Talk:Second Nagorno-Karabakh War

Please delete the Yukhari Govhar Agha Mosque image

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal: Rename to "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 [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] and combined arms conventional warfare is in fact taking place on the ground.XavierGreen (talk) 17:25, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

• Support. This is really a war. The word "conflict" is used generally for a small war.Fullscaledx (talk) 11:24, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support as nominator.XavierGreen (talk) 15:11, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support fits the definition. EkoGraf (talk) 15:13, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support per above. Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 16:08, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support per above reasons. Mgasparin (talk) 16:13, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support but Change to Second Nagorno-Kabarakh War This is war has been going on for a few weeks and casualties may surpass the First Karabakh War at this rate. Plus I've seen many sources on both sides calling this the 'Second War' due to its scale. User178198273998166172 (talk) 18:32, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

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)

• Comment:, who is the nominator? + it is wrong way to request a move. Beshogur (talk) 16:37, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

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)

Didn't see it. Ok it's fine. Beshogur (talk) 17:35, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

• Support per above reasons. Furthermore, we should consider renaming the Nagorno-Karabakh War article as "First Nagorno-Karabakh War" and this article as "Second Nagorno-Karabakh War" if this goes on for a long time.--RM (Be my friend) 18:14, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support - I agree, although I don't understand why this wasn't done as a WP:RM.--Staberinde (talk) 18:17, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

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)

• Support per above reasons. Wowzers122 (talk) 18:22, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support to Second Nagorno-Karabakh War --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 18:28, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
• Neutral as I think we may still be jumping the gun a bit although some sources are clearly calling this a war. Oppose "Second Nagorno-Karabakh War" as no sources appear to be referring to it that way, although it may be appropriate to create redirects from First Nagorno-Karabakh War and Second Nagorno-Karabakh War pointing to Nagorno-Karabakh War and here respectively as they are likely search terms. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:57, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
• Only perennial reliable sources (PRS) count at this stage. This is my analysis of some (not all; I am officially busy) as of 14/10/2020 21:30GMT (note: Jerusalem Post is not a PRS and is discounted):

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)

Al Jazeera is also referring to it as a war, see here [6]. NPR refers to it as a "hot war" here [7]. XavierGreen (talk) 21:53, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

• Support per nominator and perennial sources. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 21:54, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support and again please fix the timeline, the ceasefire hasn't done anything. RBolton123 (talk) 23:31, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose For now. A lot of the information is tentative at this point and it doesn't hurt to wait for sources to unanimously refer and analyze it as such. Gotitbro (talk) 01:43, 15 October 2020 (UTC)]

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)

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)

• Oppose Per above. --Jujuy88 (talk) 02:07, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
• Weak Support. Armenia and Azerbaijan dont trade blows outside NK so the name fit. If fighting take place outside NK. The name should be changed to Armenian Azerbaijan war.Mr.User200 (talk) 02:44, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support, with the number of casualties, sustained military engagements, and rocket strikes at cities far from the front, it is hard to call this anything else. Vici Vidi (talk) 06:26, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
• Clarification. To clarify my position, I am proposing a daily semi-automated search of every green checked non-paywalled WP:RPS, with a GMT 19:00 Timestamp, reported here. When they change, we change. Johncdraper (talk) 09:46, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support: This is doubtlessly a war by now. For the record, I voted against the previous proposal. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 16:18, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support to Second Nagorno-Karabakh War Agreed with SolaVirum above. CrusaderToonamiUK (talk) 17:03, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
• Report of Time Checked (01:30GMT) Analysis of Multiple Perennial Sources Follows.

1. AFP. War.
2. Al Jazeera. War.
3. AP. Fighting.
4. BBC. Conflict.
5. Bloomberg. Conflict.
6. CNN. Conflict.
7. The Conversation. "engaged in the flames of war" (does not mention war as name; may be rhetorical)
8. Time. Conflict.

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)

• Support to Second Nagorno-Karabakh War if we are going to move the article, this is the most adequate title. Super Ψ Dro 13:22, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

@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)

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)

• 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)

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)

• Procedural question - shouldn't this be an WP:RM, tagged with {{rm}}? Lev!vich 20:49, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

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)

• Support to Second Nagorno-Karabakh War. Clearly a coordinated invasion that has almost certainly left +1000 people dead (going just off the self-reported Armenian casualties). Please just call it what it is. We have like thousands of articles that are just titled [Year] [Location] clashes/conflict. I get why we want to stick to strict guidelines given that we literally are a website that anyone can edit, but I feel like we are just obsessing over checking and rechecking all the technicalities to a point where it isn't helpful. ᗞᗴᖇᑭᗅᒪᗴᖇᎢ (talk) 22:41, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support Many press are reporting it as war. In conflict people would not be fighting for weeks and so many die. It's more than a conflict.Expertwikiguy (talk) 02:36, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per Johncdraper and WP:COMMONNAME.Ahmetlii (talk) 11:15, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

References

• Support The article on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict even refers to the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict as a "Full-scale war". Pisiu369 (talk) 16:33, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support I believe the term "war" is more apt in this scenario than "conflict." R. J. Dockery (talk) 20:03, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support This conflict has been going for some time already with many casualties, use of advanced weapons, many displaced persons, international actors, high coverage in the Media. I believe that the term "war" is better for this. Elserbio00 (talk) 23:42, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
• Launching Time-Stamped Name Check Analysis of Multiple Perennial Sources. Please hold. Johncdraper (talk) 07:29, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
• Report of Time-Stamped (10:00GMT) Semi-Automated Analysis of Multiple Perennial Sources Follows.

1. AFP. War.
2. Al Jazeera. Battle/Conflict.
3. AP. Conflict.
4. BBC. Conflict.
5. Bloomberg. Fighting.
6. CNN. Conflict.
7. The Conversation. "engaged in the flames of war" (does not mention war as name; may be rhetorical)
8. Time. Conflict.

