Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh conflict

Exodus begins

Because of the editing lockdown I wasn't able to add that the exodus/evacuation of Armenians from the exclave has begun. Here's a source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/09/26/nagorno-karabakh-azerbaijan-armenia/ 152.130.6.77 (talk) 16:25, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

NPOV and Laundromat

There are a number of important omissions in the article that violate NPOV. The essential Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast was not even mentioned in the lead, nor were the persecutions of Artsakh Armenians throughout the Soviet period, or the constitutional referendum. This is all surmised as "Armenians demanded the transfer" which is intentionally misleading and not a neutral point of view. I have included information about all of this from reliable and neutral sources. There is also a need to incorporate the Azerbaijani laundromat and caviar diplomacy, which both relate to the conflict, into the article. Please note that this was investigation of covered by a great deal of reliable sources, legal documents were written about it, and many politicians were sanctioned and/or expelled for accepting bribes,[1][2][3][4][5][6] so there is no question of either the significance or legality of including this laundering scheme. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 02:33, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Armenians demanded the transfer is POV in your mind but adding The Soviet Azerbaijani authorities worked to suppress Armenian culture and identity in Nagorno-Karabakh, pressured Armenians to leave the region and encouraged Azerbaijanis to settle within it, although Armenians remained the majority population to lead with a low-quality POV source isn't? Please. Nemoralis (talk) 09:45, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

If you have a problem with particular source, take it to WP:RSN. The discussion you linked in your summary editors stated that the source is reputably published by a professor of politics in the field of self-determination, and another source was added as well. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 10:40, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

There were already censuses on the article proving that the Armenian population decreased and the Azeri population decreased over the Soviet period, and this was obviously not a natural occurrence. This addition doesn't violate NPOV because it does not contradict anything the article previously stated. --KhndzorUtogh (talk) 02:19, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, such huge addition would require a consensus per WP:CAREFUL, not to mention NPOV issues. The article has been relatively stable in that regard prior to recent additons. Brandmeister^talk 10:03, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I have yet to see a single issue presented with either the sources themselves or any evidence that what they say isn't true. --KhndzorUtogh (talk) 02:19, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

It's not about whether they are true, but about WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV. Per WP:VNOT, "not all verifiable information must be included". If anything, this belongs to corruption in Azerbaijan rather than here. Brandmeister^talk 10:50, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Brandmeister, in case you hadn't looked at any of the links I shared above, here are some sample quotes from one of them which is an official Council of Europe report:

Mr Lindblad was mentioned by several witnesses as an open lobbyist for Azerbaijan in PACE. When heard by the Investigation Body, Mr Lindblad acknowledged that after his departure from PACE, he had worked as a lobbyist for the European Azerbaijan Society (TEAS). He also provided the relevant documents attesting to the conditions of his recruitment as a lobbyist.

Mr Lindblad explained that after leaving PACE in 2010, he had been approached by TEAS to work for them as a lobbyist. He had been recruited for TEAS by Ms Eliza Pieter, who had worked as a secretary in the PACE Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy. Mr Lindblad considered that she had recruited him because she knew that he had been on the Azerbaijani side in PACE concerning the issues related to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict with Armenia. She had also been his liaison person in TEAS.

Mr Lindblad further explained that for the first interview, he had asked another member of the PACE secretariat to accompany him. The interview had taken place in Brussels in a rented office. Later, Mr Lindblad had also had an interview with the chairman of TEAS. For Mr Lindblad, it had been immediately clear that TEAS was not an ordinary NGO and that it was financed by the government. At the interview, Mr Lindblad had made it clear that he would lobby only on the Nagorno-Karabakh issue.

Mr Lindblad stated that he had become a formal consultant with a monthly salary from TEAS to lobby on the Nagorno-Karabakh issue in PACE and the EP. When he had been on the payroll of TEAS he had attended events in the Parliamentary Assembly and the EP. He had also sometimes attended committee meetings of PACE in Paris. Mr Lindblad explained that he had worked for TEAS over some eighteen months.

