Talk:Second Nagorno-Karabakh War/Archive 11

This is an archive of past discussions about Second Nagorno-Karabakh War. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

→

The map

Emreculha keeps extending the green areas as s/he prefers without any evidence. Here is a video released by a Russian journalist reporting from Hadrut after Azerbaijan announced that it is under their control https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kn5miUcazvo. Why is the map based only on the claims made by Azerbaijan?2003:CB:B710:2000:7450:37A9:DBCF:2ADF (talk) 16:14, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Here is another evidence that Hadrut is not under Azerbaijani control https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3ud3pUBKjA 2003:CB:B710:2000:7450:37A9:DBCF:2ADF (talk) 16:35, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the map, I've earlier ([1] [2] [3]) called for a more neutral and accurate depiction of the situation on the ground, and found Liveuamap to be sufficient for use. However, lately their depiction of captured areas haven't been properly substantiated by providing geolocation of visual sources, and disputed areas are added based on one single report of shelling or clashes in the area. Their current depiction of areas around Martuni and Kalbajar suddenly being disputed without providing proper sources regarding it and the the southwestern part of the Jabrayil district being captured based solely on pro-Azeri reports warrants another approach - as I've argued before, there should be a similar basis for edits as is standard for edits on pages like the Syrian Civil War map which require sources not potentially biased with regard to the nature of the edit. Therefore, pro-Azeri edits has to use neutral or pro-Armenian sources and vice versa. Potential relatively pro-Armenian sources would be sources such as: [4]. So I would argue that the map should currently use at least one pro-Armenian or neutral source for confirmation and that only these confirmed areas should be displayed on the map. AntonSamuel (talk) 10:46, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

So the footages aren't enough? Do you expect france24 or someone else going to these ghost towns and record videos? We have to wait an eternity if that's what you want. Syrian civil war detailed map reports were majority of twitter, you can not have reports from western news agencies for all these small uninhabited villages and bigger towns. Beshogur (talk) 10:57, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@Beshogur: If they're relatively reliable and neutral/pro-Armenian then Twitter sources would be sufficient for Azeri gains in my view. Ideally, Template:Nagorno-Karabakh conflict detailed map should be used. AntonSamuel (talk) 11:01, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

The only video we saw from a western agency was a footage from Suqovushan, so are we going to mark that place only? Ridiculous. There are numerous footage from the Azerbaijani side of captured places including Jabrayil and Fuzuli that can be manually verified. Of course Armenians are not going to report their withdrawal. Beshogur (talk) 11:17, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@Beshogur: There have been numerous reports in international media and by pro-Russian/pro-Armenian sources regarding the capture of specific towns and villages and depiction of the situation on the ground through maps. One example is the source I linked to earlier. AntonSamuel (talk) 11:41, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@AntonSamuel: That sounds biased. For a truly neutral point of view, we need reports from both Armenia and Azerbaijan, but only fully highlight (in the map, that would be cyan) the areas confirmed by third-party sources. RBolton123 (talk) 13:41, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@RBolton123: What you're describing is pretty much exactly what I'm calling for - I stated that neutral or pro-Armenian sources should be used to confirm Azeri claims of captured areas, and that's the areas that should be displayed on the map. And if there are Armenian claims of the recapture of areas, these should be confirmed by pro-Azeri or neutral sources. AntonSamuel (talk) 13:45, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Considering that Armenia has denied almost all Azeri advances, then I guess we should just put the status quo map before the war and call it a day. Footages from the recaptured towns/villages are enough to confirm (unless in some specific cases if the videos' titles do not show the exact location/village). I think we should show areas Azerbaijan has claimed to have captured but hasn't released footages of yet (e.g. Murovdagh, Fuzuli) in grey colour. But ones that they have claimed to have captured and released footages of (or confirmed by other independent sources in Twitter geo-locating the footages (the best person for unbiased geo-locating, in my opinion, is Ryan O'Farrel)) to be shown in blue colour. The current map is good except the fact that it shows weirdly big areas (especially around the north-west, around Murov) that Azerbaijan has never claimed and no other source has been able to confirm. — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 11:24, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@CuriousGolden: As far as I've seen Armenia/Artsakh's general policy has been to not specify regarding any territories lost, while confirming some withdrawals. Footage from a town cannot be seen as sufficient evidence of the capture of the town without additional verification - both pro-Azeri and pro-Armenian sources have published these videos and photos as proof, while the situation on the ground may be subject to change. I've updated Template:Nagorno-Karabakh conflict detailed map to what I would argue is appropriate to currently display considering the published material about the situation in the region. Azerbaijani or pro-Azeri claims that have not been reported by other sources should not be being displayed on the map I would argue, these claims would be given undue weight, the reliability of these reports is questionable due to the potential bias of the sources. AntonSamuel (talk) 11:41, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@AntonSamuel: I don't see a problem with displaying claims of AzMOD that haven't yet been captured if both in the map and in the infobox it's clearly stated that these are claimed but not confirmed. We have to show claims of both sides to be unbiased. — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 11:57, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@CuriousGolden: It's fair to say that there seems to be political motivations heavily in play with regards to claims on both sides. Claims over a region or over a town are seemingly used to argue that fighting is of a defensive nature in that area because of the ceasefire. Therefore it is quite problematic to display claims from the Azerbaijani government on the map, and is not standard on Wikipedia for other maps displaying the situation on the ground with regard to ongoing conflicts. AntonSamuel (talk) 12:02, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@AntonSamuel:, I am trying to map the developments in LiveUAMap as soon as possible. I followed that resource as we decided to use LiveUAMap in our previous discussion. Again, it is useful to repeat, anyone can update this map. However, let's make a firm decision about which resource to use. If you want, even if it is included in LiveUAMap, let's not update it immediately. However, it is necessary to set a standard for this.Let me arrange the map accordingly.--Emreculha (talk) 12:41, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@Emreculha: My first statement in this thread pretty much sums it up - Liveuamap's recent updates have been quite dubious and unsubstantiated. Pro-Azeri edits should use neutral or pro-Armenian sources - this map (by a relatively pro-Russian/pro-Armenian source) is useful: [5] When going for neutrality and accuracy, a delay in updating the situation on the ground may be a result, however - as I stated earlier, this is the standard on Wikipedia for maps like this regarding ongoing conflicts. AntonSamuel (talk) 13:05, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

