Talk:Second Nagorno-Karabakh War

Proposal: Rename to "2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There is a rough consensus for 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war. While opposition was numerically in the minority, they largely pointed to policies such as WP:OR and WP:N to support their points which I weighed heavily per WP:CONLEVEL. That said, support for some version of "war" was numerically overwhelming, and it is obvious that the current page title does not have consensus. To determine the consensus title, I looked to find the title that has the most support while still taking into account the legitimate concerns of the opposition.

The title Second Nagorno-Karabakh War had a lot of support, but per WP:NOTAVOTE we must weigh the opinions according to policy. Few rationales in support of that title cited relevant policies, while opposition to the title did. Editors point out that no reliable, independent, secondary sources use the proper noun "Second Nagorno-Karabakh War" and so the proposed title is unacceptable original research by synthesis. As such there is a consensus against describing this conflict as the "Second" war.

The title 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War had some support and retained the "war" characterization that many supporters of "Second" supported. This title, and the characterization as a "war" were challenged on the grounds of WP:COMMONNAME. Participants provided a number of sources which show reliable sources using both "conflict" and "war", and there is no consensus that either is overwhelmingly or predominently used. Indeed, the overwhelming majority of participants seem to agree that "war" is a better title than what some consider the most common name. As such, there is rough consensus that "conflict" is not sufficiently precise to describe the subject.

The final point of contention is whether to capitalize "war" or not. While a large number supported the capitalized version, few supporters gave an explanation for why the capitalization should be used. Those opposed generally gave policy-based rationales for the non-capitalized variant. In general, proponents of lowercase-"war" raised concerns about WP:OR since it could be seen as coining a proper noun (especially in combination with "Second") rather than a description of the subject. Even among those entirely opposed to the move, there was weaker opposition to the use of lowercase-"war" than to uppercase-"war".

So at this time there is a rough consensus to use (1) "war" over "conflict", (2) "war" over "War", and (3) "2020" over "Second". Should usage in reliable, independent, secondary sources change then these points may be reconsidered in a subsequent move request. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:43, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

---

2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict → 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War The last rename proposal failed to gain consensus, but from the comments of most of the editors who responded it appears that there is strong support if not a consensus to rename the article to 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War, which is a neutral but accurate title in conformance with the manual of style. The majority of major media outlets are now referring to this as a war see [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] and combined arms conventional warfare is in fact taking place on the ground.XavierGreen (talk) 17:25, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

• Support. This is really a war. The word "conflict" is used generally for a small war.Fullscaledx (talk) 11:24, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support as nominator.XavierGreen (talk) 15:11, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support fits the definition. EkoGraf (talk) 15:13, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support per above. Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 16:08, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support per above reasons. Mgasparin (talk) 16:13, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support per above. but i too think it should be called"second Nagorno Karabakh War" because these are the heaviest clashes since 1991Grimaldilines —Preceding undated comment added 08:07, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support but Change to Second Nagorno-Kabarakh War This is war has been going on for a few weeks and casualties may surpass the First Karabakh War at this rate. Plus I've seen many sources on both sides calling this the 'Second War' due to its scale. User178198273998166172 (talk) 18:32, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

While I agree that its likely sources will use that title in the long run, as things stand right now only a handful of them appear to be actually using "Second Nagorno-Karabak War". As such, its not the "common name" for the war at the present time. Given that, we must use the standard conventions from the manual of style for naming wars (ie: the geographic area in which the war is taking place or the names of the belligerents). XavierGreen (talk) 17:38, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

• Comment:, who is the nominator? + it is wrong way to request a move. Beshogur (talk) 16:37, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

I clearly stated above that I am the nominator. I am auto-confirmed and have move privileges, as I stated above from the last move request there appears to be a clear consensus to rename the article to 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War. However, because this is a high profile and controversial page, rather than moving this page without any further discussion I elected to open this discussion to make sure prior to moving the page (that way people can see in the talk page archives why the title was changed). In the event this proposal proves controversial (which so far it does not), i'll open a formal move request.XavierGreen (talk) 17:25, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Didn't see it. Ok it's fine. Beshogur (talk) 17:35, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

• Support per above reasons. Furthermore, we should consider renaming the Nagorno-Karabakh War article as "First Nagorno-Karabakh War" and this article as "Second Nagorno-Karabakh War" if this goes on for a long time.--RM (Be my friend) 18:14, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support - I agree, although I don't understand why this wasn't done as a WP:RM.--Staberinde (talk) 18:17, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Because WP:RM says only controversial moves should be done via a WP:RM, a prior move discussion related to a different proposed name showed a consensus to change the title to 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War, hence the proposed title change here is not actually controversial. However since that discussion didn't actually propose using that title i figured it best to just open up this confirming discussion here before being bold and making the move to confirm that the consensus that was apparant actually affirmatively existed.XavierGreen (talk) 20:38, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

• Support per above reasons. Wowzers122 (talk) 18:22, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support to Second Nagorno-Karabakh War --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 18:28, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
• I think we may still be jumping the gun a bit although some sources are clearly calling this a war; we should not be calling anything "War" in upper case until sources actually use that as a name for the conflict. "2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war" may be justifiable. Oppose "Second Nagorno-Karabakh War" as no sources appear to be referring to it that way, although it may be appropriate to create redirects from First Nagorno-Karabakh War and Second Nagorno-Karabakh War pointing to Nagorno-Karabakh War and here respectively as they are likely search terms. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:57, 14 October 2020 (UTC) 16:32, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
• Only perennial reliable sources (PRS) count at this stage. This is my analysis of some (not all; I am officially busy) as of 14/10/2020 21:30GMT (note: Jerusalem Post is not a PRS and is discounted):

1. BBC: War.
2. NYT: Only one mention of "what would seem to be a local war" is not a strong endorsement for a name change. Moreover, the byline reads "extended conflict". So, Neutral.
3. Reuters. "Conflict". This is worth refreshing every day: https://uk.reuters.com/search/news?blob=Nagorno-Karabakh&sortBy=date&dateRange=all
4. AP: "hostilites" and "fighting".
5. AFP: War.

Analysis: No consensus for a name change in the PRS. Note: you can do this search and update this list with timechecks yourself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources. In other words, this is essentially an automated process. No opinions are, or should be, involved. Johncdraper (talk) 20:39, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Al Jazeera is also referring to it as a war, see here [6]. NPR refers to it as a "hot war" here [7]. XavierGreen (talk) 21:53, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

• Support per nominator and perennial sources. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 21:54, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support and again please fix the timeline, the ceasefire hasn't done anything. RBolton123 (talk) 23:31, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose For now. A lot of the information is tentative at this point and it doesn't hurt to wait for sources to unanimously refer and analyze it as such. Gotitbro (talk) 01:43, 15 October 2020 (UTC)]

What information is tentative? Major news outlets (as i cited above) are referring to the subject matter of this article as a war and actual conventional warfare is occurring and has occurred on the ground.XavierGreen (talk) 02:31, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Johncdraper Has done a good job of highlighting that there is still no consensus among sources regarding the description of this conflict. That is why its tentative unless unanimity emerges among them. Gotitbro (talk) 06:56, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

• Support For 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War. Almost every major news organization and think-tank is referring to it as a war and leaders of both countries openly declare about capturing or attacking pieces of enemy territory, nothing short of an open declaration. Even the death tolls clearly indicate a war-like situation. Striking my previous oppose. Gotitbro (talk) 15:56, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Per above. --Jujuy88 (talk) 02:07, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Is this still oppose? Albertaont (talk) 17:25, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
• Weak Support. Armenia and Azerbaijan dont trade blows outside NK so the name fit. If fighting take place outside NK. The name should be changed to Armenian Azerbaijan war.Mr.User200 (talk) 02:44, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support, with the number of casualties, sustained military engagements, and rocket strikes at cities far from the front, it is hard to call this anything else. Vici Vidi (talk) 06:26, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
• Clarification. To clarify my position, I am proposing a daily semi-automated search of every green checked non-paywalled WP:RPS, with a GMT 19:00 Timestamp, reported here. When they change, we change. Johncdraper (talk) 09:46, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support: This is doubtlessly a war by now. For the record, I voted against the previous proposal. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 16:18, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support to Second Nagorno-Karabakh War Agreed with SolaVirum above. CrusaderToonamiUK (talk) 17:03, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
• Report of Time Checked (01:30GMT) Analysis of Multiple Perennial Sources Follows.

1. AFP. War.
2. Al Jazeera. War.
3. AP. Fighting.
4. BBC. Conflict.
5. Bloomberg. Conflict.
6. CNN. Conflict.
7. The Conversation. "engaged in the flames of war" (does not mention war as name; may be rhetorical)
8. Time. Conflict.

Analysis: As of Time stamp, not yet War. Reason may be because in addition to the problem that the War has never really ended, War could obligate triggering the Armenian-Russian defense pact. Apologies for the late arrival of this status check. I have been busy with some very complex geopolitics. Johncdraper (talk) 00:42, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

• Support to Second Nagorno-Karabakh War if we are going to move the article, this is the most adequate title. Super Ψ Dro 13:22, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

@Super Dromaeosaurus: I will certainly consider your opinion. Would you mind doing this evening's Report of Time Checked Analysis of Multiple Perennial Sources yourself? I am officially busy. Johncdraper (talk) 13:30, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Johncdraper, what? Just so you know, I didn't respond to your message. I have only stated my preference. Super Ψ Dro 18:21, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

• Support to Second Nagorno-Karabakh War (but mainly replacing conflict with war), as this is already probably the most intense conventional war of the last decade. The amount of units eliminated by drone strikes, artillery and ambushes really speaks for itself.--Ermanarich (talk) 18:04, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Not even close. The military action against ISIS alone makes the current conflict in N-K look like a park picnic in comparison, sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.169.21.247 (talk) 07:54, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

• Procedural question - shouldn't this be an WP:RM, tagged with {{rm}}? Lev!vich 20:49, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it could be. But, it would still have to overcome the 'Report of Time Checked Analysis of Multiple Perennial Sources'. Johncdraper (talk) 09:30, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

• Support to Second Nagorno-Karabakh War. Clearly a coordinated invasion that has almost certainly left +1000 people dead (going just off the self-reported Armenian casualties). Please just call it what it is. We have like thousands of articles that are just titled [Year] [Location] clashes/conflict. I get why we want to stick to strict guidelines given that we literally are a website that anyone can edit, but I feel like we are just obsessing over checking and rechecking all the technicalities to a point where it isn't helpful. ᗞᗴᖇᑭᗅᒪᗴᖇᎢ (talk) 22:41, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support Many press are reporting it as war. In conflict people would not be fighting for weeks and so many die. It's more than a conflict.Expertwikiguy (talk) 02:36, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
• ~~Oppose per Johncdraper and WP:COMMONNAME.Ahmetlii (talk) 11:15, 18 October 2020 (UTC)~~
• Support The article on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict even refers to the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict as a "Full-scale war". Pisiu369 (talk) 16:33, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support I believe the term "war" is more apt in this scenario than "conflict." R. J. Dockery (talk) 20:03, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support This conflict has been going for some time already with many casualties, use of advanced weapons, many displaced persons, international actors, high coverage in the Media. I believe that the term "war" is better for this. Elserbio00 (talk) 23:42, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support to Second Nagorno-Karabakh War I think ‘Second Nagorno-Karabakh War’ is the most fitting name. Flalf^Talk 00:35, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
• Launching Time-Stamped Name Check Analysis of Multiple Perennial Sources. Please hold. Johncdraper (talk) 07:29, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
• Report of Time-Stamped (10:00GMT) Semi-Automated Analysis of Multiple Perennial Sources Follows.

1. AFP. War.
2. Al Jazeera. Battle/Conflict.
3. AP. Conflict.
4. BBC. Conflict.
5. Bloomberg. Fighting.
6. CNN. Conflict.
7. The Conversation. "engaged in the flames of war" (does not mention war as name; may be rhetorical)
8. Time. Conflict.

Analysis: No change, as per above, and see below. Add: I am now officially busy. Johncdraper (talk) 09:05, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

(Sigh) Frankly, it's absurd to argue that this is not a war. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 09:53, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Johncdraper, BBC appears to be using "war" and "conflict" interchangeably, see [8], [9].

One thing that I think should be considered as well is that if RS's descriptions start including "war", our naming should be "2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war", not "2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War", as the title is not yet a proper noun but rather a description. At this time, arguments for "Second Nagorno-Karabakh War", (as well as some of the arguments for the 2020 variation) are totally at odds with our policy against original research. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:41, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

As indicated above, reliable sources are calling this a "war", most without using any sort of specific name for it. Right now, war is being used interchangeably with "conflict". Since there is clearly overwhelming support to change the title to war as indicated above. I ask you as an administrator User:Rosguill to make the move, since the page is now extended-protected and I can not do so.XavierGreen (talk) 15:48, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@XavierGreen: That is a factually incorrect statement. As of the Timestamp, one is. Johncdraper (talk) 15:58, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I have posted several sources above, and even more below.XavierGreen (talk) 16:06, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

XavierGreen, I'm not going to do that. Right now, while I think that a case can be made for "2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war" as described in my comment above, the vast majority of arguments here are original research, such that I think it would be a grave error to close in favor of them. As I am currently the only editor to be taking this specific position (although it is largely reconcilable with the blanket oppose !votes), I'm going to have to consider myself involved here and ask that this be closed by a third party. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:29, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Rosguill: i would not be opposed to having the w in "war" lower-case if thats what the manual of style dictates. The issue as to whether or not the w should be capitalized or lower case has not really been addressed here. I will ping additional administrators (from Wiki:MilHistory since this is in their scope) and ask that they make the move based on the clear consensus established here. Peacemaker67 Parsecboy Eddie891XavierGreen (talk) 17:25, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Note that RM discussions are generally left open for at least a week unless there is unanimous consensus; this discussion has only been open for 5 days. I think you're rushing this close more than is appropriate. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:20, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill, it has now been more than a week with support strengthening even further for the proposed move, with one of the handful of opponents changing his mind to support, as the Wiki:MilitaryHistory coordinators failed to respond to my request. I have opened a request to effectuate the move on the Admin noticeboard here [10].XavierGreen (talk) 13:54, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

@Rosguill: The BBC stabilized their coverage under the heading "Nagorno-Karabakh conflict". I think someone mentioned the implications of the alternative to them. Johncdraper (talk) 15:50, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

The BBC called this a war in a piece they did 2 days ago, see here [11]. There are also a myriad of other reliable sources using "war". The New York Times [12], Radio Free Europe [13],Politico [14], Newsweek [15], XavierGreen (talk) 15:55, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@XavierGreen: Newsweek is no longer a PRS and is discounted. The BBC was an op-ed based piece; the BBC present category heading is very specific. The New York Times piece is an op ed, by Anton Troianovski. Per WP:Reliable sources/Perennial sources: " WP:RSOPINION should be used to evaluate opinion columns". More importantly, the op ed is filed under the NY Times category "The Conflict Over Nagorno-Karabakh". For Politico, "Politico is considered generally reliable for American politics. A small number of editors say that Politico is a biased source." For Politico, I quote:

POMPEO TO HOST ARMENIAN, AZERBAIJANI FOREIGN MINISTERS AMID DEADLY CLASHES. The visits offer the Trump administration a chance to showcase an attempt at global leadership just days before President Donald Trump faces reelection. What’s happening: The foreign ministers of Azerbaijan and Armenia, two countries at war with each other, are scheduled to separately meet with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in Washington on Friday.

What I find curious is that war does not appear to be in the title. Now, weigh all that up against the Report of Time-Stamped (10:00GMT) Semi-Automated Analysis of Multiple Perennial Sources Follows. Analysis: still no consensus as per WP:PRS. Add: From a purely semantic perspective, note that "at war" lacks a definitive article. Perhaps we could provide the latter ourselves, on a collegiate basis... Johncdraper (talk) 21:41, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

• Support Conflict started in 1988, but this now is full-scale war, like it was in 1991-1993.--HCPUNXKID 16:14, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support for 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War and Oppose for Second Nagorno-Karabakh War as the 1994 Nagorno-Karabakh War finished with the Armenian victory but with ceasefire. Also, the second war was the April War, not this. Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 16:15, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Just to comment: I know this is kinda irrelevant, but aren't the Crusades listed without including the minor ones? Like between the First and Second Crusade, we had the Crusade of 1101, the Norwegian Crusade, the Venetian Crusade, and the Crusade of 1129. I know the format is different for a modern war, but still.ᗞᗴᖇᑭᗅᒪᗴᖇᎢ (talk) 23:19, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
    • Comment no way lmao. Only Yerevan calls that a war and they have their governmental reasons for it. That ain't a war though. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 12:59, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support Agreed, this has been formally classified as a war and is the most intense conflict since the original 1988 war.Greglawl (talk) 20:33, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Comment: I would like to point out that "war" and "conflict" are not mutually exclusive. The media uses them interchangibly about almost every war, even though a "conflict" can be completely bloodless. The real issue isn't which term is most commonly used in the media, but the fact that this is objectively a war. It's been less than a month, the number of deaths have already eclipsed those of the Falklands War, and Azerbaijan has taken over a large chunk of Nagorno-Karabakh. It is absurd to insist that this is not a war. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 07:33, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Hundreds of people are dying, and we're wasting time debating whether or not this is a war. Jesus Christ. This is Wikipedia at its worst. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 12:38, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

This. Completely support and not sure why it is even an argument any more.Muchclag (talk) 19:34, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

• Support as I believe there is ample sources to show that this should be renamed from "conflict" to a "war". Technically, war is defined as "a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations." (see https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/war) As reputable news organizations have labeled this action as a "war" and it fits the definition of a war, I support changing the the title to "2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War". Jurisdicta (talk) 00:38, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. As Rosguill said above, suggestions such as 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War and Second Nagorno-Karabakh War are not acceptable because they are not being used by any reliable sources. Article titles on Wikipedia should not be coining proper nouns. As for 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war, based on Johncdraper's analysis above I don't think enough sources are using "war" right now, so we should default to the more neutral "conflict". — Goszei (talk) 05:32, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

@Goszei: Azerbaijan's president referred to the war as the Second Nagorno-Karabakh war.Flalf^Talk 12:38, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

@Flalf: A proclamation from Azerbaijan's president has no relation to the WP:COMMONNAME. — Goszei (talk) 20:07, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

@Goszei: This has been discussed before (see "2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War" or "Second Nagorno-Karabakh War" below.) As of right now there isn't a major consensus on name so if a policy is getting in the way of a more suitable name, then this is an example of WP:IGNORE. 'Second Nagorno-Karabakh War' is a name that is not only more relevant than the current name, but it has also been used by a major participant in the war, it is more than fitting to become the new name of the article. Flalf^Talk 21:10, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

@Flalf: COMMONNAME should not be brushed aside so easily here, because it helps avoid violations of WP:OR, a core content policy. This particular case illustrates it well -- the proposal of "Second Nagorno-Karabakh War" is based on a single primary source, and "2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War" is evidently a synthesis, both of which are clearly at odds with WP:OR. And for good reason: Wikipedia should not be coining proper nouns. — Goszei (talk) 21:47, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

@Goszei: In general yes COMMONNAME helps with WP:OR, but your use of this in this context just isn't correct. It's quite simple: if it has been established by sources that others use the term, then it is not OR and since Aliyev referred to it as 'İkinci Qarabağ Müharibəsi' as seen here [16] it doesn't qualify as original research. Not only that but some third party sources such as here [17] have also used it. Flalf^Talk 00:52, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

@Flalf: WP:COMMONNAME does not simply stipulate that "sources use the term", it requires a "prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources". I was more referring to WP:PRIMARY section of WP:OR with regards to "Second..." — naming an article after a translation (!) of a foreign-language term used by one side (!) of a multi-party war is a shaky rationale, IMO. — Goszei (talk) 01:05, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

@Goszei: I was referring to it not being original research because other sources use the term, not common name. My argument for common name is that there isn't consistent and common term used to describe the war. Also, yes, primary sources are generally shaky, but, in some cases (such as here) a primary source can be used carefully as it is an example of a better and more descriptive term already being used by a party that is directly involved in the war. Flalf^Talk 12:09, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Conflict to War, as even if not officially declared, it is still a war due to its scale. Armatura (talk) 19:00, 25 October 2020 (UTC) 

• Report of Time-Stamped (14:00GMT) Semi-Automated Analysis of Multiple Perennial Sources Follows.

