Jump to content

Talk:Second Nagorno-Karabakh War

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Vmakenas (talk | contribs) at 18:37, 4 October 2020 (→‎Madrid Principles). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)[reply]

Unrelated but I asked above without avail, can you add Israel under Arms Suppliers for Azerbaijan? There are plenty of reliable refs: [1][2][3][4] 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@Alaexis: Can you change the name to Syrian National Army at least? that had been discussed maybe 100 times on Turkish Operation articles. WP:COMMONNAME. Beshogur (talk) 18:52, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Second attempt: International reaction map

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

Perhaps a different shade for Uz, Ky, Kz? Beshogur (talk) 11:10, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To reiterate and clarify my position. Firstly, what does the key mean? The problem is that 'support' is not defined. Diplomatic support, yes, but for what, exactly? Support for Azerbaijani territorial integrity Vs. Support for the Nagorno-Karabakh Line of Contact? In that case, you would need to check the statements of every country re territorial integrity. This is complicated by the fact UNSC resolution 884, which everyone editing this page should probably read, and which "reaffirmed the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Azerbaijani Republic" is still in force. Thus, all UNSC countries which voted for this would bound to be categorised as 'Support for Azerbaijani territorial integrity', as would those countries which expressed support for the resolution at the time, unless their positions have been amended. Secondly, what does 'Peace' mean? Conditional peace? Unconditional peace? And peace to what end? Peaceful negotiations according to UNSC 884 and/or the Madrid Principles? I have no problem with maps per se and supported the present geomap, but this map is highly problematic. Add: Well, the geomap that showed town-level details at one point. However, that was conditional support, given the difficulty of keeping it current with reliable sources. Johncdraper (talk) 11:37, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As I have said, Ky, Kz, Uz have published their own statements, which are neutral. You have said that TC statement should be interpreted as a stance of all TC countries. I will need a source from TC documents that says that a statement by TC (Mind you, a statement, not a joint Resolution) should be interpreted as official stance of all states. But even then a TC statement merely REMINDS of 1993 UN resolution, not calls for its enforcement, and even if it did, it would hardly be a statemnt of support for AZ in this particular conflict. F.Alexsandr (talk) 11:49, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This debate is very politicised and I shouldn't be surprised because of the few times that I have collaborated in something in the English Wikipedia, it has been similar or worse. People who far from collaborating or helping you as they do in any other Wikipedia, do the opposite; hindering you in almost everything you do. And yes, I'm talking about all of you except some people like Solavirum. For this reason, and also due to lack of time, I am withdrawing from this debate.--KajenCAT (talk) 12:54, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Every UN member state supports Azerbaijan's territorial integrity, including Cyprus, and even Armenia for that matter, so equation this position with support of Azerbaijan's current offensive is going too far. We don't have enough information yet and the map as it is now gives the wrong impression to reader. --Antondimak (talk) 22:39, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I will remove this map, since it doesn't represent the support to the army. Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 07:43, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Գարիկ Ավագյան, what do you mean by "it doesn't represent the support to the army"? Super Ψ Dro 10:13, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One person was colouring countries (KZ, UZ, KG) as suppporting Azerbaijan, saying that a statement of a head of a Turkic Council that called for adherency to 1993 UN resolution is a sufficient reason to colour a country as supporting Azerbaijan. Truth is, all countries recognize the Azeri claim to Karabah, but that does not translate to support for their current Actions. F.Alexsandr (talk) 15:03, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The map should not be removed only because of 3 countries out of ~194. Super Ψ Dro 21:16, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Madrid Principles

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

The page presently uses this. Johncdraper (talk) 11:40, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't found. Removed for now. Beshogur (talk) 11:46, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Used source (eurasiareview) is an opinion-based analysis by Azerbaijani scholar Esmira Jafarova who works in Azerbaijani Government (linkedin). The article is fully one-sided and ain't based on any reliable source. The second source (aravot) says: "То есть, мы можем констатировать, что на данный момент, и об этом было заявлено нашими армянскими партнерами, сегодня на столе переговоров нет какого-либо документа, какого-либо предложения. Это означает, что на столе нет даже этих «Мадридских предложений»." – "We can state that at this moment (as it was previously stated by our Armenian colleagues) there is no document nor proposal on the negotiating table. That means there are no even "Madrid principles"." User:Vmakenas (talk) 18:38, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Beshogur: Fine on my internet. Would you like to restore it or should I? Johncdraper (talk) 11:51, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't matter. Do it. Beshogur (talk) 11:53, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Allegations of Pakistan's involvement has no base to its