The map they post there doesn't seem to include Mravi, so I think it's balanced enough to be a third party source. Of course, it does show major gains by Azerbaijan in the main fighting area (the southeast), but Mravi is both strategic and one of the earliest points to be claimed captured by Azerbaijan. RBolton123 (talk) 13:43, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Not done that would be extremely misleading. --► Sincerely: Sola Virum 12:55, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@Solavirum: How would it be misleading? By the way, "Done" or "Not done" are responses typically used on Wikipedia talk pages for edit requests from unconfirmed editors. AntonSamuel (talk) 13:05, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@AntonSamuel:, the Armenian-backed separatists deny every Azerbaijani advance. I don't think they can be considered anything but reliable at this point. First, it was Liveumap, which we agreed on despite protesting it, now this? What else do you want? You were to protect Liveumap's assertions so fiercely, now you want to revert them, because, I suppose, WP:IDONTLIKEIT. These request are getting ridiculous. And for the last sentence, no, that's not the case. --► Sincerely: Sola Virum 13:09, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@Solavirum: I believe that I've explained quite thoroghly now in this thread why the recent edits are problematic. In short: the edits haven't been substantiated through geolocation like many updates on Liveuamap were earlier and many aren't based on Azeri claims. I've argued all along that neutral and reliable sources are necessary, that Liveuamap is not ideal, but relatively neutral, if a better source comes along then I'm all for it, and now that its reliability is significantly in question - I believe that the matter should be examined. AntonSamuel (talk) 13:17, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@AntonSamuel:, any alternatives? Surely, this one you provided above isn't one. --► Sincerely: Sola Virum 13:19, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@Solavirum: I do think the Iranian map would be an example of a relatively pro-Russian/pro-Armenian or neutral source with regard to this specific conflict. https://syriancivilwarmap.com/ have posted updates on Karabakh too and is another potential source. Political Geography Now is another one [6], and there are also other pro-Russian sources such as MilitaryMaps on Twitter [7]. AntonSamuel (talk) 13:28, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@AntonSamuel:,I can understand you. However, I could not access any sources regarding Armenian sources (Twitter, video, etc.). There are only statements and photos that deny Azeri advances. If you have an Armenian source that you can suggest, let's use that too. If Russian, American etc. If there is a third source, let's compare them all. And let's make a list together as "RESOURCES TO USE". These can include sites like LiveUAMap, trusted journalists on Twitter. If there is a Telegram group, we can also discuss it there.---Emreculha (talk) 13:31, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@AntonSamuel:, I saw the Liveumap changes. It seems that the biggest issue here are Martuni and Shusha. Not official, but there are reports of Azerbaijani advancements close to Shusha, but still, they are unconfirmed. Wish there were Western sources for it. But Liveumap is the best we've got. Although the advancements along the Araz River are confirmed with footage, can't say the same about others, and we should avoid marking them. --► Sincerely: Sola Virum 13:37, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

AntonSamuel, Solavirum ; In addition, village names are starting to not fit anymore. Should we show them as dots or stay as they are? If we show them as dots, we may need to delete village names from the whole map.---Emreculha (talk) 13:43, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@Emreculha:, minor villages' names should not be added. Only the ones with strategic importance. --► Sincerely: Sola Virum 13:49, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@Emreculha: I've updated the map now and listed the sources that I used for the Azeri claims confirmed by the neutral/pro-Armenian/pro-Russian sources: https://english.iswnews.com/15804/azerbaijani-army-captured-fuzuli-town-south-of-nagorno-karabakh-map-update/ https://twitter.com/MilitaryMaps/status/1317764818804330496 https://twitter.com/MilitaryMaps/status/1317533394692169730, in line with the updated Template:Nagorno-Karabakh conflict detailed map. AntonSamuel (talk) 13:57, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@Emreculha: Regarding villages/sites, perhaps keeping the ones on the frontline would be more prudent. However as the situation is subject to change - I don't think there is a problem keeping most intact for the time being. AntonSamuel (talk) 14:01, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@AntonSamuel:,When we write the name of the area as Artsakh, Azerbaijani users object. My opinion is that either nothing should be written or only Nagorno-Karabakh should be written--Emreculha (talk) 14:03, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@Emreculha: "Nagorno Karabakh/Artsakh" would be fine in my view, just as long as there is not too much confusion with the NKAO since the map displays its borders. AntonSamuel (talk) 14:05, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@AntonSamuel:, I think it is an issue that needs attention. Armenians objected that cities and villages do not have two names on the map. Azerbaijanis also object to the name of the region. I think a common name should be found. Only Karabakh can be written.In addition, the gray areas were very useful to us. It prevented many discussions.---Emreculha (talk) 14:11, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@Emreculha: Showing "Nagorno Karabakh/Artsakh" would satisfy neutrality in the same way the "Israel/Palestine" does, I would argue. Regarding the grey color on the map: It's not standard as far as I have seen to display claims rather than confirmed captured areas on Wikipedia maps. It gets more complicated when taking into consideration that both sides are basically involved in an information war, I've stated earlier in the thread that it therefore is problematic with regards to neutrality and reliability to display claims by the Azerbaijani government, especially if it's used as the infobox map of this article. I think a list of potential sources is a good idea. However, just in general, holding to the time-honored principle on Wikipedia military control maps of using reliable pro-X or neutral sources to confirm pro-Y claims and vice versa is a good idea. I would argue that in its current state, Liveuamap can no longer be considered reliable (I've explained why more thoroughly above) as a neutral source used on its own, if used then it should be complemented by additional sources. AntonSamuel (talk) 14:24, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@AntonSamuel:,Dağlık Karabağ olarak eklenmeli diye düşünüyorum, en az iki cümle eklenmeli. Azerbaycan, Xudaferin bölgesini ele geçirdiğini açıkladı ve hatta o bölgeden bir video yayınladı. Bu durumda ne yapmalıyız?--Emreculha (talk) 21:16, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@Emreculha: I don't speak Turkish, but if I get the translation correct - you're asking what is prudent to do regarding the Azeri claim of capturing the area around Xudafərin, including videos and pictures of Azeri troops in the area - I argued earlier in the thread why I think it's necessary to find reliable as well as neutral or pro-Armenian/pro-Russian sources confirming that the area has been captured to include it on the map in light blue as areas that have been "captured by Azerbaijan according to third-party sources". AntonSamuel (talk) 21:36, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@AntonSamuel:, I think I'm a little confused :) The page you shared on Twitter is Russian Source but I have little difficulty reading. It is necessary to turn tweets into tweets. The other page is the Iranian source, but even the latest news updates 2 days ago. What sources does the detailed map on Wikipedia use? They are editors like us. Also, how neutral are Russian and Iranian resources? Perhaps some of them support Azerbaijan and the other part Armenia. I'm pretty confused right now. In a new discussion, I think that all sources should be listed separately and reliable ones should be determined jointly (with the participation of Azeri, Armenian and other users). I'm very interested in maps. It is not easy to create such a map. You know more or less how the map was prepared. I am trying to contribute and improve the map. But now I am unable to contribute to the map. Although I am Turkish, I also considered the sensitivity of the Armenian users here (I even learned a little Armenian Alphabet while researching city names :D ). But I think the same sensitivity should be observed for Azerbaijani users. As Wikipedi editors, we need to determine the criteria in accordance with Wikipedia's spirit and impartiality.--Emreculha (talk) 21:57, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@Emreculha: If this map is to be utilized for this relatively high-profile Wikipedia page, there needs to be certain standards as to what it is based on. I recently updated the Template:Nagorno-Karabakh conflict detailed map, and have used the same sources I used for the infobox map, I stated them here in this thread and in the edit summaries of both maps. As I argued above - because of the information war that is being waged and claims are quite politically charged, it's sound to follow the basic standard for Wikipedia military maps: "use reliable pro-X or neutral sources to confirm pro-Y claims and vice versa". I'm not saying the sources that I've found are the ideal ones or that you can't find superior ones, but I would say that they were more accurate and reliable than Liveuamap. You can find the sources Wikipedia lists as reliable sources here: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. I would advise you to keep on searching until you find additional sources that can back up the pro-Azeri claims. AntonSamuel (talk) 22:10, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

