Talk:Second Nagorno-Karabakh War

Disputed neutrality

Because of some Armenian "trusted" authors, page became less neutral. Most of information source is unreliable and unverified site. Some of them don't have any source even. Please don't prefer Armenian sources only, because it is not one-sided war. The table showing Syrian militants and Turkey fighting against Armenia is not confirmed detail. Correction needed. --Ayxan İsmayılov (talk) 14:17, 27 September 2020 (UTC).

Yes, currently the article merely reports statements from both sides per WP:ATTRIBUTE. As the article's creator I can say that so far none of them is presented as an undisputable, widely accepted fact. Brandmeister^talk 14:55, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

A woman and a child were killed by Azerbaijani shelling of civilian settlements in Martuni province in Nagorno-Karabakh, the country's human rights advocate Artak Beglaryan said on 27 September. According to him, schools have been shelled, and there is large-scale damage to civilian infrastructure in many settlements. According to Beglaryan, "In Stepanakert alone, there are more than 10 injured, including children and women". You can't find these statements in any neutral verified sites like BBC, Reuters or New York Times etc. Source of this statement is Armenian website. For sure, they will write everything for their revenues. The fact "five members of the same family were killed by Armenian shelling of one village in Azerbaijan." is from verifiable source. Unseen this, we can see that all statements are againist of Azerbaijan. --Ayxan İsmayılov (talk) 16:50, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree, we cannot trust many news sources since most of them can be considered to be biased, especially when it mentions "human rights". We should take percautions per Wikipedia's neutrality policy, and punish those who do not adhere to this rule. Ethnic tensions between both peoples belonging to the warring belligerents have no place in this community, and they have no right to voice their opinion, as I believe there will be consistent edit wars over this article.Balkanite (talk) 01:42, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Information about Syrian militants was confirmed by many international sources, not just Armenian sources. There is absolutely no bias when it comes to that. Anita escobar (talk) 08:16, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Dito. Reuters and The Investigative Journal reported, as well as other international sources. Blairewaldorf01 (talk) 20:13, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Report on PKK/YPG involvement

Here is an article by James Wilson on The European Union Political Report, "PKK’s Involvement in the Armenia-Azerbaijan Conflict would Jeopardise European Security". --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 22:02, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Should be added to the sources. Icarusatthesun (talk) 14:04, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

With respect, the article is worth nothing. First of all, a bias against the PKK is noticeable there. This is untypical for serious reporting and only legitimate if a factual situation is commented on. And I think a comment or an opinion is no proof of an argument. Furthermore, the website itself is not a serious source. It is a personal blog, nothing more.

Furthermore, the author has not considered an important fact: the Kurdish parties in the Kurdish autonomous area cooperate with the Turkish state. If there were a movement on the part of the PKK to transfer fighters to Armenia, this would never be possible without attracting attention.

PKK involvement in the conflict in Armenia is only a smoke screen. This is intended to relativize the Turkish Jiadistan from Syria, which has been transferred to Azerbaijan, Güney Yalcin (talk) 02:34, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Servicemen&location

Can we remove this word, it is very unnecessary. & about the location "Nagorno-Karabakh, Armenia & Azerbaijan", does this imply that Nagorno Karabakh is in Armenia since we see the comma? Plus I didn't find any source about fight going on inside Armenia or on the borders. It should be changed to Nagorno-Karabakh, Azerbaijan. Beshogur (talk) 09:03, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Armenia reported developments in Vardenis yesterday. Source: 1, 2. And per Armenia, an Azerbaijani UAV was shot down near the same city. Source: 1. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 11:20, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Territorial changes

@EkoGraf: Has added a reference in which Armenia claims "...that they restored a number of previously lost positions." However he worded it as, all lost positions are captured[1]. Please revert this and do not repeat disruptive editing in the future. Resapp (talk) 12:05, 28 September 2020 (UTC) @Solavirum: @Benjideaula: @Beshogur:. @MarshallBagramyan: Resapp (talk) 12:05, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Al Masdar, which is generally unreliable cites Sputnik, which is banned to use here. I'm just saying this. Beshogur (talk) 12:12, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Resapp, like I said at your talk page, please refrain from making accusations against your fellow editors as per Wikipedia's policy on assuming good faith and civility. The edit I made was based on the title of the article which simply stated Armenia retook the territory it had lost. Even the sentence you pointed out can be interpreted they retook all of the territory they had lost. However, for sake of compromise, I reworded the sentence that they retook a number of the lost positions. I would also advise you to read up on Wikipedia's policy and assume a less combative stance against your fellow editors. As for Masdar's reliability, they have already been confirmed to be mostly reliable in regard to reporting on military territorial changes. Also, they are citing Armenia, so they are not making the claim themselves. And the claim of the recapture has been properly attributed to Armenia, just like we have properly attributed the claim on the capture of 7 villages to Azerbaijan. EkoGraf (talk) 12:20, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Adding information without reading the reference is disruptive, whether you do it knowingly or unknowingly. There are no personal attacks directed towards you with this regard, warning are made to improve Wikipedia, if you feel that warnings are attacks directed towards you personally please see WP:BATTLEGROUND. Resapp (talk) 12:18, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

@Beshogur: Reuters added instead [2]. EkoGraf (talk) 12:25, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Why did you even wrote such a long text, didn't accuse you of something, just the truth about both new outlets. I said "generally unreliable". Beshogur (talk) 12:26, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

