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 Strategos9 (talk | contribs) at 05:17, 6 October 2020 (→‎Analysis: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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]

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:: [1]; [2]; [3]; --Nicola Romani (talk) 13:18, 4 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.[4] 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]
Glad you agree re the principle. Re posturing, perhaps, but remember that diplomatic corps take lessons in posturing as part of courses on negotiating. It is what all foreign ministries do and is a critical part of diplomacy. For instance, the minutes of United Nations General Assembly meetings are a fascinating insight into this practice. Posturing is definitely occurring now, in every single official statement, usually by stressing strengths, referring to humanitarian principles, or belittling the other side's achievements, and it is specifically designed to appeal to both domestic and international audiences, in different ways. In editing this page, we need ti understand that this is occurring, in near-real time.Johncdraper (talk) 11:16, 5 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]

Strong Oppose. By wikipedia standards, this isn't a war. Until it becomes a war, I am a strong oppose. Elijahandskip (talk) 14:53, 5 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]

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]
It appears to have been changed from the compromise that I recommended at the beginning of the DRN discussion of full belligerent (with a disputed tag) back to "Alleged" in this edit, at which point there was further edit warring over whether an alleged claim should be included. I've reinstated the old version. signed, Rosguill talk 18:45, 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]

Not done. An unnamed, not ranked, alleged source simply does not merit mention.Johncdraper (talk) 09:04, 5 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:[5]) - LouisAragon (talk) 14:37, 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]
"They still don't live in the country of Azerbaijan" They are Iranians living in Iran. "Azerbaijani" is their ethnicity, not their nationality.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 20:47, 5 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]

Comment : Iranian Azerbaijanis are not diaspora, since they are Iranian citizens and their historical homeland is Iranian Azerbaijan, please read the definition of Diaspora. If Iranian Azerbaijanis were Azerbaijani diaspora, then oddly Australians would be some British diaspora ...---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 20:23, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then a solution could be to rename the subsection, but I am opposed to splitting it. Super Ψ Dro 20:38, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why exactly are you opposed to splitting it ? There is no argument in your sentence. Again, Iranian Azerbaijanis are not Azerbaijanis diaspora and i provided reasons for that just above.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 20:44, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Because the subsection is already too short, it is unnecessary to create even more shorter sections. And again, I think the problem can be solved much more easily by renaming it. Super Ψ Dro 20:55, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The subsection might be too short, but the current version is obviously misleading. What new name do you propose ?---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 20:59, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"International Armenian and Azerbaijani communities"? "External minorities"? "Armenians and Azerbaijanis in other countries"? I honestly can't think of any good short names but even if the subsections for the Azerbaijani diaspora and the Iranian Azerbaijanis were split, I imagine they would still be under a common section (and not directly under the International reactions one), so that problem would remain anyway. Super Ψ Dro 21:08, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your proposal. "External minorities" sounds good to me.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 21:17, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I renamed the section. Is it good? Maybe we could use a more precise name than just "Armenians" and "Azerbaijanis", but I'd rather avoid using the word "minorities" again. Super Ψ Dro 21:22, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was editing that part too, we edit conflicted and i dropped my edit. The current version sounds good, in my edit, i was about to rename the two subsections "In Georgia and Croatia" and "In Iran" and also move the stuff about Azerbaijanis in Georgian that are supporting Azerbaijan in the first subsection.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 21:27, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, sorry about that. I think it is better for the moment not to specify about the countries so people continue to add information about minorities in other ones. Readers and less experienced editors may want to add information about a country that does not have a subsection and feel that it is inappropriate to do so because of that reason. Super Ψ Dro 21:35, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No worries about the edit conflict. Ok, let's keep it as it is currently, that sounds quite good to me. Best.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 21:41, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, good that we resolved this! Super Ψ Dro 22:20, 5 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. [6]. 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". [7]. As about the Armenian genocide in relation to this conflict, this is not my idea, but something directly mentioned in NPR source [8], and other sources. Obviously. My very best wishes (talk) 18:19, 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]