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

As I said, RFE/RL may or may not be a major publication. But Wagner Group's supposed presence is at best speculation at this point. Plus, it has a strong anti-Putin bias. ----Երևանցի talk 11:48, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have said it before and I will explain it here again, the sources spreading this rumor of Pakistan involvement have been on occasion held responsible for spreading fake news. So these sources should not be used for making controversial claims. This rumor which came to surface on 28-29 September, has not been covered by any international media and none of the government representatives of Azerbaijan or Armenia are backing this rumor. Other then a section of Indian media, nobody is really talking about this. So it is best to ignore it. A2kb2r (talk) 12:57, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan's involvement can't be denied. Armenian officials have already made this point clear. It should and must be discussed. Pakistan is infamous for its Terror-harbouring and Islamofacist agendas. Moraxellamniobastila (talk) 16:16, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox again

Editing this article is becoming very ridiculous indeed. What does mean the alleged involvement of YPG and Syrian Armenians based on sources of SOHR, Sabah and likewise. While almost every international media is reporting about the involvement of Syrian rebels and direct Turkish army presence in the Azerbaijani side, and still keeping those under the alleged and disputed section. The article is apparently under the attack of Turk-Azeri editors.--Preacher lad (talk) 08:25, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree. They are removing everything which I write in favour of Armenia. They should be banned from further editing. Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 08:37, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All of these infobox inclusions seem to have the same problem, whether it's claims of Russian, Iranian, Kurdish, or even Pakistani involvement, almost all of them cite military officials associated with the two main parties involved or anonymous sources, without any independent verification, often just parroting rumors pushed by other unreliable media, an example being the Pakistani article. All of these allegations should not be taken at face value until they're been corroborated and independently verified. We really should make an effort to require multiple high-quality sources for exceptional claims. Eik Corell (talk) 08:42, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Eik Corell Please undo your edit move SNA back out of alleged. That edit was made by a moderator arbitrating the dispute. It was meant to be put there and not touched until the dispute is finished, where its final position will be solidified. Best. Dvtch (talk) 08:44, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think you got the wrong guy or edit, my edit here only removed mention of the PKK or YPG from the infobox, and checking it again I don't seem to have somehow managed to remove the SNA. If I somehow removed that earlier, that had not been my intent as it always seemed much more sourced than other claims. Eik Corell (talk) 08:52, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My bad. Eik Corell May you please undo Ahmetlii's edit and place it back where it was (out of alleged)? A wiki moderator in charge of the dispute took it out of alleged. Ahmetlii please do not undo this edit again. This was placed here by a wiki moderator who is handling the dispute. Please go comment there if you are unhappy with the edit. Dvtch (talk) 09:04, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There we go, moved the Syrian National Army out of alleged in my edit here. Eik Corell (talk) 09:22, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I undid removing of PKK/YPG before because of I didn't see a conversation in the talk page. Anyway, I think that they should still stay in alleged section because of the general usage (like in Libyan Civil War) and NPOV violation (because there's not a tangible proof like confirmation from both sides). For example, Turkey or Armenian-Syrians are still staying in alleged section because of insufficient sources. Because of this is a ongoing event; even the sources comes from reliable publishers, nearly everything about the armed conflict is suspicious. Because of these, I opposed to removing of PKK/YPG or Free Syrian Army from alleged section - they have a lot main sources, but not qualified to verify. Ahmetlii (talk) 09:42, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Insufficient sources like "the Guardian"? [5] [6] [7] The Guardian sources report the recruitment in FSA-Syria for Azerbaijan began a month ago... If there was any doubt whats going on. Alexpl (talk) 15:25, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexpl: Yes. Even it's from a generally reliable publisher, this does not mean that it's correct or false. For example, nearly all of the sources are only give reference to only one person, but not give another references. Also, some of the sources from FSA itself are refusing these reports. And there's still lack of the verifiability because of this. Ahmetlii (talk) 17:51, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ahmetlii: "Some sources" ??? You should give those sources when making the claim - otherwise ist just a Twitter-post. I hope its not the "dailysabah". Alexpl (talk) 11:11, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexpl: here (it's in the page already), here, here. Ahmetlii (talk) 11:30, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pilots downed

  • As per various sources on the 27 September 2020 was shotdown the State Border Guard Service Sr. Lt. (baş leytenant) Xalid Həsən Gözəlov (Khalid Hasan Gozelov) from the village of Aşaği Cürəli (Ashagi Jurali, Bilesuvar Region) an Azeri Mi-17 Helicopter pilot born on 1996.
  • On the same day was downed the Maj. Abbas Rza oğlu Qasımov from Baku, born on 1986, not clear if on the same helicopter belonging to the State Border Service as well.
  • As per Armenian sources the Su-25 pilot downed by an alleged Turkish F-16 on 29 Sept. was Maj. (մայոր) Valeri Danelin (Վալերի Դանելին).

