipedia does not glorify violence through perpetuating propaganda and terms that glorify conflict. Units are 'destroyed', people are 'killed' or 'massacred' if a massacre is established, and aircraft are 'downed'. Furthermore, Wikipedia does not individualize official statements. Statements are not by 'Stepanyan' or whoever, unless they are a household name, which is not the case here. They are, instead, official statements by the Ministry of Such and Such. Thus, "The Ministry of A stated that it had destroyed an artillery unit and showed footage apparently showing this event, while the Ministry of B denied this and stated that the Army of A had in fact killed several civilians." If these basic standards and courtesies to the dead and their loved ones are not demonstrated, I will rain hell down, deleting every single potentially compromised reference and source, and I am highly tempted to do this anyway. Let's have a better day on the 30th. Peace, Johncdraper (talk) 20:50, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

This. Everyone should be following this basic guideline from hereon.Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 23:29, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

The article is still very shoddy. The section just jumps around with he said, she said on any event. Secondly, the casualties reads like an Azeri memorial listing out every civilian name and age. Then putting in the reactions of fhe states are silly as a mere list. Far more important.37.186.97.171 (talk) 11:10, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Agreed re shoddiness. Civilian names removed. I will work on state reactions. Johncdraper (talk) 11:23, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Good words were spoken here. Got rid of all those "crushing blows".Icarusatthesun (talk) 13:18, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

New map

Solavirum, can you return the map? This map doesn't show the Republic of Artsakh, Nagorno-Karabakh region and Armenian-controlled territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh. Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 14:51, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Գարիկ Ավագյան, please talk with the map's author here. Because I didn't monitor objection from anyone. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 14:54, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@Solavirum:, thank you. Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 15:03, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Maybe the mapper can add the Karabagh boundary to the map. @Emreculha:. Resapp (talk) 15:05, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

"Artsakh" does not have any boundary. Beshogur (talk) 15:40, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@Beshogur: and what it has if no boundries? Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 15:58, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Well no need for boundaries at all. Beshogur (talk) 16:14, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Solavirum, Գարիկ Ավագյան , Beshogur, Resapp, Johncdraper: I added the changes suggested by Գարիկ Ավագյան to the map. Again, if there is a deficiency or error, I can fix it. If there is no objection, I recommend adding the map. You can find new version here ---Emreculha (talk) 17:38, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Looks great, thanks again. Resapp (talk) 17:42, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@Emreculha: I'd wait 12 hrs for comments, given the issues involved, or someone else can WP:BOLD it. Johncdraper (talk) 17:43, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

It's great! --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 18:21, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I do have a few suggestions. 1. Try incorparate every entity in your color-coding legend at the bottom left. 2. Since Azerbaijan is on the attack it should read: "Areas captured by Azerbaijan..." Even better would be a Map template Help:Template as created for other conflicts. Icarusatthesun (talk) 19:06, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Dear HistoryofIran, You removed the map prepared jointly with Solavirum, Solavirum, Գարիկ Ավագյան , Beshogur, Resapp, Johncdraper users from the article "on the grounds that it is not neutral". It would be more courteous to consult us before removing it because this was a controversial issue. Also, I do not agree with you that the statement "re-captured" is not neutral. The instant progression of the conflict is taken from "Liveuamap".---Emreculha (talk) 00:37, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Resapp is blocked indefinitely for being a proven Sockpuppet, avoid using ping on him.Mr.User200 (talk) 00:52, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

@Mr.User200:, finally, thank you for this info. Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 06:35, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Correct me if I've misunderstood something, but I'm pretty sure this is not a "recapture" in Armenian eyes. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:41, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Can I ask the difference between "capture" and "recapture" through the eyes of an Armenian? I think you looked the way you want to. It is unethical to remove a detailed and comprehensive map without consulting anyone because of a correctable word. I guess you need to look like a Wikipedist instead of looking like an Armenian.---Emreculha (talk) 00:56, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

'Detailed and comprehensive map', oh please, it wasn't even that good. It was presented like a piece of Azerbaijani propaganda, 'reclaiming Artsakh'. You might want to assume good faith of your fellow editors, I did this edit in good faith (in your words, a 'Wikipedian'), not as an 'Armenian' (whatever that's supposed to be mean) - this, including that map of yours, makes me suspect you might be emotionally invested in this topic; please read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. --HistoryofIran (talk) 01:59, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

@Emreculha: I had not approved of the map as it stands. There are two problems as I see it. First, the key, which I was debating with a now banned user. You can see my Talk page for that conversation. The second is this: Do all those countries who want peace not also support the UNSC resolution on Azerbaijani territorial integrity? Johncdraper (talk) 08:13, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran:, My aim was to prepare a map showing the cities and the progress of the conflicts, as in the article "Syrian Civil War". I tried to prepare this map by consulting many users and taking their opinions and suggestions. The "War Map" has been discussed twice (War Map & New Map). I would respect all your suggestions and criticisms and try to update the map. Since this is a map, even if we are biased, the progress of the two countries is recorded as "REAL". I absolutely do not believe that your concern is neutrality. If this was your goal, you would communicate with us and give your opinion. I've prepared this map for hours since the conflict began. At least I expected this kindness.If I were far from neutral, the southeast of Artsakh appears under the control of Azerbaijan on the map currently used (Fuzuli area). However, on the map I prepared, that region is shown as it is in Liveuamap. In addition, it is quite normal to define the re-control of some regions by a country whose borders are officially recognized as a "recapture". I think it would be beneficial for you to look at the situation through the eyes of an Azerbaijani. Impartiality is necessary for everyone. ----Emreculha (talk) 13:18, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, because looking at the situation through the eyes of an Azerbaijani is certainly neutral and impartial. I'm sorry but you're being biased here - I think it would be beneficial for you to put your feelings aside. I'm not interested in taking either sides. Not to mention your map was clearly not approved by everyone as you claim. Ultimately I simply restored the original, neutral revision. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:27, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran:,I think you do not believe what you say. It was opened as a discussion item. 6-7 users participated in the discussion. I think you put your feelings aside. It is cocky to declare a map "not neutral" just because of one word. If you have a talent for draw map, then add better to the item. But I find it unreasonable and malicious to delete 3 days of labor just because of your neutral opinion (!). Here you start the new discussion. What should the majority say?--Emreculha (talk) 13:46, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I rest my case ^^. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:53, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

What you say is not very important. Irreverent--Emreculha (talk) 13:56, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Right... you might wanna read WP:NPOV, WP:GF, WP:ADHOMINEM and WP:AADD. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:07, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Note on recording materiel losses

Wikiproject Military History does not have a strict rule on recording materiel losses in infoboxes. However, see Nagorno-Karabakh War, which lists tanks, infantry fighting vehicles and APCs, together with heavy artillery. Aircraft can also be included, including UAVs. For UAVs, there is a US DoD tier system that could be used. Johncdraper (talk) 15:13, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 September 2020

Greece expressed readiness to contribute to the efforts to de-escalate the crisis and condemned any third-party interference that stokes tensions, urging Turkey to abstain from actions and statements in that direction.[1] GevHev4 (talk) 16:51, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Why are Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan coloured as supporting Azerbaijan in Reactions section?

Why are Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan coloured as supporting Azerbaijan in Reactions section? They did not state any support and only called for a cessation of hostilities F.Alexsandr (talk) 17:20, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I think it was done in accordance to Turkic Council's statement, which both countries are a member of. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 17:22, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Kazakstan and Krygyzstan both CSTO members called on Armenia to leave Karabakh in order to reach a ceasefire on the 28th, that's why they are colored as supporting Azerbaijan. Ref:[2] Resapp (talk) 17:25, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Except it was a personal statement of Secretary General of the Turkic Council Baghdad Amreyev, and it does not in any way showcase an attitude of both of those countries. I think they should remain coloured neutral until their official representatives state otherwise. F.Alexsandr (talk) 17:41, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't call the statement made by the Secretary General "personal". When EU secretary general makes a statement, all EU countries are colored as the members unless they object. Resapp (talk) 17:54, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Then EU countries that did not state their position separately should not be coloured too. F.Alexsandr (talk) 18:03, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I've never said EU made a statement regarding this conflict, that was just an example. Resapp (talk) 18:07, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

This was not a personal statement:

The Secretary General of the Turkic Council Baghdad Amreyev expresses his deep concern on the military confrontation in the occupied territories of the Republic of Azerbaijan. The Turkic Council reaffirms once again its commitments to the norms and principles of international law and reiterates the importance of the early settlement of the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict, on the basis of sovereignty, territorial integrity and inviolability of internationally recognized borders of the Republic of Azerbaijan. In this context, the Turkic Council reminds that the related resolutions of the UN Security Council adopted in 1993 demand an immediate, unconditional and full withdrawal of the armed forces of Armenia from all occupied territories of the Republic of Azerbaijan. The Secretary General extends his condolences to the Azerbaijani people over loss of lives and wishes a speedy recovery of the injured.