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

(Sigh) Frankly, it's absurd to argue that this is not a war. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 09:53, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Solavirum edits

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

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

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

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

P. S. This is not the first time you remove/revert information about the church or the image itself. [8] Try to keep it more neutral, not biased. Please, self-revert. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 12:29, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Here is Wikipedia's guidlines [9] Please, read them carefully. Your " it being historical or not has nothing to do with this " is still your personal opinion. If it did not have historical significance, we would not have included it in the article with the image. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 14:40, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Syrian Mercenaries claim or allegation ?

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

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

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

SecState Pompeo's Remarks

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

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

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

Convention on Cluster Munitions

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

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

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

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

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

Background section - What do inhabitants of Nagorno Karabakh want?

In the second paragraph of the Background section, the sentence "While what the present inhabitants of the area want is unclear" is misleading. If you read the reference cited, the unclarity is about whether they want to be independent or part of Armenia. The 3 surveys cited in the article in 2011, 2013, and 2020 have 90+% of respondents wanting either to be independent or part of Armenia, and in 2020, the most recent survey, the reference mentions "there is near unanimous agreement that Nagorno-Karabakh should not return to Azerbaijan". I suggest reedit "while the question whether the present inhabitants want to be independent or part of Armenia is unclear, surveys indicate they don't want to be part of Azerbaijan" --Sataralynd (talk) 05:09, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Done. Johncdraper (talk) 08:01, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Wouldn't this question need take into account the 400,000 Azeris expelled from the districts occupied by Astrakh/Armenia? it's a pertenant question considering the Astrakhi population is 150,000 - Mutliple members of Armenia and Astrakh's governments have stated these lands should be given back in a peace deal besides a corridor connecting the territory to Armenia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:7DE1:E300:608E:71FB:B474:3392 (talk) 22:37, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Done. Already in: "The Nagorno-Karabakh War displaced over 500,000 Azerbaijani residents who used to live in the territory and surrounding provinces." Johncdraper (talk) 09:27, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I think, we should include facts about 1991 Nagorno-Karabakh independence referendum which held in Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast and Shahumyan Province where 99.98% of voters voted in favor of independence. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 09:50, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I second to include this in the Background section. However, we should include that the referendum was boycotted by the Azeri population which constituted 20% of NK population as per this Wikipedia article. This is aligned to Thomas de Waal's The Black Garden, ISBN 0-8147-1944-9 Pages 284-285, which cites a total population of Nagorno-Karbakh of 162,000, including 123,000 Armenians and 37,000 Azerbaijanis (22.8% Azeris). The book mentions the 1991 referendum, the fact that is was boycotted by the Azerbaijanis and the 108,615 out of 108,639 voting for independence on Page 162. I suggest to include the book as a source--Sataralynd (talk) 10:37, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Celebrity section - really?

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

Most of the listed celebrities are self explanatory. Mkhitaryan is Armenian. Cher and Kardashian are Armenian Americans. West is married to Kardashian. Ozil is an ethnic Turk who is best friends with Erdogan [10]. And then there's Cardi B, who put up an Instagram story because the realtor selling her house was Armenian and asked for it. Then she backtracked by saying she didn't know anything about the conflict. [11] <- This source also mentions Serj Tankian and Alexis Ohanian. Can you, without looking, guess which side those celebrities support?

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

Fuzuli, wrong grammar

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

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

Map perspective

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

4 October

More than 12 days have passed and still there is no confirmation that the Mingachevir reservoir was attacked (no video, no images, no third-party sources).

At approximately 22:40, the Azerbaijani MoD stated that Armenian forces had rocketed Tartar City and Mingachevir, the latter housing a water reservoir, which Azerbaijan claimed that Armenia regards as a military target

What about re-editing this part? Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 09:54, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

We can remove the parts of Artsakh claiming recapturing some areas, still no update as well. Beshogur (talk) 10:09, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

@Beshogur: could you give an example of the article please? Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 17:14, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Didn't Hajiyev shared images of neutralized ballistic missiles? --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 12:42, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

@Solavirum: I couldn't find the image in the article, could you share it please? Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 17:14, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

@Գարիկ Ավագյան: this is one of many. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 17:27, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

@Solavirum: It is not clear from this image where it is. Just one image, not confirmed by any authoritative source. An attack on a reservoir is a serious accusation. Johncdraper and Ahmetlii May we know what do you think about this? Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 09:37, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Johncdraper, Ahmetlii, may I ask your opinion about this sentence? Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 17:14, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

@Գարիկ Ավագյան: apparently it's updated now. Beshogur (talk) 17:15, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

@Beshogur: I don't find anything updated. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 09:31, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Գարիկ Ավագյան: I found that image from TASS. Ahmetlii (talk) 09:49, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Ahmetlii:, Attack on Mingechavir reservoir is a big accusation and this Russian source is not strong enough to confirm this huge accusation. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 10:16, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

EkoGraf, AntonSamuel, Mr.User200, CuriousGolden would you take part in this discussion? Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 10:20, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Գարիկ Ավագյան: I understand, but also we used that source several times on the page to confirm accusations. Ahmetlii (talk) 10:23, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Գարիկ Ավագյան:, there are not many journos on the ground and the most we've got are from Turkish and Russian ones. I mean, there are clear reports from the locals that explosions were heard. I don't think it is constructive to question that. It is a fact that Mingachevir was struck (by Armenia, or not). --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 12:03, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Գարիկ Ավագյան: I agree with Solavirum above. It's not only journalists but local reports that confirm the explosion (Mingachevir is a big city, most Azeris have at least one relative or friend there, so I can confirm). But I understand why that isn't reliable enough for Wikipedia. Nevertheless, the sources and images we have already proved it. Azeri side can't really do much more to prove it. They have provided images of the struck missiles and that's enough to confirm it. — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 12:31, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Just label it as claims, I have seen a small wooden support next to the alleged Armenian smerch so it fits in that hole, maybe in some weeks/months Western media and fact finding web cites start raising doubts on this Azerbaijani reports of the attacks. Could be a Fake like the Lebanon war photos. Also find to extrange that the missile struck the entrance of the Reservoir and a newly painted label have raise some doubts on me.Mr.User200 (talk) 14:10, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