No other info about other claimed downings --95.234.160.36 (talk) 09:26, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I may be missing something, but today's date is 3 October 2020. Can we double check the date of the shooting down of the State Border Guard Service pilot as it lists a date in the future? Perhaps it was suppose to be 27 September 2020. Jurisdicta (talk) 01:42, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jurisdicta: You are right, my mistake. Already fixed. --Nicola Romani (talk) 12:41, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
show source. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 13:00, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Solavirum:: [8]; [9]; [10]; --Nicola Romani (talk) 13:18, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mention of Turkey in the Background Info

I believe Turkey is given a more prominent role than Russia in the background info. The paragraph solely dedicated to Turkey can be removed without any loss of information. I know that it is very hard to remove one full paragraph in an ongoing conflict, so if you decide to keep it there are several ways to improve.

  • Neo-Ottomanism is more related to Turkey trying to fill the security vacuum in Syria, Iraq and Libya than Azerbaijan and Iran. Turkey's pan-Turkic ideals are more relevant here and Pan-Turkism is definitely not neo-ottomanism.
  • Turkey has literally no involvement in Greece. Turkey and Greece has a dispute, which is not the same thing as involvement. If you feel that you must include an aggressive stance by Turkey against a western country, change Greece to Cyprus. Turkey is involved in Cyprus, yet Turkish involvement in Cyprus has nothing to do with the current conflict.

131.111.5.153 (talk) 09:30, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTFORUM. Beshogur (talk) 09:36, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eik Corell edits

May I know why you removed

  • 3 October section
  • New stats Per Armenia
  • About neo-Ottomanism
  • Russian military expert's analysis
  • Added the controversial image. Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 09:34, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was having trouble restoring the infobox to a version that was made by a moderator of the discussion going on at WP:DRN, and in trying to fix my edit, it seems I somehow managed to revert the article in my last edit. I would revert it back, but now there have been quite a few edits since then. Gonna get to work on restoring what immediately jumps out at me that was lost now. Eik Corell (talk) 09:47, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neo-ottomanism has nothing to do with Nagorno-Karabakh. If something will be mentioned, it has to be pan-turkism. 131.111.5.153 (talk) 10:12, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SNA in infobox again

Even if the involvement of Syrian troops/mercenaries is confirmed, should it really be in the Infobox? The sources we're getting - stuff like this - suggests that the SNA never actually sent anyone, these are fighters recruited by Turkey who signed on on their own initiative after Turkish recruiters approached them, and were then taken to Azerbaijan on Turkish planes. Soldiers from the SNA have taken part but that doesn't mean the SNA itself is a belligerent. To me, this is the equivalent of going to the Infobox of every battle the French Foreign Legion was involved in and changing the belligerents from the French side to include every single country that Foreign Legion troops came from.--RM (Be my friend) 09:45, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I kind of agree, but apparently it was an edit at least temporarily instated by a moderator of the dispute resolution noticeboard discussion here, so I just reverted to let the discussion go from there. Eik Corell (talk) 09:56, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit unsure as to the etiquette of that dispute resolution place, since I'm not one of the original disputers where would it be appropriate for me to jump in and give my point of view?--RM (Be my friend) 10:31, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, I mentioned this above--Turkmen talk 10:01, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Turkmen, Reenem, Eik Corell, I think it would be appropriate for you to leave comments in the dispute resolution discussion. signed, Rosguill talk 15:10, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Afaik by media reports, Syrian mercenaries had been recruited with the knownledge and consent of their armed groups, all members of the SNA. By the way, I found this video that seems to show some Syrians in Horadiz, few km. from the frontlines: [11].--HCPUNXKID 21:58, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See this paragraph. Beshogur (talk) 22:01, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Գարիկ Ավագյան:

Why are you removing the map without a consensus? Talking about international reactions Beshogur (talk) 10:12, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@KajenCAT:. Beshogur (talk) 10:37, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It has been discussed. Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 11:59, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Where exactly? Beshogur (talk) 12:16, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Beshogur: Look up - Second attempt: International reaction map in Talk page. F.Alexsandr (talk) 15:05, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see any conclusion. Plus I am also favour for another shade of colour for countries supporting Azerbaijan's territorial integrity. The source of Turkic Council, clearly mentions that Turkic council itself demands Armenia's withradawal from occupied territories, isn't that supporting? Beshogur (talk) 15:11, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Beshogur: The topic has been discussed thoroghly in previous posts and It has been decided that map information was not accurate. All arguments have already been stated, and I am not going to repeat myself over and over again. If you think you are being treated unjustly you should probably go to Dispute Resolution noticeboard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard and make your case. F.Alexsandr (talk) 16:31, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note on Casualties section

