Jump to content

Talk:Second Nagorno-Karabakh War: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Mirhasanov (talk | contribs)
484 edits
Line 1,255: Line 1,255:
::::::: {{re|Jr8825}} I have my reservations about the "explainer" on The AtlanticCouncil blog by an Israeli / Jewish (Israel is ally and arm supplier to Azerbaijan and Turkey - ?COI) "senior fellow" giving undue weight to “Launching a new attack against Azerbaijan, Armenia has once again shown that it constitutes the biggest threat against peace and comfort in the region,” POV of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan (unsupported by third party analysts) and that does not cite a single source for its statements, so we could know exactly what (where) acts of violence it is implying. I am against citing it for anything related to NK War, due to mentioned reasons. As for the other large document, it will take me some time to read [[User:Armatura|Armatura]] ([[User talk:Armatura|talk]]) 19:37, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
::::::: {{re|Jr8825}} I have my reservations about the "explainer" on The AtlanticCouncil blog by an Israeli / Jewish (Israel is ally and arm supplier to Azerbaijan and Turkey - ?COI) "senior fellow" giving undue weight to “Launching a new attack against Azerbaijan, Armenia has once again shown that it constitutes the biggest threat against peace and comfort in the region,” POV of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan (unsupported by third party analysts) and that does not cite a single source for its statements, so we could know exactly what (where) acts of violence it is implying. I am against citing it for anything related to NK War, due to mentioned reasons. As for the other large document, it will take me some time to read [[User:Armatura|Armatura]] ([[User talk:Armatura|talk]]) 19:37, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
{{ref-talk}}
{{ref-talk}}
::::::: {{re|Jr8825}}, {{re|Armatura}} I am wondering why we are using word 'pogroms' for violence conducted by Azeris but when it comes to[[Gugark massacre]], we are using word violence?[[User:Mirhasanov|Mirhasanov]] ([[User talk:Mirhasanov|talk]]) 20:42, 15 November 2020 (UTC)


== Please remove link to Syunik from the Course of the Conflict > Ceasefire Agreement Section ==
== Please remove link to Syunik from the Course of the Conflict > Ceasefire Agreement Section ==

Revision as of 20:42, 15 November 2020

Proposal: Rename to "2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War"

MOVED
Rough consensus to use (1) "2020" over "Second", (2) "war" over "conflict", and (3) "war" over "War". Should usage in reliable, independent, secondary sources change then these points may be reconsidered in a subsequent move request. An extended summary prefaces the move request. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:43, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

There is a rough consensus for 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war. While opposition was numerically in the minority, they largely pointed to policies such as WP:OR and WP:N to support their points which I weighed heavily per WP:CONLEVEL. That said, support for some version of "war" was numerically overwhelming, and it is obvious that the current page title does not have consensus. To determine the consensus title, I looked to find the title that has the most support while still taking into account the legitimate concerns of the opposition.

The title Second Nagorno-Karabakh War had a lot of support, but per WP:NOTAVOTE we must weigh the opinions according to policy. Few rationales in support of that title cited relevant policies, while opposition to the title did. Editors point out that no reliable, independent, secondary sources use the proper noun "Second Nagorno-Karabakh War" and so the proposed title is unacceptable original research by synthesis. As such there is a consensus against describing this conflict as the "Second" war.

The title 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War had some support and retained the "war" characterization that many supporters of "Second" supported. This title, and the characterization as a "war" were challenged on the grounds of WP:COMMONNAME. Participants provided a number of sources which show reliable sources using both "conflict" and "war", and there is no consensus that either is overwhelmingly or predominently used. Indeed, the overwhelming majority of participants seem to agree that "war" is a better title than what some consider the most common name. As such, there is rough consensus that "conflict" is not sufficiently precise to describe the subject.

The final point of contention is whether to capitalize "war" or not. While a large number supported the capitalized version, few supporters gave an explanation for why the capitalization should be used. Those opposed generally gave policy-based rationales for the non-capitalized variant. In general, proponents of lowercase-"war" raised concerns about WP:OR since it could be seen as coining a proper noun (especially in combination with "Second") rather than a description of the subject. Even among those entirely opposed to the move, there was weaker opposition to the use of lowercase-"war" than to uppercase-"war".

So at this time there is a rough consensus to use (1) "war" over "conflict", (2) "war" over "War", and (3) "2020" over "Second". Should usage in reliable, independent, secondary sources change then these points may be reconsidered in a subsequent move request. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:43, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict → 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War The last rename proposal failed to gain consensus, but from the comments of most of the editors who responded it appears that there is strong support if not a consensus to rename the article to 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War, which is a neutral but accurate title in conformance with the manual of style. The majority of major media outlets are now referring to this as a war see [2], [3], [4], [5], [6] and combined arms conventional warfare is in fact taking place on the ground.XavierGreen (talk) 17:25, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree that its likely sources will use that title in the long run, as things stand right now only a handful of them appear to be actually using "Second Nagorno-Karabak War". As such, its not the "common name" for the war at the present time. Given that, we must use the standard conventions from the manual of style for naming wars (ie: the geographic area in which the war is taking place or the names of the belligerents). XavierGreen (talk) 17:38, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I clearly stated above that I am the nominator. I am auto-confirmed and have move privileges, as I stated above from the last move request there appears to be a clear consensus to rename the article to 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War. However, because this is a high profile and controversial page, rather than moving this page without any further discussion I elected to open this discussion to make sure prior to moving the page (that way people can see in the talk page archives why the title was changed). In the event this proposal proves controversial (which so far it does not), i'll open a formal move request.XavierGreen (talk) 17:25, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't see it. Ok it's fine. Beshogur (talk) 17:35, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Because WP:RM says only controversial moves should be done via a WP:RM, a prior move discussion related to a different proposed name showed a consensus to change the title to 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War, hence the proposed title change here is not actually controversial. However since that discussion didn't actually propose using that title i figured it best to just open up this confirming discussion here before being bold and making the move to confirm that the consensus that was apparant actually affirmatively existed.XavierGreen (talk) 20:38, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  1. BBC: War.
  2. NYT: Only one mention of "what would seem to be a local war" is not a strong endorsement for a name change. Moreover, the byline reads "extended conflict". So, Neutral.
  3. Reuters. "Conflict". This is worth refreshing every day: https://uk.reuters.com/search/news?blob=Nagorno-Karabakh&sortBy=date&dateRange=all
  4. AP: "hostilites" and "fighting".
  5. AFP: War.

Analysis: No consensus for a name change in the PRS. Note: you can do this search and update this list with timechecks yourself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources. In other words, this is essentially an automated process. No opinions are, or should be, involved. Johncdraper (talk) 20:39, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Al Jazeera is also referring to it as a war, see here [7]. NPR refers to it as a "hot war" here [8]. XavierGreen (talk) 21:53, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What information is tentative? Major news outlets (as i cited above) are referring to the subject matter of this article as a war and actual conventional warfare is occurring and has occurred on the ground.XavierGreen (talk) 02:31, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Johncdraper Has done a good job of highlighting that there is still no consensus among sources regarding the description of this conflict. That is why its tentative unless unanimity emerges among them. Gotitbro (talk) 06:56, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support For 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War. Almost every major news organization and think-tank is referring to it as a war and leaders of both countries openly declare about capturing or attacking pieces of enemy territory, nothing short of an open declaration. Even the death tolls clearly indicate a war-like situation. Striking my previous oppose. Gotitbro (talk) 15:56, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  1. AFP. War.[1]
  2. Al Jazeera. War.[2]
  3. AP. Fighting.[3]
  4. BBC. Conflict.[4]
  5. Bloomberg. Conflict.[5]
  6. CNN. Conflict.[6]
  7. The Conversation. "engaged in the flames of war" (does not mention war as name; may be rhetorical)[7]
  8. Time. Conflict.[8]

Analysis: As of Time stamp, not yet War. Reason may be because in addition to the problem that the War has never really ended, War could obligate triggering the Armenian-Russian defense pact. Apologies for the late arrival of this status check. I have been busy with some very complex geopolitics. Johncdraper (talk) 00:42, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Super Dromaeosaurus: I will certainly consider your opinion. Would you mind doing this evening's Report of Time Checked Analysis of Multiple Perennial Sources yourself? I am officially busy. Johncdraper (talk) 13:30, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Johncdraper, what? Just so you know, I didn't respond to your message. I have only stated my preference. Super Ψ Dro 18:21, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support to Second Nagorno-Karabakh War (but mainly replacing conflict with war), as this is already probably the most intense conventional war of the last decade. The amount of units eliminated by drone strikes, artillery and ambushes really speaks for itself.--Ermanarich (talk) 18:04, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not even close. The military action against ISIS alone makes the current conflict in N-K look like a park picnic in comparison, sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.169.21.247 (talk) 07:54, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it could be. But, it would still have to overcome the 'Report of Time Checked Analysis of Multiple Perennial Sources'. Johncdraper (talk) 09:30, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  1. AFP. War.[9]
  2. Al Jazeera. Battle/Conflict.[10]
  3. AP. Conflict.[11]
  4. BBC. Conflict.[12]
  5. Bloomberg. Fighting.[13]
  6. CNN. Conflict.[14]
  7. The Conversation. "engaged in the flames of war" (does not mention war as name; may be rhetorical)[15]
  8. Time. Conflict.[16]

Analysis: No change, as per above, and see below. Add: I am now officially busy. Johncdraper (talk) 09:05, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Sigh) Frankly, it's absurd to argue that this is not a war. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 09:53, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Johncdraper, BBC appears to be using "war" and "conflict" interchangeably, see [9], [10].
One thing that I think should be considered as well is that if RS's descriptions start including "war", our naming should be "2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war", not "2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War", as the title is not yet a proper noun but rather a description. At this time, arguments for "Second Nagorno-Karabakh War", (as well as some of the arguments for the 2020 variation) are totally at odds with our policy against original research. signed, Rosguill talk 15:41, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As indicated above, reliable sources are calling this a "war", most without using any sort of specific name for it. Right now, war is being used interchangeably with "conflict". Since there is clearly overwhelming support to change the title to war as indicated above. I ask you as an administrator User:Rosguill to make the move, since the page is now extended-protected and I can not do so.XavierGreen (talk) 15:48, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@XavierGreen: That is a factually incorrect statement. As of the Timestamp, one is. Johncdraper (talk) 15:58, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have posted several sources above, and even more below.XavierGreen (talk) 16:06, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
XavierGreen, I'm not going to do that. Right now, while I think that a case can be made for "2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war" as described in my comment above, the vast majority of arguments here are original research, such that I think it would be a grave error to close in favor of them. As I am currently the only editor to be taking this specific position (although it is largely reconcilable with the blanket oppose !votes), I'm going to have to consider myself involved here and ask that this be closed by a third party. signed, Rosguill talk 16:29, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosguill: i would not be opposed to having the w in "war" lower-case if thats what the manual of style dictates. The issue as to whether or not the w should be capitalized or lower case has not really been addressed here. I will ping additional administrators (from Wiki:MilHistory since this is in their scope) and ask that they make the move based on the clear consensus established here. Peacemaker67 Parsecboy Eddie891XavierGreen (talk) 17:25, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note that RM discussions are generally left open for at least a week unless there is unanimous consensus; this discussion has only been open for 5 days. I think you're rushing this close more than is appropriate. signed, Rosguill talk 18:20, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rosguill, it has now been more than a week with support strengthening even further for the proposed move, with one of the handful of opponents changing his mind to support, as the Wiki:MilitaryHistory coordinators failed to respond to my request. I have opened a request to effectuate the move on the Admin noticeboard here [11].XavierGreen (talk) 13:54, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosguill: The BBC stabilized their coverage under the heading "Nagorno-Karabakh conflict". I think someone mentioned the implications of the alternative to them. Johncdraper (talk) 15:50, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The BBC called this a war in a piece they did 2 days ago, see here [12]. There are also a myriad of other reliable sources using "war". The New York Times [13], Radio Free Europe [14],Politico [15], Newsweek [16], XavierGreen (talk) 15:55, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@XavierGreen: Newsweek is no longer a PRS and is discounted. The BBC was an op-ed based piece; the BBC present category heading is very specific. The New York Times piece is an op ed, by Anton Troianovski. Per WP:Reliable sources/Perennial sources: " WP:RSOPINION should be used to evaluate opinion columns". More importantly, the op ed is filed under the NY Times category "The Conflict Over Nagorno-Karabakh". For Politico, "Politico is considered generally reliable for American politics. A small number of editors say that Politico is a biased source." For Politico, I quote:

POMPEO TO HOST ARMENIAN, AZERBAIJANI FOREIGN MINISTERS AMID DEADLY CLASHES. The visits offer the Trump administration a chance to showcase an attempt at global leadership just days before President Donald Trump faces reelection. What’s happening: The foreign ministers of Azerbaijan and Armenia, two countries at war with each other, are scheduled to separately meet with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in Washington on Friday.

What I find curious is that war does not appear to be in the title. Now, weigh all that up against the Report of Time-Stamped (10:00GMT) Semi-Automated Analysis of Multiple Perennial Sources Follows. Analysis: still no consensus as per WP:PRS. Add: From a purely semantic perspective, note that "at war" lacks a definitive article. Perhaps we could provide the latter ourselves, on a collegiate basis... Johncdraper (talk) 21:41, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I would like to point out that "war" and "conflict" are not mutually exclusive. The media uses them interchangibly about almost every war, even though a "conflict" can be completely bloodless. The real issue isn't which term is most commonly used in the media, but the fact that this is objectively a war. It's been less than a month, the number of deaths have already eclipsed those of the Falklands War, and Azerbaijan has taken over a large chunk of Nagorno-Karabakh. It is absurd to insist that this is not a war. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 07:33, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hundreds of people are dying, and we're wasting time debating whether or not this is a war. Jesus Christ. This is Wikipedia at its worst. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 12:38, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This. Completely support and not sure why it is even an argument any more.Muchclag (talk) 19:34, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as I believe there is ample sources to show that this should be renamed from "conflict" to a "war". Technically, war is defined as "a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations." (see https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/war) As reputable news organizations have labeled this action as a "war" and it fits the definition of a war, I support changing the the title to "2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War". Jurisdicta (talk) 00:38, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. As Rosguill said above, suggestions such as 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War and Second Nagorno-Karabakh War are not acceptable because they are not being used by any reliable sources. Article titles on Wikipedia should not be coining proper nouns. As for 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war, based on Johncdraper's analysis above I don't think enough sources are using "war" right now, so we should default to the more neutral "conflict". — Goszei (talk) 05:32, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Goszei: Azerbaijan's president referred to the war as the Second Nagorno-Karabakh war.FlalfTalk 12:38, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Flalf: A proclamation from Azerbaijan's president has no relation to the WP:COMMONNAME. — Goszei (talk) 20:07, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Goszei: This has been discussed before (see "2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War" or "Second Nagorno-Karabakh War" below.) As of right now there isn't a major consensus on name so if a policy is getting in the way of a more suitable name, then this is an example of WP:IGNORE. 'Second Nagorno-Karabakh War' is a name that is not only more relevant than the current name, but it has also been used by a major participant in the war, it is more than fitting to become the new name of the article. FlalfTalk 21:10, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Flalf: COMMONNAME should not be brushed aside so easily here, because it helps avoid violations of WP:OR, a core content policy. This particular case illustrates it well -- the proposal of "Second Nagorno-Karabakh War" is based on a single primary source, and "2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War" is evidently a synthesis, both of which are clearly at odds with WP:OR. And for good reason: Wikipedia should not be coining proper nouns. — Goszei (talk) 21:47, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Goszei: In general yes COMMONNAME helps with WP:OR, but your use of this in this context just isn't correct. It's quite simple: if it has been established by sources that others use the term, then it is not OR and since Aliyev referred to it as 'İkinci Qarabağ Müharibəsi' as seen here [17] it doesn't qualify as original research. Not only that but some third party sources such as here [18] have also used it. FlalfTalk 00:52, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Flalf: WP:COMMONNAME does not simply stipulate that "sources use the term", it requires a "prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources". I was more referring to WP:PRIMARY section of WP:OR with regards to "Second..." — naming an article after a translation (!) of a foreign-language term used by one side (!) of a multi-party war is a shaky rationale, IMO. — Goszei (talk) 01:05, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Goszei: I was referring to it not being original research because other sources use the term, not common name. My argument for common name is that there isn't consistent and common term used to describe the war. Also, yes, primary sources are generally shaky, but, in some cases (such as here) a primary source can be used carefully as it is an example of a better and more descriptive term already being used by a party that is directly involved in the war. FlalfTalk 12:09, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Conflict to War, as even if not officially declared, it is still a war due to its scale. Armatura (talk) 19:00, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Report of Time-Stamped (14:00GMT) Semi-Automated Analysis of Multiple Perennial Sources Follows.
  1. AFP. War.[17]
  2. Al Jazeera. Battle/Conflict.[18]
  3. AP. Conflict.[19]
  4. BBC. Conflict.[20]
  5. Bloomberg. Fighting.[21]
  6. CNN. Conflict.[22]
  7. The Conversation. "engaged in the flames of war" (does not mention war as name; may be rhetorical)[23]
  8. Time. Frozen war.[24]
  9. NY Times. War.[25]

Still no consensus re War: "frozen war"?Johncdraper (talk) 14:10, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, as "Second Nagorno-Karabakh War". Oranjelo100 (talk) 11:31, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Johncdraper's summaries of what the RS are currently saying. I agree with Rosguill's view, we should wait for there to be a clear weight of RS using this term. Strong oppose a change to Second Nagorno-Karabakh War or 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War, per Rosguill. If there is a consensus for renaming, it should be to 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war. A quick Google search shows very few uses of the term as a proper noun and none whatsoever in RS. It would therefore be a violation of WP:OR, and possibly also WP:DUE. Jr8825 • Talk 18:17, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War" or "Second Nagorno-Karabakh War"?

People who support the move seem to be divided between which title to use, so I think it would be better to clarify as soon as possible what the name of the article would be in case it is moved to avoid possible posterior problems. I personally support "Second Nagorno-Karabakh War", I don't see the point in specifying the year, we don't say "1939–1945 World War" or "1998–2003 Congo War" for example. Super Ψ Dro 12:43, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While there are ample sources to support usage of the term "war", there are at present only a handful of sources which use "Second Nagorno-Karabakh War".XavierGreen (talk) 13:33, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Major sources, like for Al Jazeera, still call this a conflict that can escalate to a war. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 14:05, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Solavirum: That article says that it could escalate into an all-out war; it does not say that this is not "yet" a war. And even if every single media outlet on planet Earth refused to call this a war, hundreds of deaths and large-scale destruction would speak otherwise. Frankly, this reminds me of how diplomats avoided using the word "genocide" about the events in Rwanda long past the point where there was no ground for doubt. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 15:25, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mikrobølgeovn, on what ground you can prove that calling an armed conflict a "war" by its causalities is correct? We have guidelines here, which follows the media's WP:COMMONNAME of the topic. And last time I checked, I wasn't a diplomat that wants to keep good relations with a certain government. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 15:29, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Solavirum: Well we aren't calling it 'Azerbaijani Aggression' or 'Operation for peace enforcement of Armenia' I think in the early stages of a conflict like this there isn't a super well defined name. For now I think 'Second Nagorno-Karabakh' war is fitting. FlalfTalk 15:35, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Solavirum: This is not really a matter of "name", as there is no commonly accepted name for this war yet. Rather, the question is which title is the most suitable in the meantime. Since this is no doubt a war, the title should reflect that. (And if WP:COMMONNAME keeps us from calling a war a war, this case seems like a clear candidate for WP:IGNORE.) Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 15:44, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • A lot of previous conflicts/skirmishes after the major war in the 1990s have been termed as wars by many sources and there were wars in the area even prior to that. Terming this as second is clearly problematic, the year is the default choice unless clearly noted otherwise (not the case here). Gotitbro (talk) 16:02, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Usually, in unconventional circumstances war is only used when deaths exceed 1,000; since Azerbaijan hasn’t released their casualty figures, I believe we should wait for the Armenia/Artsakh death toll to hit that before we rename the conflict. 8889stanzaexcel (talk) 22:59, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That definition is nonsense. Countless wars had fewer than 1,000 deaths, including the Falklands War. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 00:34, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Per Mikrobølgeovn it's ridiculous that this is even an argument, hundreds of people are dying in an armed conflict between two states, yes this is a war. FlalfTalk 12:49, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would also note that the "1000" deaths threshold argument is moot, as looking at reliable sources, more than 1000 deaths have already occured.XavierGreen (talk) 00:26, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I had support the name of the Second Nagorno-Karabakh War as if we called it the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War it just would not work. Plus this is the second major war of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict (Though you can argue that the Four-Day War is the second one but its not a major conflict as it only last for four days.) CrusaderToonamiUK (talk) 17:07, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note only Yerevan dubs the 2016 clashes as "April War" or "Four-Day War", Azerbaijanis call it clashes. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 18:05, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your wrong there, various sources in a variety of countries use the term "Four Day War", including Azeri ones. See here [19]XavierGreen (talk) 22:22, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If the manual of style says that the "w" in "war" should not be capitalized, i'm fine with that.XavierGreen (talk) 15:20, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with XavierGreen; this is a temporary title until a proper name emerges. I'm guessing that this war will eventually become known as the "Second Nagorno-Karabakh War", but for now, this is what we've got to go with. There seems to be sufficient support to go ahead and move the article. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 21:53, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Aliyev just called today this conflict as "İkinci Qarabağ Müharibəsi" - Second Karabakh War. --HCPUNXKID 22:40, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think time is ripe to skip any temporary title and name this article "Second Nagorno-Karabakh War". It appears to be the most accepted name. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 01:51, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  1. AFP. War.[26]
  2. Al Jazeera. Battle/Conflict.[27]
  3. AP. Conflict.[28]
  4. BBC. Conflict.[29]
  5. Bloomberg. Fighting.[30]
  6. CNN. Conflict.[31]
  7. The Conversation. "engaged in the flames of war" (does not mention war as name; may be rhetorical)[32]
  8. Time. Frozen war.[33]
  9. NY Times. War.[34]

Still no consensus re War: "frozen war"?Johncdraper (talk) 14:10, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are additional sources referring to it as a war such as The Hill here [20], additionally various sources such as the BBC and Al Jazeera have referred to it as a war in previous articles as indicated above.XavierGreen (talk) 15:30, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We've seem to have come to a consensus about renaming this article but we haven't really decided what to, per Super Dromaeosaurus, we should probably choose between the two options sooner rather than later because otherwise we are stuck with a name the majority of users are unhappy with. FlalfTalk 21:23, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's more likely that "2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War" will be the name, later we can discuss whether to use "Second Nagorno-Karabakh" or not, but for now the priority is to say it's a war. Super Ψ Dro 10:26, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer "2020", but if "second" is used, the word should be left uncapitalized. There is no proper mame for the war, and we should not be creating one. Blah 18:07, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is clear that this page must be moved as soon as possible, but it remains unclear to what exactly. I'm going to ping anyone who has expressed support for move in this subsection but without specifying what name they support. Hopefully this will help fix the issue sooner. Beshogur, Brandmeister, DannyDouble, 2601:85:C101:BA30:41F8:1862:FBC2:3F37 (not sure if this works for IPs), Juxlos, TheEpicGhosty, Balkanite, VZkN9, Whydoesitfeelsogood, TheMightyGeneral, Blah, Governor Sheng, CoronaOneLove and DERPALERT; which name do you support, "2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War" or "Second Nagorno-Karabakh War"?