@Beshogur: The long text was in reply to the message Resapp left on my talk page accusing me of biased disruptive editing. It wasn't in reply to you. Sorry for the confusion. I would never think you were making accusations against me Beshogur since you and I have had a good working relationship for a long time now, always finding a compromise. EkoGraf (talk) 12:30, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello everyone, I would like to ask a question to User:Resapp, you have been acusing other editors of disruptive editing and threatening other of being blocked. A conduct I have seen repetively on Sock accounts made by a Evasive Sockpuppet Master Gala19000 and Ramdomuser. I have also doubts about your behaviour. You have just created a account in this month but you look too familiar of how Wikipedia works. Have you been banned before? Do you use multiple accounts?Mr.User200 (talk) 13:17, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I concur with Mr.User200 that Resapp is very likely a sockpuppet of Interfase, who apperently has a history of edit wars. @EkoGraf: @Beshogur: @Solavirum: @Brandmeister: Icarusatthesun (talk) 17:10, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't have any sockpuppets in Wikipedia. --Interfase (talk) 17:15, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

A LOT of bias going on here. Calling Armenia’s claims “unreliable” but how do you know for sure that Azerbaijan is telling the truth? Wikipedia bias should not be allowed. Anita escobar (talk) 08:14, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 September 2020

Change the infobox territory statement from "Azerbaijan captured some positions, some of which were later recaptured" to "Azerbaijan captured some positions, some later recaptured" since it gets rid of weasel words WP:WEASEL. Resapp (talk) 13:14, 28 September 2020 (UTC) Resapp (talk) 13:14, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 September 2020

Domestic reactions---Armenia

On 28 September, Armenia accused Turkey on Monday of providing direct military support for Azerbaijan. The Armenian foreign ministry said in a statement that Turkey had a “direct presence on the ground”. It said Turkish military experts “are fighting side by side” with Azerbaijan. An unimportant person (talk) 15:22, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

References

Syrian National Army

This conflict is only in its third day. While there are several reports that Turkey has been recruiting SNA fighters to go to Azerbaijan, I have yet to see proof that they have fought on the frontline. For all we know, this conflict could end tomorrow. Let's hold off on adding the SNA to the infobox until there is conclusive evidence that their fighters have not only arrived to Azerbaijan, but have been deployed on the frontline. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 01:19, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

There is no evidence, elementary lie.--Nicat49 (talk) 01:55, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I tried removing it, someone reinstated it with the note "Alleged by Armenia, denied by Azerbaijan. Personally I'd like it taken down for now.--RM (Be my friend) 02:09, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

@TheEpicGhosty: Since you used the word "allegation": The infobox is meant to summarize the content of the article. Allegations can be mentioned in the article itself, but shouldn't be in the infobox. Don't worry, though: If the allegations hold merit (which I personally think they do), Turkish/SNA involvement on the ground will be confirmed soon enough, and we can add Turkey/SNA/both to the infobox without a footnote. Let's take it easy and wait until there's conclusive proof that the SNA has fought on the frontline. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 04:27, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

No Syrian or Kurdish "ghost fighters" were reported among the causalities with a proof. But Vagif Dargahli said that there were Syrian mercs among the casualities. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 06:10, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

If it was just Syrian mercs as opposed to organized SNA forces then they shouldn't even be in the Infobox as they were just paid by Azerbaijan and under Azeri command.--RM (Be my friend) 08:45, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

There is about as much evidence for the SNA involvement as claimed by the armenians as there is evidence of PKK/YPG and ASALA linked fighters as claimed by the azeri side, by which I mean there is no real tangible evidence for either. but im noticing a disproportionality in how those elements are being mentioned and written about in the article. and in the listings as belligerents, there seems to be a bias favoring the Armenian side, IMO on the matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Midgetman433 (talk • contribs) 13:15, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Various pro-Syrian Rebel activists on Twitter are confirming that there is SNA involvement. https://twitter.com/Elizrael/status/1311196525977100289?s=20 Avedji (talk) 09:39, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Azerbaijan captured "a height"

Mount Murovdag, quoting Wikipedia: is the highest mountain range in the Lesser Caucasus, Azerbaijan. Can you change this from "A height" to Peak of "Mount Murovdag"? @Solavirum, JHunterJ, Interfase, and Beshogur: Resapp (talk) Resapp (talk) 11:50, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Comprehensiveness versus conciseness

I know this is a tense moment for many people (including many editors), since this war is unfolding before our eyes, but I think we should refrain from writing this article as if it's sports commentary. Seemingly ever instance of conflict between tanks and infantry is being reported and either being confirmed or denied (there's really no surprises there). However, I would suggest to editors that they try to resist the urge to report each and every engagement that has taken place over the last few days (and in the coming days, weeks, etc.) and each and every unimportant official or officer and try to aim for conciseness and information that really is worth reporting to readers (such as the shoot-down of the Armenian SU-25 by the Turkish air force or civilian casualties). Otherwise, this article becomes unreadable and gets jam-packed with so much information to overwhelm the reader simply to push one agenda over another. Regards, Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 15:17, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Agree here. I really dont thing this is a War, a conflict maybe. But not a full scale war. Take for example that tomorrow a cease fire is achieved by UN or Russia coordination. All will be over and everyone to their normal live. But the article should be checked by veteran historian editors not by enthusiasm driven editors. This is not a sport commentary of competition. I really see a very agresive way of editing on some Azerbaijani editors as well on one Armenian and a lot of Sockpuppets making comments fuelling hate and a Wiki-Battlegorund. This is lame a lot of people have died on both sides, whole families of servicemen btw.Mr.User200 (talk) 15:26, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Both sides are waging an information war, and that has now bled onto the pages of Wikipedia. I'm not sure if some of the more aggressive editors understand that once these clashes wind down (soon, I hope) most of the information posted here is going to be culled and reduced into much less ideologically-driven prose. But I guess there's no way of avoiding it.Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 15:35, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Yup, also Talk pages are not Forums. So most of that ideological driven edits will be erasen too.Mr.User200 (talk) 15:37, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I would note how the entire "War" section are official press releases by the warring states, which would probably not be too reliable. At this point I don't expect Reuters to be on the frontlines, but someone should make sure that claims aren't presented in wikipedia's voice as facts. Also, is the Azeri military more active on their social media accounts or is there a noticeable overrepresentation of their press releases? Juxlos (talk) 16:28, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I object over this. Every official information is noteworthy. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 16:31, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Official statements by either side are by definition NOT WP:NPOV. I have now copy-edited the entire timeline and introduced some basic standards for copy-editing in a separate section (see below). If they are not assiduously followed, I will remove every non-WP:NPOV; this may happen anyway. Johncdraper (talk) 21:00, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Syrian-Armenian mercs in the clashes

