Talk:Second Nagorno-Karabakh War

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Jon698, false, it declared curfew. --► Sincerely: Sola Virum 10:08, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Oppose this is ridiculous. There is no such WP:COMMONNAME. --► Sincerely: Sola Virum 10:08, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

Ganja is now being bombed. Sladnick (talk) 13:20, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

Unless I am mistaken, the source states this: "Until now, the main fighting has been between Azerbaijan and Nagorno-Karabakh, an ethnic Armenian enclave inside Azerbaijan, but it now threatens to spill over into a direct war with Armenia itself." Johncdraper (talk) 06:43, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Support. This part of the conflict is a full-blown interstate war. Oranjelo100 (talk) 16:29, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

Support. This is approaching 1,000 deaths, and there were plenty of wars which were much shorter in length i.e. six-days war. Albertaont (talk) 21:04, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Oppose. No reliable source has called this conflict a war yet. Jujuy88 (talk) 22:40, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Support. It's obvious that per Azerbaijani (and Armenian) sources, they're capturing and re-capturing territory within Nagorno-Karabakh, which essentially means it's a full-blown war. Not entirely a war between Azerbaijan and Armenia, but a war between Azerbaijan and Artsakh (WITH Armenian support). I still do not understand why some people here just do not wish to call it a war because it's "heavily debated, and the weighted general of the word 'war' is too 'specific'" when it's CLEARLY A WAR BETWEEN A COUNTRY AND AN AUTONOMOUS REPUBLIC. Jeez, the nerve of these people... Balkanite (talk) 00:15, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Support : Sources now routinely call it a full blow war, and using First and second is the easiest and most logical way to deal with the separate pages on the wiki.--Aréat (talk) 01:45, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Support : I really don't see how this isn't a war, it is a war, and a very active one at that. Pisiu369 (talk) 16:48, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I also Support, I agree with all the people who support the change of name. I don’t know why other people think this is a conflict, it’s clearly a war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.128.133.52 (talk) 13:39, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Can any moderator lock this thread? This is not the way you ask a requested move. Beshogur (talk) 13:42, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

My definitive statement. What you, I, discussions, or Donald Duck popular media thinks is irrelevant. Again, Wikipedia uses Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources on such matters. That is how it works here. Find a consensus in these for the name change. Then present it. Then, we can swiftly change the page name. Thank you. Add: The next time that someone opens a 'War Name' discussion without checking Wikipedia reliable perennial sources, I will be tempted to remove it as forum-like spamming of this page. Again, thank you. Johncdraper (talk) 06:05, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Support : It is all out war in NK territory, with change of land, flanking and attrition. Hitting supply depots, trying to hit key enemy infrastructure. High level talks for ceasefire and final agreement to solve Karabagh conflict alltogether, which elevate the importance of current battles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azkamil (talk • contribs) 15:41, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

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) ; (2) from Twitter

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

@Strategos9: WP:RS. Ahmetlii (talk) 07:35, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

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:[2]) - LouisAragon (talk) 14:37, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

• Aren't Iranian Azerbaijanis considered to be living in their "traditional areal"? --► Sincerely: Sola Virum 17:02, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

Thanks for your proposal. "External minorities" sounds good to me.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:17, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Okay, good that we resolved this! Super Ψ Dro 22:20, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Comment: When providing answers to the question, please provide WP:RS that uses the term you suggest you should use. The opinions of editors are of little importance. What matters is what the WP:RS says. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:54, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

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)

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 ([3], [4], [5]). 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:Tradedia^talk 20:02, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

@Governor Sheng: I have now softened the colors of the map a bit, as well as ordered them a bit more logically. AntonSamuel (talk) 22:41, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

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)

Partially done. Superseded by events (now up to 28 civilian death toll). Johncdraper (talk) 07:03, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Solavirum Editing and References Misuse

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

A. Solavirum edited [6] 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: [7] . 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: [8] . 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)

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: Sola Virum 14:11, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello. Based on [9] 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 [10]. Also, please point out any "uncivilized" or "bad faith" points mentioned above. Sincerely, --Alex662607004 (talk) 14:28, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

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: Sola Virum 14:34, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

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 [11] 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)

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)

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)

Note: before being changed after Rosguill's comment, the header accused me of 'manipulating the references'. --► Sincerely: Sola Virum 21:26, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Note that in the "Timeline of military engagements headline", only "Azerbaijani forces" and "Armenian forces" were used, the latter being used to describe both the Armenian Armed Forces and the Nagorno-Karabakh Defence Army. --► Sincerely: Sola Virum 06:38, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello Solavirum. Looking at the info box of the main article, there is a distinction between Armenia and its military and the Nagorno-Karabakh Defense forces. Additionally, there is a clear distinction in news outlets: "Armenian Forces" are the military forces of the Republic of Armenia, and the "Nagorno-Karabakh Defense Forces" are those of Nagorno-Karabakh. One cannot put both of these military bodies under the same name.

E. At 13:21, 6 October 2020 the term „Artsakh’s presidential spokesperson“ was substituted with the term „Armenian MoD“ which is not what the reference shows.

F. At 11:59, 6 October 2020, TheEpicGhosty added the following information Official statement top Armenian diplomat to Fox New.
At 12:06, 6 October 2020, Solavirum removed the official statement.

I kindly ask Johncdraper Rosguill Dvtch to act accordingly based on the points above (A-F). Sincerely, --Alex662607004 (talk) 20:21, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I've addressed E, as that was a clear deviation from source material. While there's likely a place for the statement added by TheEpicChosty in F, it doesn't belong in the October 6 section where it was placed, as the source was written on the 5th. It may also fit better in a section on reactions to the conflict, rather than in the same section as blow-by-blow battle descriptions, and the literal quote itself is likely undue (although this depends a bit on where the claim as a whole is included). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:41, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

My position on Artsakh Defence Army (ADA) versus Armenian military is that they are in principle different (ADA in the Azerbaijani view is a subnational regional guard) and so that in maintaining the Wikipedia voice we should try as much as possible to respect reliable sources when they distinguish between Armenian and Artsakh forces, just as we are doing with Azerbaijani regular versus foreign fighters, etc. This is particularly because fighting may continue between regional or irregular forces even following a ceasefire, and we need to be mindful of this; see Yugoslav Wars.Johncdraper (talk) 10:14, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

@Johncdraper: See here and here. Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 17:57, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

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. Add: I added the Armenian source, so now one Armenian, one from an Azerbaijani, and one from the former colonial power which I think is a verbatim report, in Russian, of the Artsakh position. Johncdraper (talk) 18:18, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

@Johncdraper:

• 1. https://www.aravot-ru.am/2020/09/11/335932/

From the articles it becomes clear that neither Armenia nor Azerbaijan has rejected the Madrid principles. There is no statement by the Foreign Ministry or officials that they have rejected the Madrid principles. At the moment, they are simply not discussed at all, from both sides. Nothing about inefficiency or the failure of international mediation. The title of the article that "Stepanakert rejects the Madrid principles" is just wrong, non-professional interpretation of the interview.The editor of the article makes his own conclusion.

2. https://armenianweekly.com/2016/08/10/time-to-get-rid-of-the-madrid-principles/

This is 2016 year article.

3. https://www.eurasiareview.com/18092020-velvet-populism-ends-decade-long-discussion-of-the-madrid-principles-oped/

Azerbaijani editor blames Armenia. Not realiable.Actually, non of the articles can be considered as third-party source. Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 08:34, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Գարիկ Ավագյան|talk I will work through these now. This may take time. While I do, is there anything incorrect about this statement?

The Madrid Principles represent the latest in international mediation in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and have failed.

First article.

Direct quotes from first article:

In this sense, today we are not discussing a single option that could weaken the security of Artsakh,"Arayik Harutyunyan stated... "We also have to be realistic, we know that the chances of solving this issue within decades are extremely low. Impossible, we don't see it. Therefore, by strengthening our army, forcing the enemy to reckon with the Armenian forces in Artsakh, maintaining the status quo until serious geopolitical events occur, this is what can lead to at least a partial solution to the Karabakh problem. A complete solution is not possible... Thus, the President of Artsakh raises the prospect of recognizing Artsakh by maintaining the status quo and strengthening the army. Of course, this is not a new approach, but it should be understood whether official Yerevan fully shares this course? Of course, official Yerevan cannot declare that it is pursuing a policy of maintaining the status quo, this will mean that the Armenian authorities simply participate in the negotiations for the sake of participation, but in fact they do not believe in the possibility of achieving results through negotiations. However, this position has a right to life for Stepanakert, since Armenia for many years has been negotiating with a country whose leader periodically leads negotiations to a dead end, does not comply with the demands of the mediators and regularly creates tension on the border and the contact line, propagandizing Armenian-phobia and war.