This was an official statement a) reaffirming a commitment to international law. b) recognizing the importance of an earl settlement of the conflict, etc., and c) a reminder of a UNSC demand for Armenian withdrawal from Azerbaijani territory. That is all it was. Now, I characterize all that as official Turkic Council support for peace. Johncdraper (talk) 18:26, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

The map has been removed until this is resolved; the issue raised illustrates another reason to be wary of such a map; see also my comments in previous section on this map. Johncdraper (talk) 17:50, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@Johncdraper: I've removed the disputed countries from the map until the issue is resolved. The map now must be restored. Resapp (talk) 18:02, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

We now have a debate over EU countries. F.Alexsandr (talk) 18:04, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I've answered above. In any case, you are not new to Wikipedia and you should know by now that changes are made after a discussion. Not before, like the user who has removed the map did. Consider this a friendly reminder and try not to repeat this action in the future. Resapp (talk) 18:07, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Repeat which action? I did not do anything. F.Alexsandr (talk) 18:09, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

You're suggesting we should keep the map removed until the discussion is over and as I've said changes are made after a discussion not before. Resapp (talk) 18:12, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

It is not a personal statement if you check the source. Beshogur (talk) 18:01, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@Resapp: Please feel free to WP:BOLD this yourself. Please also note that WP:BOLD applies on a new issue, i.e., the accuracy of this map. Only if it is disputed is a discussion required. I am not disputing your right to amend and restore the map. What I do recommend is that any serious (i.e., non-nuisance) allegation of a problem with the map should result in it being taken down until the issue is resolved. Johncdraper (talk) 18:12, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@Johncdraper: Kindly, you must restore the map to the stage before the discussion took place until the discussion is over per WP:BOLD. However I've currently removed the disputed parts of maps in order to comprise until the discussion is over. Since you're refusing to even reinstate that revision you are disruptively editing. Resapp (talk) 18:19, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@Resapp: You and I both know that maps, even old maps, cause wars. A WP:BOLD removal of a disputed map is not equivalent to disruptive editing; it is erring on the side of caution. We don't need to compromise; I agree with you. I am now going to bed. Johncdraper (talk) 18:34, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Then I will kindly leave you a user warning at your talk page for either not reading what I've said or rather ignoring it. You are still refusing to reinstate the undisputed version of the map as I've said 2 times above and so you are disruptively editing. Resapp (talk) 18:36, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I think the matter is resolved then, as long as map will show only voiced support by the country itself, the map is Ok. F.Alexsandr (talk) 18:27, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@Beshogur, Johncdraper, and F.Alexsandr: My suggestion is to have the countries in a dashed gray/purple tone which will highlight that they've called for and end to the occupation as an organization, but did not do so in individual statement. In any case @Johncdraper: should restore the undisputed at once as stated in the reasons above. Resapp (talk) 18:31, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I oppose the dashing. I think a mention in "International reactions" is enough. F.Alexsandr (talk) 18:44, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Ugh, can't you guys just tag the author of the map? KajenCAT, can you comment on the issue as the author of the map? --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 18:46, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Example 1, NATO declaration colors all member countries

Example 2, Turkic Council declaration colors all member countries

@Beshogur, Solavirum, F.Alexsandr, and KajenCAT: On the second thought I also disagree with dashed coloring. I've checked similar images used in different conflicts such as Annexation of Crimea and Turkish offensive into Syria and in both, organizations such as NATO and Turkic Council are colored in all the countries, per WP:CONSISTENCY this article should follow the same protocol and color the Turkic Counsil members Kazakstan, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan under their organizations decision. Example images in the right. Best regards. Resapp (talk) 18:54, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Page "Reactions to the 2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria" says that Turkic Council supports Turkey "In a joint declaration by its 5-member states". The source on The Karabakh conflict does not mention that it is a joint declaration or it represents opinions of all member states. NATO is a military alliance. F.Alexsandr (talk) 19:20, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@Beshogur, Solavirum, F.Alexsandr, and Johncdraper: As author of the map, I didn't expected a lot of controversial discussion, so I'm suprised. Regarding the color, I totally agree with you @Resapp:, I don't have a lot experience choosing color and I tried to choose following Brewer color but clearly it needs improves.

• Regarding Turkic Council, the statement is clear in second and third paragraph, so it's not a statement of Secretary General of TC, but their members states (I forgot about Uzbekistan). Cursive is personal/individual statement of Secretary General. Non-cursive is statement as Turkic Council. So, I don't see any reason to delete these countries of map.

The Secretary General of the Turkic Council Baghdad Amreyev expresses his deep concern on the military confrontation in the occupied territories of the Republic of Azerbaijan. The Turkic Council reaffirms once again its commitments to the norms and principles of international law and reiterates the importance of the early settlement of the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict, on the basis of sovereignty, territorial integrity and inviolability of internationally recognized borders of the Republic of Azerbaijan. In this context, the Turkic Council reminds that the related resolutions of the UN Security Council adopted in 1993 demand an immediate, unconditional and full withdrawal of the armed forces of Armenia from all occupied territories of the Republic of Azerbaijan. The Secretary General extends his condolences to the Azerbaijani people over loss of lives and wishes a speedy recovery of the injured.

• Regarding EU, I do not think that the member countries that have not spoken out at the moment should be coloured unless they make a clear statement or vote on it.
• Are there any issues?

--KajenCAT (talk) 19:23, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Turkic council does Not speak for Sovereign countries unless stated otherwise in a declaration. CSTO 2 days ago made very similar announcement. https://odkb-csto.org/news/news_odkb/o-situatsii-voznikshey-v-svyazi-s-vozobnovleniem-vooruzhennogo-konflikta-v-nagornom-karabakhe/ This does not mean however That all members of CSTO share adopt the statement as their official position. F.Alexsandr (talk) 19:37, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

The CSTO statement does not support Armenia, it calls for ceasefire. Resapp (talk) 19:40, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@Resapp: OK, here is official statement by Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Kazakhstan as quoted by RIA NOVOSTI (I used Google translate)

"The Republic of Kazakhstan expresses deep concern over the escalation of the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict that took place on September 27, 2020 in Nagorno-Karabakh. We call on the friendly Republics of Azerbaijan and Armenia to take all measures to stabilize the situation, abandon the use of force and start negotiations. We are ready to assist in the search for peaceful ways of resolving the conflict on the sites of international organizations. As the current chairman of the CICA, we propose to use the existing package of confidence-building measures of the Conference, "the Kazakh Foreign Ministry said in a statement published on Sunday on the agency's website. source: https://ria.ru/20200927/kazakhstan-1577842192.html And thats an official statement. F.Alexsandr (talk) 19:46, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

The Turkic Council statement is an official statement supporting "sovereignty, territorial integrity and inviolability of internationally recognized borders of the Republic of Azerbaijan". At this stage, my problem is not the map; it is the key. The problem is that 'support' is not defined in the key. Support for what, exactly? So, I suggest a change to the key: Support for Azerbaijani territorial integrity Vs. ??? I am honestly not sure what support for Armenia implies. Support for the Nagorno-Karabakh Line of Contact? Looking for suggestions. Johncdraper (talk) 10:28, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Here is Uzbekistani: https://regnum.ru/news/polit/3075003.html ; Kyrgyz https://mfa.gov.kg/ru/osnovnoe-menyu/press-sluzhba/prikreplennye-novosti/informacionnoe-soobshchenie-mid-kr-ot-28092020-goda ;They all call for cesession of hostilities and do not voice support for either side. F.Alexsandr (talk) 19:52, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@F.Alexsandr: I think you didn't read the discussion. Kaz, Kir and Uzb did statement in Turkic Council as I told before. Check it. Greetings.--KajenCAT (talk) 09:13, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

@KajenCAT: What exactly are you trying to prove? There is no mention of ANY country in the statement of the Turcik Council, meanwhile Kaz, Kir and Uzb made their OFFICIAL statements voicing their concern but remaining neutral. Turcik Council statement absolutely does not take precedence over individual statement of a country. F.Alexsandr (talk) 12:39, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

@F.Alexsandr: Which members state are part of Turkic Council which done the statement? Turkic Council is not a NGO, is a organization whichs statements means there from countries as I told before. Individual statement of them do NOT contradict the Turkic Council statement. In hypothetical affirmative case, yes, individual statement prevails.--KajenCAT (talk) 15:08, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Iran's reaction

Today, President Hassan Rouhani’s chief of staff said that Iran recognizes and respects territorial integrity of Azerbaijan. Can we consider it support ? Ref: [3]Helius Olympian (talk) 17:54, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

No. Recognition of Karabakh as part of Azerbaijan does not mean they support Azerbaijan in this conflict. F.Alexsandr (talk) 17:59, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

If they don't support Azerbaijan in this conflict, so it means that they support Armenia or do you mean they don't support solution of this conflict in this way? Helius Olympian (talk) 18:20, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

They did not voice their support of either side of this conflict F.Alexsandr (talk) 18:23, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I think that here Armenian side fights for "self-determination right of peoples" and Azerbaijan side fights for "territorial integrity of states". Iran, by stating its recognition of territorial integrity of Azerbaijan, clearly supports Azerbaijan in this conflict generally, but not through the war, through the diplomacy. Helius Olympian (talk) 18:38, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

You are stretching it way too much. If they wanted to voice support in this Particular conflict, they would do It. F.Alexsandr (talk) 18:47, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I amn't saying, I am right, but I want to hear better arguments and this answer doesn't satisfy me Helius Olympian (talk) 18:52, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 September 2020

On the belligerents, there are allegations that Iran is on Armenia's side. They deny these claims. Evidence:

Irans's alleged involvement: https://www.trtworld.com/magazine/what-s-iran-s-role-in-the-armenia-azerbaijan-clash-40114

Iran's denial: https://www.iribnews.ir/fa/news/2841669/%D8%B4%D8%A7%DB%8C%D8%B9%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D9%85%D8%A8%D9%86%DB%8C-%D8%A8%D8%B1-%DA%A9%D9%85%DA%A9-%D8%A7%DB%8C%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%86-%D8%A8%D9%87-%D8%A7%D8%B1%D9%85%D9%86%D8%B3%D8%AA%D8%A7%D9%86-%DA%A9%D8%A7%D9%85%D9%84%D8%A7-%D8%A8%DB%8C-%D8%A7%D8%B3%D8%A7%D8%B3-%D8%A7%D8%B3%D8%AA

and

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/9/30/iran-says-recognises-azerbaijan-territorial-integrity NinjaWeeb (talk) 19:06, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Alleged Section