UK arms suppliers to both Azerbaijan and Armenia

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

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

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

About sources from Pan.am and Karabakh Records

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

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

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

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

@Գարիկ Ավագյան: Actually, I think that there's lots of dubious sources from this publisher, but here is one of the most dubious ones: [12]. It references to Telegram and Twitter, also to same dubious source. I have analyzed it and I don't even see any verification about claims from pan.am. That's one of my points.--Ahmetlii (talk) 13:49, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

@Ahmetlii: This is what I found about Karabakh Records [13]. Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 14:01, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Splitting

Someone has tagged the article for splitting at the top and I considered it myself as well per WP:SIZE. The timeline and Ganja shellings have been split by now, the next topic could be Casualties of the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict (similar to Casualties of the Iraq War, Casualties of the Syrian Civil War, etc). This is a good overarching source to start. Brandmeister^talk 19:03, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Agree. EkoGraf (talk) 19:14, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. I can help with the details. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 21:27, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Agree, I wish I could support but it's extended-protected and I don't edit that much. RBolton123 (talk) 03:06, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Disagree. Think it would be wise to wait until the most intense fighting is over before the article is split Daedal45^talk 01:34, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

No, I think it would be better if we created the articles early so that the main article page wouldn't get cluttered. RBolton123 (talk) 03:06, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Casualties are done now, the next could be International reactions to the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. I think soon we can remove splitting tags from the article. Brandmeister^talk 12:35, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I am presently working on condensing the article. Please hold. Johncdraper (talk) 13:21, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Support I created the summary of the chronology of the war to make it more reasonable. The timeline needs to go to it's own article, this article should just provide a general overview.--RM (Be my friend) 19:18, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Support I support the proposal. R. J. Dockery (talk) 20:05, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

The map

Regarding the map, I've earlier ([14] [15] [16]) called for a more neutral and accurate depiction of the situation on the ground, and found Liveuamap to be sufficient for use. However, lately their depiction of captured areas haven't been properly substantiated by providing geolocation of visual sources, and disputed areas are added based on one single report of shelling or clashes in the area. Their current depiction of areas around Martuni and Kalbajar suddenly being disputed without providing proper sources regarding it and the the southwestern part of the Jabrayil district being captured based solely on pro-Azeri reports warrants another approach - as I've argued before, there should be a similar basis for edits as is standard for edits on pages like the Syrian Civil War map which require sources not potentially biased with regard to the nature of the edit. Therefore, pro-Azeri edits has to use neutral or pro-Armenian sources and vice versa. Potential relatively pro-Armenian sources would be sources such as: [17]. So I would argue that the map should currently use at least one pro-Armenian or neutral source for confirmation and that only these confirmed areas should be displayed on the map. AntonSamuel (talk) 10:46, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

So the footages aren't enough? Do you expect france24 or someone else going to these ghost towns and record videos? We have to wait an eternity if that's what you want. Syrian civil war detailed map reports were majority of twitter, you can not have reports from western news agencies for all these small uninhabited villages and bigger towns. Beshogur (talk) 10:57, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@Beshogur: If they're relatively reliable and neutral/pro-Armenian then Twitter sources would be sufficient for Azeri gains in my view. Ideally, Template:Nagorno-Karabakh conflict detailed map should be used. AntonSamuel (talk) 11:01, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

The only video we saw from a western agency was a footage from Suqovushan, so are we going to mark that place only? Ridiculous. There are numerous footage from the Azerbaijani side of captured places including Jabrayil and Fuzuli that can be manually verified. Of course Armenians are not going to report their withdrawal. Beshogur (talk) 11:17, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@Beshogur: There have been numerous reports in international media and by pro-Russian/pro-Armenian sources regarding the capture of specific towns and villages and depiction of the situation on the ground through maps. One example is the source I linked to earlier. AntonSamuel (talk) 11:41, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@AntonSamuel: That sounds biased. For a truly neutral point of view, we need reports from both Armenia and Azerbaijan, but only fully highlight (in the map, that would be cyan) the areas confirmed by third-party sources. RBolton123 (talk) 13:41, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@RBolton123: What you're describing is pretty much exactly what I'm calling for - I stated that neutral or pro-Armenian sources should be used to confirm Azeri claims of captured areas, and that's the areas that should be displayed on the map. And if there are Armenian claims of the recapture of areas, these should be confirmed by pro-Azeri or neutral sources. AntonSamuel (talk) 13:45, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Considering that Armenia has denied almost all Azeri advances, then I guess we should just put the status quo map before the war and call it a day. Footages from the recaptured towns/villages are enough to confirm (unless in some specific cases if the videos' titles do not show the exact location/village). I think we should show areas Azerbaijan has claimed to have captured but hasn't released footages of yet (e.g. Murovdagh, Fuzuli) in grey colour. But ones that they have claimed to have captured and released footages of (or confirmed by other independent sources in Twitter geo-locating the footages (the best person for unbiased geo-locating, in my opinion, is Ryan O'Farrel)) to be shown in blue colour. The current map is good except the fact that it shows weirdly big areas (especially around the north-west, around Murov) that Azerbaijan has never claimed and no other source has been able to confirm. — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 11:24, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@CuriousGolden: As far as I've seen Armenia/Artsakh's general policy has been to not specify regarding any territories lost, while confirming some withdrawals. Footage from a town cannot be seen as sufficient evidence of the capture of the town without additional verification - both pro-Azeri and pro-Armenian sources have published these videos and photos as proof, while the situation on the ground may be subject to change. I've updated Template:Nagorno-Karabakh conflict detailed map to what I would argue is appropriate to currently display considering the published material about the situation in the region. Azerbaijani or pro-Azeri claims that have not been reported by other sources should not be being displayed on the map I would argue, these claims would be given undue weight, the reliability of these reports is questionable due to the potential bias of the sources. AntonSamuel (talk) 11:41, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@AntonSamuel: I don't see a problem with displaying claims of AzMOD that haven't yet been captured if both in the map and in the infobox it's clearly stated that these are claimed but not confirmed. We have to show claims of both sides to be unbiased. — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 11:57, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@CuriousGolden: It's fair to say that there seems to be political motivations heavily in play with regards to claims on both sides. Claims over a region or over a town are seemingly used to argue that fighting is of a defensive nature in that area because of the ceasefire. Therefore it is quite problematic to display claims from the Azerbaijani government on the map, and is not standard on Wikipedia for other maps displaying the situation on the ground with regard to ongoing conflicts. AntonSamuel (talk) 12:02, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@AntonSamuel:, I am trying to map the developments in LiveUAMap as soon as possible. I followed that resource as we decided to use LiveUAMap in our previous discussion. Again, it is useful to repeat, anyone can update this map. However, let's make a firm decision about which resource to use. If you want, even if it is included in LiveUAMap, let's not update it immediately. However, it is necessary to set a standard for this.Let me arrange the map accordingly.--Emreculha (talk) 12:41, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@Emreculha: My first statement in this thread pretty much sums it up - Liveuamap's recent updates have been quite dubious and unsubstantiated. Pro-Azeri edits should use neutral or pro-Armenian sources - this map (by a relatively pro-Russian/pro-Armenian source) is useful: [18] When going for neutrality and accuracy, a delay in updating the situation on the ground may be a result, however - as I stated earlier, this is the standard on Wikipedia for maps like this regarding ongoing conflicts. AntonSamuel (talk) 13:05, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