For the title of the article, complain to the news agency. This article is a correct citation for the statement that "The Madrid Principles represent the latest in international mediation in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and have failed."

Second article. Diplomatic negotiations always occur over a period of time, in this case the timeframe of the Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict is decades, with the Madrid Principles beginning to fail around 2016, and it is clear that the Madrid Principles had been failing over a sustained period of time. This article remains a correct citation for the statement in question.Johncdraper (talk) 10:37, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Third article. Not an editor. An Azerbaijani source in a published media outlet (secondary source), and we are already using both Azerbaijani and Armenian primary and secondary sources on this page; this article is a correct citation for the statement in question.

Peace, Johncdraper (talk) 10:11, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

@Johncdraper: Thank you! Let me briefly explain what the matter is:

1. None of the sides till this time (neither Azerbaijan, nor Armenia) officially stated that the Madrid principles have failed or had been rejected. Not a single official structure has announced this until now.

2. In the sources that you cite, the editors express their own opinion and their own analysis, which is not based on the analisys of the primary sources (simply because there is none). SEE Opinion piece

3. In this case, it is inappropriate to write about the Madrid principles in the "Background", because this section is intended as one hundred percent confirmed information, mainly from the past.

4. The Karabakh issue is an ongoing issue. It is wrong to conclude that the Madrid principles are irrelevant, as this is part of a long negotiation. Until now, the war continues and both sides are likely to resort to the Madrid principles.

5. And the most important. We have no third party sources. SEE WP:RSEDITORIAL.

Since this Madrid Principles sentence constantly appears in the "Background", I suggest, according to the rules of Wikipedia, to use these statements in another section of Wikipedia and mention the names of the authors, per WP:RSOPINION.

I would like to ask Rosguill to summarize this. Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 16:16, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Okay. I appreciate the difference between de facto and de jure failure, and that there may be a grey area between them. Let us try to find a new for of words here, and then to save time copy that across to the Madrid Principles page and see what happens then. Do we have agreement that the three citations, taken together, support this statement? This may take time.

"International mediation attempts, particularly the Madrid Principles peace plan, have stalled, which has led to renewed hostilities."

Johncdraper (talk) 16:32, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Dear Johncdraper,

Since there is nothing official from the both sides, without any international statements, that the Madrid Principles failed, how can we confirm this as a fact? Wikipedia is based on facts, numbers, names, not conclusions. Statements like "which has led to renewed hostilities" is definitely not a fact and based on personal opinion.

The article Madrid Principles on Wikipedia uses 6 references, 3 of them are the same references that we have discussed and which are Opinion piece and not official. I beg your pardon for saying that again, but they are not reliable sources.

Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 17:35, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Գարիկ Ավագյան, Johncdraper, I think that International mediation attempts, particularly the Madrid Principles peace plan, have stalled. is well-enough supported to be included. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:45, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

International mediation attempts have absolutely not stalled. Check these references, please.

1. OCTOBER 5, 2020 U.S. DEPARTMENT of STATE

2. OCTOBER 2, 2020 Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 16:53, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Added, with the two citations. Johncdraper (talk) 09:12, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Johncdraper, Rosguill I think that mentioning of the International mediation attempts in the "Background", which are based on the official statements references and information, is supported well to be included, when we write it in this way:

"International mediation attempts (OSCE Minsk Group) began in 1994 by a series of peace process, which the Madrid Principles is the latest 3, 4. These International mediation attempts are continuing since this conflict has started in 27 September 5, 6".

Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 17:15, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

There are three points here. The first is that Wikipedia is not a news agency and actually prefers reliable secondary sources over official statements. I take your point re op eds, and suggest combining Rosguill's sources and these statements. Second, the death toll since the Madrid Principles began strongly suggests that the Madrid Principles are at best, in stasis. They exist, and when people die, they get noticed, and when people do not die, they 'stall'. So, I am trying to find a word to characterise 'stasis' or 'stall'. The third point is that yes, the Madrid Principles have thankfully been recently resumed with urgency. How about this?

Ongoing international mediation attempts to create a peace process were initiated by the OSCE Minsk Group in 1994, with the on-off Madrid Principles being the latest iteration.

Johncdraper (talk) 17:57, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Johncdraper, I don't like using the description "on-off", it's vague. I think that if we are stepping away from any mention of peace talks failing or stalling, we should simply mention that Madrid Principles were proposed in 2006 and last updated in 2009. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:03, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill I don't like it either. I prefer 'stall'; my point 2 is crucial, here. The specific problem is that 'stalled' does not translate well into some languages; it translates as 'hindered' rather than being seen as 'temporarily not working', as in a car or plane engine stall. Let me go through a thesaurus and language translators and get back on this point.Johncdraper (talk) 18:19, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Back again. Personally, I would like to use the word 'ponderous', which I think works in both Arabic and Russian, but sadly it does not quite work in English here, or I think Armenian. Try this:

Long-standing international mediation attempts to create a peace process were initiated by the OSCE Minsk Group in 1994, with the interrupted Madrid Principles being the most recent iteration.

Johncdraper (talk) 18:57, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Johncdraper! Now this looks more accurate. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 14:15, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Having reviewed the sources, as well as other articles that attempt to explain the background of the conflict, I think that it would be undue to claim in Wikipedia voice that Armenia rejected the Madrid Principles. The only source that claims this directly is Eurasia Review, which is an oped and based on the above discussion appears to be an Azerbaijan-aligned source. The aravot-ru source makes a claim with respect to Artsakh but not Armenia, and the armenian-weekly source states an opinion that the Principles should be abandoned, but does not represent anyone other than the piece's author, and is thus inappropriate to use in this context.

I think that it is worth mentioning the existence of a peace process in the Background section, and it should be relatively easy to find articles that assert that it failed or stalled; here's one that says that "peace talks" failed [12], and another that mentions their relevance [13]. I think these two sources would be a good support for the proposed statement made by Johncdraper above. The Eurasia Review source may be usable for adding attributed statements in the Analysis section. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:41, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

These two 13 14 references are opinion content and not enough supported to be included in "Background" paragrapgh. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 16:58, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Գարիկ Ավագյան, I don't see anything in the France24 piece that denotes it as opinion. I'd also note that claiming that past mediation attempts failed while conflict is actively being renewed is hardly an exceptional claim. Regarding your comment above, I don't think that the two primary sources you cited ([14], [15]), support the claim that prior mediation attempts are continuing: in addition to their primary nature and thus lesser quality, the sources just state a call for cessation of hostilities, and do not mention any continuity with past efforts. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:58, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I have now imported the latest form of words, with three citations, to the article.Johncdraper (talk) 12:14, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

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)

Yeah, other conflicts have their own international reactions pages anyways, so it's nothing unusual. Super Ψ Dro 22:32, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

• I agree with it. It's important to increase this section with a separate article as the conflict is in the Internacional agenda of all Internacional Organizations and countries! Սարգիս (talk) 03:17, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
• 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)

• I support this. Lets keep the reactions segment relatively short. F.Alexsandr (talk) 09:11, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

• I condensed it quite a bit and removed the flags (again) to this end. TompaDompa (talk) 02:50, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

My tendency is to keep it, not split, and edit properly as others have already said. I am curious, does OP have any examples of a similar intl reactions as a separate page that seems to have been useful? MrSirGuyFriendBuddyOlPal (talk) 05:52, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Oppose. What you, I, discussions, or Donald Duck popular media thinks is irrelevant. Again, Wikipedia uses Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources on such matters. Find a consensus in these for the name change. And then present it here. Thank you. Add: The next time that someone opens a 'War Name' discussion without checking Wikipedia reliable perennial sources, I will be tempted to remove it as forum-like, ESPECIALLY if they start throwing in all caps. Johncdraper (talk) 06:05, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Oppose especially the word Azeri. --► Sincerely: Sola Virum 06:42, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Support: Unfortunately, this round of fighting has escalated beyond "clashes". I am open to different names, but the name should reflect that this is a war. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 06:59, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Support: While I'm a bit iffy on some points, this is clearly gone beyond a conflict, and the siting of the Russo-Ukrainian War example seems to fit this name, so I'm in favor. 206.174.216.170 (talk) 14:59, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

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.

Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 07:24, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strategos9 (talk • contribs) 04:48, 6 October 2020 (UTC) 

Not done. Not characterized as an edit request. Your other posts have been deleted as forum-like. Basically, try again, using the edit request format. Thank you. Add: Or, WP:BOLD it yourself. Johncdraper (talk) 06:08, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Done Thank you. I will surely add this info. I found Novaya Gazeta's research. Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 08:39, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Georgian comments

Ahmetlii, I don't see why this is due for inclusion in the article. Not all information related to the topic needs to be included, especially in this manner, as a totally disjoint one-sentence paragraph. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 07:07, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

@Rosguill:, because basically that indicates the opinion of Georgia - which country is indirectly involved because of the location- about it. That's my point. Ahmetlii (talk) 07:16, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Except Georgia apparently just popped in to say that no mercenaries have come through Georgia, a claim that is not made anywhere else in the article and that readers would have no reason to assume. Additionally, its placement at the end of the section on allegations of mercenary movements supported by relatively strong sources could mislead a casual reader into thinking that Georgia disputed the presence of mercenaries in general, rather than the passage of mercenaries through its territory in particular. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 07:24, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill, you are wrong. The Turkey and the SNA headline states that they have come through the Georgian airspace, citing a Russian newspaper. --► Sincerely: Sola Virum 11:33, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Solavirum, I see how it's been reintegrated into the article, which I think is a much more appropriate way to present the information than before. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:13, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 October 2020 (2)

Syrian National Army

This link is wrong. Azerbaijan is fighting alone. This is a provocation. There is no evidence. This is another provocation of the Armenians. Please take this into account.

This is confirmed by SOHR, France, Armenia, Russia, BBC, The Guardian, RIA Novosti, Novaya Gazeta and many others. Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 14:16, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Գարիկ Ավագյան is there currently active discussion on this? If not, the tag should be removed. Also, WP:NPOV require we note that while some accuse the SNA of participating others deny this. VR _talk 14:06, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Vice regent, there is a discussion on the correct choice of name: Syrian National Army or the Syrian mercenaries, etc. Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 15:42, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Some POV issues on infobox

There are no reliable third-party sources on military support from Turkey (which gives diplomatic support, and denies that it had assisted Azerbaijan militarily during the conflict), showing Turkey as a combatant is misleading. Only Armenia has claimed that Turkey was apparently commanding the Azerbaijani troops, even sending fighter jets. On the other hand, only the Armenian side claims that the combatants from the Armenian diaspora are volunteers, while Azerbaijan calls them mercenaries. In this two cases, the article has clearly taken the Armenia's side, which is biased. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 14:27, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

So Solavirum you propose that "volunteers" on both sides be called mercenaries? Also pinging @Գարիկ Ավագյան:.VR _talk 00:06, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Vice regent, no, to put "mercs" on the Alleged section. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 08:08, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

A neutral word commonly used in reliable sources is 'fighters'. We could apply this to both sides. Johncdraper (talk) 15:31, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

International reactions section looks messed up and disorganized

Someone PLEASE format this section as soon as possible.

• If a country says the same thing as another country did, then group them in the same thing.
• If a country had something specific to say about the conflict, make a seperate paragraph and put that country's flag next to it.

Example: - Edi Rama, former President of Albania said: "This conflict must be met in a peaceful conclusion as soon as possible."
Another example: Albania, Bangladesh, France, The Netherlands, Zimbabwe, South Africa, Russia, and China have all called for peaceful intervention as soon as possible.

If a user were to look at this section in the article, they wouldn't be able to tell what's more important and what's not, so let's tidy this one up, shall we? Balkanite (talk) 15:01, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

WP:QUOTEFARM and WP:MOSFLAG. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 15:07, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

To be honest it doesn't even look that bad. It is quite decently organized for an article that has had so much impact and views. Super Ψ Dro 15:46, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Not done. Agree that this is actually okay for this stage in the article's history. Paragraphing is more concise; if not, you just get a long list scrolling down the page. Johncdraper (talk) 07:10, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

References

Ahmetlii edits

I'm waiting for explanations. Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 17:13, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Only a source is not enough to give it in the title; for example, allegation of YPG/PKK. edit conflictAhmetlii (talk) 17:15, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I will add sources as well, if you want. Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 17:24, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Ahmetlii You meant, for the infobox, we need statements besides the Russian one? Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 17:32, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Գարիկ Ավագյան yes, this is a ongoing event and I don't think that Russian state news agencies will help to the article without another given independent and reliable source. Ahmetlii (talk) 17:35, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Ahmetlii Ok, I got it. I removed from the infobox until anyone else confirms these claims. Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 17:37, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

So, we are now going to accept Russian state propaganda? --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 17:38, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

You surely not. Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 17:51, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Georgia

Georgia's response is notable, as Georgia is a major player in the region, and critically sits between Russian and Armenia (we assume Armenia can't use Azerbaijani territory to connect to Russia). Georgia's response has included halting transfer of military materials to both sides. Xinhua: [16]. --Calthinus (talk) 17:21, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Georgia is significant. Russian military supplies have been supposedly going to Armenia via the Caspian-Iran route. Vici Vidi (talk) 05:55, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Borders on the map

In order to get the involved countries and combatants right one should probably include the enclaves in Armenia and Azerbaijan that are occupied by on another. See: Karki,_Azerbaijan, Barxudarlı, Yukhari_Askipara, Aşağı_Əskipara and Artsvashen — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonLiebing (talk • contribs) 17:33, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Can Emreculha take a look? --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 19:11, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Agree. Beshogur (talk) 19:15, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

You may have to "zoom out" the map a bit for all the de jure enclaves to fit, so a new version of the map would need to be created. I wouldn't neccesarily oppose it as long as it doesn't make the map far too complicated to be considered to be fairly understandable/readable for the not so familiar readers - it's pretty complex as it is. AntonSamuel (talk) 19:23, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 October 2020 (3)

Not done. No request made. Johncdraper (talk) 07:01, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Recognise vs recognize?

Some sections using both, which one is correct or is appropriate? Beshogur (talk) 21:51, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Looks like the page was tagged as {{use British English}}, so "recognise" is correct. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:56, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

@Rosguill: I changed few words, someone reverted me without even noticing. I'll try to change all to recognise. What about motorized or motorised? Seems like sources use motorized, is it mandatory to use British spelling on wiki? Beshogur (talk) 04:09, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Beshogur, MOS:ENGVAR is the relevant guideline. It's also not necessarily the highest priority for an article that's likely to get entirely rewritten several times over in the next year or so. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:13, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

It's not a big deal, better to focus on the content. Also while Yankees stick to the Zs, Brits use both Z and S in many words, with preference to S. The difference is more definitive in o vs. ou (color/colour) and er/re (center, centre). Vici Vidi (talk) 05:52, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Recognise. See https://www.dictionary.com/. Johncdraper (talk) 07:12, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 October 2020

Not done. No edit request specified. Johncdraper (talk) 07:14, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• QarabaghWarMap(2020).svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:25, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 October 2020 (2)

Could we possibly show the list of "Arms suppliers:" (within the "Belligerents" section of the right column) directly without clicking on [show]?

Could we include the attack on Martuni under "Timeline of military engagements", "1 October"? It is mentioned under the "Casualties and equipment losses", "Civilian Casualities" section towards middle: On 1 October, two French journalists from Le Monde covering the clashes in Martuni were injured by Azerbaijani shellfire.[297]. The photo and article in the paragraph below reflects the local civilian involvement.