The alleged section is completely disingenuous and does not support the realities on the ground. While the comments on the bottom are true of who made the allegations and who made the denials, it is completely unfair to lump them in the same section and does not conform to standards found elsewhere on wikipedia. Take elsewhere on wikipedia, once it was apparent that the Russian military was fighting in Ukraine in the War in Donbass, it was not in an "Alleged" section but rather a note was made that Russia denied that claim:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Donbass To lump the claim of the PKK/YPG fighting for Armenia (a claim which no reputable or neutral source has confirmed or claimed) and the fact that Syrian mercenaries from the Syrian National Army (as shown by the BBC, Guardian, OSINT, etc) gives a false impression to any reader of this article. https://www.bbc.com/arabic/middleeast-54346711

Thus unless someone can also add in good evidence that the PKK/YPG is fighting for Armenia in this conflict- I propose that the Syrian National Army moves out of the alleged section and is treated as a combatant, with a note that both Turkey and Azerbaijan deny that claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dvtch (talk • contribs) 19:08, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

There is a discussion above regarding this. Resapp (talk) 19:11, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Seems like POV-pushing to me. There is still no material evidence of Syrian involvement. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 19:12, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Reputable Sources such as the BBC have interviewed Syrian fighters that went to Azerbaijan. There are photos of it. I understand by your post history that you are pro-Azerbaijan. However, the BBC is considered a reputable source as per wiki policy. The original change- to have both of these different cases (SNA and YPG/PKK be clumped in the same category was POV-pushing). They are qualitatively different claims. One with evidence by many reputable parties and one by a belligerent in the war with zero confirmation from third-party sources. https://www.bbc.com/arabic/middleeast-54346711

Belligerents in infobox misleading

Now most of the belligerents have footnotes indicating who alleges they take part in the conflict. This is actually misleading because there are two types of claims:

1. By belligerents themselves (e.g. Armenia alleging Turkish support or Azerbaijan claiming there are YPG and other mercenaries)
2. By independent sources not directly related to the belligerents (e.g. The Guardian and the SOHR claiming that there are Syrians fighting for Azerbaijan)

They are qualitatively different. We should not treat all claims equally, this is not what WP:NPOV says. My proposal is to clarify that the support of Syrian opposition militants is not alleged but actually supported by multiple independent sources. Alaexis_¿question? 19:19, 30 September 2020 (UTC) I see that there is a related discussion above, however the discussion has veered aside a bit there, so I hope a fresh start would help. Alaexis_¿question? 19:23, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Unrelated but I asked above without avail, can you add Israel under Arms Suppliers for Azerbaijan? There are plenty of reliable refs: [4][5][6][7] 19:26, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I also agree that Syrian National Army should be removed from alleged section. Resapp (talk) 19:28, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. I actually just made a talk page just above yours on this issue. Here is the most clear piece of evidence and the one that I believe pushes it past the treshold of "alleged". https://www.bbc.com/arabic/middleeast-54346711 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dvtch (talk • contribs) 19:33, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree. We know about Syrian National Army from a plethora of sources, Its an Open secret at this point. They should be moved out of Alleged. I also support putting Israel as arms supplier to Azerbaijan. F.Alexsandr (talk) 20:45, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I've made an edit. I think most of the sources talk about Syrian opposition militants, rather than about the SNA as an organisation taking part in the conflict, so I changed the wording slightly. Alaexis_¿question? 21:15, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Alaexis Sultan Murad and the other groups present are members of the SNA. The SNA is not an organized structure as groups have complete independence within the structure and being part of the SNA is more of a brand than being a member of a group. These groups often fight each other. However, the academic standard used to be to refer to these groups as the TFSA(Turkish-backed Free Syrian Army), however the Turkish helped set-up this new way to refer to these groups. So when more of one of these groups go and fight for Turkey, such as in Libya, they are just referred to the SNA for sake of convenience. However, it is fine to name the individual groups as well. Dvtch (talk) 21:32, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@Solavirum: You wrote that no consensus has been reached but you haven't responded to my proposal at the talk. If you do not agree with the proposed approach please explain here why. Alaexis_¿question? 06:18, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

For Pete's sake, they are still allegations. The Guardian and Reuter articles you people have been mentioning dozens of times say that their source is "a Syrian rebel", which still proves that there is no material evidence for it. Because how these 'sources' are very vague, it still should go to the alleged box. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 06:23, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

The sources differ in their reliability and per WP:RS we should trust generally reliable sources more. When the Guardian or Reuters (both in the WP:RSP)say they 'learned' there are Syrian fighters in Karabakh it's not equivalent to some unnamed Turkish media quoted by the Middle East Monitor which claim there are PKK/YPG militants on the Armenian side. Alaexis_¿question? 21:53, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

@Alaexis: Can you change the name to Syrian National Army at least? that had been discussed maybe 100 times on Turkish Operation articles. WP:COMMONNAME. Beshogur (talk) 18:52, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 September 2020

Belligerents section indicates Syrian/Lebanese volunteers are sided with Armenia and Artsakh, which is wrong. Indicated references to the information clearly state the opposite, that Syrian mercenaries have been deployed in Azerbaijan.

Further credible referencing can be added, as such:

Reuters The Guardian BBC Turkish BBC Arabic BBC Russian

Thank you in advance, --Շահէն (talk) 19:42, 30 September 2020 (UTC) Շահէն (talk) 19:42, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Article under attack by MASSIVE sock puppeting since the last hour!

@Solavirum, F.Alexsandr, and Beshogur: 7 probable socks have appeared out of nowhere and started making the same arguments under 20 minutes please see, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MosMusy Resapp (talk) 19:56, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I can assure you I'm not a sockpuppet. I just saw on Twitter of how the wikipedia article was being written and wanted to come here to write arguments as to why it was against the spirit of wikipedia as well as intellectually dishonest. I can't speak for anyone else, but perhaps others came because they were dismayed by the intellectual dishonesty on this article and the possibility that it sways opinions due to its disingenuous nature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dvtch (talk • contribs) 20:14, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Well, there are still dubious sources, like the turkish presidents partypaper "Daily Sabah", used as reference - so you really cant complain. If you dont like "the Guardian" pointing out baseless accusations by Turkey,[8] send them an email. Leave me alone. Alexpl (talk) 20:26, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Can you delete this now that it has been proven there has not been a sock puppet attack by wiki staff? Or at least apologize for accusing me of being such? Dvtch (talk) 03:27, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Extreme POV-pushing

Stop POV-pushing. Someone must interfere this, it is getting out of hand. It is so clear that the supposed arms suppliers of Azerbaijan are unrelated, as Azerbaijan received those arms pre-clashes. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 20:52, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Israel is flying in several cargo planes to Azerbaijan https://www.axios.com/israel-kamikaze-drones-nagorno-karabakh-azerbaijan-d3ebfd39-2cf8-4bf6-a788-b24d80a8569f.html https://en.armradio.am/2020/09/30/azerbaijani-planes-flying-to-israel-and-back/ F.Alexsandr (talk) 20:57, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

F.Alexsandr, aaand Turkey? Apart from that, removing the PKK claim is clearly being biased towards Armenia. For some reason, couple users have been edit-bombing this article in the past hour. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 20:59, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps practice what you preach? You're the one adding in baseless claims of PKK going to Armenia despite this only being claimed by state party of belligerent nations? The difference between this and your PKK POV-pushing, is that third party sources are claiming it, while in the case of the PKK claims only pro-Turkish and pro-Azerbaijani sources claim that. Dvtch (talk) 21:05, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Dvtch your points don't matter in this case. Also, WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH, and watch your tone. Azerbaijan is a belligerent here, its allegations have very strong noteworthiness. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 21:12, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Solavirum I did practice WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH up until you accused people of POV-pushing when making sound arguments. I am not making an argument because of my viewpoints on any combatant. I am neither Armenian, Turkish, nor Azerbaijani. I simply brought up an argument, that is consistent with Wikipedia standards, based on Wikipedia-approved sources (BBC, Guardian, etc), and you accuse people of POV-pushing? Please keep your feelings out of this. The consensus seems to be that it is no longer "alleged" the SNA is a party to the conflict, but rather is. Dvtch (talk) 21:18, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

You mean this removal of a "Guardian" source by User:Solavirum? Your statement, that a 30 September retrospective analysis of the turkish/az claims from 28 September is not "not chronogical", leaves little room for interpretation. Alexpl (talk) 21:09, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Alexpl The issue is not the Guardian, the issue is where you put the text and how you present it. The heading, as said in its title, shows the timeline of the engagements, in chorological order. You can't skip over two days to prove your point. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 21:12, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

About revert on infobox

@Yerevantsi: All of the reliable and important informations must be indicated because of WP:NPOV. I verified Turkish sources from here, which includes reliable sources and published in 2007; when it's not happened.Ahmetlii (talk) 21:01, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

That's not a reliable source. Plus, we're in 2020, I believe. Not 2007. ----Երևանցի ^talk 21:04, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Do explain how the supposed PKK presence in Karabakh in 2007 proves that PKK is involved in the ongoing war.----Երևանցի ^talk 21:08, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@Yerevantsi: "We're in 2020" doesn't support "PKK is not in Armenia in 2020". Also, in the infollution of a recent event; older informations are more reliable, because they are not affected from recent changes and verifiable through recent ones again.