I am also aware that these types of discussions are not a vote, but to leave a better perspective, I clarify that 8 people (including myself) have expressed support for "Second Nagorno-Karabakh War" and 4 people have expressed support for "2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War". It must be noted that I've only counted people on this subsection. Super Ψ Dro 20:28, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Super Dromaeosaurus so far i've only seen a very small number of sources use the term "Second Nagorno-Karabakh War", what supporting sources do you have using that name? Also, If you look at this monagve discussion as a whole, 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War" (with or without the w capitalized), has far more support than Second Nagorno-Karabakh War and also conforms with wikipedia naming conventions for unnamed wars. I would also note that only a small minority of editors oppose changing the title to include the term "war" or prefer the current "2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict" title.XavierGreen (talk) 00:32, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware of those who continue to oppose it, but I believe that the consensus achieved by most users is that the article should be moved. And I don't see how "2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War" is more supported. Super Ψ Dro 10:37, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The vast majority of users support "Second Nagorno-Karabakh War", but honestly, the arguments against this name are more valid and make more sense. I'm going to request the move of this article shortly to "2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war" at WP:RMT, this is the name that implies a less "radical" change and once Wikipedia begins to call this a war, the term will begin to be more used everywhere, which can give more support in the future for possible new moves to "2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War" or "Second Nagorno-Karabakh War". I believe there are not many people who will disagree with this, but still, just in case, I will wait a few hours in case someone wants to say something else. Super Ψ Dro 10:37, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hours have passed and no one has shown any opposition, so I have requested a move as "2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war" and a closure of the move request here for the change to be applied. Super Ψ Dro 14:58, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support for Second Nagorno-Karabakh War per Super Dromaeosaurus. Mgasparin (talk) 21:19, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "L'excellence du reportage multimédia AFP mobilisée dans la couverture de la guerre du Nagorny Karabakh". AFP.com (in French). 2020-10-13. Retrieved 2020-10-15.
  2. ^ Forestier-Walker, Robin. "Nagorno-Karabakh: New weapons for an old conflict spell danger". www.aljazeera.com. Retrieved 2020-10-15.
  3. ^ "Nagorno-Karabakh volunteers get weapons as clashes intensify". AP NEWS. 2020-10-15. Retrieved 2020-10-15.
  4. ^ "Nagorno-Karabakh conflict: Armenian PM admits significant casualties". BBC News. 2020-10-14. Retrieved 2020-10-15.
  5. ^ "Azerbaijan Attack on Armenia Raises Stakes in Karabakh Conflict". Bloomberg.com. 2020-10-14. Retrieved 2020-10-15.
  6. ^ Bociurkiw, Opinion by Michael. "Opinion: The conflict we can't ignore". CNN. Retrieved 2020-10-15.
  7. ^ Toal, Gerard; O’Loughlin, John; Bakke, Kristin M. "Nagorno-Karabakh: what do residents of the contested territory want for their future?". The Conversation. Retrieved 2020-10-15.
  8. ^ "Tensions Rise in Armenia and Azerbaijan Amid Claims of New Attacks". Time. Retrieved 2020-10-16.
  9. ^ "L'excellence du reportage multimédia AFP mobilisée dans la couverture de la guerre du Nagorny Karabakh". AFP.com (in French). 2020-10-13. Retrieved 2020-10-15.
  10. ^ Melimopoulos, Arwa Ibrahim,Elizabeth. "UN chief urges Nagorno-Karabakh rivals to respect truce". www.aljazeera.com. Retrieved 2020-10-19.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  11. ^ "Armenia and Azerbaijan announce a new attempt to establish a cease-fire in their conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh". AP.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  12. ^ "Nagorno-Karabakh conflict". BBC News. Retrieved 2020-10-19.
  13. ^ "Armenia, Azerbaijan Cease-Fire Collapses Within Hours". Bloomberg.com. 2020-10-18. Retrieved 2020-10-19.
  14. ^ CNN, Ray Sanchez and Sharif Paget. "Azerbaijan and Armenia agree to a pause in fighting". CNN. Retrieved 2020-10-19. {{cite web}}: |last= has generic name (help)
  15. ^ Toal, Gerard; O’Loughlin, John; Bakke, Kristin M. "Nagorno-Karabakh: what do residents of the contested territory want for their future?". The Conversation. Retrieved 2020-10-15.
  16. ^ "Armenia's Prime Minister Accuses Turkey of 'Reinstating the Ottoman Empire' in Sending Mercenaries to Nagorno Karabakh". Time. Retrieved 2020-10-19.
  17. ^ "L'excellence du reportage multimédia AFP mobilisée dans la couverture de la guerre du Nagorny Karabakh". AFP.com (in French). 2020-10-13. Retrieved 2020-10-15.
  18. ^ "Nagorno-Karabakh: Fighting continues, Baku issues Russia warning". www.aljazeera.com. Retrieved 2020-10-26.
  19. ^ "Combates en Nagorno-Karabaj siguen pese a mediación de EEUU". AP NEWS. 2020-10-24. Retrieved 2020-10-26.
  20. ^ "Nagorno-Karabakh conflict: US-brokered ceasefire frays soon after starting". BBC News. 2020-10-26. Retrieved 2020-10-26.
  21. ^ "Search - Bloomberg". Bloomberg.com. Retrieved 2020-10-26.
  22. ^ Why Nagorno-Karabakh matters - CNN Video, retrieved 2020-10-26
  23. ^ Toal, Gerard; O’Loughlin, John; Bakke, Kristin M. "Nagorno-Karabakh: what do residents of the contested territory want for their future?". The Conversation. Retrieved 2020-10-15.
  24. ^ "Scenes from Behind the Frontlines of Europe's Oldest 'Frozen War' in Nagorno-Karabakh". Time. Retrieved 2020-10-26.
  25. ^ Troianovski, Anton; Ponomarev, Sergey (2020-10-21). "At Front Lines of a Brutal War: Death and Despair in Nagorno-Karabakh". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2020-10-26.
  26. ^ "L'excellence du reportage multimédia AFP mobilisée dans la couverture de la guerre du Nagorny Karabakh". AFP.com (in French). 2020-10-13. Retrieved 2020-10-15.
  27. ^ "Nagorno-Karabakh: Fighting continues, Baku issues Russia warning". www.aljazeera.com. Retrieved 2020-10-26.
  28. ^ "Combates en Nagorno-Karabaj siguen pese a mediación de EEUU". AP NEWS. 2020-10-24. Retrieved 2020-10-26.
  29. ^ "Nagorno-Karabakh conflict: US-brokered ceasefire frays soon after starting". BBC News. 2020-10-26. Retrieved 2020-10-26.
  30. ^ "Search - Bloomberg". Bloomberg.com. Retrieved 2020-10-26.
  31. ^ Why Nagorno-Karabakh matters - CNN Video, retrieved 2020-10-26
  32. ^ Toal, Gerard; O’Loughlin, John; Bakke, Kristin M. "Nagorno-Karabakh: what do residents of the contested territory want for their future?". The Conversation. Retrieved 2020-10-15.
  33. ^ "Scenes from Behind the Frontlines of Europe's Oldest 'Frozen War' in Nagorno-Karabakh". Time. Retrieved 2020-10-26.
  34. ^ Troianovski, Anton; Ponomarev, Sergey (2020-10-21). "At Front Lines of a Brutal War: Death and Despair in Nagorno-Karabakh". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2020-10-26.
  35. ^ https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-54652704
  36. ^ https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20201029-armenian-separatists-say-azerbaijan-closing-in-on-key-town
  37. ^ https://www.thebritishjournal.com/world/karabakh-says-azerbaijan-forces-closing-in-on-key-town-of-shusha-thebritishjournal-reports-201348-2020/
  38. ^ "UCDP Definitions". Department of Peace and Conflict Research. Uppsala Universit. Retrieved 30 October 2020.
  39. ^ "War definition and typology". Universität Hamburg AKUF.
  40. ^ "Methodology – HIIK". Heidelberg Institute for International Conflict Research (HIIK). Retrieved 30 October 2020.
  41. ^ Dennen, Johan M.G. van der. "ON WAR:CONCEPTS,DEFINITIONS,RESEARCH DATA -ASHORT LITERATURE REVIEW AND BIBLIOGRAPH" (PDF) (CORE): 3–9. Retrieved 30 October 2020. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Military Equipment - "Ballistic Missile"

There is a statement that Armenia used a ballistic missile. There reference is an article written by a person with Azerbaijani name. The article says "Azerbaijan on Saturday accused Armenia of striking its second-largest city with a ballistic missile that killed at least 13 civilians and wounded 50 others." Then it says that the Armenian side denied this. Even if we put aside the civilian deaths, where is the third party confirmation that a ballistic missile was used? 2003:CB:B710:2000:9189:7601:1FD9:8777 (talk) 11:08, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The ballistic missile attacks on Ganja have been confirmed, with Artsakh even taking responsibility for the first strike. Third party sources such as the BBC have articles on this. FlalfTalk 12:57, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Flalf in the link you posted I could not find the term "ballistic". This information is not true.

2003:CB:B710:2000:2581:380E:39D:9F79 (talk) 13:34, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the sources aren't specific, but it was a scud missile. There is enough pictures and non azerbaijani sources for it to be believable. I'd recommend you check out 2020 Ganja ballistic missile attacks and the sources there as well. [21] [22] [23] [24] FlalfTalk 13:50, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Flalf I checked all the links you listed. Aljazeera wrote: Azerbaijani authorities say Armenia fired a ballistic missile at Ganja city, a claim Yerevan denies.

The other sources only mention the announcement by the Assistant of the President of the Republic of Azerbaijan. That is not a third party source. 2003:CB:B710:2000:2581:380E:39D:9F79 (talk) 14:23, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is more than enough photo evidence as well as the fact that Artsakh claimed responsibility. FlalfTalk 15:30, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Flalf please do not misinterpret the facts. Artsakh has stated that in Ganja there are military objects which we will target. But Artsakh has not stated that it will use a ballistic missile. My point is about the ballistic missile for which you have no evidence.

134.155.146.59 (talk) 17:07, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Third-party sources have confirmed it was a ballistic missile attack. And all of the missiles have struck everything but the airport. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 18:06, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You can't just say "third party sources have confirmed" and expect us to take your word for it. Present those sources. So far, every presented source has been Azerbaijan making a claim and Armenia denying it, and not a single third party. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 18:21, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@OuroborosCobra: The fact is that Armenian side does not specify everything about the war like other side/sides; (for example, what is the lost settlements), so we must trust to third party sources like BBC (which has been considered as reliable source and has documented as well), Reuters, Al Jazeera, and others.Ahmetlii (talk) 19:59, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, but none of those third party sources are third parties in terms of verification of the weapon type used. BBC is reporting that Azerbaijan claims ballistic missiles were used, and reporting that Armenia denies it. Reuters is reporting that Azerbaijan claims ballistic missiles were used, and reporting that Armenia denies it. Al Jazeera id reporting that Azerbaijan claims ballistic missiles were used, and reporting that Armenia denies it. None of these are third party verification of whether a ballistic missile was used. They are just news sources reporting the claims of the involved parties. Do you understand the difference? A third party verification would be something like an OSCE investigation into the matter and determining that ballistic missiles were used. Third party doesn't mean multiple news organizations reporting what each involved side is claiming. Third party is a body separate from the two warring parties conducting an investigation and determining what weapon was used. Until that happens, it's "he said/she said." This is the same standard already applied in other conflicts. In Syria, for example, allegations of government use of chemical weapons by opposition forces aren't taken simply at face value. Rather, third party investigations are conducted by groups such as the OPCW. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 22:03, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a good example of a third party (UK's Telegraph) reporting evidence on cluster munition use by Azerbaijan against Armenia. The headline reads: The Daily Telegraph saw evidence of the banned munitions' use in the capital of Nagorno Karabakh Therefore, I support the above motion to remove the reference to ballistic missiles used by Armenia, unless an independent third party source (similar to the Telegraph piece witnessing evidence firsthand) could be produced by those opposing the request--Sataralynd (talk) 23:00, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the fact that no third party source was mentioned, in the right column of the main page under "Strength" the ballistic missile is still listed. Editors please remove it. 193.196.11.188 (talk) 04:56, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm not comfortable stating it as fact without independent, third party verification, I'm also not comfortable with just removing it. Simply removing it would be taking the side of the Armenian denial just as much as including it takes the side of the Azerbaijan claim. Instead, I've edited the infobox to state that the ballistic missile use is alleged by Azerbaijan, and leaving it to the reader to decide who to believe. I think that's the most balanced, neutral way we can present it right now. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 14:42, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Solavirum: I am trying to not break 3RR here, but your reverts of my edits are in complete opposite to what has been discussed here on this talk page. The most recent you have presented isn't even an attempt at being a third party verification. It's literally a statement from the Azerbaijan Ministry of Defense. That makes it an Azerbaijan allegation, which Armenia has denied. Please justify not stating as such that the ballistic missile use is currently alleged by Azerbaijan, and not confirmed by any third party, or please present third party verification. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 15:26, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's visual confirmation we've got there. Which Armenia confirmed. So, if footage ain't enough for ya, nothing is. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 15:31, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your second source absolutely does not say that Armenia confirmed they had used ballistic missiles. In fact, the only statement I see in that AP article from Armenia is a report of attacks by Azerbaijan, and that "Nagorno-Karabakh’s forces 'resolutely suppress all enemy operations.'" There is nothing in that article about the use of ballistic missiles, or confirmation of such use. Your "visual evidence" from Azerbaijan is some fuzzy photos that I sure can't tell if they are ballistic missiles, and they aren't ballistic missile impacts on cities. They are not shown in the photos even being fired. They also are not from a verifiable third party source. Do you understand that we can't just take the word of one side over the other without some sort of verification? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 16:11, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are pictures, videos, and plenty of other sources that have shown evidence that Armenia is in possession of ballistic missiles, and honestly I would be more surprised if they didn't have any ballistic missiles. We've thrown plenty of sources at you, here's another from an independent third party UK based NGO. [25] FlalfTalk 16:16, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that the infobox isn't simply a list of all of the military equipment each side owns, but what it has actually used. Thus far, no one has presented anything other than Azerbaijan claims that ballistic missiles have been used by Armenia. Actually, correction, @Flalf:, you have actually presented a third party verification source on this. In your source, Amnesty International's Crisis Response team investigators say they have examined evidence that does show (or at least strongly indicate, which I think is good enough for these purposes) that Armenia used ballistic missiles. Your source is the first one that has been presented that is a third party, and not just Azerbaijan claiming one thing, and Armenia claiming another. That is all we were talking about getting this entire time, a third party verification, and you've provided it. With that, I have no problem with the infobox stating Armenia used/has been using ballistic missiles. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 20:47, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
REPOST: Example of a third party evidence Here is a good example of a third party (UK's Telegraph) reporting evidence on cluster munition use by Azerbaijan against Armenia. The headline reads: The Daily Telegraph saw evidence of the banned munitions' use in the capital of Nagorno Karabakh Therefore, I support the above motion to remove the reference to ballistic missiles used by Armenia, unless an independent third party source (similar to the Telegraph piece witnessing evidence firsthand) could be produced by those opposing the request
Both sources cited by @Solavirum: and @Flalf: don't qualify as evidence by a third party that Armenia is using ballistic missiles. They talk about ballistic missiles in generic terms and based on reports that could be by either party. Please provide a third party source not affiliated with the Azeri government who confirmed the use of ballistic missiles. To my knowledge BBC and France24 were in Ganja, you may be able to find on their websites if such confirmation exists--Sataralynd (talk) 00:58, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

People, please: the term "Ballistic" for missiles refers to a high altitude missile that gains supersonic speed on its return journey towards the target. They are outdated, and were largely used to deliver nuclear weapons from the 50s to the 90s. Just call the missile by its name, and drop this "ballistic" nonsense. Ballistic missile.

Summary:I went through the thread again to be sure, and there hasn't been a single source provided by a third party who confirmed the use of ballistic missiles by the Armenian side, they just report what Azerbaijan claims. Moreover, the comment just above throws into doubt the practicability of its usage regardless of which side claims it was used against it. Therefore, @OuroborosCobra: could I ask you to remove all references to ballistic missiles?
 If anyone disagrees, please write here first providing third party sources confirming the use of the weapon. Don't unilaterally revert the changes--Sataralynd (talk) 03:39, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Johncdraper: or @EkoGraf: or @XavierGreen: could you please support? The article is full of references to ballistic missiles used by Armenian side, where all the referenced sources talk about "claims" by the Azerbaijan side that were denied. Further, I started this talk to get third party evidence for their use, and none has been provided. The Article even mentions in the Equipment Losses section that Azerbaijan has destroyed Armenia's R-17 Elbrus systems that were bombing, referencing an Azerbaijan MoD source. The Article is heavily one sided. Could you help please keep the WP:NPOV here? Thank you.--Sataralynd (talk) 04:29, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If its only claimed by Azerbaijan, its just that, a claim by Azerbaijan. It can be mentioned in the article, but needs to be properly and clearly attributed to its source and not presented as fact. Armenian denial, if there is one, should also be added. However, if 3rd party neutral sources confirm it than it can be presented factually I say. EkoGraf (talk) 09:30, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can the disagreers point out what is wrong with the every link Flaf and Solavirum have provided proving the use of ballistic missiles? I'm having hard time understanding the problem. — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 09:49, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Forbes, a plainly non-Armenian and non-Azeri source, states that Armenian troops have in fact used ballistic missiles, but that the issue is whether or not they were launched from Armenian territory. See here [26].XavierGreen (talk) 13:21, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

POV violation. There is not a single third-party source confirming the use of ballistic missiles. Please, don't make these accusations Wikipedia's voice. Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 20:17, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Inserting arbitrary break here. I think we need to define what we mean by "third party verification" or "non-Armenian and non-Azeri" sources. Additionally, just a reminder to people that when referencing older comments, such as someone saying "no third party sources have been provided," you can't point to a source provided after that comment was made to discredit that comment. That comment was valid when it was made; additional sources can be provided later, but that doesn't mean that older comment was dismissing sources they couldn't know about because they had not been provided. With that, let's get into this.

Being a third party or "non-Armenian and non-Azeri" source doesn't simply mean that it is a website or news source that is based somewhere other than Armenia or Azerbaijan. Yes, BBC is based in London and not Baku, and Forbes is based in Jersey City and not Yerevan, but that on its own does not make them third party sources that confirm or disprove claims by Armenia and Azerbaijan. If all that the BBC is reporting is "Azerbaijan claims X, Armenia claims Y," then the BBC source can only be used to report the claims of one side or the other. It cannot be used to say, definitively, that one side claim is correct just because the claim is being reported by an author in London and not in the Caucasus. That's how we properly use reliable sources, we can use them as sources for what they say, and not what they don't say. If BBC is only reporting that one side has a claim, and another side denies, that's all we can say from the BBC source. Additionally, we cannot use a source that doesn't even mention ballistic missiles at all as evidence of anything about ballistic missiles.

We can also have sources where a news agency explicitly says "X side has used ballistic missiles." That is the source saying that, yes. I hazard against fully calling it third party verification if they don't present the evidence or who made that determination (are they just reporting one side claim and not stating as such? was there an investigation by an independent body?), but I can at least understand treating this as more than just "X side claimed one thing, Y side denied it." Here, I guess we need to go with how trustworthy the source is, and there are pages on Wikipedia discussing this.

Then there are sources that present not just claims and not just statements, but either evidence or stating that it is from an investigation done by something like Amnesty International, OSCE, OPCW, etc. Ideally, this is what we should look for in sourcing these claims, but this can be hard to get while the conflict is ongoing and the attacks so recent. There may not be time yet to conduct that investigation, or it may not be safe for investigators to be on the ground in the region.

Lastly, the worst source is going as a primary source from one side or the other. Photographs and statements from the Azerbaijani Ministry of Defense or the Armenian Ministry of Defense fall in this category. These are not the least bit independent sources and both sides have a strong motivation for painting their opponent in a negative light. There is a saying that "the first casualty of war is the truth." It is not acceptable to treat statements from either belligerent as simple fact. There are editors on this article who have strong pro-Azerbaijani bias and have tried to present their MoD statements as fact, and there are editors with similarly strong Armenian bias. These types of sources can only be used to present what one side or the other is claiming. That is still true even if they present photographs, since most of us here aren't in a position to interpret the veracity of these photographs. If one side presents photos of supposed missile launchers that, to the untrained eye, just look like trucks, we have to be careful. Even if they are clearly mobile TELs for missiles, we have to be careful on whether they actually are what is claimed (are they really Armenian mobile TELs, or are they photos of someone else's? are they really photos of anything in Armenia at all, or somewhere else?) Again, the first casualty of war is the truth. We can treat these types of sources as claims by one side only until there is third party verification, and that verification is NOT just a BBC article reporting on one of the two MoDs releasing photographs (unless the BBC has presented some sort of expert analysis supporting the claim).

I don't know how many people here are old enough to remember the run up to the Iraq War and the 2003 invasion, but one of the big things that happened was US presenting "evidence" to the UN of chemical weapons or chemical weapons manufacturing capability that supposedly existed in Iraq. Secretary of State Colin Powell even presented photographs of supposed chemical weapons facilities and evidence of mobile chemical weapons labs that were in trucks. Many at the time believed it, but these turned out to be false. At best, they turned out to be claims from barely a handful of intelligence "sources" highly biased against the then Iraqi government, and at worst they were flat out lies. When these trucks were found, for example, they turned out to be perfectly legal hydrogen generation facilities for weather balloons, and not chemical weapons labs. The US never had real third party verification; in fact, third parties (such as UN weapons inspectors) in the run up to that war flat out said the US evidence was false.

Let's breakdown the provided sources:

  • @Flalf: provided a BBC source that never mentions ballistic missiles, so is not evidence of ballistic missiles (again, it doesn't matter that the BBC is in London if it doesn't even mention ballistic missiles)
  • @Flalf: provided sources from Al Jazeera stating that Azerbaijan claimed Armenia used ballistic missiles, and Armenia denied it. It doesn't matter that Al Jazeera is based in Qatar, it can only be used as a source that one side claims one thing, and the other denies it.
  • @Flalf: provided an RIA source reporting on the claim by Azerbaijan. All it can be used is to report the claim by the president of Azerbaijan.
  • @Flalf: provided an Anadolu source reporting on the claim by the Azerbaijan General Prosecutor of ballistic missile use, and the Armenian denial (this source is also questionable as it uses words like "vile" to describe Armenia; it is definitely one sided, and is from a Turkish state run news agency, and Turkey is very much on the Azeri side in this conflict)
  • @Flalf: again provides a TRT World which presents the claims of the Azerbaijan government, and again is questionable in how it presents both sides, and again is a Turkish state run news source
  • @Sataralynd: presents a source from the Telegraph. It is behind a paywall and I cannot read it, but Sataralynd describes it as not being about ballistic missile use, so cannot be used as a source for that. If Sataralynd is describing it correctly (I can only take their word on that since it is behind a paywall), it is an actual third party source in that it claims that its reporters are on the ground in the conflict and have personally seen evidence of Azerbaijani use of cluster munitions, but, again, that's not relevant to the claim on ballistic missiles. (I also note that Sataralynd suggested the term "ballistic missile" is an outdated term for nuclear weapon delivering weapons from the 1950s to 90s, but this is plainly false as at least as far back as V-2 rockets in the 40s, SCUDs at various times up to the present, and many other instances of conventional use of ballistic missiles exist)
  • @Solavirum: at various points just states "third party sources say X," often without providing any sources at all (we can't just take your word for it, that's not how this works) and eventually presents the Azerbaijan Ministry of Defense as a source. That in no way meets the definition of third party. It's essentially a primary source, and can only be used to state what the MoD is claiming. I've previously discussed the issue with using the photo evidence that they or their Armenian counterparts provide. (I also note that Solavirum has done some personal attacks in edit summaries and comments, including accusing me of "disruptive editing" when I made only a single edit to this article, and it was after talk page discussion in this very section for at least a day)
  • @Solavirum: presented an AP source they claimed to have photographic evidence in support of the ballistic missile claim, but it isn't. It's photos of damage from the way, certainly, but in no way says how that damage occurred, and the text of the article never says anything about ballistic missiles (it does say that the Azerbaijani side claims Armenian missiles, but it does not present third party verification of what type of weapon was used, or even claim the missiles were ballistic, so it is just a claim by one side saying "missiles"). The photos are tragic, but they don't tell us whether ballistic missiles or artillery or or air-to-ground missiles or any number of other weapons were used.
  • @Flalf: presented an Amnesty International source claiming their investigators had found evidence ballistic missile use (as well as indiscriminate use of artillery against civilians). This is third party verification. I may have jumped the gun in immediately accepting this, as technically it doesn't say which side used what weapon. Perhaps that is splitting hairs; as far as I have found, only Armenia even has ballistic missiles and Azerbaijan does not, but that would violate WP:SYNTH to use as fact and claim this prove Armenia used ballistic missiles. Still, at the point that @Flalf: presented this source, it was the first source that wasn't just one side claiming one thing, and the other side denying it, the first third party source.
  • @XavierGreen: today presented a Forbes article that is incredibly specific overall in its sourcing, its evidence for what weapons have been used, who has attacked what, who has broken cease fires, etc. This source does seem very definitive. It states that Armenian Scud and Tochka ballistic missiles have been fired at Azerbaijani cities. I do wish it was a little more specific on the Armenian ballistic missile info (which is somewhat less specific than much of the other information in the article), but given how strong the evidence overall in the article is, I'm willing to accept it. Among its sources is an article from The Drive, which also presents evidence that Azerbaijan has used Israeli made LORA ballistic missiles to attack at least a bridge, so it would seem that both sides have now used ballistic missiles.

That is all of the sources that have been presented during this discussion. Of the 10 or so presented sources, almost all of them can only be used as in this article to say "one side claims X, the other denies it," and some don't even meet the standard for that. Some don't even present anything about ballistic missiles at all, and several are from belligerent or belligerent adjacent state run sources. One source present third party verification of ballistic missile use, but not who used it or what the targets were. One final source seems to actually meet the standard of saying anything factually, and it was only presented today. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 20:20, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for how long that was, but @CuriousGolden:, you asked "disagreers" to point out what was wrong with every single link, so there you go. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 20:40, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@OuroborosCobra: Thanks for the rigorous analysis. The source from Telegraph as you say was not used to support the ballistic missile use claim. It was used as an example of a third party source verifying evidence. I understand it may not be accessible to all. A day after my post, Human Rights Watch issued the following report on the same topic, which to me is unambiguous. Further I didn't make a comment about ballistic missiles being outdated. It was done by another user who didn't sign their edit (see here). I agree about the falsity of that claim.
Regarding the Amnesty International piece, I think the fact that it is making a general claim about evidence of ballistic use, doesn't warrant to assume it means both sides have used it, or worse synthesize that because there is evidence of possession on one side over the other, then they used it. Similarly, I would press the point that the Forbes piece and The Drive piece it mentions albeit well researched in general, cannot be used as presenting third party evidence of Armenian side's use of ballistic missiles against Azerbaijan, especially compared to the rigour of the HRW piece on cluster bombs. There seem to be evidence of ballistic missile possession (Iskander-E, Tochka-U, and Scud) by Armenians, but no evidence of use. Thank you again for the hard work--Sataralynd (talk) 21:47, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OuroborosCobra, I had provided a DW source and an Azerbaijani MoD source with visual confirmation of R-17 Elbrus. Throughout the article, including the map, we've used visual confirmation. I don't know what's wrong with such thing. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 12:47, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Solavirum: Did I mention to you that you need to provide sources? Ok so here is the only DW source on this page and it doesn't mention the word ballistic. Just in case this is a mistake, I searched dw.com for articles on the topic that includes ballistic and the only one that came up is this, talking about a claim (no evidence). The MoD source needs to be bolstered by a third party evidence and cannot stand on its own--Sataralynd (talk) 04:15, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Summary: to my reading there is not a single piece of evidence that the Armenian side has used ballistic missile up to this point in this conflict. Most of the sources talk about claims from the Azerbaijani side, and the couple of sources that mention ballistic missile (Forbes and TheDrive) only talk about their availability on the Armenian side and not their use. If anyone has Reliable third party SOURCE that confirms evidence of ballistic missile use by Armenia or NK forces against Azerbaijan, please present it. Please don't just write a comment for the sake of writing to push your POV. Bring in a source, and for reference cite the line you think is evidence for all to review, and if valid it would remain in the article. Otherwise, I would ask ALL ballistic missile references to be removed from this article for the sake of WP:NPOV.--Sataralynd (talk) 02:58, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I will do it in other articles as well like Barda ballistic missile attacks and 2020 Ganja ballistic missile attacks. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 09:04, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes please. Up until today not a single piece of evidence has been presented on the question of ballistic missile use by Armenian forces--Sataralynd (talk) 05:54, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Further to my comment above, please see here commentary of the use of Azerbaijan of ballistic missiles against Armenia, whereas the article, which is published in a military journal claims how Armenia's use of non ballistic missiles like Tochka-U and Scud-B is affecting its ability to target military targets. Here are the relevant citations:

Azerbaijan's use of ballistic missiles:
One of the more notable events of the conflict was Azerbaijan’s use of an Israeli-made LORA ballistic missile to target a bridge on the Akari river connecting Armenia with Nagorno-Karabakh, complicating Armenia’s transfer of reinforcements to the front.

Armenia's use of non-ballistic missiles which is hindering its ability to target with precision:
Armenia’s response illustrates the difference in effect. Armenia used Tochka-U and Scud-B missiles, with respective CEPs of 150 and 900 metres against cities such as Ganja and Mingachevir, as they were unable to target specific military targets.

