Jump to content

Talk:2023 Azerbaijani offensive in Nagorno-Karabakh/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Arrest section

I added this section to trim the timeline. Thoughts? Can be expanded. Beshogur (talk) 20:49, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Great idea, they'll probably both be sections of the new article with the split coming and in any case it's great to have more structure than just a timeline! Thanks! Chaotic Enby (talk) 23:33, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the move. I've also taken your lead and rearranged the aftermath by topic. I did remove some visits since it was not stated what their purpose was in the article. Borgenland (talk) 02:41, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Talk page cleanup/archiving

I'm going to archive any discussion that is either closed or hasn't seen activity in at least a week to keep the talk page at a manageable size, please tell me if anyone objects. Chaotic Enby (talk) 21:45, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

I added a special template here for the bot to archive automatically Nemoralis (talk) 11:11, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
Great, thanks! ChaotıċEnby(talk) 17:03, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

UN Security Council

@Brandmeister: I see you have also added the claim that In 1993, the United Nations Security Council adopted four resolutions that called for the cessation of hostilities and the withdrawal of all occupying Armenian forces in and around Nagorno-Karabakh here. The same issues apply; first, unless reliable sources consider these resolutions relevant to this offensive then including the content here is a WP:DUE violation.

Second, the source you have provided is a primary source, and thus we can only use it for straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source. In the source, there are four calls for withdrawal:

  • Demands the immediate cessation of all hostilities and hostile acts with a view to establishing a durable cease-fire, as well as immediate withdrawal of all occupying forces from the Kelbadjar district and other recently occupied areas of Azerbaijan;
  • Demands the immediate cessation of all hostilities and the immediate complete and unconditional withdrawal of the occupying forces involved from the district of Agdam and all other recently occupied areas of the Azerbaijan Republic;
  • Calls for the immediate implementation of the reciprocal and urgent steps provided for in the CSCE Minsk Group's Adjusted timetable, including the withdrawal of forces from recently occupied territories and the removal of all obstacles to communications and transportation;
  • Demands from the parties concerned the immediate cessation of armed hostilities and hostile acts, the unilateral withdrawal of occupying forces from the Zangelan district and the city of Goradiz, and the withdrawal of occupying forces from other recently occupied areas of the Azerbaijani Republic in accordance with the Adjusted timetable of urgent steps to implement Security Council resolutions 822 (1993) and 853 (1993) (S/26522, appendix), as amended by the CSCE Minsk Group meeting in Vienna of 2 to 8 November 1993;

To make the claim that the United Nations Security Council adopted four resolutions that called for the ... withdrawal of all occupying Armenian forces in and around Nagorno-Karabakh we need to interpret recently occupied areas of the Azerbaijani Republic as including Nagorno-Karabakh; this goes beyond what we are permitted to do with primary sources. I am also concerned that you are interpreting occupying forces as meaning Armenian forces, when my interpretation of the source would suggest that it is referring to Artsakh forces - which I feel neatly demonstrates the issue with relying on our interpretation of controversial primary sources.

As such, I am hoping that you will be able to provide sources that both support the claims you make about the resolutions, and that demonstrate that the resolutions are considered relevant to the offensive by reliable sources and thus mentioning them here is WP:DUE. BilledMammal (talk) 10:01, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