Also, your explanations can't still explain why the information in the infobox must be deleted. It must not be deleted because of neutral point of view.Ahmetlii (talk) 21:30, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

You are engaging in original research. Which is prohibited by policy. You need a source from 2020 explicitly stating that the PKK are present in Nagorno-Karabakh and involved in the conflict presently. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:23, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

User uses source, but provides text not shown in the source

Preservedmoose wrote this: "However, due to dubious claims made by Turkey regarding PKK and YPG in the past, and lack of evidence provided by either Turkey or Azerbaijan regarding Kurdish involvement in Karabakh, the veracity of these claims have been called into question", citing this Washington Times article. But in fact, none of these are mentioned in the article. The article states: "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." Can't see any comments on Daily Sabah or the claims getting called into question. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 21:07, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

"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." https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2020/09/30/armenians-azerbaijan-turkey-russia-clashes/

It literally says "there are reasons to doubt these claims" regarding PKK/YPG involvement with Armenia/Karabakh and then hyperlinks to an article by Slate about Erdogan making similar claims about anti-Trump protests in the US earlier this year. This really cannot be read any other way.Preservedmoose (talk) 21:13, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Preservedmoose, WP:VAGUE. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 21:13, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Not really vague at all. "there are reason to doubt these claims."--what does that mean??? Hmmmm...trying to figure out...are they trying to say that there are reasons to doubt these claims or maybe no reason to doubt these claims...hmmmm...super vague...Preservedmoose (talk) 21:16, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Preservedmoose, "However, due to dubious claims made by Turkey regarding PKK and YPG in the past, and lack of evidence provided by either Turkey or Azerbaijan regarding Kurdish involvement in Karabakh, the veracity of these claims have been called into question", while the article says "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." These are two extremely different ways of putting it. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 21:17, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

According to the WP article, the Daily Sabah is a mouthpiece of Erdogans AKP-party newspaper. I wonder why you keep bringing it up. Alexpl (talk) 21:18, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, it's obscene...this WP article is rife with Daily Sabah/pro-Turkish stuff, but write anything that calls that into question and YOU'RE the biased one or arguing POV. Wiki's a joke for this reason.Preservedmoose (talk) 21:22, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Not really. They mean the same thing. I wonder what they mean by PKK and YPG though. It's a bit vague, isn't it? To me it is. I'm a bit confused by that...hmmmm...could mean a lot of different things. Are we even sure that the President Erdogan of Turkey is the same as President Erdogan of Turkey?

Put the direct quote in then. If this article is to be unbiased, it needs to go in.Preservedmoose (talk) 21:20, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Keep everything WP:CIVIL, and don't divert the point. Also, Preservedmoose, I will add the source. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 21:24, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I added the source, to your specifications.Preservedmoose (talk) 21:27, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Preservedmoose, my main objection was that how much unrelated things the previous text included. Happy that we resolved this dispute. Cheers! --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 21:41, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Turkish and Azeri editors vandalizing page?

Look, I don’t know what’s up with this but if this doesn’t stop and if all misinformation isn’t erased I will contact Wikipedia personally. There is absolutely no evidence that PKK and YPG are fighting alongside Armenia. Seriously? Also do you people even know what “mercenaries” means? Armenians from the diaspora voluntarily fighting for their country isn’t equivalent to Turkey and Azerbaijan paying Syrian mercenaries to fight for land that isn’t theirs. Fix this or I’m contacting Wikipedia administrators. Anita escobar (talk) 21:30, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@Anita escobar: First, be civil. Then, please give citation for question informations and edit page rather than accuse editors because of their nations.Ahmetlii (talk) 21:38, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@Anita escobar:, the allegations were made by Azerbaijan and it was specified that they were indeed "mercenaries". Azerbaijan is a belligerent. Azerbaijan's official allegations are noteworthy as Armenia's. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 21:43, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@Ahmetlii How am I not being civil? There is a lot of bias from both sides that need to be prevented. There are no other sources except for Turkish ones claiming that PKK/YPG is fighting alongside Armenians. Armenia is the last thing Kurdish people care about right now. Anita escobar (talk) 23:24, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@SolaVirum Many international sources confirmed that Syrian mercenaries were brought to Azerbaijan by Turkey. On the other hand, only Turkish and Azeris sources are claiming that the Kurds are fighting with Armenians. There is no justification to spreading false news. Anita escobar (talk) 23:27, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@Ahmetlii Also, I am unable to edit the page for whatever reason. If I was able to edit it, I wouldn’t want to contact Wikipedia directly. Anita escobar (talk) 23:28, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

You do realize that administrators are already watching this page no? Juxlos (talk) 23:40, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Not watching closely, IMO.Mr.User200 (talk) 00:37, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

@Juxlos You realize that still doesn’t mean the page is reliable and accurate, no? If the administrators were watching the page closely enough they wouldn’t let misinformation be written such as stating that Armenians who voluntarily fight for their homeland from Lebanon are “mercenaries”. They’re not paid to be there, therefore they are not mercenaries. Anita escobar (talk) 01:21, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I replied to @Anita escobar in my talk page. Ahmetlii (talk) 05:55, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Note Anita escobar is highly suspected to be a sock puppet along with over a dozen recent contributors to the page. Resapp (talk) 09:27, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

It's pretty rich that someone, who is likely a sockpuppet accuses others of being a sockpuppet. Icarusatthesun (talk) 11:59, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

You were right--it was confirmed and that account was banned, just FYI. Good call!Preservedmoose (talk) 19:32, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Unlike the Hamza Brigade - no official statement from the PKK/YPG

As long as there are no official statements from the PKK leadership in Iraq and Syria, we cannot claim that the Pkk is involved.

The PKK is described by many experts as a shadow of its former self and would not be able to transfer fighters to Armenia at short notice.

And please no sources from Turkey. The Turkish media are corrupted. They are not suitable as a reference. See -> Turkey's place in the press freedom ranking — Preceding unsigned comment added by Güney Yalcin (talk • contribs) 01:51, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I second this. Washington Post, Jerusalem Post, and Greek City Times have all expressed doubts or outright denied PKK/YPG involvement.Preservedmoose (talk) 02:39, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

That's why we said "alleged". This does not explain why the PKK must be deleted from infobox; for example, only Armenia claimed that Turkey is in the war; but other reliable sources in there denies it. And we're still putting it to infobox in "alleged" section. Ahmetlii (talk) 05:59, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Note Güney Yalcin is highly suspected to be a sock puppet along with over a dozen recent contributors to the page. r talk:Resapp|talk]]) 09:26, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Instead of naming persons as puppets here, go into the content of those, who give arguments here.

Güney Yalcin (talk •

"Ethnic Armenians fighters from Middle East and Syria"

For starters, Syria is a country in the Middle East, so this seems redundant. Secondly, there are supposed to be Armenian volunteers from all over the world, not just the Middle East. Armenians are fairly transparent about this. I'm changing it to "diasporan Armenian volunteers". Preservedmoose (talk) 02:41, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Yet again, for the second time, stop altering the source material! The Azerbaijani claim clearly states "mercenaries". End of story. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 05:52, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

"There are mercenaries of Armenian origin from Syria and different countries of the Middle East among the losses of the enemy", you take this quote and put it as a source for alleged volunteers. That is absurd. `--► Sincerely: SolaVirum 05:53, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Furthermore, how reliable and important is Greek City Times that you put a opinion piece from it, and quote it? --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 05:54, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Greek City Times was mentioned elsewhere in this WP article, so I figured it would be okay. I don't see that as being any less legitimate than Daily Sabah anyhow.

I didn't change "mercenaries" to "volunteers."

As for "diasporan volunteers":

Source for both ethnic Armenians and Azerbaijanis from Georgia volunteering to fight: https://dfwatch.net/tensions-high-in-georgia-as-ethnic-armenians-azerbaijanis-rally-to-support-sides-in-karabakh-war-54236

Source for ethnic Armenians from Russia volunteering to fight: https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2020/09/29/moscow-azerbaijanis-slam-armenian-recruitment-drive-in-karabakh-clashes-a71580

https://news.am/eng/news/604886.html

Georgian and Russian Armenian communities are being mentioned, in addition to Middle Eastern Armenian communities. Therefore, it should say "diasporan Armenian."

And I still think it's redundant to say "Middle East and Syria"Preservedmoose (talk) 06:01, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Preservedmoose, there are multiple issues with this. First of all, it was mentioned as source, not quote. Greek City Times and Daily Sabah are not comparable, and no opinion piece was quoted from Daily Sabah. This looks like whataboutism. Secondly, as I said before, those are two different things. As the note says, it was alleged by Azerbaijan. Those reports are not from the government of Azerbaijan. Furthermore, those volunteers were stopped in the border, like how it happened in Georgia. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 06:20, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Daily Sabah is literally the mouthpiece of AKP as others have pointed out (and even worse, the European Parliament has called it a publisher of hate speech). Whataboutism, when used online, is a fancy phrase for "I don't really have an answer for you." Basically, a strawman. Plus, at least one other Greek City Times article is used as a source in this very article. So a partisan publisher of hate speech, noted for spreading dubious claims, is fine to constitute like 70% of the sources on this page but the article in question isn't? Secondly, how do you know that these volunteers were stopped at the border? None of the sources I am seeing said that. I invite you to provide and cite sources if you had them. Thirdly, as I stated before, I didn't change "mercenaries" to "volunteers." Fourthly, "Middle East and Syria" sounds absolutely moronic. It's like saying "Bavaria and Germany." In fact, that's not even what your quote says, it says "from Syria and different countries in the Middle East," which implies that Syria is a Middle Eastern country. Why are you so insistent on the mentioning of Syria specifically? Is this some weird tit-for-tat because Turkey was caught sending Syrian mercs to Karabakh so the play field must be leveled and Syria must be where Armenia is getting fighters from specifically? And lastly, who made you the emperor of this page, anyhow?Preservedmoose (talk) 06:41, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Preservedmoose, "emperor of the page" and stuff like that, keep it WP:CIVIL, will you? If not, I will stop commenting on your claims. I have to remind that you are on Wikipedia. Anyway, in the first place, you don't have to quote that every single time. Greek City Times is a minor publication when compared to Daily Sabah, and I said it before that not a single opinion piece was quoted from Daily Sabah. Secondly, Jam News reports that "On September 28, registration of volunteers began in Akhalkalaki and Ninotsminda who, if necessary, were ready to join in combat", "On September 28 four trucks with foodstuffs and tires were ready to leave Akhalkalaki for the border checkpoint Ninotsminda-Bavra and then Armenia. However the trucks didn’t reach the border. They were stopped by the law enforcement officers who said that the border was closed due to the coronavirus." There are reports of volunteers registering, but their approval is not confirmed. I agree with the fourth one though, Middle East should be written. Also, "Is this some weird tit-for-tat because Turkey was caught sending Syrian mercs to Karabakh so the play field must be leveled and Syria must be where Armenia is getting fighters from specifically?", as you can see from the history of the article, I didn't wrote Syria, an another user did. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 06:51, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I am on Wikipedia...so what? Civil? I've seen far worse on this page and others. It doesn't matter Greek City Times is a minor publication, it matters regarding the veracity of the claim and the quality of the reporting. Daily Sabah is known for spreading hate speech and being incredibly partisan and biased. It's not like that article really provides any evidence itself...it's a wishful op-ed masquerading as a news article. There are reports on Twitter of Armenian volunteers from the US going...but there are not news articles regarding this, from what I've seen. Still, I think diasporan volunteers should be mentioned...even that article from an Armenian news site I linked in my last comment says that there are ethnic Armenian volunteer fighters from Russia fighting. Whatever. I'm over this.--Preservedmoose (talk) 15:58, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Note Preservedmoose is highly suspected to be a sock puppet along with over a dozen recent contributors to the page. Resapp (talk) 09:26, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Suspected of being a sock puppet by whom? You? I've had this account for more than a decade. Investigate away. I think you'r ea sock puppet, by the way. I hope that somebody is investigating you. I've seen your edits and activities.Preservedmoose (talk) 15:58, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Username Solavirum

