Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard
 |
|
| Welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN) | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
This is an informal place to resolve small content disputes as part of dispute resolution. It may also be used as a tool to direct certain discussions to more appropriate forums, such as requests for comment, or other noticeboards. You can ask a question on the talk page. This is an early stop for most disputes on Wikipedia. You are not required to participate, however, the case filer must participate in all aspects of the dispute or the matter will be considered failed. Any editor may volunteer! Click this button Noticeboards should not be a substitute for talk pages. Editors are expected to have had extensive discussion on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to work out the issues before coming to DRN.
| ||||||||||||
| Case | Created | Last volunteer edit | Last modified | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Title | Status | User | Time | User | Time | User | Time |
| Neith | Resolved | Potymkin (t) | 28 days, 14 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 8 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 8 hours |
| Defense of Sihang Warehouse | In Progress | Adachi1939 (t) | 9 days, 16 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 3 days, 20 hours | Adachi1939 (t) | 3 days, 16 hours |
If you would like a regularly-updated copy of this status box on your user page or talk page, put {{DRN case status}} on your page. Click on that link for more options.
Last updated by FireflyBot (talk) at 05:46, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
Current disputes
Frederick S. Jaffe
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Wrong place for this, and lack of volunteers willing to take it on, and lack of response from filing editor. Nightenbelle (talk) 18:20, 3 January 2021 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
2020 Nagorno-Karabakh_war#Suspected_war_crimes
– Discussion in progress.Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
Users involved
- Armatura (talk · contribs)
- Grandmaster (talk · contribs)
- Sataralynd (talk · contribs)
- Beshogur (talk · contribs)
- Solavirum (talk · contribs)
Dispute overview
Armenia and Artsakh accused Azerbaijan of using phosphorus munition against Artsakh, with France 24, The Independent and Le Point publishing supporting articles including an independent medical expertise by a French doctor. A sentence following these supporting citations by Grandmaster denies the phosphorus use by Azerbaijan and cites two Russian-language articles - one featuring Russian "expert" Murakhovsky who is known for 1) claiming that phosphorus burns at 1000 C despite 2,760 C prevailing in literature 2) being a Russian propagandist 12 3) calling for invasion of "Nazi Ukraine" 12 4) claiming that white phosphorus "is not used in modern munitions" which contradicts with the evidence of white phosphorus use in recent wars 12, 5) claiming the superiority of Turkish military UAVs is a "myth" 1 6) claiming the Ukrainain plane was not hit in Iran and some Russian and Azerbaijani "experts" whose purely theoretical arguments raise questions about their credibility.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
[[1]]
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
1) Could uninvolved editors make a judgement whether the sentence denying the phosphorus use by Azerbaijan despite credible international publications saying the contrary has a right to stay in the article? 2) if yes, can you please make a judgement whether selectively citing the references denying phosphorus use by both Azerbaijani and Armenians only in the section about Azerbaijani war crimes but not in the section about Armenian war crimes is a fair approach to this article? Many thanks!
Summary of dispute by Grandmaster
Thanks for taking this for dispute resolution, however WP:RSN would probably be a more appropriate venue. In any case, let me present my argumentation. The use of white phosphorus is claimed by both sides of the conflict, but there's so far no in depth investigation by an authoritative independent organization, such as HRW and Amnesty international, whose experts previously investigated the use of cluster munitions and other violations of war conduct rules in this conflict. Reports in mass media are based on information provided by one of the sides, and cannot be considered as witness or expert account. But in any case, our role here is not to prove or disprove whether or not phosphorus was used, but to report what the notable sources say. Media reports are quoted in the article, and so are 3 military expert opinions. Military experts all say that there's no sufficient evidence to prove the use of phosphorus by either side of the conflict. Murakhovsky is only one of the 3 experts saying the same thing. He is only linked as a source in the article, for further information if anyone is interested. The main source is actually the other 2 experts, one of whom is colonel Anatoly Tsyganok, a well-known military expert in Russia, whose biography could be found on Forbes website: [2] I think our purpose is to present balanced information, and not just the claims that support a certain position. Therefore the opinions of military experts questioning the claims on phosphorus use are notable and important for objective presentation of information in the article. Also please note that those experts are neutral in this conflict, they do not take any sides, and they all say that both sides have not presented any reliable evidence that white phosphorus was used. Grandmaster 20:17, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
Btw, I do not mind if expert opinions questioning the use of phosphorous are included for both Armenian and Azerbaijani allegations. I never said that they should only apply to the Armenian allegations. Grandmaster 10:17, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Sataralynd
It is true that both sides accused each other about the use of white phosphorus. However, when comparing evidence about its use by Azerbaijan with evidence about the counterclaim, namely compare wounds confirmed by Armenian and foreign doctors who are operating under hippocratic oath with finding unexploded white phosphorus munition in Tartar, Azerbaijan and claiming it as evidence that Armenia used white phosphorus, it is not unreasonable to give higher credibility to the Armenian claim than the Azerbaijani one. We know both sides have engaged in an information war during this conflict but given the first hand nature of the evidence about the Armenian claim, and the reliability of their sources (a couple of which like The Independent is particularly listed in WP:RSP as reliable in this instance) we could rate the Armenian claim with a higher credibility. In summary, we are talking about medical evidence with a high level of reliability.