First, using the so-called "Artsakh" shows a pro-Armenian bias by user AntonSamuel. You won't find this word on maps published by neutral sources. What is the point of using a word that is not recognised by anyone in the world, while there is a toponym perfectly acceptable for everyone - Nagorno Karabakh. Otherwise, this is pretty much a very pro-Armenian map, and does not belong to a page which should be neutral. Secondly, why not use one color for areas claimed as recaptured by Azerbaijan and another color for those that have been proven by 3rd parties and by geo-location evidence (even if Azeri). Surely, Armenians and pro-Armenian sources are not going to admit their losses! It is ridiculous to demand this in order to make changes to the map. Again, pro-Armenian bias here. I invite other users to comment on these changes by AntonSamuel, as they are strongly biased and do not belong to a neutral page. Elpatron81 (talk) 22:19, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@Elpatron81: Well, while I don't agree with your assessment, I believe I've adressed the topics you mentioned already in this thread and the earlier threads I've linked. Including that I'm perfectly fine with "Nagorno Karabakh/Artsakh" on the map as well. "Artsakh" was featured earlier on the map before it was removed. I'm happy to accept the input of other editors as well, and hope more will contribute and improve the map's accuracy and neutrality. AntonSamuel (talk) 22:26, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

AntonsamuelHello! I am a new user. I am a neutral reader, neither pro azeri nor pro armenian. I think it would be great to add the claims of Azerbaijan too, you guys could use a footnote to exclaim that these claims may be greatly exaggerated. And, I am confused about Fizuli, last time it was confirmed to be taken by Azeri army, now it is again unconfirmed??103.147.163.6 (talk) 03:43, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@AntonSamuel:, don't change the map without reaching to a consensus. You are the only one calling that source reliable, and you have to prove it. We will use Liveumap until your argument reaches to a consensus. Also, @Emreculha:, please update the map, Azerbaijan announced 13 more settlements. --► Sincerely: Sola Virum 04:50, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