Governor Sheng, why are you removing information? This is clear POV-pushing. Why add the Armenian claim, but not the Azerbaijani one? Here are some sources 1, 2, 3. I won't join this edit war, but this makes the articles extremely biased in favour of the Armenians. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 17:17, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

You are using Reuters and Arab News as sources, but non of those support the claim that Armenians from Syria are involved in the conflict. You can use other sources if you like, but do not misuse those sources which do not deal with the issue whatsoever. I'm not removing information, only the references that do not support such a claim. --Governor Sheng (talk) 17:19, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

These claims are getting out of hand. Apparently, now Pakistanis are part of the conflict. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 17:33, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Can Brandmeister, Interfase, and Beshogur comment on the issue? --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 17:34, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

It might be my fault by mixing these citations while trying to clean out the infobox with notes. But other sources telling Azerbaijani officials claiming there are Syrian-Armenian fighters there. So what is the dispute? Beshogur (talk) 17:36, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Solavirum, the source you included states that the ethnic Armenians, not only from Syria, but also other Middle Eastenr countries are involved in the fighting. Thus, I changed the input accordingly, from "Syrian-Armenian" mercenaries to "Armenian Middle Eastern mercenaries". Syria is in the Middle East, is it not? Thus, it's more inclusive. The source says it itself. What's the issue with that? --Governor Sheng (talk) 17:37, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I suggest having non-Azeri and non-Armenian/non-Artsakh belligerents either in a footnote or in the article's body, but not as they are presented now. Syrian or Pakistani groups are not the main belligerents compared to Azerbaijan or Armenia. These are only factions or some groups, assuming the claims are true. Brandmeister^talk 17:43, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

How about including them as supporters like in the Syrian civil war article? --Governor Sheng (talk) 17:46, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Governor Sheng, Beshogur, I don't object that. I'm talking about this edit, which adds Pakistan as one of the combatants. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 17:55, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

There is exactly 0 evidence that ethnic Armenians from Syria and Lebanon, most of whom have moved to Armenia/Artsakh because of the civil war and the crisis/blast, are mercenaries (as opposed to volunteers). ----Երևանցի ^talk 19:29, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Yerevantsi, it seems to me you are correct. It would be logical ethnic Armenians would rather volunteer than be paid by Armenia to join the conflict. However, it's an Azeri claim that they were mercenaries. I have nothing against including them as being combatants, however, I'd place my bet even if they are involved, they're probably included in the regular military structure. --Governor Sheng (talk) 19:52, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Eik Corell, why did you remove Pakistani involvement from the infobox? There is no less evidence of Pakistani involvement than there is of Syrian mercenaries, thus if the latter stays up, so should the former. Achemish (talk) 19:32, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

We can't just be putting up whatever the Azerbaijani alleges into the infobox as this can be highly misleading. Given that there's absolutely no corroborating evidence allegation. Absolutely none. It's a disservice for our readers to even imply that there is anything of that sort on this article. Perhaps, it can go into the body of the article. But that's as far as this should go. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:39, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Adding Armenian claim, and removing Azerbaijani claim will make this article extremely biased. Wikipedia is not a WP:BATTLEGROUND. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 20:02, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Solavirum, I agree. What about the claim of Pakistani involvement? The claim is as strong as Azerbaijan's claim of Middle Eastern involvement. --Governor Sheng (talk) 20:06, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