Now regarding the sentence mentioned in the article
Military experts did not find evidence provided by the Armenian side to be convincing, and expressed their doubts that white phosphorus was used by either side of the conflict.
it is in fact not accurate. This is because the sources didn't engage with the medical evidence but evaluated videos and verbal claims against some of the chemical properties of phosphorus. The evidence provided about the Armenian claim is medical, and only a doctor reviewing the wounds in person should be able to question it or deem it unconvincing. Attaching this sentence to the paragraph presenting the medical evidence is not warranted.
Further, the way the statement is written as a blanket statement that gives the impression of there being a consensus among the community of military experts that there is no evidence of use of white phosphorus by Azerbaijan, which is clearly not the case, if you read the Russian sources.
Finally, there has been claims questioning the reliability of the referenced Russian sources, and I agree with the suggestion to take that to WP:RSN first.
In the final analysis, the course of action I recommend is to remove the above sentence, establish the reliability of its sources and then include a modified version that some military experts find the evidence inconclusive, and that this doesn't pertain to the medical evidence. --Sataralynd (talk) 09:13, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Beshogur
I am not following the original discussion but seems like the user called me because deleted one of his text, which here it states: This, however, contradicts with the reports that the Syrian government .... deployed white phosphorus munitions via airstrikes and artillery on different occasions during the Syrian Civil War.
, where you see that it is clearly an OR mixed with old sources. No idea about the rest of the discussion tho. Beshogur (talk) 01:06, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Solavirum
2020 Nagorno-Karabakh_war#Suspected_war_crimes discussion
First statement by moderator (War crimes discussion)
Please read the rules for moderated discussion. Read them again if you are not certain. Do not edit the article while discussion is in progress. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. The purpose of discussion is to improve the article. My first question is whether this dispute is primarily about the reliability of sources. If so, we might do better to ask the reliable source noticeboard to rule on the reliability of the source. My second question is for each editor to tell as precisely as possible what they want the article to say about the focus of the dispute. If the issue has to do with the reliability of claims that white phosphorus was used, then who was reported by what source to have made that claim? Do not reply to each other, except in the section for back-and-forth discussion. The statements by editors should be addressed to me, as the representative of the community. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:22, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
First statements by editors
Indeed, the issue is about the reliability of sources, since Armatura (talk · contribs) questions that. I also think that WP:RS might be a more appropriate venue. The claims on use of phosphorus were made by both sites of the conflict, but there's no independent verification by an authoritative organization such as HRW or Amnesty international, whose experts usually do expert assessments of war conduct rule violations. However the article quotes a number of military experts who see no convincing evidence that phosphorus was used by either side of the conflict. Those experts have no connection to either side of the conflict, so they are neutral on this particular issue. Armatura questions credibility of one of them, and generally is against inclusion of skeptical views. But I think that in order to maintain WP:NPOV it is important to include all opinions, and not just those that support the narrative of the parties to the conflict. Grandmaster 10:29, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
Many thanks, Robert McClenon. It is mostly about the reliability of sources with experts denying the phosphorus use in NKR, hence I don't mind if this discussion is transferred to WP:RS, if you think it is a more suitable place, I am still learning what to discuss where. My other objection was that sentence denying the phosphorus use by both sides was for some reason put under only suspected Azerbaijani war crimes but not under suspected Armenian war crimes. I appreciate Grandmaster (talk · contribs)'s readiness to fix that, but I am still questioning the initial logic of selectively posting a seemingly neutral content to deny a war crime by Azerbaijan only. I argue that the citation 537 featuring highly controversial and unreliable "expert" Murakhovsky's claims should be deleted and it looks like Grandmaster agrees at least with that. I also question the reliability of the other reference - it is a Russian language article from Kavkaz-Uzel, that features two Russian experts who, basing their opinion purely on the appearances of the video of alleged phosphorus use by Azerbaijan, published by Armenian ombudsman, question whether it was phosphorus at all. One Russian expert - captain Vasilyh Dadikin is reported saying the video was not convincing and that it could be anything up to smoke grenades (Василий Дандыкин счел видео, опубликованное Арманом Татояном, не убедительным. "То, что там изображено, может быть чем угодно, вплоть до дымовых шашек", - сказал он.). The other Russian expert, Anatoly Tsyganok, the head of the Russian Center for Political-Military Studies is reported saying "In videos of phosphorus munition use by Israel against Gaza one can see a rocket flying, then opening and spraying phosphorus, but here we don't see it ("Известно, что фосфорные боеприпасы применял Израиль против сектора Газа. Сохранились видеосъемки: летит ракета, раскрывается и из нее сыплется фосфор. Здесь же этого нет", - указал он.). The trouble with Kavkaz-Uzel article is that 1) there was no expertise done beyond just looking at the video 2) it interviews an Azerbaijani expert Azad Isazade (who goes as far as implying that it might have been the Armenians burning their own forests to create a smoke cover - "армянским военным использовать фосфорное оружие выгодно - Это создание помех для средств воздушного нанесения ударов азербайджанской армии".) but not Armenian experts, and this raises a question about the impartiality of the authors of the article (Russia's is the 149th out of 180 countries in terms of press freedom index), 3) the article cites Azerbaijani expert saying that "Azerbaijan signed the convention on chemical warfare use, that prohibits the phosphorus munition use. ("Азербайджан подписал Конвенцию о запрещении разработки, производства, накопления и применения химического оружия и его уничтожении, которая регулирует запрет применения фосфорных боеприпасов"), however this contradicts with France24 publication which highlighted that "the use of white phosphorus is strictly regulated under an international agreement that neither Azerbaijan nor Armenia have signed", this raises a question whether Kavkaz-Uzel has vigorous editorial process at all to verify the claims