Can someone please stop this nonsense? I’m not able to edit anything as I’m not a big editor like him. But this is unacceptable. Ethnic Armenians fighting voluntarily for their homeland from all over the world is not “mercenaries”. They are diasporan Armenian volunteers fighting for their country. Meanwhile, it is internationally recognized that Turkey and Azerbaijan are using Syrian mercenaries. No international sources claimed the same for Armenia. Also, once again PKK/YPG are NOT fighting for Armenia; there is no reliable source to confirm this except for Turkish/Azeri propaganda. This editor is not reliable and needs to be confronted. Anita escobar (talk) 07:35, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Lol. Check the previous discussion threads above. I have made a statement about this God knows how many times. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 08:06, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Please send me just one single reliable source (not Turkish or Azeri) stating the use of “mercenaries” by Armenia or Kurdish involvement. Anita escobar (talk) 08:13, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Anita escobar, you are missing the point. That is not the case. Azerbaijan is a belligerent, it's allegations are noteworthy as the Armenian ones. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 08:20, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

The problem is you are staying that it is “alleged” but not saying only by Turkey and Azerbaijan. Is the whole world alleging Armenia for this or is it just the countries that have the worst relations with Armenia. Anita escobar (talk) 08:28, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Anita escobar, that collapsible list was published by an another editor... --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 08:32, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

But are you not the one who reverted it when it was finally changed? Anita escobar (talk) 08:34, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Note Anita escobar is highly suspected to be a sock puppet along with over a dozen recent contributors to the page. Resapp (talk) 09:25, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

A very big Note Stop fighting with the pro-Armenian users and stop terrorizing other users who write in favour of Armenia. @@Resapp:, if you don't remember, I asked to make this page available only for "extended confirmed users" after your destructive edits. Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 11:48, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Գարիկ Ավագյան, and Resapp, can you both please be more professional? "A very big Note", and stuff like that, these things really decrease the level of the discussion we have here. And please, both of you, stop using mentoring tone, be WP:CIVIL to each other and WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH. Thanks in adavance. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 11:53, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Solavirum. That user Resapp has a history of accusing everybody left and right of being a sock puppet.Preservedmoose (talk) 16:00, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

@Resapp Interesting that you’re accusing me of being a @sockpuppet” when you’re one yourself. Anita escobar (talk) 18:03, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Alleged involvement of PKK and YPG and inclusion in the Infobox

To include such claims with extremely unreliable references does not seem to be in compliance with the guidelines. Daily Sabah and Azerbaijani sources are not sufficient to include those claims in the Infobox. On the contrary, the involvement of mercenaries from the Syrian National Army with the Azerbaijani side are well confirmed by several Russian, European and Arabic sources (BBC, Russia Today, Al Arabiya TV).--Preacher lad (talk) 08:50, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Turkey has been known to justify foreign military interventions by branding their enemy as having association with the PKK. It is a lazy tool they use to rile up the masses and get the Turkish population to support their interventions against "terrorists". Wikipedia is better than this. It is a disgrace to take these lazy frivolous claims by Turkey seriously.
User178198273998166172 (talk) 24:10, 2 October 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.251.239.214 (talk)

@Preacher lad: but some of the European sources confirms it in here or here. Even almost all of the sources about the involvements are unsufficient/unreliable, the event is brand new and I think that they must be on alleged sections.--Ahmetlii (talk) 09:01, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Note Preacher lad is highly suspected to be a sock puppet along with over a dozen recent contributors to the page. Resapp (talk) 09:25, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

The sources claiming that the PKK is involved in the conflict are totally unreliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Güney Yalcin (talk • contribs) 10:12, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Alleged section must be removed from the Armenian side of the infobox. "Syrian Armenian mercenaries" is not accurate in this content, even if there are fighters who belong to that community. Almost all Syrian Armenians living in Armenia are citizens of the Republic of Armenia. How can a citizen be a mercenary in his own army? --Preacher lad (talk) 11:30, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

SOHR reporting them as well. It can not be removed at this point. Beshogur (talk) 11:43, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Beshogur, SOHR is considered an independent reliable source, at least on Wikipedia. Resapp (talk) 14:42, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

MosMusy, discuss before publishing such edits. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 15:37, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Solavirum, I discussed that issue here, that I believe putting "alleged" with no concrete proof or evidence, is just wild speculation. This means if Turkish press says they think ISIS is in Karabakh, then that should go as well. It's simply misleading the reader. Let's stick to what is verified. MosMusy (talk) 16:57, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

MosMusy, I don't want to edit war. But one thing is clear that there is no proof of so-called SNA involvement either. This is very one-sided, man. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 17:11, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Solavirum, I also don't want an edit war, but involvement of Syrian mercenaries via Turkey has been confirmed by multiple sources including Reuters, British Media, Russian Government, US Department of Defense, that CANNOT be compared to the "alleged" PKK/YPG presence, which has no proof at all. MosMusy (talk) 18:06, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

MosMusy, coverage and proof are two different things. The "proofs" these publications have shown are information given by some so-called SNA leaders. I wait for material evidence as proof. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 20:15, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

MarshallBagramyan, discuss here. There are multiple users in favour of the addition. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 15:51, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Also, please stop edit warring, and respect to the consensus. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 15:52, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

We have concluded six discussion threads on this issue. Stop removing it for Pete's sake. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 15:55, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Qatar support??

@Resapp: et. al. In order to avoid possible controversy, I would like to ask you what you think of Qatar's position on Nagorno. Here source I'm between neutral (peace and dialogue) and pro-Azerbaijan — Preceding unsigned comment added by KajenCAT (talk • contribs) 09:41, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Doha wants to act like a peace talk mediator. It also called Sarkissian. No support on either side. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 10:33, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

@Solavirum: Thanks! @Resapp: et al. Regarding reaction map, it won't be included? — Preceding unsigned comment added by KajenCAT (talk • contribs) 11:19, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Abkhazian Armenians

Apparently the Armenian minority of Abkhazia is also participating in the conflict [9], should we include them in the list of combatants too? Super Ψ Dro 11:27, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Sputnik can not be used, any other source? Beshogur (talk) 11:33, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

The source is saying about financial assistance to the residents of Nagorno-Karabakh. Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 11:42, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Super Dromaeosaurus, the source says (per Google Translate): "The Armenian community of Abkhazia will provide financial assistance to the residents of Nagorno-Karabakh, the head of the community, Galust Trapizonyan, told Sputnik." This is totally different than participating. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 11:50, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

The Middle East Armenian mercenaries/volunteers were removed from the infobox anyways, so it doesn't matter anymore. Super Ψ Dro 12:04, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Super Dromaeosaurus, I object over this. Achieve consensus first. There is a SOHR report about it. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 12:07, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm not questioning whether Armenians from the Middle East are participating in the conflict or not, it's just that when I sent that message, it had been removed again. Super Ψ Dro 12:14, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Stated ~ claimed

"At approximately 01:10, the Azerbaijani MoD released a video apparently showing the destruction of Armenian materiel", this is not neutral, but "The Armenian MoD stated that units belonging to the Artsakh Defence Army had destroyed Azerbaijani materiel", but this is? Seems like a one-sided stance. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 15:39, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Wrong. There's clear nuances between both sentences. Extrapolating information from a video verges (though need not necessarily be tantamount to) to original research. Providing what a certain ministry is claiming is entirely different.Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 15:45, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Oh wait, I get your point. Marshal Bagramyan, I will edit accordingly. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 15:47, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Note on recording materiel losses

Obviously, claimed vs. actual losses is difficult to establish, especially given decoys, and footage can be pre-recorded, shot from multiple angles and republished as different events, 'borrowed' from entirely different conflicts, etc. Thus, 'claimed' should always be employed unless and until e.g., the UN steps in with a Truth and Reconciliation tribunal or some such mechanism. As for units, generally speaking, notability applies, meaning, in practice, the Wikipedia principle of proportionality . So, for example, in a border skirmish, human casualties alone may be listed. In a tank battle, tank losses, and not much else, would be recorded. For this specific conflict, the July 2020 Armenian–Azerbaijani clashes is a starting point. To sum up, as the scale of a conflict increases, the list of materiel losses decreases, focusing on major units lost. However, separate pages for specific battles (e.g., over towns and cities) would appear, with their own infoboxes and lists of casualties and notable materiel losses. And so on. Johncdraper (talk) 17:11, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Hungary

Hungary also supports territorial integrity of Azerbaijan.