@BilledMammal: I have reverted their edit on this page, but can't do anything on the other page without breaking 1RR. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 11:12, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
@Beshogur: I see you reinstated this; however, the WP:OR and WP:NPOV issues remain unaddressed. I note that I tried to find secondary sources, and the first I opened, Post-Soviet Conflicts: The Thirty Years’ Crisis, directly contradicted this interpetation, saying The UNSC adopted four resolutions on April 30, July 29, October 14, and November 12, 1993, condemning the Armenian invasion of Azerbaijani lands and demanding the withdrawal of Armenian troops from the Azerbaijani regions of Kelbadjar, Agdam, Fuzuli, Jabrayil, Qubadli, and Zangilan, all of which are beyond the Nagorno Karabakh region.
I note it does support the interpretation that occupying forces means Armenian forces not Artsakh forces, but addressing that one concern isn't enough when we have other WP:NPOV and WP:OR violations - and our article is contradicted by reliable sources.
In your revert you mention that it is on the Second Nagorno-Karabakh War article, but the format it is in there doesn't have WP:OR issues and although the WP:NPOV issues remain due to the lack of secondary sources establishing that its discussion is WP:DUE I am less concerned about them there as it seems more likely that reliable sources will discuss them in a context of a war where the discussed territories are still occupied than in the context of a war where they are not. BilledMammal (talk) 17:56, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
First, our statement says Armenian forces, not Armenian Armed Forces, or anything else. You can interpret whatever you want. It definiely doesn't say anything like "Artsakh forces". There is no such WP:OR and NPOV issue. This had been discussed several times. UN resolutions talks clear. Armenian-occupied territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh is called for a reason, this was discussed there again. You claim these territories were not occupied? Beshogur (talk) 19:09, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
Our statement is In 1993, the United Nations Security Council adopted four resolutions that called for the cessation of hostilities and the withdrawal of all occupying Armenian forces in and around Nagorno-Karabakh. The resolutions have not been complied with. There are several WP:OR issues with this, but I will just focus on one; we say that the UN resolution called for the withdrawal of forces from inside Nagorno-Karabakh, but it is not possible to get this statement from a straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source. The fact that this is WP:OR should be clear from the fact that our interpretation is contradicted by a reliable source which says that the resolution did not apply to Nagorno-Karabakh.
The WP:NPOV issue is that we are not in compliance with WP:BALASP, which tells us to treat each aspect of a subject with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. Since reliable sources covering the 2023 Azerbaijani offensive in Nagorno-Karabakh do not appear to have given any treatment to the 1993 UN Resolutions the weight we are required to treat this aspect with is 0 - we are required to exclude it. BilledMammal (talk) 19:30, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
It's on the background section, it's talking about 1988. Also it's the UN, what kind of POV are you talking about? OSCE says the same, Council of Europe says the same. Beshogur (talk) 19:50, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and removed it; it's WP:OR that contradicts reliable sources, and whose inclusion is against WP:BALASP as reliable sources covering the 2023 Azerbaijani offensive in Nagorno-Karabakh do not appear to have given any treatment to it.
If you want to include it, please find reliable sources on the 2023 Azerbaijani offensive in Nagorno-Karabakh that give it treatment. BilledMammal (talk) 20:22, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
What kind of reliable source tells the otherwise, I'm curious. There is no undue weight since it's a fact, not a view. Beshogur (talk) 22:03, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
I provided it, and the relevant quote, above. WP:BALASP doesn't mentions views, it mentions aspects - in other words, facts.
To address this from a different angle, your arguments would support including details about the 1991 Nagorno-Karabakh independence referendum, but I hope you will agree that we shouldn't even mention the referendum? 22:11, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
Please avoid repeated arguments. It's not an isolated event but a key fact. I don't see how the independence referendum would give us extra information, since it's one of those events that led to the UN resolutions. Beshogur (talk) 22:33, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
If it is a key fact for the subject of this offensive then you will be able to find sources about the offensive discussing the resolutions. If you cannot, then it isn't a key fact - from first principles, why would we consider it a key fact if reliable sources do not? BilledMammal (talk) 22:48, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
@Brandmeister: Your new version, while a faithful reproduction of the claims of the source, is still in violation of WP:BALASP.
It does address the WP:OR issue, but introduces additional issues as it is a primary source (specifically, it is a quote from the Azerbaijani representative) that is in disagreement with secondary sources. For example, the secondary source above states that the resolutions did not require a withdrawal from Nagorno-Karabakh, while both Undeclared War: The Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict Reconsidered and Turkey and the conflict in Nagorno Karabakh: a delicate balance state that the United Nations Security Council avoided accusing Armenia of involvement in the war. Note that WP:REDFLAG speaks to this situation; Challenged claims that are supported purely by primary ... sources.
I've removed the content again; please do not reinstate it without sourcing that explains the resolutions and that establishes the relevance to this offensive. BilledMammal (talk) 22:48, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
@Beshogur: I see you've reverted my edit; I don't know how many ways I can say this, but this is a primary source - specifically a a quote from the Azerbaijani representative to the United Nations - that is disputed by reliable secondary sources. This isn't the sort of content that we are allowed to have in the article.
Setting aside the NPOV issues for a moment, why do you believe that we should dismiss the secondary sources and instead rely on this primary source - and what policy basis do you have for this belief? BilledMammal (talk) 22:57, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
So reliable sources dispute that UN resolutions saying Armenian forces should withdraw from ocuppied territories? Two problems with your arguments. Do reliable sources dispute the fact it is occupied or it disputed the fact that UN resolutions told this? Or is UN simply irrelevant here? You're also repeating same thing over and over.
Primary sources are also appropriate additions for such statements. It straightforwardly says the statement. Especially reactions section has such links. Why aren't you against those? Since UN is neutral, I don't see any issue here.
Again, this is a key fact and not a point of view. And Azerbaijani representative has nothing to do with this. Do we even quote him? No. Does his statement anything in this key fact? No. From my understanding you're simply thinking it's not an occupation? Am I wrong? Beshogur (talk) 23:12, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
Do reliable sources dispute the fact it is occupied or it disputed the fact that UN resolutions told this? They dispute that the UN resolutions said to withdraw from Nagorno-Karabakh (according to the sources, the resolutions said to withdraw from all Azerbaijani territories except Nagorno-Karabakh), and they dispute that the UN resolutions said Armenia was occupying the territories (according to the sources the resolutions present Armenia as a neutral third party.)
Again, this is a key fact and not a point of view It's an interpretation - and regardless WP:BALASP is about facts, not points of view.