Therefore, we need to remove references to ballistic missile use by Armenia in the Article, as again I reiterate there is not a single piece of evidence of use of ballistic missiles by Armenia, against mounting evidence of use by Azerbaijan. Please also add the above example of Azerbaijan's use of LORA to target the Akari river bridge, in the Military equipment section--Sataralynd (talk) 06:47, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, it seems like I was a bit busy, but now I will be able to remove these claims. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 15:33, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I see it is much more balanced now and aligned to WP:NPOV--Sataralynd (talk) 19:12, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Genocide Watch

I added the following today.

Humanitarian organizations On 23rd October 2020, "Genocide Watch" international humanitarian organisation published "Genocide Emergency: Azerbaijan in Artsakh" report, stating that it considers Azerbaijan to be at Stage 9 (extermination) and Stage 10 (denial) of genocide. https://www.genocidewatch.com/single-post/genocide-emergency-azerbaijan-s-attack-in-artsakh My addition has been reverted twice as "POV, redundant, and non WP:RS". Is this a consensus of this article's editors? How is POV, how is it not a reliable source and who decide whether it is redundant? Best regards Armatura (talk) 14:48, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Genocide Watch" is too minor of a organization for their report to be added. Calling them a "international humanitarian organisation" isn't gonno make your point valid. And your reaction haven't been better either, accusing other editors of propaganda, which I left a warning for. Also, their 'assessment' is also absurd. People die in the battlefield and they call it a genocide, jeez. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum
Editors who diminish and remove information that does not suit their national interests should be warned, not a user who simply quoted a neutral source - a large (coordinates 70 organizations in 24 countries), international (not national, non-Armenian, non-Azeri, non-Turkish), humanitarian (caring for humans regardless of their nationality, or beliefs, or color) organization. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_Stanton#Genocide_Watch
In 1999 Stanton founded Genocide Watch,[10] a non-governmental organization campaigning against genocide based in Washington, D.C..[16][17] Genocide Watch is the Chair and Coordinator of the Alliance Against Genocide, which includes 70 organizations in 24 countries, including the Minority Rights Group, the International Crisis Group, the Aegis Trust, and Survival International.[18] Its board of advisers includes former commander of United Nations peacekeeping forces in Rwanda Roméo Dallaire, former Nuremberg Prosecutor Benjamin Ferencz, and former US Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power.[19]
I ask for support from senior editors, to make sure verified / reliable sources are kept, even if Azeri / Turkish editors do not like them.
Best wishes Armatura (talk) 15:24, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, because I'm a government official or something. I think your comment above should be enough to present the nature of this thread. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 15:26, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Even if for a moment we accept that "too minor" organizations cannot be cited in this article, GW is not a minor organization. It is not only a member of the Alliance Against Genocide which includes more than 60 International NGOs but also their Chair. As to its credibility, here are sources in the Guardian (1, 2 and 3) and CNN (1 and 2) quoting Genocide Watch with one going back to 2002. NOTE: the cited topics are NOT related to the NK conflict. I hope Guardian's and CNN's reliability metrics are better than that of any of the participants in this conversation--Sataralynd (talk) 15:43, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Genocide Watch's reliability is probably a good discussion to bring to WP:RSN. As an advocacy group, there's reason to be cautious when citing them, although the use by others demonstrated above is a potential indication of reliability. signed, Rosguill talk 17:15, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosguill: Sure, let's have a discussion there. I would suggest though we reinstate the edits made by @Armatura: as we yet don't have evidence on unreliability, and try to get more info from the community--Sataralynd (talk) 17:49, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I also support. I don't see anything violating the rules of Wikipedia if we add this now. Also, would like to ask Armatura to bring discussion to WP:RSN. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 18:57, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Sataralynd:, @Գարիկ Ավագյան:, @Rosguill: Thank you very much for your support. How do I bring discussion to WP:RSN, please? Can one of you do that on my behalf, please?
Best regards , Armatura (talk) 19:41, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sataralynd will you be able to start discussion there? Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 19:46, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Գարիկ Ավագյան: Will do. Can someone add back the edit? --Sataralynd (talk) 20:06, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Գարիկ Ավագյան: and @Sataralynd:, I re-added my edit on Genocide Watch, as discussed. Armatura (talk) 22:01, 24 October 2020 (UTC)Armatura[reply]
Armatura as discussed by whom? There are more people than two of those here. Respect the WP:CONSENSUS. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 22:55, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Solavirum: Please undo your edit and head to WP:RSN to discuss the reliability of GW. I have created a topic there. There is nothing to establish consensus on here or in the article. It is actually you who is claiming non-reliability of GW, and you have to produce evidence to back up that claim (again with sources, please)--Sataralynd (talk) 23:31, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Armatura: please reinstate your edit. @CuriousGolden: and @Solavirum: I see both of you have reverted the Genocide Watch inclusion. Please refrain from entering into edit/revert cycles, and to go to the RSN page to discuss, where the topic is open. You will be able to remove the inclusion if warranted as soon as you establish the non reliability of GW--Sataralynd (talk) 23:51, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sataralynd, until its reliability is agreed, it must be kept away from the article. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 09:01, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Sataralynd: I did re-add but Solavirum and CuriousGolden keep reverting it. The last stage of genocide, as we all know, is the denial of it. There have been emotions, "I don't like it"s but no arguments that would convince uninvolved editors about the unreliability of the provided source, yet this piece of information is being reverted the moment it is entered, by two specific users. I will continue in WP:RSN.Armatura (talk) 11:36, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Solavirum: Agreed by whom? By you and @CuriousGolden:? The reliability of GW is not under question, until you provide evidence that it is, in the WP:RSN page where I directed you before 3 comments ago. Please post your concerns there, but as usual before rushing to post a non-argument without any sources, read the handful of comments/sources that were already posted there by other users. Until the unreliability is established, the comment goes to the Article as per the original edit. @Armatura please reinstate--Sataralynd (talk) 13:52, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sataralynd the issue of unreliability is superior than the issue of reliability. So it is you that must prove its reliability so we can add it to the article. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 14:48, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Solavirum: No, the exact opposite. The edit has been made first to include GW, and you reversed it. You must prove unreliability. Besides, I provided you ample sources above (not related to NK) that bolster the reliability of GW, and other users reported more on RSN. I would suggest you start engaging with the sources/comments provided before it is too late (and the discussion on RSN is closed)--Sataralynd (talk) 14:52, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Solavirum: the GW paragraph has been reverted 4-5 times already, by two users interchangeably, despite asking politely. What is next? Armatura (talk) 18:15, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Armatura before continuing with that lame rhetoric, let me remind that the latest revert was carried out by an admin. You're in the wrong here, ask that question to yourself. For the last time, respect WP:CONSENSUS or I'm reporting. Enough with the recklessness. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 18:30, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Solavirum: Feel free to go ahead and report. I have reasonable doubts about impartiality of a particular admin and I am entitled to report what I feel is reportable as well. Attacking me directly calling my comments "lame" is a breach of civility. Blackmailing me with threat of reporting is a breach of harassment policy. RegardsArmatura (talk) 18:41, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. Haven't violated any guidelines here. Also, calling that comment "blackmailing" is yet again ridiculous. I don't want to deal with WP:TENDETIOUS edits. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 19:05, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Sataralynd: Please use {{u|name}} to mention names instead of {{re|name}}. Getting pinged each time about random comments is annoying. — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 14:53, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Solavirum: "the issue of unreliability is superior than the issue of reliability." Where is the rule in Wikipedia you derived this statement of yours from? Regards, Armatura (talk) 18:23, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with the fact that Genocide Watch can't be reliable source. Moreover, Azerbaijan army don't have any contact with villages that armenians live. This is bias report and can't be included in the article. using this article as a reference and claim about genocide is against Wikipedia Rules. Moreover, genocide is a serious thing not like Armenians claims it each time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.26.50.47 (talk) 08:04, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Says the unsigned user who does not realise that Wikipedia records IP (which takes a second to geolocate) and who speaks about Wikipedia rules not realising that their writing is against all possible Wikipedia rules Armatura (talk) 09:03, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Armatura: Please adhere to WP:CIVILITY and don't do ad hominem to users who have not said anything rude/offensive and are only voicing their opinions. — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 15:08, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing offensive, @CuriousGolden:, unregistered is not an offence but merely constatation of facts that a user is unregistered - it is techically hard to address a user without username. Why an unregistered user from a particular group of IPs would try to state openly POV opinions about an protected WP page about armed conflict - I have my own ideas, you may have yours. On the other hand, calling an NGO "absurd" on WP:RS page because it does not suit a particular POV is using ad hominem and is not a civil gesture. Neither is repeat-reverting additions of other users without inviting them to discuss the subject first. Regards Armatura (talk) 17:08, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well thanks for your comment. For your information your comment is also against to Wikipedia rules as it shouldn't judge other side. Anyway, my IP is there and I know that wikipedia does record IP addresses. Hence, please focus on topic rather than showing yourself as a smart kid here. I am putting the link just to help you update your knowledge. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines Thanks.37.26.50.47 (talk) 11:13, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome, unregistered user with recorded IP, and thank you for an epithet "smart kid". Focusing on content, if you are wondering why such claims won't go into the article is because they need to be supported by reliable sources rather than represent your own personal opinion or research. Wikipedia is not a place for personal opinions / research, it is an encyclopedia. Regards, Armatura (talk) 14:47, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Author tries to refer to this article that claims Armenians may face genocide. https://www.genocidewatch.com/single-post/genocide-emergency-azerbaijan-s-attack-in-artsakh . Article itself contains templte words used by armenian social media propagandist users. The article talks about 1918 systematic extermination of armenian population but doesn't' talk about "March Genocide" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_Days conducted by Armenian Dashnak. Further, the article talks about Maraga events happened on April 1992, but doesn't say anything about "Khodjali genocide" happened 2 month before, 26th of February, 1992 where more than 600 civils were killed.

Article states that "Today, Azerbaijan denies displaced Armenians the right to return and forbids a person of Armenian heritage from entering its territory." but doesn't talk about 250,000 Azerbaijanians that can't return to Armenia as Armenian government rejects their enterance.

How this bias article can be used as reference in this Wikipedia article? It is clear that the article written by Genocide Watch corrupted by Armenian Diaspora money and even words and sentences used here are not different from those armenian propaganda machines 5.191.53.154 (talk) 18:11, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


I personally think that the below statement must be removed from the article as Genocide Watch can't be reliable source. The statement is one sided and doesn't reflect truth about the conflict.

Humanitarian organisations On 23rd October 2020, "Genocide Watch" international humanitarian organisation published "Genocide Emergency: Azerbaijan in Artsakh" report on its website, stating that it considers Azerbaijan to be at Stage 9 (extermination) and Stage 10 (denial) of genocide. [660]

Mirhasanov (talk) 18:50, 26 October 2020 (UTC) @Mirhasanov: This is not voting. Contrarguments have to supported by cited third party sources. Even if 1000 users say "needs to be removed" without citing a reliable source that contests the reliability of the primary source provided, it still does not mean that it is unreliable. This is not a battlefield to preval with nnumbers, but WP discussion. Regards Armatura (talk) 19:44, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Armatura (talk) Wikipedia reflect community view as well my dear friend. Therefore sometimes it is about majority. Moreover, you were not able to prove that the "Genocide Watch" is reliable source. It is not me to prove it is unreliable. The site even doesn't follow international law not stating word of "de facto" when they refer to Nagorno-Karabakh republic. Mirhasanov (talk) 20:19, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mirhasanov: Sigh. for the third time in this thread I will paste sources that would confirm GW's reliability.

As to its credibility, here are sources in the Guardian (1, 2 and 3) and CNN (1 and 2) quoting Genocide Watch with one going back to 2002. NOTE: the cited topics are NOT related to the NK conflict. I hope Guardian's and CNN's reliability metrics are better than that of any of the participants in this conversation GW IS reliable not because of what you think about them or I think about them, but because of what reputable outlets like Guardian and CNN think about them. The onus is on you to prove unreliability--Sataralynd (talk) 21:41, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sataralynd (talk) I wouldn't agree with you because nowadays we can't not relay or refer to media thinking that they are independent. CNN is well know with its Fake news. Guardian specially as it sustains itself with donations. It is nonsense to refer unreliable media to prove reliability of some other organization like Genocide Watch. Unfortunately, your references are not reliable source. Usually, claims like "genocide" need extensive study of the situation and the conflict, not just issue 1 paper statement. Moreover, If you will check Alliance list of the Genocide Watch you will see Armenian National Committee. The content itself clearly written by Armenian person because it lucks objectivity and not clearly details sequence of events. How we can talka bout 1918 September days by neglecting March Genocide conducted by Armenian armed groups in territories of whole Azerbaijan? Moreover, according to media bias chart [1] The The Guardian even doesn't exist in the list and CNN scorred as having "Some reliability issues and / or extremism". Another organization called Media Bias Fact check also classifies CNN as Bias [2] also The Guardian[3]. This is my prove that your sources and any link you are referring as independent is bias. Mirhasanov (talk) 04:57, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill: the statement below needs to be removed as user who included this information is no able prove the reliability of sources and refers to newspapers to claim reliability which is against wikipedia rules. Any Genocide Claim and scoring must be referred to extensive study not to one paper bias, unchecked report.

Humanitarian organisations On 23rd October 2020, "Genocide Watch" international humanitarian organisation published "Genocide Emergency: Azerbaijan in Artsakh" report on its website, stating that it considers Azerbaijan to be at Stage 9 (extermination) and Stage 10 (denial) of genocide. [660]

Please provide RS that CNN is "fake news." (You sound like Trump) Please provide RS that the bias you report is directly related to the ongoing war in NKAO and not about domestic issues. Please elucidate why the Armenian National Committee (I may take the liberty to remind you that the Armenians suffered genocide some time ago) being part of a genocide watch org immediately invalidates said org. No one is denying that Armenians slaughtered Azeris in 1918 or 1992 or whatever. Also no one should be lukewarm about mentioning Azeris slaughtering Armenians in 1918 or 1988 or whenever. I honestly don't see what a 1918 war has got to do specifically with the reliability of Genocide Watch. Mentioning Genocide Watch should not be an issue, as it is not "pro-Armenian." (If you are going to argue that however, again, please provide RS stating its partiality) Perhaps they are not right, but it is most definitely not your or my job to decide that on Wikipedia. It's what RS says, and so far the RS provided allow its placement in this article. 2601:85:C101:BA30:FDBB:852E:A1F:5DB3 (talk) 05:54, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@2601:85:C101:BA30:FDBB:852E:A1F:5DB3: I already provided links if you will click that assesses and proves that these organizations are bias or semi-bias. As per Wikipedia WP:RSprinciples Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). If no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.

Nowhere does it say the bias is pro-Armenian however, so the sources are irrelevant in regards to the discussion at hand. 2601:85:C101:BA30:FDBB:852E:A1F:5DB3 (talk) 15:23, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion has become a bit of a sprawl, and is much harder to follow than the one on the same topic at WP:RSN, but I want to note that the question here isn't just binary reliable/unreliable, but also questions of WP:DUE and relative emphasis. Moreover, the onus is on editors in favor of including new content to form a consensus for said content: simply establishing that a source is reliable does not mean that any and all content cited to that source is automatically worth inclusion and treated as the status quo. I for one would lend my support to including a mention of GW's perspective alongside that of other human rights groups, and with care to not make WP:EXTRAORDINARY claims that are backed exclusively by GW. I would not support the original content that was proposed and which started this discussion, because it does not respect due weight and makes an extraordinary claim of genocide on the basis of a single advocacy group that does not appear to be echoed by any other reliable source covering the conflict. signed, Rosguill talk 16:40, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosguill: However, Forbes just published this piece today: [27]. This should be a game changer. The Genocide Watch report is gaining traction among third-party reliable news outlets. I do not understand why it shouldn't be considered in all its details on this project. Étienne Dolet (talk) 04:22, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. 2601:85:C101:BA30:FDBB:852E:A1F:5DB3 (talk) 16:49, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. This is exactly what I was trying to say from the start. — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 17:09, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. This was the point Rosguill. Thanks for objectivity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirhasanov (talk • contribs) 17:24, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosguill: could you suggest a wording here so that we put this to bed?--Sataralynd (talk) 01:19, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Armatura: here are third perty reporting about Genocide Watch's call in Nagorno Karabakh in the last 24 hours. Here and here in ITV of UK. This is in Forbes but the author is Armenian though it is listed in WP:MBFC as reliable.@Rosguill: what's your take here?--Sataralynd (talk) 02:47, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not familiar with Sicurezza Internazionale but their editorial board appears to be academics with a non-trivial amount of citations. I don't really know much about ITV's coverage. That's a Forbes contributor piece, which is not a reliable source (see its entry at WP:RSP). I think that the additional coverage pushes me towards making an attributed claim of a threat of genocide, similar to the way it's phrased in the ITV source. I don't have time to draft a suggestion right now but can try to write one tomorrow. signed, Rosguill talk 04:34, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose.::@Rosguill: ITV citation itself talks and proves that Armenian state actions against International law. It talks about Syrian Armenian Refugees that were illegally settled in Nagorno-Karabakh, which is against Geneva Convention IV [4]. Claims about genocide under this topic is disrespect to understanding of terminology of "Genocide". So far more Azerbaijani civilians died compare to Armenian. How we can claim that Azerbaijan side conducts genocide? Moreover, Azerbaijan side already showed that they are not against Armenians in Karabakh and they can continue to live there under cultural autonomy [5]. Hence, I personally think we should stop discussion here about Armenian claims of genocide and focus on developing the article and make it unbiased. As I stated before, the main aim should be to make the article informative not the tool of war propaganda machine by making one side evil the other side victim. Mirhasanov (talk) 10:03, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Mirhasanov: Please open another thread about what the Armenian side did, refugees, etc. We are talking about reporting from GW, which has just been reported by third parties. The intention is not to compare number of casualties. Also, brining in "claims" from the Azerbaijan side that Armenian could live happily in NK under Azerbaijan rule does nothing to expose the unreliability of GW's claim. If you have a reliable source making a similar claim about Armenia please start another thread--Sataralynd (talk) 12:56, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @EtienneDolet: You probably didn't see that, but the citation that you provided hasn't published by Forbes itself, and most likely includes third-party opinions. See WP:FORBESCON.--Ahmetlii (talk) 14:09, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Sataralynd:, @Rosguill: and others, taking the discussion in WP:RSN and above into account, I drafted a text for including into War crimes > Azerbaijian subsection, in the bottom of this talk space, feel free to comment: On 25th October 2020, Genocide Watch, an alliance of 75 organisations, has issued a statement describing a ‘genocide emergency’ in the region, citing Azerbaijan’s “denial of past genocide against Armenians, its official use of hate speech, and the current targeting of civilians in Nagorno-Karabakh)” [6][7][8] Armatura (talk) 18:03, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Armatura, I think it should be included as part of a subsection devoted to human rights groups' reactions. I only have a short amount of time to write right now, but I'm thinking something along the lines of Human rights groups have called for an end to the conflict and objected to the targeting of civilians and the use of cluster munitions. Amnesty International has criticized both Armenia and Azerbaijan [cite], and Human Rights Watch has criticized just Azerbaijan on these grounds [cite]. Genocide Watch has described the situation as a 'genocide emergency' for Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh, citing attacks on civilians, denial of the Armenian Genocide, and denial of return for Armenian refugees to Azerbaijan as risk factors leading to their assessment [cite]. The description of Genocide Watch as an alliance of 70 organizations appears to confuse Genocide Watch for the Alliance Against Genocide so I think it would be sufficient for us to just wikilink Genocide Watch. I may have gotten AI and HRW's claims backwards, but you can find citations to back up the correct claims in the RSN discussion. signed, Rosguill talk 18:58, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, @Rosguill:, expanded on the suggested skeleton. Regards, Armatura (talk) 04:05, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
CuriousGolden had reverted it again and kept only the mention of Genoicide Watch without clarifying what it is about. He mentioned in the summary "as per consensus," which is not accurate. Could you please revert to what you agreed here, @Armatura:?--Sataralynd (talk) 22:11, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Sataralynd: The excessive reverting by CuriousGolden has been reported by another user and his is now barred from editing NK-related articles for two weeks. As Rosguill thought additional polishing is required, I am going to post my text for human rights organizations in the bottom, naming and please make your suggestions. Armatura (talk) 23:23, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Armatura: I agree with the green wording used by @Rosguill: three comments up. Thank you--Sataralynd (talk) 23:32, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see small problem with that wording, Sataralynd - Amnesty International did not criticise Armenia about cluster munition, as they did not confirm use of cluster munition by Armenia. Armatura (talk) 23:41, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Armatura, Sataralynd, that could be resolved by splitting up the claims about targeting civilians and cluster munitions. Based on the sources currently cited in the article, it actually looks like HRW and AI are reporting pretty much the same story: criticize both sides for attacking civilians, just Azerbaijan for cluster munitions. So we could go with something like Human rights groups have called for an end to the conflict and objected to the targeting of civilians [28] [29]. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have criticized Azerbaijan for its use of cluster munitions [30] [31]. Genocide Watch has described... (the second and third source link are the same). signed, Rosguill talk 00:12, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rosguill, Sataralynd Thanks very much, please see below
@Armatura: there has been a new piece from AI today criticizing Armenia. It is already reflected in the Article and you might want to maintain @Rosguill:'s original wording. Otherwise, the write up is good, thank you--Sataralynd (talk) 01:47, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Oppose @Rosguill: I think we make mistake here. I don't want to discuss Armenian Genocide as it is out of the topic but for your information term of Genocide appeared in 1944 and adopted by UN on 1948. Even the report publicated and that our Armenian users are so happy to refer in order claim that Azerbaijan side conducting genocide against Armenians is not systematic. It refers clashes that happened 100 years ago but some of this clashes happened due to causes initiated by Armenian armed groups in the beginning of 20th century. Denial of so called "Armenian genocide" can't not be justified to state that country supporting genocide against armenians as the event itself was recognized only by 32 countries in the world. Even Israel doesn't consider the event as "genocide". Again i would like to reiterate, the accuse of genocide can't be referred with single one paper statement and must refer proper conducted research scholars sources and studies, which Genocide Watch statement is missing. It refers to https://armenian.usc.edu/baku-pogroms-in-context-of-the-karabakh-conflict/ which is not independednt source. If you really want take responsibility and consider yourself as objective third party spectator from the side, I would suggest you to read and deepen your knowledge about the conflict before writing anything about genocide. I am ready to discuss it in any platform that you suggest but without consensus I am not favour of adding any statement of genocide in this topic. Best Regards, Mirhasanov (talk) 06:10, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My Suggestion: Human rights groups have called for an end to the conflict and objected to the targeting of civilians and the use of cluster munitions. Amnesty International has criticized both Armenia and Azerbaijan[9]. However, the report about use of cluster munitions was one sided and Human Rights Watch has criticized just Azerbaijan on these grounds. Officials of Azerbaijan invited Human Rights Watch to conduct site assessment of Armenian crimes in order to issue more balanced report.[10] This is my initial proposal Mirhasanov (talk) 07:25, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Mirhasanov: Please open another thread about cluster bombs. The topic is about Genocide Watch--Sataralynd (talk) 21:56, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If media outlets like The Guardian and CNN quote GW, then i think that GW shoud be considered reliable and cited in this article. However, in order to fit with WP:WEIGHT, other sources would be welcommed about this topic.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 23:57, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sataralynd (talk) What I wrote was suggestion by @Rosguill:. You have changed article without agreeing. It is POV. Consensu was not reached and it must be reverted. Mirhasanov (talk) 05:39, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mirhasanov: @Rosguill: What are you talking about Mirhasanov? I haven't changed anything. Please check before throwing accusation around--Sataralynd (talk) 11:59, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear all @Rosguill: @Sataralynd: @CuriousGolden: @Hemşinli çocuk: Finally after several complain to Genocide Watch, it changed some wording and also issued genocide report for Azerbaijanis, which has already happened[11]. Thanks for those who bombarded email box of GW for being bias. However, I still believe that the below description of the situation referring to GW in our article is not balanced, as first GW alert talks about possible genocide emergence but, GW alert about Azerbaijan proves that genocide has already happened. Could you please give your suggestion how we should change the phrases in order make below paraghraph more balanced?

Genocide Watch has described the situation as a "genocide emergency" for Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh, citing Azerbaijan’s current targeting of civilians in Nagorno-Karabakh, denial of past genocide against Armenians, and its official use of hate speech as factors leading to their assessment.[463][464][465] While for Azerbaijanis, GW has described that current Armenian and Artsakh governments deny involvement in past crimes against Azerbaijanis, erase their history from Armenian textbooks, preventing Azerbaijani IDP's the right to return to their former homes and villages, and denial of war crimes such as the Khojaly massacre and the current shelling of Azerbaijani civilians.[466]

Solavirum's edits - removing Putin's reference to Sumgait

@Solavirum: you have removed Putin's reference to Sumgait Massacres in the Russia Section of International Reactions, which provides an important historical context for this conflict. We keep saying that we should avoid providing a one sided view of events in this article, but unfortunately the same behaviours of cherrypicking or removing comments that paint a flattering image of one side on the expense of the other keep occurring. You mention that "Putin's every single comment is not noteworthy" where it is obvious you just WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Could I hear what others have to say? Here is the section that has been removed
On 22 October, Putin indicated that the root of the conflict lines in interethnic clashes between Armenians and Azerbaijanis in the 1980s, and specifically referred to the massacre of Armenians in Sumgait.[12][13]--Sataralynd (talk) 00:12, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sataralynd (talk) Sumgait event and Khojali massacre that conducted by both parties has nothing to do with current 2020 war article. They are both covered on different wikipedia pages and information may be added there. Hence, removal of this part is fair. If we don't want to remove it, then all Putin's speech including support of territorial integrity and unacceptability of Armenian occupation of Azerbaijani lands must be included as well, which will be more logical.

Mirhasanov (talk) 09:38, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mirhasanov: if you want to bring in references to Khojaly into the article please start another thread. If you want to include additional words by Putin from the same speech, please start another thread. Putin's comments about Sumgait, which happened at the beginning of the conflict in 1988 which was why he referred to it, were in reference to the 2020 War and they should be included.