Reference: https://hungarytoday.hu/hungary-nagorno-karabakh-conflict-armenia-azerbaijan-eu-summit/

https://index.hu/kulfold/2020/10/01/azeri/

Helius Olympian (talk) 17:14, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree on adding it. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 17:45, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Ambassadors: Political figures or domestic reactions?

Would an Armenian ambassador to the US (Means he is in the United States) count as a political figure or in the domestic reaction section?

Also how would ambassador's work in general for statements. Elijahandskip (talk) 18:29, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Usually, ambassador's statements reflect in itself position of the state that he or she represents. So, I consider it meaningless, because country's position is alrady known to us. Helius Olympian (talk) 18:34, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Not in this case. The Armenian Ambassador to the US is saying something different from the "country's statements". The Ambassador wants the US to help solve the problem while Armenia stated "no peace talks". Elijahandskip (talk) 18:37, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Map image has been vandalized

When clicking on the map to see it bigger (on the top right corner), it has been vandalized to show some pornographic materials. I don't know how to change it but wanted to report it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.136.44.86 (talk) 19:00, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

It has been reverted. Super Ψ Dro 19:28, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

"Alleged" Syrian TFSA mercenaries are really there, with proof from different non biased sources

Even The Guardian and France has reported about it https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/sep/30/nagorno-karabakh-at-least-three-syrian-fighters-killed https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/10/1/macron-says-syrian-fighters-operating-in-karabakh https://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/world/2020/10/01/Evidence-Syrian-fighters-traveled-through-Turkey-to-Karabakh-France-s-Macron — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.251.34.18 (talk) 19:05, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. It's no longer "alleged" involvement of Syrian mercenaries fighting on the side of the Turks/Azerbaijanis. It seems that there is overwhelming evidence and consensus of the involvement of these mercenaries. Time to make it official on here:

The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/sep/30/nagorno-karabakh-at-least-three-syrian-fighters-killed

The Foreign Ministry of Russia: https://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/news/-/asset_publisher/cKNonkJE02Bw/content/id/4363834

Foreign Ministry of Iran: https://www.khabaronline.ir/news/1438346

France: https://in.reuters.com/article/armenia-azerbaijan-putin-macron/france-accuses-turkey-of-sending-syrian-mercenaries-to-nagorno-karabakh-idINKBN26M4VE?il=0

BBC Arabic: "Armenia and Azerbaijan: BBC Arabic talks to Syrian fighters on the line of fire between the two countries": https://www.bbc.com/arabic/middleeast-54346711

Riam Dalati (BBC Syria journalist): https://twitter.com/Dalatrm/status/1311223993903599618

https://twitter.com/dalatrm/status/1311269228738207745

Hussein Akoush (Syrian contributor for the Guardian, the Telegraph, TRT): https://twitter.com/HousseinAk/status/1310978787014840324?s=09

Reuters: "Turkey deploying Syrian fighters to help ally Azerbaijan, two fighters say" https://www.reuters.com/article/us-armenia-azerbaijan-turkey-syria/turkey-deploying-syrian-fighters-to-help-ally-azerbaijan-two-fighters-say-idUSKBN26J25APreservedmoose (talk) 19:24, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

None of these sources show proof, but just statements from so-called SNA fighters and leaders in Syria. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 19:28, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Wait, so what do you want...you need video of a dead jihadi saying that he died in Karabakh fighting for Azerbaijan? You have NUMEROUS sources, including governments of Iran, Russia, and France all saying that mercenaries from Syria are being utilized by Turkey/Azerbaijan in this war. I'm not sure what level of proof/consensus you need. Are you waiting on Turkey or Azerbaijan to confirm? You're telling me that The Guardian isn't accepted as a legitimate source for this but Daily Sabah is fine?Preservedmoose (talk) 19:39, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Preservedmoose, gosh you've been nitpicking Daily Sabah for days now. We require material source for it. Otherwise, just allegations. You are using "proof" and "coverage/source" as the same. Don't. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 20:07, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

What "material source" is there in the Daily Sabah articles? You have multiple government bodies confirming the Syrian mercs' involvement. Yes, I rail against Daily Sabah and proudly, they are the mouthpiece of a dictator and have been labeled as spreading hate. Might as well cite Stormfront as an authority.Preservedmoose (talk) 20:32, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Lmao. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 21:04, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Based on the fact 3rd party, neutral and reliable media outlets are reporting on Syrian fighter involvement on the side of Azerbaijan I would agree that their involvement is no longer just alleged. Azerbaijan can deny their involvement and we can note this in the infobox, but considering they are one of the belligerents their denial should not be considered more factual (warranting the "alleged" wording) than what the 3rd party sources are reporting. EkoGraf (talk) 01:04, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Status of 'Syrian mercenaries' in infobox

The United States Pentagon has confirmed the existance of Syrian mercenaries from Turkish-backed various rebel factions in use by Azerbaijan through Turkish security companies. This is no longer an 'alleged' claim made alone by Armenia, and has been corroborated by both Syrian sources such as the SOHR and anonymous Syrians, foreign media such as BBC Arabic and CNN, and now foreign intelligence agencies. I recommened we made Syrian mercenaries one of the recognized belligerents in this conflict. The evidence is outstanding and dear Wikipedia editors, you must understand some countries (in this case Turkey) lie. https://edition.cnn.com/2020/10/01/middleeast/azerbaijan-armenia-syrian-rebels-intl/index.html https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/evidence-mounts-that-turkey-recruited-syrians-to-fight-armenia-644078 By contrast, we should give no basis for the "Kurdish PKK/YPG" involvement on Armenian side, because those claims lack any evidence and Turkey is known to justify military action by associating their political enemies with their arch-enemy - the PKK. User178198273998166172 (talk) 20:51, 01 October 2020 (UTC)

This is a completely reasonable stance that most academics, third party observers, and people on here agree with. However, a certain user, who like accusing others of violating wikipedia norms, while simultaneously violating them, while refuse this edit. This will be changed in time, however due to the actions of this user, the academic and third party consensus won't be displayed. This user will defer and say Azerbaijan's claims are just as valid as Armenia's claims, but completely neglects the fact we are not talking about Armenia's claims, but rather claims of reputable third parties and the international consensus. We will have to wait a couple week before this user (who by their edit history has a clear bias towards one of the parties in the conflict) can finally be side-stepped. Sorry, this is not up to wikipedia standard, but unfortunately it won't be for a bit.Dvtch (talk) 20:31, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I support this change. Its an open secret at this point. F.Alexsandr (talk) 20:38, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I support it too. Super Ψ Dro 20:41, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Support the change as well. As I said in an earlier section, based on the fact 3rd party, neutral and reliable media outlets are reporting on Syrian fighter involvement on the side of Azerbaijan I agree that their involvement is no longer just alleged. Azerbaijan can deny their involvement and we can note this in the infobox, but considering they are one of the belligerents their denial should not be considered more factual (warranting the "alleged" wording) than what the 3rd party sources are reporting. EkoGraf (talk) 01:07, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 October 2020

Syrian Army is not on Azerbaijan side. 94.54.232.34 (talk) 20:40, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

• • Per se, as they are not fighting under their flag and banner, but according to the sources listed they are fighting in Azerbaijani military uniforms. They are being used as mercenaries, and mercenaries should be listed as a seperate combatant. That is how it has alwayas been done on Wikipedia with regards to Russian Wagner mercenaries in Syria and Libya. It would be biased to not do the same for Azerbaijan.
    User178198273998166172 (talk) 21:28, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Vote regarding combatant section

Due to the stalling of one user, who has a right to their own personal biases towards one of the combatants of this war, the combatant section, which many users disagree with has not changed. This is not an attack on this user, but rather a call for consensus.

The user's argument boils down to, despite reputable sources interviewing fighters from Syria, despite the groups themselves saying they are fighting in Azerbaijan, despite pictures obtained from OSINT showing Syrian fighters in Azerbaijan, this does not constitute valid grounds to say they are definitively fighting in Azerbaijan. This does not follow the precedent under any other Wikipedia article. Even if both Turkey and Azerbaijan deny the claim, that is irrelevant to whether they are actually there in an academic sense. Take for example the War in Donbass Article. Russia is listed as a combatant, despite denying it, because the international consensus was that they are a combatant in the war.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Donbass

This users arguments also come down to: We should take Azerbaijan's statements seriously since they are a combatant? What? They are a combatant with interests for the world to believe they do not have Syrian mercenaries fighting for them.

The more credible source here, is not Turkey, Azerbaijan, or Armenia, but rather reputable newspapers and organizations and academics. With the consensus on everywhere else, but here being that groups from the Syrian National Army (Sultan murad, etc) are engaged in combat in this war. The fact that one or two users is able to stonewall this due to their personal biases has made this page much less credible. I have no doubt that the "alleged" section will change eventually, but everyday it stays this way, Wikipedia's credibility is hurt. Therefore, all users should vote here and actually take action on this matter. Dvtch (talk) 20:41, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

WP:WINARS and WP:NODEMOCRACY. (talk) 20:47, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Beshogur Sure. But, I am not calling for a 50%+ vote, I am just calling for the vast majority of users, who support the academic consensus to come here and voice their views. A Wiki article should not prevent displaying the academic consensus, due to the actions of one users. I am trying to change that, just telling me oh well, WP:WINARS won't change my effort. Dvtch (talk) 20:53, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