The map they post there doesn't seem to include Mravi, so I think it's balanced enough to be a third party source. Of course, it does show major gains by Azerbaijan in the main fighting area (the southeast), but Mravi is both strategic and one of the earliest points to be claimed captured by Azerbaijan. RBolton123 (talk) 13:43, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Not done that would be extremely misleading. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 12:55, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@Solavirum: How would it be misleading? By the way, "Done" or "Not done" are responses typically used on Wikipedia talk pages for edit requests from unconfirmed editors. AntonSamuel (talk) 13:05, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@AntonSamuel:, the Armenian-backed separatists deny every Azerbaijani advance. I don't think they can be considered anything but reliable at this point. First, it was Liveumap, which we agreed on despite protesting it, now this? What else do you want? You were to protect Liveumap's assertions so fiercely, now you want to revert them, because, I suppose, WP:IDONTLIKEIT. These request are getting ridiculous. And for the last sentence, no, that's not the case. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 13:09, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@Solavirum: I believe that I've explained quite thoroghly now in this thread why the recent edits are problematic. In short: the edits haven't been substantiated through geolocation like many updates on Liveuamap were earlier and many aren't based on Azeri claims. I've argued all along that neutral and reliable sources are necessary, that Liveuamap is not ideal, but relatively neutral, if a better source comes along then I'm all for it, and now that its reliability is significantly in question - I believe that the matter should be examined. AntonSamuel (talk) 13:17, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@AntonSamuel:, any alternatives? Surely, this one you provided above isn't one. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 13:19, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@Solavirum: I do think the Iranian map would be an example of a relatively pro-Russian/pro-Armenian or neutral source with regard to this specific conflict. https://syriancivilwarmap.com/ have posted updates on Karabakh too and is another potential source. Political Geography Now is another one [19], and there are also other pro-Russian sources such as MilitaryMaps on Twitter [20]. AntonSamuel (talk) 13:28, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@AntonSamuel:,I can understand you. However, I could not access any sources regarding Armenian sources (Twitter, video, etc.). There are only statements and photos that deny Azeri advances. If you have an Armenian source that you can suggest, let's use that too. If Russian, American etc. If there is a third source, let's compare them all. And let's make a list together as "RESOURCES TO USE". These can include sites like LiveUAMap, trusted journalists on Twitter. If there is a Telegram group, we can also discuss it there.---Emreculha (talk) 13:31, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@AntonSamuel:, I saw the Liveumap changes. It seems that the biggest issue here are Martuni and Shusha. Not official, but there are reports of Azerbaijani advancements close to Shusha, but still, they are unconfirmed. Wish there were Western sources for it. But Liveumap is the best we've got. Although the advancements along the Araz River are confirmed with footage, can't say the same about others, and we should avoid marking them. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 13:37, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