1. AFP. War.
2. Al Jazeera. Battle/Conflict.
3. AP. Conflict.
4. BBC. Conflict.
5. Bloomberg. Fighting.
6. CNN. Conflict.
7. The Conversation. "engaged in the flames of war" (does not mention war as name; may be rhetorical)
8. Time. Frozen war.
9. NY Times. War.

Still no consensus re War: "frozen war"?Johncdraper (talk) 14:10, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

• Support, as "Second Nagorno-Karabakh War". Oranjelo100 (talk) 11:31, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per Johncdraper's summaries of what the RS are currently saying. I agree with Rosguill's view, we should wait for there to be a clear weight of RS using this term. Strong oppose a change to Second Nagorno-Karabakh War or 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War, per Rosguill. If there is a consensus for renaming, it should be to 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war. A quick Google search shows very few uses of the term as a proper noun and none whatsoever in RS. It would therefore be a violation of WP:OR, and possibly also WP:DUE. Jr8825 • Talk 18:17, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

"2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War" or "Second Nagorno-Karabakh War"?

People who support the move seem to be divided between which title to use, so I think it would be better to clarify as soon as possible what the name of the article would be in case it is moved to avoid possible posterior problems. I personally support "Second Nagorno-Karabakh War", I don't see the point in specifying the year, we don't say "1939–1945 World War" or "1998–2003 Congo War" for example. Super Ψ Dro 12:43, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

While there are ample sources to support usage of the term "war", there are at present only a handful of sources which use "Second Nagorno-Karabakh War".XavierGreen (talk) 13:33, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Major sources, like for Al Jazeera, still call this a conflict that can escalate to a war. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 14:05, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

@Solavirum: That article says that it could escalate into an all-out war; it does not say that this is not "yet" a war. And even if every single media outlet on planet Earth refused to call this a war, hundreds of deaths and large-scale destruction would speak otherwise. Frankly, this reminds me of how diplomats avoided using the word "genocide" about the events in Rwanda long past the point where there was no ground for doubt. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 15:25, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Mikrobølgeovn, on what ground you can prove that calling an armed conflict a "war" by its causalities is correct? We have guidelines here, which follows the media's WP:COMMONNAME of the topic. And last time I checked, I wasn't a diplomat that wants to keep good relations with a certain government. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 15:29, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

@Solavirum: Well we aren't calling it 'Azerbaijani Aggression' or 'Operation for peace enforcement of Armenia' I think in the early stages of a conflict like this there isn't a super well defined name. For now I think 'Second Nagorno-Karabakh' war is fitting. Flalf^Talk 15:35, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

@Solavirum: This is not really a matter of "name", as there is no commonly accepted name for this war yet. Rather, the question is which title is the most suitable in the meantime. Since this is no doubt a war, the title should reflect that. (And if WP:COMMONNAME keeps us from calling a war a war, this case seems like a clear candidate for WP:IGNORE.) Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 15:44, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

• A lot of previous conflicts/skirmishes after the major war in the 1990s have been termed as wars by many sources and there were wars in the area even prior to that. Terming this as second is clearly problematic, the year is the default choice unless clearly noted otherwise (not the case here). Gotitbro (talk) 16:02, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Usually, in unconventional circumstances war is only used when deaths exceed 1,000; since Azerbaijan hasn’t released their casualty figures, I believe we should wait for the Armenia/Artsakh death toll to hit that before we rename the conflict. 8889stanzaexcel (talk) 22:59, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

That definition is nonsense. Countless wars had fewer than 1,000 deaths, including the Falklands War. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 00:34, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Per Mikrobølgeovn it's ridiculous that this is even an argument, hundreds of people are dying in an armed conflict between two states, yes this is a war. Flalf^Talk 12:49, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I would also note that the "1000" deaths threshold argument is moot, as looking at reliable sources, more than 1000 deaths have already occured.XavierGreen (talk) 00:26, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I had support the name of the Second Nagorno-Karabakh War as if we called it the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War it just would not work. Plus this is the second major war of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict (Though you can argue that the Four-Day War is the second one but its not a major conflict as it only last for four days.) CrusaderToonamiUK (talk) 17:07, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Note only Yerevan dubs the 2016 clashes as "April War" or "Four-Day War", Azerbaijanis call it clashes. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 18:05, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Your wrong there, various sources in a variety of countries use the term "Four Day War", including Azeri ones. See here [18]XavierGreen (talk) 22:22, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

• Support: per nom. Beshogur (talk) 22:32, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support the renaming to Second Nagorno-Karabakh War--RicardoNixon97 (talk) 14:07, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
• Conditional support, the word "war" should start with a lowercase letter, as currently it's not a proper name (in the same way as Hundred Years' War, Punic Wars, etc), but a descriptive title. Brandmeister^talk 14:58, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

If the manual of style says that the "w" in "war" should not be capitalized, i'm fine with that.XavierGreen (talk) 15:20, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Agreed with XavierGreen; this is a temporary title until a proper name emerges. I'm guessing that this war will eventually become known as the "Second Nagorno-Karabakh War", but for now, this is what we've got to go with. There seems to be sufficient support to go ahead and move the article. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 21:53, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

• Support renaming to 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War or a similar alternative. I'm seeing reliable sources describing the events as war in places like the NYTimes, South China Morning Post, and Forbes. Article title should reflect the reality of the situation. Ganesha811 (talk) 00:17, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support Call it an undeclared war like the Falklands conflict, seems apt. DannyDouble (talk) 12:37, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support I think this it'd probably make sense to call it the Second Karabakh War: the 2020 Karabakh War feels a bit too premature, and given how the second Libyan Civil War was called that... it's almost definitely a second Karabakh War. I don't think it can be a mere "conflict" anymore. 2604:3D09:E27E:A800:F5A4:BAA1:E63D:2E8F (talk) 19:06, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support for 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War, rather than "Second Nagorno-Karabakh War", as the 2016 conflict https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Nagorno-Karabakh_conflict was also percieved by some (at least Armenian side) as (second) war. Armatura (talk) 18:55, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support Renaming it to 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War, Nagorno-Karabakh War (2020), or something along those lines. Also perhaps rename the 1992 war to include mention of the year it happened in. Alfred the Lesser (talk) 19:18, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Aliyev just called today this conflict as "İkinci Qarabağ Müharibəsi" - Second Karabakh War. --HCPUNXKID 22:40, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

I think time is ripe to skip any temporary title and name this article "Second Nagorno-Karabakh War". It appears to be the most accepted name. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 01:51, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

• Support Naming it 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War or Second Nagorno-Karabakh War. The war has been very intense, enough people have been slaughtered to call it a war for goodness sake. 2601:85:C101:BA30:41F8:1862:FBC2:3F37 (talk) 03:13, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
• Slight Support Scale is clearly a full war, but while I hope neither Erdogan nor Putin bases their political decisions on titles of Wikipedia articles, a proper war would mean a declaration of war between the two countries. However, based on precedent such as the Russo-Georgian War, or the War in Donbass, it should be fine. I feel like "conflict" still is in the majority of international sources (BBC, AP, Reuters at a glance), but as the countries involved call it a war I'm willing to call it a war a little earlier than usual. Juxlos (talk) 09:06, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support This has gone far beyond a mere 'conflict' now. TheEpicGhosty (talk) 11:34, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

• Support Second Nagorno-Karabakh War ----Երևանցի ^talk 13:53, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
• Report of Time-Stamped (14:00GMT) Semi-Automated Analysis of Multiple Perennial Sources Follows.

1. AFP. War.
2. Al Jazeera. Battle/Conflict.
3. AP. Conflict.
4. BBC. Conflict.
5. Bloomberg. Fighting.
6. CNN. Conflict.
7. The Conversation. "engaged in the flames of war" (does not mention war as name; may be rhetorical)
8. Time. Frozen war.
9. NY Times. War.

Still no consensus re War: "frozen war"?Johncdraper (talk) 14:10, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

There are additional sources referring to it as a war such as The Hill here [19], additionally various sources such as the BBC and Al Jazeera have referred to it as a war in previous articles as indicated above.XavierGreen (talk) 15:30, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

• Support & Comment Seems like a big majority is in support to change the title to war. I think it's too early to assign an official name to the war so we should leave the name 'second' out right now. Lets name it 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war. We can discuss on wether we should replace 2020 with second after moving it. TheGroninger (talk) 15:24, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support, per above. Balkanite (talk) 16:03, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

We've seem to have come to a consensus about renaming this article but we haven't really decided what to, per Super Dromaeosaurus, we should probably choose between the two options sooner rather than later because otherwise we are stuck with a name the majority of users are unhappy with. Flalf^Talk 21:23, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I think it's more likely that "2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War" will be the name, later we can discuss whether to use "Second Nagorno-Karabakh" or not, but for now the priority is to say it's a war. Super Ψ Dro 10:26, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

• Support, per above. VZkN9 (talk) 21:46, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support rename to Second Nagorno-Karabakh War.--RM (Be my friend) 23:08, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support, per above. --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 09:13, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support, rename to Second Nagorno-Karabakh War Elserbio00 (talk) 09:57, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support, per above, or alternatively 2020 Armenia Azerbaijan War / 2020 Armeno Azerbaijani War. However it's phrased, war.TheMightyGeneral (talk) 10:04, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support, as "Second Nagorno-Karabakh War". Oranjelo100 (talk) 11:25, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support, but I think "war" shouldn't be capitalized. It is a description, not a proper name. Blah 18:21, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I'd prefer "2020", but if "second" is used, the word should be left uncapitalized. There is no proper mame for the war, and we should not be creating one. Blah 18:07, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

• Support, it's a good time to change the article's name now. It's clear that this is a war. --Governor Sheng (talk) 15:29, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support, its now being regularly described as a war. Even if the fighting were to stop today, the activities of the last month were most definitely a war, not a generic conflict. I think we should use "Second Nagorno-Karabakh", rather than try to date the article with "2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War". Albertaont (talk) 17:26, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support Agree, time to SNOW-rename it i think CoronaOneLove (talk) 19:30, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
• Comment What's going on here? Why hasn't the page been moved after two full weeks of consensus?ᗞᗴᖇᑭᗅᒪᗴᖇᎢ (talk) 20:00, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

I think it is clear that this page must be moved as soon as possible, but it remains unclear to what exactly. I'm going to ping anyone who has expressed support for move in this subsection but without specifying what name they support. Hopefully this will help fix the issue sooner. Beshogur, Brandmeister, DannyDouble, 2601:85:C101:BA30:41F8:1862:FBC2:3F37 (not sure if this works for IPs), Juxlos, TheEpicGhosty, Balkanite, VZkN9, Whydoesitfeelsogood, TheMightyGeneral, Blah, Governor Sheng, CoronaOneLove and DERPALERT; which name do you support, "2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War" or "Second Nagorno-Karabakh War"?

I am also aware that these types of discussions are not a vote, but to leave a better perspective, I clarify that 8 people (including myself) have expressed support for "Second Nagorno-Karabakh War" and 4 people have expressed support for "2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War". It must be noted that I've only counted people on this subsection. Super Ψ Dro 20:28, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Super Dromaeosaurus so far i've only seen a very small number of sources use the term "Second Nagorno-Karabakh War", what supporting sources do you have using that name? Also, If you look at this monagve discussion as a whole, 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War" (with or without the w capitalized), has far more support than Second Nagorno-Karabakh War and also conforms with wikipedia naming conventions for unnamed wars. I would also note that only a small minority of editors oppose changing the title to include the term "war" or prefer the current "2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict" title.XavierGreen (talk) 00:32, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I am aware of those who continue to oppose it, but I believe that the consensus achieved by most users is that the article should be moved. And I don't see how "2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War" is more supported. Super Ψ Dro 10:37, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

• Second Nagorno-Karabakh War, as I have previously stated in this discussion.ᗞᗴᖇᑭᗅᒪᗴᖇᎢ (talk) 21:47, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

• Second Nagorno-Karabakh War. --Governor Sheng (talk) 20:39, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
• Second Nagorno-Karabakh War. TheEpicGhosty (talk) 20:43, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
• 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war unless reliable sources refer to it as "Second Nagorno-Karabakh War". VZkN9 (talk) 20:46, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war, with lowercase "w" per my vote above and related agreement from XavierGreen and Mikrobølgeovn. Until clear WP:COMMONNAME emerges, I think this is the safest option so far. Brandmeister^talk 20:53, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
• Second Nagorno-Karabakh War. TheMightyGeneral (talk) 21:38, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
• Second Nagorno-Karabakh War DannyDouble (talk) 22:30, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support Overall after reading everything and considering it, I have no clue how you can not support the change, it is a war. Please also keep in mind Wikipedia is a place of debate and understanding, if you don't disscuss and simply think this is a place to vote and not to discuss you're not understanding Wikipedia and how to do things. If you are unwilling to change your position and think this a place to post things you support you're not on Wikipedia for the right reasons. 00:44, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support for "war", weak oppose for "War". Ronan.Iroha (talk) 09:38, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

The vast majority of users support "Second Nagorno-Karabakh War", but honestly, the arguments against this name are more valid and make more sense. I'm going to request the move of this article shortly to "2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war" at WP:RMT, this is the name that implies a less "radical" change and once Wikipedia begins to call this a war, the term will begin to be more used everywhere, which can give more support in the future for possible new moves to "2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War" or "Second Nagorno-Karabakh War". I believe there are not many people who will disagree with this, but still, just in case, I will wait a few hours in case someone wants to say something else. Super Ψ Dro 10:37, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Hours have passed and no one has shown any opposition, so I have requested a move as "2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war" and a closure of the move request here for the change to be applied. Super Ψ Dro 14:58, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

• Second Nagorno-Karabakh War. even List of ongoing armed conflicts refers it as a "War". Considering the casualties (which is higher than 5,000 people) and the progress made by Azerbaijani Armed Forces (about 5 kilometers left to Shusha, the second largest city of Karabakh), the situation is better being called as "War". Tulparus (talk) 18:24, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
• Second Nagorno-Karabakh War per reasons given by other users and WP:COMMONNAME (lots of the sources has been mentioned as "war") .Ahmetlii (talk) 08:37, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

• Support for "2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war" Article should use academic convention rather than news source naming convention, after all news will follow acedemic nomenclature. it is higly lightly be called a war in future academic publication. Naming wise, we should do Wikipedia:Search engine test like Talk:Russo-Ukrainian_War#Common_name. google trends test shows. GB GEO Google trends US GEO Google trends . At a later date, naming it as "Second" or dating can be change when there is an academic consensus. Milkboy007 (talk)

Support for Second Nagorno-Karabakh War per Super Dromaeosaurus. Mgasparin (talk) 21:19, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Military Equipment - "Ballistic Missile"

There is a statement that Armenia used a ballistic missile. There reference is an article written by a person with Azerbaijani name. The article says "Azerbaijan on Saturday accused Armenia of striking its second-largest city with a ballistic missile that killed at least 13 civilians and wounded 50 others." Then it says that the Armenian side denied this. Even if we put aside the civilian deaths, where is the third party confirmation that a ballistic missile was used? 2003:CB:B710:2000:9189:7601:1FD9:8777 (talk) 11:08, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

The ballistic missile attacks on Ganja have been confirmed, with Artsakh even taking responsibility for the first strike. Third party sources such as the BBC have articles on this. Flalf^Talk 12:57, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

@Flalf in the link you posted I could not find the term "ballistic". This information is not true.

2003:CB:B710:2000:2581:380E:39D:9F79 (talk) 13:34, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Most of the sources aren't specific, but it was a scud missile. There is enough pictures and non azerbaijani sources for it to be believable. I'd recommend you check out 2020 Ganja ballistic missile attacks and the sources there as well. [20] [21] [22] [23] Flalf^Talk 13:50, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

@Flalf I checked all the links you listed. Aljazeera wrote: Azerbaijani authorities say Armenia fired a ballistic missile at Ganja city, a claim Yerevan denies.

The other sources only mention the announcement by the Assistant of the President of the Republic of Azerbaijan. That is not a third party source. 2003:CB:B710:2000:2581:380E:39D:9F79 (talk) 14:23, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

There is more than enough photo evidence as well as the fact that Artsakh claimed responsibility. Flalf^Talk 15:30, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

@Flalf please do not misinterpret the facts. Artsakh has stated that in Ganja there are military objects which we will target. But Artsakh has not stated that it will use a ballistic missile. My point is about the ballistic missile for which you have no evidence.

134.155.146.59 (talk) 17:07, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Third-party sources have confirmed it was a ballistic missile attack. And all of the missiles have struck everything but the airport. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 18:06, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

You can't just say "third party sources have confirmed" and expect us to take your word for it. Present those sources. So far, every presented source has been Azerbaijan making a claim and Armenia denying it, and not a single third party. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 18:21, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

@OuroborosCobra: The fact is that Armenian side does not specify everything about the war like other side/sides; (for example, what is the lost settlements), so we must trust to third party sources like BBC (which has been considered as reliable source and has documented as well), Reuters, Al Jazeera, and others.Ahmetlii (talk) 19:59, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, but none of those third party sources are third parties in terms of verification of the weapon type used. BBC is reporting that Azerbaijan claims ballistic missiles were used, and reporting that Armenia denies it. Reuters is reporting that Azerbaijan claims ballistic missiles were used, and reporting that Armenia denies it. Al Jazeera id reporting that Azerbaijan claims ballistic missiles were used, and reporting that Armenia denies it. None of these are third party verification of whether a ballistic missile was used. They are just news sources reporting the claims of the involved parties. Do you understand the difference? A third party verification would be something like an OSCE investigation into the matter and determining that ballistic missiles were used. Third party doesn't mean multiple news organizations reporting what each involved side is claiming. Third party is a body separate from the two warring parties conducting an investigation and determining what weapon was used. Until that happens, it's "he said/she said." This is the same standard already applied in other conflicts. In Syria, for example, allegations of government use of chemical weapons by opposition forces aren't taken simply at face value. Rather, third party investigations are conducted by groups such as the OPCW. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 22:03, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Here is a good example of a third party (UK's Telegraph) reporting evidence on cluster munition use by Azerbaijan against Armenia. The headline reads: The Daily Telegraph saw evidence of the banned munitions' use in the capital of Nagorno Karabakh Therefore, I support the above motion to remove the reference to ballistic missiles used by Armenia, unless an independent third party source (similar to the Telegraph piece witnessing evidence firsthand) could be produced by those opposing the request--Sataralynd (talk) 23:00, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Despite the fact that no third party source was mentioned, in the right column of the main page under "Strength" the ballistic missile is still listed. Editors please remove it. 193.196.11.188 (talk) 04:56, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

While I'm not comfortable stating it as fact without independent, third party verification, I'm also not comfortable with just removing it. Simply removing it would be taking the side of the Armenian denial just as much as including it takes the side of the Azerbaijan claim. Instead, I've edited the infobox to state that the ballistic missile use is alleged by Azerbaijan, and leaving it to the reader to decide who to believe. I think that's the most balanced, neutral way we can present it right now. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 14:42, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

@Solavirum: I am trying to not break 3RR here, but your reverts of my edits are in complete opposite to what has been discussed here on this talk page. The most recent you have presented isn't even an attempt at being a third party verification. It's literally a statement from the Azerbaijan Ministry of Defense. That makes it an Azerbaijan allegation, which Armenia has denied. Please justify not stating as such that the ballistic missile use is currently alleged by Azerbaijan, and not confirmed by any third party, or please present third party verification. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 15:26, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

That's visual confirmation we've got there. Which Armenia confirmed. So, if footage ain't enough for ya, nothing is. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 15:31, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Your second source absolutely does not say that Armenia confirmed they had used ballistic missiles. In fact, the only statement I see in that AP article from Armenia is a report of attacks by Azerbaijan, and that "Nagorno-Karabakh’s forces 'resolutely suppress all enemy operations.'" There is nothing in that article about the use of ballistic missiles, or confirmation of such use. Your "visual evidence" from Azerbaijan is some fuzzy photos that I sure can't tell if they are ballistic missiles, and they aren't ballistic missile impacts on cities. They are not shown in the photos even being fired. They also are not from a verifiable third party source. Do you understand that we can't just take the word of one side over the other without some sort of verification? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 16:11, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

There are pictures, videos, and plenty of other sources that have shown evidence that Armenia is in possession of ballistic missiles, and honestly I would be more surprised if they didn't have any ballistic missiles. We've thrown plenty of sources at you, here's another from an independent third party UK based NGO. [24] Flalf^Talk 16:16, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

My understanding is that the infobox isn't simply a list of all of the military equipment each side owns, but what it has actually used. Thus far, no one has presented anything other than Azerbaijan claims that ballistic missiles have been used by Armenia. Actually, correction, @Flalf:, you have actually presented a third party verification source on this. In your source, Amnesty International's Crisis Response team investigators say they have examined evidence that does show (or at least strongly indicate, which I think is good enough for these purposes) that Armenia used ballistic missiles. Your source is the first one that has been presented that is a third party, and not just Azerbaijan claiming one thing, and Armenia claiming another. That is all we were talking about getting this entire time, a third party verification, and you've provided it. With that, I have no problem with the infobox stating Armenia used/has been using ballistic missiles. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 20:47, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

REPOST: Example of a third party evidence Here is a good example of a third party (UK's Telegraph) reporting evidence on cluster munition use by Azerbaijan against Armenia. The headline reads: The Daily Telegraph saw evidence of the banned munitions' use in the capital of Nagorno Karabakh Therefore, I support the above motion to remove the reference to ballistic missiles used by Armenia, unless an independent third party source (similar to the Telegraph piece witnessing evidence firsthand) could be produced by those opposing the request

Both sources cited by @Solavirum: and @Flalf: don't qualify as evidence by a third party that Armenia is using ballistic missiles. They talk about ballistic missiles in generic terms and based on reports that could be by either party. Please provide a third party source not affiliated with the Azeri government who confirmed the use of ballistic missiles. To my knowledge BBC and France24 were in Ganja, you may be able to find on their websites if such confirmation exists--Sataralynd (talk) 00:58, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

People, please: the term "Ballistic" for missiles refers to a high altitude missile that gains supersonic speed on its return journey towards the target. They are outdated, and were largely used to deliver nuclear weapons from the 50s to the 90s. Just call the missile by its name, and drop this "ballistic" nonsense. Ballistic missile.