Since UN is neutral, I don't see any issue here. The UN is as neutral as the US Senate, but the neutrality of the source isn't relevant here.
Does his statement anything in this key fact? No. Yes, we do; we say In 1993, the United Nations Security Council adopted four resolutions that supported the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan and demanded the immediate withdrawal of the occupying Armenian forces from Azerbaijan. In the source, there are only two statements about the four security council resolutions, Four Security Council resolutions adopted in 1993 demanded the immediate withdrawal of the occupying forces from Azerbaijan and He recalled that, in response to the occupation of the Azerbaijani territories and alarmed by the severe humanitarian catastrophe, the Security Council had adopted four resolutions in 1993 demanding the immediate, complete and unconditional withdrawal of the occupying forces. Both statements are attributed to the Azerbaijani representative (and technically, they are the same statement - the first is in the summary section, the second is in complete record of the plenary.)
Note that no aspect of the source supports the claim that the four resolutions supported the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan. BilledMammal (talk) 23:37, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
The question is: how do reliable sources understand this statement? Because as we've seen, the formulation isn't as straightforward as "Armenia should retreat from Nagorno-Karabakh".. ChaotıċEnby(talk) 23:43, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
I've given up on this debate as it appears to be going nowhere; instead I have opened a discussion at RSN. BilledMammal (talk) 00:11, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
The added wording "supported the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan and demanded the immediate withdrawal of the occupying Armenian forces from Azerbaijan" is verbatim wording of the resolutions without their interpretation which is explicitly allowed under WP:PRIMARY. And another secondary source confirms their relation to NK, Customary International Humanitarian Law, Cambridge University Press, 2005, p. 2933: "In several resolutions adopted in 1993 concerning the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan over Nagorno-Karabakh..." I think we're done here by now, enough has been said. Brandmeistertalk 07:47, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
It is not verbatim wording, as the resolutions refer to the recently occupied areas of the Azerbaijan Republic. Inferring this to include Nagorno-Karabakh proper, rather than only the Armenian-occupied territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh, might be incorrect, but, more importantly, it is not verbatim. There is a layer of interpretation on what the phrasing mean, and, even if it referring to Nagorno-Karabakh was the most likely, it would still be added interpretation and not fit WP:PRIMARY. ChaotıċEnby(talk) 19:48, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
And, regarding your secondary source, I'm giving the same answer I gave in another reply to the same argument:
The complete quote from Customary International Humanitarian Law is In several resolutions adopted in 1993 concerning the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan over Nagorno-Karabakh, the UN Security Council expressed grave concern at "the displacement of a large number of civilians".
Of course the conflict itself is over Nagorno-Karabakh, no one is saying the contrary. But that source doesn't say that the withdrawal mentioned in the resolutions was from Nagorno-Karabakh rather than the surrounding regions. (cf. my comment below for further explanations)
ChaotıċEnby(talk) 19:50, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
To expand on what Chaotic Enby said: there are two significant differences between your summary and the source:
  • You say the resolutions demanded the immediate withdrawal ... from Azerbaijan, but what the resolutions say is immediate withdrawal ... from the ... recently occupied areas of Azerbaijan
  • You say the resolutions demanded the immediate withdrawal of the occupying Armenian forces, but what the resolutions say is immediate withdrawal of the occupying forces; the resolutions do not specify who they are calling on to withdraw.
BilledMammal (talk) 20:35, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
Bringing the timetable attached in S/26522 once more (the one Resolution 884 refers to for implementation details), which is again more explicit than the resolutions themselves. This time about the occupying forces, it states:
23 October - Announcement by the Nagorny Karabakh leadership of readiness to withdraw from all recently occupied areas of Azerbaijan, and by all parties to the conflict that all obstacles to communications and transportation are removed and that a programme of restoration is under way. ChaotıċEnby(talk) 20:50, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
PACE::::1. The Parliamentary Assembly regrets that, more than a decade after the armed hostilities started, the conflict over the Nagorno-Karabakh region remains unsolved. Hundreds of thousands of people are still displaced and live in miserable conditions. Considerable parts of the territory of Azerbaijan are still occupied by Armenian forces, and separatist forces are still in control of the Nagorno-Karabakh region.
2. The Assembly expresses its concern that the military action, and the widespread ethnic hostilities which preceded it, led to large-scale ethnic expulsion and the creation of mono-ethnic areas which resemble the terrible concept of ethnic cleansing. The Assembly reaffirms that independence and secession of a regional territory from a state may only be achieved through a lawful and peaceful process based on the democratic support of the inhabitants of such territory and not in the wake of an armed conflict leading to ethnic expulsion and the de facto annexation of such territory to another state. The Assembly reiterates that the occupation of foreign territory by a member state constitutes a grave violation of that state’s obligations as a member of the Council of Europe and reaffirms the right of displaced persons from the area of conflict to return to their homes safely and with dignity.
3. The Assembly recalls Resolutions 822 (1993), 853 (1993), 874 (1993) and 884 (1993) of the United Nations Security Council and urges the parties concerned to comply with them, in particular by refraining from any armed hostilities and by withdrawing military forces from any occupied territories. The Assembly also aligns itself with the demand expressed in Resolution 853 of the United Nations Security Council and thus urges all member states to refrain from the supply of any weapons and munitions which might lead to an intensification of the conflict or the continued occupation of territory. Beshogur (talk) 21:05, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't understand the point you are trying to make? BilledMammal (talk) 21:31, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
Your source makes an important distinction between the Armenian-occupied surrounding territories and Nagorno-Karabakh itself: Considerable parts of the territory of Azerbaijan are still occupied by Armenian forces, and separatist forces are still in control of the Nagorno-Karabakh region.
The later references to occupation of foreign territory by a member state and withdrawing military forces from any occupied territories likely refer to the first rather than the second. Taken as a whole, it seems to understand the occupying power to refer to Armenia rather than Artsakh, and is careful to make a distinction between the two. So that's a good secondary source for the claim that the 1993 resolutions referred to Armenian forces occupying the regions surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh. ChaotıċEnby(talk) 21:50, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
PACE sees them as separatists, which see them as Azerbaijan's interal affairs. You might be right that the resolution might not be appropriate for this article. Beshogur (talk) 14:52, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Requested split into Aftermath of the 2023 Azerbaijani offensive in Nagorno-Karabakh