Sataralynd, Putin is not a historian. Avoid POV-pushing. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 15:47, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Solavirum Aliev's is not a historian yet he's cited all over the article, (to me) regardless whether what he says is supported by any other source. What Putin said was an overview of the big picture, and it has direct relation with this war (and this article), as this war is not an isolated event, but part of the bigger continuum - Nagorno-Karabakh War. And please avoid accusing editors of "POV-pushing", as per WP:CIVILITY and WP:Goodfaith. Saying "I see this as an unsupported point of view" instead would sound much nicer, to everybody . Regards Armatura (talk) 03:58, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Armatura, he was cited for the things he should have been cited for. Like, let's say, he states that "X party is good, Y party is bad". His statements aren't strong enough to add as a contextual background of the conflict. It is, without a doubt, a POV. Erdoğan highlights the Khojaly massacre, you know, when the Armenian soldiers slaughtered hundreds of Azerbaijani civilians. But why don't we mention that? Because, yet again, he has no say for the background of this conflict. Regardless of that, I've seen more violations of WP:CIVILITY on your behalf than any others in this talk page. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 04:03, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Solavirum, an opinion about civility of others with the background of constantly reverting of others' edits is obviously highly valued. If Pakistan's and Afghanistan's presidents have a say about Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, Putin (good economic partner of Azerbaijan, btw) has a say for sure. You are welcome to cite Erdogan in anything what you think has brought to this war, obviously the historical accuracy of his claims will be scrutinised by the community here. After all, Erdogan is far more involved in the conflict than Putin, so, yes, he does have a say, too. This article belongs to no single editor and no single editor can be the only one who decides who has a say and who has not. Armatura (talk) 12:47, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Armatura, Putin's relations with Azerbaijan is not related to this issue. When did we add Pakistan or Afghanistan's opinion on the contextual background of this topic anyway? Try to attract mediators to this thread. I'm sure they'll say the same. Putin, Erdoğan, or any other leader, they are not historians or would ever voice neutral historical background on this conflict. And again, their close or far involvement aren't related too. This article belongs to no single editor and no single editor can be the only one who decides who has a say and who has not, I hear this every time from Armenian editors only, this ain't the first time and if it would help you to form up better arguments, let me just say that it isn't working. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 12:55, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
FYI @Solavirum: and @Armatura:, here is Eurasianet mentinoing Putin's words about Sumgait. Here is OC_Media doing the same. This is not about Putin, it is about Sumgait_Pogrom being a major catalyst of the conflict. Here is the Economist mentioning Sumgait in the context of the conflict. If Wikipedia is not going to mention it, I don't know who is! --Sataralynd (talk) 22:45, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The argument "somebody is not a historian" reminds me of Erdogan's "let's leave history to historians" trick everytime he denies Armenian Genocide... If you could please prepare the text for inclusion into the article, @Sataralynd:, backed with your new sources. I support the inclusion as it transcends the very source of this war in NK war continuum, and I don't see a reason why it has to be kept out of this article which is full of quotes of Azerbaijani officials (non-historians). Armatura (talk) 23:30, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Armatura: Thanks, the wording has been reverted back in the article as per my original post, so no change needed now. I'm sure tomorrow we'll get a reversion though! --Sataralynd (talk) 01:54, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Solavirum: and @Armatura: guys Putin's citation can't not be used as proof as he is not historian, he is politician. If we will start to justify or analyse the root of conflict based on politicians, the world will be more mad place than it is now. Hence, I wouldn't use this statement to explain roots of the conflict as, the root of this conflict is much more deeper. Mirhasanov (talk) 10:29, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mirhasanov: I am not aware of Wikipedia rule that does not allow citing politicians for conflicts root analysis. If you know such a WP rule, provide it. If you cannot provide such a ruke, then what you are saying is your just point of view (POV) Armatura (talk) 13:46, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Mirhasanov: @Armatura: the important point is not the job of Putin, but the weight of his comments as someone familiar with the conflict and the content of his words. He says that the origin of the conflict can be traced back to the Sumgait massacres, which is what is mentioned in the article. Further, in my source above from the Economist (very reliable source), they make the same point. Here is the phrase as it may not be accessible to all (paywall): "the descent into war began with a horrific pogrom of ethnic Armenians in Sumgait in 1988". I think this is important information to be mentioned. I think with the Economist reporting on it now (it is new while the Putin words are more than a week old), we may have to move it to the Background section because it is in fact a precipitator of the whole conflict--Sataralynd (talk) 04:59, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. I support moving that citation from Economist into this article's background, as it not just "Russia's reaction" but the key to the start of the continuum of Nagorno-Karabakh war (of which the current conflict is a part of). Regards. Armatura (talk) 07:07, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Armatura: I propose to change "Ethnic violence began in the late 1980s, and the region descended into a war following the dissolution of the USSR in 1991" to Ethnic violence began in the late 1980s, with a series of massacres against Armenians in Sumgait, Ganja and Baku and the region descended into a war following the dissolution of the USSR in 1991. [14] [15][16][17]--Sataralynd (talk) 02:44, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose ::@Armatura: and ::@Sataralynd: Of course there is a rule if you read [18] clearly and don't twsit the fact. İn above you mention that ethnic violence began in the late 1980s, but you don't describe the drivers of the violence. Could it be because, Karabakh Armenians started to support separatist ideology such as Miatsum, "Hye Dat" demanding annexation of Nagonor-Karabakh to Armenia?

Therefore for sake of being unbiased I would like to offer below change:

"Ethnic violence began in the late 1980s with an increasing sentiment of separatism by Armenians living in Nagorno-Karabakh. As a result both sides have conducted series crimes on an ethnic basis against each other, that eventually lead to pogroms and mass deportation of Armenians and Azerbaijanis from major cities".

Mirhasanov (talk) 06:00, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mirhasanov: twist the facts? so these 3 pogroms didn't happen? You may entitled to believe so but the sources I gave are authoritative unlike your unsourced wording, with one of them, Thomas de Waal, having more than 70,000 citations. Your wording "with an increasing sentiment of separatism by Armenians" is the official POV of the Azerbaijan Government, which is that Armenians were punished because they wanted to be independent.--Sataralynd (talk) 16:20, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mirhasanov: First of all if you want talk about background of the conflict under Nagonor-Karabakh 2020, it is not place to mention it and e should avoid convert current article to Nagorno-Karabakh conflict wiki article. Secondly, I believe that instead of your completely pro-Armenian sentences, my sentence is much more objective which describes suffering of both sides, than being one sided. Or you reject exitance of Miatsum that started all of this? @Rosguill: as a third independent party what do you think? How we can merge my sentence and Sataralynd in order to provide wikireaders with informative and unbiased information ? Mirhasanov (talk) 16:30, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the status quo wording of Ethnic violence began in the late 1980s, and the region descended into a war following the dissolution of the USSR in 1991 is preferable and about the level of detail needed for an article about the 2020 conflict. It is accurate, to the point, and avoids finger pointing in a conflict where both sides have committed ethnic violence. signed, Rosguill talk 17:32, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosguill: if that is the case and we should avoid finger-pointing, could I ask why we are mentioning the Khojaly massacres 3 times in this Article? Do you think that is NPOV? we are mentioning a massacre — tragic as it is —- that happened towards the end of the first NK war, right in the middle of a war zone, without any mention of what the Armenian side has to answer for. On the other hand, three major massacres that happened between 1988-1990 — which major sources affirm and two well-respected 3P scholars on thte topic (Thomas de Waal and Laurence Broers) claim precipitated the NK conflict — are not being mentioned. Is that NPOV? I think Khojaly should be mentioned because it is a very significant event for the Azerbaijani side, but so are Sumgait, Ganja and Baku pogroms which are significant events for the Armenian side--Sataralynd (talk) 03:17, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sataralynd, there are currently no mentions of the Khojaly massacre in the Background section; there very well may be an undue weight problem as far as the Khojaly massacre is concerned elsewhere in the article, but the way to fix due weight problems in entirely separate sections is best addressed in those sections, not by adding an equal number of references to acts of violence against Armenians elsewhere. Until someone writes an NPOV explanation of that chunk of history, the status quo wording does an adequate job of explaining to the reader why people are fighting in Nagorno-Karabakh. signed, Rosguill talk 04:13, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rosguill I also agree with your point regarding finger pointing. Hence, to avoid it I suggest the following sentence to be changed and added as:

Ethnic violence in the region began in the late 1980s, and the region descended into a war following the dissolution of the USSR in 1991. As a result both sides have conducted series crimes on an ethnic basis against each other, that eventually lead to pogroms and mass deportation of Armenians and Azerbaijanis from major cities.

Sataralynd what do you think?

@Mirhasanov please remind me and everybody else here what were the "crimes on ethnic basis" that Armenians have conducted that led to Sumgait pogrom in the late 1980s, according to your "both-sides" version. Regards, Armatura (talk) 22:50, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Armatura (talk) If we will start talk about back history what has triggered the conflict, neither you nor me will be able to finish the sentence without finger pointing. Articles is not looking who was victim or innocent side here. The only victim here is Azerbaijani and Armenian civilians!. We try build up informative content and at the same time keep the neutrality, as the article shouldn't serve to propaganda machine of conflict sides. Hence, I believe that the above sentence is good enough to inform reader that the conflict is based on revanchism which eventually evaluated to ethnic hatred leading both sides to be deported or conducting pogroms against each other. Mirhasanov (talk) 17:20, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mirhasanov:, if you are claiming FACTs, you should provide SOURCES for those FACTs, rather than a personal opinion on what's good and what's bad. And neutral article doesn't mean no victims. In Holocaust articles there is a clear aggressor and there is a victim, don't confuse neutrality with artificial equalisation and apologetism. Armatura (talk) 20:04, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mirhasanov: You call the independence movement "ethnic crime". Support for independence of the NK by Armenians in Sumgait is not an ethnic crime. The right for independence was written in the Soviet constitution. The same constitution that allowed Azerbaijan to become an independent republic also provided similar rights to autonomous republics. Supporting something that is written in the constitution is not an ethnic crime.Spinosaurus5 (talk) 08:41, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Very much agree with @Spinosaurus5: The pogroms as just desserts for Armenians of NK for wanting to be independent is the official POV of the Azerbaijani government. Everyone else believes that the question of NK Armenians wanting to be independent has no bearing, and is not a justification of violence let alone the pogroms. Hence, again, I propose to balance the Background section by including a piece of information that major outlets, and 2 key scholars think relevant, as follows:

Ethnic violence began in the late 1980s, with a series of massacres against Armenians in Sumgait, Ganja and Baku and the region descended into a war following the dissolution of the USSR in 1991. [19] [20][21][22]--Sataralynd (talk) 05:49, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Revert Why you are doing what you want ? Why you are pushing your POV and try make the article as part of pro_armenian propaganda? It always been discussed and the best sentence is advised! Rosguill could you please advise what we should do with such users that pushes their POV no matter what is discussed and agreed? Mirhasanov (talk) 15:18, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mirhasanov: Your questions have been answered already, see above. Its is allowed to cite an opinion of a political leader, as long as it is not misserved as a hard fact. It would be nice if you could follow WP:GOODFAITH, WP:CIVIL, WP:NOTTRUTH WP:IDONTLIKETHEM principles and stop calling names to editors who add things that you just don't like. And as you always ask Rosguill for help, I am interested in what he thinks we should do with Mirhasanov who does what he accuses other in all the time, virtually in every talk topic. Armatura (talk) 23:01, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.adfontesmedia.com/interactive-media-bias-chart-2/
  2. ^ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/cnn/
  3. ^ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-guardian/
  4. ^ https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/WebART/380-600056
  5. ^ https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/10/22/azeri-president-says-armenians-can-have-cultural-autonomy
  6. ^ https://www.genocidewatch.com/single-post/genocide-emergency-azerbaijan-s-attack-in-artsakh
  7. ^ https://www.itv.com/news/2020-10-27/they-want-to-end-us-syrian-armenian-refugees-in-karabakh-facing-destruction-again
  8. ^ https://sicurezzainternazionale.luiss.it/2020/10/27/genocide-watch-allonu-fermate-lazerbaigian/
  9. ^ https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/09/30/armenia/azerbaijan-dont-attack-civilians
  10. ^ https://www.news.az/news/azerbaijan-invites-human-rights-watch-amnesty-intl-to-conduct-on-site-assessment-of-armenian-crimes?
  11. ^ https://www.genocidewatch.com/single-post/genocide-warning-armenia-the-republic-of-artsakh-nagorno-karabakh
  12. ^ "Путин заявил о почти пяти тысячах погибших в Карабахе". Ria. 23 October 2020. Retrieved 23 October 2020.
  13. ^ "Putin: Karabakh conflict started with brutal crimes against Armenian people". Public Radio of Armenia. 22 October 2020. Retrieved 23 October 2020.
  14. ^ https://www.economist.com/europe/2020/10/29/the-fighting-in-nagorno-karabakh-reflects-decades-of-conflict
  15. ^ de Waal, Thomas (2003). Black Garden: Armenia and Azerbaijan Through Peace and War. New York: New York University Press. p. 90. ISBN 978-0-8147-1945-9. Around ninety Armenians died in the Baku pogroms.
  16. ^ https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1988-11-27-mn-1060-story.html
  17. ^ Broers, Laurence (2019). Armenia and Azerbaijan: Anatomy of Rivalry. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. p. 18. ISBN 978-1-4744-5055-3. Armenians see the campaign that emerged in 1987 to unify Karabakh and Armenia as peaceful, yet met with organized pogroms killing dozens of Armenians in the Azerbaijani cities of Sumgait, Kirovabad (today's Ganja) and Baku in 1988-1990.
  18. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Describing_points_of_view
  19. ^ https://www.economist.com/europe/2020/10/29/the-fighting-in-nagorno-karabakh-reflects-decades-of-conflict
  20. ^ de Waal, Thomas (2003). Black Garden: Armenia and Azerbaijan Through Peace and War. New York: New York University Press. p. 90. ISBN 978-0-8147-1945-9. Around ninety Armenians died in the Baku pogroms.
  21. ^ https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1988-11-27-mn-1060-story.html
  22. ^ Broers, Laurence (2019). Armenia and Azerbaijan: Anatomy of Rivalry. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. p. 18. ISBN 978-1-4744-5055-3. Armenians see the campaign that emerged in 1987 to unify Karabakh and Armenia as peaceful, yet met with organized pogroms killing dozens of Armenians in the Azerbaijani cities of Sumgait, Kirovabad (today's Ganja) and Baku in 1988-1990.
For the moment, I don't think anything needs to be done to anyone. If I was inclined to block people for every time they argued for content that could be construed as POV or for accusing people of the same, there would be no one left to write the article. If either of you thinks that there's been enough persistent serious disruption, such as edit warring, deceptive edit summaries, or egregious harassment, you can make a case at WP:ANI. signed, Rosguill talk 00:32, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gents, the below sentence is more constructive and balanced instead the last one was offered:

Ethnic violence in the region began in the late 1980s, and the region descended into a war following the dissolution of the USSR in 1991. As a result both sides have conducted series crimes on an ethnic basis against each other, that eventually lead to pogroms and mass deportation of Armenians and Azerbaijanis from major cities.

I want again to reiterate that the content shouldn't work for propaganda machine of war sides. We are not looking for who is victim and who has started the war. We are trying to create content in order properly inform the wiki reader. Hence, I again call all sides not to change any disruptive content without consensus under Talk page. Mirhasanov (talk) 09:13, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IAGS open letter

I have drafted the following text to include in War crimes > Azerbaijan subsection, feel free to comment with improvement suggestions: On 22th October 2020, International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS) issued an open letter, describing the air raids conducted by the Azerbaijani military on October 8 and 9 on Shushi Holy Savior Cathedral as a part of policy of the “cultural genocide that the Azerbaijani government has been implementing over the past 30 years by systematically destroying the Armenian historical heritage”.[1].

For the editors of this article, IAGS is a global, interdisciplinary, non-partisan organization that seeks to further research and teaching about the nature, causes, and consequences of genocide, and advance policy studies on genocide prevention. The Association, founded in 1994, meets regularly to consider comparative research, important new work, case studies, the links between genocide and other human rights violations, and prevention and punishment of genocide. The Association holds biennial conferences and co-publishes the scholarly journal Genocide Studies and Prevention. A central aim of the Association is to draw academics, activists, artists, genocide survivors, journalists, jurists, public policy makers, and other colleagues into the interdisciplinary study of genocide, with the goal of prevention.
Here are is Google Scholar search for articles mentioning them: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?lookup=0&q=International+Association+of+Genocide+Scholars&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5 Armatura (talk) 18:03, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@CuriousGolden: I didn't get the question. Are you contesting that genocide is a crime, whether a genocide during war is a war crime or whether cultural genocide is a form of genocide? "Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Approved and proposed for signature and ratification or accession by General Assembly resolution 260 A (III) of 9 December 1948 entry into force 12 January 1951, in accordance with article XIII, Article 1 -"The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish." [2] If you have a better location in the article for IAGS letter, please suggest. Armatura (talk) 18:44, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Armatura: Only thing I can understand from your comment is that IAGS thinks that damaging a single church is a cultural "genocide". Not going to talk about how that's wrong yet, but under what convention is cultural genocide a war crime (FYI cultural genocide is obviously not same as a human genocide)?
Edit: Oh God. Just read the article and what a mess. Just going to put only some of the wild sentences from the article here for readers to realize the level of the article.
  • "Furthermore, it is documented that Turkish armed forces and air forces directly participate in hostilities."
  • "..a substantial number of mercenaries identifying as jihadists from Syria and Libya, and likely also from Afghanistan and Pakistan.."
  • "The objective of the Azerbaijani-Turkish bandits is not about claiming territory."
  • "consequently recognizing of the independence of the Republic of Artsakh is the way to save Armenians of Artsakh from extermination now or in the near future"
And again, them being quoted in some articles/books does not make everything they publish reliable. So much for an "objective" NGO. CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 18:59, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@CuriousGolden:Thank you for your comment. I understand you don't share the statements in their letter, and I can see you naturally don't share any statements that are showing actions of Azerbaijan under negative light. However, apart from emotions, I see no concrete argument against the suggested addition (so far). To me, your argument amounts to WP:IJDLI. As for the "mess", I would like to cite "Try not to get too intense. Passion can be misread as aggression, so take great care to avoid the appearance of being heavy-handed or bossy." part of Wikipedia:Civility policy. Thank you. Armatura (talk) 19:25, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Armatura: Firstly, WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH, not even going to reply to the first 3 rude sentences of yours which are violation of WP:CIVILITY which you love to cite so much. Secondly, calling every reply which points out mistakes and asks questions (which you haven't replied to yet) a "no concrete argument" and "just emotions" is in itself a violation of WP:IJDLI. Answer the questions I've asked in a normal manner and reply to the points I've raised to reach a consensus rather than making comments about policies, all of which you yourself broke in a single comment. — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 19:39, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@CuriousGolden: I did not call you rude, but you did. I did not call the materials you add a "mess", but you did. Good faith is something I always assume first, then that faith changes based on what I see. I can see no questions of yours about my this suggestion, only a monologue about how all the signed scholar's statement and their scientific achievements are not worth a dime. I already answered your question about the Genocide Convention. What other questions do you have? Regards Armatura (talk) 19:47, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Armatura: I didn't call you rude. I called your comments about me rude, which they were. I did not call things you did a "mess", I called the article you shared a "mess". Not sure how calling the article a mess is rude to you. If you look a little bit above my "monologue", you can see the question I asked. And again, that "monologue" is to show what I think of the article and why I don't think it's reliable nor unbiased, if you don't think it's biased, then that's your own opinion and I respect it. Just as you should respect mine. — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 19:57, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@CuriousGolden: What is generally perceived as cultural genocide you can read in Cultural genocide. The church has not been accidentally damaged, it has been targeted, TWICE within 24 hours, with great precision, and with people inside. As TASS journalist Saadat Kadirova said "мочить их в сортире". It does not matter whether it was 1 church or 1000 churches, it doesn't even matter that to Artsakh that church is what Westminster Abbey is to UK. What matters is intentional destruction of cultural heritage of a nation, to hurt it, and that church is cultural heritage of Armenian nation, and that is what these genocide scholars make a point about. Provide a respectable source in the same weight category as IAGS that says it is not an act of genocide, and I will respect that opinion on the same scale as the letter of IAGS. Armatura (talk) 20:18, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Armatura to say that the attack "was intended" is your own WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. As far as I'm concerned, even the Armenian side might have shot that place, accidentally, or not. Furthermore, if we have to go with your assumption, the Armenians have been intentionally striking Ganja's densely populated places for the 5th time with ballistic missiles, intentionally. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 02:05, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Solavirum: One is entitled to have conspiracy theories and irrational concerns, it's a free world. I have not touched Ganja's subject at all, and I have no reason to think that it is Azerbaijan shelling its own city, I hope Azerbaijani people are better than that. A consensus of genocide scholars is backing the claim that the church was targeted rather than accidentally damaged, otherwise there would be no such letter at all. You are welcome to provide your published third party reliable sources, if there are any. Armatura (talk) 02:55, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jesus Christ. I hope Azerbaijani people are better than that, you've got no limits. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 03:09, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Solavirum:The "Armenian side might have shot their own holy place (the seat of the Diocese of Artsakh)" was obviously a very "reserved" phrase to write. I don't want to bring a similar example on a mosque, out of respect for cultural and religious feelings Armatura (talk) 03:23, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I support this addition. It's a legit organization making the statement. Expertwikiguy (talk) 03:13, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Support inclusion in article. Notable organization, probably in "Reactions" or if the church's attack is already mentioned. I would separately like to nominate the rhetorical question "under what convention is cultural genocide a war crime" to be archived for posterity. Juxlos (talk) 03:18, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose Provided links are not reliable. If we want to cover deliberate attack to religious centers by Azerbaijan for sake of objectivery, Armenians converting Aghdam Jamia Mosque Pigsty needs to be addressed[3]. Mirhasanov (talk) 08:05, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Mirhasanov: To address the mosque it would have to be claimed, or proven, by a reliable third-party source that the Armenians intentionally moved pigs into the mosque. What we know for sure is that pigs were in the mosque - we do not know how they ended up in there. I would be happy with including the claim about the Armenian cathedral if it is represented as a statement by Genocide Watch but not as absolute fact. Of note is some additional context which supports the Genocide Watch claim - the destruction of Armenian khachkars in Azeri territory during peacetime - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_cemetery_in_Julfa --LOLCaatz (talk) 09:43, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Mirhasanov and LOLCaatz: The reason this thing would be notable to include into the article is not particularly the event itself but the fact that an important third party reacted to it. Also LOLCaatz what you just said is so ridiculous I don't even know how to reply to that. FlalfTalk 17:09, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Flalf: it seems pretty reasonable to me, if you could point out what is ridiculous I can address it. I'm comparing mirhasanov's example - where the sole source is one video of pigs inside a mosque with absolutely no context of how they got there - with the statement by IAGS which is still an opinion, but from a relevant third party source as multiple people above have stated. Of course it would not work if we just stated their claim as fact "there is a cultural genocide going on" and put that in the article but what would work is if we said something like "IAGS claims that this represents part of a larger cultural genocide". The cemetery I mentioned isn't relevant to the article but I thought it was relevant to the current discussion as it is a historical example of the deliberate destruction of Armenian culture which might also fall under the category of "cultural genocide". --LOLCaatz (talk) 03:48, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@LOLCaatz: I think neither the IAGS thing, from an unreliable source, or the pigs thing should be included in the aryicle. Since this discussion isn't productive I won't spend more time on it, I just think your argument on 'the pigs were just there' was a bit ridiculous. Sorry if bothered you. FlalfTalk 12:56, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Flalf: It's fine, if anything I explained my point of view poorly in my first message. I am also happy if neither claim is included as they are not particularly relevant to the article itself. --LOLCaatz (talk) 00:32, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Open letter by International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS). What you have mentioned is only published on site called voltairenet.org which from content of the site it is clear that not independent. I tried to find the letter in the official site https://genocidescholars.org/publications/ but unfortunately was not able. Could you please show direct link where the organization officially published the letter? I guess if it is true we must refer to original site not to some third side which is doing armenian propaganda content. @Solavirum: @Flalf: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirhasanov (talk • contribs) 05:52, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong oppose – an easy one, as the source is deprecated for use on Wikipedia per WP:RSP. I can't see any other copies of the letter elsewhere on the internet, which leads me to strongly question its veracity. I suggest an uninvolved editor closes this discussion. Jr8825 • Talk 19:26, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More third party reports on IAGS' take on the conflict here--Sataralynd (talk) 02:56, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That link took me to pure unrelated chaos. FlalfTalk 16:16, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@LOLCaatz: @Sataralynd: @Flalf: @Solavirum: @Armatura: @CuriousGolden: @Juxlos: Dears, considering that there is not reliable source provided under this topic, shall we consider this section as closed and star work on other sections? Please put your voting as Agreed in below:

Agreed to close the topic and remove relevant wording or information. Mirhasanov (talk) 08:49, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed that IAGS sentence a few days ago already. However, the Genocide Watch has published the IAGS letter here https://www.genocidewatch.com/single-post/statement-of-genocide-scholars-on-the-%C4%B1mm%C4%B1nent-genocidal-threat-%C4%B1n-artsakh. It is not a hoax. One reason that may explain why it is not available on IAGS website itself is that their website is undergoing maintenance works as stated on their website. Any opposition for including it now? Regards, Armatura (talk) 12:36, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Armatura: interesting that you found it on GW. I am ok with including it.--Sataralynd (talk) 04:30, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.voltairenet.org/article211404.html
  2. ^ https://web.archive.org/web/20000408162107/http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/p_genoci.htm
  3. ^ http://thelondonpost.net/armenians-converted-aghdam-jamia-mosque-pigsty-occupied-qarabakh-no-protests/

I'd be grateful if somebody could add it back with Genocide Watch reference, please. I'm left with a phone only. Armatura (talk) 20:23, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear all, I recently got an official email from IAGS confirming that no official statement was released by organization about this issue. What is the way to share it ? @Armatura: if Genocide Watch starting publish things that is not officially confirmed that means the side itself maintained by unprofessional people. For that reason I continuously underpin that we shouldn't refer to GW as they are not acting professional and independent 3rd party organization.

@Rosguill: I am offering to remove GW references as this site can't be trusted as 3rd independent party. Mirhasanov (talk) 04:58, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mirhasanov: your personal email communication cannot neither be used as evidence, even if it was possible to share it here. Armatura (talk) 22:03, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Armatura: Here is the president of IAGS confirming that the letter is legit. Please add it to the Article and close this thread--Sataralynd (talk) 13:36, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sataralynd: That one you mentioned is IAGS' president letter to IAGS members, though. It has a lot of important points, any particular sentences that you think are worth citing? Armatura (talk) 22:03, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mirhasanov: GW removed the three reports from their website. I propose to remove all the section on them because the topic can't be referenced properly:

Genocide Watch has described the situation as a "genocide emergency" for Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh, citing Azerbaijan's current targeting of civilians in Nagorno-Karabakh, denial of past genocide against Armenians, and its official use of hate speech as factors leading to their assessment.[482][483][484][unreliable source?] While for Azerbaijanis, GW has described that current Armenian and Artsakh governments deny involvement in past crimes against Azerbaijanis, erase their history from Armenian textbooks, preventing Azerbaijani IDP's the right to return to their former homes and villages, and denial of war crimes such as the Khojaly massacre and the current shelling of Azerbaijani civilians.[485][unreliable source?]