in the article. What are the solutions I see? 1) One option is removing the phosphorus-use-not-used Kavkaz-uzel expert opinions at all. 2) Or, cite them under both Azerbaijani and Armenian suspected war crimes with greater attribution and clarity, like "two Russian military experts, after viewing the video evidence provided by the Armenian side, did not find it to be convincing, and expressed their doubts that white phosphorus was used by either side of the conflict". Plus, if we are citing opinions based purely on visuals, add the Atlantis Global's DRFLab's investigation based on analysis of satellite images that supports the phosphorus use. One may argue that medium.com has been highlighted as unreliable source, however Modern Diplomacy' Turkish author cites it, and I don't think Kavkaz-Uzel's article's credibility is higher than DRFLab. Armatura (talk) 17:30, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- Actually, I do not mind if it is written as "Two Russian military experts, after viewing the video evidence provided by the Armenian side, did not find it to be convincing, and expressed their doubts that white phosphorus was used by either side of the conflict". Regarding the comments on the article at Kavkaz-Uzel, the article as a whole is not used as a reference, only the opinions of military experts are referred to. We can find faults with any article, but that does not invalidate the opinions of experts quoted there. Coming to medium.com, it is a subject for another discussion. But I can briefly note that the fact that if an author of a highly partisan article at Modern Diplomacy refers to it, that does not make it a reliable source, considering that medium.com was highlighted as unreliable. Grandmaster 17:17, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Second statement by moderator (war crimes discussion)
The majority of the participants in this discussion either agree with taking it to the reliable source noticeboard or are silent. So it will be taken to RSN. The editors have not stated the issue with sufficient clarity that I am ready to open a thread at RSN. Will one of the editors please either:
Robert McClenon (talk) 22:27, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- Dear Robert McClenon I stated all my reasons for questioning the Kavkaz-Uzel article reliability in a numbered list in the beginning of back-and-forth discussion, as clear as possible. I don't know whether RSN is for discussing the reliability of a specific article (rather than the whole Kavkaz Uzel), but if you think it is, could you kindly move this discussion there, please? I am afraid I don't have the necessary knowledge for the making the move. Regards, Armatura (talk) 12:50, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Second statements by editors (war crimes discussion)
Third statement by moderator (war crimes discussion)
Grandmaster says, in the back-and-forth discussion, that they think that we are done, and that there has been agreement. If no one disagrees, I will close this dispute as Resolved. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:43, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Third statements by editors (war crimes discussion)
Back-and-forth discussion
A newbie question - would WP:RSN be appropriate for discussing the reliability of a particular article rather than the whole Kavkaz Uzel? I see issues in this particular article more than the resource as a whole. Specifically:
- it quotes its own reporters as the source (Источник: корреспонденты "Кавказского узла"), implying that the military experts were interviewed by reporters rather than quoted from their social media posts. However, the quotes from military experts are presented without preceding questions (very weird for an interview, isn't it?), without detailed elaboration of their opinion (interview with an expert cannot start and end with ultra-laconic, raffinated "nope, doesn't look like phosphorus" statement, can it?), without addressing (as one of the editors rightly noted) the published medical expertise and also the available analysis of satellite images (DRFLab's report is widely shared, in Russian language too, and the experts must have been aware of it).
- it quotes two Russian experts, an Azerbaijani expert, but no Armenian expert while Armenia and Azerbaijan both are accusing each other.
- an expert is reported saying "phosphorus is unlikely to be used as it is internationally prohibited", without that logic being challenged by the fact that prohibited cluster munition were indeed used. Is this fair journalism?
- an expert is is reported quoting that "Azerbaijan cannot have phosphorus as it signed the convention", without being challenged by international publications saying the contrary.
- it is unclear whether the articles has gone any editorial process to address the issues above, there is not even the usual phrase whether the editors of Kavkaz-Uzel agree with / claim no relation to the statements, making the article look like a haphazardly compiled referat.
Due to the signs of unprofessional journalism above, I challenge the cited Kavkaz Uzel article's inclusion at all. Whether it requires WP:RSN or just a decision here - admins/community to kindly decide, please. If, in the end, it is decided that it can stay, then only in a form that would make crystally clear who said what based on what and not reflecting what, to avoid false generalisations. Regards, Armatura (talk) 04:10, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- I don't see any valid reason to challenge the source. The journalists are not supposed to post their own questions, it is a common practice to only publish the answers. The publication does not have to quote both Armenian and Azerbaijani experts, and that does not make it non-neutral. However they do quote the Armenian ombudsman, thus presenting the position of the Armenian side. And it is not our job to engage in original research in order to prove or disprove the statements of the experts. Our task is to present all the notable points of view, and not only the claims of the Armenian or Azerbaijani sides, or sources that support their position. The experts are perfectly neutral, they do not take any sides, and they cast doubt on claims of both sides that phosphorus was used. Also, as I wrote above, Anatoly Tsyganok, the head of the Russian Center for Political-Military Studies, is a well-known military expert in Russia, often quoted in Western media too. I understand that the opinions of the experts might be inconvenient for a certain narrative, but we are here to write the articles in an objective and balanced manner, and not to discard the sources that go contrary to the position of one or both of the sides to the conflict. In this case, the experts challenge the claims of both sides, and I see no reason why the skeptical views should not be quoted. Grandmaster 21:55, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- Given that the experts didn't comment on the medical evidence, and they by no means constitute the majority of military experts I would suggest we add a line-break, and modify the sentence to the following:
Two military experts did not find the video evidence provided by the Armenian side to be convincing, and expressed their doubts that white phosphorus was used by either side of the conflict.