Lindblad is just one of many MPs that have been exposed by the investigation. Many of them have been sanctioned and/or forced out of the organization. I do not know what could possibly be of greater neutral due weight than official PACE documents confirming the MPs and their lobbying in the NK conflict, which is why it belongs on this article. --KhndzorUtogh (talk) 01:23, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello Ganesha811, please feel free to discuss here why you do not believe the Azerbaijani laundromat should be mentioned in the lead. In terms of international reaction and consequences, it was very significant however. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 01:09, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

A clandestine international influence operation is not on the same scale as two wars, thousands of deaths, or the expulsions of hundreds of thousands of civilians from their homes. In the entire course of the conflict, the "laundromat" simply isn't a major element worth mentioning in the lead. It certainly should be mentioned later in the article. —Ganesha811 (talk) 01:23, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

It is no longer clandestine however, it was uncovered in an investigation and multiple people who took part in it were sanctioned or fired. Caviar diplomacy has significantly impacted the international stance on the conflict, which makes it an essential element on this topic. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 22:54, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

can the 2023 clashes be called a war ?

I'm genuinely curious about one question, can the 2023 clashes be coniserd as a war do to the heavy figthing and the high death toll could this be the final war for the region ?. what do you think 2600:6C50:1B00:32BE:4F2:931A:A6:D30C (talk) 05:35, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

• It could be considered a war because it involved all the usual tropes of war. There is precedent of previous wars lasting less than a week or day and being labeled as such. But on the other hand, there were other flare ups that resulted in roughly the same death toll like in 2016 and 2021 but they weren't considered a war.
  The real question is if this is the "final war" as you put it. Personally I'd argue the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is over. Azerbaijan won, there will be no Armenians left and any evidence of Armenian heritage will be demolished or "reinterpereted". Armenia and Karabakh Armenians have no leg to stand on. But the overall conflict will be far from over. I just think it will transition from a "Nagorno-Karabakh conflict" to a general "Amenia–Azerbaijan conflict" given Azerbaijan's hawkish rhetoric on Armenian land. 134.41.97.116 (talk) 16:15, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Wrong data, needs to be fixed

"800,000 Azerbaijanis from Armenia and Karabakh" -- this figure is an order of magnitude larger than the number of Azerbaijanis that lived there (even according to Azerbaijan sources). It is not supported by any source. 2A02:14F:1ED:CDE4:D4C9:3876:11F2:DB61 (talk) 11:02, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

You du not know what an order of magnitude is. 95.143.62.54 (talk) 12:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Result / territory ?

Suggestions how to cover this? This looks like a mess now. I'm not sure if its status quo ante bellum. Beshogur (talk) 21:57, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Azerbaijan has restored its territorial sovereignty. It will also not have to deal with an unruly minority. Likely Armenia will have to give some concessions (reparations, the transport corridor, or whatever). This is an Azerbaijani victory. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 12:06, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

I mean territory section. So what's the result? Azerbaijani capture? Status quo (nothing changed)? Or write every phase? Beshogur (talk) 18:53, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Also doubts it is still "ongoing". Beshogur (talk) 18:54, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Although the 2023 agreement was framed as a ceasefire rather than instrument of surrender, this is an undeniable victory as per that agreement the Artsakh Defence Army was disbanded, while the Republic of Artsakh was ordered to be dissolved shortly thereafter. After Artsakh's complete dissolution on 1 January 2024 it's no longer a conflict, while the region would no longer be disputed. Brandmeister^talk 15:29, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Is it right to give the figthing in september 2023 the Third karabakh war, One-day war, and karabakh war 2023

And will this be added to Wars involving Armenia and Wars involving Azerbajian

I think this can be called a third Karabakh. war do to it benig the third large scale conflict in the last 30 years and despite this lasting a day and called an offensive it was clear that this is Azerbaijan's, Ligthnig war in karabakh to end everything even though they called it an "anti-terror operation" In reality they wanted the third karabakh war to be as short as possible and they got what they wanted the third war lasted only a day with nearly 300 to 400 deaths from both Armenian and Azerbaijani Army and civilians along with the 5 Russians. and there have been Several Russian and Western media calling this a one-day war.