Summary:I went through the thread again to be sure, and there hasn't been a single source provided by a third party who confirmed the use of ballistic missiles by the Armenian side, they just report what Azerbaijan claims. Moreover, the comment just above throws into doubt the practicability of its usage regardless of which side claims it was used against it. Therefore, @OuroborosCobra: could I ask you to remove all references to ballistic missiles?
If anyone disagrees, please write here first providing third party sources confirming the use of the weapon. Don't unilaterally revert the changes--Sataralynd (talk) 03:39, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

@Johncdraper: or @EkoGraf: or @XavierGreen: could you please support? The article is full of references to ballistic missiles used by Armenian side, where all the referenced sources talk about "claims" by the Azerbaijan side that were denied. Further, I started this talk to get third party evidence for their use, and none has been provided. The Article even mentions in the Equipment Losses section that Azerbaijan has destroyed Armenia's R-17 Elbrus systems that were bombing, referencing an Azerbaijan MoD source. The Article is heavily one sided. Could you help please keep the WP:NPOV here? Thank you.--Sataralynd (talk) 04:29, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

If its only claimed by Azerbaijan, its just that, a claim by Azerbaijan. It can be mentioned in the article, but needs to be properly and clearly attributed to its source and not presented as fact. Armenian denial, if there is one, should also be added. However, if 3rd party neutral sources confirm it than it can be presented factually I say. EkoGraf (talk) 09:30, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Can the disagreers point out what is wrong with the every link Flaf and Solavirum have provided proving the use of ballistic missiles? I'm having hard time understanding the problem. — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 09:49, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Forbes, a plainly non-Armenian and non-Azeri source, states that Armenian troops have in fact used ballistic missiles, but that the issue is whether or not they were launched from Armenian territory. See here [25].XavierGreen (talk) 13:21, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

POV violation. There is not a single third-party source confirming the use of ballistic missiles. Please, don't make these accusations Wikipedia's voice. Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 20:17, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

---

Inserting arbitrary break here. I think we need to define what we mean by "third party verification" or "non-Armenian and non-Azeri" sources. Additionally, just a reminder to people that when referencing older comments, such as someone saying "no third party sources have been provided," you can't point to a source provided after that comment was made to discredit that comment. That comment was valid when it was made; additional sources can be provided later, but that doesn't mean that older comment was dismissing sources they couldn't know about because they had not been provided. With that, let's get into this.

Being a third party or "non-Armenian and non-Azeri" source doesn't simply mean that it is a website or news source that is based somewhere other than Armenia or Azerbaijan. Yes, BBC is based in London and not Baku, and Forbes is based in Jersey City and not Yerevan, but that on its own does not make them third party sources that confirm or disprove claims by Armenia and Azerbaijan. If all that the BBC is reporting is "Azerbaijan claims X, Armenia claims Y," then the BBC source can only be used to report the claims of one side or the other. It cannot be used to say, definitively, that one side claim is correct just because the claim is being reported by an author in London and not in the Caucasus. That's how we properly use reliable sources, we can use them as sources for what they say, and not what they don't say. If BBC is only reporting that one side has a claim, and another side denies, that's all we can say from the BBC source. Additionally, we cannot use a source that doesn't even mention ballistic missiles at all as evidence of anything about ballistic missiles.

We can also have sources where a news agency explicitly says "X side has used ballistic missiles." That is the source saying that, yes. I hazard against fully calling it third party verification if they don't present the evidence or who made that determination (are they just reporting one side claim and not stating as such? was there an investigation by an independent body?), but I can at least understand treating this as more than just "X side claimed one thing, Y side denied it." Here, I guess we need to go with how trustworthy the source is, and there are pages on Wikipedia discussing this.

Then there are sources that present not just claims and not just statements, but either evidence or stating that it is from an investigation done by something like Amnesty International, OSCE, OPCW, etc. Ideally, this is what we should look for in sourcing these claims, but this can be hard to get while the conflict is ongoing and the attacks so recent. There may not be time yet to conduct that investigation, or it may not be safe for investigators to be on the ground in the region.

Lastly, the worst source is going as a primary source from one side or the other. Photographs and statements from the Azerbaijani Ministry of Defense or the Armenian Ministry of Defense fall in this category. These are not the least bit independent sources and both sides have a strong motivation for painting their opponent in a negative light. There is a saying that "the first casualty of war is the truth." It is not acceptable to treat statements from either belligerent as simple fact. There are editors on this article who have strong pro-Azerbaijani bias and have tried to present their MoD statements as fact, and there are editors with similarly strong Armenian bias. These types of sources can only be used to present what one side or the other is claiming. That is still true even if they present photographs, since most of us here aren't in a position to interpret the veracity of these photographs. If one side presents photos of supposed missile launchers that, to the untrained eye, just look like trucks, we have to be careful. Even if they are clearly mobile TELs for missiles, we have to be careful on whether they actually are what is claimed (are they really Armenian mobile TELs, or are they photos of someone else's? are they really photos of anything in Armenia at all, or somewhere else?) Again, the first casualty of war is the truth. We can treat these types of sources as claims by one side only until there is third party verification, and that verification is NOT just a BBC article reporting on one of the two MoDs releasing photographs (unless the BBC has presented some sort of expert analysis supporting the claim).

I don't know how many people here are old enough to remember the run up to the Iraq War and the 2003 invasion, but one of the big things that happened was US presenting "evidence" to the UN of chemical weapons or chemical weapons manufacturing capability that supposedly existed in Iraq. Secretary of State Colin Powell even presented photographs of supposed chemical weapons facilities and evidence of mobile chemical weapons labs that were in trucks. Many at the time believed it, but these turned out to be false. At best, they turned out to be claims from barely a handful of intelligence "sources" highly biased against the then Iraqi government, and at worst they were flat out lies. When these trucks were found, for example, they turned out to be perfectly legal hydrogen generation facilities for weather balloons, and not chemical weapons labs. The US never had real third party verification; in fact, third parties (such as UN weapons inspectors) in the run up to that war flat out said the US evidence was false.

Let's breakdown the provided sources:

• @Flalf: provided a BBC source that never mentions ballistic missiles, so is not evidence of ballistic missiles (again, it doesn't matter that the BBC is in London if it doesn't even mention ballistic missiles)
• @Flalf: provided sources from Al Jazeera stating that Azerbaijan claimed Armenia used ballistic missiles, and Armenia denied it. It doesn't matter that Al Jazeera is based in Qatar, it can only be used as a source that one side claims one thing, and the other denies it.
• @Flalf: provided an RIA source reporting on the claim by Azerbaijan. All it can be used is to report the claim by the president of Azerbaijan.
• @Flalf: provided an Anadolu source reporting on the claim by the Azerbaijan General Prosecutor of ballistic missile use, and the Armenian denial (this source is also questionable as it uses words like "vile" to describe Armenia; it is definitely one sided, and is from a Turkish state run news agency, and Turkey is very much on the Azeri side in this conflict)
• @Flalf: again provides a TRT World which presents the claims of the Azerbaijan government, and again is questionable in how it presents both sides, and again is a Turkish state run news source
• @Sataralynd: presents a source from the Telegraph. It is behind a paywall and I cannot read it, but Sataralynd describes it as not being about ballistic missile use, so cannot be used as a source for that. If Sataralynd is describing it correctly (I can only take their word on that since it is behind a paywall), it is an actual third party source in that it claims that its reporters are on the ground in the conflict and have personally seen evidence of Azerbaijani use of cluster munitions, but, again, that's not relevant to the claim on ballistic missiles. (I also note that Sataralynd suggested the term "ballistic missile" is an outdated term for nuclear weapon delivering weapons from the 1950s to 90s, but this is plainly false as at least as far back as V-2 rockets in the 40s, SCUDs at various times up to the present, and many other instances of conventional use of ballistic missiles exist)
• @Solavirum: at various points just states "third party sources say X," often without providing any sources at all (we can't just take your word for it, that's not how this works) and eventually presents the Azerbaijan Ministry of Defense as a source. That in no way meets the definition of third party. It's essentially a primary source, and can only be used to state what the MoD is claiming. I've previously discussed the issue with using the photo evidence that they or their Armenian counterparts provide. (I also note that Solavirum has done some personal attacks in edit summaries and comments, including accusing me of "disruptive editing" when I made only a single edit to this article, and it was after talk page discussion in this very section for at least a day)
• @Solavirum: presented an AP source they claimed to have photographic evidence in support of the ballistic missile claim, but it isn't. It's photos of damage from the way, certainly, but in no way says how that damage occurred, and the text of the article never says anything about ballistic missiles (it does say that the Azerbaijani side claims Armenian missiles, but it does not present third party verification of what type of weapon was used, or even claim the missiles were ballistic, so it is just a claim by one side saying "missiles"). The photos are tragic, but they don't tell us whether ballistic missiles or artillery or or air-to-ground missiles or any number of other weapons were used.
• @Flalf: presented an Amnesty International source claiming their investigators had found evidence ballistic missile use (as well as indiscriminate use of artillery against civilians). This is third party verification. I may have jumped the gun in immediately accepting this, as technically it doesn't say which side used what weapon. Perhaps that is splitting hairs; as far as I have found, only Armenia even has ballistic missiles and Azerbaijan does not, but that would violate WP:SYNTH to use as fact and claim this prove Armenia used ballistic missiles. Still, at the point that @Flalf: presented this source, it was the first source that wasn't just one side claiming one thing, and the other side denying it, the first third party source.
• @XavierGreen: today presented a Forbes article that is incredibly specific overall in its sourcing, its evidence for what weapons have been used, who has attacked what, who has broken cease fires, etc. This source does seem very definitive. It states that Armenian Scud and Tochka ballistic missiles have been fired at Azerbaijani cities. I do wish it was a little more specific on the Armenian ballistic missile info (which is somewhat less specific than much of the other information in the article), but given how strong the evidence overall in the article is, I'm willing to accept it. Among its sources is an article from The Drive, which also presents evidence that Azerbaijan has used Israeli made LORA ballistic missiles to attack at least a bridge, so it would seem that both sides have now used ballistic missiles.

That is all of the sources that have been presented during this discussion. Of the 10 or so presented sources, almost all of them can only be used as in this article to say "one side claims X, the other denies it," and some don't even meet the standard for that. Some don't even present anything about ballistic missiles at all, and several are from belligerent or belligerent adjacent state run sources. One source present third party verification of ballistic missile use, but not who used it or what the targets were. One final source seems to actually meet the standard of saying anything factually, and it was only presented today. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 20:20, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I apologize for how long that was, but @CuriousGolden:, you asked "disagreers" to point out what was wrong with every single link, so there you go. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 20:40, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

@OuroborosCobra: Thanks for the rigorous analysis. The source from Telegraph as you say was not used to support the ballistic missile use claim. It was used as an example of a third party source verifying evidence. I understand it may not be accessible to all. A day after my post, Human Rights Watch issued the following report on the same topic, which to me is unambiguous. Further I didn't make a comment about ballistic missiles being outdated. It was done by another user who didn't sign their edit (see here). I agree about the falsity of that claim.

Regarding the Amnesty International piece, I think the fact that it is making a general claim about evidence of ballistic use, doesn't warrant to assume it means both sides have used it, or worse synthesize that because there is evidence of possession on one side over the other, then they used it. Similarly, I would press the point that the Forbes piece and The Drive piece it mentions albeit well researched in general, cannot be used as presenting third party evidence of Armenian side's use of ballistic missiles against Azerbaijan, especially compared to the rigour of the HRW piece on cluster bombs. There seem to be evidence of ballistic missile possession (Iskander-E, Tochka-U, and Scud) by Armenians, but no evidence of use. Thank you again for the hard work--Sataralynd (talk) 21:47, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

OuroborosCobra, I had provided a DW source and an Azerbaijani MoD source with visual confirmation of R-17 Elbrus. Throughout the article, including the map, we've used visual confirmation. I don't know what's wrong with such thing. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 12:47, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

@Solavirum: Did I mention to you that you need to provide sources? Ok so here is the only DW source on this page and it doesn't mention the word ballistic. Just in case this is a mistake, I searched dw.com for articles on the topic that includes ballistic and the only one that came up is this, talking about a claim (no evidence). The MoD source needs to be bolstered by a third party evidence and cannot stand on its own--Sataralynd (talk) 04:15, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Aznif Bagdasaryan

Beshogur, and Գարիկ Ավագյան, try neutral wording on the 'captured' Armenian civilian. Ain't it absurd for a civilian to be 'captured'? There is two sides to the story and 'captured', 'imprisoned', 'rescued' or 'freed' in this case ain't neutral thing to write down. Also, that goes to the casualities3= parameter.

References

Genocide Watch

I added the following today.

Humanitarian organizations On 23rd October 2020, "Genocide Watch" international humanitarian organisation published "Genocide Emergency: Azerbaijan in Artsakh" report, stating that it considers Azerbaijan to be at Stage 9 (extermination) and Stage 10 (denial) of genocide. https://www.genocidewatch.com/single-post/genocide-emergency-azerbaijan-s-attack-in-artsakh My addition has been reverted twice as "POV, redundant, and non WP:RS". Is this a consensus of this article's editors? How is POV, how is it not a reliable source and who decide whether it is redundant? Best regards Armatura (talk) 14:48, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

"Genocide Watch" is too minor of a organization for their report to be added. Calling them a "international humanitarian organisation" isn't gonno make your point valid. And your reaction haven't been better either, accusing other editors of propaganda, which I left a warning for. Also, their 'assessment' is also absurd. People die in the battlefield and they call it a genocide, jeez. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum

Editors who diminish and remove information that does not suit their national interests should be warned, not a user who simply quoted a neutral source - a large (coordinates 70 organizations in 24 countries), international (not national, non-Armenian, non-Azeri, non-Turkish), humanitarian (caring for humans regardless of their nationality, or beliefs, or color) organization. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_Stanton#Genocide_Watch

In 1999 Stanton founded Genocide Watch,[10] a non-governmental organization campaigning against genocide based in Washington, D.C..[16][17] Genocide Watch is the Chair and Coordinator of the Alliance Against Genocide, which includes 70 organizations in 24 countries, including the Minority Rights Group, the International Crisis Group, the Aegis Trust, and Survival International.[18] Its board of advisers includes former commander of United Nations peacekeeping forces in Rwanda Roméo Dallaire, former Nuremberg Prosecutor Benjamin Ferencz, and former US Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power.[19]

I ask for support from senior editors, to make sure verified / reliable sources are kept, even if Azeri / Turkish editors do not like them.

Best wishes Armatura (talk) 15:24, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, because I'm a government official or something. I think your comment above should be enough to present the nature of this thread. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 15:26, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Even if for a moment we accept that "too minor" organizations cannot be cited in this article, GW is not a minor organization. It is not only a member of the Alliance Against Genocide which includes more than 60 International NGOs but also their Chair. As to its credibility, here are sources in the Guardian (1, 2 and 3) and CNN (1 and 2) quoting Genocide Watch with one going back to 2002. NOTE: the cited topics are NOT related to the NK conflict. I hope Guardian's and CNN's reliability metrics are better than that of any of the participants in this conversation--Sataralynd (talk) 15:43, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Genocide Watch's reliability is probably a good discussion to bring to WP:RSN. As an advocacy group, there's reason to be cautious when citing them, although the use by others demonstrated above is a potential indication of reliability. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:15, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

@Rosguill: Sure, let's have a discussion there. I would suggest though we reinstate the edits made by @Armatura: as we yet don't have evidence on unreliability, and try to get more info from the community--Sataralynd (talk) 17:49, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

I also support. I don't see anything violating the rules of Wikipedia if we add this now. Also, would like to ask Armatura to bring discussion to WP:RSN. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 18:57, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

@Sataralynd:, @Գարիկ Ավագյան:, @Rosguill: Thank you very much for your support. How do I bring discussion to WP:RSN, please? Can one of you do that on my behalf, please?