I want to bring to your attention the existance of Template:Nagorno-Karabakh conflict detailed map and Module:Nagorno-Karabakh conflict detailed map. These were created on 19 June 2016 and last edited on 4 October 2020‎. I bring this up because i noticed in this talk page archives some disagreements with respect to the map in this article ([9], [10], [11]). War article picture maps are usually based on the template/module maps. For example, the Syrian civil war article map (Syrian Civil War map.svg) is based on Template:Syrian Civil War detailed map and Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map. The advantage of this approach is that everyone participates in the updating of the map based on consensus and reliable sources as described by the rules of the template/module. Then, on a regular basis, someone captures the screen of the template map to create a picture file to be inserted in the article (2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict) according to the procedure described in the chart below:Tradediatalk 20:02, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced Numbers

Hello. In the references below, the first reference mentions 24 casualties at 15:30 on October 4-2020. The second reference mentions a deceased casualty around 15:00 on October 4-2020. The latest addition to the article regarding this, which was at 14:35 on October-4 2020, states 25 casualties. Looking at the timestamps alone, the number of 25 casualties is not mentioned in those reference and clearly contradicts them.

Cabayi I kindly ask fellow editors to follow this up and act accordingly.

24 civilians killed

14-year-old

Sincerely, --Alex662607004 (talk) 19:07, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV issues with the map

The current map has some problems with regard to WP:NPOV. All of the sources used for the reported territorial changes are so far pro-Azeri. While the text does state that these claims are per Azerbaijan, this is not the impression the map provides as the first thing you see in the article, displaying the claims of territorial changes in strong colors that gives the impression that these are verified facts. International media has so far not gone further than describing the claims as claims made by Azerbaijan and they have not been verified independently. There should be a similar basis for edits as is standard for edits on pages like the Syrian Civil War map - to require sources not potentially biased with regard to the nature of the edit. Therefore, pro-Azeri edits has to use neutral or pro-Armenian sources and vice versa. I would reiterate a call for use of Template:Nagorno-Karabakh conflict detailed map and Module:Nagorno-Karabakh conflict detailed map in the thread above. AntonSamuel (talk) 01:59, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Though in principle it shouldn't be a problem, it is indicative that the author himself is an Azerbaijani, with possible biases. The map must be balanced, and only mainstream, reliable and neutral sources can be used. --Governor Sheng (talk) 02:32, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. For example the government of Artsakh denied the claim that Azerbaijan had taken control of Jabrayil city [12]. It is inappropriate to present Jabrayil under Azerbaijan's control on the map. Nexsonsh (talk) 05:27, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The caption states that it is per Azerbaijan. According to Artsakh authorities, they have lost nothing at this point. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 08:05, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Only present per Azerbaijan on the map is already a POV issue. A conflict map should not present information only rely on source from one side. Where is per Armenia/Artsakh on the map? A map showed on the top of the Article only presenting one side information is completely misleading. Nexsonsh (talk) 15:53, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nexsonsh, Armenia and Artsakh has stated that they have lost nothing. It doesn't makes sense to add their claims, because Azerbaijan is the only side that has claimed that the line of contact has moved. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 18:14, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that the biggest issue with the infobox map right now is that the color choices and incomplete labeling makes it look like Artsakh claims all of Azerbaijan (or at least all of Azerbaijan on the map) as its territory. signed, Rosguill talk 04:03, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I've partially fixed the issue by adding Armenia and Azerbaijan proper to the map legend, although adopting the detailed map and a new color scheme would probably be a further improvement. signed, Rosguill talk 04:14, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Turkey and Syrian Army

Please RECONSIDER your decision regarding this information about Turkish involvement in Azerbaijan.

Turkish troops/advisors caught on camera in Ganja.

First, the Source is assistant of the Azerbaijan's president's foreign policy. He uses the twitter to communicate. So, once again, to clarify, your argument (not a fact) that "twitter is not a reliable source." I am not saying that So the source is the Twitter is a source (whether reliable or not). I am saying that the source is the high ranking official of Az. government. He uses the Twitter, just like he can use the government website or a chalkboard, to convey his message. Second, the fact that he published then DELETED it, means it was a damning evidence hurting his claim. (a) The photo was published by advisor Hikmet Hadjiev who later on deleted his own tweet. This is an ADMISSION by the party who denies there are Turkish soldiers supporting Azerbaijan.

Third, (b) @MuradGazdiev He is a military correspondent and Emmy0-nominated; RT Correspondent. The two photos are linked below. He is not sitting in an ivory tower but is on the ground.