The map atm is very misleading. Nothing was said about the liberation/seizing control of Khojavend. Stick to the official sources only. You can't say that Azerbaijan claimed [blank] when it hasn't. For the record, Azerbaijan says it has taken control of Fuzuli, Khodafarin Dam, and several villages along the Aras River. I don't know if Armenia denied any of those, so, edit accordingly. As I don't know how to edit SVG files. We shall keep the "claimed/not confirmed" key though, it is useful for Murovdag and Çaylı (and possibly, future claims). --► Sincerely: Sola Virum 04:52, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Solavirum: I have argued my point in this thread numerous times now and in the previous threads that I linked - why it is problematic to include the Azeri claims. Please adress these issues if you do not agree (Not standard on Wikipedia for military conflict maps, breach of NPOV with regard to the information war, the present unreliability of Liveuamaps markings). The original map did not include the Azeri claims. The version that included a large chunk of territory around Martuni as captured but unconfirmed was not up to the standards with regards to neutrality, reliability and accuracy that a relatively high-profile Wikipedia page like this requires. AntonSamuel (talk) 06:25, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@AntonSamuel: I haven't seen any user on this discussion that agrees with not showing Azeri claims. It's important to show Azeri claims to stay neutral. Most of what Azerbaijan claims is usually confirmed by footages a few days later anyway, so not like Azerbaijan has lied continuously about their gains. Again, it is completely okay to show Azeri claims with a gray colour and write clearly in both the map legend and in the infobox that the gray areas are areas claimed to be captured by Azerbaijan but not yet confirmed. Wikipedia's job is to do show things in a neutral way without eating away one side's view/claim. — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 07:03, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@CuriousGolden: As I stated before - it's precisely because of WP:NPOV that it's problematic to display the claims of the Azerbaijani government. Regarding Wikipedia:Consensus, I would point out the basic definition/description of consensus on Wikipedia: "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which is ideal but not always achievable), nor is it the result of a vote. Decision making and reaching consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines". So far, the counterarguments here have focused on evading the main issues I have brought up instead of addressing them. AntonSamuel (talk) 08:35, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the latest edit to the map by another user on Wiki Commons - it seems that at least one pro-Russian source (MilitaryMaps on Twitter) also reports this now: https://twitter.com/MilitaryMaps/status/1318077289360482304/photo/1 So, it may be proper to keep the area around Xudafərin marked as captured. However, I would reiterate the need to include third-party sources when making changes to the map - if it's to be used as the main map for this article. AntonSamuel (talk) 08:40, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@AntonSamuel: You unilaterally and arbitrarily changed the map, while not a single user agrees to removing the claimed area. Your own opinions and views are not a basis and justification for such changes. This is against the principles of the Wikipedia community; you must first get consensus. As you saw in this thread, no one supported your removal of the claimed areas. With claimed areas, everyone can see in the legend that this means "claimed". Removing this equals denying people the right to have the information. Those who are sceptical, can remain being so. It is up to them how to interpret it. But you can't deny them the information. That's the whole point of having a live map. And again, every opinion voiced here is in favor of keeping the claimed area. So, please do us all a favor and revert to having those areas indicated on the map. Elpatron81 (talk) 12:21, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Elpatron81: Again, I do not agree with your assessment. Regarding the issues of consensus and neutrality with regards to the Azeri government claims - I believe that I've sufficiently addressed these issues in this thread now. AntonSamuel (talk) 12:46, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@AntonSamuel: It's your business to agree or not agree. But no one here is supporting your unilateral and arbitrary changes. I have invited users to comment, it's for everyone to see how you blatantly are trying to ignore the consensus among users. What you did with removal of claimed areas is incorrect AntonSamuel, and ignoring the rest of us only further implicates you in your pro-Armenian bias. Nothing wrong with being biased - again, it's your business - but don't make changes to a neutral page to force your bias onto others. @Emreculha: please do intervene here, we cannot allow this on a neutral page. Elpatron81 (talk) 12:59, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Elpatron81: Again, I welcome the input of other editors to this discussion and in contributing to the map. If you have a specific issue regarding edits by users which you consider biased, then its fine to let them know. However, repeatedly throwing around accusations of Wikipedia users being biased overall without substantiating your arguments properly does not show good faith. AntonSamuel (talk) 13:23, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Hallo from GermanWP, please be more patient about drawing that map, because liveuamap doesn't check or confirm Azerbaijani footages of captured cities and villages. According to that news on "Caucasian Knot" (BBC confirmed that) the Azerb. footage about its control in Hadrut from 13th october was a falsification. According to that footage of Armenian jounalists from 17th october (they speak about a repulsed Azerbaijani attack up from 11th and about following humanitarian truce) Hadrut is still under Armenian control.--WajWohu (talk) 13:15, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@WajWohu: I agree, with regards to valuing neutrality and accuracy over speed with regard to the updates - this is precisely what I've argued for with regard to the map. With regards to Hadrut, it seems a number of third party sources at this point does agree that the town is under Azeri control from what I've seen. If further reliable and neutral sources can be found that disputes this then the matter can be further looked in to of course. AntonSamuel (talk) 13:23, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi I might have jumped the gun on editing one of the maps but I noticed the MilitaryMaps source only mentions an announcement from Aliyev ("#Арцах (Нагорный Карабах) ☾ Ильхам Алиев заявил о контроле над н.п. Солтанлы, Амирварлы, Машанлы, Гасанлы, Аликейханлы, Гумлаг, Гаджилы, Гойерчинвейсаллы, Ниязгуллар, Кечел Мамедли, Шахвелли, Гаджи Исмаиллы, Исаклы" / "# Artsakh (Nagorno-Karabakh) ☾ Ilham Aliyev announced control over the settlement Soltanly, Amirvarli, Mashanli, Hasanli, Alikeykhanli, Gumlag, Hajili, Goyerchinveisalli, Niyazgullar, Kechel Mammadli, Shahvelli, Haji Ismayilli, Isakli") and the LiveUAmap entry for the same regions also only mentions an announcement from Aliyev ("Aliyev: Soltanli, Amirvarli, Mashanli, Hasanli, Alikeykhanli, Gumlag, Hajili, Goyerchinveysalli, Niyazgullar, Kechel Mammadli, Shahvelli, Haji Ismayilli, Isaqli villages of Jabrayil region were captured."). I do not think this counts as third party confirmation unless there are more tweets or entries that I missed? --LOLCaatz (talk) 13:24, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@LOLCaatz: While MilitaryMaps source might not be ideal since it's (mainly) a Twitter source (the do have a webpage too: militarymaps.info), it does seem that they do have at least a somewhat pro-Russian/pro-Armenian point of departure. They regularly update and the posts they've shared and the Azeri claims they've "confirmed" seem generally more conservative than other sources that I've seen. However, if you can find more reliable and neutral sources to base the map on - I'm all for it. AntonSamuel (talk) 13:42, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree about some of those empty villages in the south, when both parties mentioned the same (like in Aras region). But which third party sources confirm Azeri control in Hadrut and Armenian villages to the north and in the west by own investigations? I don't know them, the film upstairs show an Armenian control in Hadrut... Best regards.--WajWohu (talk) 13:51, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@AntonSamuel: I'm not arguing whether MilitaryMaps is pro-Russian or pro-Armenian however the basis for the specific tweet that was mentioned was an announcement from Aliyev with absolutely no other first-hand or other sources. In other words that tweet is pretty much directly quoting Aliyev without offering anything new. I do not consider Aliyev, as the president of one of the major warring parties in this conflict, neutral or a reliable source. The "claimed but not confirmed" area of the map is specifically for a situation like this where one side claims that an area is captured however no reliable or neutral sources are available to confirm this. Especially in the case of this war, where there is a huge amount of misinformation being propagated by both sides I think it is necessary to err on the side of caution and only mark something as confirmed when it is beyond reasonable doubt. --LOLCaatz (talk) 13:58, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@AntonSamuel:,@Elpatron81:, First of all i apologise for delay..As far as I can see LiveUAMap, Azerbaijan Ministry of Defense does not show that region as captured, without releasing a video about the region.

If I claim to have captured Paris, I'll put my flag on the Eiffel Tower and prove it. This is how the Azerbaijani side proves its claims. However, I have not seen the Armenian side defend its claims in this way. If they say Hadrut is under our control, they should broadcast videos in the same way. But the issue is that important cities have been ghost towns for nearly 30 years, and I don't know if they have landmarks such as the Eiffel Tower (for example, Grandpa-Grandma statue in Stepanakert / Khankendi). For this, Azerbaijani-Armenian users should support us.

There is no reason why we should not argue nicely here without offending each other. Our update of the map will not change the facts of the conflict, and the facts will emerge sooner or later.What we need to do is to observe the sensitivities of Azerbaijani and Armenian users and to contribute to this delicate matter in an impartial and in accordance with the spirit of Wikipedia. However, I would like you to show the same sensitivity and respect for us.