There is a photo in this Wikipedia article of a residential building in Azerbaijan hit on Oct. 4. Could we also include the photo (of a civilian and his destroyed home) that is presented on the journal le Figaro webpage (https://www.lefigaro.fr/international/le-conflit-du-haut-karabakh-nouveau-defi-d-ankara-a-moscou-20201001)? Thank you kindly! SacredForest (talk) 04:54, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

• Not really; it's easier for mobile users, apparently.
• No. They were not belligerents or apparently targeted.
• Sorry, no. The image is copyrighted. Johncdraper (talk) 14:11, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello,

• Ok. It is really curious, though. I will look into this & confirm. How would an extra click be easier for mobile users? It should be even easier without the extra function. Thanks.
• Regarding Oct 1: there was targeting of civilians in Martuni. This is reflected in the media I shared from Figaro (a verified, reputable source). You can vividly see the civilian who lost his home. Why would acknowledgement of civilian targeting on this day & in this area be specially omitted? If the image is copyrighted, we really need to find other images of the destruction to civilian areas in Martuni on Oct. 1 and certainly of Stepanakert on other days. Not a single image of damage to Stepanakert civilian areas has been included. I really have to wonder about the neutrality of this. It is again compromised. May I somehow include photos and captions of Oct. 1 Martuni civilian targets and subsequent targeting of Stepanakert civilian structures?
• Ok, perhaps a request for permission to use could be made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SacredForest (talk • contribs) 14:54, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Re Martuni, Okay, I am beginning to see what you mean, but I really need a non-paywalled version of the exact language used in the Le Figaro article. Can you post the paragraph here, please? Johncdraper (talk) 16:40, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Johncdraper, Do you mean you would like me to translate the Figaro article or paraphrase? The translation would be: "Published on October 1, 2020 at 1:40 PM [...] Médusé, a man stands in front of his brother's house destroyed by bombing, Thursday in Martuni, Nagorno-Karabakh. -/AFP" It's still necessary to find an image that is not copyrighted from the Martuni destruction. It seems an image could just be uploaded to this thread. Is this how to share a photo with you or the other editors? Also, you had mentioned that the [show] function of "Arms suppliers" was easier for mobile users. Could you share your source on that? I couldn't find info on this. Why does it seem like an extra function? This is because on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nagorno-Karabakh_War the corresponding information does not need to be clicked on. The older page just seems more user-friendly.

I read advanced French. Post the whole paragraph in French, please, to my Talk, so I can blank it immediately afterwards (because it's in copyright). If you have a copyright free image (i.e., you took it yourself), you need to upload it first. You can do that through 'Insert images'. My source on the mobile users and 'not really' is Help:Infobox: concise. Johncdraper (talk) 12:23, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. Regarding Oct. 1 in Martuni, there is also this source for the following quote & image: https://ca.reuters.com/article/us-armenia-azerbaijan-idCAKBN26M5IJ "A house, which locals said was damaged during a recent shelling by Azeri forces, is pictured at the town of Martuni in the breakaway region of Nagorno-Karabakh October 1, 2020. Areg Balayan/ArmGov/PAN Photo Handout via REUTERS ATTENTION EDITORS - THIS IMAGE HAS BEEN SUPPLIED BY A THIRD PARTY. NO RESALES. NO ARCHIVES. MANDATORY CREDIT." It sounds like this image could be used so long as credit is given. Is that right or is this considered an archive?

Additionally, there is timing shared on reddit from another source, which mentions both civilian and journalist involvement: https://www.reddit.com/r/armenia/comments/j3g62t/oct12020_events_war_in_karabakhartsakh_yerevan/ Could we include such timing? Here, I can type out anything to be included.

Ok, this is Le Figaro caption: Médusé, un homme se tient devant la maison de son frère détruite par des bombardements, jeudi à Martouni, dans le Haut-Karabakh. -/AFP https://www.lefigaro.fr/international/le-conflit-du-haut-karabakh-nouveau-defi-d-ankara-a-moscou-20201001 I'll look into posting this on your own page too. Thank you.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 October 2020 (3)

Hello, I'm just reposting. (The reason for requesting English for the map is to uphold neutrality throughout labels of disputed territories, as Armenian characters are excluded. If towns named by residents in Armenian are suddenly presented in Azerbaijan characters, there is a certain message being sent implicitly. The essential question being argued in this 2020 conflict is: Whose territories are these? The map's disputed towns are now displayed in large Azerbaijan-language characters and small, barely legible English-language letters for some reason, and Armenian is nowhere to be found.) This is a request to: Please change all map labels back to English because some are now in Azerbaijani. Since this article is written for the English-version of Wikipedia, it's consistent to list in English the names of towns in the disputed region in and not in the Azerbaijani language with Azerbaijani characters. We don't view towns and cities in Armenia proper in Armenian letters here. On this new map, we see English letters and Azerbaijani letters; so, there is an imbalance. This new map which has been added reduces the readability and reduces the neutrality of this article due to the names being written in a language other than English, as though these are Azeri towns (whereas, they are disputed at present). How to resolve this? Let's revert back to a map in English only. It is more appropriate to have names listed in Azerbaijani characters on the Azerbaijani-language version of the Wikipedia entry. Similarly, the names of the disputed towns would be written in Armenian characters on the Armenian-language version of the Wikipedia entry. The way the map is presented today reflects partiality and has reduced readability. SacredForest (talk) 20:06, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

What are the English names of these towns/villages? Never knew the Englishmen had named these places before. We use both Azerbaijani, and Armenian names for the settlements. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 21:18, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello Solavirum! I will look into the names and also check the previous versions of the map. I suggested using English characters only because Armenian-language characters have been totally excluded. To maintain neutrality, it is either both languages (Azerbaijan & Armenian) or neither. Yes? That would be neutral. Also, we are using the name "Azerbaijan" in English for "Azərbaycan" and the name "Armenia" for "Հայաստան". This is not disputed for our article here & has not been contested as an issue of "Englishmen" naming. Every language has translations for other countries and their regions and cities . Do you not give the name İngiltərə for England on the Azerbaijan-language Wikipedia page? Does this mean Azerbaijan citizens came and named the country? No, this is just a translation. This article we currently discuss about the conflict is written in English, so readers will expect to for the most part see this language's characters. Please let me know why there would be the names for the towns written in Azerbaijan-language characters & in almost illegible letters below in English (not Armenian characters)? This cannot be reflective of neutrality, but neutrality is a core principle of Wikipedia. Is it impolite to point out this standard? No, it is a principle of Wikipedia. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by SacredForest (talk) 05:15, 7 October 2020 (UTC) SacredForest (talk) 05:52, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

This is WP:EN. The map should be in WP:EN. On WP:AZ it would be in WP:AZ. Johncdraper (talk) 14:00, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I recently updated the map to show Azeri and Armenian place names next to each other in equal font size for the sake of neutrality. I don't necessarily think that using Armenian town names in Latin letters instead of Armenian letters is a problem - I would even argue that it makes the map more neutral with regards to readability of the Armenian names as most non-Armenians can't read the Armenian script. If the map is to be further improved by consensus English names I don't have a problem with that as long as it does not reduce readability significantly, but I would argue that in its present form - the format of the map is sufficient for use on the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict article on Wikipedia. The issue regarding that neutral and reliable sources need to be used to display claims of captured areas can still be discussed I think, but that's another issue. AntonSamuel (talk) 14:02, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

14:24, 7 October 2020 (UTC) 

AntonSamuel, to be honest, most English readers cannot read the Azerbaijan script either. Would you agree or disagree? For example, the titles for Stepanakert, Martuni, etc. are readable now. When they were only listed in Azerbaijan, these places weren't even possible to find before. Before, when it was in Azerbaijan script, these locations on the map were totally unreadable and could not be found. This does not work for a map which should reflect the article's content. It is better now, but may still be best to include Armenian characters is Azerbaijan characters are already included. Others will weigh in on this? Perhaps it could be Armenian/English for Armenia...Azerbaijan/English for Azerbaijan...& all 3 for the disputed areas? Perhaps that would be totally unreadable for the disputed territory, though. This was why I orginally suggest keeping it in EN as Johncdraper mentioned. In any case, when clicking on the map, I was wondering why the map overall couldn't be enlarged along with its characters, as the labels are teeny tiny! Perhaps this could help with overlapping names too? Is there a way to size up the map?