The thing is, the SNA involvement is heavily collaborated by various reputable international media agencies. The claim of mercenaries in Armenia is Azerbaijani government propaganda with no collaborating evidence. It is super misleading to present them as the same on the infobox. I think if we insist on keeping baseless claims like this in the infobox, they should at least have (alleged) written afterwards. The same would go for the Turkish Air Force involvement, as this is alleged by Armenia without any proof shown yet. And also for the Pakistani involvement claim, as it has just as much evidence as the other two claims. Achemish (talk) 20:10, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I would agree with you that only claims reported by the mainstream media should be included, no matter how one-sided. However, including obscure claims would make the whole article look like a combination of various propaganda leaflets. --Governor Sheng (talk) 20:13, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Governor Sheng, tbh, I have no idea about that claim. The source, Zee News, is based in India, which is in a conflict with Pakistan. Also, I don't think we can compare both claims. The claim of Syrian-Armenian involvement comes from the Azerbaijani government, but this one comes from a partisan Armenian website, namely, "Free News.AM". I will wait on comments by other users. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 20:14, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Achemish, do you realize that there is no material evidence of the involvement of these Syrian "ghost fighters" too? --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 20:17, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Solavirum There is strong evidence for Syrian fighters having been transported to Turkey by Azerbaijan. Multiple international media outlets have reported on it, including Reuters and The Guardian. There has been geolocated video of these fighters near the frontlines of Karabakh. Meanwhile, the claims of mercenaries in Armenia are being made specifically by Azerbaijani propaganda outlets. Achemish (talk) 20:22, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Achemish, and would you mind showing this "strong evidence"? --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 20:41, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Solavirum https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/sep/28/syrian-rebel-fighters-prepare-to-deploy-to-azerbaijan-in-sign-of-turkeys-ambition. The Guardian, an reputable international outlet (not an Azeri or Armenian source), stating that is has spoken with rebel fighters deploying to Azerbaijan. Achemish (talk) 22:30, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Achemish, this article doesn't provide "strong evidence" as you said before. There are no footages, no proof. They have just talked to three rogue Syrian rebels. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 06:05, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Solavirum, it’s an international outlet that has spoken to Syrians who are being sent to Azerbaijan. The Guardian clearly felt these claims were credible enough to publish the article. Reuters also had separate interviews https://www.reuters.com/article/us-armenia-azerbaijan-turkey-syria/turkey-deploying-syrian-fighters-to-help-ally-azerbaijan-two-fighters-say-idUSKBN26J25A. There’s a Twitter thread locating a video of Syrian rebels in Azerbaijan. https://twitter.com/leonl62342286/status/1310560737123856387?s=21. There have been various flights seen on FlightRadar24 from both Syria and now Libya. I think it’s fair to say that the claims of Syrian rebels in Azerbaijan are valid. The Reuters and Guardian accounts are evidence alone. This is compared to 0 evidence for mercenaries in Armenia. It’s ridiculous to present them as equal. Achemish (talk) 08:36, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Achemish, you are clearly have mistaken the difference between a source, and an evidence. Footage circulating Twitter are mostly fake news, and are not credible. Because there are videos of the so-called Armenian mercs too. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 08:46, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Solavirum What will be sufficient evidence for you? Achemish (talk) 01:34, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Solavirum, it is true that Wikipedia is not a WP:Battleground, however, Wikipedia should also represent WP:Neutral point of view. This means that Wikipedia users must write objectively, without any subjective intentions. Deliberately equalizing the parties to a conflict, in this case by adding combatants, is a subjective intention. For example, if Tom is 185 centimeters tall and John, 170, the objective goal of Wikipedia users is to promote that truth, and not to falsely add centimeters to John's height so that neither of them would be offended or so that their height, for some subjective sense of fairness, would be equal. If it is proven that the Syrians are fighting on the side of Azerbaijan, and that claim is conveyed by the objective mainstream media, many times and by many of them, then I think it is fair to add something like that to the article. However, this does not have to be accompanied by the addition of foreign fighters or mercenaries on the Armenian side to follow that subjective sense of justice. --Governor Sheng (talk) 20:41, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Solavirum, your POV-pushing is disruptive and not constructive. Try to find consensus on the talk page before reverting the ridiculous Azeri claim that ethnic Armenians are fighting as mercenaries. There are thousands of diaspora Armenians living in Armenia who've enlisted with the military. Virtually all are Armenian citizens. The fact that you claim it's no different from Syrian mercenaries fighting for Azerbaijan, there's literally more non-Armenian sources corroborating on that than Armenian ones. See Reuters and others.  ----Երևանցի ^talk 07:28, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

There are no Ethnic Armenian "Mercenaries" who came to fight. The Syrian Armenians that came to Armenia came as refugees and received Armenian citizenship long ago, if they are fighting they do so as Armenian citizens NOT as mercenaries. Stop publishing straight up propaganda from unreliable sources. Avedji (talk) 09:36, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

There is nothing disputed about Turkish involvement through Syrian mercs. Several reputable sources including the BBC, Guardian and Reuters confirmed their presence in Azerbaijan.[3][4][5][6]-Kathovo talk 15:10, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, there's literally countless accounts of their recruitment, their presence, and their deaths at this point. Azerbaijan simply denying it isn't enough for this to be marked as "Disputed", considering the wealth of reputable articles confirming this fact. Solavirum Achemish (talk) 04:04, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Copy-editing basics for military engagements

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

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

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

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

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

War Map

I prepared a map to show the instant progress of the war. You can find the map here. I am waiting for your feedback on the missing details on the map and correcting the wrong places. If the map is deemed appropriate, a constantly updated map such as the Syrian Civil War map can be added to the item.---Emreculha (talk) 21:06, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

You need to use NK, not NQ. Basically, you need to check your spellings are per WP:EN. Also, in the Key, 'Control Areas by' -> 'Areas controlled by'. Also, you would need to be prepared to do daily updates, using only WP:NPOV reliable sources. Are you? Johncdraper (talk) 21:14, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

First of all, i apologise for my English :) I re-edit the map. By the way i dont know what is "WP:NPOV reliable sources", i prepared from LIVEUAMAP. This source still using for Syrian Civil War. I can update day by day.. If i will do mistake. I will handle it immediately..-- Emreculha (talk) 22:52, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

"WP:NPOV reliable sources" means that the news feed for the map must not come from one of the belligerents. If that is true, and the map is ready, you can try inserting the map. Johncdraper (talk) 06:46, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@Emreculha: I think it looks much better than the current one. I support changing to this since its more detailed. Resapp (talk) 07:12, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@Johncdraper:, @Resapp:, I get the information from this site. If you see incorrect information, let me correct it immediately. However, I am not authorized to add the map to the page. Page is protected. But i inserted Turkish Wiki.--Emreculha (talk) 10:55, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@Emreculha: You can insert it by rewriting the current map in the commons. Resapp (talk) 11:07, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@Emreculha: Would you please add the little world map to your map in the top left so that we lose nothing from the present map? Johncdraper (talk) 11:13, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Johncdraper, I suggest not to use this map as this map doesn't show the Republic of Artsakh, Nagorno-Karabakh region and Armenian-controlled territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh. Also, most of the clashes in Nagorno-Karabakh use the same template. Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 15:08, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Գարիկ Ավագյան I did not add this map. You can revert it yourself, with a reason, if you feel there is no consensus. If you are not an extended auto-confirmed user, you can file a request to edit. Johncdraper (talk) 15:20, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Emreculha can edit the map accordingly to Գարիկ Ավագյան's request, if he does not object. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 15:23, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I will return the previous map, since it used in many articles about Nagorno-Karabakh clashes. Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 15:25, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Գարիկ Ավագյան,Johncdraper,Solavirum I suggested the map because it gives more comprehensive cities. We can add all approved progress on the war to the map. We can correct deficiencies or mistakes in the map.--Emreculha (talk) 16:07, 30 September 2020 (U