RfC: Disputed or occupied

Should the Nagorno-Karabakh region be called "disputed" or "occupied" territory? 18:22, 2 November 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by VZkN9 (talk • contribs) 18:22, 2 November 2020 (UTC) — VZkN9 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Opinions

  • Support Occupied:, @Rosguill:; sorry to bother you, in similar articles related to Israel, Turkey, Russia, etc. every single article uses the word occupied, and nothing such as "disputed". For example nobody calls Donbass a disputed region, but Crimea can be called, because it is been recognised by some countries as part of Russia as well. However Artsakh is not even recognised by Armenia. This is not NPOV, but POV-pushing by other users trying to romanticisation the occupation. See UN res 62/243: 1. Reaffirms continued respect and support for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Republic of Azerbaijan within its internationally recognized borders; 2. Demands the immediate, complete and unconditional withdrawal of all Armenian forces from all the occupied territories of the Republic of Azerbaijan.[1] I really do not see any reason why this area shouldn't be called occupied. Beshogur (talk) 11:45, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. We can't stop calling occupied things "disputed" to stay "neutral" even when international law calls it occupied. This isn't being neutral, this is POV-pushing. — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 11:53, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @CuriousGolden and Rosguill: There are two parties to a conflict right now. One is saying they control a piece of land and the other is saying they should control it. When discussing directly about the dispute, you have to maintain WP:NPOV. In the article about the area, it would be more appropriate to discuss the recognition.WMrapids (talk) 12:00, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If that's NPOV, we have to change the entire articles regarding the occupied territories anywhere in the world. Beshogur (talk) 12:06, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WMrapids, international organizations and reliable sources also call it an occupation. Occupation won't makes a party the bad guy, it just says that "X's army came and seized control of Y's internationally recognized territories." See: Occupation of Iraq (2003–2011), Allied-occupied Germany, Turkish occupation of northern Syria. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 12:58, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use of disputed vs controlled is a question that should be resolved based on an assessment of how reliable source refer to the region. A cursory Google Scholar search suggests that "disputed" is used more frequently, but this issue could probably benefit form a more careful analysis. signed, Rosguill talk 15:13, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosguill:, I mean disputed or controlled being used instead of occupied. UN and OSCE refers to this area as occupied, not controlled or disputed. Beshogur (talk) 15:21, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The searches I conducted were disputed vs occupied. I think that the UN and OSCE declarations can be considered, but should be considered in addition to RS coverage, not to its exclusion. That having been said, I did another round of searches and found the opposite result of my previous round.
Google Scholar search results:
  • "occupied territory" "Nagorno Karabakh": 579 results
  • "disputed territory" "Nagorno Karabakh": 886 results.
  • "disputed" "Nagorno Karabakh": 4950 results
  • "occupied" "Nagorno Karabakh": 7550 results signed, Rosguill talk 15:31, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosguill:, thanks. So what is the conclusion? Beshogur (talk) 15:42, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like the term "occupied" is two times more popular than "disputed". --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 15:50, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
based on the above data points, I would lean towards "occupied" based on the second search and the OSCE/UN wording. I think there's room for others to dispute that if they can make an argument based on more recent news sources covering the conflict, or can find additional search terms at Scholar that complicate the data points listed above. signed, Rosguill talk 15:56, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support "Disputed". It is not judgemental, and it currently better reflects the fact that the de facto control of most of the territories in question by Republic of Nagorno Karabakh actively clashes with de jurerecognized borders of Republic of Azerbaijan, the fact that neither side has de-facto and de-jure control of these lands in one place. Disputed is more frequently heard recently in international media due to the active warring, where as occupied was more more frequently in (relatively) peaceful times. Artsakh disputes the occupied status of these lands and yes, occupied does make Artsakh look like "the bad guy", as nobody wants to be called the occupier in its political sense. E.g. Azerbaijan does not occupy Baku, Baku belongs to Azerbaijan and nobody disputes it. It's different from being an occupier of a flat which clearly has a neutral meaning (e.g. I receive letters addressed "to occupier" in my rented flat). Armatura (talk) 01:43, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support "Occupied" Occupied has a neutral meaning, this used in other articles before (and its usage is more than "disputed" per conclusion on Google Scholar search).Ahmetlii (talk) 05:52, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support "Occupied" not because I think, but because it is clearly stated in UN resolutions 822,853,874,884.Mirhasanov (talk) 05:58, 30 October 2020 (UTC) — Mirhasanov (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • I suggest Breakaway, or Unrecognized state, depending on context. The territory is indeed not "Disputed" (even per Armenia's official version) as Armenia does not claim Karabakh. As for it being "Occupied", apparently, there are two versions. The Azerbaijani version it is occupied by Armenia. The version of the local Armenians is that Nagorno Karabakh is an independent state. Such a state is, however, not recognized by any other state (see Unrecognized state). So, the correct neutral way is to refer to the territory as a "Breakaway" - i.e. it has goals to achieve independence and actually controls some territory but is recognized as a part of Azerbaijan by law. Clearly, this Republic of Artsakh has no "undisputed territories" and its independence is questioned as a whole - it is not like with territorial disputes elsewhere where some territory is disputed but both countries have undisputed "proper" territories. The context in which the Republic of Artsakh was established needs to be explained for it to remain neutral - namely, that the Azeri population, that used to be larger than the Armenian population, was expelled to make Armenian majority, and that Armenia and Armenian diaspora supported the Artsakh militarily. Ruĝa nazuo (talk) 02:08, 31 October 2020 (UTC) — Ruĝa nazuo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Support "Occupied" UNSC, UNGA, and PACE resolutions clearly state Nagorno-Karabakh as occupied. See PACE res 2085: the occupation by Armenia of Nagorno-Karabakh and other adjacent areas of Azerbaijan[2] and areas of Azerbaijan occupied by Armenia[3] SteelEvolution (talk) 07:57, 31 October 2020 (UTC) — SteelEvolution (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Support "Occupied": The legal status is "occupied" according to UN. The territories belong to Azerbaijan. "controlled" would be only reasonable in case of Lost, mislaid, and abandoned property. Irredentism is not Wikipedia:NPOV. Many Wikipedia:Single-purpose accounts push for "controlled" and "disputed" instead of "occupied" in articles related to the topic. --Geysirhead (talk) 15:10, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support current wording ("disputed") – given its context within the sentence, "disputed" is used here in a descriptive sense, rather denoting any official status. It's common sense that there's a dispute over the land, otherwise there wouldn't be a conflict in the first place. "Disputed" and "occupied" are not incompatible terms, and to change the wording within the opening sentence would in my view skew it in a non-neutral direction, by suggesting that one side has no claim on the land whatsoever. The sources that Rosguill has gathered show that both terms have been used, and I think Armatura, irrespective of whether they may be engaging in advocacy (it appears editors on both sides of the conflict are engaged in advocacy at this talk page) raises a valid point: "occupied" fits better in a peaceful context, "disputed" better reflects an ongoing conflict. "Self-proclaimed" (used earlier in the opening sentence) could probably be strengthened to "unrecognised" or similar without affecting the NPOV of the sentence, if other editors feel that this change is necessary (I think self-proclaimed expresses this fine myself, but wouldn't have any objection if there was a consensus for this change). Issues over the legality/legitimacy of the Republic of Artsakh's claim should be covered (succinctly) in the article's background section, or (in a more detailed manner) within the articles on the region and the republic. Jr8825 • Talk 18:57, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to this, I've also noticed that the current wording of our article on Nagorno-Karabakh describes it as a "disputed territory". Jr8825 • Talk 05:12, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not because there is a consensus about that. Beshogur (talk) 15:26, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Let me put my point this way: I don't think a consensus is required for a self-evident description, such as calling an area that is being fought over "disputed". I do think a consensus is needed to replace it with a term that some editors (me included) think affects the neutral wording of this particular sentence. To be clear, I'm not questioning the fact that the area is illegally occupied under international law. I simply think that spelling this out in the first sentence of this article is UNDUE. I think it minimises/does not do justice to a complicated issue and requires a fuller explanation. Stating that Artsakh is self-proclaimed/breakaway/unrecognised seems perfectly sufficient for the first sentence. Jr8825 • Talk 15:46, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill:, I am not asking for opinions. People putting their opinion here. You have seen what UN, OSCE and majority of sources refer to. Beshogur (talk) 19:05, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Beshogur:, if you are referring to my comment, I'd ask you to consider the benefit of having non-involved editors such as myself (I have no particular emotional investment in this conflict) offering their interpretation of the issues. Jr8825 • Talk 15:20, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The PACE resolution cited by a user has 98 votes in favor, 71 against and 40 abstentions. This is far from being a consensus.
@Rosguill:, you provided a google scholar search results. I tried replicating these results, and there is a significant cross-contamination. Also, your search did not include a contextual filtering. Because obviously, occupied+NK will yield many results for the territory that is outside NK, but controlled by NK. Not NK itself.
On OSCE Minsk Group position, see the six key elements for the settlement from the Madrid Principles. The principles and their wordings wouldn't be there, if NK wasn't disputed.
Conclusion: That what is surrounding NK but controlled by NK being occupied, can be debated. But NK itself being occupied, according to the sources provided, it's disputed. Hemşinli çocuk 21:21, 31 October 2020 (UTC) — Ermenermin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
@Ermenermin: WP is En|cy|clo|pe|dists' Corner, not Speakers' Corner WP:NOTFREESPEECH. It is important to keep Wikipedia free of Wikipedia:Single-purpose accounts, especially if they support certain wording with Wikipedia:I just don't like it arguments. --Geysirhead (talk) 08:52, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Geysirhead: Yes but how who edit what is more important than valid arguments someone provides? Hemşinli çocuk 15:48, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ermenermin:, This is far from being a consensus. Nonsense, abstain doesn't mean against. So there is a vote in favor. Plus PACE describes it as Armenian occupation. Yet again, dispute happens between two countries over a place. Armenia does not claim NK, neither does recognise Artsakh. Artsakh is not a recognised country. Beshogur (talk) 22:10, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Beshogur: Abstain does not mean against, but it does not mean in support to either. And PACE had a stronger opposition for the resolution. I myself will abstain voting, it doesn't mean that my silence means that I support the term occupation.Hemşinli çocuk 22:30, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Disputed are we seriously comparing Occupation of Iraq (2003–2011), Allied-occupied Germany, Turkish occupation of northern Syria with the Armenians currently in Nagorno-Karabakh? At least everyone including Azerbaijan agree that the area had a majority Armenian population for a very long time, unlike the US in Iraq, Turkey in Syria and Allied forces in Germany - where there was a clear time and place of occupation. This is according to census data by Azerbaijan during the USSR's life. The POV that is being clearly pushed here is that Armenia is occupying Azerbaijani land, which is the official position of the Azeri government. Could we please try to maintain the NPOV? We established already that the people of Nagorno-Karabakh don't want to be part of Azerbaijan weeks ago in this page, and here is the source that confirms it. However we understand that Azerbaijan doesn't agree with this, hence the dispute--Sataralynd (talk) 03:28, 1 November 2020 (UTC) — Sataralynd (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Sataralynd (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. tells us a lot. Where is the POV pushing when UN mentions this? Beshogur (talk) 22:26, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Both Armenia and Azerbaijan have committed ethnic cleansing against each other. NKAO alone was populated by an Armenian majority, but not the occupied raions around it.--Geysirhead (talk) 10:06, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But seems that no one disputes that the raions outside of NK had non-Armenian majority. What is being voted here, from what I can understand, is not only calling these raions as occupied but also NK itself (that always had Armenian majority). Hemşinli çocuk 15:54, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
NK itself would never be able to occupy so much territory. It is an Armenian de facto protectorate Artsakh, which occupies Azeri territory. Artsakh is not NK.--Geysirhead (talk) 20:10, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"The Armenian victory led to the emergence of Nagorno-Karabakh as an Armenian protectorate" https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14751798.2014.894297 --Geysirhead (talk) 20:22, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Finally, in the case of Armenia, the de facto state of Nagorno-Karabakh, which remains under Armenian protectorate, significantly reduces the government's political autonomy, making it especially vulnerable to Russian pressure" https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-658-26446-8_4 --Geysirhead (talk) 20:22, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Azerbaijani fighters downed the craft 12 November during joint exercises between the Armenian military and forces of the region, a de facto Armenian protectorate although internationally recognized as Azerbaijani territory" https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=455628 --Geysirhead (talk) 20:22, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Ruben Melikyan, a former human rights ombudsman of the Armenian protectorate of Nagorno-Karabakh who is now supporting the far-right activists, initially said his client had also been detained on weapons charges, but when Danielyan was released he said the charges were drug-related." https://eurasianet.org/several-leaders-of-armenias-far-right-detained --Geysirhead (talk) 20:22, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"The hilly, landlocked stretch of land has been ruled as an Armenian protectorate since an early 1990s war, which left some 30,000 dead, even though it is internationally recognised as part of Azerbaijan." https://www.independent.co.uk/independentpremium/world/armenia-azerbaijan-war-conflict-b863585.html --Geysirhead (talk) 20:22, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"All three countries canceled school for at least a week, as did the Armenian protectorate of Nagorno-Karabakh." https://www.afghanistannews.net/news/264192812/caucasus-shuts-doors-after-coronavirus-hits --Geysirhead (talk) 20:22, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"The public movement, started in 1988, aimed to restore the Armenian protectorate over the autonomous republic of Nagornyi Karabakh, which was made a part of the Soviet Republic of Azerbaijan ..." https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/the-armenian-intelligentsia-today-discourses-of-self-identification-and-self-perception/viewer --Geysirhead (talk) 20:22, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"President Ilham Aliyev and military officials openly link the arms buildup to the unresolved dispute over the Nagorno-Karabakh region, which nominally belongs to Azerbaijan but has been an Armenian protectorate in all but name since its ethnic Armenian population fought to ..." https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=164301 --Geysirhead (talk) 20:22, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Let me remind you, that this discussion follows what was said here.
The request was initiated by the same user, and you even commented there. The title says it, the territories surrounding NK. So what was discussed initially, seems to have been about the territories surrounding NK. But this discussion took a diverging course here, by becoming a vote to decide to indiscriminately call all territories as occupied, including NK. While there is definitely a differences between NK and the surrounding territories, and there is even an article here to prove that. And they are definitely different according to the Madrid principles.
Your search results are meaningless in this context, because all what those results mean is that this expression is used by some scholars, like other wordings or expressions. But is this sufficient to superimpose your preferred terms to draw your conclusion, by discarding other materials that are far from being mere fringes? Hemşinli çocuk 22:12, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You confuse NK with NKR aka Artsakh, which an Armenian client state, precisely a defacto protectorate, on occupied territories. It did not break away by itself. It was broken away by Armenia.--Geysirhead (talk) 06:10, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Check the UN resolutions, it asks Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh to redraw from recently (on 1993) occupied regions. Asking the Government of Armenia to use its influence to achieve compliance by the Armenians of the Nagorny Karabakh. Protectorate, client state, or any other terms, are opinions. But this does not change that NKR and Armenia are two different entities. NKR has its parliament, its constitution, its laws, its government... It is it, that after a referendum declared its independence. If NKR occupies what is outside NK is a different question than NKR occupying NK. Hemşinli çocuk 15:28, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Check, what you just wrote! Asking the Government of Armenia to use its influence to achieve compliance by the Armenians of the Nagorny Karabakh Armenia can influence the dissolution of Artsakh? The "independent sovereign" nation Artsakh can be influenced by Armenia into dissolution as according to UN? UN makes surely no secret of Artsakh's client state status.--Geysirhead (talk) 16:28, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am fully disclosing the whole sentence, without removing anything here. On the other hand, your arguments seems to be lacking consistency. The same terms were used by several governments asking Turkey to use its influence to convince Azerbaijan to stop its offensive in the current conflict. Does that mean that those countries are also making surely no secret of Azerbaijan client state status? Hemşinli çocuk 16:54, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"convince Azerbaijan to stop its offensive" is different to "achieve compliance by the Armenians of the Nagorny Karabakh". Turkey is a regional power and might seal a deal with Azerbaijan about a stop of offensive. But the compliance of Armenians means the dissolution of Artsakh. Legally that would mean that Artsakh disappears and Amenians of NK get Azerbaijani passports (if they can provide Azerbaijani birth certificates). UN does not tell Armenians of Artsakh to evacuate. It is not an eviction. Then Azeribaijni (actually mostly ethnical kurds, see Red Kurdistan) internally displaced persons can return and everybody lives in peace.--Geysirhead (talk) 08:59, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As of Russians in the Baltic states, birth certificates of pre-occupational origin might be the core requirement for citizenship and the post-occupational born persons will be declared as foreigners, who have to integrate in order to acquire citizenship. UN resolutions and all other international laws and practices do not order any deportations of Armenians.--Geysirhead (talk) 09:13, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This was actually the most plausible interpretation of UN resolutions regarding Artsakh, especially the wording "occupied" in the context of the accepted real case of Russians in the Baltic states. Both the UN (Wartime_sexual_violence#Rape_in_contemporary_peace_operations_by_UN_peacekeepers e.g.) and the behaviour of the Baltic states towards the native born Russians are matters for harsh critisism. --Geysirhead (talk) 09:33, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTFORUM. Beshogur (talk) 23:57, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that this is not a "single purpose account", in the sense that I would be only interested about editing articles conserning Nagorno-Karabakh. I mostly make edits with a (dynamic) IP and this account exists just in order to participate in a longer discussion without the IP constantly changing. VZkN9 (talk) 20:48, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close This is a poorly formulated and unconstructive RfC that has no clear rationale or application. The two words in question, "disputed" and "occupied", are not interchangeable. They are different adjectives that have different meanings and different uses. Their appropriateness and usefulness cannot be determined outside of the context of their use, and this will differ between different uses, making this RfC ludicrously vague. For a comparison, an RfC asking whether elephants should be called "grey" or "heavy" would be similarly effective. Upon closing in favour of heavy, the RfC could then be used as a cudgel to eliminate any mention of being grey. Alternatively, simple changes to sentence structure could make it entirely moot. This RfC should be closed as entirely inoperable. CMD (talk) 03:05, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Chipmunkdavis:, I took this to dispute resolution noticeboard, was not solved. What else do you propose? Beshogur (talk) 13:04, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That would depend on what the dispute actually is, which is unclear from this RfC. I suspect DRN would have a similarly hard time if the dispute was presented in the same way. If the issue is not really defined, a discussion to figure out the actual issue would be useful. If it is, better formulated dispute resolution procedures may be a way forward. CMD (talk) 01:30, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

@Rosguill:, I suppose this isn't going to solve anything. Should I open a dispute resolution? Beshogur (talk) 15:02, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Beshogur, given the relative simplicity of the question and the number of editors who have given an opinion already, an RfC is probably more appropriate. signed, Rosguill talk 17:34, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: administrators, be careful about one purpose accounts here, and please consider the result of dispute based on arguments, reliable sources and what third parties refer to. This is not an election. Beshogur (talk) 13:39, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosguill:, there are lot of new users came in October only editing here and other related articles. Do you think these opinions should be taken seriously? Beshogur (talk) 22:27, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Beshogur, that's up to the closer. This is neither the first nor last time that an RfC has attracted the attention of POV-pushers. signed, Rosguill talk 03:21, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosguill:, the only account we can ask if it is single purpose or not is @VZkN9:, who opened this thread. And, Artsakh/ Nagorno Karabakh is a self-proclaimed Republic, why push Azeri and Turkish-pro POVs to be the voice of Wikipedia. --E badalyan (talk) 11:09, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@E badalyan:, it is me who opened this thread. Another new user made the request, then the topics were merged. Don't accuse me of that nonsense. Beshogur (talk) 11:11, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AGF, @Beshogur:, I didn't see your name in the request "RfC: Disputed or Occupied", only @VZkN9:'s. Plus, calling Nagorno-Karabakh occupied is pushing the Azeri POV. We can only debate its use while speaking about the seven districts surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh, but not Nagorno-Karabakh itself as it is a self-proclaimed republic. --E badalyan (talk) 16:14, 6 November 2020 (UTC) — E badalyan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Note: When I started this RfC, I followed the instructions here and added only the date and not a signature. "Sign the statement with either ~~~~ (name, time and date) or ~~~~~ (just the time and date)". A signature has been added later by another user, and I have now reverted it to the original as I believe that I followed instructions correctly. Feel free to change it back if it truly violates some policy. VZkN9 (talk) 22:35, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi VZkN9, I presume the guidance is for situations where it's clear from the context which editor has opened the RfC. I signed your original statement for you as I thought you'd made a mistake. While I appreciate you were following the RfC instructions, it's more helpful for other editors to see who was responsible and I've not seen an RfC opened with ~~~~~ before myself. I didn't add the SPA (single-purpose account) tag to your signature when you opened the RfC, but I did add it where you weighed in with your view below, in order to help the editor who closes the RfC gauge the responses. (Although, given the concerns CMD raised, it's possible this RfC will be closed prematurely). Jr8825 • Talk 08:22, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://undocs.org/en/A/RES/62/243
  2. ^ https://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/Xref-XML2HTML-EN.asp?fileid=22429&lang=en
  3. ^ https://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/Xref-XML2HTML-EN.asp?fileid=22429&lang=en

CuriousGolden edit (removal of the bulk of human rights organizations reactions and artificial equalisations of the reactions)

@CuriousGolden: you removed the sheer bulk of human rights organizations reactions: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2020_Nagorno-Karabakh_conflict&type=revision&diff=986012184&oldid=986005851 You specifically removed all the parts that were specifically cricitising Azerbaijan's actions. You justified your edit as "per consensus" although there was no such consensus in this page or WP:RSN page. You removed the international association of genocide scholars' statement without justification (or caring for consensus). Oblige us all, explain the purpose of these edit, to avoid going into edit / revert cycle. CuriousGolden edit (removal of the bulk of human rights organizations reactions). Regards, Armatura (talk) 13:09, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Firstly, the consensus was on what Rosguill said: "Human rights groups have called for an end to the conflict and objected to the targeting of civilians and the use of cluster munitions. Amnesty International has criticized both Armenia and Azerbaijan [cite], and Human Rights Watch has criticized just Azerbaijan on these grounds [cite]. Genocide Watch has described the situation as a 'genocide emergency' for Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh, citing attacks on civilians, denial of the Armenian Genocide, and denial of return for Armenian refugees to Azerbaijan as risk factors leading to their assessment [cite]". You went on to go in detail about the Azeri parts of each report, giving them WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. Descriptions of the reports need to be short and precise, especially in an article that's way too long already. Secondly, a WP:CONSENSUS was not reached on IAGS open letter discussion. Don't add things without coming to a consensus. — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 13:15, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think CuriousGolden is mostly justified with his argument as that section was pretty bias because of WP:UNDUEWEIGHT, but I think the content itself was okay, and it would have been better to just balance it out with expansion of both sides crimes. Also on the IAGS thing, I think since IAGS is a notable third party it could be put in the reactions category. FlalfTalk 15:02, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think a consensus for much of anything has been established yet: there was a deadlock over the original wording, I proposed what I think is better, more neutral wording; there was no actual consensus established for what I suggested, as it hadn't really been discussed. Armatura's interpretation was a WP:BOLD edit the further expanded my original suggestion. The claims in that paragraph that I checked are verifiable, but it does seem like the emphasis in that paragraph is more skewed than in the cited sources, particularly the Amnesty International coverage, so objections on the basis of WP:DUE are valid. Clearly more discussion is needed to come to a workable solution. signed, Rosguill talk 15:20, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rosguill, Flalf Thanks, please see below