AntonSamuel advocates the evaluation of all unbiased sources. As far as I understand, Elpatron81 argues that this situation should not be exaggerated and that the Armenians reject everything. We'll find the middle ground somehow. If the neutral Armenian users do not contribute to the debate and simply reject every claim, our effort to be neutral will show the matter as pro-Armenian and this is a great misunderstanding. They must come and defend their claims by citing the source.--Emreculha (talk) 14:09, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Emreculha: Like Azerbaijan, Armenia/Artsakh have published many videos in and around Hadrut as well - as I've argued earlier - this in and of itself cannot be relied on for verification because of the rapid changes on the ground - even though the claims may prove to be correct. With regard to Wikipedia:Consensus I would again repeat its basic description "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which is ideal but not always achievable), nor is it the result of a vote. Decision making and reaching consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines". This should be the general guideline when seeking consensus with regard to disputes. Of course, I share your call for civility on all sides. I think your last edit to the map when you included third party sources in the edit summary was good. AntonSamuel (talk) 14:30, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Emreculha: I'm not from either country and have no ties to either country. I would argue that there is an information war going on and therefore both sides are pushing unsubstantiated, partially true or false claims as a matter of course. We have very few sources that can be classed as reliable outside of certain contexts (For example I would not consider Azeri MOD a reliable source however their footage of Armenian armor being destroyed is not deniable - in the same vein, I would consider videos of piles of dead Azeri soldiers to be not deniable in terms of Azeri casualties). In addition what may be considered good evidence may not actually be (for example the raising of flags over a settlement shows that soldiers were present and raising a flag at that point in time only and does not necessarily mean a confirmed capture). The challenge for us and for everyone analyzing this conflict is looking at intrinsically unreliable sources and finding some reliable information from them.

I don't think looking for "unbiased" sources is going to help us as even the most unbiased source suffers from very little reliable information from the battlefield. It is important in my opinion to evaluate every single piece of information individually instead of looking for confirmation from "pro-Azeri" or "pro-Armenian" or "Russian" sources. Does a video show a substantial military presence of a particular faction at a location? When were these videos taken, and is there a possibility that the dates were falsified? Is there any counter-evidence in the form of other videos, photos etc that might call the authenticity of the original evidence into question?

I think regarding the map it is important not to over-simplify the situation. If Azeri claims to have captured a location but multiple conflicting video evidence that "confirms" as well as "refutes" the claims it should be reflected in the map somehow - it is not up to us to decide that it is confirmed to be captured based on this video or not captured at all based on that video. It may well be that the majority of the captured areas are gray - this is simply a reflection of how little information is available to us. LOLCaatz (talk) 14:39, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I should add, that if we wanted a more neutral way to present "Areas claimed by Azerbaijan but not confirmed by third party sources" we could word it as "Ownership not clear due to conflicting claims" or "Status unknown" or something similar. --LOLCaatz (talk) 14:46, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Ok, one more try :): did anybody read the article of Caucasian Knot and watched the film from saturday in Hadrut know? There are falsifications of footages and there are impressive indications of an Armenian presence in (parts of) Hadrut. Only the Azeri footages and tweets from liveuamaps are not valid enough. So Hadrut and some villages around, some in the southwest and around Fizuli are not confirmed know. So they may stay grew, not green, I think. Only the tweets and unconfirmed claims of one side on liveuamap are not valid sources for some villages and for Hadrut, I think. Is there any confirm source to remove the grew color around Murov Dagh? --WajWohu (talk) 16:31, 19 October 2020 (UTC)Sincelery.

@Emreculha: Thank you for the call to civility, I hope all users on this forum heed it given how sensitive this matter is. We should allow readers the opportunity to view perspectives from both sides and let them decide how to interpret the information. Denying access to information in itself, or using ambiguous argumentation to filter the information is nothing else but manipulation. We are in no position to do this. Why should the readers not see on the live map that Azerbaijan officials claim to have liberated the area of Murovdag? This is a strategic geographic position, so even if it is just a claim - official claim, mind you - this in itself is a useful nugget of information for the readers. That is why claimed territory should be in the legend. Anyone capable of reading can see that this is only claimed and is not yet confirmed by third parties or by geo-location. Btw, just as someone commented here earlier, the Azerbaijan MoD has shown consistently that they back up their claims with evidence. And I still maintain that changing the map arbitrarily without soliciting the reaction of the users on the subject matter is totally incorrect. Even more disturbing to me is that after being called out for it, AntonSamuel ignored the fact that every user reacted in opposition to his change. This is not in spirit of civility and respect for objectivity. Elpatron81 (talk) 18:19, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Elpatron81: I believe that I've sufficiently addressed your concerns and that I've explained my edits and viewpoint sufficiently at this point. AntonSamuel (talk) 18:31, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Elpatron81:, @AntonSamuel:, I think the summary of the debate is that there are allegations on the map that have not been proven by everyone, but have been made public by the authorities of Azerbaijan. If we agree on this situation, we must carefully decide even the sources we will accept as "CLAIM". If the main issue of the discussion is whether the claims are included in the map (gray area), I think we can consider this situation as a new discussion with a large number of users. However, if we are going to show the claims on the map, we should be very careful with the sources we use, and the finalization of the claims is another matter (turning from gray to blue). Also @LOLCaatz:, if you share the videos published by Armenia (official) , it will contribute to the discussion.--Emreculha (talk) 19:39, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Emreculha: My main concern is with regards to the unilateral changes by a certain user to: (1) add the word "Artsakh" to the region while it is not a common practice on neutral maps. "Nagorno-Karabakh" or "Karabakh" have been widely used since the beginning of this conflict; everyone knows what it is and where it is; (2) remove claimed areas that the previous version of the map used to show. Whether here or in a separate section, these need to be addressed. And for the future, the said user should refrain from such unilateral edits. Elpatron81 (talk) 20:07, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Elpatron81: Once again, I believe that I've addressed the issues you've raised and that I've explained my edits and viewpoints sufficiently at this point. If you want further input - I would advise you to ping an administrator. AntonSamuel (talk) 20:08, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@AntonSamuel: And in turn I think it's been explained multiple times to you what the concept of a consensus is, and why other users on this platform believe that you acted incorrectly in removing the claimed area. I suggest you and User:Elpatron81 speak to each other and find a solution that works for both of you (and the rest of the editors of this page) also it appears both of you have opposing sympathies in this conflict so a solution that works for both of you will likely work for the majority of readers of this page --LOLCaatz (talk) 22:34, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Emreculha: I agree with most of your post and yes we have to be very careful with claimed and "confirmed" territories. We might even have to acknowledge how little actual information is available in the article itself so as not to mislead readers. Whether there are Armenian sources or not isn't relevant. A claim is not confirmed just because Armenia hasn't issued a counter claim and also, the video mentioned by WajWohu may offer a counter-claim against Hadrut, for example. This makes it a disputed claim and absolutely not confirmed unless it can be proven that the counter-claim is incorrect. Ilham Aliyev claiming that a settlement has been captured means absolutely nothing and for many of the small settlements in the south his announcements are the only source available - it appears to me that he has a vested interest in announcing territorial gains (true, partially true or false) for the same reason he is choosing not to announce casualties. --LOLCaatz (talk) 22:34, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@LOLCaatz: I have not really seen argumentation that really deals with the concerns that I've raised so far with regard to quality/accuracy and WP:NPOV (Not standard to display claims on Wikipedia for military conflict maps, breach of NPOV with regard to the information war, the unreliability of the Liveuamaps markings that were used for claims), instead the arguments have mainly evaded these issues. Regarding consensus, I've explaied why my edits, in my view, have been in line with the basic description of Wikipedia:Consensus: "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which is ideal but not always achievable), nor is it the result of a vote. Decision making and reaching consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines) numerous times and reiterated that the removed feature was not originally part of the map." @Emreculha: Regarding claims - by their very definition they're statements declaring that certain advances have been made, unconfirmed by third-party sources. I reiterate - their inclusion are not standard for Wikipedia military control maps. See maps used on the articles listed here: List of ongoing armed conflicts Their inclusion is problematic with regard to WP:NPOV considering the ongoing information war and especially relying on videos posted by the Armenian and Azerbaijani militaries as primary sources. However, marking ongoing clashes with symbols such as used on the Political Geography Now Map may be useful - when either neutral and reliable sources or both pro-Azeri and pro-Armenian sources report this. AntonSamuel (talk) 23:10, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@AntonSamuel: Re claims: it is not a violation of NPOV if we state what Azeri MOD or president say as a statement from them and not a fact. If Aliyev says (made up example) "We have captured Hadrut", Azeri capturing Hadrut isn't an objective statement however "Aliyev said Azeri has captured Hadrut" or "Azeri has claimed to have captured Hadrut" is an objective statement and not violation of NPOV - it says nothing about the status of Hadrut but rather talks about the statement that was made about Hadrut. I suspect to create a functional map in a scenario with such little reliable information re captured settlements some unusual steps might have to be taken such as including claims - this shifts the decision of whether these claims are legitimate or not to the reader. If not then a neutral "Contested" or "Status unclear" region of the map as a blanket for situations where ownership of the land is unclear. And then perhaps we can draw attention to this in the article somewhere with a statement that Azeri and Armenian government are pushing very different ideas of what has been captured and who currently is on what territory and that there is a lack of reliable information to an outside observer on what is actually true. This I think (stating that we have a lack of information and allowing the reader to come to their own conclusions) embodies NPOV more than having one region for Azeri controlled territory and one region for Armenian controlled territory and us having to make decisions for readers on who owns what. Re consensus: while it is my belief that you have followed the spirit of finding consensus as stated on the wiki page, I don't think you can be the judge of whether you have really achieved it - it is up to the editors of this page as a whole to decide that and the general opinion seems to be that you took these steps against the wishes of the majority of the editors of this page.--LOLCaatz (talk) 04:35, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