A large part of the article currently focuses on the aftermath of the offensive - humanitarian, political, etc. While this is absolutely relevant information, the current article intends to focus on the offensive itself, and much of it would make more sense in a separate article.

Furthermore, given the amount of recent events, there have been several suggestions for this to be made into a WP:ITN Ongoing event, which only makes sense for an article that explicitly focuses on the aftermath.

As the proposed title, while consistent, might be too long for an article, it can alternatively be shortened to Aftermath of the 2023 Nagorno-Karabakh offensive. Chaotic Enby (talk) 17:07, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

I’m thinking more along the lines of an Impending “Fall/Dissolution of Nagorno-Karabakh” or something like that. Borgenland (talk) 17:32, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
Nagorno-Karabakh will continue to exist after Azerbaijan reintegrates it. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 17:50, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
@Super Dromaeosaurus: source? Azerbaijan is an unitary state, Nakhchivan is an exception due to its location. Beshogur (talk) 18:03, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
Nagorno-Karabakh is different to the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast, as their articles reflect. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 18:47, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
I didn't read the comment above, I see. Beshogur (talk) 20:16, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
I meant with respect to the region being an autonomous area. Or maybe dissolution if Artsakh/NKR? Borgenland (talk) 18:13, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
"Republic of Artsakh" would then require to be in the title, per the parent article Republic of Artsakh. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 18:47, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
I suggest Azerbaijani takeover of Nagorno-Karabakh (like for example United Arab Emirates takeover of Socotra) or Reintegration of Nagorno-Karabakh into Azerbaijan (like Reintegration of Transnistria into Moldova). This way the point in time of splitting between the two articles will be clearly defined. "Aftermath of the 2023 Nagorno-Karabakh offensive" sounds like a general title with an undefined scope, even if it does have one. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 17:50, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
Agree with these proposed titles to some extent. Both better-defined and more concise than my initial proposal, although "takeover" still focuses (in your example) on the military event itself, while "reintegration" could be construed as propaganda-like (although not sure). Chaotic Enby (talk) 18:13, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I'd rather not use the second option. although "takeover" still focuses (in your example) on the military event itself well, military events have continued to occur after 20 September, it has been reported that Azerbaijan has restored control over several towns like Martuni/Khojavend and Martakert/Aghdara and that was only once the Azerbaijani army entered the towns. Azerbaijan restoring control over Nagorno-Karabakh will implicitly include an unavoidable military factor for the whole duration of the process, unless the area is demilitarized or something. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 18:47, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
Makes sense, agree with the first title in this case. Chaotic Enby (talk) 19:33, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
I also like "takeover", though I’m not sure if it might need to be disambiguated by year or not. HappyWith (talk) 23:47, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
My first thought of a title was something along the lines of Reintegration of Nagorno-Karabakh into Azerbaijan; to the best of my knowledge it's the truth so I don't think it has NPOV issues but if I mistaken then I would retract. The only problem I could think of with this title is that parts of the region has already been reintegrated in the aftermath of the second war back in 2020/21. But I would like to see what sources come to call this process over the coming weeks. Yeoutie (talk) 19:25, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
Also for clarification, I support a split as this article for now serves two divergent topics: a military campaign and the diplomatic/administrative integration of a region into a country. I don't think it makes too much sense logically to have them both combined into the same article. Yeoutie (talk) 04:48, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
I can agree with this title Chaotic Enby (talk) 12:18, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
Probably a good idea to split the reactions section as well. Too many unrelated countries reactions are filling a major part of the article. Ecrusized (talk) 19:10, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
Good idea, we should just take care of not leaving too little behind in the article but that should work. Chaotic Enby (talk) 19:35, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
I agree that much content in this article should moved (in part or full depending on relevance) to a new article with a more focused subject. I do not think creating an "aftermath" article is needed however, because the Ethnic cleansing of Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh article already serves this purpose. --KhndzorUtogh (talk) 03:32, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
If it's agreed to split, I think it makes sense to split into that relevant article instead of making a new one. - Kevo327 (talk) 11:58, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
Although the aforementioned article only mentions the flight of Armenians from the region, not the political events in the region itself (e.g., the negotiations, the dissolution of Artsakh, later military incidents, etc.) Chaotic Enby (talk) 12:17, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
Chaotic Enby I guess that makes sense. Aftermath of the 2023 Azerbaijani offensive in Nagorno-Karabakh or Azerbaijani takeover of Nagorno-Karabakh if it's going to be split. “reintegration” is a false premise because Azerbaijan has never had de facto control of the region before. - Kevo327 (talk) 04:36, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
Good point, although they technically had control in Soviet times and pre-Soviet (1918-21?) times. Not sure how much this is relevant for the title, and going back more than 30 years to justify calling it reintegration might sound like nationalistic propaganda. Chaotic Enby (talk) 11:02, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
I support the split of the aftermath content of the page into Reintegration of Nagorno-Karabakh into Azerbaijan, or, barring that, Azerbaijani takeover of Nagorno-Karabakh. It seems the best way to address the scope of the article. DeemDeem52 (talk) 18:39, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
I guess we pretty much have a consensus for that then. Who wants to take care of the split? Chaotic Enby (talk) 23:31, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
@Chaotic Enby Definitely support a split, but I'm not sure about the titles. Fall of the Republic of Artsakh? > Asheiouy (they/them • talk) 21:00, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose split. A new "aftermath" article about an ongoing/recent event that is pregnant to new events (scheduled dissolution?) would not be appropriate in my opinion. This article and its aftermath section is long but not that long; compare to 2023 Turkey–Syria earthquakes that doesn't have a separate article for the aftermaths. This might not be the best example for a political case, but still it would be worthy to remember that more than 59 thousand people died (for its significance/effect/aftermath). As pointed out above, there are already articles for the specific results ("aftermaths") of this event. While there were some trimming efforts, I still believe the article could be worked on more before a split comes to mind. Plus, waiting a few weeks/months would be useful. Feel free to correct me in case I have missed anything that was established in the discussion, because I am a newcomer to editing this article. Aintabli (talk) 03:13, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Should the be added to the pages of Wars involving Azerbaijan and Armenia