Գարիկ Ավագյան Political designations of territories may be contentious, and city-level data may be hard to establish in a few cases, depending on what happens. You could try revising the map and trying again. Johncdraper (talk) 16:20, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

“Strength”

Wouldn't there be some information regarding the sizes of the armed forces of Armenia, Artsakh, and Azerbaijan? Feels off to only have number associated with an at best expeditionary group and at worst nonexistent combatant. Juxlos (talk) 03:01, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@Juxlos: Strength is now in the Infobox. You can help populate this, but any help you might be able to provide would require reliable sources, and I am unsure as to whether or not these exist given that the sides are not fully committing nor specifying which forces are involved. Still, you can give it a try. Johncdraper (talk) 15:52, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Azerbaijan claims to destroy Armenian S-300

Add this under per Azerbaijan casualties maybe? Ref: [7] @Solavirum, Interfase, and Beshogur: Resapp (talk) 07:10, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Location is @ the infobox is incorrect

Location in the infobox says "line of contact and the border". This is wrong. Stepanakert in the middle of Karabagh is shelled daily. So are some Azerbaijani and Armenian towns which are not on the border but at least 60kms deep. Suggest changing it to, "Nagorno-Karabakh, Azerbaijan and Armenia". Resapp (talk) 07:43, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 September 2020 (Infobox updated with 3 requested changes above)

2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict
Part of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and the Russia-Turkey proxy conflict
Territory controlled by the Republic of Artsakh including Armenian-controlled territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh   Territory claimed by the Republic of Artsakh but controlled by Azerbaijan   Territory captured by Azerbaijan
Date 27 September 2020 (2020-09-27) – present (3 years, 9 months and 3 days) Location Nagorno-Karabakh, Azerbaijan and Armenia Status Ongoing Territorial changes Artsakh says Azerbaijan captured some positions, some of which were later recaptured Azerbaijan claims to have captured 7 villages and several heights
Belligerents
Azerbaijan Disputed: Syrian National Army Turkey	Artsakh Armenia Disputed: Ethnic Armenian mercenaries from the Middle East and Syria
Commanders and leaders
Ilham Aliyev (President, Commander-in-Chief) Col. Gen. Zakir Hasanov (Minister of Defence) Maj. Gen. Mais Barkhudarov	Arayik Harutyunyan (President, Commander-in-Chief) Jalal Harutyunyan (Minister of Defence) Nikol Pashinyan (Prime Minister, Commander-in-Chief) David Tonoyan (Minister of Defence) Onik Gasparyan (Chief of the General Staff)
Units involved
Azerbaijani Armed Forces Disputed: Turkish Armed Forces Turkish Air Force	Artsakh Defence Army Armed Forces of Armenia
Strength
320–500 fighters	Unknown
Casualties and losses
Per Azerbaijan: Unknown One combat helicopter damaged Per Armenia: 790 servicemen killed 1,900 servicemen wounded 137 tanks/IFVs destroyed 72 UAVs downed 7 helicopters downed 1 aircraft downed Per other sources: 30+ servicemen killed (Islamic World News) 30 Syrian fighters killed (a SNA leader)	Per Armenia: 85 servicemen killed (27-28 September) 120+ servicemen wounded 1 Su-25 downed Per Azerbaijan: 2,300+ servicemen killed or wounded 6 command posts, and command-observation posts destroyed ~130 tanks/IFVs destroyed 55 other military vehicles destroyed 200+ artillery pieces, multiple launch rocket systems, grenade launchers destroyed 18 UAVs downed 5 ammunition depots destroyed 25 anti-aircraft systems destroyed 50 anti-tank weapons destroyed 1 S-300 destroyed
13 Azerbaijani and 4 Armenian civilians killed; 35 Azerbaijani and 30+ Armenian civilians injured

Resapp (talk) 07:47, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

References

Unknown whether Azerbaijan actually “gained” territory

Azerbaijan claims to have gained those lands; it is denied by the Armenian side. That map is not reliable. It should be added “claimed by Azerbaijan” to their apparent “gains”. Anita escobar (talk) 08:08, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

The map uses information from both sides. The infobox previously stated "Per Azerbaijan", someone removed it I guess. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 09:08, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

The map is obvious POV. The Armenian side claims it restored lost positions in various parts of the defense line and made some progress. see Arayik Harutyunyan's statement GevHev4 (talk) 09:25, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I disagree that the map is POV. Armenia itself admitted to losing "some" positions without specifying where. Azerbaijan simply defines the territory it captured. Resapp (talk) 09:45, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Artsakh admitted it on 3 days ago, then recaptured these positions. if lets say Artsakh admitts losing an unknown position, and Azerbaijan claims it occupied Fizuli, Tigranakert and Jabrail, we should add the Azerbaijani fakes as an info from the both sides? Not a good idea. With your logics we should add 550 killed Azeri servicemen as an info from the both sides, as Armenia specifies the number of killed Azeris, and Azerbaijan says "unknown number of our servicemen is killed", supporting Armenian claims. GevHev4 (talk) 10:23, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