AntonSamuel, Solavirum ; In addition, village names are starting to not fit anymore. Should we show them as dots or stay as they are? If we show them as dots, we may need to delete village names from the whole map.---Emreculha (talk) 13:43, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@Emreculha:, minor villages' names should not be added. Only the ones with strategic importance. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 13:49, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@Emreculha: I've updated the map now and listed the sources that I used for the Azeri claims confirmed by the neutral/pro-Armenian/pro-Russian sources: https://english.iswnews.com/15804/azerbaijani-army-captured-fuzuli-town-south-of-nagorno-karabakh-map-update/ https://twitter.com/MilitaryMaps/status/1317764818804330496 https://twitter.com/MilitaryMaps/status/1317533394692169730, in line with the updated Template:Nagorno-Karabakh conflict detailed map. AntonSamuel (talk) 13:57, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@Emreculha: Regarding villages/sites, perhaps keeping the ones on the frontline would be more prudent. However as the situation is subject to change - I don't think there is a problem keeping most intact for the time being. AntonSamuel (talk) 14:01, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@AntonSamuel:,When we write the name of the area as Artsakh, Azerbaijani users object. My opinion is that either nothing should be written or only Nagorno-Karabakh should be written--Emreculha (talk) 14:03, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@Emreculha: "Nagorno Karabakh/Artsakh" would be fine in my view, just as long as there is not too much confusion with the NKAO since the map displays its borders. AntonSamuel (talk) 14:05, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@AntonSamuel:, I think it is an issue that needs attention. Armenians objected that cities and villages do not have two names on the map. Azerbaijanis also object to the name of the region. I think a common name should be found. Only Karabakh can be written.In addition, the gray areas were very useful to us. It prevented many discussions.---Emreculha (talk) 14:11, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@Emreculha: Showing "Nagorno Karabakh/Artsakh" would satisfy neutrality in the same way the "Israel/Palestine" does, I would argue. Regarding the grey color on the map: It's not standard as far as I have seen to display claims rather than confirmed captured areas on Wikipedia maps. It gets more complicated when taking into consideration that both sides are basically involved in an information war, I've stated earlier in the thread that it therefore is problematic with regards to neutrality and reliability to display claims by the Azerbaijani government, especially if it's used as the infobox map of this article. I think a list of potential sources is a good idea. However, just in general, holding to the time-honored principle on Wikipedia military control maps of using reliable pro-X or neutral sources to confirm pro-Y claims and vice versa is a good idea. I would argue that in its current state, Liveuamap can no longer be considered reliable (I've explained why more thoroughly above) as a neutral source used on its own, if used then it should be complemented by additional sources. AntonSamuel (talk) 14:24, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@AntonSamuel:,Dağlık Karabağ olarak eklenmeli diye düşünüyorum, en az iki cümle eklenmeli. Azerbaycan, Xudaferin bölgesini ele geçirdiğini açıkladı ve hatta o bölgeden bir video yayınladı. Bu durumda ne yapmalıyız?--Emreculha (talk) 21:16, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@Emreculha: I don't speak Turkish, but if I get the translation correct - you're asking what is prudent to do regarding the Azeri claim of capturing the area around Xudafərin, including videos and pictures of Azeri troops in the area - I argued earlier in the thread why I think it's necessary to find reliable as well as neutral or pro-Armenian/pro-Russian sources confirming that the area has been captured to include it on the map in light blue as areas that have been "captured by Azerbaijan according to third-party sources". AntonSamuel (talk) 21:36, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@AntonSamuel:, I think I'm a little confused :) The page you shared on Twitter is Russian Source but I have little difficulty reading. It is necessary to turn tweets into tweets. The other page is the Iranian source, but even the latest news updates 2 days ago. What sources does the detailed map on Wikipedia use? They are editors like us. Also, how neutral are Russian and Iranian resources? Perhaps some of them support Azerbaijan and the other part Armenia. I'm pretty confused right now. In a new discussion, I think that all sources should be listed separately and reliable ones should be determined jointly (with the participation of Azeri, Armenian and other users). I'm very interested in maps. It is not easy to create such a map. You know more or less how the map was prepared. I am trying to contribute and improve the map. But now I am unable to contribute to the map. Although I am Turkish, I also considered the sensitivity of the Armenian users here (I even learned a little Armenian Alphabet while researching city names :D ). But I think the same sensitivity should be observed for Azerbaijani users. As Wikipedi editors, we need to determine the criteria in accordance with Wikipedia's spirit and impartiality.--Emreculha (talk) 21:57, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@Emreculha: If this map is to be utilized for this relatively high-profile Wikipedia page, there needs to be certain standards as to what it is based on. I recently updated the Template:Nagorno-Karabakh conflict detailed map, and have used the same sources I used for the infobox map, I stated them here in this thread and in the edit summaries of both maps. As I argued above - because of the information war that is being waged and claims are quite politically charged, it's sound to follow the basic standard for Wikipedia military maps: "use reliable pro-X or neutral sources to confirm pro-Y claims and vice versa". I'm not saying the sources that I've found are the ideal ones or that you can't find superior ones, but I would say that they were more accurate and reliable than Liveuamap. You can find the sources Wikipedia lists as reliable sources here: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. I would advise you to keep on searching until you find additional sources that can back up the pro-Azeri claims. AntonSamuel (talk) 22:10, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

First, using the so-called "Artsakh" shows a pro-Armenian bias by user AntonSamuel. You won't find this word on maps published by neutral sources. What is the point of using a word that is not recognised by anyone in the world, while there is a toponym perfectly acceptable for everyone - Nagorno Karabakh. Otherwise, this is pretty much a very pro-Armenian map, and does not belong to a page which should be neutral. Secondly, why not use one color for areas claimed as recaptured by Azerbaijan and another color for those that have been proven by 3rd parties and by geo-location evidence (even if Azeri). Surely, Armenians and pro-Armenian sources are not going to admit their losses! It is ridiculous to demand this in order to make changes to the map. Again, pro-Armenian bias here. I invite other users to comment on these changes by AntonSamuel, as they are strongly biased and do not belong to a neutral page. Elpatron81 (talk) 22:19, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@Elpatron81: Well, while I don't agree with your assessment, I believe I've adressed the topics you mentioned already in this thread and the earlier threads I've linked. Including that I'm perfectly fine with "Nagorno Karabakh/Artsakh" on the map as well. "Artsakh" was featured earlier on the map before it was removed. I'm happy to accept the input of other editors as well, and hope more will contribute and improve the map's accuracy and neutrality. AntonSamuel (talk) 22:26, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

AntonsamuelHello! I am a new user. I am a neutral reader, neither pro azeri nor pro armenian. I think it would be great to add the claims of Azerbaijan too, you guys could use a footnote to exclaim that these claims may be greatly exaggerated. And, I am confused about Fizuli, last time it was confirmed to be taken by Azeri army, now it is again unconfirmed??103.147.163.6 (talk) 03:43, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@AntonSamuel:, don't change the map without reaching to a consensus. You are the only one calling that source reliable, and you have to prove it. We will use Liveumap until your argument reaches to a consensus. Also, @Emreculha:, please update the map, Azerbaijan announced 13 more settlements. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 04:50, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