2600:6C50:1B00:32BE:1960:FC99:D95D:CC89 (talk) 07:14, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Azer victory?

It appears to me that Azerbaijan has practically won the war: Artsakh Army has been disbaned and the region is scheduled to be re-annexed in 2024. Should we declare the conflict over?--Karma1998 (talk) 14:38, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Is the conflict over?

As @Karma1998has said, Azerbaijan has basically won. Artsakh's de facto existence is over. That being said, I am suggesting that the article be edited accordingly to show the conflict as resolved. However, it is understandable if the Wikipedia community prefers to wait until Artsakh formally dissolves on 1 January 2024. NocheLluviosa (talk) 22:02, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, de facto it is over and already now there's hardly anyone left to contest the region as before. But some users prefer the de jure end which is 1 January 2024 indeed. Brandmeister^talk 18:16, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm now inclined to wait until the formal dissolution date. NocheLluviosa (talk) 16:50, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Both could make sense. The main phase of the conflict is over, but waiting for the de jure dissolution makes for a cleaner demarcation. Maybe have both as de facto and de jure? ChaotıċEnby(talk) 16:18, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

in my personal opinion, I think we should change it to show that the conflict is over due to Azerbaijan having complete control over Nagorno-Karabakh. Death Editor 2 (talk) 18:25, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I think we should wait until the official dissolution date of Artsakh. Maybe Aliyev will make some relevant declaration. Possibly also until Russian peacekeepers leave Karabakh, since Azerbaijan still has foreign military forces in its territory explicitly due to this conflict. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 09:40, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

It appears they're reducing their presence anyway [7] [8]. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 09:41, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah the conflict is over and I think we should at the very least change the very outdated map. Death Editor 2 (talk) 19:32, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

• Azerbaijan says 8 villages under Armenian occupation still have not handed over. This isn't over yet. See also this: Armenia says outline of a peace deal agreed with Azerbaijan. A peace agreement might be the most appropriate end date. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 19:54, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

  but are those villages in Nagorono Karabakh? Death Editor 2 (talk) 21:34, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: Conflict is clearly not over.  // Timothy :: talk  08:47, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

  did Armenia drop paratroopers into Nagorno-Karabakh when I wasn't looking? Death Editor 2 (talk) 17:46, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

  Snarky replies will not convince other editors. It also makes me regret not reporting your 1RR vio. If I were you I would stop the unconstructive editing.  // Timothy :: talk  19:03, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

  alright, how has the conflict NOT ended? Azerbaijan has complete control over Nagorno-Karabakh. And we really should do something about that horribly outdated map. Death Editor 2 (talk) 19:29, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

  Unfortunately, Azerbaijan controls all of Nagorno-Karabakh, and Artsakh has surrendered and is self-dissolving. In any meaningful way, the conflict is over. No one is contesting the land anymore. ChaotıċEnby(talk) 16:14, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

  What do you mean by "unfortunately"? I agree with rest of your comment though. Beshogur (talk) 15:54, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

  do they really need to explain to you why an authoritarian state that committed ethnic cleansing the second it had taken over some land is bad? Death Editor 2 (talk) 18:28, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

  I don't slightly care about your opinion. Did I ask you? Beshogur (talk) 18:55, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

  Alright, I think since the NK conflict is very clearly over, I think the article should be changed to reflex that information. Death Editor 2 (talk) 03:50, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

  Please, can you clarify why it is not over? Nizzamiro (talk) 12:50, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

  The military aspect of the conflict is probably over (there is a ceasefire agreement, not a final agreement), and the political and social conflict continues (covered in the article).  // Timothy :: talk  13:13, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: The article Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is about far more than the latest round in the conflict or any previous round of fighting. I covers from 1988 to the present and no one is claiming that this 35yr old conflict is over with the latest round of fighting. There has in no way been any definitive settlement, the refugee crisis is ongoing and there is discussion of more fighting if the current situation/discussions breaks down. This has all been explained, the scope of the article is obvious. By your flawed reasoning, the conflict would have been "over" more than three times already.  // Timothy :: talk  22:12, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