Best regards , Armatura (talk) 19:41, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Sataralynd will you be able to start discussion there? Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 19:46, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

@Գարիկ Ավագյան: Will do. Can someone add back the edit? --Sataralynd (talk) 20:06, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks @Գարիկ Ավագյան: and @Sataralynd:, I re-added my edit on Genocide Watch, as discussed. Armatura (talk) 22:01, 24 October 2020 (UTC)Armatura

Armatura as discussed by whom? There are more people than two of those here. Respect the WP:CONSENSUS. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 22:55, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

@Solavirum: Please undo your edit and head to WP:RSN to discuss the reliability of GW. I have created a topic there. There is nothing to establish consensus on here or in the article. It is actually you who is claiming non-reliability of GW, and you have to produce evidence to back up that claim (again with sources, please)--Sataralynd (talk) 23:31, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

@Armatura: please reinstate your edit. @CuriousGolden: and @Solavirum: I see both of you have reverted the Genocide Watch inclusion. Please refrain from entering into edit/revert cycles, and to go to the RSN page to discuss, where the topic is open. You will be able to remove the inclusion if warranted as soon as you establish the non reliability of GW--Sataralynd (talk) 23:51, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Sataralynd, until its reliability is agreed, it must be kept away from the article. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 09:01, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

@Sataralynd: I did re-add but Solavirum and CuriousGolden keep reverting it. The last stage of genocide, as we all know, is the denial of it. There have been emotions, "I don't like it"s but no arguments that would convince uninvolved editors about the unreliability of the provided source, yet this piece of information is being reverted the moment it is entered, by two specific users. I will continue in WP:RSN.Armatura (talk) 11:36, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

@Solavirum: Agreed by whom? By you and @CuriousGolden:? The reliability of GW is not under question, until you provide evidence that it is, in the WP:RSN page where I directed you before 3 comments ago. Please post your concerns there, but as usual before rushing to post a non-argument without any sources, read the handful of comments/sources that were already posted there by other users. Until the unreliability is established, the comment goes to the Article as per the original edit. @Armatura please reinstate--Sataralynd (talk) 13:52, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Sataralynd the issue of unreliability is superior than the issue of reliability. So it is you that must prove its reliability so we can add it to the article. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 14:48, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

@Solavirum: No, the exact opposite. The edit has been made first to include GW, and you reversed it. You must prove unreliability. Besides, I provided you ample sources above (not related to NK) that bolster the reliability of GW, and other users reported more on RSN. I would suggest you start engaging with the sources/comments provided before it is too late (and the discussion on RSN is closed)--Sataralynd (talk) 14:52, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

@Solavirum: the GW paragraph has been reverted 4-5 times already, by two users interchangeably, despite asking politely. What is next? Armatura (talk) 18:15, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Armatura before continuing with that lame rhetoric, let me remind that the latest revert was carried out by an admin. You're in the wrong here, ask that question to yourself. For the last time, respect WP:CONSENSUS or I'm reporting. Enough with the recklessness. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 18:30, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

@Solavirum: Feel free to go ahead and report. I have reasonable doubts about impartiality of a particular admin and I am entitled to report what I feel is reportable as well. Attacking me directly calling my comments "lame" is a breach of civility. Blackmailing me with threat of reporting is a breach of harassment policy. RegardsArmatura (talk) 18:41, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Not at all. Haven't violated any guidelines here. Also, calling that comment "blackmailing" is yet again ridiculous. I don't want to deal with WP:TENDETIOUS edits. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 19:05, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

@Sataralynd: Please use {{u|name}} to mention names instead of {{re|name}}. Getting pinged each time about random comments is annoying. — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 14:53, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

@Solavirum: "the issue of unreliability is superior than the issue of reliability." Where is the rule in Wikipedia you derived this statement of yours from? Regards, Armatura (talk) 18:23, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

I also agree with the fact that Genocide Watch can't be reliable source. Moreover, Azerbaijan army don't have any contact with villages that armenians live. This is bias report and can't be included in the article. using this article as a reference and claim about genocide is against Wikipedia Rules. Moreover, genocide is a serious thing not like Armenians claims it each time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.26.50.47 (talk) 08:04, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Says the unsigned user who does not realise that Wikipedia records IP (which takes a second to geolocate) and who speaks about Wikipedia rules not realising that their writing is against all possible Wikipedia rules Armatura (talk) 09:03, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

@Armatura: Please adhere to WP:CIVILITY and don't do ad hominem to users who have not said anything rude/offensive and are only voicing their opinions. — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 15:08, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Nothing offensive, @CuriousGolden:, unregistered is not an offence but merely constatation of facts that a user is unregistered - it is techically hard to address a user without username. Why an unregistered user from a particular group of IPs would try to state openly POV opinions about an protected WP page about armed conflict - I have my own ideas, you may have yours. On the other hand, calling an NGO "absurd" on WP:RS page because it does not suit a particular POV is using ad hominem and is not a civil gesture. Neither is repeat-reverting additions of other users without inviting them to discuss the subject first. Regards Armatura (talk) 17:08, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Well thanks for your comment. For your information your comment is also against to Wikipedia rules as it shouldn't judge other side. Anyway, my IP is there and I know that wikipedia does record IP addresses. Hence, please focus on topic rather than showing yourself as a smart kid here. I am putting the link just to help you update your knowledge. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines Thanks.37.26.50.47 (talk) 11:13, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

You are welcome, unregistered user with recorded IP, and thank you for an epithet "smart kid". Focusing on content, if you are wondering why such claims won't go into the article is because they need to be supported by reliable sources rather than represent your own personal opinion or research. Wikipedia is not a place for personal opinions / research, it is an encyclopedia. Regards, Armatura (talk) 14:47, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Author tries to refer to this article that claims Armenians may face genocide. https://www.genocidewatch.com/single-post/genocide-emergency-azerbaijan-s-attack-in-artsakh . Article itself contains templte words used by armenian social media propagandist users. The article talks about 1918 systematic extermination of armenian population but doesn't' talk about "March Genocide" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_Days conducted by Armenian Dashnak. Further, the article talks about Maraga events happened on April 1992, but doesn't say anything about "Khodjali genocide" happened 2 month before, 26th of February, 1992 where more than 600 civils were killed.

Article states that "Today, Azerbaijan denies displaced Armenians the right to return and forbids a person of Armenian heritage from entering its territory." but doesn't talk about 250,000 Azerbaijanians that can't return to Armenia as Armenian government rejects their enterance.

How this bias article can be used as reference in this Wikipedia article? It is clear that the article written by Genocide Watch corrupted by Armenian Diaspora money and even words and sentences used here are not different from those armenian propaganda machines 5.191.53.154 (talk) 18:11, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I personally think that the below statement must be removed from the article as Genocide Watch can't be reliable source. The statement is one sided and doesn't reflect truth about the conflict.

Humanitarian organisations On 23rd October 2020, "Genocide Watch" international humanitarian organisation published "Genocide Emergency: Azerbaijan in Artsakh" report on its website, stating that it considers Azerbaijan to be at Stage 9 (extermination) and Stage 10 (denial) of genocide. [660]

Mirhasanov (talk) 18:50, 26 October 2020 (UTC) @Mirhasanov: This is not voting. Contrarguments have to supported by cited third party sources. Even if 1000 users say "needs to be removed" without citing a reliable source that contests the reliability of the primary source provided, it still does not mean that it is unreliable. This is not a battlefield to preval with nnumbers, but WP discussion. Regards Armatura (talk) 19:44, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Armatura (talk) Wikipedia reflect community view as well my dear friend. Therefore sometimes it is about majority. Moreover, you were not able to prove that the "Genocide Watch" is reliable source. It is not me to prove it is unreliable. The site even doesn't follow international law not stating word of "de facto" when they refer to Nagorno-Karabakh republic. Mirhasanov (talk) 20:19, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

@Mirhasanov: Sigh. for the third time in this thread I will paste sources that would confirm GW's reliability.

As to its credibility, here are sources in the Guardian (1, 2 and 3) and CNN (1 and 2) quoting Genocide Watch with one going back to 2002. NOTE: the cited topics are NOT related to the NK conflict. I hope Guardian's and CNN's reliability metrics are better than that of any of the participants in this conversation GW IS reliable not because of what you think about them or I think about them, but because of what reputable outlets like Guardian and CNN think about them. The onus is on you to prove unreliability--Sataralynd (talk) 21:41, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Sataralynd (talk) I wouldn't agree with you because nowadays we can't not relay or refer to media thinking that they are independent. CNN is well know with its Fake news. Guardian specially as it sustains itself with donations. It is nonsense to refer unreliable media to prove reliability of some other organization like Genocide Watch. Unfortunately, your references are not reliable source. Usually, claims like "genocide" need extensive study of the situation and the conflict, not just issue 1 paper statement. Moreover, If you will check Alliance list of the Genocide Watch you will see Armenian National Committee. The content itself clearly written by Armenian person because it lucks objectivity and not clearly details sequence of events. How we can talka bout 1918 September days by neglecting March Genocide conducted by Armenian armed groups in territories of whole Azerbaijan? Moreover, according to media bias chart The The Guardian even doesn't exist in the list and CNN scorred as having "Some reliability issues and / or extremism". Another organization called Media Bias Fact check also classifies CNN as Bias also The Guardian. This is my prove that your sources and any link you are referring as independent is bias. Mirhasanov (talk) 04:57, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

@Rosguill: the statement below needs to be removed as user who included this information is no able prove the reliability of sources and refers to newspapers to claim reliability which is against wikipedia rules. Any Genocide Claim and scoring must be referred to extensive study not to one paper bias, unchecked report.

Humanitarian organisations On 23rd October 2020, "Genocide Watch" international humanitarian organisation published "Genocide Emergency: Azerbaijan in Artsakh" report on its website, stating that it considers Azerbaijan to be at Stage 9 (extermination) and Stage 10 (denial) of genocide. [660]

Please provide RS that CNN is "fake news." (You sound like Trump) Please provide RS that the bias you report is directly related to the ongoing war in NKAO and not about domestic issues. Please elucidate why the Armenian National Committee (I may take the liberty to remind you that the Armenians suffered genocide some time ago) being part of a genocide watch org immediately invalidates said org. No one is denying that Armenians slaughtered Azeris in 1918 or 1992 or whatever. Also no one should be lukewarm about mentioning Azeris slaughtering Armenians in 1918 or 1988 or whenever. I honestly don't see what a 1918 war has got to do specifically with the reliability of Genocide Watch. Mentioning Genocide Watch should not be an issue, as it is not "pro-Armenian." (If you are going to argue that however, again, please provide RS stating its partiality) Perhaps they are not right, but it is most definitely not your or my job to decide that on Wikipedia. It's what RS says, and so far the RS provided allow its placement in this article. 2601:85:C101:BA30:FDBB:852E:A1F:5DB3 (talk) 05:54, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

@2601:85:C101:BA30:FDBB:852E:A1F:5DB3: I already provided links if you will click that assesses and proves that these organizations are bias or semi-bias. As per Wikipedia WP:RSprinciples Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). If no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.

Nowhere does it say the bias is pro-Armenian however, so the sources are irrelevant in regards to the discussion at hand. 2601:85:C101:BA30:FDBB:852E:A1F:5DB3 (talk) 15:23, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

• This discussion has become a bit of a sprawl, and is much harder to follow than the one on the same topic at WP:RSN, but I want to note that the question here isn't just binary reliable/unreliable, but also questions of WP:DUE and relative emphasis. Moreover, the onus is on editors in favor of including new content to form a consensus for said content: simply establishing that a source is reliable does not mean that any and all content cited to that source is automatically worth inclusion and treated as the status quo. I for one would lend my support to including a mention of GW's perspective alongside that of other human rights groups, and with care to not make WP:EXTRAORDINARY claims that are backed exclusively by GW. I would not support the original content that was proposed and which started this discussion, because it does not respect due weight and makes an extraordinary claim of genocide on the basis of a single advocacy group that does not appear to be echoed by any other reliable source covering the conflict. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:40, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

@Rosguill: However, Forbes just published this piece today: [26]. This should be a game changer. The Genocide Watch report is gaining traction among third-party reliable news outlets. I do not understand why it shouldn't be considered in all its details on this project. Étienne Dolet (talk) 04:22, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. 2601:85:C101:BA30:FDBB:852E:A1F:5DB3 (talk) 16:49, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. This is exactly what I was trying to say from the start. — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 17:09, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. This was the point Rosguill. Thanks for objectivity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirhasanov (talk • contribs) 17:24, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

@Rosguill: could you suggest a wording here so that we put this to bed?--Sataralynd (talk) 01:19, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

@Armatura: here are third perty reporting about Genocide Watch's call in Nagorno Karabakh in the last 24 hours. Here and here in ITV of UK. This is in Forbes but the author is Armenian though it is listed in WP:MBFC as reliable.@Rosguill: what's your take here?--Sataralynd (talk) 02:47, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with Sicurezza Internazionale but their editorial board appears to be academics with a non-trivial amount of citations. I don't really know much about ITV's coverage. That's a Forbes contributor piece, which is not a reliable source (see its entry at WP:RSP). I think that the additional coverage pushes me towards making an attributed claim of a threat of genocide, similar to the way it's phrased in the ITV source. I don't have time to draft a suggestion right now but can try to write one tomorrow. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:34, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Oppose.::@Rosguill: ITV citation itself talks and proves that Armenian state actions against International law. It talks about Syrian Armenian Refugees that were illegally settled in Nagorno-Karabakh, which is against Geneva Convention IV . Claims about genocide under this topic is disrespect to understanding of terminology of "Genocide". So far more Azerbaijani civilians died compare to Armenian. How we can claim that Azerbaijan side conducts genocide? Moreover, Azerbaijan side already showed that they are not against Armenians in Karabakh and they can continue to live there under cultural autonomy . Hence, I personally think we should stop discussion here about Armenian claims of genocide and focus on developing the article and make it unbiased. As I stated before, the main aim should be to make the article informative not the tool of war propaganda machine by making one side evil the other side victim. Mirhasanov (talk) 10:03, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

@Mirhasanov: Please open another thread about what the Armenian side did, refugees, etc. We are talking about reporting from GW, which has just been reported by third parties. The intention is not to compare number of casualties. Also, brining in "claims" from the Azerbaijan side that Armenian could live happily in NK under Azerbaijan rule does nothing to expose the unreliability of GW's claim. If you have a reliable source making a similar claim about Armenia please start another thread--Sataralynd (talk) 12:56, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

• @EtienneDolet: You probably didn't see that, but the citation that you provided hasn't published by Forbes itself, and most likely includes third-party opinions. See WP:FORBESCON.--Ahmetlii (talk) 14:09, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
• @Sataralynd:, @Rosguill: and others, taking the discussion in WP:RSN and above into account, I drafted a text for including into War crimes > Azerbaijian subsection, in the bottom of this talk space, feel free to comment: On 25th October 2020, Genocide Watch, an alliance of 75 organisations, has issued a statement describing a ‘genocide emergency’ in the region, citing Azerbaijan’s “denial of past genocide against Armenians, its official use of hate speech, and the current targeting of civilians in Nagorno-Karabakh)” Armatura (talk) 18:03, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

  Armatura, I think it should be included as part of a subsection devoted to human rights groups' reactions. I only have a short amount of time to write right now, but I'm thinking something along the lines of Human rights groups have called for an end to the conflict and objected to the targeting of civilians and the use of cluster munitions. Amnesty International has criticized both Armenia and Azerbaijan [cite], and Human Rights Watch has criticized just Azerbaijan on these grounds [cite]. Genocide Watch has described the situation as a 'genocide emergency' for Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh, citing attacks on civilians, denial of the Armenian Genocide, and denial of return for Armenian refugees to Azerbaijan as risk factors leading to their assessment [cite]. The description of Genocide Watch as an alliance of 70 organizations appears to confuse Genocide Watch for the Alliance Against Genocide so I think it would be sufficient for us to just wikilink Genocide Watch. I may have gotten AI and HRW's claims backwards, but you can find citations to back up the correct claims in the RSN discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:58, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, @Rosguill:, expanded on the suggested skeleton. Regards, Armatura (talk) 04:05, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

CuriousGolden had reverted it again and kept only the mention of Genoicide Watch without clarifying what it is about. He mentioned in the summary "as per consensus," which is not accurate. Could you please revert to what you agreed here, @Armatura:?--Sataralynd (talk) 22:11, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

@Sataralynd: The excessive reverting by CuriousGolden has been reported by another user and his is now barred from editing NK-related articles for two weeks. As Rosguill thought additional polishing is required, I am going to post my text for human rights organizations in the bottom, naming and please make your suggestions. Armatura (talk) 23:23, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

@Armatura: I agree with the green wording used by @Rosguill: three comments up. Thank you--Sataralynd (talk) 23:32, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I see small problem with that wording, Sataralynd - Amnesty International did not criticise Armenia about cluster munition, as they did not confirm use of cluster munition by Armenia. Armatura (talk) 23:41, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Armatura, Sataralynd, that could be resolved by splitting up the claims about targeting civilians and cluster munitions. Based on the sources currently cited in the article, it actually looks like HRW and AI are reporting pretty much the same story: criticize both sides for attacking civilians, just Azerbaijan for cluster munitions. So we could go with something like Human rights groups have called for an end to the conflict and objected to the targeting of civilians [27] [28]. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have criticized Azerbaijan for its use of cluster munitions [29] [30]. Genocide Watch has described... (the second and third source link are the same). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:12, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill, Sataralynd Thanks very much, please see below

@Armatura: there has been a new piece from AI today criticizing Armenia. It is already reflected in the Article and you might want to maintain @Rosguill:'s original wording. Otherwise, the write up is good, thank you--Sataralynd (talk) 01:47, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Oppose @Rosguill: I think we make mistake here. I don't want to discuss Armenian Genocide as it is out of the topic but for your information term of Genocide appeared in 1944 and adopted by UN on 1948. Even the report publicated and that our Armenian users are so happy to refer in order claim that Azerbaijan side conducting genocide against Armenians is not systematic. It refers clashes that happened 100 years ago but some of this clashes happened due to causes initiated by Armenian armed groups in the beginning of 20th century. Denial of so called "Armenian genocide" can't not be justified to state that country supporting genocide against armenians as the event itself was recognized only by 32 countries in the world. Even Israel doesn't consider the event as "genocide". Again i would like to reiterate, the accuse of genocide can't be referred with single one paper statement and must refer proper conducted research scholars sources and studies, which Genocide Watch statement is missing. It refers to https://armenian.usc.edu/baku-pogroms-in-context-of-the-karabakh-conflict/ which is not independednt source. If you really want take responsibility and consider yourself as objective third party spectator from the side, I would suggest you to read and deepen your knowledge about the conflict before writing anything about genocide. I am ready to discuss it in any platform that you suggest but without consensus I am not favour of adding any statement of genocide in this topic. Best Regards, Mirhasanov (talk) 06:10, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

My Suggestion: Human rights groups have called for an end to the conflict and objected to the targeting of civilians and the use of cluster munitions. Amnesty International has criticized both Armenia and Azerbaijan. However, the report about use of cluster munitions was one sided and Human Rights Watch has criticized just Azerbaijan on these grounds. Officials of Azerbaijan invited Human Rights Watch to conduct site assessment of Armenian crimes in order to issue more balanced report. This is my initial proposal Mirhasanov (talk) 07:25, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

@Mirhasanov: Please open another thread about cluster bombs. The topic is about Genocide Watch--Sataralynd (talk) 21:56, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Comment If media outlets like The Guardian and CNN quote GW, then i think that GW shoud be considered reliable and cited in this article. However, in order to fit with WP:WEIGHT, other sources would be welcommed about this topic.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:57, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Sataralynd (talk) What I wrote was suggestion by @Rosguill:. You have changed article without agreeing. It is POV. Consensu was not reached and it must be reverted. Mirhasanov (talk) 05:39, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

@Mirhasanov: @Rosguill: What are you talking about Mirhasanov? I haven't changed anything. Please check before throwing accusation around--Sataralynd (talk) 11:59, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Genocide Watch as a source. There is no third party references or bibliography provided, raises transparency issues. Hemşinli çocuk 23:04, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Dear all @Rosguill: @Sataralynd: @CuriousGolden: @Hemşinli çocuk: Finally after several complain to Genocide Watch, it changed some wording and also issued genocide report for Azerbaijanis, which has already happened. Thanks for those who bombarded email box of GW for being bias. However, I still believe that the below description of the situation referring to GW in our article is not balanced, as first GW alert talks about possible genocide emergence but, GW alert about Azerbaijan proves that genocide has already happened. Could you please give your suggestion how we should change the phrases in order make below paraghraph more balanced?

Genocide Watch has described the situation as a "genocide emergency" for Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh, citing Azerbaijan’s current targeting of civilians in Nagorno-Karabakh, denial of past genocide against Armenians, and its official use of hate speech as factors leading to their assessment.[463][464][465] While for Azerbaijanis, GW has described that current Armenian and Artsakh governments deny involvement in past crimes against Azerbaijanis, erase their history from Armenian textbooks, preventing Azerbaijani IDP's the right to return to their former homes and villages, and denial of war crimes such as the Khojaly massacre and the current shelling of Azerbaijani civilians.[466]

PKK fighters on the Armenian side, how are they a thing in this article?