Fourth, assuming Hikmet Hadjiev, the high ranking foreign policy official, later on tries to "rationalize" if the person is a civil training member, it means that (a) this photograph is AUTHENTIC and reliable; (b) the community should know both sides of the story and decide whether Mr. Hadjiev is lying or not. You or I should not decide who to trust. The photograph is an UNDISPUTED fact since Mr. Hadjiev does not deny its existence; he admits that the photograph is true (he simply explains the meaning of the person's so-called, alleged role).

I have provided FOUR (4) powerful arguments which suffice that the information and the photograph be published. P.S. I am an experienced trial lawyer and this evidence will be 100% admissible because it is (a) RELIABLE, (b) it is an ADMISSION of a party (Mr. Hadjiev), (c) the fact that he deleted it shows he has something to hide and that he is not trustworthy; (d) the fact that he wants to give an explanation means that the jury, i.e. the reader can decide who to believe or not to believe.

Thank you for your time.

The first link: https://twitter.com/TheArmenite/status/1312666984115572737/photo/1 The second link: https://twitter.com/MuradGazdiev/status/1312679245911674881/photo/1 The third link: https://twitter.com/AiRMENIA/status/1312764047864061953/photo/1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strategos9 (talk • contribs) 08:11, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. Twitter is not a reliable source. Try again. Johncdraper (talk) 08:41, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note The Office of the President of Azerbaijan stated that he was a civil protection servicemen of Azerbaijan who had passed a joint training. So, not done. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 09:03, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Using primary source documents like photos to establish claims is original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. A plausible argument explaining the inference isn't sufficient, you need to be able to verify claims directly in reliable sources. If reliable sources (e.g. Reuters, Deutsche Welle, Al Jazeera) report that Turkey is involved, then we can add it. RT, on the other hand, is not reliable (RSP entry). Also, if you have additional comments to make after editors have responded to you, it's generally a better idea to write your additional statement as a separate signed comment. signed, Rosguill talk 04:39, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Solavirum recent edits

May I know why do you consider PanARMENIAN.Net not a reliable source? Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 10:47, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Գարիկ Ավագյան, do not misquote me. I said that Twitter wasn't a reliable source for such a thing, which the article on hand referenced it. See WP:USERGENERATED --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 10:50, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article refers to the researcher on the Middle East, like most Azerbaijani websites refer to Ilham Aliyev's Twitter. Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 13:17, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ilham Aliyev is a head of state, your whataboutism is absurd... --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 13:34, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Elizabeth Tsurkov is an American expert on Syria. Even BBC quotes her. Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 13:43, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support statement on the top

"while Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan, Turkey, and Northern Cyprus have expressed support for Azerbaijan's territorial integrity."

All countries, including Armenia, support Azerbaijan's territorial integrity. I think, should be removed. Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 12:47, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, We can add Armenian's support, too. Helius Olympian (talk) 13:24, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Armenia does not support Azerbaijan's territorial integrity. Supporting it means withdrawal of Armenian troops from the occupied territories, which Armenia clearly does not support nor follow. Saying "We support territorial integrity of Azerbaijan" is a well-known and clear statement of support to Azerbaijan's side. — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 13:39, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You can support the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan, but condemn military action. Also, "supporting it means withdrawal of Armenian troops" is cleary your own interpretation. Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 13:53, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Գարիկ Ավագյան supporting Azerbaijan's territorial integrity means removal of Armenian troops and dissolution of the seperatist regime. That isn't his/her 'own interpretation'. How can country A support the territorial integrity of country B and simultaneously occupy its territories? --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 14:14, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The UN recognizes the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan and the people's right to self-determination. Whom they support? Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 14:23, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
According to the "1960 Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries" of UN, you can justify secession of people from the mother state only in the situation that people are oppressed or the government doesn't represent the people's interests. So, territorial integrity is superior right than self-determination. Helius Olympian (talk) 15:09, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is the personal statement the Secretary-General made. These are the words the UNSC used in its recent statement. This is the list of all the UNSC Resolutions on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict to date. These are the UNSC's exact words on the present clashes. However, I cannot find the statement on the UN site, yet. It might help to have a summary section of the UN response, which included not just the UNSC but the General Assembly, on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict page. At the moment, resolutions are mentioned but are somewhat dispersed throughout the article.Johncdraper (talk) 15:35, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Solavirum references

Hello Johncdraper Rosguill Dvtch , please have some patience in going through the below points and act accordingly. Much appreciated.

A. Solavirum edited [13] at 19:18, 4 October 2020. The article references the sentence "which Armenia regards as a military target" (the current form of the sentence).