Note that by definition casualties are almost always human, not materiel, not to mention the fact that grouping dead people with items of equipment is insulting. Equipment losses are normally separated out. See, for example, this Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equipment_losses_in_World_War_II. As such, I am restoring the separate sections. Johncdraper (talk) 10:53, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmetlii edits

About SNA to alleged. It has been discussed to put it in Belligerents. May I ask you to return it to its place? Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 12:02, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Գարիկ Ավագյան: I realized that I changed its place accidentally when trying to fix paragraph. Anyway, looks like @Eik Corell has fixed it. Ahmetlii (talk) 12:14, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 12:23, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

About Belligerents

Azerbaijan doesn't need the help of some militant groups from Syria when they can handle Armenia very well on their own. A country with 10 million population is fighting against a country with 3 million population and the bigger and militarily superior country would need the support of some militants when this would only help Armenia to get the support they want from the International community? Come on. Surely both the Turkish and Azerbaijani goverment isn't dumb enough to play right into Armenia's hand. Abcdefg9583 (talk) 15:35, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're going to need better sources than your own opinion here. You are fully welcome to contribute to any of the many discussions above on this subject, probably with reliable references rather than personal hunches. Unknown Temptation (talk) 16:33, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well videos show otherwise, Syrian terrorists are seeen on the battlefield. Elserbio00 (talk) 07:26, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Elserbio00: Can you give a link rather than just saying? Ahmetlii (talk) 16:56, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 October 2020

  Territory controlled by the Republic of Artsakh including Armenian-controlled territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh
  Territory of the former Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast
  Territory claimed by the Republic of Artsakh but controlled by Azerbaijan
  Territory captured by Azerbaijan (per Azerbaijan)

(Date:2 October 2020)

@Ahmetlii:, @AntonSamuel:, The map has been reloaded in SVG format. I suggest you add to the item Emreculha (talk) 15:54, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Governor Sheng edits

I couldn't find anything in the article about Serbia's involvement in 2020 war. Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 17:06, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I understand, the references regarding Israel's involvement talk about Israeli drones being used in the conflict. Balkan Insight writes how Azerbaijan found Serbian-made weapons used by Armenia (Argument 1). The Armenian diplomat confirms this and notes that much more weapon was sold to Azerbaijan, in the interview given to N1, stating "Serbia exported much more weapons to Azerbaijan than to Armenia" (Argument 2). So, considering what the two articles, from neutral and respectable sources state, Serbia plays a double role, providing arms to both Azerbaijan and Armenia. I don't know when these arms contratcs were signed, but it seems to me they are still in force. --Governor Sheng (talk) 17:17, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Governor Sheng, Israel was added, because it was suspected that it sent arms to Azerbaijan DURING the conflict. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 17:43, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I understand. I agree Serbia can be removed. --Governor Sheng (talk) 17:49, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

armenia seeking for ceasefire talks.

armenian wants to have peace talks with other countries. its obvious that armenia is losing this war pretty fast and have no other option but talk for ceasefire.

If anyone can put this in the section, thanks.

[1]

Kind regards

YouTube isn't a reliable source. --Governor Sheng (talk) 17:29, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong date showing

Typo mistake in article Official statements under heading Armenia and Artsakh. In last paragraph date should be 3 October instead of 3 September.

Thank you. I've fixed. Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 18:13, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbDcKNVlHYI&ab_channel=WION

Vandalism

The page is "being prevented by vandalism", but it definitely experiences one by biased moderator Գարիկ Ավագյան. SafaviNihad (talk) 20:04, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Wikipedia Talk page is not a forum: engage on a specific point, or this comment may be removed. Johncdraper (talk) 12:00, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 October 2020

105.112.117.5 (talk) 20:12, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: no request made. Johncdraper (talk) 11:22, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

The page is "being prevented by vandalism", but it definitely experiences one by biased moderator Գարիկ Ավագյան. One of Sources that says Serbia supplement Azerbaijan is written by Armenian writer (biased) and another is unrelated as well as reference that mentions Armenia's being supplemented by Serbia, not Azerbaijan's. Syrian Turkmens should be mentioned as such( as Syrians fight for Armenia indicated as such), but not as Syrian National Army. Turkish military support and Syrian division's support citated from weak and one source and should not be on the main scheme SafaviNihad (talk) 20:35, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Those are my edits. The article that talks about Serbia supplying Azerbaijan isn't written by an Armenian, but by N1 TV Channel from Belgrade. --Governor Sheng (talk) 21:06, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In the infobox we only mention countries which supplied arms during the war. The fact that Serbia sold weapons before the conflict is Irrelevant. F.Alexsandr (talk) 09:12, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Russia is supplying weapons to both sides