There are 13 instances of PKK mentioned in this article in relation to allegations that they are fighting on the Armenian side. However, there has been no evidence by a third party (such as geolocated videos) in the media for a month now since the start of the fight. Sound clips posted on the Azerbaijan MoD website don't qualify, unless a reliable third party like BBC unambiguously confirms their authenticity. For reference, there has been ample evidence of involvement of Syrian mercenaries on the Azerbaijani side (see France24, The Independent and Guardian). I'm including the link to clarify what counts as confirmed evidence by a third party. Hence, could someone volunteer to clean up the article of these unconfirmed PKK allegations?
NB: before rushing to post please make sure to include third party sources confirming the evidence. Check the above sources to understand what counts.--Sataralynd (talk) 04:12, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Sataralynd (talk) Again you are attacking. I was planning to open this discussion anyway. We already started this discussion and I think it would be good to continue here. Regarding videos so far there is not any videos that confirming Syrian fighters in Karabakh fighting for Azerbaijan, except unproved Whatsapp conversations or phone calls that CNN and Guardian referred to, which is considered unreliable media as per "mediabiasfactcheck" organization.

https://www.eupoliticalreport.eu/pkks-involvement-in-the-armenia-azerbaijan-conflict-would-jeopardise-european-security/

is a Brussels based European multimedia news platform, providing online news and video comment on EU and world affairs in all EU official languages. https://www.eureporter.co/frontpage/2020/09/23/pkks-involvement-in-the-armenia-azerbaijan-conflict-would-jeopardize-european-security/

Because they are major allegations with even Russia putting it forward. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 09:12, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

@Solavirum: Please keep on topic, no one is attacking nobody unless bringing in sources and making arguments is considered attacks in your book. Anyway, please address these points:

1) the two sources you bring in are actually one source, and they only talk about "reports" not evidence (e.g. geolocated videos). Do you have sources with evidence?

2) Jujuy88 already answered you about your unreliability "source". Further CNN and Guardian are both listed as reliable as per WP:MBFC

3) Your claim "Because they are major allegations with even Russia putting it forward". Is there a source for this from the Russian Government? --Sataralynd (talk) 01:36, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Mirhasanov, Media Bias/Fact Check is considered unreliable per WP:MBFC. --Jujuy88 (talk) 14:12, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Jujuy88 (talk) Wow, thank you very much for this reference. I didn't know there is such list and it is very nice to have it.Mirhasanov (talk) 17:20, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Summary: Not a single piece of evidence, of the calibre of these sources in relation to the Syrian mercenaries has been presented in relation to presence of PKK fighters on the Armenian side. I would therefore ask for removal of PKK references from the article, except perhaps for the original claim with a sentence stating the lack of evidence. If evidence becomes available, we could start a talk and review again. I suggest this wording, and removing the rest of PKK references:
on 30 September, Turkish sources alleged that approximately 300 PKK militants were transported to Nagorno-Karabakh via Iran. However, these claims were not substantiated by evidence (see source and source) --Sataralynd (talk) 03:15, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

References

Sataralynd At first, we need to first split into two names: "Armenian diaspora fighters" and "Kurdish militants". Then, remove one-sided statements with no confirmation from third-party reliable sources. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 10:27, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Solavirum's edits - removing Putin's reference to Sumgait

@Solavirum: you have removed Putin's reference to Sumgait Massacres in the Russia Section of International Reactions, which provides an important historical context for this conflict. We keep saying that we should avoid providing a one sided view of events in this article, but unfortunately the same behaviours of cherrypicking or removing comments that paint a flattering image of one side on the expense of the other keep occurring. You mention that "Putin's every single comment is not noteworthy" where it is obvious you just WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Could I hear what others have to say? Here is the section that has been removed
On 22 October, Putin indicated that the root of the conflict lines in interethnic clashes between Armenians and Azerbaijanis in the 1980s, and specifically referred to the massacre of Armenians in Sumgait.--Sataralynd (talk) 00:12, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Sataralynd (talk) Sumgait event and Khojali massacre that conducted by both parties has nothing to do with current 2020 war article. They are both covered on different wikipedia pages and information may be added there. Hence, removal of this part is fair. If we don't want to remove it, then all Putin's speech including support of territorial integrity and unacceptability of Armenian occupation of Azerbaijani lands must be included as well, which will be more logical.

Mirhasanov (talk) 09:38, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

@Mirhasanov: if you want to bring in references to Khojaly into the article please start another thread. If you want to include additional words by Putin from the same speech, please start another thread. Putin's comments about Sumgait, which happened at the beginning of the conflict in 1988 which was why he referred to it, were in reference to the 2020 War and they should be included.

Sataralynd, Putin is not a historian. Avoid POV-pushing. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 15:47, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Solavirum Aliev's is not a historian yet he's cited all over the article, (to me) regardless whether what he says is supported by any other source. What Putin said was an overview of the big picture, and it has direct relation with this war (and this article), as this war is not an isolated event, but part of the bigger continuum - Nagorno-Karabakh War. And please avoid accusing editors of "POV-pushing", as per WP:CIVILITY and WP:Goodfaith. Saying "I see this as an unsupported point of view" instead would sound much nicer, to everybody . Regards Armatura (talk) 03:58, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Armatura, he was cited for the things he should have been cited for. Like, let's say, he states that "X party is good, Y party is bad". His statements aren't strong enough to add as a contextual background of the conflict. It is, without a doubt, a POV. Erdoğan highlights the Khojaly massacre, you know, when the Armenian soldiers slaughtered hundreds of Azerbaijani civilians. But why don't we mention that? Because, yet again, he has no say for the background of this conflict. Regardless of that, I've seen more violations of WP:CIVILITY on your behalf than any others in this talk page. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 04:03, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Solavirum, an opinion about civility of others with the background of constantly reverting of others' edits is obviously highly valued. If Pakistan's and Afghanistan's presidents have a say about Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, Putin (good economic partner of Azerbaijan, btw) has a say for sure. You are welcome to cite Erdogan in anything what you think has brought to this war, obviously the historical accuracy of his claims will be scrutinised by the community here. After all, Erdogan is far more involved in the conflict than Putin, so, yes, he does have a say, too. This article belongs to no single editor and no single editor can be the only one who decides who has a say and who has not. Armatura (talk) 12:47, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Armatura, Putin's relations with Azerbaijan is not related to this issue. When did we add Pakistan or Afghanistan's opinion on the contextual background of this topic anyway? Try to attract mediators to this thread. I'm sure they'll say the same. Putin, Erdoğan, or any other leader, they are not historians or would ever voice neutral historical background on this conflict. And again, their close or far involvement aren't related too. This article belongs to no single editor and no single editor can be the only one who decides who has a say and who has not, I hear this every time from Armenian editors only, this ain't the first time and if it would help you to form up better arguments, let me just say that it isn't working. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 12:55, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

FYI @Solavirum: and @Armatura:, here is Eurasianet mentinoing Putin's words about Sumgait. Here is OC_Media doing the same. This is not about Putin, it is about Sumgait_Pogrom being a major catalyst of the conflict. Here is the Economist mentioning Sumgait in the context of the conflict. If Wikipedia is not going to mention it, I don't know who is! --Sataralynd (talk) 22:45, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

The argument "somebody is not a historian" reminds me of Erdogan's "let's leave history to historians" trick everytime he denies Armenian Genocide... If you could please prepare the text for inclusion into the article, @Sataralynd:, backed with your new sources. I support the inclusion as it transcends the very source of this war in NK war continuum, and I don't see a reason why it has to be kept out of this article which is full of quotes of Azerbaijani officials (non-historians). Armatura (talk) 23:30, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

@Armatura: Thanks, the wording has been reverted back in the article as per my original post, so no change needed now. I'm sure tomorrow we'll get a reversion though! --Sataralynd (talk) 01:54, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

@Solavirum: and @Armatura: guys Putin's citation can't not be used as proof as he is not historian, he is politician. If we will start to justify or analyse the root of conflict based on politicians, the world will be more mad place than it is now. Hence, I wouldn't use this statement to explain roots of the conflict as, the root of this conflict is much more deeper. Mirhasanov (talk) 10:29, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

@Mirhasanov: I am not aware of Wikipedia rule that does not allow citing politicians for conflicts root analysis. If you know such a WP rule, provide it. If you cannot provide such a ruke, then what you are saying is your just point of view (POV) Armatura (talk) 13:46, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

References

@Mirhasanov: @Armatura: the important point is not the job of Putin, but the weight of his comments as someone familiar with the conflict and the content of his words. He says that the origin of the conflict can be traced back to the Sumgait massacres, which is what is mentioned in the article. Further, in my source above from the Economist (very reliable source), they make the same point. Here is the phrase as it may not be accessible to all (paywall): "the descent into war began with a horrific pogrom of ethnic Armenians in Sumgait in 1988". I think this is important information to be mentioned. I think with the Economist reporting on it now (it is new while the Putin words are more than a week old), we may have to move it to the Background section because it is in fact a precipitator of the whole conflict--Sataralynd (talk) 04:59, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I support moving that citation from Economist into this article's background, as it not just "Russia's reaction" but the key to the start of the continuum of Nagorno-Karabakh war (of which the current conflict is a part of). Regards. Armatura (talk) 07:07, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

@Armatura: I propose to change "Ethnic violence began in the late 1980s, and the region descended into a war following the dissolution of the USSR in 1991" to Ethnic violence began in the late 1980s, with a series of massacres against Armenians in Sumgait, Ganja and Baku and the region descended into a war following the dissolution of the USSR in 1991. --Sataralynd (talk) 02:44, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Oppose ::@Armatura: and ::@Sataralynd: Of course there is a rule if you read clearly and don't twsit the fact. İn above you mention that ethnic violence began in the late 1980s, but you don't describe the drivers of the violence. Could it be because, Karabakh Armenians started to support separatist ideology such as Miatsum, "Hye Dat" demanding annexation of Nagonor-Karabakh to Armenia?

Therefore for sake of being unbiased I would like to offer below change:

"Ethnic violence began in the late 1980s with an increasing sentiment of separatism by Armenians living in Nagorno-Karabakh. As a result both sides have conducted series crimes on an ethnic basis against each other, that eventually lead to pogroms and mass deportation of Armenians and Azerbaijanis from major cities".

Mirhasanov (talk) 06:00, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

@Mirhasanov: twist the facts? so these 3 pogroms didn't happen? You may entitled to believe so but the sources I gave are authoritative unlike your unsourced wording, with one of them, Thomas de Waal, having more than 70,000 citations. Your wording "with an increasing sentiment of separatism by Armenians" is the official POV of the Azerbaijan Government, which is that Armenians were punished because they wanted to be independent.--Sataralynd (talk) 16:20, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

@Mirhasanov: First of all if you want talk about background of the conflict under Nagonor-Karabakh 2020, it is not place to mention it and e should avoid convert current article to Nagorno-Karabakh conflict wiki article. Secondly, I believe that instead of your completely pro-Armenian sentences, my sentence is much more objective which describes suffering of both sides, than being one sided. Or you reject exitance of Miatsum that started all of this? @Rosguill: as a third independent party what do you think? How we can merge my sentence and Sataralynd in order to provide wikireaders with informative and unbiased information ? Mirhasanov (talk) 16:30, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

I think that the status quo wording of Ethnic violence began in the late 1980s, and the region descended into a war following the dissolution of the USSR in 1991 is preferable and about the level of detail needed for an article about the 2020 conflict. It is accurate, to the point, and avoids finger pointing in a conflict where both sides have committed ethnic violence. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:32, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

References

IAGS open letter

I have drafted the following text to include in War crimes > Azerbaijan subsection, feel free to comment with improvement suggestions: On 22th October 2020, International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS) issued an open letter, describing the air raids conducted by the Azerbaijani military on October 8 and 9 on Shushi Holy Savior Cathedral as a part of policy of the “cultural genocide that the Azerbaijani government has been implementing over the past 30 years by systematically destroying the Armenian historical heritage”..

For the editors of this article, IAGS is a global, interdisciplinary, non-partisan organization that seeks to further research and teaching about the nature, causes, and consequences of genocide, and advance policy studies on genocide prevention. The Association, founded in 1994, meets regularly to consider comparative research, important new work, case studies, the links between genocide and other human rights violations, and prevention and punishment of genocide. The Association holds biennial conferences and co-publishes the scholarly journal Genocide Studies and Prevention. A central aim of the Association is to draw academics, activists, artists, genocide survivors, journalists, jurists, public policy makers, and other colleagues into the interdisciplinary study of genocide, with the goal of prevention.

Here are is Google Scholar search for articles mentioning them: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?lookup=0&q=International+Association+of+Genocide+Scholars&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5 Armatura (talk) 18:03, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

• And under what convention is this a war crime? — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 18:21, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

@CuriousGolden: I didn't get the question. Are you contesting that genocide is a crime, whether a genocide during war is a war crime or whether cultural genocide is a form of genocide? "Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Approved and proposed for signature and ratification or accession by General Assembly resolution 260 A (III) of 9 December 1948 entry into force 12 January 1951, in accordance with article XIII, Article 1 -"The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish." If you have a better location in the article for IAGS letter, please suggest. Armatura (talk) 18:44, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

@Armatura: Only thing I can understand from your comment is that IAGS thinks that damaging a single church is a cultural "genocide". Not going to talk about how that's wrong yet, but under what convention is cultural genocide a war crime (FYI cultural genocide is obviously not same as a human genocide)?

Edit: Oh God. Just read the article and what a mess. Just going to put only some of the wild sentences from the article here for readers to realize the level of the article.

• "Furthermore, it is documented that Turkish armed forces and air forces directly participate in hostilities."
• "..a substantial number of mercenaries identifying as jihadists from Syria and Libya, and likely also from Afghanistan and Pakistan.."
• "The objective of the Azerbaijani-Turkish bandits is not about claiming territory."
• "consequently recognizing of the independence of the Republic of Artsakh is the way to save Armenians of Artsakh from extermination now or in the near future"

And again, them being quoted in some articles/books does not make everything they publish reliable. So much for an "objective" NGO. CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 18:59, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

@CuriousGolden:Thank you for your comment. I understand you don't share the statements in their letter, and I can see you naturally don't share any statements that are showing actions of Azerbaijan under negative light. However, apart from emotions, I see no concrete argument against the suggested addition (so far). To me, your argument amounts to WP:IJDLI. As for the "mess", I would like to cite "Try not to get too intense. Passion can be misread as aggression, so take great care to avoid the appearance of being heavy-handed or bossy." part of Wikipedia:Civility policy. Thank you. Armatura (talk) 19:25, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

@Armatura: Firstly, WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH, not even going to reply to the first 3 rude sentences of yours which are violation of WP:CIVILITY which you love to cite so much. Secondly, calling every reply which points out mistakes and asks questions (which you haven't replied to yet) a "no concrete argument" and "just emotions" is in itself a violation of WP:IJDLI. Answer the questions I've asked in a normal manner and reply to the points I've raised to reach a consensus rather than making comments about policies, all of which you yourself broke in a single comment. — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 19:39, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

@CuriousGolden: I did not call you rude, but you did. I did not call the materials you add a "mess", but you did. Good faith is something I always assume first, then that faith changes based on what I see. I can see no questions of yours about my this suggestion, only a monologue about how all the signed scholar's statement and their scientific achievements are not worth a dime. I already answered your question about the Genocide Convention. What other questions do you have? Regards Armatura (talk) 19:47, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

@Armatura: I didn't call you rude. I called your comments about me rude, which they were. I did not call things you did a "mess", I called the article you shared a "mess". Not sure how calling the article a mess is rude to you. If you look a little bit above my "monologue", you can see the question I asked. And again, that "monologue" is to show what I think of the article and why I don't think it's reliable nor unbiased, if you don't think it's biased, then that's your own opinion and I respect it. Just as you should respect mine. — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 19:57, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

@CuriousGolden: What is generally perceived as cultural genocide you can read in Cultural genocide. The church has not been accidentally damaged, it has been targeted, TWICE within 24 hours, with great precision, and with people inside. As TASS journalist Saadat Kadirova said "мочить их в сортире". It does not matter whether it was 1 church or 1000 churches, it doesn't even matter that to Artsakh that church is what Westminster Abbey is to UK. What matters is intentional destruction of cultural heritage of a nation, to hurt it, and that church is cultural heritage of Armenian nation, and that is what these genocide scholars make a point about. Provide a respectable source in the same weight category as IAGS that says it is not an act of genocide, and I will respect that opinion on the same scale as the letter of IAGS. Armatura (talk) 20:18, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

• Armatura to say that the attack "was intended" is your own WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. As far as I'm concerned, even the Armenian side might have shot that place, accidentally, or not. Furthermore, if we have to go with your assumption, the Armenians have been intentionally striking Ganja's densely populated places for the 5th time with ballistic missiles, intentionally. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 02:05, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

@Solavirum: One is entitled to have conspiracy theories and irrational concerns, it's a free world. I have not touched Ganja's subject at all, and I have no reason to think that it is Azerbaijan shelling its own city, I hope Azerbaijani people are better than that. A consensus of genocide scholars is backing the claim that the church was targeted rather than accidentally damaged, otherwise there would be no such letter at all. You are welcome to provide your published third party reliable sources, if there are any. Armatura (talk) 02:55, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Jesus Christ. I hope Azerbaijani people are better than that, you've got no limits. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 03:09, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

@Solavirum:The "Armenian side might have shot their own holy place (the seat of the Diocese of Artsakh)" was obviously a very "reserved" phrase to write. I don't want to bring a similar example on a mosque, out of respect for cultural and religious feelings Armatura (talk) 03:23, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

• Support I support this addition. It's a legit organization making the statement. Expertwikiguy (talk) 03:13, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

  Support inclusion in article. Notable organization, probably in "Reactions" or if the church's attack is already mentioned. I would separately like to nominate the rhetorical question "under what convention is cultural genocide a war crime" to be archived for posterity. Juxlos (talk) 03:18, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

  Oppose Provided links are not reliable. If we want to cover deliberate attack to religious centers by Azerbaijan for sake of objectivery, Armenians converting Aghdam Jamia Mosque Pigsty needs to be addressed. Mirhasanov (talk) 08:05, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

@Mirhasanov: To address the mosque it would have to be claimed, or proven, by a reliable third-party source that the Armenians intentionally moved pigs into the mosque. What we know for sure is that pigs were in the mosque - we do not know how they ended up in there. I would be happy with including the claim about the Armenian cathedral if it is represented as a statement by Genocide Watch but not as absolute fact. Of note is some additional context which supports the Genocide Watch claim - the destruction of Armenian khachkars in Azeri territory during peacetime - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_cemetery_in_Julfa --LOLCaatz (talk) 09:43, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

@Mirhasanov and LOLCaatz: The reason this thing would be notable to include into the article is not particularly the event itself but the fact that an important third party reacted to it. Also LOLCaatz what you just said is so ridiculous I don't even know how to reply to that. Flalf^Talk 17:09, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

• Support the IAGS addition. Not sure why are we talking about the Agdham mosque which dates back to 1992. It has nothing to do with the present conflict, as opposed to the church bombing--Sataralynd (talk) 13:13, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Support per Juxlos Deprecated source Flalf^Talk 14:54, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

@Flalf: it seems pretty reasonable to me, if you could point out what is ridiculous I can address it. I'm comparing mirhasanov's example - where the sole source is one video of pigs inside a mosque with absolutely no context of how they got there - with the statement by IAGS which is still an opinion, but from a relevant third party source as multiple people above have stated. Of course it would not work if we just stated their claim as fact "there is a cultural genocide going on" and put that in the article but what would work is if we said something like "IAGS claims that this represents part of a larger cultural genocide". The cemetery I mentioned isn't relevant to the article but I thought it was relevant to the current discussion as it is a historical example of the deliberate destruction of Armenian culture which might also fall under the category of "cultural genocide". --LOLCaatz (talk) 03:48, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

@LOLCaatz: I think neither the IAGS thing, from an unreliable source, or the pigs thing should be included in the aryicle. Since this discussion isn't productive I won't spend more time on it, I just think your argument on 'the pigs were just there' was a bit ridiculous. Sorry if bothered you. Flalf^Talk 12:56, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

@Flalf: It's fine, if anything I explained my point of view poorly in my first message. I am also happy if neither claim is included as they are not particularly relevant to the article itself. --LOLCaatz (talk) 00:32, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Oppose Open letter by International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS). What you have mentioned is only published on site called voltairenet.org which from content of the site it is clear that not independent. I tried to find the letter in the official site https://genocidescholars.org/publications/ but unfortunately was not able. Could you please show direct link where the organization officially published the letter? I guess if it is true we must refer to original site not to some third side which is doing armenian propaganda content. @Solavirum: @Flalf: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirhasanov (talk • contribs) 05:52, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

• Strong oppose – an easy one, as the source is deprecated for use on Wikipedia per WP:RSP. I can't see any other copies of the letter elsewhere on the internet, which leads me to strongly question its veracity. I suggest an uninvolved editor closes this discussion. Jr8825 • Talk 19:26, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

References

More third party reports on IAGS' take on the conflict here--Sataralynd (talk) 02:56, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

That link took me to pure unrelated chaos. Flalf^Talk 16:16, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 October 2020 (2)

Whole text in the section to be removed and replaced with text below, which includes all information previously published. The below text gives more details and includes recent Barda missile attack.