  The Republic of Artsakh no longer exists in any meaningful form, and believe me it's over since again there is no Republic of Artsakh to contest the Azeri claims over Nagorno-Karabakh, and said fighting would likely take place in Armenia proper instead of Nagorno-Karabakh. So your reasoning has more holes than Swiss Cheese. Death Editor 2 (talk) 22:23, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

  You are ignoring the scope of the article. Just in the last few weeks there has been and thats just with a simple Google search.  // Timothy :: talk  22:26, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

  This sounds like the aftermath of the conflict, not as apart of the conflict itself, which ended with the surrender of the Republic of Artsakh and exodus of the Armenian Population. Death Editor 2 (talk) 22:32, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

  The ethnic cleansing is not over (see refs) and the Republic of Artsakh is not the same as the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.  // Timothy :: talk  22:45, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

  I checked the refs and they don't say the ethnic cleansing is still going on, only that the refugees from said ethnic cleaning are struggling and that the dissolution degree was revoked by the exiled government. So again your reasoning is extremely flawed to its very core. Death Editor 2 (talk) 22:51, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

  Could probably create an article for The Republic of Artsakh's government in exile however with those references however. Death Editor 2 (talk) 22:53, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

  Anyways, given how weak your arguments are and how your sources do not back up your claims of the conflict still going on, I think it's safe to edit it to make the article say that it ended. Death Editor 2 (talk) 01:33, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

  You do not have consensus to change the article.  // Timothy :: talk  02:03, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

  Again, who is opposing Azerbaijan in Nagorno-Karabakh? The Republic of Artsakh is functionally a government in exile now, all the Armenians were ethnically cleansed a few months ago. So why are we pretending the conflict hadn't ended in a total victory for Azerbaijan? Death Editor 2 (talk) 02:09, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

  You have no sources supporting your position, the conflict is not synonymous with the latest round of fighting and the end of the latest fighting does not mean the conflict is over, just as the end of previous rounds of fighting did not end the conflict.  // Timothy :: talk  02:14, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

  When the next round of fighting starts, it's not going to be in Nagorno-Karabakh. Also one of your sources, Asbarez, calls him the EXILED President. So your claims of the conflict not being over is a complete fabrication. Death Editor 2 (talk) 02:29, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

  Every other user here more or less disagrees with your position - seems like there very much is consensus to change the article. PrimaPrime (talk) 06:16, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Every other user here more or less disagrees with your position no not really. Why don't we wait just two days more until the Republic of Artsakh is officially dissolved? That will bring another argument in favor of stating the conflict is over. Still I think a final Armenian-Azerbaijani peace agreement, currently in negotiation, should be considered as the end of the conflict. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 12:48, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

If your strongest argument is "wait two days" when nothing on the ground is actually going to change then, that suggests the conflict is indeed over. The Artsakh proto-state capitulated on September 28 and its page accordingly describes its existence in past tense. If a peace treaty is concluded down the line, we could move the end date up to there. But holding the conflict "open" until that point, which may or may not ever come, would violate CRYSTAL. PrimaPrime (talk) 01:58, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

1. Republic of Artsakh is not the same as the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Two articles, two subjects.
2. Political status of Nagorno-Karabakh is not the same as the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Two articles, two subjects.
3. There have been multiple rounds in the conflict (eg: First Nagorno-Karabakh War, Second Nagorno-Karabakh War, Blockade of Nagorno-Karabakh, 2023 Azerbaijani offensive in Nagorno-Karabakh). The end of the current round of fighting does not mean the conflict is over, news reports bear this out (see above), just as it was not over in the past when fighting stopped.
4. Sources have been provided showing this is still ongoing, both politically and in the ongoing ethnic cleansing.