The Armenians hasn't specified which positions they have allegedly "recaptured". While Azerbaijan has specified every single position. The map uses up-to-date info. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 10:26, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Gevhev4, Arsakh/Armenia have not claimed to recapture all lost positions. Only claimed that "some" of the lost "some" were recaptured. Which really is an ambiguous statement that can be interpreted in any way. Resapp (talk) 10:29, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

The map most definitely is a POV of Azerbaijan. Armenians denied losing any settlements. The map provided by the Azeri side includes settlements. Anita escobar (talk) 11:55, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Alleged Pakistan help to Azerbaijan

It has been alleged that Pakistan is assisting Azerbaijan. Check : www.dnaindia.com/world/report-big-disclosure-pakistani-army-fighting-on-behalf-of-azerbaijan-in-the-war-against-armenia-zee-news-reports-2846325/amp Teerthaloke102 (talk) 10:31, 30 September 2020 (UTC) The source there is to a conversation between 2 Azeri civilians. It was also om zer. That's not RS.37.186.97.171 (talk) 11:01, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Unreliable Indian sources, which has a conflict with Pakistan. Seems like propaganda. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 11:14, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I found some sources 1. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 14:26, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Գարիկ Ավագյան ZeeNews, TimesNow news have been on occasion held responsible for spreading fake news. Dnaindia.com is also a part of ZeeNews. So they should not be used to make controversial claim. News.AM is quoting report from newscomworld.com which is again an Indian website. Also just look at the language used by that website: Social Media in "Terrorist Nation" Pakistan came out openly in support of Azerbaijan. They also have "Hate corner" on their website. Do you really think that these sources should be used to make such a controversial claim? A2kb2r (talk) 15:28, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Honesty this allegation of Pakistan's involvement should put to rest already. It first came to surface on 28 September and there is currently no further information related to this. This rumor is also not supported by international media or the official representative of Armenia or Azerbaijan. So it is best to ignore this rumor. A2kb2r (talk) 15:35, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Reaction map

Hi, I created a International reaction map to these clashes/conflict of these days. It would be great to add it in their correspondent section. For sources, are in Catalan article.--KajenCAT (talk) 11:28, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure that this is necessary now that the UN Security Council has stepped in. The UN position is now officially in favour of peace, meaning that in the key, officially, every non-belligerent is in favour of peace. Johncdraper (talk) 11:42, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I highly doubt the UN will ever be in a position where it favors war between 2 member states. Juxlos (talk) 12:04, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Juxlos That was a coffee-spitting out moment for me. Thank you. My point is it does sometime take the UNSC a while to go from a 'neutral' position (essentially inaction) to official condemnation. Now there is official condemnation, I am wary about a map that may set in stone what are likely to be fluid positions now that the UNSC may take further action and most states will toe the UNSC party line. Johncdraper (talk) 12:23, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Looks pretty good and good to go. I don't see a reason why it should not be included. Clearly shows the countries diplomatically showing their position in the conflict. Resapp (talk) 13:03, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@Johncdraper: UN is not the same as their members states. Actually, some UN members states support only one side (Cyprus only to Armenia, Turkic countries to Azerbaidjan), others make silence as their position (Scandivanian countries, who were usually among the first to make statements). I don't see any issue here, sincerely.--KajenCAT (talk) 13:18, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@KajenCAT: You are absolutely correct. My point is that it is likely that the majority of UN Member States will soon toe the UNSC line and be supporting a peaceful solution. If the map is added, I, personally, will not remove it. However, monitoring it and keeping it up to date may be highly problematic, and others may. Johncdraper (talk) 13:24, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@Johncdraper: We always can separate public statements did the last days to hypothetic voting resolution of UNGA. So, in my opinion, it's not necessary to keep updating this map so long.

I don't think the conflict has progressed enough for a map like this to be made. Since it's just based on initial statements, it's highly speculative. Right now it's basically a map of what country has issued a statement, and of whether they named Armenia or Azerbaijan as the attacker in said statement. --Antondimak (talk) 14:53, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Turkey claims 300 PKK fighters crossed into Armenia from Iran

Maybe add this under alleged combatants in the infobox? Ref:[8] Resapp (talk) 11:38, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I would like to see that verified by a non potentially quasi-belligerent reliable source. The BBC may confirm it within a day or so. Johncdraper (talk) 11:47, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

If we are to do that we should remove Turkey as a belligerent too since only Armenia claims their involvement. If not then all the belligerents claims should be included without discrimination. Resapp (talk) 12:58, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I think its ok to keep the Turkey and PKK/Armenian mercenaries claim for now, although these sources are likely biased. In any case the article about PKK involvement clearly alleges they are there for training not in a fighting capacity, so they should be erased from they fighting strength box. Icarusatthesun (talk) 13:18, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I think we should all be able to discriminate what makes a source reliable and worthy of inclusion and what doesn't. The fact that Turkish F-16s are flying out of air bases out of Azerbaijan is far likelier than Armenian "mercenaries" from Lebanon and Syrian and Kurdish fighters traveling to Armenia. No one seriously denies that there are Armenians from Lebanon and Syria living in Armenia now as Armenian nationals who have decided to volunteer as fighters on the Armenian side; that 300 Kurdish fighters somehow slipped into Armenia, however, should be taken with a grain of salt. The Turkish state has been waging a war against the PKK and other Kurdish nationalist groups for 40 years now. This is not the first time that it is accusing Armenia (again, without any proof) of harboring Kurdish fighters. So we should not be afraid to sift through the evidence and decide on what information to treat as reliable and trustworthy and what to rule out as outright propaganda by, let's be frank, two states governed by leaders with authoritarian tendencies. My two cents, Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 13:32, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't expect anyone to except Armenian biased editors to accept this proposal since it is clearly one sided and original research regarding what should be considered reliable and not. Resapp (talk) 13:36, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Only Armenia has claimed that Turkish F-16's were in Azerbaijan without evidence so far. As of yesterday, satellite images have not found a single F-16 at the Ganja airport[9] which Armenia claimed housed Turkish F-16's. Satellite images:[10]. Resapp (talk) 13:42, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't know if the "Armenian biased editors" comment is directed at me, but it's an otherwise inappopriate remark. Knock it off. I am merely arguing for a more methodical approach to how we treat sources. We can await for further verification about the alleged attack by the F-16 fighter plane, but other matters we can treat more skeptically.Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 13:58, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