--Sataralynd (talk) 17:02, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- I don't think that military experts could comment on medical evidence, since it is not their area of expertise. But you make a fair point, we cannot speak for all military experts, so you proposed edit makes good sense. I agree that we could modify that line as you propose. Grandmaster 10:28, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- Sataralynd, Grandmaster, thanks for productive discussion. I think it is important to mention those two experts are Russian, as Russia is entangled in this conflict (this conflict widely viewed as part of Russia-Turkey proxy conflict) and as Russia in the sphere of both Azerbaijani and Armenian influence. The weight of what they state may be different from what two military experts - one from Papua New Guinea and the other from Switzerland could have said. If the decision is that the referenced Kavkaz-uzel article passes the reliability threshold, then I think this version would describe what they said as neutrally as possible:
Two Russian military experts did not find the video evidence provided by the Armenian side to be convincing, and expressed their doubts that white phosphorus was used by either side of the conflict.
And the suspected Armenian war crimes section will need this to be added
Two Russian military experts expressed their doubts that white phosphorus was used by either side of the conflict.
Regards, Armatura (talk) 13:04, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- That is ok. We can mention that they were both Russian. But I see no point in repeating the same line twice. I think it would make more sense to make one section "Alleged white phosphorus use", and merge information about use allegations from both sides there, and add the comment by Russian experts there, so that it would apply to both sides. Grandmaster 10:15, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- I don't mind at all if all phosphorus-related sentences go into one section. As for all the other suspected war crimes - rather than dividing them by countries, it would make more sense to have a list of categories of crimes, with sentences describing what each side has done under that category. Regards, Armatura (talk) 13:20, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- That is also possible. There could be sections on indiscriminate shelling, abuse of prisoners, etc. But those new sections are something that should be discussed at the talk page of the article. I think we are done here, thanks everyone for constructive participation. Let's create for now a section on phosphorus, and merge all the information there. It could also be a subsection to the war crime section. Grandmaster 12:52, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- I don't mind at all if all phosphorus-related sentences go into one section. As for all the other suspected war crimes - rather than dividing them by countries, it would make more sense to have a list of categories of crimes, with sentences describing what each side has done under that category. Regards, Armatura (talk) 13:20, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- That is ok. We can mention that they were both Russian. But I see no point in repeating the same line twice. I think it would make more sense to make one section "Alleged white phosphorus use", and merge information about use allegations from both sides there, and add the comment by Russian experts there, so that it would apply to both sides. Grandmaster 10:15, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Dunoon
– New discussion.Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
Users involved
- Seasider53 (talk · contribs)
- Scope creep (talk · contribs)
Dispute overview
A "Climate" section that is inside a "Geography" section at the top of other, more prominent articles I've checked is being moved to the bottom of the article because an editor doesn't like a "gap" that is appearing because of i) the infobox's placement and ii) a table appearing in the offending section. What's more, the user keeps adding it as a subsection of the "gallery" section, which makes no sense.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
Provide input on what the correct article structure should be.
Summary of dispute by Scope creep
Dunoon discussion
- Volunteer Question - Is this a request for moderated discussion leading to compromise, for a Third Opinion, or for a Request for Comments which will obtain opinions from the community? Robert McClenon (talk) 07:11, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- Comment Have you considered a "Geography and climate" section? Achar Sva (talk) 09:14, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Robert McClenon: I think an RfC would be the best option. The obstacle appears to be that an editor doesn't understand how articles appear formatting-wise when boxes (infobox or informational) are involved and, instead, is just moving the section to the bottom of the article, when it's probably the most important section of the article. He/she thinks I'm responsible for the small whitespace gap that appeared below the "climate" section here - Seasider53 (talk) 12:55, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Achar Sva: I was following the example of both the Edinburgh and Glasgow articles, which have Climate in the Geography section. I see no reason to deviate from that. - Seasider53 (talk) 12:55, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Baháʼí Faith on life after death
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed as premature. A request for mediation should be made after extensive discussion. The discussion on the talk page consists of each editor making one statement every few weeks. Try making one statement a day for a few days. It might result in agreement or compromise. If it is extensive and inconclusive, a new request can be made here. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:20, 2 January 2021 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
2021 in heavy metal music
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed as premature. The discussion at the article talk page has not been extensive. Resume discussion on the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:15, 2 January 2021 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war
– New discussion.Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
Users involved
- Steverci (talk · contribs)
- CuriousGolden (talk · contribs)
- Grandmaster (talk · contribs)
- Solavirum (talk · contribs)
Dispute overview
I have proposed making a number of changes to the belligerents list in the article's infobox, and backed them all up with many sources.[1][2] Armenia, like Turkey, did not officially declare war despite both nations being heavily involved. For example, no fighting took place in Armenia's borders, even when enemy forces reached them. Both Armenia and Turkey should be listed under a "Supported by:" or being listed as full belligerents. Personally, I support the former because it better reflects how no fighting could take place in their borders due to a lack of declaration of war. However, Erdogan's support has been stated by many sources to have been vital and decisive, so he should also be listed in the leaders.[3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20] Russia should also be removed as a belligerent completely because the Russian government made an official statement that it doesn't support Artsakh.[21][22][23][24][25] And "Armenian diaspora volunteers" should be removed from the infobox, because these are individual cases and not the result of organization's official backing, unlike the Syrian mercenaries (which were recruited and deployed by Turkey). Thus, it is giving them too much undue weight.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Talk:2020_Nagorno-Karabakh_war#Infobox_belligerents_changes
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
I would like for users that have no personal bias in the subject to review the arguments and evidence put forward, and help discuss what changes should be made.