should they be added ? 2600:6C50:1B00:32BE:1960:FC99:D95D:CC89 (talk) 06:35, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

No. Beshogur (talk) 18:42, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
why not ? 2600:6C50:1B00:32BE:B1BD:E5DB:1402:2AC5 (talk) 03:09, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
Armenia wasn't part of this conflict. Kyzagan (talk) 18:37, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

what do you think ?

I have came across several media calling this the third karabakh war or one day war 2600:6C50:1B00:32BE:B1BD:E5DB:1402:2AC5 (talk) 03:08, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Could you present those sources here? Nythar (💬-🍀) 07:08, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
Can't this be considered the third karabakh war ?, This was the third largest militart conflict after 2020 and left over 200 dead. Somthing like this happend on the Armenian border 1 year ago and it was called the 2 day war 2600:6C50:1B00:32BE:F427:759F:F500:2432 (talk) 00:17, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
There is someone who always wants this article to be named as "third war", and they constantly opens a new topic here. This is getting more and more annoying because they don't understand how articles get their names, no matter how many times it is been told. Nemoralis (talk) 21:03, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Israel involvement

Can't edit, so : Baku thanks Mossad and Israeli military over Nagorno-Karabakh victory : https://www.intelligenceonline.com/government-intelligence/2023/10/03/baku-thanks-mossad-and-israeli-military-over-nagorno-karabakh-victory,110060879-art

Israeli arms quietly helped Azerbaijan retake Nagorno-Karabakh, to the dismay of region’s Armenians : https://apnews.com/article/armenia-azerbaijan-nagorno-karabakh-weapons-israel-6814437bcd744acc1c4df0409a74406c Atchoum (talk) 10:37, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Israel has quietly helped fuel Azerbaijan’s campaign to recapture Nagorno-Karabakh, supplying powerful weapons to Azerbaijan ahead of its lightening offensive Nemoralis (talk) 13:57, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Trial of Karabakh Armenians

Saw this article [1] and wondered if his individual case would be worth an article. Or possibly, a general one covering all Azerbaijani trials of Karabakh Armenians. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 17:41, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

The casualties of the "Artsakh Defence Army" understated

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

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

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

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

Joint statement by rabbis

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

Indeed, I don't see how one is notable, and the other is not. I think 50 top rabbis from across the European countries are notable enough for mentioning in the article. Grandmaster 11:14, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
If you do not understand the difference between academics and people with no related qualifications, please read what a WP:RELIABLE source is. Regardless, I decided to research some of the names. Naftaliev is regularly passed around to make pro-Azerbaijan statements.[2] And Pinto was convicted for bribery.[3] --KhndzorUtogh (talk) 23:13, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