As stated on sources (Al Jazeera, Al Monitor...) that I supposed had been deleted by someone not happy with them. That is vandalism too.--HCPUNXKID 22:24, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

During this conflict Russia has only supplied Armenia. We dont put in the selling of arms before the conflict started. F.Alexsandr (talk) 08:51, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 10:06, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Change article name to the "Second Nagorno-Karabakh War".

I believe at this stage, given the many hundreds of casualties suffered on both sides, this is no longer a 'conflict' and has gained such intensity it has become a 'war' and I would recommend we change the name to the Second Nagorno-Karabakh War. At this current rate of casualties and destruction, this war may very well surpass the 1990s Nagorno-Karabakh War. I would also point out the use of heavy weaponry by both sides (rockets, heavy artillery, drones, ballistic missiles), and the objective of the Azerbaijanis is total re-conquest of all the territory as stated by President Aliyev. This is unlike Azerbaijani objectives in the 2016 war of scoring a small victory, and is neither a border-conflict like in the years 2014 or 2012. Fighting is along all fronts.
User178198273998166172 (talk) 24:08, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I AGREE Elserbio00 (talk) 23:28, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree. At this point the two countries are at war. Most likely over 1,000 people have died in this conflict which would make it a war. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be any end in site to the conflict either. Alex of Canada (talk) 23:32, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose. This matter is being discussed, and there is no consensus. No major news outlet referred to the conflict as war yet. --Governor Sheng (talk) 00:49, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I support the motion, but instead of calling it the second Nagorno-Karabakh war, it would be better to call it "Armenian – Azerbaijani War (2020)" or "Armenian – Azerbaijani Conflict (2020)" as media like the BBC 1 2, NYTimes 3 and The Washington Post 4 thus refer to the conflict in question. Since the conflict already goes beyond the Nagorno-Karabakh region and the Republic of Artsakh. Al Jazeera describes it as the "Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict" 4 LLs (talk) 01:33, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the Armenian language, the conflict is described as the "Armenian - Azerbaijani War (2020)" 1, the Armenian Wikipedia itself gives the title of the article on the fighting, while the Azeri Wikipedia describes it as "Karabakh wars (2020)" 2. LLs (talk) 01:53, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose at this point. The Armenian and Azerbaijani governments have an interest in blowing the conflict out of proportion and calling it a "total war" seems to be internal propaganda. Until major external outlets such as Reuters or BBC or Al Jazeera does so, Wikipedia should refrain from fanning the flames. Juxlos (talk) 02:08, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we would be fanning any flames by calling it a 'war' as opposed to the ambiguous terms 'clashes' or 'conflict'. Generally this entire territorial dispute is one big conflict between these 2 nations, however since the 27 September it has morphed into a full-scale war over Karabakh. The dead may very well reach into the thousands by now and fighting is along all fronts, unprecedented in its scale since the 1990s Karabakh war. As someone has mentioned, the Azerbaijani parliament has declared a state of war in many areas of the country.[1] And Armenia has fully mobilized while Azerbaijan has partially mobilized.
User178198273998166172 (talk) 4:35, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
I would wait until academics and analysts start using such a name. We are unfortunately not historians so we do not get to name the wars. Dvtch (talk) 03:41, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support hundreds of casualties, multiple media outlets have referred to it as a war, and Azerbaijan's parliament declared a state of war. Jon698 (talk) 03:22, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jon698, false, it declared curfew. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 10:08, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this is ridiculous. There is no such WP:COMMONNAME. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 10:08, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support There are now bombs raining down on major cities, and the most intense armor-on-armor fighting in the Middle East since 2003. Sladnick (talk) 10:25, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that Stepanakert has a population of 50,000 and neither Armenia nor Azerbaijan are typically considered Middle Eastern. Juxlos (talk) 11:24, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ganja is now being bombed. Sladnick (talk) 13:20, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose Wikipedia relies on perennial reliable news sources, not posturing: BBC is still calling this a conflict, as is Reuters. See e.g., here. Johncdraper (talk) 10:48, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine to make a case that this method must be followed whatever the case, but to call what is happening in the real world in this case "posturing" is to be so absorbed in the minutia of online rules as to lose site of the real issue. Sladnick (talk) 13:20, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, obviously. Super Ψ Dro 10:59, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Now referred to as 'war' by Reuters in body text of article today; https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-armenia-azerbaijan/azerbaijan-says-armenia-attacks-city-threatens-retaliation-idUKKBN26P08K . It is clear that the events of the past few week have escalated beyond anything that has happened since the 90's. Muchclag (talk) 15:26, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. This part of the conflict is a war. Oranjelo100 (talk) 16:29, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The weighted general usage is "conflict" right now. It's still inside of Nagorno-Karabakh War obviously. Ahmetlii (talk) 18:31, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

the alleged PKK involvement in Armenia

Please ADD the following to the allegations of the PKK fighting in Armenia.