The map atm is very misleading. Nothing was said about the liberation/seizing control of Khojavend. Stick to the official sources only. You can't say that Azerbaijan claimed [blank] when it hasn't. For the record, Azerbaijan says it has taken control of Fuzuli, Khodafarin Dam, and several villages along the Aras River. I don't know if Armenia denied any of those, so, edit accordingly. As I don't know how to edit SVG files. We shall keep the "claimed/not confirmed" key though, it is useful for Murovdag and Çaylı (and possibly, future claims). --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 04:52, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Solavirum: I have argued my point in this thread numerous times now and in the previous threads that I linked - why it is problematic to include the Azeri claims. Please adress these issues if you do not agree (Not standard on Wikipedia for military conflict maps, breach of NPOV with regard to the information war, the present unreliability of Liveuamaps markings). The original map did not include the Azeri claims. The version that included a large chunk of territory around Martuni as captured but unconfirmed was not up to the standards with regards to neutrality, reliability and accuracy that a relatively high-profile Wikipedia page like this requires. AntonSamuel (talk) 06:25, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@AntonSamuel: I haven't seen any user on this discussion that agrees with not showing Azeri claims. It's important to show Azeri claims to stay neutral. Most of what Azerbaijan claims is usually confirmed by footages a few days later anyway, so not like Azerbaijan has lied continuously about their gains. Again, it is completely okay to show Azeri claims with a gray colour and write clearly in both the map legend and in the infobox that the gray areas are areas claimed to be captured by Azerbaijan but not yet confirmed. Wikipedia's job is to do show things in a neutral way without eating away one side's view/claim. — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 07:03, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@CuriousGolden: As I stated before - it's precisely because of WP:NPOV that it's problematic to display the claims of the Azerbaijani government. Regarding Wikipedia:Consensus, I would point out the basic definition/description of consensus on Wikipedia: "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which is ideal but not always achievable), nor is it the result of a vote. Decision making and reaching consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines". So far, the counterarguments here have focused on evading the main issues I have brought up instead of addressing them. AntonSamuel (talk) 08:35, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the latest edit to the map by another user on Wiki Commons - it seems that at least one pro-Russian source (MilitaryMaps on Twitter) also reports this now: https://twitter.com/MilitaryMaps/status/1318077289360482304/photo/1 So, it may be proper to keep the area around Xudafərin marked as captured. However, I would reiterate the need to include third-party sources when making changes to the map - if it's to be used as the main map for this article. AntonSamuel (talk) 08:40, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@AntonSamuel: You unilaterally and arbitrarily changed the map, while not a single user agrees to removing the claimed area. Your own opinions and views are not a basis and justification for such changes. This is against the principles of the Wikipedia community; you must first get consensus. As you saw in this thread, no one supported your removal of the claimed areas. With claimed areas, everyone can see in the legend that this means "claimed". Removing this equals denying people the right to have the information. Those who are sceptical, can remain being so. It is up to them how to interpret it. But you can't deny them the information. That's the whole point of having a live map. And again, every opinion voiced here is in favor of keeping the claimed area. So, please do us all a favor and revert to having those areas indicated on the map. Elpatron81 (talk) 12:21, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Elpatron81: Again, I do not agree with your assessment. Regarding the issues of consensus and neutrality with regards to the Azeri government claims - I believe that I've sufficiently addressed these issues in this thread now. AntonSamuel (talk) 12:46, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@AntonSamuel: It's your business to agree or not agree. But no one here is supporting your unilateral and arbitrary changes. I have invited users to comment, it's for everyone to see how you blatantly are trying to ignore the consensus among users. What you did with removal of claimed areas is incorrect AntonSamuel, and ignoring the rest of us only further implicates you in your pro-Armenian bias. Nothing wrong with being biased - again, it's your business - but don't make changes to a neutral page to force your bias onto others. @Emreculha: please do intervene here, we cannot allow this on a neutral page. Elpatron81 (talk) 12:59, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Elpatron81: Again, I welcome the input of other editors to this discussion and in contributing to the map. If you have a specific issue regarding edits by users which you consider biased, then its fine to let them know. However, repeatedly throwing around accusations of Wikipedia users being biased overall without substantiating your arguments properly does show good faith. AntonSamuel (talk) 13:23, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Hallo from GermanWP, please be more patient about drawing that map, because liveuamap doesn't check or confirm Azerbaijani footages of captured cities and villages. According to that news on "Caucasian Knot" (BBC confirmed that) the Azerb. footage about its control in Hadrut from 13th october was a falsification. According to that footage of Armenian jounalists from 17th october (they speak about a repulsed Azerbaijani attack up from 11th and about following humanitarian truce) Hadrut is still under Armenian control.--WajWohu (talk) 13:15, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@WajWohu: I agree, with regards to valuing neutrality and accuracy over speed with regard to the updates - this is precisely what I've argued for with regard to the map. With regards to Hadrut, it seems a number of third party sources at this point does agree that the town is under Azeri control from what I've seen. If further reliable and neutral sources can be found that disputes this then the matter can be further looked in to of course. AntonSamuel (talk) 13:23, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi I might have jumped the gun on editing one of the maps but I noticed the MilitaryMaps source only mentions an announcement from Aliyev ("#Арцах (Нагорный Карабах) ☾ Ильхам Алиев заявил о контроле над н.п. Солтанлы, Амирварлы, Машанлы, Гасанлы, Аликейханлы, Гумлаг, Гаджилы, Гойерчинвейсаллы, Ниязгуллар, Кечел Мамедли, Шахвелли, Гаджи Исмаиллы, Исаклы" / "# Artsakh (Nagorno-Karabakh) ☾ Ilham Aliyev announced control over the settlement Soltanly, Amirvarli, Mashanli, Hasanli, Alikeykhanli, Gumlag, Hajili, Goyerchinveisalli, Niyazgullar, Kechel Mammadli, Shahvelli, Haji Ismayilli, Isakli") and the LiveUAmap entry for the same regions also only mentions an announcement from Aliyev ("Aliyev: Soltanli, Amirvarli, Mashanli, Hasanli, Alikeykhanli, Gumlag, Hajili, Goyerchinveysalli, Niyazgullar, Kechel Mammadli, Shahvelli, Haji Ismayilli, Isaqli villages of Jabrayil region were captured."). I do not think this counts as third party confirmation unless there are more tweets or entries that I missed? --LOLCaatz (talk) 13:24, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@LOLCaatz: While MilitaryMaps source might not be ideal since it's (mainly) a Twitter source (the do have a webpage too: militarymaps.info), it does seem that they do have at least a somewhat pro-Russian/pro-Armenian point of departure. They regularly update and the posts they've shared and the Azeri claims they've "confirmed" seem generally more conservative than other sources that I've seen. However, if you can find more reliable and neutral sources to base the map on - I'm all for it. AntonSamuel (talk) 13:42, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree about some of those empty villages in the south, when both parties mentioned the same (like in Aras region). But which third party sources confirm Azeri control in Hadrut and Armenian villages to the north and in the west by own investigations? I don't know them, the film upstairs show an Armenian control in Hadrut... Best regards.--WajWohu (talk) 13:51, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@AntonSamuel: I'm not arguing whether MilitaryMaps is pro-Russian or pro-Armenian however the basis for the specific tweet that was mentioned was an announcement from Aliyev with absolutely no other first-hand or other sources. In other words that tweet is pretty much directly quoting Aliyev without offering anything new. I do not consider Aliyev, as the president of one of the major warring parties in this conflict, neutral or a reliable source. The "claimed but not confirmed" area of the map is specifically for a situation like this where one side claims that an area is captured however no reliable or neutral sources are available to confirm this. Especially in the case of this war, where there is a huge amount of misinformation being propagated by both sides I think it is necessary to err on the side of caution and only mark something as confirmed when it is beyond reasonable doubt. --LOLCaatz (talk) 13:58, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@AntonSamuel:,@Elpatron81:, First of all i apologise for delay..As far as I can see LiveUAMap, Azerbaijan Ministry of Defense does not show that region as captured, without releasing a video about the region.