United Nations Refugee Agency statement

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

UNHCR statement that "there were no recorded incidents or cases of mistreatment against people on the move" is not out of date. Their representative spoke with the Armenian population of Karabakh in Armenia. Recent claims of violence have no independent confirmation or verification, while UNHCR is a UN body and is independent from the parties to the conflict. If we discuss allegations of violence, the information from the top international organization is very important and has a direct relevance to the topic. Also, Blankspot should be removed, as it reports on rumors, and Wikipedia is not a place to report rumors. I don't think that it is acceptable that the UNHCR is removed, but the rumors reported in media are included. Grandmaster 09:20, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
I fail to understand how a report by the highest international authority, which both parties are members of and resort to in times of crisis, can be dismissed as "lacking the context", especially if the only thing that counters it is a series of isolated and uncorroborated claims. In any event, it is not any more "out of date/context" than, for instance, the report by Ocampo, which currently features in the introduction despite the fact its predictions of "imminent genocide" never enjoyed support from any serious human rights organisation and later turned out to be very far from reality. Despite this minority view, Ocampo's report has been included into the article, without doubt because of Ocampo's notability, but he cannot possibly be more authoritative than the UNHCR, whose report is unquestionably more due-weight than Ocampo's. Parishan (talk) 23:48, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
Not lacking the context, lacking the context of more recent revelations - in other words, its out of date.
As for Ocampo's prediction, there are no Armenians left in Nagorno-Karabakh. BilledMammal (talk) 00:05, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
It is not out of date unless there is a follow-up report of equal notability that supersedes its findings (which there is not). Furthermore, nothing within that report has been majorly contested by an establishment whose authority on this matter is comparable to that of the UNHCR.
no Armenians left in Nagorno-Karabakh is not "another Armenian genocide", and no one has ventured into referring to the 2023 exodus of Armenians as such since Ocampo's report was published months ago, which very much qualifies said report as WP:UNDUE and out-of-date. Yet Ocampo's findings enjoy a mention in the introduction while the UNHCR is being questioned here for contextual relevance. Parishan (talk) 01:41, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
As I said above, I also see no reason why UNHCR statement should be removed. It is based on UNHCR personnel communications with Karabakh Armenians conducted in Armenia, and UNHCR is a UN body that deals with refugees. At the same time, unverified rumors of violence are mentioned, while according to WP:RUMOR Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation, rumors, or presumptions. As for Ocampo, he made his report at the request of Karabakh separatist leadership [4], and he does not represent any international organization, it is just his personal opinion. I see no reason why personal opinions should be cited in the lead, considering that no credible international organization supports claims of genocide. Grandmaster 10:14, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
This is quite misleading. Harutyunyan asked Ocampo for nothing more than his expert opinion, he did nothing to influence what that opinion would be. Ocampo represented the International Criminal Court as their prosecutor for genocide and war crimes and is also completely non-partisan. He is the most noteworthy source by far. --KhndzorUtogh (talk) 23:01, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

The argument that the UN missions statements is undue was made in the parallel article as well [5], and was not accepted by the wider Wikipedia community as result of an RFC. I can start another RFC on this page, but I see no point in doing RFCs for the same thing on every page. So I suggest that we include the reports on causalities by both UNHCR and the special UN mission in this article. Grandmaster 09:59, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

My argument for excluding it here is that it is out of date and lacks context. Get an up to date source, and we can discuss including it. BilledMammal (talk) 10:05, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
The community consensus is that the UN information is relevant, and arguments against its inclusion did not get the community support. Grandmaster 10:22, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
The consensus was strictly for that body of the article, it would make no sense to include a claim about no "violence against civilians following the latest ceasefire" in selected areas when this article is about before the ceasefire. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 22:28, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
It makes perfect sense to include the info about no violence against civilians in the section about claims of such violence. And there is no Wikipedia rule that the article should include only "up to date" information. We must provide all the info available, and date it chronologically. We can do another RFC in this article, I just see no point in doing RFC on the same source in every article. Grandmaster 14:52, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
There is a Wikipedia rule actually, called MOS:DATED. The statement is especially outdated and redundant for this article, and is used in a different context for the other article. --KhndzorUtogh (talk) 00:14, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
That rule does not say that outdated info should not be included. It just says that such info must be included with precise dating. Plus, there is no information from the UN or any other international organization that would supersede the UN mission and UNHCR information. Grandmaster 09:08, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
There is no rule that can justify deleting authoritative, relevant and unambiguous piece of information just because it goes back to a certain date, especially if its findings have not been convincingly contested. MOS:DATED is a style guide and has nothing to do with content. Parishan (talk) 12:37, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