@LOLCaatz: The points I've made still haven't been addressed properly: There is an information war that both sides are engaging in, including with regard to claims - arguing that fighting in a specific region is defensive with regard to the ceasefire(s). Presenting the claims of Aliyev on the map is therefore problematic with regards to WP:NPOV and runs the risk of potentially including state propaganda on the map, instead of depicting the situation on the ground - which is the purpose of the map, and best done by basing the data regarding captured areas on reports from neutral (or pro-X sources for pro-Y claims) third-party sources. These reports should of course also be scrutinized in order to evaluate if they are reliable or not. Regarding the objection made by editors on this page - I would argue that I've responded thouroghly to each and every one - while the main points that I've made were not properly addressed. There has also been further input in earlier threads as I stated ([8] [9] [10]) Another point with regard to quality is that if you check other maps on Wikipedia articles for ongoing conflicts, including government claims is not standard: List of ongoing armed conflicts. I've said in my previous reply that I think it would be reasonable to display "reported clashes" through symbols or such if reliable and neutral sources or both pro-Azeri and pro-Armenian sources report this - as has been featured on other Wikipedia maps. If you believe my argumentation is problematic - please ping an administrator for their input as I believe that I've explained my viewpoints quite thouroghly now in this now very long thread. AntonSamuel (talk) 07:34, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

@LOLCaatz: A fair summary of the issue here, but unfortunately a certain user is so blinded by his/her bias that they simply can't see the problem. @AntonSamuel: Just because you argue and you believe, does not make your position right. This is just your personal point of view, which no one supports here. There are other users, and most of them neutral, who explained to you that in fact it is your unilateral edit that compromises WP:NPOV. You alone cannot be the judge of what is allowed to be shown and what it is not. As simple as that. Elpatron81 (talk) 08:04, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

@Elpatron81: Again, I don't believe you've made a fair assessment while avoiding the core issues that I've brought up, instead focusing on criticizing me personally as an editor. If you want further input - I would advise you to ping an administrator. AntonSamuel (talk) 08:09, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

@AntonSamuel: I and several other users have explained to you at great length why your unilateral edits and your argumentation to justify those are incorrect. Please go back and read them. But you are refusing to see them. Maybe because you know we are right; but still desiring to force your personal POV, while having no legitimate arguments, you resort to denial. Paraphrasing Emreculha: sooner or later the truth comes out no matter how much one tries to deny or distort it. Elpatron81 (talk) 08:22, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

@Rosguill: @Johncdraper: @Vici Vidi: @EkoGraf: Hi, I would appreciate your input on the matter if you've got the time. I've seen that you've all contributed to the page and the talk page and are experienced editors. AntonSamuel (talk) 08:33, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

My position on maps was established early on. I believe this is now the longest thread on this page. IMHO, I recommend you take this to a draftspace (e.g., Sandbox with associated Talk), after agreeing on an involved NPOV editor via your own Talks, and then bring it back here. Johncdraper (talk) 08:43, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

@Elpatron81: @AntonSamuel: I don't think it's fair to call someone "blinded by their own bias" I do think Anton has a legitimate point even though I disagree with some aspects of its implementation. I agree that one user cannot be the sole judge of his own edits in regards to NPOV. Please don't be passive aggressive and refer to Anton as "a certain user" he does have a username you know. --LOLCaatz (talk) 09:11, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