War crimes

Armenian

Armenia has bombed several Azerbaijani cities outside of the conflict zone using ballistic missiles, including Azerbaijan's second-biggest city, Ganja. There have been 4 separate ballistic missile attacks on the city since the start of the conflict. The first missile attack on Ganja was conducted on 4th of October leaving one civilian killed and four wounded. The leader of the de facto Nagorno-Karabakh republic on his facebook page stated that, it was him who had ordered the attack. Later, he gave an order to stop the shelling in order to prevent the deaths of innocent peaceful civilians..

On 8th of October Ganja city was hit a second time by a rocket initiated from territory of the de facto Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. However, Azerbaijan officials claimed that the rockets were actually launched from territory of Armenia, Vardenis . No civilian casualties were reported, but a number of residential buildings were seriously damaged.

The subsequent, third rocked attack to Ganja conducted by armed forces of de facto Nagorno-Karabakh Republic was on 10th of October, where at least 7 people dead and 33 wounded including children as a result of shelling ..Further investigations showed that Armenian forces used Scud tactical ballistic missiles against civilians. However, the attack was denied by Armenian side and the de facto Nagorno-Karabakh defence ministry insisted Armenian forces were respecting the humanitarian ceasefire, calling claims that Armenian forces were responsible for shelling Ganja “an absolute lie” and accusing Azerbaijan of shelling civilian-populated areas. Later the defence ministry of the de facto Nagorno-Karabakh Republic said that they were targeting military assets located in Ganja city. The BBC's journalist Orla Guerin, who has visited the scene in Ganja found no evidence of any military target there .

The 4th missile attack on the city of Ganja was the deadliest one. On Saturday, 17th of October missile struck populated areas in Ganja that at least killed 13 people leaving more than 40 people injured. However, the attack again was denied by Armenian and followed by accuses to Azerbaijan of attacking civilian areas. The attacks were deplored by the European Union and UN Secretary-General António Guterres. Several other cities have also been bombed during the conflict, most commonly, Tartar, Beylagan and Barda.

The Barda attack on 28th of October was the deadliest reported attack on civilians since war over the occupied region of Nagorno-Karabakh broke out a month ago, leaving 21 civilians killed and more than 60 wounded. Considering that Barda doesn't hold any military base or target, Azerbaijani side called it as act of terror as the missile deliberately targeted bazaar area with using cluster munitions to inflict excessive casualties among civilians and firefighting station. Initial investigation concluded that the rockets fired to Barda are Smerch rockets equipped with special anti-personnel ammunition. It must be also noted that the day before the Barda attack, 4 civilians including 7 years old girl had died in a shelling of nearby villages of Barda. Officials of Azerbaijan invited Human Rights Watch to conduct site assessment of Armenian crimes in order to issue a report. Stéphane Dujarric Spokesman for the Secretary-General has strongly condemned the strikes on the city of Barda and other localities in the Nagorno-Karabakh zone of conflict, which reportedly killed and wounded many. There can be no justification for such attacks he mentioned in his daily press briefing.

There have overall been over 84 civilian deaths in Azerbaijan, outside of the conflict zone as a result of the bombings.

On 25 October, a video emerged online of an Armenian teenager in civilian clothing helping soldiers fire artillery on Azerbaijani positions. Azerbaijan subsequently accused Armenia of using child soldiers during the war. One day later Artsakh Ombudsman released a statement claiming that the boy in the video was 16 and was not directly engaged in military actions and was functioning together with his father.

Mirhasanov (talk) 05:44, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I think we shouldn't expand that much on the Ganja Attack as there is already an article about that, but we can expand on each attack a little bit and especially the Barda attack. — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 08:46, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

@CuriousGolden: you are welcome to change it as you wish. Mirhasanov (talk) 08:56, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I have expanded on the Barda attacks. — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 09:05, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

References

Oppose please specify the changes you want to make phrase by phrase and not the whole section. We cannot rewrite the whole section here.--Sataralynd (talk) 05:07, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

"disputed" and "controlled"

@Rosguill:; sorry to bother you, in similar articles related to Israel, Turkey, Russia, etc. every single article uses the word occupied, and nothing such as "disputed". For example nobody calls Donbass a disputed region, but Crimea can be called, because it is been recognised by some countries as part of Russia as well. However Artsakh is not even recognised by Armenia. This is not NPOV, but POV-pushing by other users trying to romanticisation the occupation. See UN res 62/243: 1. Reaffirms continued respect and support for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Republic of Azerbaijan within its internationally recognized borders; 2. Demands the immediate, complete and unconditional withdrawal of all Armenian forces from all the occupied territories of the Republic of Azerbaijan. I really do not see any reason why this area shouldn't be called occupied. Beshogur (talk) 11:45, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

• Agree. We can't stop calling occupied things "disputed" to stay "neutral" even when international law calls it occupied. This isn't being neutral, this is POV-pushing. — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 11:53, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

• @CuriousGolden and Rosguill: There are two parties to a conflict right now. One is saying they control a piece of land and the other is saying they should control it. When discussing directly about the dispute, you have to maintain WP:NPOV. In the article about the area, it would be more appropriate to discuss the recognition.

WMrapids (talk) 12:00, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

If that's NPOV, we have to change the entire articles regarding the occupied territories anywhere in the world. Beshogur (talk) 12:06, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

WMrapids, international organizations and reliable sources also call it an occupation. Occupation won't makes a party the bad guy, it just says that "X's army came and seized control of Y's internationally recognized territories." See: Occupation of Iraq (2003–2011), Allied-occupied Germany, Turkish occupation of northern Syria. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 12:58, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

• Use of disputed vs controlled is a question that should be resolved based on an assessment of how reliable source refer to the region. A cursory Google Scholar search suggests that "disputed" is used more frequently, but this issue could probably benefit form a more careful analysis. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:13, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

@Rosguill:, I mean disputed or controlled being used instead of occupied. UN and OSCE refers to this area as occupied, not controlled or disputed. Beshogur (talk) 15:21, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

The searches I conducted were disputed vs occupied. I think that the UN and OSCE declarations can be considered, but should be considered in addition to RS coverage, not to its exclusion. That having been said, I did another round of searches and found the opposite result of my previous round.

Google Scholar search results:

• "occupied territory" "Nagorno Karabakh": 579 results
• "disputed territory" "Nagorno Karabakh": 886 results.
• "disputed" "Nagorno Karabakh": 4950 results
• "occupied" "Nagorno Karabakh": 7550 results _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:31, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

@Rosguill:, thanks. So what is the conclusion? Beshogur (talk) 15:42, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Seems like the term "occupied" is two times more popular than "disputed". --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 15:50, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

based on the above data points, I would lean towards "occupied" based on the second search and the OSCE/UN wording. I think there's room for others to dispute that if they can make an argument based on more recent news sources covering the conflict, or can find additional search terms at Scholar that complicate the data points listed above. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:56, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

• Support "Disputed". It is not judgemental, and it currently better reflects the fact that the de facto control of most of the territories in question by Republic of Nagorno Karabakh actively clashes with de jurerecognized borders of Republic of Azerbaijan, the fact that neither side has de-facto and de-jure control of these lands in one place. Disputed is more frequently heard recently in international media due to the active warring, where as occupied was more more frequently in (relatively) peaceful times. Artsakh disputes the occupied status of these lands and yes, occupied does make Artsakh look like "the bad guy", as nobody wants to be called the occupier in its political sense. E.g. Azerbaijan does not occupy Baku, Baku belongs to Azerbaijan and nobody disputes it. It's different from being an occupier of a flat which clearly has a neutral meaning (e.g. I receive letters addressed "to occupier" in my rented flat). Armatura (talk) 01:43, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

• Support "Occupied" Occupied has a neutral meaning, this used in other articles before (and its usage is more than "disputed" per conclusion on Google Scholar search).Ahmetlii (talk) 05:52, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

• Support "Occupied" not because I think, but because it is clearly stated in UN resolutions 822,853,874,884.Mirhasanov (talk) 05:58, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

References

• I suggest Breakaway, or Unrecognized state, depending on context. The territory is indeed not "Disputed" (even per Armenia's official version) as Armenia does not claim Karabakh. As for it being "Occupied", apparently, there are two versions. The Azerbaijani version it is occupied by Armenia. The version of the local Armenians is that Nagorno Karabakh is an independent state. Such a state is, however, not recognized by any other state (see Unrecognized state). So, the correct neutral way is to refer to the territory as a "Breakaway" - i.e. it has goals to achieve independence and actually controls some territory but is recognized as a part of Azerbaijan by law. Clearly, this Republic of Artsakh has no "undisputed territories" and its independence is questioned as a whole - it is not like with territorial disputes elsewhere where some territory is disputed but both countries have undisputed "proper" territories. The context in which the Republic of Artsakh was established needs to be explained for it to remain neutral - namely, that the Azeri population, that used to be larger than the Armenian population, was expelled to make Armenian majority, and that Armenia and Armenian diaspora supported the Artsakh militarily. Ruĝa nazuo (talk) 02:08, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

• Support "Occupied" UNSC, UNGA, and PACE resolutions clearly state Nagorno-Karabakh as occupied. See PACE res 2085: the occupation by Armenia of Nagorno-Karabakh and other adjacent areas of Azerbaijan and areas of Azerbaijan occupied by Armenia SteelEvolution (talk) 07:57, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

• Support "Occupied": The legal status is "occupied" according to UN. The territories belong to Azerbaijan. "controlled" would be only reasonable in case of Lost, mislaid, and abandoned property. Irredentism is not Wikipedia:NPOV. Many Wikipedia:Single-purpose accounts push for "controlled" and "disputed" instead of "occupied" in articles related to the topic. --Geysirhead (talk) 15:10, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

• Support current wording ("disputed") – given its context within the sentence, "disputed" is used here in a descriptive sense, rather denoting any official status. It's common sense that there's a dispute over the land, otherwise there wouldn't be a conflict in the first place. "Disputed" and "occupied" are not incompatible terms, and to change the wording within the opening sentence would in my view skew it in a non-neutral direction, by suggesting that one side has no claim on the land whatsoever. The sources that Rosguill has gathered show that both terms have been used, and I think Armatura, irrespective of whether they may be engaging in advocacy (it appears editors on both sides of the conflict are engaged in advocacy at this talk page) raises a valid point: "occupied" fits better in a peaceful context, "disputed" better reflects an ongoing conflict. "Self-proclaimed" (used earlier in the opening sentence) could probably be strengthened to "unrecognised" or similar without affecting the NPOV of the sentence, if other editors feel that this change is necessary (I think self-proclaimed expresses this fine myself, but wouldn't have any objection if there was a consensus for this change). Issues over the legality/legitimacy of the Republic of Artsakh's claim should be covered (succinctly) in the article's background section, or (in a more detailed manner) within the articles on the region and the republic. Jr8825 • Talk 18:57, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

In addition to this, I've also noticed that the current wording of our article on Nagorno-Karabakh describes it as a "disputed territory". Jr8825 • Talk 05:12, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

It's not because there is a consensus about that. Beshogur (talk) 15:26, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Let me put my point this way: I don't think a consensus is required for a self-evident description, such as calling an area that is being fought over "disputed". I do think a consensus is needed to replace it with a term that some editors (me included) think affects the neutral wording of this particular sentence. To be clear, I'm not questioning the fact that the area is illegally occupied under international law. I simply think that spelling this out in the first sentence of this article is UNDUE. I think it minimises/does not do justice to a complicated issue and requires a fuller explanation. Stating that Artsakh is self-proclaimed/breakaway/unrecognised seems perfectly sufficient for the first sentence. Jr8825 • Talk 15:46, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

@Rosguill:, I am not asking for opinions. People putting their opinion here. You have seen what UN, OSCE and majority of sources refer to. Beshogur (talk) 19:05, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

@Beshogur:, if you are referring to my comment, I'd ask you to consider the benefit of having non-involved editors such as myself (I have no particular emotional investment in this conflict) offering their interpretation of the issues. Jr8825 • Talk 15:20, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: Beshogur provided the UN RES/62/243 as reference, but the transcript of the resolution that include voting results confirms what can be found on Political status of Nagorno-Karabakh article (On 14 March 2008, the United Nations General Assembly passed a non-binding resolution by a vote of 39 to 7, with 100 abstentions, ... was supported mainly by members of the OIC and GUAM, both of which Azerbaijan is a member...). Note the Voting bloc behavior (OIC and GUAM). Most states abstained.

• The PACE resolution cited by a user has 98 votes in favor, 71 against and 40 abstentions. This is far from being a consensus.

• @Rosguill:, you provided a google scholar search results. I tried replicating these results, and there is a significant cross-contamination. Also, your search did not include a contextual filtering. Because obviously, occupied+NK will yield many results for the territory that is outside NK, but controlled by NK. Not NK itself.

• On OSCE Minsk Group position, see the six key elements for the settlement from the Madrid Principles. The principles and their wordings wouldn't be there, if NK wasn't disputed.

• Conclusion: That what is surrounding NK but controlled by NK being occupied, can be debated. But NK itself being occupied, according to the sources provided, it's disputed. Hemşinli çocuk 21:21, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

• @Geysirhead:, why is it that important who support a particular wording? Hemşinli çocuk 21:36, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

@Ermenermin: WP is En|cy|clo|pe|dists' Corner, not Speakers' Corner WP:NOTFREESPEECH. It is important to keep Wikipedia free of Wikipedia:Single-purpose accounts, especially if they support certain wording with Wikipedia:I just don't like it arguments. --Geysirhead (talk) 08:52, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

@Geysirhead: Yes but how who edit what is more important than valid arguments someone provides? Hemşinli çocuk 15:48, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

@Ermenermin:, This is far from being a consensus. Nonsense, abstain doesn't mean against. So there is a vote in favor. Plus PACE describes it as Armenian occupation. Yet again, dispute happens between two countries over a place. Armenia does not claim NK, neither does recognise Artsakh. Artsakh is not a recognised country. Beshogur (talk) 22:10, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

• • @Beshogur: Abstain does not mean against, but it does not mean in support to either. And PACE had a stronger opposition for the resolution. I myself will abstain voting, it doesn't mean that my silence means that I support the term occupation.Hemşinli çocuk 22:30, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Support Disputed are we seriously comparing Occupation of Iraq (2003–2011), Allied-occupied Germany, Turkish occupation of northern Syria with the Armenians currently in Nagorno-Karabakh? At least everyone including Azerbaijan agree that the area had a majority Armenian population for a very long time, unlike the US in Iraq, Turkey in Syria and Allied forces in Germany - where there was a clear time and place of occupation. This is according to census data by Azerbaijan during the USSR's life. The POV that is being clearly pushed here is that Armenia is occupying Azerbaijani land, which is the official position of the Azeri government. Could we please try to maintain the NPOV? We established already that the people of Nagorno-Karabakh don't want to be part of Azerbaijan weeks ago in this page, and here is the source that confirms it. However we understand that Azerbaijan doesn't agree with this, hence the dispute--Sataralynd (talk) 03:28, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Support "occupied" "At least everyone including Azerbaijan agree that the area had a majority Armenian population for a very long time" is wrong. NKAO together with Armenian-occupied territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh had a majority non-Armenian population. Red Kurdistan was populated by mother-tongue-Azeri Kurds. These people are now considered Azerbaijanis and are internally displaced people in Azerbaijan. Ethnic cleansing reduced the population of the territory now occupied by Artsakh from something around 500,000400,000 to 150,000135,000. 99,7% is of the population is now Armenian. --Geysirhead (talk) 09:07, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Both Armenia and Azerbaijan have committed ethnic cleansing against each other. NKAO alone was populated by an Armenian majority, but not the occupied raions around it.--Geysirhead (talk) 10:06, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

But seems that no one disputes that the raions outside of NK had non-Armenian majority. What is being voted here, from what I can understand, is not only calling these raions as occupied but also NK itself (that always had Armenian majority). Hemşinli çocuk 15:54, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

NK itself would never be able to occupy so much territory. It is an Armenian de facto protectorate Artsakh, which occupies Azeri territory. Artsakh is not NK.--Geysirhead (talk) 20:10, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

"The Armenian victory led to the emergence of Nagorno-Karabakh as an Armenian protectorate" https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14751798.2014.894297 --Geysirhead (talk) 20:22, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

"Finally, in the case of Armenia, the de facto state of Nagorno-Karabakh, which remains under Armenian protectorate, significantly reduces the government's political autonomy, making it especially vulnerable to Russian pressure" https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-658-26446-8_4 --Geysirhead (talk) 20:22, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

"Azerbaijani fighters downed the craft 12 November during joint exercises between the Armenian military and forces of the region, a de facto Armenian protectorate although internationally recognized as Azerbaijani territory" https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=455628 --Geysirhead (talk) 20:22, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

"Ruben Melikyan, a former human rights ombudsman of the Armenian protectorate of Nagorno-Karabakh who is now supporting the far-right activists, initially said his client had also been detained on weapons charges, but when Danielyan was released he said the charges were drug-related." https://eurasianet.org/several-leaders-of-armenias-far-right-detained --Geysirhead (talk) 20:22, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

"The hilly, landlocked stretch of land has been ruled as an Armenian protectorate since an early 1990s war, which left some 30,000 dead, even though it is internationally recognised as part of Azerbaijan." https://www.independent.co.uk/independentpremium/world/armenia-azerbaijan-war-conflict-b863585.html --Geysirhead (talk) 20:22, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

"All three countries canceled school for at least a week, as did the Armenian protectorate of Nagorno-Karabakh." https://www.afghanistannews.net/news/264192812/caucasus-shuts-doors-after-coronavirus-hits --Geysirhead (talk) 20:22, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

"The public movement, started in 1988, aimed to restore the Armenian protectorate over the autonomous republic of Nagornyi Karabakh, which was made a part of the Soviet Republic of Azerbaijan ..." https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/the-armenian-intelligentsia-today-discourses-of-self-identification-and-self-perception/viewer --Geysirhead (talk) 20:22, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

"President Ilham Aliyev and military officials openly link the arms buildup to the unresolved dispute over the Nagorno-Karabakh region, which nominally belongs to Azerbaijan but has been an Armenian protectorate in all but name since its ethnic Armenian population fought to ..." https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=164301 --Geysirhead (talk) 20:22, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Let me remind you, that this discussion follows what was said here.

The request was initiated by the same user, and you even commented there. The title says it, the territories surrounding NK. So what was discussed initially, seems to have been about the territories surrounding NK. But this discussion took a diverging course here, by becoming a vote to decide to indiscriminately call all territories as occupied, including NK. While there is definitely a differences between NK and the surrounding territories, and there is even an article here to prove that. And they are definitely different according to the Madrid principles.