CNNTurk was caught in fake news about the false allegation of the PKK involvement in Armenia. #CNNTurk publishes footabe of "#CNNTurk publishes footage of "#PKK fighting alongside Armenian #ASALA terrorists in #Artsakh".Seems that someone has to teach those ignorants that this is the flag of the #Colombian #FARC movement and not the Armenian flag. Colombian flag turned backward becomes an #Armenianflag" There is a screen shot from CNN fake news. Here are the sources (1) <ref> https://greekcitytimes.com/2020/10/04/cnn-turk-caught-spreading-fake-news-about-kurdish-fighters-operating-in-artsakh/ <ref>; (2) <ref> https://twitter.com/JokerDoasAlzlma/status/1312419839181549569?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1312419839181549569%7Ctwgr%5Eshare_3&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fgreekcitytimes.com%2F2020%2F10%2F04%2Fcnn-turk-caught-spreading-fake-news-about-kurdish-fighters-operating-in-artsakh%2F <ref> from Twitter

Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strategos9 (talk • contribs) 06:33, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 October 2020 about the official announcement of the Foreign Ministry of Russia

Please add this OFFICIAL announcement of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs on September 30, 2020 about the foreign mercenaries in Karabakh from Lybia and Syria. I am not sure if you added this after my October 2, 2020 request since I could not find it.

1) 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 Federation Here is the link to the source: https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/news/-/asset_publisher/cKNonkJE02Bw/content/id/4363834 Strategos9 (talk) 06:49, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Johncdraper (talk) 11:34, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis

Please add the following to the analysis by Laurence Broers who is the PREEMINENT expert in this conflict.

Laurence Broers of London-based Chatham House agreed. “What we’re seeing is a growing explicitness to Turkish support,” Broers told the Debate show. “We’re seeing, basically, a new kind of relationship: exchanges and meetings between senior defense officials of the two countries and I think, perhaps, Turkey is seeing this conflict as another regional theatre where it can probe for influence, for foreign policy influence – where it can showcase its military hardware, since developing the Turkish arms industry is a major domestic imperative.”

Here is the link to the source: https://www.france24.com/en/20200929-is-turkey-a-brother-in-arms-or-just-extending-its-footprint-into-nagorno-karabakh and the youtube video of the expert discussion.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strategos9 (talk • contribs) 07:05, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Johncdraper (talk) 11:05, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

POV in International reactions section

Statement: "....and partially recognised Northern Cyprus expressed support for Azerbaijan" is POV, because "Turkey is the only country which recognises Northern Cyprus" (quote) from article Foreign relations of Northern Cyprus

Second reason because this statement is POV is statement about Abkhazia "Another self-proclaimed republic, Abkhazia, urged to the international community". Abkhazia is recognised by Naura, Nicaragua, Russia, Syria & Venezuela so it is not possible to have statements "partially recognised Northern Cyprus" & "self-proclaimed republic, Abkhazia" together in article and be NPOV.

please change this statement so that article can become NPOV Analitikos (talk) 08:15, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Johncdraper (talk) 11:18, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Immediate Request To Revert

GreyShark I saw you took out the alleged section of the infobox. That decision must be reverted. There was no consensus on that matter and there is currently a discussion on that matter In the meantime it has been set as a compromise to keep in alleged. Please restore alleged in the infobox for both combatants. Any other editor may feel free to undo this edit as well. Dvtch (talk) 08:44, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alleged are not included in the campaignbox in any case. If they are not alleged per discussion then add them.GreyShark (dibra) 09:38, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - @EkoGraf: how do you feel about "alleged" section in regard to violation of WP:EXCEPTIONAL? Of course if there are sufficient sources we add combatants / supporters, but the "alleged" solution to add and then discuss is a violation of Wikipedia rules.GreyShark (dibra) 09:45, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Greyshark09: I agree "alleged" isn't wording that should be used in this manner in a campaignbox. That's why I voiced my opinion at the dispute resolution discussion, which is still ongoing, to remove the wording "alleged" since 3rd party neutral and reliable sources have confirmed the presence of the Syrian fighters. A note can be left that Azerbaijan and Turkey are denying this. Until the dispute resolution process has ended the status quo should be preserved and no changes made. EkoGraf (talk) 09:50, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please Remove Serbia

Please Remove Serbia from Arms suppliers section. People fail to understand that we are talking about arms supplied during conflict, not sellings of arms in the years prior. F.Alexsandr (talk) 08:56, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. Inappropriate.GreyShark (dibra) 09:38, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, this is not arms support during a conflict. EkoGraf (talk) 09:48, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Who Removed SNA from combatants?