Iranian alleged support

It's absurd to add Iran while they denied several times and made supportive statements on Azerbaijan. Plus Khamanei's clerics did statement that they were supporting Azerbaijan. Beshogur (talk) 09:48, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

@Beshogur: It would be good if you could provide recent Iranian position statements, at the highest possible level you can find, preferable with a secondary source citing it, too. If any of it were in English, that would be even better, but English is not necessary. Google Translate works with Farsi. Johncdraper (talk) 14:05, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

@Johncdraper:, I added Iranian spokesman for their gov. here. There are other Iranian sources mentioning the same. Beshogur (talk) 14:07, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Unregistered Users

Is it ok if Unregistered users can edit this talk page and put some information and stuff? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.128.133.52 (talk) 13:37, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

This talk page is not protected. So, the answer is yes; if you are not an extended autoconfirmed user and know how to make edit requests, do that, following the edit request Help. However, please use common sense. Over the past few days, most of the editors improving this page have realised that their role is more like that of diplomats than warriors. Some basic tips follow. Use of the Talk as a forum is a no no. Spamming the Talk with multiple different requests that could be grouped under the same heading as a list is a no no. When you make points, try to support them with reliable secondary sources. Reopening discussions on e.g., 'Name of the conflict' without relying on reliable perennial sources is a no no. Maps are contentious, including because of reliability of source, language in keys, use of language in labelling villages and towns, etc. While WP:BOLD still applies, if you are a newbie and need advice, try raising it with an editor who may agree with you in how you want to improve this page on their Talk page before trying anything that may be perceived as radical. Finally, peace. Johncdraper (talk) 13:57, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Apparent visual confirmation of Turkish F-16s at Ganja

Still a lot of things in flux, I know, but I thought I'd just share this Twitter account operated by a member of the New York Times visual investigation team for potential future use. There appears to be more concrete details about the presence of the Turkish F-16s based out at Ganja's military air base just prior to its destruction. Regards, Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:50, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

When did Ganja airport got destoyed? 2 month ago, Turkey had deployed its jets there for drills. Fringe theory. Beshogur (talk) 19:12, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

The same air base that, in this article we say has been closed down since March, and yet we have footage of F-16s during the Turkish-Azerbaijani military drills in July this year? Anyways, third-party sources lead the way of finally confirming much of the information that has been presented in this article so far.Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 19:24, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Please make sure to distinguish between Ganja International Airport and Ganja military airbase, situated at the airport, using reliable secondary sources, which by now are out there. An air base may be open, while an international airport may be officially closed, but reliable secondary sources must be referred to. Johncdraper (talk) 21:02, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

So they're one and the same, then? Perhaps it would be more correct to say that the airport has been converted to military use or its runways and facilities are dual use (like Erebuni Airport in Armenia).Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 21:25, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, it's correct to say whatever reliable secondary sources say.Johncdraper (talk) 21:36, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

What make thee (or anyone else) of this? Worth adding? Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 04:23, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Personally, I consider The Drive's The War Zone a reliable secondary source on stories like this. Johncdraper (talk) 08:25, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Julian Röpcke from Bild debunked it. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 08:37, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Okay, but a normally reliable secondary source trumps a tweet, and that Twitter link has disappeared; can you check Bild itself? Johncdraper (talk) 09:00, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

@Solavirum: Nope! Julian Röpcke deleted his post because Azerbaijan did not get M-346 yet! He wrote a new Tweet on the matters, here we are [17]. Delivery is supposed for 2021 [18]. --Nicola Romani (talk) 10:53, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Iran fully supports the position of Azerbaijan

In recent days some top government officials and public figures of Iran displayed support for the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan, called withdrawal of the Armenian troops from the Azerbaijani territory and they have insisted to stop fighting, finding solution through the diplomacy. Here are the references: President Rouhani in telephone call with president Aliyev stated his support to the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan: https://www.tehrantimes.com/news/453318/Rouhani-telephones-Aliyev-says-neighbors-territorial-integrity Again, president Rouhani in weekly cabinet session emphasized territorial integrity of Azerbaijan: https://youtube.com/watch?v=JIc7YEoVeRM Ali Akbar Velayati top foreign policy adviser to the Leader of the Islamic Revolution calls Armenia retreat from Azerbaijani territory: https://www.tehrantimes.com/news/453291/Leader-s-aide-calls-on-Armenia-to-retreat-from-Azerbaijani-territory Imam Jumas, Supreme Leader Representatives in 4 districts of Iran made a joint statement for supporting Azerbaijan's position: https://en.radiofarda.com/amp/khamenei-representatives-declare-support-for-azerbaijan-in-nagorno-karabakh-conflict/30872059.html Ali Rabiei, spokesperson of Irani government urged Armenia to respect territorial integrity of Azerbaijan: https://www.tehrantimes.com/news/453300/Tehran-urges-Armenia-to-respect-Azerbaijan-s-territorial-integrity Saaeed Katebzadeh, spokesperson of Foreign Ministry of Iran emphasized respect for the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan, as well as the withdrawal of troops from the occupied cities: https://iranpress.com/content/28215 Alireza Arafi, public figure, prominent cleric, who considered by some people next Supreme Leader says "Nagorno-Karabakh belongs to Azerbaijan and it is part of Islam. It is now the religious, moral and human duty of Muslims to defend the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan with full awareness of the conspiracies and to resist the influence of foreigners in Islamic countries.": shorturl.at/kwEY7 (Wikipedia blocks the link, I added it in this way) Apollo (Helius Olympian) 05:32, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I think this is now correctly characterised on the page. If not, please try posting a paragraph here, as a block quote, of how you would like it to read, with citations.Johncdraper (talk) 08:35, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Analysis

Political scientist Arkady Dubnov, an expert at the Carnegie Moscow Center and the Russia in Global Affairs magazine, https://carnegie.ru/commentary/experts/1113 https://globalaffairs.ru/authors/arkadij-dubnov/ believes that Azerbaijan launched this offensive, because after the clashes in summer 2020, Ilham Aliyev needs to prove that he is a capable leader, and September - a convenient time of the year for military operations in the region.https://echo.msk.ru/programs/sorokina/2716421-echo/ Dubnov believes that Azerbaijan started the war, justifying this assertion with a full-scale offensive in response to Azerbaijan's declared "indefinite shelling of Azerbaijani territory" and the fact that 34 days before the start of the conflict, the Azerbaijani authorities requisitioned civilian trucks and SUVs. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJBvtiqZB2w Strategos9 (talk) 06:42, 8 October 2020 (UTC)StrategosStrategos9 (talk) 06:42, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Partially done. Added, with ce, but while I can read Russian, I cannot follow it on Youtube, so could not include that part. He's probably making the same point in other media, so try looking for that. Johncdraper (talk) 08:45, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Russia and Iran

On September 29, 2020 Iran confirmed that it's air defense forces shot a foreign drone over it's airspace. The video was reportedly taken from the Aslan Heights, which is located near Azerbaijan’s southern border with Iran.

Not done. We already have this subject and multiple citations for several Iranian shootdowns in the Intro section of the Timeline of military engagements.Johncdraper (talk) 09:05, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

<ref>https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/iran-shoots-down-suspected-azerbaijani-drone-video/<ref>

Azerbaijani embassy in Iran said this:

It was noted that the target of Azerbaijan’s Armed Forces in implementation of the counteroffensive operations is the fire positions of Armenia’s occupational forces situated on the opposite side and on the right-hand direction of the frontline: “While the points where the missiles and rockets have fallen on within territory of the Islamic Republic of Iran are left behind or on the left hand of Azerbaijan’s military units. Shells or rockets falling on the territory of the Islamic Republic of Iran have targeted friendship and kind neighborhood relations between Azerbaijan and Iran by Armenian forces, and we consider it as the nasty intention of the enemy.

Novaya Gazeta report

Hey, Johncdraper, because I'm from Azerbaijan, I don't it would right for me to paraphrase important information from this report from "Novaya Gazeta". There are interesting stuff here, from how a parliamentary building in Shusha was shot as a result of internal treachery, to how Armenia employs volunteers from the Armenian diaspora. Can you check it out? --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 09:28, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

This is a request to me and while I am one of those who are de facto moderating (I hope!), I am not the moderator. To save space on this Talk, post this request to my Talk. To save time, post the relevant paragraphs in Russian as block quotes. Johncdraper (talk) 09:42, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

@Գարիկ Ավագյան:, infobox

"The clashes occure not only in Nagorno-Karabakh", come on. What's the reason of changing this to a disambiguation page? Beshogur (talk) 11:34, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

@Գարիկ Ավագյան:, we do not use Artsakh instead of Nagorno-Karabakh, or Shushi instead of Shusha, if these aren't the commonname on wikipedia. Beshogur (talk) 12:02, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Գարիկ Ավագյան can not distinguish between a region (Nagorno-Karabakh) and a country (Republic of Artsakh), putting the Armenian name of Nagorno-Karabakh on the infobox. Considering, NK region is de jure Azerbaijan, it should be Nagorno-Karabakh, Azerbaijan. What is your opinion @Rosguill:? (talk) 13:01, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Beshogur, regarding the quote you mention at the beginning of this section, I can't find it so I can't comment. Regarding the location, ultimately this should be decided by its use in sources, but informally I've yet to see a RS prefer the term Artsakh over NK for the region itself (as opposed to the unrecognized state, which I think is more commonly referred to as Artsakh at this point). I'm going to change it back to Nagorno-Karabakh until sources establishing a case for Artsakh can be found. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:49, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