One reference used for the above sentence is: [14] . Issues with this sentence and reference: 1. The article is a translation of a discussion between two Russian reporters and expresses their point of view. It is not an official statement, nor an Armenian statement. 2. The sentence "which Armenia regards as a military target" is not mentioned in the article, both before and after translation to English. Hence, the sentence seems to be a personal conclusion and not relying on any valid source.

Another reference used for the sentence above is: [15] . Issues: 1. Only the title is used as a reference, not the article context which is different than the title itself. A Wikipedia editor needs to pay attention to the context and not get drawn behind the title only without going through article context. 2. The person being interviewed in the reference article quotes from a Russian general. A quote of a quote that expresses an opinion, not a fact, and not stated by a person currently in charge.

Sincerely, --Alex662607004 (talk) 13:59, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH and WP:CIVIL. Also, even the article about the reservoir mentions it as a military target. I got the references directly from that article. It isn't news that Armenian officials has voiced their opinion about shooting it, which would result in most of Azerbaijan to be submerged. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 14:11, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Based on [16] I suggest again going through article contexts and not solely rely on titles, and definitely not come up to conclusions not mentioned in references but used in the main article. As for the resevoir point, by this the sentence is stuck in a circular reasoning loop [17]. Also, please point out any "uncivilized" or "bad faith" points mentioned above. Sincerely, --Alex662607004 (talk) 14:28, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Present arguments for your claims, don't give a link to other Wikipedia articles. As I said, the references are from the reservoir's article, where it was pointed out that the Armenian military sees it as a potential military target. Also, claiming that I've somehow manipulated the references is a violation of WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH. If you have no arguments for these cases, then have a nice day. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 14:34, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. The following sentence appears in the original article "which Armenia regards as a military target", and this one appears in User talk:Solavirum's first reply "where it was pointed out that the Armenian military sees it as a potential military target". Compared to the original reference [18] which includes a statement by a Russian scholar and not an Armenian military personnel, both of these statements are incompatible since they are affirmative of the resevoir being a target. The closest expression, even though still not exact, to the original article is the resevoir's Wikipedia article which states “scholars and politicians have speculated the possibility of the Mingachevir reservoir being used as a military target by Armenian forces in case of another war”. SPECULATED, POSSIBILITY. This wasn't used as is in the main article but transferred into an affirmative and consenting statement. I have to mention this again: it is of utmost importance to go through every reference, not just their titles, even the references of other Wikipedia articles since those could also contain misinterpreted or incomplete information. Sincerely, --Alex662607004 (talk) 22:56, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Re Alex662607004 I am not sure what your specific request is. If you could rewrite the section as you would like it to read, with citations, posted as a block quote here, that might help. A quick note to all: headlines do tend to be 'sensational', designed to sell copy; the text in articles is often more reliable. Johncdraper (talk) 15:04, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll second this response; given that there were additional sources provided on top of the ones you've taken issue with, it would help if you would clarify whether you think all of the content in that edit should be removed, just the weak citations, or if there's specific claims that need to be rephrased.
Regarding the accusations of not abiding by WP:CIVIL, I think that the actual content of this section is civil, but the section's title accusing an editor of "reference manipulation" is less so. signed, Rosguill talk 15:27, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: before being changed after Rosguill's comment, the header accused me of 'manipulating the references'. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 21:26, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Johncdraper, Rosguill. Right after this section, please follow up the points B-C-D regarding the original title of this paragraph. Here is the sentence in question: at 19:18, 4 October 2020 Solavirum added this: "which Armenia regards as a military target" which has 4 references to it. Please refer to the reply above for details about the exact statement (which is closer to the reference content) required to be replaced by the current one. So, the original sentence of 4 words has 4 references to it, 2 of which are highly inaccurate as explained above. I cannot claim the other two references are accurate or not. Hence, I request the rephrasing of the sentence so the statement accurately reflects what is was mentioned in the references. Additionally, in the original article it is not clear which sentences are direct quotes by whom from the references, which give the impression that a sentence is a fact rather than an quoted opinion. Sincerely, --Alex662607004 (talk) 22:56, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As for the (previous) paragraph title, which was not modified by me, here are more points supporting that claim:
B. At 09:16, 5 October 2020 Here, while using the same reference, Solavirum edited the phrase: "the Armenian MoD stated that the Artsakh Defense Army destroyed three planes" to "the Armenian MoD stated that the Armenian forces had destroyed three planes". The Reference used clearly states that those two planes were destroyed by the Nagorno-Karabakh (Artsakh) army, NOT the Armenian army.