Who Removed SNA from combatants? The duscussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#2020_Nagorno-Karabakh_conflict has resulted in Moderator seeking a compromise and putting SNA in the belligerents section for now. The discussion is not over yet, so you shouldnt remove it from there. F.Alexsandr (talk) 09:07, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The removal is of the entire "Alleged" section. Alleged section cannot be added to campaignbox per WP:NPOV and WP:EXCEPTIONAL. If you like add them as regular combatants or supporters following discussion, "alleged" is not appropriate in Wikipedia.GreyShark (dibra) 09:40, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Greyshark09:, as @F.Alexsandr: has said, discussion is not over yet so no changes should be made until then. EkoGraf (talk) 09:47, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ganja

BTW, even Artsakh prez confirmed the order to attack mil facilities there. Media are slow out west to say so. He also called for it to stop on news that civilians were hurt. 37.186.97.171 (talk) 11:19, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please specify this as a request; a Wikipedia Talk is not a forum. If you do not specify this as a request, it may be removed. Johncdraper (talk) 11:36, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image dating

@Emreculha: for the benefit of the readers, could you label the map or caption it to indicate the timing of the map? As in, what date is being indicated? Juxlos (talk) 11:22, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Juxlos:, Is it an update date(for progress)? So of course I can add.--Emreculha (talk) 12:06, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Emreculha: Just indicate when the map is, yeah. Juxlos (talk) 12:07, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Emreculha:, I'll handle it :) --- Emreculha (talk) 12:19, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Emreculha:, you can add the city of Jabrayil. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 12:51, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Solavirum:, @Marjdabi: already did it.---Emreculha (talk) 13:07, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Villages and cities names

Hi there! According to our NPOV policy, since this is a territorial dispute, is it possibible to write down the Places names using both versions e.g. Varanda/Füzuli (Armenian/Azeri)? Thank you in advance. --Nicola Romani (talk) 12:10, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I updated to map for 2 languages(in Karabakh).. If i made mistake please write to me---Emreculha (talk) 13:11, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. --Governor Sheng (talk) 18:26, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Third Party Involvement. Turkey and Syrian National Army

Dear Sir/Madam,

I appreciate your hard work. Please ADD the following:

Days after the outbreak of the fighting in the Artsakh region, a high-ranking official in the US Defense Department confirmed the validity of the information that spoke about sending hundreds of Syrian mercenaries from Turkey to support Azerbaijan.

The official, who asked not to be named, revealed to Sky News Arabia - “The reports and information that spoke about dozens of trips between Turkey and Azerbaijan in the past days to transport hundreds of Syrian mercenaries are proven and correct."

1) Here is the link to the Article: https://armenpress.am/eng/news/1029857/

2) The Source is a HIGHLY REPUTABLE news agency called Armenpress. About Us Key information

“Armenpress” news agency was established on December 18, 1918 when by the decision of the National Council of the first Armenian Republic an unprecedented state-run news agency, Armenian Telegraph Agency, was created. Currently, “Armenpress” news agency operates as a Closed Joint-Stock Company the stocks of which are owned by the Republic of Armenia. The agency is the oldest in Armenia. At the moment it produces eleven newslines: official, politics, economy, society, regional, international, Armenian world, culture, sport, life, innovation,interviews and photo news. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3A2020_Nagorno-Karabakh_conflict&action=edit&section=new


Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strategos9 (talk • contribs) 13:32, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strategos9 Armenpress, a state owned media outlet is not reliable enough of a source for such claim as a "high-ranking official in the US Defense Department confirming" the issue on hand. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 13:37, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In that case, here is the reference that the article from Armen Press is quoting from. The English quote from Armen Press is an exact and a direct translation of the following article, which is in Arabic from SkyNews Arabia: https://www.skynewsarabia.com/middle-east/1380657-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D8%B3%D9%85%D8%A7%D8%B1%D9%8A-%D8%AA%D8%B1%D9%83%D9%8A%D8%A7-%D8%AA%D9%86%D9%82%D9%84-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A7%D9%95%D8%B1%D9%87%D8%A7%D8%A8%D9%8A%D9%8A%D9%86-%D9%84%D9%8A%D8%A8%D9%8A%D8%A7-%D8%A7%D9%94%D8%B0%D8%B1%D8%A8%D9%8A%D8%AC%D8%A7%D9%86 Sincerely, --Alex662607004 (talk) 18:17, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Employee of the Azerbaijani prosecutor’s office sustained injury