 // Timothy :: talk  03:16, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Your sources are about the aftermath of the conflict, not the conflict itself. Death Editor 2 (talk) 03:21, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Political disputes over borders and refugees between Armenia and Azerbaijan may persist, and another war could break out between them - but not over Nagorno-Karabakh. There the dispute was between Artsakh and Azerbaijan. Artsakh no longer exists and all of Nagorno-Karabakh is under the undisputed control of Azerbaijan. Sources and consensus reflect this - there are six or seven other editors who have weighed in against you now. Sorry you just don't like it. PrimaPrime (talk) 04:14, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

• Comment:Death Editor 2 has been blocked, see block ANI discussion. Special:Permalink/1192859968#Death Editor 2 and Nagorno-Karabakh conflict (again). The edit for which they have been blocked has been proceedurally reverted.  // Timothy :: talk  19:18, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: Because of the problems in this CTopics article, and that this issue is covered by three different ARB restrictions (e-e, a-a, infoboxes), no changes should be made on this issue without a consensus and consensus should be determined/confirmed by a neutral non-involved experienced editor through a formal request for closure process. If an editor feels that a clear consensus has been reached, a request should be made, including a note about this talk page discussion and the related ANIs.  // Timothy :: talk  19:34, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: I believe that the date span should remain as "present" for the time being. To set a date would imply issues such as the rights of the refugees do not exist, and also ignores the Republic of Artsakh politicians recently declaring their intention to become a government in exile. These sentiments were echoed by Laurence Boers, one of the leading commentators on the conflict, in a recent article: "What remains doubtful, however, is whether a cause [...] will simply disappear. Reports that Shahramanyan subsequently annulled the decree dissolving the NKR are an early indication that the republic will not go quietly".[9] KhndzorUtogh (talk) 01:02, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

MarcusTraianus, as TimothyBlue already pointed out before you reverted them, there needs to be a consensus backed up by reliable sources before changing the date. The changes you made appear to be based on WP:OR. For example, you edited that the Armenia–Azerbaijan border crisis was over despite Azerbaijan still occupying territories in Armenia. This is why changes need to be based on what reliable sources state, not by what you believe to be correct, as with the entire conflict being over or not. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 01:07, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I am sorry, how conflict is ongoing? Republic is dissolved, army is non-existent, and population has fled. Sources are more than reliable. MarcusTraianus (talk) 01:14, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps the entire population being ethnically cleansed is a source of conflict? And this is not copyediting, especially when the analysts predictions are exactly what happened to Armenians such as Vicken Euljekjian. --KhndzorUtogh (talk) 01:17, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, there is article about it, and it's called Flight of Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians. Predictions are pointless, because they describe what happened in the past. It is better to describe Vicken Euljekjian case then. MarcusTraianus (talk) 01:19, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

The conflict being over is itself a prediction of yours, contradicted by reliable sources like Boers. --KhndzorUtogh (talk) 22:49, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

@MarcusTraianus: You have still yet to provide a reliable source for the conflict being over, while on the contrary there are sources stating it is not.[10][11] --KhndzorUtogh (talk) 22:59, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

By most standards the conflict is over, Azerbaijan's flag sadly flags high above the region, they ethnically cleansed most of the Armenians from Nagorno-Karabakh, and there is no force within the Nagorno-Karabakh that can oppose Azerbaijan in any meaningful way. Death Editor 2 (talk) 23:08, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it should affect the end date if Artsakhi government officials form a government in exile. That an illegitimate entity no longer controls its territory but keeps claiming doesn't really matter in the real world and politics in my opinion. I still hold the stance that a final Armenian-Azerbaijani peace treaty should mark the end of the conflict. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 17:59, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

But Artsakh wasn't claimed by Armenia, and wasn't recognized by it too. Armenia and Azerbaijan aren't in the state of war, so no peace treaty possible. Although border conflict persists and it is where talks will be possible. MarcusTraianus (talk) 18:04, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Azerbaijan official names ‘main direction’ of peace treaty talks with Armenia. These are the terms they themselves are using. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 19:20, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Pretty clear the conflict is over, I think the discussion should be whether to have the end date be in September 2023, January 2024, or something in between. Yeoutie (talk) 16:18, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

The conflict is over. There are no border skirmishes, Armenia and Azerbaijan are close to signing a peace agreement, made an exchange of military detainees, the separatist entity dissolved itself, Armenia recognized Karabakh as part of Azerbaijan. I see no reason why this conflict should be considered ongoing. Grandmaster 09:27, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Armenia is still occupying eight villages in Azerbaijan (I had mentioned this above, and I recently checked, they're not in Karabakh but in the north, except that one in Nakhchivan). Azerbaijan is also still occupying Armenian territory including at least one village. And the issue of the Zangezur corridor is not settled yet [12]. We're on the very final part of the conflict, but with both countries still occupying each others' land and negotiating peace terms, can we really say the conflict is totally over? I don't believe so. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 23:24, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Turkey as a direct belligerent in the infobox?