@AntonSamuel: I agree that there is an information war and I agree that Aliyev is not a reliable source at all as it is in his interest to show and perhaps exaggerate Azeri progress in the war. You mention it being state propaganada and I agree that it should not be presented as fact but it should be presented as state propaganda or one side's viewpoint and I think that doing this while also supplying the context to the reader that there is an information war and their claims might not be accurate both gives a lot of decision making power to the reader and is objectively neutral. Removing the claimed area in my opinion potentially violates NPOV as a "claimed but not confirmed" area will then be shown in the map as still being under control of Armenia which may or may not be true - however, it might also be NPOV as only the confirmed claims from either side are on the map (although getting a confirmed claim will be very difficult and in this stage of the war it may under-represent Azeri gains significantly) - it really depends how it is implemented. Depicting the situation on the ground is the main purpose of the map, however we do not have many reliable sources of the situation on the ground and so the map will have to reflect that. It might be that the traditional format of a map as you might find on most other conflict pages isn't workable due to this. I think that "reported clashes" imply that the current territory is being contested and there is little reason for either side to falsify battles in progress and Aliyev-claimed-but-not-confirmed territories do not fall exactly into this category. Look man I get that you've explained your viewpoints in great detail but that does not automatically mean every single editor on this page agrees with you.--LOLCaatz (talk) 09:11, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Template:Wars involving Artsakh

"reduntant; its usage has never been seen, anywhere"

Solavirum Since when if the template is new we should not use it? Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 16:07, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Գարիկ Ավագյան, you've misunderstood my statement. How many articles on conflicts you've seen a template regarding 'a certain country's battles'? None. It kinda violates formatting. --► Sincerely: Sola Virum 16:30, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Solavirum Here are the examples of the templates. [11] [12] I'm gonna create Armenia and Azerbaijan templates as well. Don't you think, they are useful? Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 16:43, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Գարիկ Ավագյան, huh, you've got my green light then, but they should be renamed to "Wars and battles involving [Armenia; Artsakh; Azerbaijan]", not just wars. --► Sincerely: Sola Virum 16:51, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Solavirum That will take lots of time for including battles. I will focus on wars only. You can add battles further. Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 16:54, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

New villages liberated by Azerbaijan from Armenian occupation

Füzuli rayon: Gecegözlü, Aşağı Seyidehmedli, Zerger villages.
Cəbrayıl rayon: Belend, Papı, Tulus, Hacılı, Tinli
Zangilan rayon: Mincivan town, Huraman, Sarıl, Babaylı, Üçüncü Ağalı, Hacallı, Gırah Müşlan, Üdgün, Turabad, İçeri Müşlan, Meikli, Cahangirbeyli, Baharlı villages.
The map is very very obsolete. The whole southern front of the Armenian army was totally collapsed.Fullscaledx (talk) 16:55, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Emreculha, may you update the map please? In the meanwhile, Fullscaledx, I have added that statement within the article's body. --► Sincerely: Sola Virum 16:59, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Sola Virum. Fullscaledx (talk) 18:14, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Map

Renew the map according to new liberated territories. Camal2015 (talk) 17:38, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Dosya koruma altına alındığından güncelleyemiyorum. 24 saatlğine koruma altına alınmış.---Emreculha (talk) 19:46, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Emreculha, you can ask for template editor rights here. And, for Pete's sake, you're the creator and the most frequent updater of the map; they should grant you permission I hope. --► Sincerely: Sola Virum 20:04, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Emreculha, Thx for your feedback. While we wait for the termination of 24-hour protection, you can put updated map to Twitter Emreculha so that you finalize our wonderings on what is happening. Fullscaledx (talk) 20:04, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Why did Zangilian got removed from the map? There are several 3th party confirmations

Add more pictures of the conflict?

Most of the pictures here are of old photos of villages and other various places taken by Azerbaijan with a caption stating the area was retaken. Most of these pictures were uploaded early on when the conflict just started and information was limited. I think we should replace these images with pictures of the actual conflict (ie. soldiers in combat, shelling damage to Stepanakert/Ganja, etc.) now that they are more readily available. 8889stanzaexcel (talk) 23:03, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

There are not much free image on the topic. --► Sincerely: Sola Virum 00:53, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

The map (part 2)

@LOLCaatz: Please refrain from lecturing. If you have something personal to say, you can write to me directly; no need to pollute here. And I would ask you to be more respectful in your comments. Earlier you made a reference to a "pile of dead Azeri soldiers". This is a disgraceful manner to talk about humans who perished serving their country. Imagine if you had loved ones who died in combat, and someone out there offhandedly referred to them as pile of dead bodies. Be respectful please. Elpatron81 (talk) 09:45, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

@LOLCaatz: I appreciate your input, call for civility and for addressing the main points that I made. I hope more of the editors that I tagged will chime in - I believe that the issue can be resolved.
By the way, there is an updated Iranian map: https://english.iswnews.com/15846/latest-military-situation-in-south-of-karabakh-19-october-2020-map-update/ as well as new Twitter source utilized by War Diary/R&U Videos [13]: https://twitter.com/rr0162/status/1318222320230694912/photo/1 These represent relatively pro-Russian/pro-Armenian viewpoints and are useful for confirming pro-Azeri claims. AntonSamuel (talk) 11:26, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

LOLCaatz, AntonSamuel, Elpatron81; I'm sorry I can't access the site often because I'm busy. As I said before, our updating the map will not change the reality of the conflict. The truth will emerge sooner or later. That's why we must respect each other, each other's ideas and values.

AntonSamuel thanks for the links you shared, I also looked at the Sputnik page, but there is only news from Azerbaijan and Armenia directly. (https://sputniknews.com/world/202010201080821925-live-updates-nagorno-karabakh-foreign-minister-calls-on-intl-community-to-recognise-republic/) . However, I repeat again. As Ilham Aliyev shares, if there are official statements of Armenia, they should be shared here. Let's produce ideas like "Azerbaijan shared this information, but Armenia refused, let's wait to paint the region blue". If there is a video, material or official statement from Armenia, we should definitely evaluate it. Otherwise, our task is not to constantly anticipate the claims that Armenia cannot prove otherwise. ---Emreculha (talk) 13:13, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I broke this into a new section as constantly scrolling down to edit was getting irritating.--LOLCaatz (talk) 01:31, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

@Elpatron81: No I believe you are in the wrong in this specific situation, you have been quite disrespectful to Anton and you have been "lecturing" him as well. Yes perhaps I had a poor choice of words in the future I will say Azeri casualties - however the videos clearly depict large amounts of deceased Azeri soldiers so my description is not inaccurate. --LOLCaatz (talk) 01:31, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