As Prosecutor General's Office of the Republic of Azerbaijan have stated. its employee has been injured. But does he/she count as a civilian? --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 13:51, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unless the Azerbaijanis are arming their clerks then yes. Juxlos (talk) 14:34, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should Iranian Azerbaijanis be listed under "Azerbaijani diaspora"?

Should information about Iranian Azerbaijanis be listed under Azerbaijani diaspora, or should it be added to a separate section? (currently:[12]) - LouisAragon (talk) 14:37, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, it shouldn't. The Azerbaijanis of Iran live outside of Azerbaijan and are therefore members of the diaspora. Why split a section that is already that short? Super Ψ Dro 15:40, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Who says that Iranian Azerbaijanis live outside Azerbaijan? They live in Azerbaijan (Iran). The Azerbaijan of Iran is the area originally named Azerbaijan. How on earth can a region that predates the foundation of Azerbaijan Republic by centuries, possibly be referred to as a "diaspora"? - LouisAragon (talk) 15:56, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, amongst the dozens of WP:RS sources that verify this: ""The region to the north of the river Araxes was not called Azerbaijan prior to 1918, unlike the region in northwestern Iran that has been called since so long ago." -- Rezvani, Babak (2014). Ethno-territorial conflict and coexistence in the caucasus, Central Asia and Fereydan: academisch proefschrift. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. p. 356. - LouisAragon (talk) 16:01, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They still don't live in the country of Azerbaijan, regardless of whether the region they live in has been named that way before today's country. Super Ψ Dro 16:52, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't Iranian Azerbaijanis considered to be living in their "traditional areal"? --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 17:02, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Azerbaijan is a UN Member State; a homeland may or may not be historical, but definitely is in this case ever since the UN Security Council recognised the state of Azerbaijan, thus they are members of the diaspora. Add: For an interesting comparison with the British situation, note that Angle Land (England) is definitely not the historical homeland of the Angles. Johncdraper (talk) 17:01, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 October 2020

Change Territory captured by Azerbaijan to Territory liberated by Azerbaijan, which was written under the first photo. Because Nagorno Karabakh and other 7 regions around are sovereign territory of Azerbaijan which is recognized with international laws. According to UN 4 resolutions, Armenian troops, which occupied those territories, must immediately, without any condition leave these territories. Therefore, Azerbaijan is not capturing any territory, rather liberating its occupied areas. For this reason, I kindly ask you to change that sentence. 213.172.79.57 (talk) 15:03, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think so. Yes, the attack to "liberate" the territory was indeed started by the Azeri/Turkish forces. But the conflict should be viewed in a wider historical context which involves the Armenian genocide still unrecognized by Turkey (this is just like the role of the Holocaust in Jewish history), the rights of nations to self-determination, etc. [13]. My very best wishes (talk) 15:22, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My very best wishes, Turkish forces are not in the battlefield, at least per third-party sources and both Azerbaijan Turkey, and Armenian genocide has nothing to do with this, so WP:NOTAFORUM. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 17:00, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly Turkey does there in terms of weapons (such as drones) and people (such as adviser and fighters) may be debatable, but the conflict is generally described in sources like “Turkey-Azerbaijan ... vis-à-vis Armenia". [14]. As about the Armenian genocide in relation to this conflict, this is not my idea, but something directly mentioned in NPR source [15], and other sources. Obviously. My very best wishes (talk) 18:19, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NK and the Pandemic

What about coronavirus? Are soldiers observing social distancing? People fleeing from the shelling clearly are not and this should be referenced in the article as they risk spreading the virus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.17.134.104 (talk) 15:14, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No publication has actually reported such a thing. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 16:58, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Art thou jesting? --Governor Sheng (talk) 18:33, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Map colours

The colors on the map are too strong and sting the eyes, especially if a cell phone is used to read the article. I think it would be acceptable to make the colors a little more neutral, milder. And how about make colours indicate the connection between Armenia and Artsakh? Make them similar, but not too similar. --Governor Sheng (talk) 18:30, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ [16]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Second_Nagorno-Karabakh_War&oldid=981841531"