If I claim to have captured Paris, I'll put my flag on the Eiffel Tower and prove it. This is how the Azerbaijani side proves its claims. However, I have not seen the Armenian side defend its claims in this way. If they say Hadrut is under our control, they should broadcast videos in the same way. But the issue is that important cities have been ghost towns for nearly 30 years, and I don't know if they have landmarks such as the Eiffel Tower (for example, Grandpa-Grandma statue in Stepanakert / Khankendi). For this, Azerbaijani-Armenian users should support us.

There is no reason why we should not argue nicely here without offending each other. Our update of the map will not change the facts of the conflict, and the facts will emerge sooner or later.What we need to do is to observe the sensitivities of Azerbaijani and Armenian users and to contribute to this delicate matter in an impartial and in accordance with the spirit of Wikipedia. However, I would like you to show the same sensitivity and respect for us.

AntonSamuel advocates the evaluation of all unbiased sources. As far as I understand, Elpatron81 argues that this situation should not be exaggerated and that the Armenians reject everything. We'll find the middle ground somehow. If the neutral Armenian users do not contribute to the debate and simply reject every claim, our effort to be neutral will show the matter as pro-Armenian and this is a great misunderstanding. They must come and defend their claims by citing the source.--Emreculha (talk) 14:09, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Emreculha: Like Azerbaijan, Armenia/Artsakh have published many videos in and around Hadrut as well - as I've argued earlier - this in and of itself cannot be relied on for verification because of the rapid changes on the ground - even though the claims may prove to be correct. With regard to Wikipedia:Consensus I would again repeat its basic description "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which is ideal but not always achievable), nor is it the result of a vote. Decision making and reaching consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines". This should be the general guideline when seeking consensus with regard to disputes. Of course, I share your call for civility on all sides. I think your last edit to the map when you included third party sources in the edit summary was good. AntonSamuel (talk) 14:30, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Emreculha: I'm not from either country and have no ties to either country. I would argue that there is an information war going on and therefore both sides are pushing unsubstantiated, partially true or false claims as a matter of course. We have very few sources that can be classed as reliable outside of certain contexts (For example I would not consider Azeri MOD a reliable source however their footage of Armenian armor being destroyed is not deniable - in the same vein, I would consider videos of piles of dead Azeri soldiers to be not deniable in terms of Azeri casualties). In addition what may be considered good evidence may not actually be (for example the raising of flags over a settlement shows that soldiers were present and raising a flag at that point in time only and does not necessarily mean a confirmed capture). The challenge for us and for everyone analyzing this conflict is looking at intrinsically unreliable sources and finding some reliable information from them.

I don't think looking for "unbiased" sources is going to help us as even the most unbiased source suffers from very little reliable information from the battlefield. It is important in my opinion to evaluate every single piece of information individually instead of looking for confirmation from "pro-Azeri" or "pro-Armenian" or "Russian" sources. Does a video show a substantial military presence of a particular faction at a location? When were these videos taken, and is there a possibility that the dates were falsified? Is there any counter-evidence in the form of other videos, photos etc that might call the authenticity of the original evidence into question?