Polishing the text of humanitarian organisations reactions

Ok, everybody who was interested in this subject, here is the text on Humanitarian organizations subsection that was reverted. It includes 4 essential parts - Amnesty international, Human rights watch, Genocide Watch and International Association of Genocide Scholars. Genocide Watch has extensive discussion on this talk page, along with suggestions for adding Amnesty international and Human rights watch, IAGS has a discussion, too, with the prevailing opinion that it should be included. There may have been reactions from other organizations, or new reports from the same organizations in these two days, if you are aware of any please suggest. If you think that somehow the details of cluster munition belong to another subsection please suggest which one.Armatura (talk) 01:10, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Version 1.0
Human rights groups have called for an end to the conflict. Amnesty International called Armenia and Azerbaijan to immediately stop the use of heavy explosive weapons with wide-area effects in densely populated civilian areas, and join the Convention on Cluster Munitions. Amnesty International has previously warned against the use of banned cluster bombs, after its experts found that Azerbaijan had likely used the weapons in the region, yet Amnesty International has been unable to verify Azerbaijan’s allegations of the use of cluster munitions by the Armenian side [1]. They were able to identify Israeli-made M095 DPICM cluster munitions in residential areas of Stepanakert that appear to have been fired by Azerbaijani forces. While they have verified that 300mm Smerch rocket artillery systems do appear to have been used by Armenian forces, the photographic and video evidence available from the Azerbaijani side does not yet allow for conclusive analysis of its specific targets, nor whether the rocket warheads contained cluster munitions. [2]. Human Rights Watch also urged both sides to join Convention on Cluster Munitions. They criticized Azerbaijan for repeatedly using cluster munitions in residential areas in Nagorno-Karabakh, documenting four such incidents, without being able to identify any military equipment or bases in the three neighbourhoods where the attacks took place. [3]. Genocide Watch has described the situation as a 'genocide emergency' for Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh, citing Azerbaijan’s current targeting of civilians in Nagorno-Karabakh, denial of past genocide against Armenians, and its official use of hate speech as factors leading to their assessment [4] [5] [6] International Association of Genocide Scholars issued an open letter, considering the air raids conducted by the Azerbaijani military on Shushi Holy Savior Cathedral as a part of policy of the cultural genocide, blaming Azerbaijani government in systematic destruction of the Armenian historical heritage” [7].Armatura (talk) 00:03, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Version 2.0 modified per Rosguill's very helpful suggestions which were supported by Sataralynd.
Human rights groups have called for an end to the conflict and objected to the use of heavy explosive weapons with wide-area effects in densely populated civilian areas and urged both sides to join the Convention on Cluster Munitions. [8] [9] Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have criticized Azerbaijan for its use of cluster munitions.[10] [11] [12] Genocide Watch has described the situation as a 'genocide emergency' for Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh, citing Azerbaijan’s current targeting of civilians in Nagorno-Karabakh, denial of past genocide against Armenians, and its official use of hate speech as factors leading to their assessment [13][14][15] International Association of Genocide Scholars issued an open letter, considering the air raids conducted by the Azerbaijani military on Shushi Holy Savior Cathedral as a part of policy of the cultural genocide, blaming Azerbaijani government in systematic destruction of the Armenian historical heritage”[16]. Armatura (talk) 00:03, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Version 3.0 with Sataralynd's suggestions, now that AI published cluster munition confirmation by Armenia, now ADDED to the article
Human rights groups have objected to the use of heavy explosive weapons with wide-area effects in densely populated civilian areas and urged both sides to end the conflict and join the Convention on Cluster Munitions. [17] [18] Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have criticized Azerbaijan[19] [20] [21] and Armenia [22] for the use of cluster munitions. Genocide Watch has described the situation as a 'genocide emergency' for Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh, citing Azerbaijan’s current targeting of civilians in Nagorno-Karabakh, denial of past genocide against Armenians, and its official use of hate speech as factors leading to their assessment [23][24][25] International Association of Genocide Scholars issued an open letter, considering the air raids conducted by the Azerbaijani military on Shushi Holy Savior Cathedral as a part of policy of the cultural genocide, blaming Azerbaijani government in systematic destruction of the Armenian historical heritage”[26]. Armatura (talk) 02:08, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Thanks @Armatura:--Sataralynd (talk) 02:10, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose Rosguill, CuriousGolden and Flalf IAGS letter doesn't refer to reliable source. I checked IAGS site and was not able to find any relevant publication or news regarding what is claiming "cultural genocide". I am not refusing the fact that someone could draft the letter but if it is not officially published in the site, can we call it a valid reference, which refers to voltairenet.org ? GenocideWatch is also not reliable source to refer to claim that there is a potential fact of Genocide as the paper they have published is one sided, doesn't describe whole story and trying to show events that were causes to victimize Armenians. As I mentioned before the term of "genocide" or any claim needs to be properly justified not through 1 paper statement. Hence, inclusion of this information is not necessary and creates questions about objectivity of the article. Imagine person who has no background information about the conflict reads the article, which automatically drives conclusion that Azerbaijanians doing genocide. We must avoid such POVs that effects the objectivity and informativity of the content . I think previous decision by Rosguill was right to completely remove this part. Mirhasanov (talk) 06:20, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose the inclusion of Voltaire net, which is definitely not a RS, and I cannot confirm that IAGS actually published this letter. (t · c) buidhe 06:56, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose per the reasons given by other users.--Ahmetlii (talk) 08:26, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose Initially leaned toward support, but I had not checked the website, which is a deprecated source. I may be inclined to support it's inclusion in the future if another third party source brings this up. FlalfTalk 12:44, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Thanks all for your comments, I removed the sentence on IAGS letter ("International Association of Genocide Scholars issued an open letter, considering the air raids conducted by the Azerbaijani military on Shushi Holy Savior Cathedral as a part of policy of the cultural genocide, blaming Azerbaijani government in systematic destruction of the Armenian historical heritage”.") until a non-deprecated source becomes available: @Mirhasanov: Genocide Watch has already been extensively discussed in this talk page earlier and at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Genocide_Watch:_Unreliable_source? with a consensus reached. Armatura (talk) 15:19, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Armatura (talk) unfortunately I was not invited to participate in this discussion. GW may be reliable source but the main point here was their statement. The statement itself is completely one sided. I write an email to Genocide Watch to help me understand the basis of the statement they used to drive the conclusion but they never answered me. @Rosguill: may people here still believes that the information that refers to GW about genocide claims is bias. Please just read the stages :

Classification: Muslim Turkic Azerbaijani “us” vs. Armenian Christian “them.” - The current conflict doesn't have any religious basis and all organizations accept that it is ethnic conflict. The classification itself is not right from the beginning.

Symbolization: Artsakh Armenians have Armenian names (ID cards, passports), language, dress, churches. - This is not true. They may have Armenian names but holding Armenian ID cards and passports is illegal and all of them officially considered to be citizens of Azerbaijan.

Discrimination: Armenians were massacred, forcibly expelled, and now excluded from Azerbaijan. - Both sides conducted same crimes in a period of 1980-1994. Can the independent body say that it is one sided?

Dehumanization: Armenians are called “terrorists”, “bandits,” “infidels,” “leftovers of the sword.” - Well I simply want to refer to this link in order to answer the question https://www.jstor.org/stable/40395543?seq=1 Published by Royal Institute of International Affairs or https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9780230118874_3. Can bring more references.

Organization: Azerbaijan gets drones, and arms from Turkey, Russia, Israel. Turkish Air Force supports Azerbaijani attack on Artsakh. - ???? Is it logical???

Polarization: President Ilham Aliyev and social media use anti-Armenian hate speech. - Isn't armenia does that?

Preparation: 67,000 Azerbaijani troops invaded Artsakh; Aliyev wants “liberation” of “occupied” territory. - Firstly, The GW itself reject international rules by referring the area as Artsakh and calling it as invasion. Non of the international community called it invasion.

Persecution: Armenians in Artsakh live in bomb shelters due to Azerbaijani shelling. Thousands of civilians have fled Artsakh - What happened in Barda and Ganja is not same?

Extermination: Genocidal massacres of Armenians in Azerbaijan in 1918 killed over 23,000 Armenians. Massacres resumed in 1988. Armenians fled from Azerbaijan. Azerbaijani atrocities against Armenians are officially rewarded. - What about genocide of Azerbaijanis March Days which happened before September days?

Denial: Aliyev and Azerbaijan officially deny the Armenian Genocide during the Ottoman Empire. They deny current atrocities. - Only 32 countries accepted so called "Armenian Genocide". Shall we also mark these countries as well? The "Armenian Genocide" term itself is still disputed as Armenians rejects to create common investigation bodies with Turkish officials to investigate what happened on those days. It as multiple times offered by turkish officials and free access to Armenians to Ottoman Archives were guaranteed.

@Rosguill: Again I would like to reiterate that GW may be reliable source to refer but what they mentioned here clearly shows that they haven't done enough research and this 10 stage is not justified properly. Shall we still refer that?

Mirhasanov (talk) 06:29, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2020/10/armenia-azerbaijan-use-of-artillery-salvos-and-ballistic-missiles-in-populated-areas-must-stop-immediately
  2. ^ https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2020/10/armenia-azerbaijan-civilians-must-be-protected-from-use-of-banned-cluster-bombs
  3. ^ https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/10/23/azerbaijan-cluster-munitions-used-nagorno-karabakh
  4. ^ https://www.genocidewatch.com/single-post/genocide-emergency-azerbaijan-s-attack-in-artsakh
  5. ^ https://www.itv.com/news/2020-10-27/they-want-to-end-us-syrian-armenian-refugees-in-karabakh-facing-destruction-again
  6. ^ https://sicurezzainternazionale.luiss.it/2020/10/27/genocide-watch-allonu-fermate-lazerbaigian/
  7. ^ https://www.voltairenet.org/article211404.html
  8. ^ https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2020/10/armenia-azerbaijan-use-of-artillery-salvos-and-ballistic-missiles-in-populated-areas-must-stop-immediately
  9. ^ https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/09/30/armenia/azerbaijan-dont-attack-civilians
  10. ^ https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2020/10/armenia-azerbaijan-use-of-artillery-salvos-and-ballistic-missiles-in-populated-areas-must-stop-immediately
  11. ^ https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2020/10/armenia-azerbaijan-civilians-must-be-protected-from-use-of-banned-cluster-bombs
  12. ^ https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/10/23/azerbaijan-cluster-munitions-used-nagorno-karabakh
  13. ^ https://www.genocidewatch.com/single-post/genocide-emergency-azerbaijan-s-attack-in-artsakh
  14. ^ https://www.itv.com/news/2020-10-27/they-want-to-end-us-syrian-armenian-refugees-in-karabakh-facing-destruction-again
  15. ^ https://sicurezzainternazionale.luiss.it/2020/10/27/genocide-watch-allonu-fermate-lazerbaigian
  16. ^ https://www.voltairenet.org/article211404.html
  17. ^ https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2020/10/armenia-azerbaijan-use-of-artillery-salvos-and-ballistic-missiles-in-populated-areas-must-stop-immediately
  18. ^ https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/09/30/armenia/azerbaijan-dont-attack-civilians
  19. ^ https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2020/10/armenia-azerbaijan-use-of-artillery-salvos-and-ballistic-missiles-in-populated-areas-must-stop-immediately
  20. ^ https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2020/10/armenia-azerbaijan-civilians-must-be-protected-from-use-of-banned-cluster-bombs
  21. ^ https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/10/23/azerbaijan-cluster-munitions-used-nagorno-karabakh
  22. ^ https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2020/10/armenia-azerbaijan-first-confirmed-use-of-cluster-munitions-by-armenia-cruel-and-reckless/
  23. ^ https://www.genocidewatch.com/single-post/genocide-emergency-azerbaijan-s-attack-in-artsakh
  24. ^ https://www.itv.com/news/2020-10-27/they-want-to-end-us-syrian-armenian-refugees-in-karabakh-facing-destruction-again
  25. ^ https://sicurezzainternazionale.luiss.it/2020/10/27/genocide-watch-allonu-fermate-lazerbaigian
  26. ^ https://www.voltairenet.org/article211404.html

@Mirhasanov, GW reference on Azerbaijan committing genocide in Artsakh was discussed and agreed on by concensus on this talk page and WP:RSN. Persistently and indiscriminately trying to remove parts of this article that criticize Azerbaijan is not "neutral view" and "keeping the article unbiased" but the contrary, and advancing agendas is not welcome in Wikipedia. Armatura (talk) 20:42, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Armatura: GW consensu was not reached yet as the reliability of this source is still questionable. As per your comment here[1] you have mentioned that GW issued a statement confirming that IAGS issued an official letter about Azerbaijan conducting "cultural genocide". However, I officially got an confirmation from the IAGS that no such statement was made. It proves the fact that GW is not acting as independent part specifically in topic considering to "Nagorno-Karabakh". The deletion of the information from the link that you have provided https://www.genocidewatch.com/single-post/statement-of-genocide-scholars-on-the-%C4%B1mm%C4%B1nent-genocidal-threat-%C4%B1n-artsakh again proves that the organization is still a hoax. Moreover, the chairman of this organization is well known by his pro-Armenian and anti-Turkish sentiment. Mirhasanov (talk) 05:15, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill: Could you please advise what will be the right way. I personally doubt that GW is independent and there are a lot of sections in Talk page regarding to this even though it released another statement against Armenia. However, it looks like throwing dust in eyes. Mirhasanov (talk) 15:14, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mirhasanov, I'm starting to get tired of you pinging me to every little issue on this page, particularly ones like this where it's not clear what you are even expecting me to do. Armatura has made a few proposals, and it looks like from discussion in this section that none of them have won consensus yet. The article includes a less detailed paragraph that people generally seem to agree with. The ball is currently in the court of whoever wants to propose a more detailed version or argue for its inclusion. signed, Rosguill talk 18:24, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rosguill Sorry for that. The only reason why I continuously involve you into the discussion is because your health & fair approach to the dispute. Unfortunately, I don't have an access to create content and publish in this page. I would be very glad, if you could include me to the list of editors.Mirhasanov (talk) 09:30, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mirhasanov, regarding the request to be added to a list of users that can edit the page, that's not how this works. The page is currently extended-confirmed protected, so that only editors with at least 500 edits and 1 month since their account creation can edit. Once you pass those thresholds, you'll automatically be allowed to edit. While technically as an admin I can confer EC status to editors early, in practice that's only ever done for editors who had EC on a different account and who are opening a second account for a valid reason. signed, Rosguill talk 18:09, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

improper quotes

Under minorities abroad there is :

Amid tensions among protesters over Nagorno-Karabakh, dozens of Turks and Azeris marched through the streets of Lyon, France on on 28th October 2020 and chanted pro-Erdogan slogans while threatening Armenians. Some of their chants included "Allah Akbar", “Where are you Armenians? Where are you? We are here… sons of bitches”, and "fuck Armenia, we will fuck you."[

I believe these quotes serves no purpose, if you agree, could someone please remove.

Unsigned user, there is already a discussion about that march in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2020_Nagorno-Karabakh_conflict#About_Lyon Regards, Armatura (talk) 19:47, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Now that the above discussion is closed, i am bringing my point again as it asn't been adressed. I beleive the quotes from the protesters serve no purpose here and are innapropriate to the tone of the article. (sorry for not signing or improper formating, first time getting involved in wikipedia and i am not really understanding the formating part yet) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:4F00:903:A202:4CE2:958D:BDB0:23CB (talk) 16:11, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No worries about signature, just put four ~ symbols side by side at the end of your messages. I'd encourage to get registered and to log in as well. As for those phrases, the behaviour of the mob was improper, not the citation. Regards Armatura (talk) 17:54, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More on Genocide Watch

Genocide Watch, which was cited in the article, says that Armenia is at Stage 8, Persecution, and Stage 10, Denial. It cites The First Armenian Republic's discriminatory policies against non-Armenians, namely Muslim Azerbaijanis and Kurds, who were systematically expelled. Also, it mentions the Armenian Dashnaks massacring Azerbaijani and Kurdish people and burned villages from 1918 to 1921. In addition, in March 1918, Armenians and their Bolshevik allies killed over 10,000 Azerbaijanis in Baku, during the "March Days" in Azerbaijan. Genocide Watch then mentions the fact that from 1947-1953, the Armenian Soviet Socialist Republic carried out a policy of ‘ethnic homogenization' by deporting Kurds and Azerbaijanis from Armenian territory. Over 40,000 Azerbaijanis were expelled to the Azerbaijan Soviet Socialist Republic. "Armenianization" depopulated and renamed abandoned Azerbaijani villages, towns, and cultural landmarks. Out of a population of 180,000 in 1989, only a handful of ethnic Azerbaijanis are still living in Armenia. The organization then continues to the late 1980s, stating that from 1988 to 1994, over 600,000 ethnic Azerbaijani and Kurdish civilians fled Artsakh. These people now live as internally displaced people in squalid camps throughout A­­­­zerbaijan. Another interesting quote is this: During the Artsakh war of independence from 1988-1994, Armenian forces frequently executed Azerbaijani civilians and looted their property. The worst instance of violence against the Azerbaijanis occurred in Khojaly when Armenian forces shot hundreds of Azerbaijan civilians fleeing from their destroyed village in 1992. It also stated that the current Armenian and Artsakh governments deny involvement in past crimes against Azerbaijanis and erase their history from Armenian textbooks. Armenian and Artsakh authorities deny Azerbaijani IDP's the right to return to their former homes and villages. Artsakh artillery targets Azerbaijani civilians living along the "Line of Contact" between Nagorno-Karabakh and Azerbaijan. It also says that Armenia denies Khojaly massacre and other crimes against Azerbaijanis, and is currently shelling Azerbaijani civilians.

This is noteworthy addition for the sake of neutrality. Here's the link for the article. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 20:10, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Beshogur, may you look at this? --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 20:12, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps as background info. Only the section about first war. Beshogur (talk) 20:19, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Beshogur, there's a slight chance that you've misunderstood me. See this section. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 20:37, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, understood. Done. Beshogur (talk) 22:26, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict#UN resolutions

Beshogur May I know why you added UN resolutions to the Background? There have been lots of documents and resolutions during this conflict. Why specifically this one? Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 20:39, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know other resolutions besides these five. If you know more, feel free to add. Or I didn't understood what you mean. If you can elaborate. Beshogur (talk) 20:41, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) Thanks for raising it up. Could you please give other references as well? Mirhasanov (talk) 17:16, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The reference to the UN document is abused in several ways. 1) It is not a Security Council Resolution. It is a General Assembly resolution (read the title). 2) It should be mentioned that all permanent Security Council members which also form the Minsk Group voted against it (USA, Russia, France). 3) It should be emphasized that this General Assembly document calls for withdrawal only from surrounding territories not from NK itself. This should be mentioned. Spinosaurus5 (talk) 16:11, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Four Security Council resolutions adopted in 1993 demanded the immediate withdrawal of the occupying forces from Azerbaijan.[2] Beshogur (talk) 17:15, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2020_Nagorno-Karabakh_war#IAGS_open_letter
  2. ^ [1]
Beshogur, yes really. Can you read the title of the document? Do you understand the difference between Security Council and General assembly? Spinosaurus5 (talk) 05:28, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that the General Assembly was corrected what about the other points I made? These resolutions call for withdrawal only from the occupied territories and not from the NK itself. Why this is not explicitly mentioned? Spinosaurus5 (talk) 18:49, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I second the request from @Spinosaurus5:. Just read the linked wikipedia page of the resolution.


Further, reading the text in the article now, one gets the impression that the UN is 100% supportive of this war of "liberation" that Azerbaijan has been waging. However, the referenced source from the UN mentions as well the following:

The Government of Azerbaijan had forfeited its right to govern people it considered its own citizens when it had unleashed a war against them 20 years ago. Armenians would not return to such a situation. Just as victims of domestic violence were not forced back into the custody of the abuser, the people of Nagorno Karabagh would not be forced back into the custody of a Government that sanctioned pogroms against them, and later sent its army against them.

Therefore, I would suggest to amend the phrase:
The United Nations Security Council adopted four resolutions in 1993, and the United Nations General Assembly adopted one resolution in 2008, demanding the immediate, complete and unconditional withdrawal of Armenian occupying forces.
to

The United Nations Security Council adopted four resolutions in 1993, and the United Nations General Assembly adopted one resolution in 2008, demanding the immediate, complete and unconditional withdrawal of ethnic Armenian forces from Azerbaijani territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh. It also reaffirmed the right of the people of Nagorno-Karabakh to self-determination, and confirmed that the "people of Nagorno Karabagh would not be forced back into the custody of a Government that sanctioned pogroms against them, and later sent its army against them"--Sataralynd (talk) 05:55, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The quotes above are not from the UN itself, but a paraphrase of the Armenian delegate. To suggest it is an official stance from the UN is quite dishonest. Kaiser matias (talk) 06:41, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Kaiser matias, the thing is the none of these documents calls for the withdrawal from NK and the suggested quote is much closer to reality that the current version on the main page. If you disagree with the suggested quote then you can suggest your version but it should mention the fact that there was no call for withdrawal from NK. 2003:CB:B710:2000:99B8:5FB0:79FB:BFB5 (talk) 08:02, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kaiser matias: you are right, I just realized it. Please WP:GOODFAITH. Strikethrough added--Sataralynd (talk) 16:00, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sataralynd: All good, and I certainly didn't bring it up to be accusatory. Mentioning the UN view of things is good, but it should be specific remarks from either resolutions or officials acting in their capacity with the UN. Kaiser matias (talk) 17:34, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Kaiser matias: Thanks for catch !Mirhasanov (talk) 15:08, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Kaiser matias, current version is written as if Armenians should withdraw from NK. However, there is no such statement in any of these documents. If you do not agree with the language of the suggested statement then you should edit it in a way that reflects these fact. If you have no suggestions then you should delete that sentence completely. What are your incentives of keeping that sentence if it wrongly reflects the content of the UN documents?Spinosaurus5 (talk) 20:02, 7 November 2020 (UTC) — Spinosaurus5 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

genocide watch

That website has been taken over by suspicious company called perfect privacy llc. No legitimate info is indicated on that website. check the whois database 1elvinn (talk) 06:31, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's because they are using LLC that act as the registrant on their behalf. This way Genocide Watch doesn't have to publicly provide to WHOIS any information like name, address,... Hemşinli çocuk 07:14, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Why would they hide that information, any ideas? Armatura (talk) 13:33, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I guess for protection against vendetta (for accusation of genocide). Hemşinli çocuk 15:59, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gents could you please find more information about authors Nathaniel Hill & Gregory Stanton. I found that Gregory Stanton has very close connection with Armenian Assembly of America and gave frequent lectures there[1]. He is known with its anti-Turkish sentiments [2]. The neutrality of this person is questionable. Mirhasanov (talk) 17:39, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My worst again proved with recent issue of GW [3] alert about Azerbaijanis. This time name of Gregory Stanton is missing from the report and the alert produced only by Nathaniel Hill . Mirhasanov (talk) 18:52, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Every scholar has a bias of some sort. Full disclosure is what matters. If you scroll down genocidewatch page, you will notice that ANCA is one of the included associations. It is not as if there was no disclosure here. But ANCA relation with Armenia is unidirectional, from ANCA toward Armenia, not the other way around. As such, ANCA is like any other American organization, being funded solely by American citizens. It is true that this second alert has only Nathaniel Hill, but if you visit his profile, he is apparently a new member, and has added no info about himself (I also did not find anything about him in search engines), has no followers, no one following him... And on blog post, we find only one entry, that second warning you talk about. Not much different for the first warning, that was posted under an account containing both names that has also only one post, the first warning. So appears he may be a new member that coautored the first warning, and then under his own initiative posted the second one. You don't have to use questionable sites like tallarmeniantale to make your point. There are articles on the site posted by Thomas De Wall, better choice to use as reference. Hemşinli çocuk 21:11, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mirhasanov, check the staff section under Nat Hill, there is more info about him. Hemşinli çocuk 00:42, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The alert is co-authored by Gregory Stanton. Also isn't it a bit nitpicky to base whether a source is reliable on a co-author? It doesn't always have to be an award winning author to write for NGOs especially considering a lot of these are run by volunteers (not sure in this case.) FlalfTalk 17:19, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Genocidewatch 2

This website is being controlled by unknown entities, filled with disinformation. Citing this website as a source in this article is not neutral, and biased information should not be here on Wikipedia.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 1elvinn (talk • contribs) 16:13, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@1elvinn:Looked into genocidewatch's website and did some googling and it appears to be a reliable source, it also has ties to other notable NGO's. FlalfTalk 16:42, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are you an Armenian or what? Those websites are filled with fake information. I'm not suggesting you to read Azerbaijani sources, but look for the international media such as NYTimes, Washington Post, Reuters etc.

@1elvinn: I'm not armenian, not that there would be a problem if I was. Also provide examples of this fake information, I've looked through the website, I have not found this fake news. FlalfTalk 17:01, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Asking the editor to reveal their nationality, especially in a topic about about a conflict involving that nationality, is not something that is encouraged in Wikipedia. Behaviour will be reported to admins if continues. Best regards. Armatura (talk) 17:04, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at this, multiple Gregory Stanton accounts on the Genocidewatch website. There is the original and presumably only real "Gregory Stanton" whose account was created on Dec 23 2019 and has 55 blog posts to his name [35], plus a "Gregory H. Stanton", joined Oct 24, 2020 and with just one blog post to date [36], and a "Nathanial Hill & Gregory Stanton", joined Oct 23 2020, and with just one blog post to their names [37], and another "Gregory Stanton", joined Oct 29 2020 and with just one blog post to his name [38]. Or has Mr Stanton suddenly, this October and this October only, forgot his account details on multiple occasions and needed to make new ones? Unlikely, I think! Content on the website cannot be RS if there is uncertainty about authorship. 88.108.77.10 (talk) 21:25, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Supported 88.108.77.10 (talk) I also support your view and other who call GW statement about this conflict as not reliable. Even thought they also released notice that supports Azerbaijanis, they still don't act as 3rd independent body. their the latest statement[4] have the following sentence "When genocide threatens, only the stars can be neutral" which quite unprofessional and they try to cover and justify their biased reporting. @Flalf: can we believe neutrality of volunteers, when they invited by ANCA and other armenian organizations into different events? Mirhasanov (talk) 17:56, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying the organisation's opinions are not RS or quotable in all circumstances, just that there is difficulty in knowing what those opinions are if there are multiple accounts posting articles under the same name. The opinion of Gregory Stanton would seem to be notable, but we first need to know if it really is his opinion. IMO, there has to be a big question mark over all those one article "Gregory Stantons". 88.108.77.10 (talk) 23:25, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE - just checked, and they seem to have ALL GONE! The articles authored by the various one-article Gregory Stanton accounts have been removed from the genocidewatch website. So has one by "Nathanial Hill" that was by himself alone. I don't know if these were "pro-Azerbaijan" or "pro-Armenia" articles or a mix of the two. The conflict is in Genocidewatch's genocide alert page https://www.genocidewatch.com/countries-at-risk and their opinion that Azerbaijan is at stages 9 and 10 has a supporting pdf file https://d0dbb2cb-698c-4513-aa47-eba3a335e06f.filesusr.com/ugd/df1038_7ff879b2434c4307a5b68e29e0049e5e.pdf 88.108.77.10 (talk) 23:39, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://armenian-assembly.org/tag/gregory-stanton/
  2. ^ http://www.tallarmeniantale.com/GS-Stanton.htm
  3. ^ https://www.genocidewatch.com/single-post/genocide-warning-armenia-the-republic-of-artsakh-nagorno-karabakh
  4. ^ https://www.genocidewatch.com/single-post/genocide-watch-statement-on-armenia-artsakh-and-azerbaijan

Three Azeri peace activists called for questioning by SSS in Azerbaijan

Could we add this to Non-military_actions_taken_by_Armenia_and_Azerbaijan under Azerbaijan?