Summary of dispute by CuriousGolden
I'm not too involved in this discussion, but the user's proposals of additions and removals are simply wrong. They're using unreliable sources or are cherry-picking from various sources to match the additions/removals they want to implement. I stopped engaging in the discussion after Steverci asked what's wrong with an obviously non-WP:RS, biased source, yet questioned the reliability of Al Jazeera, as I realized the discussion wasn't going anywhere. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 21:09, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Grandmaster
Edits proposed by Steverci are absolutely unacceptable, as I tried to explain to him. First of, Armenia is a party to conflict, it is directly involved in it, and moreover, it is legally recognized as a belligerent. 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh ceasefire agreement was signed between Azerbaijan and Armenia, with Russia as a mediator. If Armenia is not directly involved in the conflict, as a belligerent, how could it sign the ceasefire agreement? Armenia agrees to stop fire, and according to the text, "The Republic of Armenia shall return the Kalbajar District to the Republic of Azerbaijan by November 15, 2020, and the Lachin District by December 1, 2020". If Armenia is not involved directly, how could it occupy districts of Azerbaijan, and agree to withdraw from them? It defies common logic.
In addition, most of Armenians fighting in Karabakh were soldiers and officers drafted from Armenia. Just yesterday dozens of Armenian soldiers were taken prisoner by Azerbaijani army, it turns out they were all from Shirak Province in Armenia, and their relatives are protesting now. [3] If Armenia is not involved, how did those soldiers from Shirak get to Nagorno-Karabakh?
As for role of Turkey, there's no reliable source to support direct involvement of Turkey in the conflict as a belligerent. Turkey provided support to Azerbaijan by training personnel and providing arms, and also expressed political and diplomatic support. But Turkish army was not involved in the hostilities. Most of mainstream sources do not support this claim, and marginal sources are not sufficient to support it. And Russia is not listed as a belligerent.
"Armenian diaspora volunteers" were involved in the fighting, and their presence is well documented and is confirmed by the Armenian side as well. I see no reason why infobox should not reflect this verifiable fact. Grandmaster 16:20, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Solavirum
Every single WP:RS mentions Armenia as a belligerent in the war.[26][27][28][29] Even Armenia has confirmed it on several occasions.[30][31] They literally were the ones to sign the ceasefire agreement on their and Artsakh's behalf.[32][33][34][35] Thousands of soldiers from Armenia were killed, and they were buried in Armenia[36][37] Even Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights had reported that a huge chunk of the ethnic Armenian soldiers in Nagorno-Karabakh were from Armenia.[38]
Removing Russia is a joke. Russian government made an official statement that it doesn't support Artsakh, so what? This isn't the first time we've seen a giant power denying that it finances a proxy in a war. Iran might've denied the reports[39][40] but has yet to prove its claims. Many ethnic Azerbaijanis in Iran also protested the country serving as a gateway for Russian arms.[41][42][43][44] If we remove Russia, we'd have to remove the Syrians too. As there's also no direct evidence on their involvement, and that they've officially denied taking part in the war.
Claiming that Turkey took part in the war directly, as a belligerent, is WP:OR and the user's own interpretation. Only the Armenian government and Armenia-funded Russian partisan sources like WarGonzo claims such a thing. There's not a single WP:RS that states Turkish forces were fighting in Karabakh.
Removing the Armenian volunteers is, again, a false narrative. There are reports that ethnic Armenians from Lebanon, US, Syria, and other places, numbering in hundreds, and possibly thousands had taken part in the war.[45][46][47] Thousands of individual cases (as Sterverci put it) are well enough to show that non-Armenian nationals took part in the war. In the meanwhile, these reports also give organized involvement, like ex-ASALA members and the Nubar Ozanyan Brigade of the SDF.
Sterverci seems like he wants to show the as Artsakh vs. Azerbaijan, Turkey, Syria, while it isn't the case at all. He can head to Armenian Wikipedia for such things, as English Wikipedia isn't preferred for a narrative pushing.