@AntonSamuel: If you read the Iranian map, it mentions an "alleged" Azeri advance and again quotes Aliyev as saying such and such village has been captured. It seems to me that the drawing of the map is based on these statements. This is to me an example of state propaganda as we discussed earlier. On the other hand Armenian military officials are saying that Azeri infiltrators are sneaking into and raising flags in areas still controlled by Armenia to use as "proof" that the areas were captured (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSe7svYnoTw - I don't understand Armenian but this video has been paraphrased elsewhere in English) - while this is also state propaganda it serves as a counter-claim against Azeri claims of captures with accompanying videos. The twitter page you link to (the series of daily maps) has absolutely no supporting source and since the author is based in Baltimore, MD (USA) he is not a first-hand source either so I don't really know if he is a reliable source.--LOLCaatz (talk) 01:31, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Ok so I did a bit of thinking about our priorities here and what we want to depict. I think our priorities should be: 1. NPOV 2. Accurate representation of what is going on 3. Complete representation in this order. Now what do we know? We know that prior to September 27, Artsakh controlled 100% of the territory that it had claimed was under its control. So for example Fuzuli - we know for sure it was controlled by Artsakh at the beginning of hostilities. We know that the Azeri government has claimed to capture it. There exists video of Azeri soldiers at Fuzuli on an undetermined date, and there exists video of Armenian soldiers claiming to be capturing Fuzuli but in an unclear location. The Artsakh army has claimed a "massive counterattack" has happened in the south - perhaps including Fuzuli. Again due to a lack of outside observers there are no neutral first-hand sources. So what do we mark it as?

If we mark it as "controlled by Azerbaijan" that violates NPOV as it accepts Azeri sources over Armenian sources and also might not be entirely truthful
If we mark it as "controlled by Artsakh" or "not captured by Azerbaijan" that violates NPOV as it accepts Armenian sources over Azeri sources and also might not be entirely truthful

Having a map without claimed areas gives us only these two options and therefore a map without claimed areas will violate NPOV in all circumstances of a disputed claim.

If we mark it as "claimed to be captured by Azerbaijan but not confirmed by third-party sources" it is an accurate description but it presupposes that Azerbaijan is an unreliable source without addressing the reliability of Armenian sources. This is a violation of NPOV if there isn't another part of the map that is marked as "claimed to be captured by Armenia but not confirmed by third-party sources" but even if it were, it is more minor than the two above examples.
If we mark it as "status unclear due to conflicting claims" it is an accurate description, while offering less context than the above example but also does not violate NPOV. To the reader though it does not provide as much value and does not help in offering a clear ground picture which is the purpose of the map.
If we mark it as "contested" it does not violate NPOV but it is not accurate as contested implies an ongoing battle - and if one side claims to have captured an area, it implies that the battle has already ended.

If we create two separate maps, a "pro-Armenian" map and a "pro-Azeri" map it addresses both viewpoints in a way that does not violate NPOV, and allows the reader to conduct their own analysis however it risks over-complicating the article. This however can be used to highlight the "information war" or the lack of reliable sources in the article.

In the end it all comes down to how you want to balance the three priorities I mentioned above. The problem will always be that in most cases the only first hand sources that a territory has been captured are: statements by Azeri or Armenian MOD/governments (state propaganda) videos of military presence at settlements (potentially unreliable) or neutral journalists (very rare) - most news or twitter sources can be traced back to these --LOLCaatz (talk) 02:08, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

@LOLCaatz: I understand your points, however, I would say that the requirements you list for considering a map to be valid for use are a bit stringent. As you've said before, there is a limited amount of information available which we have to work with. The state of affairs to begin with was full Artsakh control of the territory - which is not controversial. Therefore the WP:ONUS is on those that want to include and prove Azeri gains - not the other way around and I wouldn't say that the current map constitutes a breach of WP:NPOV in that it "underrepresents" Azeri claims. Other sources found online with maps depicting the situation on the ground such as MilitaryMaps, SyrianCivilWarMap, Political Geography Now, the one utilized by R&UVideos/WarDiary and the Iranian IWN map I linked before have not included claims as far as I have seen. Relatively neutral or Pro-Russian/pro-Armenian third-party sources such as R&U Videos/WarDiary, MiliaryMaps and IWN, that are "confirming" or at least "re-reporting" Azeri claims as credible can be utilized in our edits I would argue. Using the term "confirmed" may be a bit of a stretch, that's why I used the wording "according to third-party sources" in the map legend text, however it was later altered. We have to start with something, use the information that's available and at some point stand our ground and say that "this much we know" or at least "this is the probable state of affairs". I would say that creating an area which is reported to be "contested" would be appropriate for areas where clashes are taking place - reported by neutral sources or by both pro-Azeri and pro-Armenian sources. Featuring multiple maps in the infobox would serve to confuse more than inform in my view and because of the POV-nature of an Azeri claims-map, it wouldn't be appropriate to feature it there. I would agree on having a separate map that displays Azeri claims - however, not featured in the infobox. It should be featured alongside the "confirmed" map and that it's made clear that the map is based on Aliyev's/the Azerbaijani government's claims. It would perhaps be suitable to place it in the Official statements/Azerbaijan section. AntonSamuel (talk) 16:25, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

@AntonSamuel: Your point about WP:ONUS is correct. In this way I agree with your overall position regarding Azeri claims. I however would not agree that re-reporting an Azeri claim can be considered credible at all, even as a "third party source" - many of these websites, in an effort to build a complete picture of the conflict that people can understand, will simply parrot Aliyev claims without any fact checking or critical analysis whatsoever. In other words the only thing the "third party source" is contributing to the claim is repeating it. I think it's very clear now that in the context of this article and especially the map NPOV has several very different interpretations and that it is impossible to satisfy every single one - so that's where we as editors need to agree upon based on the priorities I mentioned above (not necessarily in the same order). Perhaps we can make another area of the map, with a very similar but slightly different color to the current Azeri confirmed color, named "Azeri military confirmed to have been present" for all of the almost-confirmatory-but-still-ambiguous videos and photos of Azeri soldiers at a given location, keeping in mind that the Armenian side considers some of these to be staged?--LOLCaatz (talk) 23:17, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

You guys are using an Iranian source as a reliable one? Lmao. Anyways, BBC has confirmed Azerbaijani presence in Zəngilan, so don't try to fool anyone. --► Sincerely: Sola Virum 00:56, 22 October 2020 (UTC)