It's not directed at you. However so far there have been several editors who have been adding Armenian statements as facts while removing the other belligerents references, and it has to stop. Either we add both belligerents statements or remove both. This is not a battleground WP:BATTLEGROUND. Resapp (talk) 14:02, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Alright, I didn't mean to fly off the handle like that, but there are many things left wanting in this article and what we certainly don't want at this time is for it to become another venue for Armenians and Azerbaijanis to air their grievances.Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 15:00, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Agreed that Turkey often uses PKK as a jail-free-card and is maybe even less likely than Iranian or Turkish involvement. Like I said I can live with it being stated as an allegation for now. But I would be pleased if you Marshal Bagramyan or someone else could remove the PKK from the strength box since the source claims PKK's role as consulting. Thanks. Icarusatthesun (talk) 15:28, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Let 's please stop this "alleged" nonsense that has no verified sources at all. Given the political ramifications of "PKK support", such a claim should only be placed when there is clear, independent verification of their presence. Otherwise it is just unnecessary spaming of the page and misleading readers. MosMusy (talk) 19:59, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

The Kurds in Syria are not logistically able to help the Armenians, even if they want to.

What would be realistic would be that from Christian villages around Aleppo, which are administered by the YPG, some have volunteered to fight there. The question is: who organizes this logistical effort. Can the Armenians there simply give up their villages? How likely is the aggression of Turkey to take Aleppo after Afrin? Güney Yalcin (talk) 16:40, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Iran and Russia

I do not see anywhere Azerbaijan officials claiming that. I don't think it should be there like the Pakistan claim. Beshogur (talk) 12:12, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

From what I see the Azeri news agencies are presenting videos of the Iranian weapons as fact. Can't seem to find anything about Russia though. Juxlos (talk) 12:32, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

There have been footage released on Armenian/Azerbaijani/Turkish and even Iranian state TV[11] showing Russian equipment crossing into Armenia from the land border with Iran, which have supposedly arrived on ships via Caspian Sea from Russia. Resapp (talk) 12:55, 30 September 2020 (UTC)=

A member of parliament have mentioned it. Also, as stated in the article, government-owned SOCAR-affiliated Report.az have published an article about it. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 12:57, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

State tv or a member of the parliament does not show the opinion/claim of a government itself. There are always different views/claims/opinions from a parliamentary member, etc. Beshogur (talk) 13:09, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@Beshogur: I think video evidence of state TV showing Russian military equipment crossing the Iranian state border into Armenia in the middle of a conflict is well enough to even be considered an undisputed evidence of Iranian material support to a combatant. Resapp (talk) 13:39, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Well just, add it as "Denied by Iran". Beshogur (talk) 13:44, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

State media during effective warring between two states is no longer reliable as it is a) subject to restrictions and b) may be directly utilized for propagandizing. Reliable secondary sources should be preferred. Tit-for-tat statements and counter-statements are a headache for us all to moderate and should be summarized to the minimum possible level of content. Johncdraper (talk) 14:03, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@Johncdraper: State media is not of the belligerents" but Iranian state media. Resapp (talk) 14:05, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@Resapp: Apologies. Iran is not a warring state in this conflict. However, it is politically involved, and I would urge secondary sources be preferred to avoid tit-for-tatting. Additionally, those wishing to post using Iranian sources should check the reliability of those sources on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Johncdraper (talk) 14:16, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@Beshogur: In this video[12], there are purported trucks with Russian license plates carrying military equipment crossing the Iran-Armenia border. Resapp (talk) 14:10, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Doubtful sources claim that military equipment is being sent through Iran. Explain, please, if the equipment was supposedly sent through Georgia, would Georgia become a supplier/a belligerent? And since when Twitter is a reliable source? Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 14:36, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

The article does not cite the Twitter linked videos above. There are references in the article that claim Iran providing direct equipment support from its own arsenal. Please self revert since this change was already agreed upon before you reverted it. Resapp (talk) 14:44, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

None of the neutral sources named Iran is a supplier. Could you provide the source? Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 15:19, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Azerbaijan claims Armenia used OTR-21 Tochka ballistic missiles today

3 of the missiles failed to explode according to Azerbaijani statement. Maybe add this to the article? Ref:[13] Resapp (talk) 13:47, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Seems very trivial and unnecessary. We should not be mentioning every single engagement that does or does not take place in this article.Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 13:58, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

MarshallBagramyan, I agree. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 14:05, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

If this was the first use of ballistic missiles, it is actually relevant and worth mentioning as use of ballistic missiles in combat is generally a rather rare thing. For example, the Libyan Civil War page mentions when the Qaddafists used ballistic missiles.XavierGreen (talk) 14:49, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

XavierGreen, well, in any case, here are more sources: 1, 2, 3, 4. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 14:54, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Denied by Armenia, per Armenpress. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 15:21, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Alleged Involvement of Russia