C. At 11:01, 5 October 2020: EkoGraf edited 25 Azerbaijani and 20 Armenian civilians killed using the Reference that was published on OCTOBER 5, 2020 12:21 PM with new info (Reuters). At 11:02, 5 October 2020 Solavirum re-edited 25 Azerbaijani and 18 Armenian civilians killed using the Reference which was published on OCTOBER 4, 2020 at 5:57 PM. This shows that the editor in question has not only didn't properly check the new information, but also rejected an update by a fellow editor and reverted to the previous number of deceased civilians while using the same source as the other fellow editor (Reuters).

D. Here the numbers of the deceased was changed without relevant references. Sincerely, --Alex662607004 (talk) 22:57, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding B, the content appears to now just say that Armenia's MoD reported 3 planes destroyed, which seems to address the immediate content concerns; I note that throughout the article there's ambiguity as to whether "Armenian forces" specifically means forces of the military of Armenia, or whether it can refer to Armenia and Artsakh's forces collectively. This will be a difficult issue to unravel, as Azerbaijani sources seem to consistently fail to make any distinction when reporting battle results. We may want to have a discussion about how to address this issue, although I suspect that we're unlikely to be able to find a satisfactory result until much later, once academic sources about the conflict are available. Regarding C/D, given the short amount of time between the edits and the edit summary, my guess would be that the edit was primarily intended to change the location parameter of the infobox and had an edit conflict with the previous update of the casualty count. The count has since been further updated and is supported by the currently provided source. signed, Rosguill talk 23:25, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Rosguill. The only focus here is the content of the reference and its modification by the editor in concern. The reference very clearly states that "The Nagorno-Karabakh (Artsakh) Defense Army destroyed three planes and two tanks belonging the Azerbaijani military", a statement made by the "Armenian Defense Ministry spokeswoman". Indeed, the official army naming issue seems ambiguous which is yet another reason for sticking to the exact content of references. Sincerely, --Alex662607004 (talk) 00:00, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Map greens

The two greens in the map are waaay too similar. Fully sighted people will be confused, to say nothing of the color blind. 74.96.157.142 (talk) 15:09, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Positions of Iran & Afghanistan

It is clear that Turkey, Pakistan & Northern Cyprus support the Azeri side, but how is this true of Afghanistan & Iran? Afghanistan is alleged by some users to support Azerbaijan, but not a single source has been provided. Iran made a vague statement in relation to respecting the borders of Azerbaijan, but Iran has, to my knowledge, not pushed a partisan position in this conflict. It is wrong to use their statements as evidence of support for Azerbaijan and to group them together with Turkey, Pakistan & Northern Cyprus. --Mrodowicz (talk) 15:25, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mrodowicz The Afghanistan citation was missing but has now been added. We are using this for Iran:

Iran has called for a peaceful resolution, in line with Azerbaijan's territorial integrity, and for Armenian troop withdrawal from occupied territory.

with this specific citation being important for the form of words: https://en.farsnews.ir/13990709000952%7Caccessdate=1. Thank you for raising the Afghanistan issue. Johncdraper (talk) 16:07, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Johncdraper edits

May I know why added again the Madrid Principles? It's been discussed earlier here. Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 17:04, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Գարիկ Ավագյան|talk: Are you stating a) that the Madrid Principles do not represent the latest in international mediation, b) are not relevant, or c) have not failed, or a combination of a, b, and c? Johncdraper (talk) 17:09, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Johncdraper: See here and here. Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 17:57, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Գարիկ Ավագյան|talk What are the specific problems with the two citations, one by one, please? Note I am using Google Translate with the Russian. Note that Armenian opposition to the Madrid Principles is quite well established Note also that the summary emphasizes only the failure of international mediation, i.e., that the international community failed both sides. Johncdraper (talk) 18:18, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should international reactions be split into an article entitled: "International reactions to the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict"?

I think it should due to the large volume of information. Splitting the page will prevent the article from becoming too long.