Your search results are meaningless in this context, because all what those results mean is that this expression is used by some scholars, like other wordings or expressions. But is this sufficient to superimpose your preferred terms to draw your conclusion, by discarding other materials that are far from being mere fringes? Hemşinli çocuk 22:12, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support "Disputed" Per WP:NPOV. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:13, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Support "occupied" As per UN resolutions İ mentioned before.Mirhasanov (talk) 19:48, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

CuriousGolden edit (removal of the bulk of human rights organizations reactions and artificial equalisations of the reactions)

@CuriousGolden: you removed the sheer bulk of human rights organizations reactions: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2020_Nagorno-Karabakh_conflict&type=revision&diff=986012184&oldid=986005851 You specifically removed all the parts that were specifically cricitising Azerbaijan's actions. You justified your edit as "per consensus" although there was no such consensus in this page or WP:RSN page. You removed the international association of genocide scholars' statement without justification (or caring for consensus). Oblige us all, explain the purpose of these edit, to avoid going into edit / revert cycle. CuriousGolden edit (removal of the bulk of human rights organizations reactions). Regards, Armatura (talk) 13:09, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi. Firstly, the consensus was on what Rosguill said: "Human rights groups have called for an end to the conflict and objected to the targeting of civilians and the use of cluster munitions. Amnesty International has criticized both Armenia and Azerbaijan [cite], and Human Rights Watch has criticized just Azerbaijan on these grounds [cite]. Genocide Watch has described the situation as a 'genocide emergency' for Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh, citing attacks on civilians, denial of the Armenian Genocide, and denial of return for Armenian refugees to Azerbaijan as risk factors leading to their assessment [cite]". You went on to go in detail about the Azeri parts of each report, giving them WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. Descriptions of the reports need to be short and precise, especially in an article that's way too long already. Secondly, a WP:CONSENSUS was not reached on IAGS open letter discussion. Don't add things without coming to a consensus. — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 13:15, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I think CuriousGolden is mostly justified with his argument as that section was pretty bias because of WP:UNDUEWEIGHT, but I think the content itself was okay, and it would have been better to just balance it out with expansion of both sides crimes. Also on the IAGS thing, I think since IAGS is a notable third party it could be put in the reactions category. Flalf^Talk 15:02, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't think a consensus for much of anything has been established yet: there was a deadlock over the original wording, I proposed what I think is better, more neutral wording; there was no actual consensus established for what I suggested, as it hadn't really been discussed. Armatura's interpretation was a WP:BOLD edit the further expanded my original suggestion. The claims in that paragraph that I checked are verifiable, but it does seem like the emphasis in that paragraph is more skewed than in the cited sources, particularly the Amnesty International coverage, so objections on the basis of WP:DUE are valid. Clearly more discussion is needed to come to a workable solution. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:20, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill, Flalf Thanks, please see below

Polishing the text of humanitarian organisations reactions

Ok, everybody who was interested in this subject, here is the text on Humanitarian organizations subsection that was reverted. It includes 4 essential parts - Amnesty international, Human rights watch, Genocide Watch and International Association of Genocide Scholars. Genocide Watch has extensive discussion on this talk page, along with suggestions for adding Amnesty international and Human rights watch, IAGS has a discussion, too, with the prevailing opinion that it should be included. There may have been reactions from other organizations, or new reports from the same organizations in these two days, if you are aware of any please suggest. If you think that somehow the details of cluster munition belong to another subsection please suggest which one.Armatura (talk) 01:10, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

• Version 1.0

Human rights groups have called for an end to the conflict. Amnesty International called Armenia and Azerbaijan to immediately stop the use of heavy explosive weapons with wide-area effects in densely populated civilian areas, and join the Convention on Cluster Munitions. Amnesty International has previously warned against the use of banned cluster bombs, after its experts found that Azerbaijan had likely used the weapons in the region, yet Amnesty International has been unable to verify Azerbaijan’s allegations of the use of cluster munitions by the Armenian side . They were able to identify Israeli-made M095 DPICM cluster munitions in residential areas of Stepanakert that appear to have been fired by Azerbaijani forces. While they have verified that 300mm Smerch rocket artillery systems do appear to have been used by Armenian forces, the photographic and video evidence available from the Azerbaijani side does not yet allow for conclusive analysis of its specific targets, nor whether the rocket warheads contained cluster munitions. . Human Rights Watch also urged both sides to join Convention on Cluster Munitions. They criticized Azerbaijan for repeatedly using cluster munitions in residential areas in Nagorno-Karabakh, documenting four such incidents, without being able to identify any military equipment or bases in the three neighbourhoods where the attacks took place. . Genocide Watch has described the situation as a 'genocide emergency' for Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh, citing Azerbaijan’s current targeting of civilians in Nagorno-Karabakh, denial of past genocide against Armenians, and its official use of hate speech as factors leading to their assessment International Association of Genocide Scholars issued an open letter, considering the air raids conducted by the Azerbaijani military on Shushi Holy Savior Cathedral as a part of policy of the cultural genocide, blaming Azerbaijani government in systematic destruction of the Armenian historical heritage” .Armatura (talk) 00:03, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

• Version 2.0 modified per Rosguill's very helpful suggestions which were supported by Sataralynd.

Human rights groups have called for an end to the conflict and objected to the use of heavy explosive weapons with wide-area effects in densely populated civilian areas and urged both sides to join the Convention on Cluster Munitions. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have criticized Azerbaijan for its use of cluster munitions. Genocide Watch has described the situation as a 'genocide emergency' for Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh, citing Azerbaijan’s current targeting of civilians in Nagorno-Karabakh, denial of past genocide against Armenians, and its official use of hate speech as factors leading to their assessment International Association of Genocide Scholars issued an open letter, considering the air raids conducted by the Azerbaijani military on Shushi Holy Savior Cathedral as a part of policy of the cultural genocide, blaming Azerbaijani government in systematic destruction of the Armenian historical heritage”. Armatura (talk) 00:03, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

• Version 3.0 with Sataralynd's suggestions, now that AI published cluster munition confirmation by Armenia, now ADDED to the article

Human rights groups have objected to the use of heavy explosive weapons with wide-area effects in densely populated civilian areas and urged both sides to end the conflict and join the Convention on Cluster Munitions. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have criticized Azerbaijan and Armenia for the use of cluster munitions. Genocide Watch has described the situation as a 'genocide emergency' for Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh, citing Azerbaijan’s current targeting of civilians in Nagorno-Karabakh, denial of past genocide against Armenians, and its official use of hate speech as factors leading to their assessment International Association of Genocide Scholars issued an open letter, considering the air raids conducted by the Azerbaijani military on Shushi Holy Savior Cathedral as a part of policy of the cultural genocide, blaming Azerbaijani government in systematic destruction of the Armenian historical heritage”. Armatura (talk) 02:08, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

• Support Thanks @Armatura:--Sataralynd (talk) 02:10, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

  Oppose Rosguill, CuriousGolden and Flalf IAGS letter doesn't refer to reliable source. I checked IAGS site and was not able to find any relevant publication or news regarding what is claiming "cultural genocide". I am not refusing the fact that someone could draft the letter but if it is not officially published in the site, can we call it a valid reference, which refers to voltairenet.org ? GenocideWatch is also not reliable source to refer to claim that there is a potential fact of Genocide as the paper they have published is one sided, doesn't describe whole story and trying to show events that were causes to victimize Armenians. As I mentioned before the term of "genocide" or any claim needs to be properly justified not through 1 paper statement. Hence, inclusion of this information is not necessary and creates questions about objectivity of the article. Imagine person who has no background information about the conflict reads the article, which automatically drives conclusion that Azerbaijanians doing genocide. We must avoid such POVs that effects the objectivity and informativity of the content . I think previous decision by Rosguill was right to completely remove this part. Mirhasanov (talk) 06:20, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

  Oppose the inclusion of Voltaire net, which is definitely not a RS, and I cannot confirm that IAGS actually published this letter. (t · c) buidhe 06:56, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

  Oppose per the reasons given by other users.--Ahmetlii (talk) 08:26, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

  Oppose Initially leaned toward support, but I had not checked the website, which is a deprecated source. I may be inclined to support it's inclusion in the future if another third party source brings this up. Flalf^Talk 12:44, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

  Comment Thanks all for your comments, I removed the sentence on IAGS letter ("International Association of Genocide Scholars issued an open letter, considering the air raids conducted by the Azerbaijani military on Shushi Holy Savior Cathedral as a part of policy of the cultural genocide, blaming Azerbaijani government in systematic destruction of the Armenian historical heritage”.") until a non-deprecated source becomes available: @Mirhasanov: Genocide Watch has already been extensively discussed in this talk page earlier and at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Genocide_Watch:_Unreliable_source? with a consensus reached. Armatura (talk) 15:19, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Armatura (talk) unfortunately I was not invited to participate in this discussion. GW may be reliable source but the main point here was their statement. The statement itself is completely one sided. I write an email to Genocide Watch to help me understand the basis of the statement they used to drive the conclusion but they never answered me. @Rosguill: may people here still believes that the information that refers to GW about genocide claims is bias. Please just read the stages :

Classification: Muslim Turkic Azerbaijani “us” vs. Armenian Christian “them.” - The current conflict doesn't have any religious basis and all organizations accept that it is ethnic conflict. The classification itself is not right from the beginning.

Symbolization: Artsakh Armenians have Armenian names (ID cards, passports), language, dress, churches. - This is not true. They may have Armenian names but holding Armenian ID cards and passports is illegal and all of them officially considered to be citizens of Azerbaijan.

Discrimination: Armenians were massacred, forcibly expelled, and now excluded from Azerbaijan. - Both sides conducted same crimes in a period of 1980-1994. Can the independent body say that it is one sided?

Dehumanization: Armenians are called “terrorists”, “bandits,” “infidels,” “leftovers of the sword.” - Well I simply want to refer to this link in order to answer the question https://www.jstor.org/stable/40395543?seq=1 Published by Royal Institute of International Affairs or https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9780230118874_3. Can bring more references.

Organization: Azerbaijan gets drones, and arms from Turkey, Russia, Israel. Turkish Air Force supports Azerbaijani attack on Artsakh. - ???? Is it logical???

Polarization: President Ilham Aliyev and social media use anti-Armenian hate speech. - Isn't armenia does that?

Preparation: 67,000 Azerbaijani troops invaded Artsakh; Aliyev wants “liberation” of “occupied” territory. - Firstly, The GW itself reject international rules by referring the area as Artsakh and calling it as invasion. Non of the international community called it invasion.

Persecution: Armenians in Artsakh live in bomb shelters due to Azerbaijani shelling. Thousands of civilians have fled Artsakh - What happened in Barda and Ganja is not same?

Extermination: Genocidal massacres of Armenians in Azerbaijan in 1918 killed over 23,000 Armenians. Massacres resumed in 1988. Armenians fled from Azerbaijan. Azerbaijani atrocities against Armenians are officially rewarded. - What about genocide of Azerbaijanis March Days which happened before September days?

Denial: Aliyev and Azerbaijan officially deny the Armenian Genocide during the Ottoman Empire. They deny current atrocities. - Only 32 countries accepted so called "Armenian Genocide". Shall we also mark these countries as well? The "Armenian Genocide" term itself is still disputed as Armenians rejects to create common investigation bodies with Turkish officials to investigate what happened on those days. It as multiple times offered by turkish officials and free access to Armenians to Ottoman Archives were guaranteed.

@Rosguill: Again I would like to reiterate that GW may be reliable source to refer but what they mentioned here clearly shows that they haven't done enough research and this 10 stage is not justified properly. Shall we still refer that?

Mirhasanov (talk) 06:29, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

References

About Lyon

EtienneDolet, why do you keep adding Lyon incident? Its participants were Turkish people, not Azerbaijani. Also, there's an ongoing anti-Macron protests in the World among the Muslims. WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH for assuming any relation. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 16:06, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Because it’s relevant to Karabakh. The article itself says that clashes and tensions are a result of the Karabakh issue, the article says nothing about Macron. Étienne Dolet (talk) 16:09, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

EtienneDolet, if you believe that it is notable enough, add it under a different section. Turkish people aren't Azerbaijani and their actions don't represent the Azerbaijanis. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 16:11, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

EtienneDolet, there's also a certain POV in the text you added. The incident happened in a backlash to the clashes between Armenians and Turks on 28 October, when the Armenians protestors met with some Turks. Here's the source. There is also the other side of the story. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 16:16, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

They are clearly in support of Azerbaijan and this march comes amid an earlier protest that was pro-Armenian to which an ethnic Turk attacked the peaceful Armenian protestors with a hammer. You don’t have to be an ethnic Azeri to support the Azerbaijani position on Karabakh. Étienne Dolet (talk) 16:14, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

EtienneDolet, in support of Azerbaijan, or not, they are not Azerbaijanis as the section's title suggests. The text you provided literally accuse Azerbaijanis of Islamism, which they never showed. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 16:16, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

P.S. adding them to Turkey section is the best thing we can do. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 16:18, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

No, because the source specifically mentions Azeris, even in the title. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:40, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

@Solavirum: I checked and can confirm that the title says "Turkish and Azeri" nationals. @EtienneDolet:, thanks for amending; as it appears that Azerbaijanis and Turks are mostly marching / protesting side by side (mentioned and pictured together in the same subsection), do you think the "Azerbaijani" section in Ethnic Minorities could be renamed to "Azerbaijanis and Turks" to reflect this? Thanks. Regards Armatura (talk) 19:13, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Actually, after looking at the section, it might be wise to add Turks to the section header. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:31, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

EtienneDolet Agreed and done. Also added the hammer attack on Armenians on Lyon raod that directly preceded the Lyon march of Turks and Azerbaijanis. Armatura (talk)

infobox equipment +

https://www.cnnturk.com/dunya/ilk-kez-libyada-kullanilmisti-bu-kez-azerbaycanda-goruntulendi https://www.stm.com.tr/tr/cozumlerimiz/otonom-sistemler/kargu-otonom-doner-kanatli-vurucu-iha-sistemi

Turkish sources report that the kamikaze UAV system, STM Kargu, has been transferred to Azerbaijan. Let's enter information in Azerbaijan infobox. --45.135.206.249 (talk) 22:34, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Already added by me. Beshogur (talk) 12:03, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

thanks.--45.135.206.249 (talk) 18:05, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 October 2020

Under the 'War Crimes' section, add that the Azerbaijani military reportedly beheaded an Armenian soldier. Greglawl (talk) 03:22, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

References

Oppose Please provide reliable and independent source

 Not done Yes, you provided sources. Edit requests such as this are used for uncontroversial changes. You will have to establish consensus for this to be added. Mgasparin (talk) 21:21, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

see here for a third party report on the topic--Sataralynd (talk) 21:46, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Oppose The source that Sataralynd provided states that these should be provided by international experts, and others are falling per WP:RS; so it's WP:TOOSOON due to lacking citations.--Ahmetlii (talk) 21:57, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 October 2020 (2)

Lemanhasan (talk) 15:40, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

What do you want me to change? Mgasparin (talk) 21:22, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

4.3 Turkey and Russia

This episode is so ridiculous Is Erdogan guilty for the occupied Azerbaijani lands? YOU ARE NOT NEUTRAL!! a country is liberating its territory from occupation. The country, which is very close to each other, gives military and political support. But No, Is Erdogan guilty?--45.135.206.249 (talk) 18:31, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Dear user under IP 45.135.206.249, it would be useful to 1. tag the user you are addressing 2. avoid emotions as much as possible (it's an encyclopedia, not a social media platform) 3. (while calling others not-neutral) avoid from expressing non-neutral views such as "a country liberating its territory" if you want the discussion to be as productive as possible. Regards Armatura (talk) 01:36, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

(User:Armatura) ! :You have no right to talk to me over the top. This is a free encyclopedia what I said is facts.

• Armenia has invaded the region altogether by applying the policy of MASSACRE and forced migration in this region. Accept it or not, these are facts. --45.135.206.249 (talk) 19:42, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Possible use of phosphorus munitions

I don't think will pass muster as RS, but I thought I would just add this video filmed by the Armenian side here for the benefit of all concerned, editors, journalists, human rights observers, the military-inclined alike who visit this page, of footage showing the Azerbaijani side apparently deploying White phosphorus munitions. The narrator of the video is apparently an Armenian soldier and says that the munitions are burning the forests and wooded countryside in NK. Regards, Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:42, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

or, alternately, thermite. Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:47, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

video/photo published with confirmation by HR Ombudsman in Hetq, Armenpress, and News.am. Will keep an eye on more 3PS --Sataralynd (talk) 21:37, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Also, Al-Masdar now [31] Étienne Dolet (talk) 21:40, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

WP:RS. Beshogur (talk) 21:45, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

As Sataralynd and Beshogur pointed before, I'm waiting from a 3PS/RS source rather than deprecated/possibly biased sources, especially the original video's properties (like where did someone get) is lacking and both sides did accusations like this before. (here is a source from 2016, which says Azerbaijan has alleged Armenia about white phosphorus)Ahmetlii (talk) 21:52, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

improper quotes

Under minorities abroad there is :

Amid tensions among protesters over Nagorno-Karabakh, dozens of Turks and Azeris marched through the streets of Lyon, France on on 28th October 2020 and chanted pro-Erdogan slogans while threatening Armenians. Some of their chants included "Allah Akbar", “Where are you Armenians? Where are you? We are here… sons of bitches”, and "fuck Armenia, we will fuck you."[

I believe these quotes serves no purpose, if you agree, could someone please remove.

Unsigned user, there is already a discussion about that march in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2020_Nagorno-Karabakh_conflict#About_Lyon Regards, Armatura (talk) 19:47, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Background Section far from NPOV

Background section has several NPOV issues.

• Neo-Ottomanism has nothing to do with the current conflict. Sahar Sojla, given as the author of the article cited for Neo-Ottomanism is a student Peace and Conflict Studies at NDU Islamabad. It is not specified whether she is a PhD student, which would give her some credibility. She has only five articles in moderndiplomacy, which itself is not very heard. She has been active for the last two months, so there is some chance it is an alias for another author, who might not be neutral or qualified. At the end, no reputable work in this topic published in peer-reviewed journals, do not include Armenian as consequences of Turkey's Neo-Ottomanism policy. As a result, Sojla Sahar does not back her claims in the cited article, they are just blurted out.

• Armenia do not appear in the article cited in the background page. It is given as if it supports Sojla Sahar's conclusion yet, while the article, published in a peer-reviewed journal, doesn't mention Armenia at all. Note that Syria, Iraq and Cyprus, the true victims of the Neo-Ottomanism policy are explicitly mentioned in this article. The author of this article, Edward Wastnidge has a PhD in Middle Eastern Studies from the University of Manchester. He is traceable and has the appropriate degree, yet he makes no mention of Armenia in his Neo-Ottomanism article.

• Neo-Ottomanism article has a mention for Armenia, only using Sojla Sahar's article. Turkish foreign policy regarding Syria and Palestine is given explicitly, yet Armenia is only mentioned with no reputable source.

• Foreign policy of the Recep Tayyip Erdoğan government doesn't give any mention to neo-ottomanism for relations with Armenia.

• Armenia–Turkey relations gives no mention of neo-ottomanism.

These are the grounds that Neo-Ottomanism was removed from the Turkey and Russia section, yet it still persists in the background. If Neo-Ottomanism is to be remain in this article, a reliable source is needed, i.e., we need more than a blog page of a student.

Turkey is given undue weight in this page. Turkey is not one of the combatants yet it is mentioned almost as much as Azerbaijan. Turkey is mentioned as

• helping Azerbaijan to gain its independence and recognising it. This has literally nothing to do with the current conflict. "One nation two countries" saying, however, has gained traction both in Turkish and in Azerbaijani media after the start of the current conflict so it should remain.

• Turkey's expansionist policy has nothing to do with the current conflict. If it does, a reliable source is needed per above. Until a reliable source is found, that sentence need to be removed.