Here are the sources: Amrah Tahmazov: source Narmin Shahmarzade and Giyas Ibrahimov: source and source


Suggest this addition:
By 2nd of November, three peace activists from Azerbaijan have been called to questioning by the Azerbaijan State Security Service, due to their anti-war activism in Azerbaijan --Sataralynd (talk) 16:19, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done Sataralynd. Eurofan88 (talk) 17:15, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Revert Sataralynd please revert it back as oc-media is not in the WP:MBFC list. Don't add anything without discussion and consensus please. Mirhasanov (talk) 17:47, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose the Revert we have said this before WP:MBFC is not an exhaustive list, meaning not all reliable and unreliable sources are listed there. Now if you want to claim OC-Media, which is neither Armenian nor Azerbaijani, meaning a third party website is unreliable, please start a talk on this Noticeboard. Once the unreliability is established and OC-Media is added to WP:MBFC, we remove the above phrase.
Also, if you visited the OC media links that I provided, you would see relinks to these individuals personal accounts where you hear their own words and even posting summons letter from the SSS, making the question whether OC Media is reliable or not, moot!--Sataralynd (talk) 01:40, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sataralynd (talk) No, we didn't state something like this. OC-Media considered to be yellow media/journalism. Hence, referring OC-Media as a reliable source is Opposed. Please find other reliable source in WP:MBFC before adding something. Personal accounts or statements of individuals can't be referred as it is their POV and subjective view to current process. Hence, please remove the text as consensus is not reached. Mirhasanov (talk) 04:40, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mirhasanov: OC-Media is not the issue here. I could have pasted the direct links to these individuals twitter/facebook accounts, and they would still go to the article. See also here three new activists are questioned by the SSS as well. Again if you want to dispute OC-Media itself regardless of the peace activists, open a case on the noticeboard and I'll participate too--Sataralynd (talk) 05:00, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Sataralynd: I understand your enthusiasm but it is against Reliable sources rules to refer social media accounts or user generated contents. Mirhasanov (talk) 05:06, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Mirhasanov: Not sure what you mean by my enthusiasm, nonexistent as it is as we are talking about arrested people just becuase their expressing their anti-war sentiments. I would understand though the ASSS's enthusiasm to keep it under wraps. Now, here is another source listed in WP:RSP on the topic to hopefully close it. Without even having the CSMonitor piece, the news should go in the article because if I may remind you, as per Wikipedia's policy for a source to be considered unreliable, it needs to be proven unreliable by reliable sources and not solely on a personal opinions--Sataralynd (talk) 05:30, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Sataralynd: It doesn't means that if it is not proven as unreliable in by reliable sources automatically makes it reliable. Therefore, we have talk and consensu process advised by wikipedia. Sometimes even sources that are considered by reliable sources can be also bias, hence we need involve all relevant parties, reach an agreement. So far the only source you are proposing is twitter or personal accounts of these people. The link you mentioned interviews Bahruz Samadov (https://oc-media.org/authors/bahruz-samadov), which is writer of OC-Media. Mr. Yunusov has Armenian background and it also mentioned in the article at the bottom. Giyas Ibrahim is well known why his anarchist activities and got jailed once. You can't draw picture that Azerbaijan Security Service jailed someone because their anti-war sentiment by referring these people. Most of these people are member of Soros Open Society Foundations and get funding from there, which prohibited not only in Azerbaijan but countries like Hungary, Russia. Similarly members of today's Armenian government , which are funded by Open Society Foundations. Mirhasanov (talk) 06:56, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mirhasanov: I believe I have said all there was to say on how sources are proven unreliable. Yunusov btw is quoted by both Thomas de Waal and Laurence Broers extensively in their work (see the Notes of The Black Garden), and both authors are hated as much in Armenia as in Azerbaijan. They are however, the go to scholars on this topic, giving me no reason to doubt Yunusov who I don't even know why is relevant to this topic. Your reasoning about the Open Society Foundations being banned in Azerbaijan leading to the removal of this OC-Media piece from the article is far from clear to me--Sataralynd (talk) 02:20, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sataralynd: Yunusov has nothing to do with this topic anyway. I believe that we should close this discussion as references are not independent. Unless, you will find an independent one. Mirhasanov (talk) 15:03, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Mirhasanov: If Yunusov has nothing to do with this, I wonder why you mentioned him. I also believe we should close this discussion with the status quo of the phrase mentioned in the Article, as I said already what I had to say on this topic. If you disagree, or the change gets reverted, I'm happy to take it to dispute resolution and hear what the admins have to say on the topic--Sataralynd (talk) 15:22, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to balance out pictures by removing/adding pics of presidents

For the pictures representing Azerbaijan, excluding maps, 3 of the 6 depict the president of the Republic of Azerbaijan, Ilham Aliyev. To reinforce the Wikipedia guidelines of neutrality and proportionality, it would be helpful to also add at least one picture of the president of the Republic of Artsakh, Arayik Harutyunyan, since there are none at the moment. ----MarioLemieux999 (talk) 02:21, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if one can be found. Regarding image captions, surely things like "Billboards in Yerevan have been displaying footage released by the Armenian Ministry of Defence since the beginning of the conflict" and "A pro-military billboard in Republic Square, Yerevan" and "Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev and Vice-president Mehriban Aliyeva during a meeting with wounded Azerbaijani servicemen." are OR. 88.108.77.10 (talk) 03:34, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ahmetlii:, @Flalf:, @Brandmeister: I suggest keeping just one photo of Aliyev to maintain balance in the article. Also, I suggest replacing other pictures of Aliyev with another neutral ones from Azerbaijan. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 08:50, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Artsakh president Arayik Harutyunyan awarding an Armenian volunteer for capturing a Syrian mercenary on 2 November 2020.[309] - this picture must be deleted as there is no consensus about this and the source is from armenian site. @Beshogur:Mirhasanov (talk) 17:36, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Humanitarian organizations

GW has described that current Armenian and Artsakh governments erase their history from Armenian textbooks, preventing Azerbaijani IDP's the right to return to their former homes and villages

This is huge accusations. If there is no other third-party source to confirm this, then we must remove it. Also, it became clear from this talk page that Nathaniel Hill is not an experienced author. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 10:10, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They have released a follow up report number 3 yesterday. Could you summarize and suggest an inclusion? https://www.genocidewatch.com/single-post/genocide-watch-statement-on-armenia-artsakh-and-azerbaijan Sataralynd (talk) 14:35, 3 November 2020 (UTC) @Գարիկ Ավագյան:, GW is third party. Beshogur (talk) 15:37, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Beshogur (talk GW is not neutral. I think we shouldn't refer them under this article as the statements the issue is against international law and UN resolutions considering that they use word of "arshak" and talks about invasion also accusing Azerbaijan being aggressor. It is completely bias view to the conflict even though they tried to cover it by stating point about "compensations". They still didn't understood the root cause of the conflict. If we will ask Armenia to pay compensation, the country will go to bankrupt. Mirhasanov (talk) 17:29, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mirhasanov:, they are also criticizing Armenia. Beshogur (talk) 17:31, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Beshogur: Well they put Armenia and Azerbaijan two different side of equilibrium, Azerbaijan weighing more. It should be opposite as what they accuse Azerbaijan has already been conducted by Armenians. Use of the sentence, when there is potential genocide only star can stay neutral doesn't release them from the responsibility to address their accusation in a right and unbiased way. Mirhasanov (talk) 17:38, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion in Armenia and Artsakh

Provided link is not independent or please provide independent link proving that OSCE monitoring was rejected:

On 27 September, the Prime Minister of Armenia, Nikol Pashinyan, accused the Azerbaijani authorities of a large-scale provocation. The Prime Minister stated that the "recent aggressive statements of the Azerbaijani leadership, large-scale joint military exercises with Turkey, as well as the rejection of OSCE proposals for monitoring" indicated that the aggression was pre-planned and constituted a major violation of regional peace and security.[274] Mirhasanov (talk) 18:08, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is from Prime Minister's official statement. No need for other source. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 14:16, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) I see but, if we mention that Azerbaijan rejected "OSCE proposals for monitoring" then the source also should be provided for this where OSCE officially issues report. So far I haven't seen any official statement about this hence, my proposal is to add:

However, OSCE didn't issue any official report or statement about one of the sides rejecting monitoring proposal.

This will make sentence more clear that the statement is not backed with facts. Otherwise it looks like fact. Isn't it? Mirhasanov (talk) 17:26, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Suggest Using a Dynamic Map Template

I would strongly urge all interested editors to consider using a dynamic map template such as Template:Iraqi insurgency detailed map. These offer much more flexibility and allow a larger number of editors to contribute. The maps can display villages, towns, cities, bases, industrial complexes, etc, and can be color-coded to denote positions, active battles, and factions. Each point can be linked to a Wikipedia article (if there is one) or have a infobox tell the reader what it is by hovering the mouse over. Here is another very detailed example for the Syrian civil war: Template:Syrian Civil War detailed map. I think it would be much neater than using an image file. -- Veggies (talk) 19:13, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A source we should probably scrub from the article

In various places in the article, the source "armenpress.am" appears. Apart from the obvious bias which by itself is not neccesarily a criteria for exclusion, the site recently published this nasty "confession" of a fighter. Needless to say, forced confessions like this are a major red flag, and I believe that this, by itself, could be reason enough to exclude this source. This is propaganda and misinformation in a very pure form that is typically only seen in the media of hardcore dictatorships, i.e China, Russia, etc where entity who is an enemy of the regime is dragged onto TV and uncharacteristically admit to great wrongs. Eik Corell (talk) 20:45, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In what way is it "nasty"? Also, as a mercenary from Syria, he is not a POW under the Geneva Convention - he is an individual accused of criminal acts and is being interviewed by law enforcement. 88.108.77.10 (talk) 23:56, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: That's not how this works. Unreliability needs to be proved by reliable sources and not opinions. Moreover are we to remove all the azertag.az and apa.az sources from the website? No. We need to ensure the NPOV by presenting a picture that is refined by editors, through arguments, sources and evidence. Finally, your comments about reporting applies to Azerbaijan way before Armenia, and that is not my opinion but the assessment and ranking of these countries by 2020 World Press Freedom index - 61/180 for Armenia vs. 168/180 for Azerbaijan--Sataralynd (talk) 01:43, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: If we removed armenpress.am we would have to remove all of the Azerbaijani media outlets as well from the article. As long as a claim is properly attributed to Armenia/Azerbaijan, so our reader knows its coming from one of the beligerents, everything is presented in a balanced manner. EkoGraf (talk) 13:19, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: It appears that this is a legitimate news source. Please see: https://armenpress.am/arm/about/ I understand given the nature of the recent war that there are strong opinions about the news being reported. However, I did not find evidence that armenpress.am is not a reliable new source. If you have any information that supports its removal, please provide additional information. The one article by itself does not support removing all citations from this source. Jurisdicta (talk) 23:48, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Funny how Armenian government propaganda is regarded as reliable here. Beshogur (talk) 23:50, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Admission of beginning military action from Azerbaijan

Currently the lede states "Some international analysts believe that fighting likely began with an Azerbaijani offensive, and that primary goals of the offensive were to obtain control of districts in southern Nagorno-Karabakh that are less mountainous and thus easier to take than the region's well-fortified interior". However Aliyev tweeted yesterday that "Basic principles demand, in fact, the liberation of Azerbaijan’s occupied territories. We were compelled to force them due to Armenia’s unwillingness to act voluntarily". This appears to be an admission of starting the war. Should the lede now state that Azerbaijan initially claimed that they were reacting to shelling from the other side but later stated that they initiated military action? Wrenhaven (talk) 06:08, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think that if we can find a source that mentions this tweet, we should definitely quote it. We cannot however, draw the conclusion that Azeris started military action from this tweet (even though it seems like a relatively straightforward conclusion); we must simply state what he said.--LOLCaatz (talk) 01:48, 8 November 2020 (UTC) — LOLCaatz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Something like "according to Aliyev, Azerbaijan started military actions as Armenia was unwilling to return occupied territories" should suffice? Juxlos (talk) 03:21, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but we need to find a news article or something similar that quotes this tweet. This is a significant piece of information that should be included - with proper context (it is still not proven that Azerbaijan attacked first, but Aliyev has said such and such) - but twitter is not a source that we use here--LOLCaatz (talk) 07:41, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kurdish extremists

Solavirum, I see you are not familiar with Mr. Naryshkin's statement made on 6 October. I will leave links here. [39] [40] Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 15:45, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Գարիկ Ավագյան, look, bud, Al-Monitor is a major source. If they make a whole article on the issue, this means that is noteworthy. It can be a interpretation of the statement, or not. But wholly removing the paragraph is simply WP:IDONTLIKEIT. If you want to change the text to something like A journalist writing for Al Monitor thinks that Russian FIS blah blah, you have the liberty to do that. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 19:31, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Solavirum While there is no direct evidence of this yet. From your source. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 15:20, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Գարիկ Ավագյան, Al-Monitor talks about Russian Intelligence Service's statement, while that quote talks with the PKK-involvement in general. Has nothing to do with what you're implying. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 16:42, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
{{U|Գարիկ Ավագյան} is there any direct evidence about Syrians Mercenaries in Azerbaijan? Of course not, if we refer to news then this information also should be there. Support.

Casualties of the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war

Why data from 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war infobox about equipment losses are lost (wasn't moved wth references from Nagorno-Karabakh war infobox to table in Casualties of the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war)? Eurohunter (talk) 16:19, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eurohunter, I think WP:SIZE is the problem here. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 19:32, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Solavirum: I understand but it has nothing to do with removal of information. Why it wasn't restored in the other article? Eurohunter (talk) 21:33, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Eurohunter, I ain't the remover. You can take a look at the history page. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 07:19, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting free images

If you happen to stumble upon any free-use images regarding Russia's and US's role in the conflict, please upload them to the Commons and insert them in the international reactions section. They're to bare atm. I uploaded ones regarting to Iran and Turkic Council. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 20:37, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Undue weight template

Beshogur May I know why you added undue weight template in Azerbaijani and Turks section with no additional explanations? Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 15:54, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Գարիկ Ավագյան:, hello, seriously think "Some of their chants included "Allah Akbar", “Where are you Armenians? Where are you? We are here… sons of bitches”, and "fuck Armenia, we will fuck you."" shouldn't belong there. Especially the curse words. Beshogur (talk) 16:11, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Beshogur, its literally undue weight. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 18:05, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome back from 3-day block, @Solavirum:, would you mind explaining what makes it "literally undue weight"? Thanks Armatura (talk)
Armatura, I was here days ago. In any case, that doesn't matter. That part makes heavy claims on Wikipedia's name. Especially, quoting such remarks also gives weight to the article. If we applied the same thing all over the article, we'd get an unnecessary cluster of quotes. Its undue weight by definition. Also, for your quote below (12:46, 14 November 2020), avoid RGW, again. Wikipedia isn't a WP:BATTLEFIELD for anyone. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 19:25, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Solavirum I don't see why you send me to RGW when it's been reported in mainstream media in exactly the words that are cited and it is not a "claim" but fact. Those words are not made-up, they demonstrate the level of racial hatred and that is why they need to stay. Clearly pro-Turkish / pro-Azerbaijani editors cleaning the evidence of racial hatred by Turkish / Azerbaijani mob in the streets of Lyon may be seen as whitewashing of history. No other editors complained as far as I know. I wholeheartedly agree that Wikipedia isn't a WP:BATTLEFIELD and it is quite encouraging to see revert-happy users agree with it. Regards Armatura (talk) 19:52, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Armatura:, the independent doesn't use these words, this is what they use “Where are you Armenians? Where are you? We are here… sons of b*****s”., I do not see "fuck Armenia, we will fuck you.". I could agree putting with the first one. Second source "Lyonmag" doesn't look mainstream and it is translated from French. Beshogur (talk) 19:56, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Beshogur:, the citation was by Étienne Dolet and I'd wait for her comments. As for mainstreamness / reliability, I honestly don't think French makes a source unreliable, as Spanish or German or Chinese would not. Regards Armatura (talk) 20:03, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What makes you think "lyonmag.com" is a mainstream media? Beshogur (talk) 20:27, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree with "undue weight" label or with attempts to "neutralise" it. The sentence cites the article and the events as they were, without any modification or interpretation. It clearly demonstrates the level of ethnic hatred towards Armenians and the level of religious upheaval in the Turkish and Azerbaijani mob that was looking for Armenians in Lyon in the night with apparent intention to lynch them. Concealing that hatred would be erasing the history from Wikipedia. Regards Armatura (talk) 12:46, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Armatura: you really think those curse words have place in wikipedia? Beshogur (talk) 13:03, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Beshogur: I think it is a rhetorical question. As a humanist, I think those curse words have no place in humanity at all. But they were expressed by Turks and Azerbaijanis in Lyon regardless of what I think. And I believe it is Wikipedia's job to document what has been said and done, not to modify what has been said or done. If you are questioning whether words/ phrases / phenomena of sexual or highly offensive nature have place in Wikipedia, let's not forget that Wikipedia has a articles on fellatio, anal sex and beheading, with highly graphic depiction. Wikipedia is not censored. I believe Étienne Dolet, who originally added the text, will have a say here as well. Armatura (talk) 13:25, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Clearly pro-Turkish / pro-Azerbaijani editors cleaning the evidence of racial hatred by Turkish / Azerbaijani mob in the streets of Lyon may be seen as whitewashing of history". Rosguill, as an admin mediating the discussions on this page, may I ask you, what do you think the quoted remark by Armatura? Surely, such remarks on fellow editors shouldn't be expected. Also, Armatura, French neutrality is your own interpretation. We've clearly seen pro-Armenian bias from France in an undeniable level. Same goes for Azerbaijani bias on Turkish media. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 20:20, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please add under International Reactions > Humanitarian Organizations

Please add under International Reactions > Humanitarian Organizations

On 27 of October 2020, the International Rescue Committee claimed that more than half of the population of Nagorno-Karabakh has been displaced by the conflict (source)

Thanks--Sataralynd (talk) 02:00, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Գարիկ Ավագյան:, perhaps you can add this to civilians section. Beshogur (talk) 11:57, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest to add a section about use of social media bots and agents

One of the characteristic features of the information warfare of this conflict has been the use of social media bots and paid agents by Azerbaijan. Facebook recently shut down some farms: https://about.fb.com/news/2020/10/removing-coordinated-inauthentic-behavior-september-report/

--Terroire (talk) 20:07, 9 November 2020 (UTC) — Terroire (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]


I also agree with this proposal. It will be also good to describe information war that both sides conducted, not only finger pointing Azerbaijan but in balanced way. Mirhasanov (talk) 07:43, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Terroire: Thanks that is a good point. I suggest to put a small write up here, in light of the latest information in the article, and let the community improve on it, or clear it for inclusion--Sataralynd (talk) 18:49, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
check this part of the article as well

Kazakh military supplies to Azerbaijan

This looks like a noteworthy article. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 20:47, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Azerbaijan victory

Let's write the winner in the conclusion section. Like the whole war wiki pages.

Result: Azerbaijan victory

You need to present reliable sources for such a change. I've seen nothing indicating a cessation in hostilities. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 22:31, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

--45.135.206.230 (talk) 22:40, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We need a RS. This is too prematurely. Beshogur (talk) 22:56, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A treaty was signed at 1 AM, 10 November. Moscow time. It's over. --Governor Sheng (talk) 23:31, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the fighting is indeed over [41] [42], but the exact terms of the deal (ceasefire? Truce? Peace treaty?) remain unclear. We should mention that a deal to halt hostilities was signed by representatives of Armenia, Azerbaijan and Russia, but hold off on assessment of the conflict until reliable sources weigh in. I think that the current text in the article does a good job given the currently available sources. signed, Rosguill talk 23:45, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill:, Aliyev just confirmed the agreement. Beshogur (talk) 23:50, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We should wait until news reports on what the agreement is - full annexation of N-K? Azerbaijan keeps all territories it captured but returns Lachin? Withdrawal to status quo? Once we know that, news outlets are likely to call the war's winner anyway. I just saw the terms, now we just need news outlets to say Azerbaijan won the war. Shouldn't be too long. Juxlos (talk) 23:54, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How does Azerbaijan annex Karabakh? Beshogur (talk) 11:59, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, not annex. "Retake control" I guess since no national borders officialy shifted. Juxlos (talk) 12:16, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I also do believe that we still need to wait the official agreement to be published. So far there are some points communicated to both community. Note: "Significant territorial gains for Azerbaijan" word is not correct. It was internationally recognized Azerbaijan territories and such words needs to be avoided in order not to lead to misinterpretation/understanding by readers. Mirhasanov (talk) 07:43, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Protests in Yerevan; parliament speaker lynched

I think we should add what's going on in Yerevan. Armenia's parliament speaker Ararat Mirzoyan was just lynched. Sources: 1, 2 --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 00:47, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sources in English will probably follow the news, if correct. --Governor Sheng (talk) 01:14, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There ya go: protests, local quasi-official media on Ararat. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 01:44, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You need to be more careful with the words you use because that is not what lynching means sir. The sources do not say he has been killed so he has not been lynched. BCEVERYWHERE (talk) 07:37, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have videos of us outside pashinyan office at about 4-5am. I don't know how to upload it though. 2A02:2A57:173D:0:94C:8AD0:C456:3178 (talk) 09:54, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2A02:2A57:173D:0:94C:8AD0:C456:3178, you have to go here and upload it. Maybe it can be a bit complex for you being your first time, so you could use the basic upload method in which the only thing required is to give the file a name. Other users can take care of the rest. Oh and you need an account to upload files, IPs aren't allowed to. Super Ψ Dro 11:00, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

10 November 2020 peace treaty; article renaming

I know that there is already a talk page section above that has had extensive discussion on what to name the article, but given that it has been a while since and there have been radical changes in the status quo, I felt the need to raise this topic again. As of 10 November 2020, Armenia, Russia and Azerbaijan have signed a peace treaty and Armenia is withdrawing from most of the territory it had control of. With the signing of the treaty, the war is "officially" over (although it seems like there is still a lot yet to unfold, given that the United Nations has been asked to supervise the rehabilitation of displaced persons and Russia is deploying a peacekeeping force to the region). Considering the fact that the war is over, at least officially, and all major media outlets are referring to the 2020 conflict as a war, I strongly suggest that this article be renamed to Second Nagorno-Karabakh War, as any further developments in the region will not be part of the war officially. I also propose that the original page be renamed to First Nagorno-Karabakh War, but that is not a priority, at least not until this article's name is figured out. I believe this conflict has gone on long enough to have the world aware of what it is (with all the worldwide protests by either involved communities) and enough people have died to term it a war. — Zeex.rice (talk) 08:07, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not unless RS call it that. signed, Rosguill talk 08:20, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I support the proposal Ehoah88880 (talk) 09:14, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I also support it but the first move discussion ended some weeks ago, I doubt that the war's name in sources has changed much from how they were at that time. Super Ψ Dro 11:00, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Move already happened, need to wait a time, don't know how much. Plus I am against, since that isn't a proper name. Beshogur (talk) 11:13, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wait - per verifiability, we need reliable sources to call it the Second Nagorno-Karabakh War first. BCEVERYWHERE (talk) 07:46, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox map of territorial concessions

From current sources, it appears as if Artsakh/Armenia will revert control over the seven Azeri districts surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh, plus anything else currently under Azeri control. The map seems to show a huge chunk of northern N-K Autonomous Oblast not currently under Azeri control being ceded, though. Juxlos (talk) 08:34, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The original file has been restored. CMD (talk) 08:37, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see a lot of ghost towns taken back by the Azeri army (e.g. Füzuli, Jabrayil). If possible, it would be very informative to see which towns are/were populated by Armenian/Azeri residents. Drkazmer Just tell me... 12:32, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Post ceasefire

Hostilities are over for now. Can we have a section about the reaction to pashinyan signing the agreement, includes parliament speaker? 2A02:2A57:173D:0:94C:8AD0:C456:3178 (talk) 09:52, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Aftermath section is an appropriate place for this content. signed, Rosguill talk 19:22, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Separate article for the ceasefire talks

I noticed that the "peace agreement" text in the infobox links to this separate article. I've tagged the article for notability and left a talk page entry where I briefly describe the problems, and I wonder if you guys would be interested in responding there as well. My chief concern is that this does not warrant a separate article. Eik Corell (talk) 12:16, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a precedent for notability on negotiations? FlalfTalk 14:28, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 November 2020

"Remove Hamza Division and Sultan Murad Division on Units Involved Section on the right side of the webpage" Adding terrorist organizations have solely propaganda purposes aimed at creating stereotypes against Azerbaijan. 185.41.200.71 (talk) 13:23, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not Done We have covered this before, there is enough reliable information supporting their involvement, so we will not remove it. Please see prior discussions. FlalfTalk 14:27, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Victory reactions

Another section for victory reactions? Beshogur (talk) 18:59, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kind of confused what this is asking. Are you asking if we should add another section for victory reactions? I don't think so. Aftermath needs to be expanded so just put it there. FlalfTalk 19:19, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes aftermath reactions. Beshogur (talk) 19:20, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that "victory" reactions leans toward a bias. I would support what is suggested by User:flalf and simply list it under "Aftermath". Arguably, under the same logic, one could include "defeat" reactions which does little to convey information without bias. Jurisdicta (talk) 15:34, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

infobox is incorrect

Armenia will not be ceding the annexed Yukhari Askipara and Barxudarlı enclaves of Qazakh rayon to Azerbaijan.

45.74.78.23 (talk) 21:51, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done – I've removed these territories as they were unsourced and don't appear in the English translation of the peace agreement published on the Kremlin website. Cheers, Jr8825 • Talk 22:23, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox Result Wikipedia Policy

Per Template:Infobox military conflict, the result field should not include terms such as "decisive", this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive", then Do not introduce non-standard terms like "decisive", "marginal" or "tactical", or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". I've not seen too many issues on this article yet, but I've had to change an edit where the term "decisive" was added to "Azerbaijani victory". Just thought I'd leave the Wikipedia policy here to avoid any future quarrels over this before they get a chance to start. This article is not covering individual battles in the war, where terms like "decisive" or "tactical" can be used, but is rather covering the entire war itself, so the aforementioned policy applies, as it has with previous wars' articles in the past.

— Zeex.rice (talk) 05:41, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On Pakistan

Pakistan's alleged "involvement" was only given by the Armenian leadership. They also alleged that Uyghurs were in the battlefield too. And only labeling Pakistan as 'alleged' is yet again misleading; involvement Syrian mercenaries is also, still, alleged with no concrete proof. Furthermore, if you want to add Pakistan, don't forget to add PKK, YPG, Wagner Group, and ASALA on Armenia's side. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 07:14, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Pakistan edit was by me, my apologies. It has already been undone, but the Syrian mercenaries addition was not by me and I think it requires more discussion. Information about the war and subsequent post-ceasefire developments is still coming in so it's hard to get everything in accurately but it will be cleaned up with time. — Zeex.rice (talk) 12:40, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This page has an extreme pro-Armenian bias.