References
- ^ Azerbaijan claims advances in Karabakh, Armenia vows historic struggle
- ^ Despite Ceasefire, Fate Of Nagorno-Karabakh May Turn On The Lachin Corridor
- ^ Analysis: Russia and Turkey keep powder dry in Nagorno-Karabakh conflict
- ^ Nagorno-Karabakh peace deal reshapes regional geopolitics
- ^ Erdogan admitted that Turkey supported Azerbaijan in the war against Artsakh
- ^ An Assertive Turkey Muscles Into Russia’s Backyard (note this source is highly biased and written by the Turkey Bureau Chief)
- ^ Armenia and Azerbaijan: What Sparked War and Will Peace Prevail?
- ^ The Takeaway: Is Erdogan wooing Biden by antagonizing Iran and Russia?
- ^ Aliyev's aide posts, then deletes photo of alleged Turkish soldier in Ganja
- ^ Satellite Images Show Turkey’s F-16s in Ganja Airport in Azerbaijan
- ^ Satellite Images Bust Turkish Assertions; Reveals Presence Of F-16 Jets In Azerbaijan
- ^ Hundreds of Turkish military personnel are orchestrating Azerbaijan’s invasion of Artsakh: reports
- ^ Russian report of Turkish military personnel deployed
- ^ Turkey deploys 1,200 of its mountain commando forces to fight against Artsakh – WarGonzo
- ^ Armenia: Turkish Special Forces participation in Karabakh proven
- ^ Armenia: We have irrefutable evidence of the participation of Turkish special forces in the battles in Nagorno Karabakh
- ^ ‘We have proof of Turkish special forces fighting in Karabakh’: Armenian
- ^ Israel’s Azerbaijan Mistake
- ^ Why Europe should care about Nagorno-Karabakh: A civilisational and geopolitical perspective
- ^ Has Russia Paved a Path for Turkey to Capitalize on the Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict?
- ^ Armenia, Azerbaijan and Russia sign Nagorno-Karabakh peace deal
- ^ Armenia calls for Russian help as fight with Azerbaijan intensifies
- ^ Link to official Russian government statement saying they will not support Artsakh
- ^ Russia open to return of occupied Azeri land by Armenia
- ^ Small outpost is Russia’s first visible aid to Armenia
- ^ https://jamestown.org/program/the-south-caucasus-new-realities-after-the-armenia-azerbaijan-war-part-one/
- ^ https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/11/world/europe/nagorno-karabakh-armenia-azerbaijan.html
- ^ https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-54324772
- ^ https://www.vox.com/2020/12/3/22150110/armenia-azerbaijan-war-russia-nagorno-karabakh-turkey
- ^ https://archive.is/0O9RY
- ^ https://archive.is/CSCpq
- ^ https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/01/world/europe/nagorno-karabakh-putin-armenia-azerbaijan.html
- ^ https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-54882564
- ^ https://edition.cnn.com/2020/11/09/europe/nagorno-karabakh-shusha-armenia-azerbaijan-russia-intl/index.html
- ^ https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/azerbaijan-armenia-conflict-1.5795572
- ^ https://www.france24.com/en/20201010-armenia-and-azerbaijan-trade-accusations-over-nagorno-karabakh-ceasefire
- ^ https://eurasianet.org/photo-essay-armenia-rallies
- ^ https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/app/conversion/pdf/?library=ECHR&id=001-155353&filename=001-155353.pdf
- ^ https://caspiannews.com/news-detail/iran-denies-facilitating-transfer-of-russian-arms-to-armenia-2020-9-7-40/
- ^ https://www.intellinews.com/iran-denies-allowing-passage-of-weapons-into-armenia-after-video-emerges-on-social-media-192945/
- ^ https://caspiannews.com/news-detail/protestors-in-northern-iran-demand-closure-of-border-with-armenia-over-arms-transfer-to-yerevan-2020-10-3-0/
- ^ https://www.rferl.org/a/protests-erupt-in-iran-backing-azerbaijan-in-nagorno-karabakh-conflict/30870217.html
- ^ https://english.aawsat.com/home/article/2543546/iran-police-disperse-pro-azerbaijan-demonstrations
- ^ https://www.arabnews.com/node/1747861
- ^ https://www.kp.ru/daily/217190.5/4297301/
- ^ https://archive.is/ki0sC
- ^ https://greekcitytimes.com/2020/10/03/former-non-commissioned-officer-im-going-to-artsakh-with-500-800-greeks-to-crush-the-turks/
--► Sincerely: SolaVirum 13:40, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war discussion
First statement by moderator (NK War)
Please read the ground rules. If you have any questions about the rules, ask the questions, because I expect that you will obey them anyway. Do not edit the article while discussion is in progress. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors.