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

Strongly object because the statement is referring to after the offensive. It is also clearly false because there are corpses of murdered Armenian civilians. --KhndzorUtogh (talk) 23:07, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
What does it matter if it is before or after the offensive? It still relates to this event. And there is no independently verified information of any civilian casualties. Also, we had an RFC in related article about inclusion of the UN support with overwhelming community support for inclusion. Grandmaster 09:30, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Israel as an arms supplier to Azerbaijan

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

Israel is not the only arms supplier to Azerbaijan. Turkey and Russia are also big suppliers, and there are also other smaller arms suppliers. At the same time, Russia was an arms supplier to Armenia as well. If we are to mention arms suppliers, then it makes no sense to mention only one, we need to list all big suppliers. Grandmaster 10:42, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Can you give me some references for Russia and the other small arms suppliers you mentioned? I'm currently working on the foreign involvement section as I thought it would be worth mentioning. Ken Aeron (talk) 11:04, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Here's one [6] Grandmaster 09:32, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
This article is from 2021 covering arms suppliers during the 2020 war, I'm looking for information for this year's offensive Ken Aeron (talk) 15:55, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
I don't think there were arms suppliers in 2023 offensive, it lasted less than 24 hours. Grandmaster 11:25, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Title

Shouldon't the title be the "Third Nagorno-Karabakh War", to complement the first and second Nagorno-Karabakh Wars, this is the only one different, rather than "2023 Azerbaijani Offensive"? because it makes more sense, since it was a war too. And also to make it shorter, because the title has 46 Characters. Jaztie não é árabe (talk) 12:05, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

They wont do it this was to short and to fast, to be called war and plus most of the international media call it an offensive. 2600:6C50:1B00:7892:8A6C:804E:43DF:6E55 (talk) 00:48, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
Agree, nobody calls it a war. It is labelled worldwide as an offensive. Ken Aeron (talk) 15:33, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Ocampo

Why should this person be mentioned in the lead? He is just a private person now, and his reputation is far from perfect. There were a number of controversies surrounding this person, in particular, there were critical reports in such authoritative international publications as Der Spiegel: [7], The Financial Times: [8], The Times: [9], The Telegraph: [10], World Affairs [11], etc. He could probably mentioned in the body of the article, but not in the lead, considering that it is just a personal opinion. Grandmaster 09:45, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Moreno Ocampo is exceptionally significant because:
  1. He is a completely neutral party with no background related to Armenia or Azerbaijan.
  2. He is one of the most qualified legal experts in the world to give an assessment as a former ICC prosecutor.
  3. He wrote a legal analysis based on the the Genocide Convention that he bases his argument on.
  4. The fact the Azerbaijani government hired a lawyer to try fighting Moreno Ocampo's judgement speaks for itself the great deal of due weight he holds.
--KhndzorUtogh (talk) 23:26, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
This person was asked to make an assessment by the separatist leaders. The fact that he would take an assignment from an unrecognized entity does not speak of his neutrality. Also, Ocampo makes accusations of genocide pretty much about every current conflict. For example, he accuses both Israel and Hamas of genocide [12], but I don't think this person's opinion should be mentioned in the lead of the articles about that conflict either. Grandmaster 11:10, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
It's not an "assignment" if he is not being hired or compensated, like the British lawyer is. Asking someone their expert opinion does not influence what that will be.
Did Israel or Hamas hire a lawyer to deny Moreno Ocampo's statement? --KhndzorUtogh (talk) 22:40, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
I saw no information that the British lawyer was compensated. But in any case, whether someone hires a lawyer or not to contest Ocampo's claims does not make Ocampo's opinion more relevant for the lead. Grandmaster 10:47, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
"Azerbaijan has hired London lawyer Rodney Dixon to write a rejection of the Moreno Ocampo report", "a lawyer hired by Azerbaijan called the findings 'fundamentally flawed'", even Azerbaijan media admits he was hired. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 23:47, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Typo

In the 20 September section, Artsakh is spelled "Arsakh" once. I request that someone who can edit the article fix the typo, I can't because I don't fulfill the editing requirements. Carrot Powder (talk) 12:00, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 18:09, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

RFC on UN mission report

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is consensus to include the proposed text in the article. The main point of this discussion was if the material met the threshold for WP:DUE, and it is clear that arguments that it is not DUE were not persuasive to those in the discussion. As for BilledMammal's concerns about the neutrality, the report from the EU and statement from USAID don't prevent coverage of the report discussed in the RFC, but they can be included in the article to provide the context from later reports to address those concerns. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:49, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Kavita Belani, United Nations Refugee Agency Representative in Armenia, stated on 29 September 2023 that "there were no recorded incidents or cases of mistreatment against people on the move". [13]

A UN mission that visited Nagorno-Karabakh on 1 October 2023 reported that "they did not come across any reports — either from the local population or from others — of violence against civilians following the latest ceasefire." [14]

Should the above statements by the UN missions be included in the article when discussing reports on violence against civilian population?

  • Option 1 - Mention these statement in the article with proper attribution.
  • Option 2 - Make no mention at all.