It has a bit of misinformation and videos only show Azerbaijani use of cluster munitions. Nowhere does it show the vice versa. — Nar 2608 (talk) 10:32, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nar 2608, agree on WP:UNDUEWEIGHT, but we don't have free-use footage of Armenia using cluster munitions. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 13:20, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with User:Solavirum, in order to correct what is perceived as misinformation, we need to be able to document any assertions. If you have a citation that can support this, please feel free to include it and we can edit the article as we want it to be accurate and up-to-date. Jurisdicta (talk) 15:30, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"supported by" is wrong

Israel didn't support Azerbijan directly. They sold arms for money. This is not "support", this is just a commercial transaction. — 188.120.129.22 (talk) 10:44, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've separated arms suppliers from supporters but kept them on their respective sides. — Zeex.rice (talk) 12:48, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deployment of observation points at Karabakh

Russian Ministry of Defense published map of deployment of observation points at Karabakh. This map could be used in the article and for updating the war map. https://t.me/SputnikArmenia/10137

According to the armistice "the parties stop at the positions they occupy." And according to the map part of the Karabakh south to the Shushi is ceded to Azeris. This implies that Azerbaijan had control over those area.--Yakamoz51 (talk) 14:23, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Provide WP:RS. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 16:18, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think Russian Ministry of Defense is a reliable source, since Russia is assumed to be neutral in this conflict. https://caucasus.liveuamap.com/en/2020/11-november-russian-ministry-of-defense-published-map-of --Yakamoz51 (talk) 10:49, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Russia and Turkey

Since the end of the conflict, the infobox is getting filled with misleading content. Turkey's arms supply is included within the Supported by section, no need to duplicate it. Also, the editors have failed to provide a source on the allegation of Russian arms being sent to Baku during the war. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 16:18, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The lead is pushing a POV

It was the latest escalation of the unresolved conflict over the territory, which is internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan, but mostly governed by Artsakh, a breakaway state with an Armenian ethnic majority of 99.7%.

Why should this be in the lead? It literally the second sentence of the article. I believe that this sentence itself avoids the fact that as opposed to Nagorno-Karabakh, its surrounding territories were occupied too, with Azerbaijani majority. In fact, if we look at the stats, more than a double number of Azerbaijanis became refugees than the whole population of Nagorno-Karabakh. I suggest altering the text. Brandmeister, and Beshogur, what do you think about this? --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 17:17, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence may be overly long, we can shorten it like "It was the latest escalation of the unresolved conflict over the territory, which is internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan, but mostly governed by Artsakh" or "It was the latest escalation of the unresolved conflict over the territory, which is internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan, but mostly governed by the breakaway state of Artsakh". Since Artsakh is already wikilinked in the opening sentence, the reader can find all relevant details in that article itself. Brandmeistertalk 17:25, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I didn’t write this, but shouldn’t we include somewhere that the reason the first war happened was because ethnic conflict over the Armenians in de jure Azerbaijani land? FlalfTalk 19:24, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed 99.7%, tweaked the wording to 'region' to avoid suggesting the conflict is restricted the former NKAO, and rewritten the footnote on demographics in the late Soviet era. I believe this resolves any POV issues here. The rest of the sentence is accurate and provides a valuable, succinct summary to the reader. The surrounding Azeri-majority districts are mentioned and explained in 1) the linked article within this sentence 2) the footnote 3) the final paragraph of the lead 4) the second paragraph of the background 5) the infobox. This seems more than sufficient to me. @Flalf: I think the background section already does a good job of explaining the context of the conflict and first war.
As an aside, I think we should be very wary whenever population statistics from 1988 onwards are included in this topic area, as they are ideal for POV pushing. The various pogroms, expulsions and conflict-driven exoduses skew the numbers towards whichever group is dominating at a specific time. (It works both ways; for example, Artsakh was 99.7% Armenian after 1994 & before the latest war, while in 1989, 98% of Shusha's population was Azeri – because the significant Armenian minority had been driven out in 1988.) Jr8825 • Talk 20:13, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE MAP

Russian ministry of defence as posted maps of where the front lines have stoped since the 10th and what the peace keeping mission is going to look like. https://t.me/SputnikArmenia/10137 86.21.8.177 (talk) 19:53, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sputnik is not a reliable source please provide a different source. FlalfTalk 19:20, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
i have found the same Russian MOD maps on different news websites also. please check them and I hope they help.
https://news.am/eng/news/612714.html https://caucasus.liveuamap.com/ https://niqnaq.wordpress.com/ https://www.ft.com/content/c9dab829-3b4a-4464-a0c3-4d5c51aa1b0e https://cybershafarat.com/2020/11/11/the-russian-view-peacekeepers-in-karabakh/ https://cybershafarat.com/2020/11/10/nagorno-karabakh-region-agreement-map/ 86.21.8.177 (talk) 19:53, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Overlapping sections?

A separate 'Timeline of military engagements' section seems a bit redundant when we have a section called 'Course of the conflict' - can we merge these? Jr8825 • Talk 01:13, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ClockC To-do – note to self, unless anyone wants to pick this up. Jr8825 • Talk 07:08, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was having a look at the exact same issue a couple of days ago, so I've taken a go. Some text is sourced to live news feeds and so are tricky to verify given they have substantially changed in the weeks since they were used here, but that was a minor issue and I'm sure better sources can be found going forwards. CMD (talk) 07:46, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Who asked for peace?

I did not find who requested peace. Can anyone find it and add it to the article as well as to 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh ceasefire agreement. Veverve (talk) 09:12, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Veverve, I haven't seen any mention of this kind of information in coverage so far. While it may be published at some point, it's possible that this information may not be available until much later, when historians publish academic texts on the conflict. signed, Rosguill talk 18:24, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 November 2020

Fix spelling of 'reveal' under Military Casualties, equipment losses and infrastructure damage FBKong (talk) 12:04, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done thanks for the catch, FBKong. Cheers, Jr8825 • Talk 12:18, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unexplained removal of referenced Azeri casualties

@Ulvi Rustam: I would please ask that you stop removing the sourced information along with its reference regarding Azeri casualties cited to the Azeri president without any explanation/edit summary. Please explain what is the problem you are having with the information so we may find a solution and refrain from unexplained full reverts which can be seen as edit warring. This is the exact quote the Azeri president made 'This year, the families of 1,500 martyrs will be provided with houses and apartments by the state. Today, I am instructing all relevant agencies to provide financial support to the relatives of those killed in the Second Karabakh War, the Patriotic War as we call, as soon as possible, and they are being registered now. After accurate registration, they will be provided with apartments and houses,' the head of state said.. Regards. EkoGraf (talk) 15:01, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This might be not the casualties of this war, might be inclusion of others as well. It doesn't say this year 1,500 soldiers were fallen, only 1,500 soldiers' families will get housing. Let's wait more for exact numbers. Beshogur (talk) 15:22, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Beshogur: That sounds reasonable for now. Will reintroduce the "undisclosed" wording in the infobox. EkoGraf (talk) 15:38, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for understanding. I was following the edits. Beshogur (talk) 15:41, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The mention of the "Second Karabakh War" in the next sentence certainly makes it sound as if that Aliyev was talking about the number of deaths from this conflict, but I guess the edit-warring means this isn't indisputably self-evident, so we need to wait for a secondary source on this to remove any interpretive doubt. I suspect part of the reason for the unhappiness is because 1,500 deaths, sitting alongside the official Armenian estimate of 1,302, makes it look like Azerbaijan lost more soldiers. (For all we know, it could just be showing whose government is lying more). Jr8825 • Talk 15:50, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jr8825: Agree, that was the same thing my understanding was based on from the source in regards to what Aliyev was saying. In any case, will wait a bit to see if the situation clarifies. EkoGraf (talk) 16:46, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit reqeust on 12 November 2020

This was not a Russia Turkey proxy conflict. Requesting removal of label.

Requesting update of map to the resulting surrender agreement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KY-Acc (talk • contribs) 18:16, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The request regarding Russia-Turkey proxy conflict is  Not done, as there have been sources provided that describe the conflict this way the onus is on you to provide sources disputing this perspective or to find a basis to dismiss the existing sources (cited primarily in the Analysis section) that support this perspective. The map has been updated to better reflect the post-peace deal status. signed, Rosguill talk 18:23, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 November 2020 (2)

Hi,

There is no absolute proof that Syrian mercenaries have been fighting in this war.

I kindly request you to delete that in full or at least mention it as "It is claimed but not confirmed that any foreign mercenaries fought on Azeri side"

Furthermore Armenians recruited PKK, Abkhaz and other Kurdish militants to fight on their side and that has to be included.

Hoping you will amend and delete Syrian mercenaries involvement on Azeri side.

Best Regards Concerned Citizen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.101.2.246 (talk) 19:07, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This has been addressed before and has been the subject of much discussion. Please review earlier discussions on this page and its archives. signed, Rosguill talk 19:32, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ceasefire map

The map (description page includes the legend).

Hi all, after a long discussion a map of the ceasefire has been finalized. I cannot add it here myself, but if an administrator thinks that it should be in the article, please add it! Mapeh (talk) 21:53, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming that if this map has been "finalized" then there is consensus amongst everyone involved agreeing to use it? I'll add it to the ceasefire section. ➤ Zᴇᴇx.ʀɪᴄᴇ ✪ (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 03:00, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of the fine points were hashed out in a discussion with several editors and it's a good compromise. However, I don't think we should treat this map as having a firm consensus behind it, particularly as its unclear where the front lines were at the time of the ceasefire and what's happening in the area directly south of the Lachin corridor. Jr8825 • Talk 05:43, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose change the Armenian names in the occupied territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh to Azerbaijani first. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 15:19, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Solavirum: for the sake of consistency and clarity, the same language needs be above the other for every label, and there's no more reason for Azerbaijani to be on top than there is for Armenian. C'mon, let this one go, it's a trivial issue. Jr8825 • Talk 19:23, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jr8825:, it isn't a trivial issue. Per WP:COMMONNAME, we use pre-1991 names for the places of conflict in this war. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 19:25, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
we use pre-1991 names – both names are included, they are equal font size (trust me, we've already gone through this to ensure each language is treated as equally as possible, and to make up for Armenian being on top Azerbaijani is emphasised by italics). Other maps in the article place Azerbaijani first. There's no more reason for Khankendi to be above Stepanakert than there is for Shusha before Shushi. Haggling over this frankly a waste of time. Jr8825 • Talk 19:34, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That long Armenian salient west of Hadrut looks fairly dubious.--Staberinde (talk) 19:38, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this was my concern, and given that the boundaries are increasingly shown along these lines, I've asked Mapeh if they can update it when they're back on Monday. If anyone has the SVG known-how to do so beforehand, that would be great. Jr8825 • Talk 19:47, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 November 2020

Neither Azerbaijan nor Armenia won. I suggest removing the misinformation and stating it ended in a peace contract. 2600:1700:9BD0:7FE0:40D8:CE07:C03:ECDA (talk) 06:20, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We currently have citations to BBC and Financial Times calling it a victory for Azerbaijan ( [43] [44]). In order for your proposed change to be considered, you would need to provide sources that are at least as strong as these two that dispute this interpretation, or provide some sort of justification for why the existing sources should not be considered reliable. signed, Rosguill talk 18:27, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

About Syrian mercenaries in the infobox

Although we discussed it before, there's not any reliable news about it since the war came to an end (which must make to find it better); so I'm suggesting to remove the mercenaries from infobox.Ahmetlii (talk) 06:34, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmetlii Don't start it again please. USA, Russia, France stated about this many times. The last United Nations' call made on 11 November [45] Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 08:12, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Գարիկ Ավագյան The same report states that there's allegations both for Azerbaijan and Armenia, and did not say anything about whether they're verified or not (and even I didn't see any response about it from USA, Russia or France officials.). Including minor allegations to infobox is not about Wikipedia. You didn't give any reliable source about after-ceasefire verifications.Ahmetlii (talk) 08:23, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ahmetlii You may find all reliable sources in Turkey and Syrian National Army section. There is a conflict of interest that is why you are trying to remove what you WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Stop it, please. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 08:28, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Գարիկ Ավագյան I don't because I'm questioning whether it's dubious or not. As you can see, there's not a source after ceasefire, which is more easily situation to verify claims.--Ahmetlii (talk) 08:32, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ahmetlii: no, the sources are not ambiguous. The UN report treats the "widespread reports" as fact, the Guardian reports 3 deaths of Syrian mercenaries. The BBC states the "Syrian Observatory for Human Rights reports that about 320 Syrian mercenaries have been transported to Azerbaijan by Turkish security companies. With this weight of reliable sources, you'll need to provide RS with information contrary to what we already have: RS saying that previous articles were erroneous or RS claiming that no Syrian mercenaries were fighting. I'm taking the liberty of reverting your dubious tag for now, as without RS to back up your claims this isn't going to go any differently from previous discussions. Jr8825 • Talk 08:35, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Right after the ceasefire was implemented, the UN itself noted the use of mercenaries and called on their withdrawal. Also see one of the previous discussions where a host of sources (around a dozen) was linked, including: AFP, Reuters, Guardian, Washington Post, BBC, Middle East Eye, etc. Additionally, the Syrian rebels themselves, Russia, France and even a Pentagon official acknowledged the presence of the mercenaries. In any case, as per the DRN consensus, which was based on a large number of verifiable sources, they are included in the infobox, along with the note regarding Azerbaijan and Turkey denying the presence of the mercenaries. Regards. EkoGraf (talk) 09:18, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If we're going to cite the UN here, we shall change the wording of the article. According to the United Nations, Armenian Armed Forces have occupied 7 districts of Azerbaijan. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 15:16, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Solavirum:, that's exactly what the background section says: The war ended with a ceasefire in 1994, with the Republic of Artsakh in control of most of the Nagorno-Karabakh region, as well as occupying the surrounding Azerbaijani districts of Agdam, Jabrayil, Fuzuli, Kalbajar, Qubadli, Lachin and Zangilan. Jr8825 • Talk 19:29, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jr8825:, I was referring to this. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 19:37, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Change

Recaptured should be liberated. Please make necessary corrections 1elvinn (talk) 12:30, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done - "liberated" does not fit our policy on writing from a neutral point of view. Jr8825 • Talk 13:42, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Gugark and Stepanakert "pogroms" from the background section

Please remove the Gugark and Stepanakert "pogroms" against Azerbaijanis from the background section. There are several issues with the mention as follows:

- The references provided either are not as such (meaning they don't mention any killings), behind a paywall, and when they work, they only mention 2 Azeris killed in Askeran. Tragic of course but not a "pogrom" and it is unclear whether they died by police fire instead of Armenians

- The Wikipedia link provided for (beside it being a clear instance of Circular Reasoning) Gugark Massacre don't pass mustard in terms of citations, and has issues with its tone as the article itself mentions

- The Wikipedia article provided for Stepanakert is actually one that is combined violence against both Azerbaijanis in Stepanakert and Armenians in Shushi but more importantly, has only one death which is a 61 year old Armenian man. Hardly a "pogrom" against Azerbaijanis

I hope it is clear that equating Sumgait and Baku Pogroms against Armenians which are on a totally different scale (hundreds dead) with the Gukark and Stepanakert events as mentioned in the article is not warranted. However, as there was clear violence against Azerbaijan, I would suggest we amend the sentence to read:

Ethnic violence began shortly thereafter with a series of pogroms between 1988 and 1990 against Armenians in Sumgait, Ganja and Baku, and violence against Azerbaijanis in Stepanakert--Sataralynd (talk) 03:47, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sataralynd: Agree about the clear difference in scale / nature of events, presenting them without mentioning that difference is artificial equalization. As you have extensively studied the current references of that sentence, could you put the necessary links in your proposal, please, so I could copy-paste? Thanks Armatura (talk) 12:33, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Armatura: here it is
Thanks, @Sataralynd:, I will wait a bit for a concensus before making a change. Armatura (talk) 18:07, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ethnic violence began shortly thereafter with a series of pogroms between 1988 and 1990 against Armenians in Sumgait, Ganja and Baku,[1][2][3][4] and violence against Azerbaijanis in Stepanakert. [5]
Oppose WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 15:55, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SolaVirum: Would you mind explaining what and how is undue weight? Thanks Armatura (talk) 18:07, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sataralynd: @Armatura: both Armenians and Azerbaijanis suffered in the ethnic violence during the late 1980s. Removing links to our articles on two acts of violence against Azerbaijanis, leaving only links to attacks against Armenians and one mention of violence (when it was clearly widespread), would result in a skewed narrative. This suggestion is a non-starter. This summary here is just a brief background anyway, it's not analysing who behaved worse, but providing the context to the latest war. There's already a 3:2 mention of violence against Armenians, which suggests that there was more of it (and of course, Sumgait was first, so it's completely right that it's listed first). The current layout works well. If you have issues with the individual articles on those events, you should raise these at their respective talk pages, not here. Jr8825 • Talk 17:07, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sataralynd: @Armatura: The place that actually needs expansion is the background section of Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, it could do with a mention of Sumgait (remarkably the current revision doesn't include it) as well as the violence against Armenians and Azeris in each of the places we list here. Jr8825 • Talk 17:11, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jr8825: Thanks. References for "clearly widespread violence" that you mentioned that would qualify as "pogroms against Azerbaijanis", please? "Just a brief background anyway" should not yet mislead a neutral reader, letting them think that there was equal scale of pogroms / violence Armatura (talk) 18:15, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Armatura: A very quick Google search finds these:
The first two expert, reputable sources I come across describe the violence as widespread and say both sides had the same intent. Jr8825 • Talk 18:25, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jr8825: Thanks. The first text is from a BLOG that mentions PKK fighters (so far not confirmed by any third party), what is "reputable" about this source? In the second large document, a very quick CTRL + F search in the text you provided showed ZERO results for keyword "pogrom", though. As reading 40+ page document can be quite time-consuming, could you please copy-paste the fragments, that in your opinion, is equivalent to "pogroms" against Azerbaijanis? Thanks Armatura (talk) 18:38, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's an explainer posted on the Atlantic Council website by a senior fellow. The issue with most blogs, per WP:BLOG, is they're usually self-published and it can be hard to determine whether the author is a subject-matter expert; neither is the case here. It's a perfectly acceptable reliable source, and I'd suggest you brush up on WP:RS if you're unsure about this. I provided the quote and page number from the Chatham House paper so you wouldn't need to search through it. 'Pogrom' = "violent riot aimed at the massacre or expulsion of an ethnic or religious group". By describing the violence of both sides as massacres, the Chatham House paper is using a stronger word. If you want to change the wording from "pogroms" to "massacres", go ahead, although you'd be trading synonyms for no obvious gain to the article. Jr8825 • Talk 19:14, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jr8825: I have my reservations about the "explainer" on The AtlanticCouncil blog by an Israeli / Jewish (Israel is ally and arm supplier to Azerbaijan and Turkey - ?COI) "senior fellow" giving undue weight to “Launching a new attack against Azerbaijan, Armenia has once again shown that it constitutes the biggest threat against peace and comfort in the region,” POV of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan (unsupported by third party analysts) and that does not cite a single source for its statements, so we could know exactly what (where) acts of violence it is implying. I am against citing it for anything related to NK War, due to mentioned reasons. As for the other large document, it will take me some time to read Armatura (talk) 19:37, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "The fighting in Nagorno-Karabakh reflects decades of conflict" – via The Economist.
  2. ^ de Waal, Thomas (2003). Black Garden: Armenia and Azerbaijan Through Peace and War. New York: New York University Press. p. 90. ISBN 978-0-8147-1945-9. Around ninety Armenians died in the Baku pogroms.
  3. ^ "Soviet Tells of Blocking Slaughter of Armenians: General Reports His Soldiers Have Suppressed Dozens of Massacre Attempts by Azerbaijanis". Los Angeles Times. 27 November 1988.
  4. ^ Broers, Laurence (2019). Armenia and Azerbaijan: Anatomy of Rivalry. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. p. 18. ISBN 978-1-4744-5055-3. Armenians see the campaign that emerged in 1987 to unify Karabakh and Armenia as peaceful, yet met with organized pogroms killing dozens of Armenians in the Azerbaijani cities of Sumgait, Kirovabad (today's Ganja) and Baku in 1988–1990.
  5. ^ http://archive.is/N7Cn
@Jr8825:, @Armatura: I am wondering why we are using word 'pogroms' for violence conducted by Azeris but when it comes toGugark massacre, we are using word violence?Mirhasanov (talk) 20:42, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove link to Syunik from the Course of the Conflict > Ceasefire Agreement Section

The words "strip of Armenian land" in the second paragraph is linked to Syunik Province article in the south of Armenia. It is an incorrect link--Sataralynd (talk) 04:14, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is the correct link, but it wasn't particularly well written (and the ceasefire doesn't specify where any transport corridor between Azerbaijan and Nakhchivan would be) so I've rephrased it (through → separated). Jr8825 • Talk 08:46, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jr8825:.I see how you edited it, but it is confusing to a reader who doesn't know the geography as the width of Syunik is more than 50km. Further, there is no information about the location of the access, which you are assuming to be close to Iran > WP:ORIGINAL. Please edit as follows:
Additionally, Azerbaijan is to gain passage to its Nakhchivan exclave through the Armenian province of Syunik, which separates West Azerbaijan from Nakhchivan.--Sataralynd (talk) 01:04, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

so-called claim Syrians at Nagarbo Karabakh war

Any Syrian paramilitary group did not fight near Azerbaijani forces. Additionally sources about that claim is single sided and insufficient. Moreover those claims is falsified by Azerbaijan. Hence any information about Syrian paramilitary troops has to be removed from the column about Azerbaijan or at least phrases like "claimed", "allegedly" have to be used. Ceyhunyor (talk) 06:44, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done This has been examined many times and there are multiple reliable sources to support it. Please see previous discussions and provide reliable sources to support your claim if you'd like to revisit this. Jr8825 • Talk 08:51, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Assyrian/Yazidi volunteers

Dear Sargon Gallu, please read the article carefully before reverting my edits next time. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 08:35, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 November 2020

Aftermath section → Armenia: Armenians set fire to their houses before leaving their settlements in Nagorno-Karabakh. source 94.25.95.62 (talk) 16:11, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Jr8825 • Talk 20:26, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

name Second Nagorno-Karabakh war

Should this maybe be renamed the Second Nagorno-Karabakh war, what do you guys think?86.21.8.177 (talk) 16:20, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are there sources which use this title? Wikipedia should not be inventing titles. Dimadick (talk) 16:31, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://twitter.com/presidentaz/status/1326552557402025985. Azerbaijani President calls it that way.Cem456 (talk) 17:53, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Israel arm supply to Azerbaijan

There is no evidence that Israel has armed Azerbaijan for the conflict. It is known that Azerbaijan own Israeli weapons, they used during the conflict. But they own also russian weaponry and weapons from many sources. The mention of Israel is therefore undue. --Trixieybi (talk) 19:12, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Trixieybi: There is a citation in this article of Al-Arabia article about Israel continuing sales to Azerbaijan, especially drones, DURING the conflict. Something that some other countries selling arms to Azerbaijan before the war did not during the war. Hope this answers to your question Armatura (talk) 18:24, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Armatura: please provide evidence. Moreover, please consider that using Al-Arabia as a reference regarding the topic where we talk about Israel may sound a bit biased. Mirhasanov (talk) 20:28, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Remove repetitions from the war crime section

Currently the war crime section of Armenia has a few repetitions, most notably on the use of cluster bombs in Barda. The same item is repeated and same source used. Here goes (I put on bold the repetition):

The use of cluster munitions was also confirmed by The New York Times.[308] Armenia denied any responsibility for the attack[309] but Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch stated that it was Armenia who had carried out the attack[310][311] while the unrecognized Republic of Artsakh admitted responsibility, but said they were targeting military facilities.[312] The New York Times reporting team was caught in an Armenian rocket attack driving along the main street of Barda.[313]

On 30 October 2020, Human Rights Watch reported that Armenia or Artsakh forces used cluster munition and called that Armenia should immediately cease using cluster munitions or supplying them to Nagorno-Karabakh forces

I suggest the removal of the last phrase and including the key information in the first paragraph as follows (changes in italic):

The use of cluster munitions was also confirmed by The New York Times.[308] Armenia denied any responsibility for the attack[309] but Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch stated that it was Armenia or Artsakh who had carried out the attack and called for an immediate stop on the use of cluster munitions[310][311] while the unrecognized Republic of Artsakh admitted responsibility, but said they were targeting military facilities.[312] The New York Times reporting team was caught in an Armenian rocket attack driving along the main street of Barda.[313]--Sataralynd (talk) 18:40, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sataralynd:  Done yep, looks like a case of redundancy. Jr8825 • Talk 19:29, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Elaborate on the use of mercenaries on the Armenian side

In Allegations of third-party involvement Section intro the following sentence is not in line with the source:

The OHCHR stated that there were reports about mercenaries on both sides, and called for their withdrawal from Nagorno-Karabakh.

With that sentence, the source is made out to be about the use of mercenaries on both sides. However, if you read it there is a clear indication on their use on the Azerbaijani-Turkish side, but only unconfirmed reports on their use on teh Armenian side.

Here are the relevant mentions:

"The UN Working Group on the use of mercenaries said there were widespread reports that the Government of Azerbaijan, with Turkey’s assistance, relied on Syrian fighters to shore-up and sustain its military operations in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict zone...The way in which these individuals were recruited, transported and used in and around the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict zone appeared consistent with the definition of a mercenary, as set out by relevant international legal instruments"

However for the Armenian side there is mention about foreign nationals, and no clear indication of mercenaries.
Here is the relevant mention:

"The Working Group also received reports indicating that Armenia has been involved in the deployment of foreign nationals to fight in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. The experts are looking into these reports to ascertain possible links to mercenary-related activities, such as the context in which these actors operate and their possible motivations."


Could we avoid equivalencing both sides in the Article and just state the facts from the source? I suggest to revise the sentence to: The OHCHR stated that there were reports about Syrian mercenaries trained by Turkey and used by Azerbaijan during the war. It has called for their withdrawal from Nagorno-Karabakh. It also stated that it is looking into reports about the use of foreign nationals by Armenian forces and whether they constitute mercenaries--Sataralynd (talk) 19:47, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eco-terrorism or scorched earth policy conducted by Armenians while leaving Kalbajar.

Armenians that illegally settled in Kalbajar and now leaving it conducting scorched earth policy. There are many videos in youtube and articles issued by international media:

Armenians set fire to homes before handing village over to Azerbaijan - https://www.reuters.com/article/us-armenia-azerbaijan-village/armenians-set-fire-to-homes-before-handing-village-over-to-azerbaijan-idUSKBN27U0FQ

'Ecological terror': Azerbaijan delays takeover, Armenians torch homes - https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/world/asia/ecological-terror-azerbaijan-delays-takeover-denounces-fleeing-armenians-20201116-p56eu6.html?ref=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_source=rss_feed

Ethnic Armenian villagers burn houses before Azerbaijan takeover - https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/11/14/villagers-burn-karabakh-houses-ahead-of-azerbaijan-takeover

We should start add this as a section and give more information about echo terror conducted by Armenians illegally settled in there occupied region. Mirhasanov (talk) 20:22, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Added a sentence on this to the Aftermath section. Jr8825 • Talk 20:39, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Second_Nagorno-Karabakh_War&oldid=988883862"