NinjaWeeb (talk) 18:21, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, other conflicts have their own international reactions pages anyways, so it's nothing unusual. Super Ψ Dro 22:32, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, "reactions to" articles have a tendency to be (or become) absolutely awful, complete embarrassments to Wikipedia. It's better to judiciously edit this section to keep it from becoming too long than to split it off (at least for now). We don't want another flag salad WP:QUOTEFARM. TompaDompa (talk) 04:38, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic World News

I have searched about this site and it just seems to one man with Twitter account and a website. The Twitter account claims it's a group, but the account username A7_Mirza and the fact that maps of countries at war look same always, makes it suspicious. Who is this person and how is he a reliable? This ISW is certainly not reliable. He seems to be more of a military map maker and chronicler. Not a real journalist. Regardless of whether this person may have been used in past by others, editors can't make a source reliable just because they use it. This is to EkoGraf who re-added it. And I doubt anyone who tweets this can be a professional media site. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 23:41, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Change Article Name to the "Azeri-Armenian War"

Here's my reasoning why, listed in several points.

1. MEDIA USE This name, and it's various slight variations (Armenian-Azerbaijan War, Armenian-Azeri War) have become heavily dominant in media and general discussion of it, far more then the tongue challenge that it currently is named. And after all, this is the peoples encyclopedia.

2. NOT A CONFLICT, A WAR! I'm partially using the same argument as the other name change topic, but it's true. This has gone past a border conflict, and into a full scale multi-state war. The title is underplaying it. As for why I disagree with the other name, aside from point 1 of course, see 3 and 4. I'd also like to site the recent changing of "Russian Military Intervention in Ukraine" to "Russo-Ukrainian War" as solid evidence of my support for this distinction, and that was LESS of a true war then this is by all metrics, thereby this should DEFINITELY count.

3. NAME ITSELF IS NON-NEUTRAL AND IS PICKING SIDES The Azeri's call it Karabakh, the Armenians call it Artsakh. EITHER WAY, you're picking a side and spoiling any neutrality in an ongoing conflict, which is obviously not ideal. This is one of the two reasons I disagree with the other title change option and the current one, the other being.

4. THE 88-94 CONFLICT WAS MORE OF A PROTO-STATE WAR, WHILE THIS IS A TRUE MULTISTATE WAR AND SHOULD BE TITLED AS SUCH 60% of the 88-94 NK conflict took place BEFORE either country was independant, when they were still squabbling militants within the USSR. And while it continued nearly 3 years after the CCCP fell, this would make it more akin to a Proto-State conflict fought between new nations shortly before and after forming, like the Yugoslav Wars or the Soviet Proto-state wars from 1918-1923 or so.

And it just rolls off the tongue easier, so there's that.

So, a name that rolls off the tongue, is popular in media and discussion, DOESN'T implicitly pick sides, accurately describes the nature of this WAR and fits the standard co, and sets it apart as a true multi-state conflict, would likely be preferable. Make the right choice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.144.93.30 (talk) 00:43, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OPPOSE The war is between Artsakh supported by Armenia, and Azerbaijan supported by Turkey, not between Armenia and Azerbaijan. I propose these three:
- Artsakh-Azerbaijan war
- 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war
- Second Nagorno-Karabakh war
— [ kentronhayastan ] 01:08, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, but I do agree to a name change, just not this one. Seeing President Aliyev's tweet, I noticed many people are saying "Second Nagorno-Karabakh War" already, so it's best we use that one. Soon, the media will call it that, or "Artsakh War" if they prefer the Armenian(?) name. RBolton123 (talk) 01:49, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war, I originally proposed this title a couple days after the war broke out. At the time several people opposed on the basis that the conflict was too short to be called a war, as it has now gone on longer than the Russo-Georgian War, that objection is plainly irrelevant and news sources are calling this a war with ever increasing frequency.XavierGreen (talk) 02:36, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A quick lookup for "Nagorno Karabakh War" gives news articles which refer to the affair as a "conflict". It doesn't matter what we as editors assess the conflict's scale as - sources refer to it as a conflict and so should Wikipedia. Wikipedia will probably be the tipper of the scale in this case if we prematurely switch. Juxlos (talk) 03:19, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "Azeri-Armenian War" On point 1, the majority of sources I could find are referring to the current conflict as either the "Nagorno-Karabakh conflict" or "Nagorno-Karabakh war" (with some Armenian sources instead using the equivalent "Artsakh war" or "conflict"). On point 3, the name Nargorno-Karabakh is used by both Armenians and Azeris, Artsakh is just an alternate name used by Armenians. (In fact, the republic writes both N-K and Artsakh on its coat of arms.) Also, the proposed title "Azeri-Armenian War" is ambiguous with the 1918-20 Armenian–Azerbaijani_War. I have no strong opinions on whether to refer to the present conflict as either simply a conflict or a war, they both seem to be suitable and both are in use. -Thespündragon 03:49, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 October 2020

