Talk:2023 Azerbaijani offensive in Nagorno-Karabakh

United Nations Refugee Agency statement

I've removed the statement from the United Nations Refugee Agency; it's out of date and lacks the context of more recent revelations. I don't believe it should be reinstated unless they continue to make that claim, as it presents an incorrect and undue perspective of the conflict. BilledMammal (talk) 11:34, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

UNHCR statement that "there were no recorded incidents or cases of mistreatment against people on the move" is not out of date. Their representative spoke with the Armenian population of Karabakh in Armenia. Recent claims of violence have no independent confirmation or verification, while UNHCR is a UN body and is independent from the parties to the conflict. If we discuss allegations of violence, the information from the top international organization is very important and has a direct relevance to the topic. Also, Blankspot should be removed, as it reports on rumors, and Wikipedia is not a place to report rumors. I don't think that it is acceptable that the UNHCR is removed, but the rumors reported in media are included. Grandmaster 09:20, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I fail to understand how a report by the highest international authority, which both parties are members of and resort to in times of crisis, can be dismissed as "lacking the context", especially if the only thing that counters it is a series of isolated and uncorroborated claims. In any event, it is not any more "out of date/context" than, for instance, the report by Ocampo, which currently features in the introduction despite the fact its predictions of "imminent genocide" never enjoyed support from any serious human rights organisation and later turned out to be very far from reality. Despite this minority view, Ocampo's report has been included into the article, without doubt because of Ocampo's notability, but he cannot possibly be more authoritative than the UNHCR, whose report is unquestionably more due-weight than Ocampo's. Parishan (talk) 23:48, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Not lacking the context, lacking the context of more recent revelations - in other words, its out of date.

As for Ocampo's prediction, there are no Armenians left in Nagorno-Karabakh. BilledMammal (talk) 00:05, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

It is not out of date unless there is a follow-up report of equal notability that supersedes its findings (which there is not). Furthermore, nothing within that report has been majorly contested by an establishment whose authority on this matter is comparable to that of the UNHCR.

no Armenians left in Nagorno-Karabakh is not "another Armenian genocide", and no one has ventured into referring to the 2023 exodus of Armenians as such since Ocampo's report was published months ago, which very much qualifies said report as WP:UNDUE and out-of-date. Yet Ocampo's findings enjoy a mention in the introduction while the UNHCR is being questioned here for contextual relevance. Parishan (talk) 01:41, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

As I said above, I also see no reason why UNHCR statement should be removed. It is based on UNHCR personnel communications with Karabakh Armenians conducted in Armenia, and UNHCR is a UN body that deals with refugees. At the same time, unverified rumors of violence are mentioned, while according to WP:RUMOR Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation, rumors, or presumptions. As for Ocampo, he made his report at the request of Karabakh separatist leadership [1], and he does not represent any international organization, it is just his personal opinion. I see no reason why personal opinions should be cited in the lead, considering that no credible international organization supports claims of genocide. Grandmaster 10:14, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

This is quite misleading. Harutyunyan asked Ocampo for nothing more than his expert opinion, he did nothing to influence what that opinion would be. Ocampo represented the International Criminal Court as their prosecutor for genocide and war crimes and is also completely non-partisan. He is the most noteworthy source by far. --KhndzorUtogh (talk) 23:01, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

The argument that the UN missions statements is undue was made in the parallel article as well [2], and was not accepted by the wider Wikipedia community as result of an RFC. I can start another RFC on this page, but I see no point in doing RFCs for the same thing on every page. So I suggest that we include the reports on causalities by both UNHCR and the special UN mission in this article. Grandmaster 09:59, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

My argument for excluding it here is that it is out of date and lacks context. Get an up to date source, and we can discuss including it. BilledMammal (talk) 10:05, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

The community consensus is that the UN information is relevant, and arguments against its inclusion did not get the community support. Grandmaster 10:22, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

The consensus was strictly for that body of the article, it would make no sense to include a claim about no "violence against civilians following the latest ceasefire" in selected areas when this article is about before the ceasefire. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 22:28, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

It makes perfect sense to include the info about no violence against civilians in the section about claims of such violence. And there is no Wikipedia rule that the article should include only "up to date" information. We must provide all the info available, and date it chronologically. We can do another RFC in this article, I just see no point in doing RFC on the same source in every article. Grandmaster 14:52, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

There is a Wikipedia rule actually, called MOS:DATED. The statement is especially outdated and redundant for this article, and is used in a different context for the other article. --KhndzorUtogh (talk) 00:14, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

That rule does not say that outdated info should not be included. It just says that such info must be included with precise dating. Plus, there is no information from the UN or any other international organization that would supersede the UN mission and UNHCR information. Grandmaster 09:08, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

There is no rule that can justify deleting authoritative, relevant and unambiguous piece of information just because it goes back to a certain date, especially if its findings have not been convincingly contested. MOS:DATED is a style guide and has nothing to do with content. Parishan (talk) 12:37, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

If there are no further objections, I'm going to restore the UNHCR info to the article. Grandmaster 10:37, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Strongly object because the statement is referring to after the offensive. It is also clearly false because there are corpses of murdered Armenian civilians. --KhndzorUtogh (talk) 23:07, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

The casualties of the "Artsakh Defence Army" understated

Here is the link, the author refers to: https://www.azatutyun.am/a/32601772.html

According to it, Armenia lost at least 200 soldiers(not 190+) with at least 400 being wounded, not "360+".

WHile technically the plus sign is true, why didn't the author write "1+" per each section which would also be true? Padar Khan (talk) 10:48, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Updated. Ken Aeron (talk) 08:36, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Joint statement by rabbis

@KhndzorUtogh, yesterday my edit was reverted saying "Who are these "seniors"? Discuss the notability of this first". Would you be more specific please? What do you mean who are these seniors? Do you want to know their names or what? What makes it non-notable? Is an open letter by 50 people from 20 countries not notable? If not how come the statement by 123 Turkish academics is notable? Aredoros87 (talk) 17:38, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, I don't see how one is notable, and the other is not. I think 50 top rabbis from across the European countries are notable enough for mentioning in the article. Grandmaster 11:14, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Israel as an arms supplier to Azerbaijan

Should Israel's status as an arms supplier to Azerbaijan, as noted by several credible sources be recognized in the Infobox? It was included in the Infobox for the 2020 War page so I don't see a reason why we shouldn't here. Ken Aeron (talk) 11:07, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Israel is not the only arms supplier to Azerbaijan. Turkey and Russia are also big suppliers, and there are also other smaller arms suppliers. At the same time, Russia was an arms supplier to Armenia as well. If we are to mention arms suppliers, then it makes no sense to mention only one, we need to list all big suppliers. Grandmaster 10:42, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Can you give me some references for Russia and the other small arms suppliers you mentioned? I'm currently working on the foreign involvement section as I thought it would be worth mentioning. Ken Aeron (talk) 11:04, 21 December 2023 (UTC)