@Rosguill:, and about Shusha/Shushi dispute? Shusha isn't Azerbaijani either. It's the English spelling of Şuşa. Beshogur (talk) 16:06, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Beshogur, Based on Shusha, and that "Shushi" appears to be primarily used by Armenian sources, I would default to Shusha until proven otherwise. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:14, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill, Beshogur International sources also use the name of the city as Shushi. [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25] etc. I think a "double" name would be an acceptable solution. Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 08:46, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Shusha. See this meta-search of Oxford University Press encyclopedias, especially The Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Place Names (5 ed.), which I think should be followed for the map. Johncdraper (talk) 09:10, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

The same source is saying Khankendi, while Stepanakert is a WP:COMMONNAME. Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 13:55, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Beshogur. There is a WP:COMMONNAME. Let me remind you that this is not the Armenian Wikipedia, major publications call it Nagorno-Karabakh. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 13:08, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

The fact there is a diversity of opinion is why I suggest a consensus formed from reliable sources like those indicated in the meta-search, especially for smaller settlements. Johncdraper (talk) 15:50, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@ZaDoraemonzu:'s edits

@Rosguill:, please check his edits, obsessed with Iran and disrupting the sections. adding Iran to infobox, again, changing again, despite Iranian official statements, adding his own words. and this, adding his own words again. I do not want to revert him due to 3rr. But help. Beshogur (talk) 11:47, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm not obsessed with Iran. I think you don't understand the role of Iran. I want to correct the Iranian stance. What ever you accuse me then that's your problem. I defend my opinion. ZaDoraemonzu (talk) 11:51, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I removed your fake reference about "Azerbaijan accused Iran" here does not mention any allegation, just rumours about Iran, which they already denied here. Beshogur (talk) 12:57, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Your bold claim is justifying a wrong signal that Iran is siding with Azerbaijan in the problem. You are Turkish, you know it better, your Turkish people support Azerbaijan and not else. Don't forget your countrymen's media have reported about Iran's tacit support for Armenia against Azerbaijan. This is why I am demanding a clarification of Iran's activities. ZaDoraemonzu (talk) 06:45, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@AntonSamuel:, check references below on international reactions section. Beshogur (talk) 13:39, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

@Beshogur: The source refers to a call by the Iranian government spokeman for Armenia to withdraw with regard to UN resolutions calling for that, not Iranian support for Azerbaijan's military operation. AntonSamuel (talk) 13:48, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I Understand. Beshogur (talk) 14:02, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

• I am not going to say I am obsessed with Iran. In fact, I found Iran's role has been misleading and still uncertain. The problem is a number of people are trying to make Iran like an innocent player or either supporting Azerbaijan, while the reality isn't. What I require is the honest role of Iran in the conflict. ZaDoraemonzu (talk) 11:54, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Iran officially denying arm supplement, supporting Azerbaijan offically, what else do you want? Beshogur (talk) 11:56, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Please, look at previous discussion "Iran fully supports the position of Azerbaijan" Apollo (Helius Olympian) 14:22, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Iran's role is far complicated. In October 6, Iran has accused Turkey of inflaming the conflict. Turkey is Azerbaijan's traditional ally and Turkish media has several times reported about Iran's tacit support for Armenia. Azerbaijani intelligence also accused Iran the same so. Iran says it support Azerbaijan. Why does Azerbaijan state otherwise? ZaDoraemonzu (talk) 06:48, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

• Since I was pinged, my only comments are that it looks like the at-issue content has already been removed. I don't think that there's anything egregiously bad about the edits at issue, although I do think that Turkish state media alone (Anadolu Agency, TRT World) is a rather weak citation support for claims like this, and thus generally agree with removal for now. I think that calling ZaDoraemonzu "obsessed" was unnecessary and a minor personal attack. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:01, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

The problem is this guy has tried to portray Iran like an innocent country or pro-Azerbaijani while Iran's reaction is far complicated. I want to confirm that problem to be solved. If Iran truly supports Azerbaijan, then why Azerbaijan accused Iran? This is what I have questioned the most of it. Turkish media has traditionally sided with Azerbaijan and still so. ZaDoraemonzu (talk) 06:45, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Removing mention of Wagner group involvement

In my edit here I've removed mention of the Wagner group's alleged involvement and related denials by their master Prigozhin. I did so per this Bellingcat article which seems to debunk it quite thoroughly. Eik Corell (talk) 12:24, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

regarding SNA

@Rosguill: considering, SNA is removed from the infobox, should I remove Hamza and Sultan Murad as well? Beshogur (talk) 15:41, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Beshogur, I think that given the close and the relative strength of sources attached to the claim, my suggestion would be to keep Sultan Murad and Hamza under alleged, but remove the umbrella of SNA. I'm going to go ahead and make some changes because I noticed other inconsistencies as well as a result of the DRN close. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:08, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

The timeline of events in this conflict should be moved to it's own page.

This conflict is currently ongoing, and there is a possibility that it might stretch for months, even years. Adding events on this article everyday will make this page far too long. NinjaWeeb (talk) 16:09, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I'd give it two weeks and then split it. I honestly hope this will end within that timeline now that increasing numbers of people on both sides, both soldiers and civilians, are dying, and given the international community has remembered the conflict. If it is split, I will develop a draft summary of the timeline in a draftspace, receive comments, and then split and replace the timeline. Johncdraper (talk) 16:16, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Countries section needs reworks

Per WP:MOSFLAG, and WP:QUOTEFARM, the current state of the "Countries" section isn't well at all. The previous version was much better. Can someone reconvert it to prose? --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 16:57, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I can do that for unrecognised countries, maybe hold that section very short, merging Ossetia, Transnistria and Abkhazia, on the other hand Northern Cyprus. Any other opinions? Also instead of revert, please someone should do that manually, because there were some wrong references. Beshogur (talk) 17:04, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Please do. I will help. Having rated 8,000+ WP:International Relations pages, I am strongly against quotefarms. They promote sensationalism and fix periods of time and tend to prevent page improvement. Johncdraper (talk) 18:06, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Neo Ottomanism

@MarshallBagramyan:, your argument is your own pov, none of the sources mentions that. Please revert. Beshogur (talk) 17:28, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a Neo-Ottomanism page on my Watchlist. You might want to work this out there before bringing it back here. Johncdraper (talk) 17:33, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Isn't it absurd to label this conflict as part of Turkey's attempt to "reform the Ottoman Empire", at least in the name of Wikipedia? --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 17:42, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

That may be your interpretation of Neo-Ottomanism, but its definition is not as narrow as you're making it out to be. Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:16, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Good original research of you. Beshogur (talk) 18:20, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Say what? Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:23, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

• [26] and [27] explicitly mention neo-Ottoman ideology in the context of the NK conflict. There's three additional sources that mention neo-Ottomanism, but 2 of them ([28], [29]) don't mention the NK conflict and the third is paywalled ([30], n.b. that it was published in 2019). I'll leave it to other editors to discuss the relative reliability and due-ness of these sources and claims. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:33, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

@Rosguill:, don't know the others but ANF is pure PKK propaganda agency. Beshogur (talk) 18:39, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Armenian Weekly isn't reliable enough to quote on opinion pieces. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 18:42, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Explicit examples abound here and here. More will probably appear in the coming weeks once Turkey's precise role in this war clearly emerges.Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:49, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Daily mail is unreliable, can't say anything for other. Beshogur (talk) 18:54, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

It literally says Reuters in the by-line. Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:56, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I have removed the two Armenian sources and one academic source that did not mention Azerbaijan. The statement still appears to stand. Johncdraper (talk) 19:27, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Both users(Beshogur & Solivarium) work in tandem to promote a POV view in the article. Keep personal beliefs out of the article please.Mr.User200 (talk) 13:07, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@Mr.User200:, thanks for the non argument yet again, contributing nothing to the discussion. Beshogur (talk) 13:12, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@Mr.User200:, WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH, for the billionth time. Accusing me of POV-pushing is ridiculous when I was adding statements from the Armenian government to the article, sigh. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 15:53, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

UAE

@Vallee01: have you even read the source? I do not see anything about UAE officials, the opinion piece looks more like a conspiracy than a reaction. Please revert. @Rosguill:, could you check the source, does not look like a reaction. Beshogur (talk) 18:55, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Beshogur, could you provide the diff here? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:57, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