Please enter Option 1 or Option 2, followed by a brief statement, in the Survey. Do not reply to other users in the Survey. Back-and-forth discussion may be conducted in the Threaded Discussion section. Grandmaster 10:35, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Survey

  • Option 1. We have already had an RFC on the UN mission report in the parallel article [15], but since there is a disagreement whether the consensus applies to this article as well, I decided to do another one for this article. I support the inclusion of the UN reports, because the claims of violence have no independent confirmation or verification, while UNHCR and the special UN mission to the region are the UN representatives and the UN is independent from the parties to the conflict. If we discuss allegations of violence, the information from the top international organization is very important and has a direct relevance to the topic. Grandmaster 10:36, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 1 per the previous RfC. Yes, the report is controversial (I'd say awful but I prefer to stay polite), but it's still the UN and it still has a level of legitimacy attached to it, coming from such an important organization. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 10:48, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
    It's from the UN, but I don't believe material is automatically WP:DUE just because it is from the UN; I think we need evidence of sufficient coverage of this material in reliable and independent sources to establish that it is, as well as to help us establish the context in which we should put the material. BilledMammal (talk) 10:51, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 2. First, for the 1 October 2023 statement:
    1. First, inclusion of these aspects of the mission is not automatically WP:DUE. To establish that it is due we need sufficient coverage in reliable sources of these aspects; such coverage has not been presented.
    2. Second, this information is misleading. The quoted section of the report says they did not come across any reports from the local population, but neglects to mention that they arrived after almost the entire local population had already fled.
    3. Third, they are presented as a neutral mission, but they neglect to mention that they are from the Resident Coordinator for the United Nations in Azerbaijan.
Second, for the 29 September 2023 statement: It is now out date, with more recent reports identifying violence such as this report from the EU, which says whereas there have been credible reports of looting, destruction, violence and arrests committed by Azerbaijani troops since the beginning of the offensive and strongly condemns the threats and acts of violence committed by Azerbaijani troops against the population of Nagorno-Karabakh
Finally, as a side note, this RfC presents a disturbingly one-sided image of the conflict. For example, it does not proposing adding the contemporary statement from USAID, which did find reports of violence against fleeing civilians. BilledMammal (talk) 10:50, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 2. No mention all; in the context of the "no incidents" being over a week after a ceasefire, and not referring to this article's subject at all. Besides, this report is already mentioned in the article, it doesn't need to be copied somewhere to imply something completely different. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 00:45, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 1 for the same reasons as previously. A report put together by a mission sent by the highest international authority cannot be undue by definition. The fact that the mission arrived in the region one week later is irrelevant. There are cases of UN fact-finding missions sent to conflict areas months later (e.g. here), some of them ultimately facing criticism, but they are still mentioned in ledes. Parishan (talk) 21:44, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 1 Feels very strange omitting such important information about the event, from the U.N. no less, in the lead of the article. Should have already been included there. - Creffel (talk) 16:19, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 2 There is a segment in the article about this exact report from the United Nations office in Azerbaijan [16], and it’s in a better context along with its criticisms. We don’t add an out of context sentence from after the offensive, and which ultimately came from the attacking side’s (Azerbaijan’s) UN office no less after nearly all the region’s Armenian population fled. Vanezi (talk)
  • Option 1 per the respective discussion and the point given. I support incorporating the UN statements into the article with proper attribution. These statements, indicating no recorded incidents of mistreatment or violence, offer a significant perspective from the organization. It should have already been included in the first place. — Toghrul R (t) 06:46, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 1 per Grandmaster. The UN is the largest and the most notable international organization in the world. It is absurd to ignore the UN report findings in this article.KHE'O (talk) 18:23, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 1 Due but not in the lead. Senorangel (talk) 00:54, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Option 2 This report of UN office in Azerbaijan is already in the article. What I don’t agree is adding to it the controversial bit of this not so independent report which comes from the attacking country’s office of the organization, and which was largely criticised in reliable sources. [17] Nocturnal781 (talk) 14:51, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion

@BilledMammal

1. Whether this information was due or not was discussed in much detail in previous RFC. I will not repeat the same arguments, I just don't see how the most important international organization could be undue.

2. The dates of the reports show the time of their arrival.

3. The UN team was lead by the Resident Coordinator for the United Nations in Azerbaijan, but first, the UN representative in Azerbaijan does not work for Azerbaijan's governement, and second, it also included representatives of other UN bodies, such as, quote: The team included Ramesh Rajasingham, the Director of the Coordination Division of the [Office] for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), representatives of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), UNICEF (United Nations Children’s Fund), the UNHCR (United Nations Refugee Agency) and the World Health Organization (WHO). It was a team representing various UN bodies.

And lastly, no one objects to inclusion of other sources, the RFC is on those sources inclusion of which is disputed. Grandmaster 11:02, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2023_Azerbaijani_offensive_in_Nagorno-Karabakh/Archive_3&oldid=1210925509"