I think regarding the map it is important not to over-simplify the situation. If Azeri claims to have captured a location but multiple conflicting video evidence that "confirms" as well as "refutes" the claims it should be reflected in the map somehow - it is not up to us to decide that it is confirmed to be captured based on this video or not captured at all based on that video. It may well be that the majority of the captured areas are gray - this is simply a reflection of how little information is available to us. LOLCaatz (talk) 14:39, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I should add, that if we wanted a more neutral way to present "Areas claimed by Azerbaijan but not confirmed by third party sources" we could word it as "Ownership not clear due to conflicting claims" or "Status unknown" or something similar. --LOLCaatz (talk) 14:46, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

References

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

More attention to the two executed PoW's please.

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

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

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

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

Turkey alleges arms supply to Armenia

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

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

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

The original:

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

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

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

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

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

Splitting Fuzuli, Jabrayil, and Hadrut

I will go ahead and try to split these three. In the meanwhile, what names should we use? Fuzuli and Jabrayil are whole districts, and operations to seize full control are ongoing. Maybe Battle for Fuzuli/Jabrayil, and Battle of Hadrut would be fitting? In the meanwhile, feel free to WP:BOLD my sandbox, which includes all three subjects. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 15:16, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm not very experienced in this area but "Battle for Fuzuli/Jabrayil, and Battle of Hadrut" looks fitting to me. Flalf^Talk 17:10, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I think that we should split these three battles and make them one. Because the Azerbaijani sources use "Fuzuli-Hadrut-Jabrayil direction of the front", while the Armenians use "the southern front". And most of the causalities in the southern front reported by both parties are totaled, and not separate for each district. What I think is that there should be two separate articles for the ongoing battles. One for the south, and the other for north (A.K.A. Talysh-Sugovushan direction of the front). --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 17:31, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree we need to separate out the battles as accurately as possible, on a collegiate basis, so that we can condense the Timeline of military engagements in this article. Johncdraper (talk) 11:27, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Background section - Number of displaced persons

In the first paragraph of the Background section, it is mentioned The Nagorno-Karabakh War displaced over 500,000 Azerbaijani residents who used to live in the territory and surrounding provinces. The provided reference from The Conversation links back to the book The Black Garden by Thomas de Waal, ISBN 0-8147-1944-9 Page 285. However, the same page also lists 353,000 displaced Armenians from Azerbaijan as a result of the conflict. To avoid giving a one sided view to a casual reader, I suggest the following sentence to be included right after the above "The conflict also displaced 353,000 Armenians from Azerbaijan". I would also suggest referring directly to the book as a reference for both sentences, instead to The Conversation Article which itself refers to the book --Sataralynd (talk) 23:18, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Not done this refers to the people displaced from the Karabakh region only, and it should remain like that. Because another 500,000 Azerbaijanis were deported from Armenia. The article is about the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, not the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict in proper (which traces back to very early 1900s). --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 05:06, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

The 353,000 of Armenians figure that I cite above is, verbatim from the source, as a result of the conflict and not as you mention early 1900s. It is based on the work of Yunusov and provided as a reference in the book I cite. Further, the majority of the 500,000 figure currently cited in the Background section are Azerbaijanis who were displaced from regions outside Nagorno-Karabakh, namely the seven Azerbaijan regions around NK, as most census data put the number of Azerbaijanis in NK at less than 25% of the 160,000 population prior to the conflict. Therefore, I would ask to include number of displaced persons out of Azerbaijan from the Armenian side. This is a contentious article and we need to be extra careful to not provide a one sided view to the ordinary Wikipedia reader--Sataralynd (talk) 11:07, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it happened in the late 80s, and 90s, but not in Karabakh, but deep in Azerbaijan and Nakhchivan. As for the figures, I didn't said Nagorno-Karabakh, but Karabakh, where the conflict mostly took place. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 12:09, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Turkey/Russia Analysis is Shallow

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

Background

Turkish media close to President Erdogan claimed that YPG and PKK members from Iraq and Syria were transferred to Nagorno-Karabakh in order to train Armenian militias against Azerbaijan

More than two weeks have passed since the start of the war, and there is still no confirmation from authoritative sources about the participation of foreign mercenaries, particularly YPG and PKK members, on the side of Armenia. I think that this statement should not be included in "Background". In Background we write past facts, not uconfirmed allegations. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 09:43, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Johncdraper, sorry for taking your time again. May I know your opinion about this as well? Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 09:45, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

That claim is renewed every week by Azerbaijan. Whether it isn't, should we remove everything that's not updated in 2 weeks? Beshogur (talk) 10:05, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Background is not for claims. The past facts, confirmed by other sources, should be included there. AntonSamuel, would be nice to know your opinion as well. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 10:11, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Գարիկ Ավագյան: I understand your point and I'm supporting your idea in a point, but also I want to point out all of the article need a cleanup; especially about my previous concerns about social media services - especially when thinking both sides of the war has used effective propaganda techniques. Here is a good article about it. Ahmetlii (talk) 10:36, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Գարիկ Ավագյան: We need to do a perennial reliable sources (PRS) check for mercenaries on the side of Armenia. I remember noting one of the PRSs mentioning the issue, but I cannot recall what it said (my check was only for war), and I am not tracking mercenaries. Would you oblige? Johncdraper (talk) 11:33, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Map updates

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

@Solavirum: So, this is exactly what I've argued is problematic in the thread above [21]. I repeat the problems with adding Azerbaijani government claims to the map again: There is an information war going on with regards to claims, claims are politically charged and seem to be used for arguing that fighting in a region is defensive with regards to the ceasefire(s) - therefore it is not proper with regards to neutrality to display these claims on a map featured on a high-profile Wikipedia page such as this. AntonSamuel (talk) 13:36, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Rename page to "2020 Azeribaijan-Armenia Conflict"

This has recently spiked in media usage the last three days due to contensious issues on whether to call it Nagorno-Karabakh or Artsakh. So this has taken off recently.

206.174.216.170 (talk) 15:09, 19 October 2020 (UTC)