No. Beshogur (talk) 20:56, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Keep your personal biases out of this please and let the academic consensus take hold.Dvtch (talk) 20:58, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Lol, WP:NODEMOCRACY. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 21:03, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Defer to my response to Beshogur. This is not about a 50% vote, it's about you and a couple users making a mockery of wikipedia by blocking the international academic consensus from being displayed on the combatant sections.Dvtch (talk) 21:07, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Beshogur and Solavirum, your attitudes and inflexibility only show that you are indeed biased and not willing to start any consensus. I did not intend to get involved in any dispute in this article but it is more than clear that there are Syrian soldiers in Azerbaijan. Super Ψ Dro 21:07, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Beshogur and Solavirum would you be okay with getting a third-party opinion from Wikipedia's process to settle this dispute?Dvtch (talk) 21:10, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Super Dromaeosaurus, my attitude? Now I'm the one not being civil? When someone uses a sarcastic tone, and saying that a 'certain user' "who like accusing others of violating wikipedia norms, while simultaneously violating them, while refuse this edit", I'm suppose to take it seriously? As I presented it above, this appeal violates some rules. I don't write them, I just show them. Keep these accusations to yourself, they are not constructive. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 21:14, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about civity, in that sense, I think you are the most appropriate from what I have seen on this talk page. I'm just saying that arguments have been presented and instead of discussing the problem to find a consensus, they were just ignored. Super Ψ Dro 21:26, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Dvtch, Azerbaijan's denial should be added at this point. Turkey says that it has confirmed YPG reports, as did a stray 'Pentagon official'. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 21:14, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Solavirum I did not intend to be sarcastic. I am sorry if you got offended. I clearly said you were entitled to your biases, but if biases get in the way of consensus they are problematic. I am not at all opposed to mentioned Azerbaijan and Turkey deny the claim, however, this should be treated the same way it is in the Donbass war article article, where Russia is listed as a combatant (not an alleged combatant) and a note is made of their denial. To lump them in as alleged, the same as the unsubstantiated claimed of PKK involvement is contrarian to any kind of academic spirit on Wikipedia. As I said earlier, I am completely open to having a third party of wikipedia through the dispute process take a look at this for us. Dvtch (talk) 21:19, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Dvtch, well, I will not interfere with so-called Syrian involvement being included above the Alleged list anymore as my personal decision. But, PKK/YPG involvement is also noteworthy, as it was presented by 'Turkish security sources', like how 'Pentagon official' has 'confirmed' it. As Armenia alleges that Turkey is directly involved, and that Turkey is a regional power, it is still noteworthy enough. That's my opinion. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 21:30, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Solavirum I am not opposed to mention of that on the combatant page. I am simply opposed to that claim, which is not widely agreed to be true by reputable sources and international media, and the claim that SNA groups (namely Sultan Murad) which is universally outside of Turkey and Azerbaijan accepted as fact, to be clumped in the same category since they are qualitatively different claims. Dvtch (talk) 22:08, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Beshogur and Solavirum despite you ignoring be above I have started a dispute. I would appreciate if everyone here listed their views. So if you two and Super Dromaeosaurus could write something on there and us agree that decision is binding because it is being stonewalled on here I would appreciate it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#2020_Nagorno-Karabakh_conflict Dvtch (talk) 22:39, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Going to put the comment I already inserted in two other sections, where this discussion has apparently dragged out as well, since I'm not sure which discussion section for the subject is the main one. Based on the fact 3rd party, neutral and reliable media outlets are reporting on Syrian fighter involvement on the side of Azerbaijan I agree that their involvement is no longer just alleged. Azerbaijan can deny their involvement and we can note this in the infobox, but considering they are one of the belligerents their denial should not be considered more factual (warranting the "alleged" wording) than what the 3rd party sources are reporting. EkoGraf (talk) 01:11, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

This Wikipedia article has been corrupted.

Dear all objective unbiased neutral editors,

This is a very contentious sensitive political issue for many, I realize that, and it seems Wikipedia's many Turkish editors are subjectively editing to support the narrative of the Turkish and Azerbaijani governments. This is unacceptable on Wikipedia according to the policy regarding POV-pushing.

As an example, User:Beshogur is using his power as a Wikipedia moderator to take down our agreed stance on Syrian rebel's participation on behalf of Azerbaijan, and has retracted my edits and is threatening to ban me for making further edits. Turkey's participation remains less certain, and I did not put them as a belligerent, but it is certainly clear Syrian rebels are partiticpating and the evidence is outstanding that is is no longer an 'alleged claim'. SOHR, CNN, BBC, US-Pentagon, Russia, anon. Syrian rebels themselves, what more do you need????? This is an extremely biased article as it stands, and corrupted by these mostly Turkish Wikipedia editors.

I encourage you all to contact another senior moderator on Wikipedia who can stop Beshogur, and possibly ban him if he persists, or contact higher-ups at Wikipedia. I do not want to be banned for contributing to this article by someone who is pushing his governments narrative onto here.
User178198273998166172 (talk) 21:20, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I say since he is a biased party and understandably so, we ask Wikipedia for a third party resolution, through their dispute-handling process. However that third party decides is how the combatant page will be displayed. Dvtch (talk) 21:23, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

WP:CONSPIRACY. Beshogur (talk) 21:26, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Never knew beshogur was a Moderator, but he have bias because he is Turkish, but those bias can be controlled with WP:3O and WP:DRN.Mr.User200 (talk) 22:29, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Mr.User200 I started a dispute. Beshogur I informed you of it but you ignored it. Feel free to respond there. Dvtch (talk) 22:37, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

You know personal attacks and racism can be sanctioned? Beshogur (talk) 22:44, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes they are sanctioned, but you have a position and Turkey is a combatant, personal points of view should be kept aside.Mr.User200 (talk) 22:49, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Beshogur he was attacking you of bias due to your articles. Not making derogatory comments due to your race. Please for the sake of civility, may we please all just defer to the dispute and let a third party make the final ruling. We believe you are abusing your role as moderator and would like a third-party to settle this. Dvtch (talk) 23:02, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Really? Who told I am moderator. I never did. Beshogur (talk) 23:14, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I was under the impression you were. If I'm wrong fine. May you please go https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#2020_Nagorno-Karabakh_conflict so we may resolve this dispute via third party. Dvtch (talk) 23:25, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Suggestion to restrict/take down this article because of massive editing wars

I'm reading all of this nonsense and I'm already seeing edit wars happening on an almost daily basis. This article should be restricted from further editing until next month, or take this article down, and make a new one that is restricted only to the higher-ups that are allowed to edit the article. People have seem to forget about WP:NPOV and I think it needs to be addressed immediately to prevent any more of these unnecessary edit wars as soon as possible.

I have lost all faith in Wikipedia because of these unnecessary arguments over "THIS IS BIASED, AZERBAIJAN IS BACKING THE CORRUPTION OF WIKIPEDIA VIA ONE ARTICLE" or "THIS IS NOT BIASED, OUR ARMENIAN BROTHERS ARE BEING ATTACKED BY MUSLIM HORDES BECAUSE MUSLIMS ARE INFECTING WIKIPEDIA", et cetera. Enough. This is beyond childish. Usage of religious/ethnic justification to edit articles and cite non-NPOV sources is prohibited. Unfortunately, the majority of those who edit this article have deliberately forgot that to further a single, non-neutral perspective to further damage this article's credibility and now it has gone to waste. It is shameful that we have fell to our own rhetoric instead of thinking through a 3rd party perspective over a stupid article about what's currently going on in the region right now. Shameful. Balkanite (talk) 23:14, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

This can be solved with pending changes protection. Still dont know this is not aplied right now.Mr.User200 (talk) 23:19, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree with either suggestion. I do think there also needs to be third party intervention for consensus building if certain users stonewall efforts. It is very frustrating. Dvtch (talk) 23:27, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I disagree with you. This article is great and has a large audience as it documents a current war. The problem is in the infobox where there is great confusion over whether to include Syrian mercenaries and Turkish involvement. There is also this incessant need by some editors to include the "YPG/PKK" on the Armenian side as some sort of balancing act. The facts are YPG/PKK presence has only been reported by Turkish news outlets, without any evidence and one I read was pure speculation, while the Syrians have been confirmed by the SOHR, BBC, CNN, France, Russia, USA, Arab news media, and tons of other sources. Turkey just wants to demonize the other side, as they've done in Syria by promoting outlandish claims of "terror" PKK involvement in order to justify military interventions. And if I might add your rhetoric is part of the problem here. What makes you think, I as an example and likewise many editors, are fueled by religious and ethnic strife against 'Muslims' when I desire for Syrians to be included as combatants in the infobox based on hundreds of sources? What does religion have to do with this? I am guessing you come from a deeply religious country if you think that way. I am Neutral, and I don't favor one side strongly to the point of promoting lazy state propaganda.
User178198273998166172 (talk) 24:36, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Specifically about the YPG/PKK involvement, I took the liberty of removing these from the infobox, while still keeping the allegations in the main article as they're presented in an appropriate and balanced manner. Eik Corell (talk) 00:28, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Accurate usage of "Mercenary"

"Armenian mercenaries" is not an accurate term to describe the Syrians of Armenian descent, and broadly Armenian-origin people around the world, who are reported to be voluntarily going to Karabakh/Artsakh to fight for their ancestral country. The definition of a mercenary according to the Oxford Language dictionary is "a professional soldier hired to serve in a foreign army." The Armenians in question from Syria are not serving in a "foreign" army, as they all speak Armenian and the SOHR reported they are 'Armenian-born', and they are not getting payed by the Armenian government to go there voluntarily.
By contrast, the Syrians in Azerbaijan are only there for the paycheck. It's not their country, and they otherwise would have no incentive to go there voluntarily were it not for the money. This is according to many sources https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20201001-we-were-deceived-says-syria-mercenary-fighting-in-azerbaijan/. This is the difference between Syrian-Armenian volunteers and Syrian mercenaries.
User178198273998166172 (talk) 1:55, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

The way this article is being handled is very shameful, in one past edit I remember seeing "Ethnic Armenian mercenaries from the Middle East and Syria" on the battlebox, Come on, how a volunteer could be a mercenary??Mr.User200 (talk) 01:01, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 October 2020

Please ADD these additional confimations:

1) BBC Arabic Confirms Syrian Mercenaries in Azerbaijan. Says they were tricked and want to go home, but are being threatened with prison. https://www.bbc.com/arabic/middleeast-54346711

2) “We now have information which indicates that Syrian fighters from jihadist groups have (transited) through Gaziantep (southeastern Turkey) to reach the Nagorno-Karabakh theatre of operations,” Macron told reporters on arrival at an EU summit in Brussels. “It is a very serious new fact, which changes the situation”. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-armenia-azerbaijan-putin-macron/france-accuses-turkey-of-sending-syrian-mercenaries-to-nagorno-karabakh-idUSKBN26L3SB

3) The Pentagon spokesman confirmed the transfer of Turkish mercenaries to Azerbaijan. https://gagrule.net/the-pentagon-spokesman-confirmed-the-transfer-of-turkish-mercenaries-to-azerbaijan/

4) The militants from illegal armed units are being moved to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict zone from Syria and Libya to take a direct part in the hostilities. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federationhttps://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/news/-/asset_publisher/cKNonkJE02Bw/content/id/4363834 Strategos9 (talk) 06:14, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I will add the sources. Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 07:36, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

NPOV

Ahmetlii The sources are neutral. What you consider as violation? Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 07:52, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

@Գարիկ Ավագյան: The problem is this: There's no enough evidence (a confirmed photo, or confirmed by all sides) to put it to "Belligerents" section directly rather than put it to "Alleged" subsection. That's the violation. Ahmetlii (talk) 08:09, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I added France to "alleged by" list. Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 09:38, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Who put Russia as Arms supplier of Azerbaijan?