@Rosguill: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2020_Nagorno-Karabakh_conflict&diff=982523233&oldid=982521340 Beshogur (talk) 19:25, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Beshogur, I agree that the source doesn't directly make any claims of support. Rather, it's speculating motives for the UAE to eventually get involved. Maaaaaaybe it could fit into the analysis section, but given how peripheral it is to the conflict it's probably not due unless UAE is confirmed as involved by reliable factual reporting. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:39, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Well there isn't really an UAE involvement, UAE has barely any relation with Armenia or Azerbaijan. Beshogur (talk) 19:55, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Better Images

• File:Armenian bombardment of Azerbaijani territories.jpg

Kroger4 (talk) 07:53, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Oppose these are not free images, except for the second one. Early on, images from the Armenian MoD were also deleted. Plus, the first one is from July. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 09:20, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: blanked in-copyright images. Johncdraper (talk) 12:25, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Downed jet SNAFU

Hi! I don’t know how this works exactly. I just wanted to hint at a wrong information in the article because of someone probably misinterpreting a source. It’s stated that Armenia claims to have downed anzukriegender F16 and the linked source is a tweet by the Armenian government. The wording of the tweet is a bit odd but the Armenian government clearly alleges that a Turkish F16 Shot down an Armenian SU-Foghter jet, and not the other way around. They have pictures of the downed jet included in the tweet and the wreckage of the jet shows the Armenian Air Force insignia. Hope this helps to clear things up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.187.122.189 (talk) 10:46, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Would someone tracking this please help this person's request out? Johncdraper (talk) 12:12, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Pro Azerbaijani POV push by edits of user. Solivarium.

Could you care to explain this revert.Mr.User200 (talk) 13:04, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I believe this concerns the issue of one or more massive holes in the cathedral and where they came from. Given it could have been hit by munitions from anywhere, until there is an independent means of verification (reliable perennial resources, Truth & Reconciliation Commission or other investigation), how the holes got there is disputed. It may be possible to revise the caption to:

Ghazanchetsots Cathedral in Shusha; the Cathedral has been damaged during the conflict.

Also, it is perhaps noteworthy that personal Talk pages exist. Johncdraper (talk) 13:20, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Mr.User200, well. First of all, it would be way better if you stopped accusing me of POV-pushing, as per WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH. Secondly, the information was already in the body of the section, isn't it unneccesary to rewrite the same thing over again? I don't think Wikipedia is place to constantly try to victimise a party. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 13:21, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Mr.User200, Solavirum I am going to strongly suggest by WP:BOLDing it a concise form of words for the captions for both images; if you do not like it, take it to Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Johncdraper (talk) 13:32, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Johncdraper This is fine, one image per party. No POV here. Regarding the caption, I think is Ok as it is right now.Mr.User200 (talk) 13:35, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Johncdraper (talk) 13:42, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I would respectfully request that the caption as it stands now at least be revised by someone to clarify which report it is referring to. ("Ghazanchetsots Cathedral in Shusha. The Armenian Apostolic cathedral was damaged during the conflict according to the report.") The report? Which report is that? I got reverted when I tried to revise it. At the very least, it should be specified that, per witnesses on the ground, including civilians in town, and the Russian media team that was wounded by the bombardment, attested to shelling/aerial bombardment by the Azerbaijani side. Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:42, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

MarshallBagramyan, we previously decided that it should be "according to the reports", not "the report". Don't know who changed it. Also, I reverted it because you changed it against the consensus we've reached here. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 17:46, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Al Arabiya's broadcast of Armen Sargsyan's speech

I notice out that during the conflict, Al Arabiya broadcasted a speech of Armenian President Armen Sargsyan, where he condemned Turkey and Azerbaijan for inflaming the conflict. Al Arabiya is owned by the Al-Saud which has ruled Saudi Arabia since 1923, so while I'm not a theorist, I think Saudi Arabia is backing Armenia against Azerbaijan diplomatically. Again, this depends, but it is worth to mention out. ZaDoraemonzu (talk) 14:30, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Possibly but since no Saudi Authority have made a clear statement, we cant add that. Unless a RS cite them. Mr.User200 (talk) 14:33, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I doubt so. Saudi Arabia doesn't have a tradition of freedom of speech, all media is under state-control. In this case we can draw comparison to China, where its mouthpiece (Global Times, Xinhua, etc.) are actually representing the government of China's viewpoint. Or like Erdoganist Turkey since late 2010s, where media is increasingly censored and Turkish news like Anadolu Agency or TRT frequently using Erdogan's propaganda to represent its views. Saudi Arabia's relations with Turkey have deteriorated since 2010s, so while I maybe wrong, I don't think Saudi Arabia's tacit support from its state-run media is impossible to judge out. ZaDoraemonzu (talk) 14:51, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@ZaDoraemonzu: there is not "I think", please avoid your own theories and other opinion pieces are not valid as a reaction. Perhaps put it on analyses section if it's good sourced of course. Beshogur (talk) 14:57, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

The map - Reportedly, or claimed?

AntonSamuel, please provide reliable sources for your statements here. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 15:22, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@Solavirum: Hi! I've raised the issue of the NPOV issues with the map on the talk page previously: [31]. In short: With regards to WP:NPOV it's preferable to have a more neutral source used for claims regarding captured areas seen on the map, than just relying on claims from the Azerbaijani government. I've used https://caucasus.liveuamap.com/ as a source, which features pro-Azeri, pro-Armenian and neutral claims and only confirmed captured areas (through geolocation of videos mostly) as captured. If even more reliable and neutral sources can be found that the map can be based on, I'm all for it. AntonSamuel (talk) 15:28, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@AntonSamuel:, I've been blocked just for using the word reportedly because some users thought it's propaganda, apparently I did more than 3 reverts so. I think that was unjustified, however I am glad you use that word as well. That's the correct term imo. Beshogur (talk) 15:38, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@AntonSamuel:, @Solavirum:, @Beshogur:, I will add the names of the alleged villages. If you agree, we will change the borders.----Emreculha (talk) 15:44, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

AntonSamuel, nope, that's absurd. It doesn't present the whole picture. And Emreculha, you've got at least my consent for the changes. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 15:47, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@Solavirum: Absurd how? I would argue it's far more in line with WP:NPOV to use conservative estimates from a relatively neutral source, rather than just relying on the Azerbaijani MoD for edits to this map. @Emreculha: Adding the mentioned localities is great, but as mentioned previously, showing these localities as captured on the map is problematic since their capture is both disputed and unconfirmed by neutral and reliable sources. AntonSamuel (talk) 15:50, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

AntonSamuel, it doesn't violate the neutrality guidelines when we clearly state that it is per Azerbaijan. Come with better arguments... --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 15:56, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@Solavirum: I'm still sticking to the issue of neutrality and reliability: displaying unconfirmed Azerbaijani claims as the main indicator of areas captured gives undue weight to these claims. This is part of the Wikipedia:Core content policies and not controversial. AntonSamuel (talk) 16:02, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@AntonSamuel:, @Solavirum:,Getting the right information can be difficult. Azerbaijani sources make an official statement. But if I am not mistaken, official Armenian sources do not make any statements. I think we only have LiveUAMAP and İlham Aliyev's Twitter Account. @Solavirum: wants the map to be updated as it is the official word of mouth. LiveUAMap, on the other hand, does not add to its map that the region is definitely taken without sharing a picture or video from that region. We will have to find a measure between us without discussion :) ---Emreculha (talk) 15:57, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Ahmetlii, please comment here before changing the map, and help us reach a consensus, to avoid edit wars. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 16:05, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@Solavirum: I did not see this conversation before, I will also add my statement later.Ahmetlii (talk) 16:09, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I am only adding village names to the map right now. Is everyone in agreement? @AntonSamuel:, @Solavirum:? ---Emreculha (talk) 16:24, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@Emreculha: Adding the relevant villages to the map without claiming them as captured (as long as the claims have not been verified) is fine by me. AntonSamuel (talk) 16:26, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

:: https://apa.az/en/nagorno_garabagh/President-of-Azerbaijan:-%22Hadrut-settlement-and-several-villages-liberated-from-occupation%22-332509 shows Hadrut and 8 villages. Add these with different notation.Fullscaledx (talk) 16:27, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