You should remove that this conflict is backed by Northern Cyprus since it an entity not recognised as a country. And by default Is Not A Country rather than illegaly ocupied land. 92.5.243.23 (talk) 00:46, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Partly done, I removed Northern Cyprus from the lead, as it is hardly due given that the only source mentioning their support is a Northern Cypriot source. Given the particularly close relationship between Northern Cyprus and Turkey, I'm uncertain that it's even due for inclusion in the article body, and have tagged it with {{undue inline}} for further discussion here. signed, Rosguill talk 00:58, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosguill: It should be removed, clearly an undue statement with POV wording ["and partially recognised (by Turkey)"] to drive a point across. We already have reactions/statements from other major countries including Turkey this is unneeded. Gotitbro (talk) 03:35, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gotitbro, I've gone ahead and removed it, as I agree it's undue. signed, Rosguill talk 03:55, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign / Syrian militants involvement

Novaya Gazeta claims that it was able to establish the details of the recruitment of Syrian militants in Karabakh. According to a source in Syria, a man named Seif Abu Bakr, a recruiter for the Khamzat brigade, which is fighting as part of the Free Syrian Army that cooperates with Turkey, is engaged in the registration of mercenaries. According to the newspaper's source, any Syrian citizen who wants to fight on behalf of Turkey can volunteer, the fighters are sent to the Turkish border town of Killis, dressed in civilian clothes and sent to Baku via Gaziantep airport. The source of the newspaper adds that the flight passes through the airspace of Georgia, and the monthly salary of the mercenary is $ 1,800, Turkish citizenship is guaranteed for the fighter and his entire family, in case of his death, the family will receive a one-time payment of 30 thousand dollars.

This article has already been APPROVED and been published in Wikipedia Russian language section of this topic. See #239 in the Russian version of this topic. I am fluent in Russian as well.

The Source: Novaya Gazeta, October 2, 2020.

The Link: https://novayagazeta.ru/articles/2020/10/02/87340-v-boy-vstupayut-naemniki

Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strategos9 (talk • contribs) 04:48, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Turkey and Syrian Army

According to a high-ranking Syrian rebel sources, which were echoed by the SOHR, the Syrian rebel fighters had been sent there to prop up the Azeri government in its war against neighboring Armenia

1) This has been ALREADY PUBSLIHED in the Russian language section of this topic. See # 238 (as of October 5, 2020)

2) The Source is the Daily Beast, September 28, 2020.

3) The link is here: https://www.thedailybeast.com/turkey-sends-sayf-balud-isis-warlord-to-azerbaijan-to-face-off-against-putins-armenian-allies.

Best wishes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strategos9 (talk • contribs) 04:57, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis

Political scientist Arkady Dubnov, an expert with the Carnegie Moscow Center and the Russia in Global Affairs magazine, believes that Azerbaijan has launched this offensive, because after the clashes in summer 2020, Ilham Aliyev needs to prove that he is a capable leader, and September is a convenient time of the year for military action in the region. The decision was made by the duet - Turkey and Azerbaijan. who conducted joint military exercises prior to the war.

1) This has been ALREADY PUBLISHED in the Russian language section of this topic. See #60.

2) The source is Echo Moskvi, a famous Russian radio station. The name of the program was "Karabakh: the volcano woke up."

3) The link is here: https://echo.msk.ru/programs/sorokina/2716421-echo/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strategos9 (talk • contribs) 05:12, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis

Dubnov believes that Azerbaijan started the war, justifying this statement with a full-scale offensive in response to Azerbaijan's declared "undefined shelling of Azerbaijani territory" and the fact that 34 days before the start of the conflict, the Azerbaijani authorities requisitioned civilian trucks and SUVs.

1) This has been ALREADY PUBLISHED in the Russian language section of this topic.

2) The source is Dubnov, the expert of Carnegie Center in Moscow and the publication of "Russia in global politics" at TV Rain (September 27, 2020)

3) The link is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJBvtiqZB2w

Best regards.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Second_Nagorno-Karabakh_War&oldid=982101317"