Those sources only talk about the fact that Russia has been selling weapons to both sides in the past, but so far in this conflict Russia has only been helping Armenia. F.Alexsandr (talk) 08:08, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 11:32, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 October 2020

So i get banned for making a change about mormonism, but on a page that "only administrators and trusted editors can change I see a pornographic picture disrespecting armenian armed forces during an active war? Wow, wikipedia is literally just a trash forum no better than reddit. I'm done. 75.169.31.239 (talk) 09:05, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Inappropriate photo of the conflict

The Picture of the map showing the scope of the conflict had been replaced with a picture from Kim K‘s sex tape. This is inappropriate and should be rectified as soon as possible.

Remove image

The main image of the article is literally pornographic Alondon17 (talk) 09:06, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Some Azerbaijani troll, probably.--78.102.53.207 (talk) 09:09, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Releases of photos and videos

Is really necessary to write wikipedia article about releasing of photos and videos by Armenian, or Azerbaijani MoD? What about writing about conflict, rather than spreading propaganda of both sides?--78.102.53.207 (talk) 09:09, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree, and I will restore the introduction to the timeline pointing this out. Johncdraper (talk) 11:54, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Hungary declares support for Azerbaijan

I can't edit page, can someone add this. Sources for proof

• https://hungarytoday.hu/hungary-nagorno-karabakh-conflict-eu-summit-azerbaijan/
• https://www.euractiv.com/section/politics/short_news/budapest-support-for-azerbaijan/

--PanNostraticism (talk) 10:11, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I also can't edit it, but thanks for information. I'll add it to map reaction and in Catalan version article. --KajenCAT (talk) 11:10, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Second attempt: International reaction map

After a long discussion, I believe that there is consensus on the map of international reactions, which is why I am asking for its inclusion for the second and last time. I metion the participants of these discussions. @Solavirum, F.Alexsandr, Johncdraper, and Beshogur: et. al. --KajenCAT (talk) 11:06, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps a different shade for Uz, Ky, Kz? Beshogur (talk) 11:10, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

To reiterate and clarify my position. Firstly, what does the key mean? The problem is that 'support' is not defined. Diplomatic support, yes, but for what, exactly? Support for Azerbaijani territorial integrity Vs. Support for the Nagorno-Karabakh Line of Contact? In that case, you would need to check the statements of every country re territorial integrity. This is complicated by the fact UNSC resolution 884, which everyone editing this page should probably read, and which "reaffirmed the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Azerbaijani Republic" is still in force. Thus, all UNSC countries which voted for this would bound to be categorised as 'Support for Azerbaijani territorial integrity', as would those countries which expressed support for the resolution at the time, unless their positions have been amended. Secondly, what does 'Peace' mean? Conditional peace? Unconditional peace? And peace to what end? Peaceful negotiations according to UNSC 884 and/or the Madrid Principles? I have no problem with maps per se and supported the present geomap, but this map is highly problematic. Add: Well, the geomap that showed town-level details at one point. However, that was conditional support, given the difficulty of keeping it current with reliable sources. Johncdraper (talk) 11:37, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

As I have said, Ky, Kz, Uz have published their own statements, which are neutral. You have said that TC statement should be interpreted as a stance of all TC countries. I will need a source from TC documents that says that a statement by TC (Mind you, a statement, not a joint Resolution) should be interpreted as official stance of all states. But even then a TC statement merely REMINDS of 1993 UN resolution, not calls for its enforcement, and even if it did, it would hardly be a statemnt of support for AZ in this particular conflict. F.Alexsandr (talk) 11:49, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

This debate is very politicised and I shouldn't be surprised because of the few times that I have collaborated in something in the English Wikipedia, it has been similar or worse. People who far from collaborating or helping you as they do in any other Wikipedia, do the opposite; hindering you in almost everything you do. And yes, I'm talking about all of you except some people like Solavirum. For this reason, and also due to lack of time, I am withdrawing from this debate.--KajenCAT (talk) 12:54, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Madrid Principles

Beshogur I can't find any source confirming that Armenian MFA rejects the Madrid Principles. Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 11:20, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

The page presently uses this. Johncdraper (talk) 11:40, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Didn't found. Removed for now. Beshogur (talk) 11:46, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

@Beshogur: Fine on my internet. Would you like to restore it or should I? Johncdraper (talk) 11:51, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. Do it. Beshogur (talk) 11:53, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I see, again some source in Russian. And again, no statement about rejection from Armenia. Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 17:25, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Allegations of Pakistan's involvement has no base to its

Zee News is not a good source. Unlike YPG/PKK allegations, which was covered by Middle East Monitor, now Radio Free Europe reports involvement of Wagner Group. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 11:42, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

As I said, RFE/RL may or may not be a major publication. But Wagner Group's supposed presence is at best speculation at this point. Plus, it has a strong anti-Putin bias. ----Երևանցի ^talk 11:48, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I have said it before and I will explain it here again, the sources spreading this rumor of Pakistan involvement have been on occasion held responsible for spreading fake news. So these sources should not be used for making controversial claims. This rumor which came to surface on 28-29 September, has not been covered by any international media and none of the government representatives of Azerbaijan or Armenia are backing this rumor. Other then a section of Indian media, nobody is really talking about this. So it is best to ignore it. A2kb2r (talk) 12:57, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Background

Can anyone explain what this has to do with Background?

"According to the 2018 war report prepared by the Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights, "Armenia exercises its authority over Nagorno-Karabakh by equipping, financing or training and providing operational support to the self-proclaimed Nagorno-Karabakh Republic and its forces, but also in coordinating and helping the general planning of their military and paramilitary activities"

Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 17:04, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, mentioning the support of the Nagorno-Karabakh by Armenia is obviously relevant. What exactly should be said can be debatable. I removed this [10], but it can be restored if there are RS saying there is a direct connection between this Russian-Armenian exercise and the subject of this page. My very best wishes (talk) 17:14, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

How it relevant to the clashes? Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 17:24, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

This page say: "The clashes stem from the dispute over the Armenian-majority Nagorno-Karabakh...". This seems to be obvious and sourced, but indeed, this should be explicitly stated in RS. More important, the actual reason for the conflict is not at all clear. Why all the sudden and right now? Who started this and why? That must be clarified on the page. But I am not sufficiently familiar with this subject. Sources (like this) say that the attack was launched by Azeri/Turkish forces to take over the entire territory of Artsakh, and they have enormous technical advantage (Turkey is obviously a part of NATO, shame on NATO). My very best wishes (talk) 17:51, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Based on that, I tend to agree with you that "Armenia exercises its authority..." phrase is probably excessive and could be removed. My very best wishes (talk) 18:26, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM. Beshogur (talk) 18:20, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Til tok

Who says it's censored? I don't even have a VPN. 212.42.198.243 (talk) 17:49, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

You are about shutdown of Tik Tok in Armenia? Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 18:13, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Murovdag

According to the Artsakh Defense Army, the Armenian forces repelled an Azerbaijani attempt to capture Mt. Mrav (Murovdag). We can remove it from infobox. Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 18:08, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

@Գարիկ Ավագյան: recent edits

Here, you undid me twice. About Madrid principles, check the second source please. About Murovdag, check the first source about that. I request reverting your edits back please.Beshogur (talk) 18:23, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Beshogur I did. Nothing from the officials about rejection. About Murovdag, could you look at the link above? Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 18:26, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

About Madrid principles. this about Murovdag. Plus, your source is from 27, there are recent sources saying Azerbaijan claims its control over. Beshogur (talk) 18:30, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I read twice the same article. Nothing, except for the title and the personal opinion of the journalist, says that Armenia or Artsakh rejected the Madrid principles. Moreover, it says that “Prime Minister Pashinyan said that he would like to receive some clarifications from the co-chairs on the Madrid Principles, because the sides in Yerevan, Stepanakert and Azerbaijan had different perceptions and interpreted differently the same document, and a clear assessment was required for everyone to equally perceive these proposals. But over time, it turned out that these proposals are no longer discussed, and now it is more important to ensure stability in our region, reduce risks, use international armistice mechanisms, etc." If there are links where Armenia or Artsakh rejects the Madrid principles, let me know, although I'm not sure you will find them. Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 18:49, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Beshogur edits

I honestly, don't understand your edits 1. Why you remove everything which is in favour of Armenia/Artsakh? Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 19:14, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

You say Artsakh rejected, the infobox says Azerbaijan have reported. So it does not matter if it was rejected. Plus there is recent source which i will put. Beshogur (talk) 19:17, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

References

You can't just pick one side to believe and another side to ignore, Beshogur. That violates WP:NPOV. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 19:23, 2 October 2020 (UTC)