The map legend says "Areas REPORTEDLY captured by Azerbaijan in 2020". It does not say: "Areas captured by Azerbaijan in 2020". So, add the Hadrut and 8 villages as recently captured places.Fullscaledx (talk) 16:31, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@Fullscaledx: I added the "reportedly" since I still think it would be prudent to use even more superior sources for the claims than Liveuamap (even though I think Liveuamap's reports are decent with regards to reliability). However, if it poses a problem - then by all means remove the word "reportedly", or replace it with a better word. However the presence of the word does not cancel out the problematic nature of adding the pro-Azeri claims without additional verification as mentioned before. AntonSamuel (talk) 16:35, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Please, do not misunderstand me. I do not oppose to the usage of the word "reportedly". This word shows a claim. Hence, I defence that there is no danger adding "Hadrut+8villages" to AZ's territory. Eventually, "reportedly" includes a claim in itself. Am I wrong?Fullscaledx (talk) 16:40, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Dear @Marjdabi:, I guess you haven't seen the discussion about the map.We think to reflect the most accurate source on the map. Sorry we didn't ping you to discuss.I am only adding village names to the map right now. If we confirm information from all sources, we update the borders. I ask you to be a little more patient :)---Emreculha (talk) 16:57, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@Emreculha: Marjdabi has been blocked indefinitely on Wikipedia, as he's making disruptive edits and personal attacks now on Wikimedia Commons as well, I've reported him to the administrators: [32] AntonSamuel (talk) 17:05, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@AntonSamuel:, There is no need for us to insult each other. Sorry about this situation.---Emreculha (talk) 17:10, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@Emreculha: No worries! I really commend the contribution you've made with the map and your openness for discussion of it. AntonSamuel (talk) 17:22, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Emreculha, also, Murovdağ should be readded too. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 17:19, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@Solavirum: Murovdag is still featured on the map as far as I see, however, its capture by Azerbaijan has not been independently confirmed as far as I have seen. AntonSamuel (talk) 17:23, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@AntonSamuel: The fact is that Armenia&Artsakh or Azerbaijan are refusing nearly everything about opponent's claims as I seen before. I think that we should put Azerbaijani claims (which are more detailed) rather than waiting for confirmation (which can take several months in a recent situation). And, I'm not sure about there are enough reliable sources are confirming that captures or not. Ahmetlii (talk) 19:01, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@Ahmetlii: I don't think using Azerbaijani claims as the main indicator for the map is a good idea, I've provided the reasons why I think that way pretty thoroughly by now in this thread. I would point out that Liveuamap is updated quite regularly however. AntonSamuel (talk) 19:05, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@AntonSamuel: I agree about not using Azerbaijani claims as far as possible because of NPOV concerns, but also Liveumap is also getting informations from Azerbaijan generally as far as I know.Ahmetlii (talk) 19:35, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@Ahmetlii: Yes, Liveuamap uses pro-Azeri, pro-Armenian and neutral sources. But they've only marked areas in blue that have been confirmed as captured by geolocation. AntonSamuel (talk) 19:37, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@AntonSamuel: ok, but also it sometimes comes from unreliable sources like Tweets from unconfirmed accounts. Although it's sometimes reliable, it sometimes get informations from users, like a blog or internet portal. Ahmetlii (talk) 19:55, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@Ahmetlii: That is true, so if a neutral and even more reliable source can be found, I'm all for it as I stated earlier. AntonSamuel (talk) 19:57, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

ECP Request on 9 October

İn the section on October 9, 2020 it incorrectly states that surç was taken control of. The correct village is Sor https://twitter.com/AzerbaijanMFA

Note, this was a malformed ECP request by Objecttothis. Johncdraper (talk) 15:31, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Done --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 15:49, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Hadrut

Hadrut and 8 villages were taken by Azerbaijan. Why is it not shown in the updated map?
Here is the link: https://apa.az/en/nagorno_garabagh/President-of-Azerbaijan:-%22Hadrut-settlement-and-several-villages-liberated-from-occupation%22-332509
Official twitter account of AZ president: https://twitter.com/presidentaz/status/1314588966105030658 Fullscaledx (talk) 16:16, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@Fullscaledx: These claims have been denied by the Armenians and not confirmed by independent sources. We've been debating the basis for edits to the map in the thread above. AntonSamuel (talk) 16:17, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Replacing the main map?

How about moving the main map about the current front lines into the article and replace it with a neutral map of the region? I don't think that map will be accurate for some time as both sides keep refuting the other. Cem456 (talk) 18:49, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@Cem456: Hi! I don't think moving away the map would be very prudent. In it's current state, the claims displayed on the map are relatively conservative (check our discussion in the thread above), based on Liveuamap geolocation of Azeri claims: https://caucasus.liveuamap.com/. Even though there is always room for improvement, having the map in the infobox serves the purpose of giving readers a quick overview of the situation as well as familiarity with the specific towns and villages in the region. AntonSamuel (talk) 18:53, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@Cem456: I oppose the current map to be something else: the map is a svg file, better than jpg, png etc. But, my main objection is that during a war atmosphere, "reported" and "claimed" are almost equivalent. Hence, the cities and villages that Azerbaijan says "liberated" must be shown as liberated area colors in the map.Fullscaledx (talk) 19:05, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@Cem456:, I don't know if you had the opportunity to read previous discussions. While preparing the map, I started out from the "Syrian Civil War" map. I could not understand what is missing about the subject?---Emreculha (talk) 19:33, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@Emreculha: Not really an argument from me, it just seems like current map can't be 100% representative of the current front lines because of the PR of both sides.Cem456 (talk) 20:25, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@Emreculha:. BTW, thanks for your valuable contribution to the map by adding the villages recently in popular mode. But, as a positive criticism, I suggest you make a distinction between two: 1. villages "AZ said liberated + those shown in liberated areas" 2. villages "AZ said liberated + those shown in non-liberated (AR) areas". You show both in black. You can show the latter in blue points or marks to make distinction. This will provide the reading of the map more easily.Fullscaledx (talk) 20:19, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 October 2020

There is not such republic named” artsakh” recognized in the World officially. 20% of Azerbaijan lands were occupied/ invaded by armenian separatists and called the area «artsakh” 109.127.13.122 (talk) 20:09, 9 October 2020 (UTC) Please, correct this article by referring international law and human rights.

Not done. Forum-like. Everyone editing this page appreciates your concern. I have posted to your Talk how you may improve matters.Johncdraper (talk) 20:49, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Claims That Have Not Yet Been Proved (Map)

Fullscaledx, AntonSamuel, Solavirum, Ahmetlii, LiveUAMap paints unproven claims about a city in a circles. If the claim is proven, it makes paint blue the city . If Azerbaijan has a claim (for example Hadrut), let's show the area shaded rather than dyeing it directly blue or not. If the claim is proven, do we paint directly blue? If you want, let me give it a try? Below, we note "the areas claimed by Azerbaijan but not proven" by indicating the color?---Emreculha (talk) 21:15, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Timeline of military engagement split and request for assistance

Dear fellow editors. I propose that the Timeline be stabilised and then split over the weekend. This is a major exercise, will take time, and I suggest should involve the following process:

1. Creation of a draft summary of the Timeline. We have one paragraph, but we need a multi-paragraph (I suggest three to four additional paragraphs initially, then cut down to a total of three) of the Timeline. My draftspace is open for the basic text: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Johncdraper/sandbox. This will require maximum conciseness and select use of citations. It will naturally be a challenge. However, it is absolutely crucial to get this right. No Wikipedia page is perfect, but overall, I think we have done a decent job of this page, in extremely difficult circumstances, on one of the world's longest and most contentious conflicts in the contemporary era. As such, we need to maintain focus, create a robust account of the timeline to date, and so try to promote the article quality to B. The Nagorno-Karabakh War was an FA. This means that it was, by Wikipedia standards, of the highest possible quality in terms of accuracy of characterization of the conflict. We are all here because of the same reasons that inspired the encyclopédistes of the 18th century and which still permeate the Wikipedia mission; Wikipedia influences the real world based on discussion, reasoning, and reliable sources.
2. We need to copy over a stable version of the Timeline to the new page, which already has a prototype. This is not easy because of the need to fix citations and references on both pages. In particular, we need to copy over nameref references. Some of this will be done by bot, but to maintain the professionalism of Wikipedia, we need to tidy up, with no redlinks or errors, rapidly. I note the team that set up the prototype timeline may have some experience with this.
3. We need a cleanup crew for the this article, i.e, the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict main article. This is again because of loose citations and nameref problems.
4. We then need to maintain feedback from the timeline to this page and maintain momentum towards that B rating.

I would appreciate any comments, feedback and updates below; alternatively just WP:BOLD my sandbox. P.S. Welcome to my Sandbox, if you please. Thank you. Johncdraper (talk) 21:40, 9 October 2020 (UTC)