I have personally always been skeptical of keeping Turkey in the Second Nagorno-Karabakh War infobox given that the only state to allege Turkish involvement has been Armenia, and even then the claim only extends as far as a one alleged, unconfirmed F-16 strike on an Armenian aircraft, but adding Turkey to the infobox of the broader Karabakh conflict as a directly involved party seems like a big stretch.

Even with the "(2020)" and "(alleged by Armenia)" parentheses doesn't seem reasonable, especially given that the Soviet Union has been listed as a direct belligerent and did in fact, have confirmed direct involvement in the conflict including troops on the ground. Including Turkey along with the Soviet Union gives the wrong impression about the military involvement of the two states in the conflict as if their participation was in any way on an equal footing. I feel it is far more objective to keep Turkey in the support section and removing them as a direct participant altogether given that only Armenian government has alleged their involvement in the 2020 war and that even the participation that has been alleged is objectively miniscule compared to that of the Soviet Union. I am talking about this article specifically and the broader conflict, the question of Turkey in the 2020 war info box is a separate story. - Creffel (talk) 09:10, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Turkey was never directly involved. It supplied weapons to Azerbaijan, and trained Azerbaijani military personnel, but had no boots on the ground. Mentioning Turkey as a belligerent, even as "claimed by Armenia", is inaccurate. The inforbox should only mention undisputed facts, or things most reliable sources agree on. Grandmaster 09:22, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. On the contrary, I do not understand why the infobox says "alleged by Armenia" when Kommersant has no affiliation with Armenia. Erdogan has since personally stated that Turkey was a belligerent, comparing Turkey's involvement with its role in the Libyan civil war (2014–2020). There is an American source for Turkish troops on the ground too. And even an Azerbaijani general admitted Turkish leadership had more authority during the war. If Armenia, Azerbaijan, Russia, America, and even Turkey all now confirm Turkish military involvement, who is still disputing it? --KhndzorUtogh (talk) 22:37, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Let's go over your sources one by one, bearing in mind that as per WP:EXTRAORDINARY, "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources."

1. You are quoting Kommersant, a newspaper founded by Alisher Usmanov, a "pro-Kremlin oligarch".

2. You are quoting a tweet in which Erdogan did not say anything about direct military involvement. Can easily be interpreted as a supporting party and a weapons supplier rather than a directly involved one.

3. You are quoting a fringe American source without ties to the U.S. government, that was founded by a neocon.

4. You are quoting Najmeddin Sadikov, a former Azerbaijani commander who disappeared during the 2020 war and by all accounts did not take part in the war.

As for your claim that "Armenia, Azerbaijan, Russia, America, and even Turkey all now confirm", even if we pretend like the sources you quoted are indeed reliable, the content of these sources does not provide sufficient detailed information about how Turkey was directly involved in the war either.

Like I said, I have always been skeptical about keeping Turkey in the 2020 war infobox, but I sort of ignored it given it pertains to one specific section of the war. However, including Turkey in the infobox of a broader conflict just seems like an unreasonably massive leap, as per my reasoning in my original comment.

- Creffel (talk) 07:20, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

This excessive nitpicking could be done for any news source. An RSN discussion for Kommersant just recently concluded and reaffirmed it to be a reliable newspaper, they only concerns were only for "wars conducted by Russia". Kommersant is a neutral party to this conflict however. This again raises the issue of why "alleged by Armenia" is attributed to a source that has nothing to do with Armenia. National Interest is also a third party, and previous discussions have only been about the reliability of the source's blog, while this is a featured news article. --KhndzorUtogh (talk) 22:56, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

References