The first step is to determine what the scope of the conflict is, and how it will be resolved. Will each editor please make a brief statement saying whether the conflict is limited to the infobox, and also saying what their position is about the infobox. Also, will each editor please state whether they want moderated discussion in order to reach a compromise, or whether they want a Request for Comments. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion except in the space for the purpose. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:15, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
First statements by editors (NK War)
The dispute is about infobox. I think that the infobox should be left as it is now. No additional belligerents should be added, due to reasons I stated above. Also, I believe third party opinions might help to resolve the dispute. Thank you. Grandmaster 00:32, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
It is limited to the infobox. Both Armenia and Turkey should be listed as either supporting belligerents. Erdogan should be added to the leaders. Russia shouldn't be listed as a belligerent at all. Neither should "Armenian diaspora volunteers". I hope a third-party will be able to review the arguments put forth and help decide on a solution. --Steverci (talk) 02:37, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
The dispute is limited to the infobox. It should stay like how it is now. No additions are required per my comments above. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 03:38, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Second statement by moderator (NK War)
I was asked by the filing party to reopen this case as having closed it prematurely. It appears that the dispute is about the infobox. Will each party say whether they want to engage in moderated discussion, leading to a compromise, or whether they want an RFC? Also, please either state what you want changed in the infobox, or provide your own version of the infobox. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:04, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Second statements by editors (NK War)
| 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Part of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and the Russia–Turkey proxy conflict | |||
.svg) For a more detailed map, see the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict detailed map | |||
| |||
| Belligerents | |||
| |||
| Commanders and leaders | |||
I believe it would be best for a third-party to help reach a compromise. I propose both Russia and Armenian volunteers being removed and Armenia listed as only playing a supporting role, for reasons I previously cited. I also propose Turkey being made a full belligerent and Erdoğan listed as a leader, in addition to the reasons I previously cited, and also because I just realized the infobox, in its current state, is lying. The Syrian mercenaries are listed under Azerbaijan, when it is Turkey that recruited and mobilized them ("The presence of the Turkish fighter aircraft ... demonstrate[s] direct military involvement by Turkey that goes far beyond already-established support, such as its provision of Syrian fighters and military equipment to Azerbaijani forces" per a source already on the article). I included a version of the infobox with mainly just the syntax being changed, for simplicity. --Steverci (talk) 03:41, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- I think we are just going in circles. I have nothing new to add to what I have already stated in my previous statement. Steverci's proposals are totally unacceptable, for the reasons I stated above. Turkish army was not directly involved in hostilities, therefore Turkey cannot be listed as a belligerent. One source is not enough to claim that Turkish involvement is a generally accepted fact. And even that one source Steverci refers to make no sense whatsover. If Turkey is to be considered directly involved in the conflict just because it stations its planes in Azerbaijan's territory, then so is Russia on a much bigger scale, because it has a military base in Armenia. Armenian army was directly involved, moreover, Armenia signed a peace agreement, undertaking to withdraw its army from Azerbaijan's territory. If Armenian government admits that it is involved in hostilities, how can we say that it is not? Armenian and Russian volunteers were directly involved, which is why they should be listed. I don't see why this discussion was reopen, there's clearly no consensus for your proposed edits, and you have nothing new to add to what was already discussed. Grandmaster 12:39, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Third statement by moderator (NK war)
I am trying to avoid taking a position, because one editor would like for help in reaching a compromise. I would however say that any formulation that does not list Azerbaijan as a belligerent on one side and Armenia and Artsakh as belligerents on the other side is a strawman, not a compromise. Go ahead and try to work out a compromise on who are supporting the sides. If anyone wants to leave out Azerbaijan, Armenia, or Artsakh as belligerents, that is sufficiently one-sided to require an RFC. So: Do you want to try to compromise on who is supporting whom, or do we want an RFC? If we have an RFC, it can be multiple-choice, to list each candidate country as a belligerent, supporting, or nothing.
Compromise on supporting parties, or RFC? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:21, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Third statements by editors (NK war)
Back-and-forth discussion
Peter Navarro
– Discussion in progress.Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
Users involved
- Karagory (talk · contribs)
- Snooganssnoogans (talk · contribs)
- MrOllie (talk · contribs)
- Soibangl (talk · contribs)
Dispute overview
It is claimed that Peter Navarro holds economic views that are "fringe" and extensive references are given about his views on China trade. After dialog, I suggested that the wording should be changed to "controversial" since the wiki is a biography of a living person and thus a higher degree of sensitivity should be used. Mr. Navarro holds similar views with Bernie Sanders as it relates to China trade thus, I believe, negating the term "fringe." I believe the statement "fringe" is inflammatory at best and slanderous at worst; totally unnecessary.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Talk:Peter_Navarro#Fringe_Economic_Views_2021 [4] Third opinion 22:13, 3 January 2021 TransporterMan talk contribs 11,146 bytes −351 →Active disagreements: Remove Talk:Peter_Navarro, 3O given by Teishin; list is empty
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
Please examine the sentence at issue and the subsequent discussion.
Summary of dispute by Snooganssnoogans
There is no need for dispute resolution. The text in question is long-standing and has been duked out on the talk page since 2017 or so. What we have here is one editor who is calling on us to ignore what RS say because the editor believes the RS are biased. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 09:49, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by MrOllie
Summary of dispute by Soibangl
Peter Navarro discussion
First statement by moderator (Peter Navarro)
I want to hear from both sides why it should stay the same or change.
First statement by karagory
The term "fringe" is inflammatory and unnecessary. Both Bernie Sanders and Peter Navarro are strongly against the Trans-Pacific Partnership and support tariffs on China which is repeated over and over in the articles referenced as the reason for Peter Navarro's economic views as being "fringe." I do not think Bernie Sanders ideas are "fringe," thus I believe Peter Navarro holding the same economic views are also not "fringe." I think the word in the sentence should be changed from "fringe" to "controversial." Snooganssnoogans has yet to specifically address what views of Mr. Navarro that are "fringe" despite being asked on multiple occasions. karagory (talk) 04:43, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Narendra Modi
– New discussion.Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview
In the page of Narendra Modi, who is presently serving as Prime Minister of India, an image is required to be used which is File:PM Narendra Modi.jpg, which is the official portrait image of the Prime Minister but whenever it is used in that page, it is removed.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
I have tried to discuss in the Talk page of that article.