• Armenian Genocide has nothing to do with the current conflict. Yet, assuming the shear size of the tragedy, it might have affected Armenian relations with other Turkic countries as well. I am not suggesting to remove it altogether, yet the following part needs to be removed to make it concise: where 1.5 million Armenians were systematically mass murdered and expelled by the Ottoman Empire. Otherwise, it creates undue weight issues. I have to emphasise that it is nothing to do with sources. No one disputes Armenian Genocide and I don't believe it even needs sources as it is common knowledge. Yet, it is unrelated to the current conflict.

The final issue is the status of Artsakh. It is currently not recognised by Armenia, which turns everything into an international law nightmare, as Armenia constantly states they are not involved in the attacks against non-military target and Artsakh accepting them. Therefore Armenian unrecognition of Artsakh must be mentioned in the article by changing the first sentence ending as "which is supported but not recognised by Armenia".

I believe these changes will bring more neutrality to the article. 131.111.5.153 (talk) 22:24, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Here's a link mentioning Neo-ottomanism in the context of current Karabakh conflict (among others), from Balkans. https://wgi.world/the-revival-of-neo-ottomanism-in-turkey/ Armatura (talk) 23:22, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

This is no more RS than Sojla Sahar article. Still modern democracy, still an author who doesn't mention his credentials. If the claim is true, scholarly articles would at least be giving it a notable mention. 131.111.5.153 (talk) 23:28, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't see a point of giving undue weight of the non-recognition of Artsakh by Armenia, there is enough text on Artsakh recognition on the relevant page. Armatura (talk) 23:26, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

We can then remove the background section altogether, because Nagorno Karabakhh is mentioned in the relevant page, Azerbaijan is mentioned in the relevant page and I can keep going. Background should give all the relevant information about the conflict, not just selected pieces and the legal status of the entity directly involved is relevant. 131.111.5.153 (talk) 23:32, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "scholarly articles" and "modern democracy". Here's another one, by Turkish author https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/turkeys-hateful-neo-ottoman-campaign-against-the-armenians/ Uzay Bulut Distinguished Senior Fellow, Gatestone Institute Uzay Bulut is a Turkish journalist and political analyst formerly based in Ankara. She studied at Istanbul's Boğaziçi University and Ankara's Middle East Technical University. Her writings have appeared in various outlets such as the Washington Times, Christian Post, the Daily Caller and Jerusalem Post. Bulut's journalistic work focuses mainly on human rights, Turkish politics and history, religious minorities in the Middle East and anti-Semitism. She is a Distinguished Senior Fellow at the Gatestone Institute. Not a student, not an amateur, not even Armenian or Christian. Regards. Armatura (talk) 00:11, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

"Background should give all the relevant information". Precisely why Armenian Genocide and Neo-ottomanism should stay as the current (proxy) war is not an isolated conflict but an event in larger continuum of Anti-Armenianism and Turcic expansionism. As for non-recognition of Artsakh by Armenia, then limited recognition by Abkhazia, several US states should also be mentioned which will take a bulk of space whereas this information is available in detail in the relevant page. Regards. Armatura (talk) 00:19, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Abkhazia or Osetia are not parts of the conflict so their recognition is irrelevant. Armenia however, is part of the conflict and its recognition is more related. As I mentioned multiple times, relevance of Neo-ottomanism is not backed by any RS. You suggest blog pages, not peer reviewed journals. There are hundreds of peer reviewed journals on Turkish foreign policy and neo-ottomanism yet all fail to state Turkish-Armenian relations are affected by neo-Ottomanism. If Turkic expansionism has something to do with the current conflict, then find an appropriate RS. Neo-Ottomanism is not about news, it is a scholarly studied topic therefore requires at least one peer-reviewed journal, like the by Edward Wastnidge which fails to mention Armenia as well.

Note that wikipedia reflects the common consensus, not a few people's claim. The common consensus is that Neo-Ottomanism has nothing to do with Turkish Armenian relations. Otherwise, you would find at least one article published in a peer reviewed journal.

Armenian Genocide, which didn't occur in the current areas of the conflict, didn't commited by any of the combatant parties is relevant but legal status of Artsakh is not? This makes it harder to assume good faith.

I will forward you to Gatestone Institute page to help you understand why a Gatestone Institute blog page is not an acceptable RS. Thanks.131.111.5.153 (talk) 00:30, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Here are three (1,2 and 3) reliable third party sources linking Turkish Neo-ottomanism with Turkish-Armenian relations in the context of the current conflict. I think the standard of peer-reviewed journals linking is unduly high. After all, we don't hold all claims on Wikipedia to that standard, why should we do here, especially when reliable outlets are already reporting on the connection?--Sataralynd (talk) 11:46, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

I have explained why American conservative cannot be an RS. (See Gatestone Institute.) The third source is as much reliable as moderndiplomacy.eu, i.e., they are all blog posts. I, and of course you, can write a blog post and have it published in a similar website but it will not be a reliable source. I was actually intrigued by the Bloomberg article, as it would be considered reliable with reasonable accuracy, but it states Armenia not as a Neo-Ottoman target for Turkey but only in the list of countries Turkey is in a strenuous relationship. Turkish-Armenian conflict is 100 years old while Neo-Ottomanism is at best 40 years old.

You are treating neo-ottomanism as a piece of news. It is not. It has a definition in political sciences. That is why an RS, suitable for news publishing is not necessarily an RS to support a scientific idea. This is why it must be uphold to higher standards than say, who is currently holding Murovdag. Still, the lack of a single peer-reviewed journal must give you an impression about how the academia sees Neo-Ottomanism: not related to Turkish Armenian relations. After all, no one would write in a scientific journal "neo-ottomanism is not related to Turkish Armenian relations". Therefore, I cannot prove the negative, that is why you need to find a good source to prove the positive.

"we don't hold all claims on Wikipedia to that standard" Maybe we should. But it is not for me to decide. However, when a scientific, in this context political scientific, claim is made it must be upto this standard. It is like saying Helium makes hydrogen bonds and citing blogs when all peer reviewed journals doesn't mention Helium in the context of hydrogen bonding. 131.111.5.153 (talk) 13:28, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Adding one more argument to Sataryland's one, do not expect the peer-reviewed scholarly articles about this conflict to be published streightaway, those who have ever submitted an article to scientific journals know that the process is slow and involves multiple revision-submission cycles. So I'm sure there will eventually be "scholarly articles" on this subject after a few months and even years later. Armatura (talk) 13:17, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Then we must surely wait for the peer-review journals rather than basing our claims on blog posts by unknown students, misinforming right-wing think tanks and google searches that includes neo-ottomanism and Armenia in the same page. Otherwise, it becomes original research. 131.111.5.153 (talk) 13:33, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

See here. The American Conservative is "usable with attribution". The Bloomberg piece doesn't specifically list Armenia as Neo-ottoman target, but it doesn't list other countries as well. This is becuase the writer of the piece thinks it is at least in part the ideology that drives Erdogan's foreign policy, including his support to Azerbaijan in this war.

You said above "If Neo-Ottomanism is to be remain in this article, a reliable source is needed, i.e., we need more than a blog page of a student.". I brought you (arguably) 2.5 reliable sources and you are now challenging their contents. To me this is clear POV pushing.--Sataralynd (talk) 16:02, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you are POV pushing. The inclusion of Armenian Genocide and Neo-Ottomanism, i.e., Turkey's unrelated crimes disturbs the neutrality of the article. I have to tell this one last time, Neo-Ottomanism is a scientifically discussed topic in peer-reviewed journals and none mentions it in the concept of Turkish Armenian relations. You brought me two blog posts and one newspaper article, not stating the fact you are defending and written by a cricket player. The Gatestone Institute author, Uzay Bulut, claims to hold a Master's degree from Middle East Technical University but I cannot find her master thesis in the thesis database. Again, Uzay Bulut has not published anything in a journal indexed by Scholar Google. One article indexed by scholar google quotes Uzay Bulut saying she is a reporter not a political scientist. Give me something published in the European Journal of International Relations orAmerican Journal of Political Science or anything similar and I will stop pushing. Wikipedia does not lead, it follows the scientific community and the community never mentioned Neo-Ottomanism in terms of Turkish Armenian relations.

I don't really see the point of further discussion. Give me a single peer reviewed journal and I will drop this. I can find you hundreds that focus on Neo-Ottomanism and Turkish foreign policy that doesn't mention Armenia, yet it is impossible to prove a negative. Thanks 131.111.5.153 (talk) 16:19, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

See also [[32]] and check if the current version upholds the attribution standards.131.111.5.153 (talk) 16:25, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Dear User 131.111.5.153, according to extremely high standards you suggested above most of the Wikipedia articles should be taken down, especially the articles on ongoing developments. You are welcome to suggest those high standards to Wikipedia administrators on Wikipedia improvement pages, without mentioning Armenia at all, see what the wider community says. Not all Wikipedia editors have Cambridge degree in Neo-ottomanism, and most of use indeed uses Google for searching most things in the internet, but we really try to do our best. If not satisfied with anything that you're unable to resolve on this talk page, you can always open a dispute. Regards, Armatura (talk) 18:23, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Please stop the ad hominem responses. You can check [[here]] that the Neo-Ottomanism claim is not really scientific. Moreover, the existing structure suggests that a significant minority believes Turkish Armenian relations are impacted by Neo-Ottomanism, when in truth, no one with the appropriate degrees have such a claim. Per intext attribution, if such a thing is to be stated, it needs to be stated that "Sohla Sahar, a student in Peace and Conflict Studies, Uzay Bulut, a fellow of a far right think tank known to have bias against Muslims and who has never published an article in a peer reviewed journal and Slaviša Milačić, a historian graduated from an unknown institute claims that Turkish involvement in this conflict is related to the Neo-Ottoman policy adopted by AKP, the ruling party in Turkey, while the overwhelming majority of the community did not comment on whether Turkish Armenian relations are impacted by Neo-Ottoman policies." This is how you give attribute. Either change it like this or remove Neo-Ottomanism claim. Our task as wikipedia editors is to reflect the common consensus and comment on significant minorities, not ragtag group of conspiracy theorists. Thanks. 131.111.5.153 (talk) 18:35, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Beheading of Armenian Soldier under 'War Crime section'

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Under the 'War Crimes' section, add that the Azerbaijani military reportedly beheaded an Armenian soldier. Greglawl (talk) 22:46, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Support Sources are independent and accurate. Therealelgreco (talk) 22:52, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Comment You grabbed one of my sources. Is it also independent and accurate? 131.111.5.153 (talk) 22:54, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Can you fix it? Apparently I cannot. Thanks 131.111.5.153 (talk) 23:01, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Weak Oppose One source is Public Radio of Armenia. It is obviously not independent. The other source is a independent but it is not part of the mainstream media so it is hard to comment on the accuracy. Besides, it says "accused of", so it refrains from using a strong voice. If indeed this is correct, other independent and more credible sources will be publishing it in the near future. Then I will change my vote to support. 131.111.5.153 (talk) 23:00, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Comment I'd wait. Determine based on coverage by ("mainstream") international media (Western, Chinese, etc.). --Calthinus (talk) 23:44, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Comment considering the scale of the overall conflict, I doubt mainstreamn media would make a dedicated specific article about this specific incident for the time being. Most likely if any confirmation we have would be a post-conflict report by organizations like the HRW or something of the sort. Juxlos (talk) 01:40, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

SOHR

SOHR article has no reference to prove those numbers, as well as statements. No visual proofs have been included in that website. Total disinformation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1elvinn (talk • contribs) 13:48, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Done It was correct for the casualties but it wasn't for the overall numbers. Flalf^Talk 16:59, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

More on Genocide Watch

Genocide Watch, which was cited in the article, says that Armenia is at Stage 8, Persecution, and Stage 10, Denial. It cites The First Armenian Republic's discriminatory policies against non-Armenians, namely Muslim Azerbaijanis and Kurds, who were systematically expelled. Also, it mentions the Armenian Dashnaks massacring Azerbaijani and Kurdish people and burned villages from 1918 to 1921. In addition, in March 1918, Armenians and their Bolshevik allies killed over 10,000 Azerbaijanis in Baku, during the "March Days" in Azerbaijan. Genocide Watch then mentions the fact that from 1947-1953, the Armenian Soviet Socialist Republic carried out a policy of ‘ethnic homogenization' by deporting Kurds and Azerbaijanis from Armenian territory. Over 40,000 Azerbaijanis were expelled to the Azerbaijan Soviet Socialist Republic. "Armenianization" depopulated and renamed abandoned Azerbaijani villages, towns, and cultural landmarks. Out of a population of 180,000 in 1989, only a handful of ethnic Azerbaijanis are still living in Armenia. The organization then continues to the late 1980s, stating that from 1988 to 1994, over 600,000 ethnic Azerbaijani and Kurdish civilians fled Artsakh. These people now live as internally displaced people in squalid camps throughout A­­­­zerbaijan. Another interesting quote is this: During the Artsakh war of independence from 1988-1994, Armenian forces frequently executed Azerbaijani civilians and looted their property. The worst instance of violence against the Azerbaijanis occurred in Khojaly when Armenian forces shot hundreds of Azerbaijan civilians fleeing from their destroyed village in 1992. It also stated that the current Armenian and Artsakh governments deny involvement in past crimes against Azerbaijanis and erase their history from Armenian textbooks. Armenian and Artsakh authorities deny Azerbaijani IDP's the right to return to their former homes and villages. Artsakh artillery targets Azerbaijani civilians living along the "Line of Contact" between Nagorno-Karabakh and Azerbaijan. It also says that Armenia denies Khojaly massacre and other crimes against Azerbaijanis, and is currently shelling Azerbaijani civilians.

This is noteworthy addition for the sake of neutrality. Here's the link for the article. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 20:10, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Beshogur, may you look at this? --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 20:12, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps as background info. Only the section about first war. Beshogur (talk) 20:19, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Beshogur, there's a slight chance that you've misunderstood me. See this section. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 20:37, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Ok, understood. Done. Beshogur (talk) 22:26, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

White phosphorus needs to be added

Yerevan/Stepanakert says Azerbaijan uses white phosphorus. Baku denies, and in return, says that the Armenians were bringing phosphorus-containing ammunition to the Martuni Province, while Presidential Office authorities state that the Armenian military set forests on fire to prevent the capability of drones. These are some serious stuff. Why no one added these? --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 20:36, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

SolaVirum We should definitely cover this, the only proof of this is the video but, it doesn't show when it was taken and whether the bomb is phosphorus or not. Let's add the following:

Possible use of white phosphorus

A video showing possible use of white phosphorus occured in social media following Yerevan and Stepanakert accusing Azerbaijan. In a response Defence Ministry of Azerbaijan stated that, Azerbaijan army inventories doesn't contain any prohibited ammunition that prohibited according to Geneva convention. In addition to this, Defence Ministry of Azerbaijan mentioned about intelligence information that Armenian separatist forces bringing phosphorus-containing ammunition to the Agdere (Martuni) Province. Lately, aide to the President of Azerbaijan Hikmet Hajiyev accused separatist forces conducting eco-terrorism by intentionally setting fire in a surrounding forests of Shusha to hinder the drones. So far both side didn't provide any valid proof to justify their accusations. Mirhasanov (talk) 17:08, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

References

Azerbaijan army inventories doesn't contain any prohibited ammunition that prohibited according to Geneva convention. White phosphorus isn't by itself prohibited according to Geneva Convention. It is prohibited to use it on civilians or maybe directly on combatants as a burning agent. So even burning trees to get hidden soldiers out of the woods or burning to hide from drones may be technically acceptable according to the rules of war (the environmental issue, unless it threaten civilians, are another matter). The Nagorno-Karabakh Human Rights representative, Artak Beglaryan accusations are that many civilian hide in the forests to escape and shelter, so uses of white phosphorus would be prohibited in that context. Hemşinli çocuk 17:51, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Hemşinli çocuk thanks for clarification. I also agree with your point. The similar tactic was used in Syria to avoid Russian air defence to support ground troops. It seems like tactic used by Armenians to burn forests to hinder air support drones. Is it logical that armenian civilians to find shelter instead of moving to north, which is much more safer, will move to south forests where Azeri army conducting offensive operations? What do you think, how we should capture it? I see it as a war tactic, as you mentioned if the ammunition is used to burn trees there is no offence according to international conventions. Mirhasanov (talk) 18:09, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

There are a plenty of sources available on this war, explaining why as the war progresses, it may become harder for the Azerbaijani army to track down combatants retreating in the woods, it can be confirmed by the aerial pictures. This compares more to the wooden environment and conditions of the Vietnam war not how and where it was used in Syria. Not the smartest move for combatants to throw a very asphyxiating substance where they are hiding. White phosphorus was often used during conflicts to flush soldiers out of hiding in forests. But all of this is irrelevant here, because the position of the Armenian side, is that civilians are also hiding in these forests, so its use would be here prohibited according to Geneva convention. Hemşinli çocuk 19:17, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict#UN resolutions

Beshogur May I know why you added UN resolutions to the Background? There have been lots of documents and resolutions during this conflict. Why specifically this one? Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 20:39, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

I do not know other resolutions besides these five. If you know more, feel free to add. Or I didn't understood what you mean. If you can elaborate. Beshogur (talk) 20:41, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) Thanks for raising it up. Could you please give other references as well? Mirhasanov (talk) 17:16, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Background section - Armenia and Russia joint military exercises - Please remove

"On 23 July 2020, Armenia announced the start of a joint air defence system exercise with Russia and an analysis of the July 2020 clashes."

Was there really a connection between the joint military exercise on the 23 of July and the clashes that happened in Tavush 12-16 of July that month? It is not that Armenia and Russia decided in less than a week to organize a military exercise. Reading the reference, it just says that the clashes earlier in the month have been analyzed during the military exercise (i.e. they just coincided together).

Further, this source here has the Russians denying any connection:

“I categorically deny any link between the activities held by the armed forces of the Russian Federation and the escalation on the Armenian-Azeri border,” deputy defence minister Alexander Fomin said in a separate statement, quoted by Russian news agencies.

Please remove the irrelevant sentence from the Background section--Sataralynd (talk) 04:09, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

genocide watch

That website has been taken over by suspicious company called perfect privacy llc. No legitimate info is indicated on that website. check the whois database 1elvinn (talk) 06:31, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

That's because they are using LLC that act as the registrant on their behalf. This way Genocide Watch doesn't have to publicly provide to WHOIS any information like name, address,... Hemşinli çocuk 07:14, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Interesting. Why would they hide that information, any ideas? Armatura (talk) 13:33, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

I guess for protection against vendetta (for accusation of genocide). Hemşinli çocuk 15:59, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Gents could you please find more information about authors Nathaniel Hill & Gregory Stanton. I found that Gregory Stanton has very close connection with Armenian Assembly of America and gave frequent lectures there. He is known with its anti-Turkish sentiments . The neutrality of this person is questionable. Mirhasanov (talk) 17:39, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

My worst again proved with recent issue of GW alert about Azerbaijanis. This time name of Gregory Stanton is missing from the report and the alert produced only by Nathaniel Hill . Mirhasanov (talk) 18:52, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Every scholar has a bias of some sort. Full disclosure is what matters. If you scroll down genocidewatch page, you will notice that ANCA is one of the included associations. It is not as if there was no disclosure here. But ANCA relation with Armenia is unidirectional, from ANCA toward Armenia, not the other way around. As such, ANCA is like any other American organization, being funded solely by American citizens. It is true that this second alert has only Nathaniel Hill, but if you visit his profile, he is apparently a new member, and has added no info about himself (I also did not find anything about him in search engines), has no followers, no one following him... And on blog post, we find only one entry, that second warning you talk about. Not much different for the first warning, that was posted under an account containing both names that has also only one post, the first warning. So appears he may be a new member that coautored the first warning, and then under his own initiative posted the second one. You don't have to use questionable sites like tallarmeniantale to make your point. There are articles on the site posted by Thomas De Wall, better choice to use as reference. Hemşinli çocuk 21:11, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Mirhasanov, check the staff section under Nat Hill, there is more info about him. Hemşinli çocuk 00:42, 2 November 2020 (UTC)