There is an alleged involvement section of Iran, with mentions of the transport of weapons from Russia to Armenia. and a section for Turkey, but there is no section for Russia, when its fairly obvious there is russian involvement. How could a section mention that a state is complicit b/c its territories are being used to transport weapons, but not mention the state that is supplying weapons that are ending up in the conflict zone. Not to mention that the Russians are giving tactical military advise and have advisors at the military base in Armenia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Midgetman433 (talk • contribs) 14:47, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Midgetman433, I will mention Russian arms support on the same subtitle. But I'm in the dark about the other statements from you. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 14:50, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

New map

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Note on recording materiel losses

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

Israel supplying Azerbaijan with planes loaded with drones daily

Add Israel under Azerbaijan Arms Supplier maybe? Refs:[14][15][16][17] @Beshogur and Solavirum: Resapp (talk) 16:38, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I think Israel should be added as arms supplier of Azerbaijan F.Alexsandr (talk) 18:32, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 September 2020

Greece expressed readiness to contribute to the efforts to de-escalate the crisis and condemned any third-party interference that stokes tensions, urging Turkey to abstain from actions and statements in that direction.[18] GevHev4 (talk) 16:51, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

Kazakstan and Krygyzstan both CSTO members called on Armenia to leave Karabakh in order to reach a ceasefire on the 28th, that's why they are colored as supporting Azerbaijan. Ref:[19] Resapp (talk) 17:25, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

This was not a personal statement:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Example 1, NATO declaration colors all member countries

Example 2, Turkic Council declaration colors all member countries

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Iran's reaction

Today, President Hassan Rouhani’s chief of staff said that Iran recognizes and respects territorial integrity of Azerbaijan. Can we consider it support ? Ref: [20]Helius Olympian (talk) 17:54, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 September 2020

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

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

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

and

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

Alleged Section

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

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

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

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

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

Belligerents in infobox misleading

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

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

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

Unrelated but I asked above without avail, can you add Israel under Arms Suppliers for Azerbaijan? There are plenty of reliable refs: [21][22][23][24] 19:26, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 September 2020

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

Further credible referencing can be added, as such:

Reuters The Guardian BBC Turkish BBC Arabic BBC Russian

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

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

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

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

Well, there are still dubious sources, like the turkish presidents partypaper "Daily Sabah", used as reference - so you really cant complain. If you dont like "the Guardian" pointing out baseless accusations by Turkey,[25] send them an email. Leave me alone. Alexpl (talk) 20:26, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

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

Extreme POV-pushing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

About revert on infobox

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Preservedmoose wrote this: "However, due to dubious claims made by Turkey regarding PKK and YPG in the past, and lack of evidence provided by either Turkey or Azerbaijan regarding Kurdish involvement in Karabakh, the veracity of these claims have been called into question", citing this Washington Times article. But in fact, none of these are mentioned in the article. The article states: "Ankara denies these claims and has wheeled around on Armenia, accusing the government in Yerevan of busing in Kurdish militiamen from the outlawed Kurdistan Workers’ Party, or PKK, to help train Armenian fighters in Nagorno-Karabakh. Whatever the veracity of these charges — and there are reasons to doubt them — they speak of a region riven with ethnic grievances and deep-seated political enmities." Can't see any comments on Daily Sabah or the claims getting called into question. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 21:07, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

"Ankara denies these claims and has wheeled around on Armenia, accusing the government in Yerevan of busing in Kurdish militiamen from the outlawed Kurdistan Workers’ Party, or PKK, to help train Armenian fighters in Nagorno-Karabakh. Whatever the veracity of these charges — and there are reasons to doubt them — they speak of a region riven with ethnic grievances and deep-seated political enmities." https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2020/09/30/armenians-azerbaijan-turkey-russia-clashes/

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

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

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

Preservedmoose, "However, due to dubious claims made by Turkey regarding PKK and YPG in the past, and lack of evidence provided by either Turkey or Azerbaijan regarding Kurdish involvement in Karabakh, the veracity of these claims have been called into question", while the article says "Whatever the veracity of these charges — and there are reasons to doubt them — they speak of a region riven with ethnic grievances and deep-seated political enmities." These are two extremely different ways of putting it. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 21:17, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Turkish and Azeri editors vandalizing page?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Güney Yalcin (talk •

"Ethnic Armenians fighters from Middle East and Syria"

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

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

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

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

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

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

As for "diasporan volunteers":

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Username Solavirum

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alleged involvement of PKK and YPG and inclusion in the Infobox

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Qatar support??

@Resapp: et. al. In order to avoid possible controversy, I would like to ask you what you think of Qatar's position on Nagorno. Here source I'm between neutral (peace and dialogue) and pro-Azerbaijan

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

@Solavirum: Thanks! @Resapp: et al. Regarding reaction map, it won't be included?

Abkhazian Armenians

Apparently the Armenian minority of Abkhazia is also participating in the conflict [26], should we include them in the list of combatants too? Super Ψ Dro 11:27, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stated ~ claimed

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

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

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

Note on recording materiel losses

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

Hungary

Hungary also supports territorial integrity of Azerbaijan.

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

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

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

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

Ambassadors: Political figures or domestic reactions?

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

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

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

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

Map image has been vandalized

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Status of 'Syrian mercenaries' in infobox

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

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

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

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 October 2020

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

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

Vote regarding combatant section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This Wikipedia article has been corrupted.

Dear all objective unbiased neutral editors,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Accurate usage of "Mercenary"

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 October 2020

Please ADD these additional confimations:

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

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

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

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

Azerbaijani Losses

As of September 30, 2020, the Azerbaijanis lost 920 soldiers, 83 UAVs, 7 helicopters, 166 armored vehicles, 1 plane, 1 Smerch. <ref>https://twitter.com/ArmenianUnified/status/1311324546000093184<ref.