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
According to me, I think that the image which I use in that page, only that image is to be used for that.
Narendra Modi discussion
- ^ An Assertive Turkey Muscles Into Russia’s Backyard Quote: "Turkey played a critical role in Azerbaijan’s victory over Armenian forces in the fight for control of Nagorno-Karabakh"
- ^ Armenia and Azerbaijan: What Sparked War and Will Peace Prevail? "This time the conflict was different, analysts and former diplomats said, because Turkey had offered more direct support to Azerbaijan....Turkey’s direct engagement in support of its ethnic Turkic ally, Azerbaijan, in an area of traditional Russian influence, turned the local dispute into a regional one."
- ^ The Takeaway: Is Erdogan wooing Biden by antagonizing Iran and Russia? "The Azerbaijani military could not have reclaimed territory lost to Armenia in Nagorno-Karabakh without Turkish military support."
- ^ "F-16s Reveal Turkey's Drive to Expand Its Role in the Southern Caucasus". Stratfor. 8 October 2020. Archived from the original on 10 October 2020. Retrieved 11 October 2020.
The presence of the Turkish fighter aircraft ... demonstrate[s] direct military involvement by Turkey that goes far beyond already-established support, such as its provision of Syrian fighters and military equipment to Azerbaijani forces.
- ^ Chausovsky, Eugene (7 October 2020). "Turkey Challenging Russia's Monopoly in the South Caucasus". Center for Global Policy. Archived from the original on 7 October 2020.
... it has been reported (though denied by Turkish and Azerbaijani officials) that Turkish soldiers and aircraft have been directly involved in the fighting.
- ^ "Everything We Know About The Fighting That Has Erupted Between Armenia And Azerbaijan". The Drive. Retrieved 1 November 2020.
- ^ "Turkey supplies T-300 Kasirga rocket system to Azerbaijan". AzerNews. 21 September 2016.
- ^ Butler, Ed (10 December 2020). "The Syrian mercenaries used as 'cannon fodder' in Nagorno-Karabakh". BBC.
- ^ "France accuses Turkey of sending Syrian jihadists to Nagorno-Karabakh". Reuters. 1 October 2020. Archived from the original on 4 October 2020. Retrieved 1 October 2020.
We now have information which indicates that Syrian fighters from jihadist groups have (transited) through Gaziantep (southeastern Turkey) to reach the Nagorno-Karabakh theatre of operations
- ^ "Turkey deploying Syrian fighters to help ally Azerbaijan, two fighters say". Reuters. Archived from the original on 8 October 2020. Retrieved 11 October 2020.
"Armenia–Azerbaijan conflict: Azerbaijan president vows to fight on". bbc.com. 30 September 2020. Archived from the original on 1 October 2020. Retrieved 11 October 2020. - ^ Carley, Patricia (September 29, 2020). "Turkey recruiting Syrians to guard troops and facilities in Azerbaijan". Middle East Eye. Archived from the original on 2 October 2020. Retrieved 11 October 2020.
- ^ McKernan, Bethan; Safi, Michael (30 September 2020). "Nagorno-Karabakh: at least three Syrian fighters killed". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 8 October 2020. Retrieved 11 October 2020.
- ^ "Major General Mayis Barkhudarov: "We will fight to destroy the enemy completely". Azerbaijani Ministry of Defence. September 28, 2020. Archived from the original on 8 October 2020.
- ^ "Release of the Press Service of the President". president.az. Official website of the President of Azerbaijan. 4 October 2020. Archived from the original on 9 October 2020. Retrieved 7 October 2020.
- ^ "President Ilham Aliyev congratulates 1st Army Corps Commander Hikmet Hasanov on liberation of Madagiz from occupation". apa.az. 3 October 2020. Retrieved 3 October 2020.
President Ilham Aliyev has congratulated 1st Army Corps Commander Hikmet Hasanov on liberation of Madagiz, APA reports.
- ^ "Release of the Press Service of the President". Azerbaijan State News Agency. 19 October 2020. Retrieved 20 October 2020.
Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Republic of Azerbaijan, President Ilham Aliyev congratulated Chief of the State Border Service (SBS), Colonel General Elchin Guliyev on raising the Azerbaijani flag over the Khudafarin bridge, liberating several residential settlements with the participation of the SBS, and instructed to convey his congratulations to all personnel. Colonel General Elchin Guliyev reported that the State Border Service personnel will continue to decently fulfill all the tasks set by the Commander-in-Chief.
- ^ Erdogan admitted that Turkey supported Azerbaijan in the war against Artsakh
- ^ a b "Jalal Harutyunyan wounded, Mikael Arzumanyan appointed Artsakh Defense Minister". 27 October 2020.
- ^ "Artsakh Defense Army deputy commander killed". 2 November 2020.
- ^ "Tiran Khachatryan – National Hero of the Republic of Armenia". armradio.am. Public Radio of Armenia. 2020-10-22.