Talk:Second Nagorno-Karabakh War/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 October 2020

  Territory controlled by the Republic of Artsakh including Armenian-controlled territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh

  Territory of the former Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast

  Territory claimed by the Republic of Artsakh but controlled by Azerbaijan

  Territory captured by Azerbaijan (per Azerbaijan)

(Date:2 October 2020)

@Ahmetlii:, @AntonSamuel:, The map has been reloaded in SVG format. I suggest you add to the item Emreculha (talk) 15:54, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

armenia seeking for ceasefire talks.

armenian wants to have peace talks with other countries. its obvious that armenia is losing this war pretty fast and have no other option but talk for ceasefire.

If anyone can put this in the section, thanks.

Kind regards

YouTube isn't a reliable source. --Governor Sheng (talk) 17:29, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Governor Sheng edits

I couldn't find anything in the article about Serbia's involvement in 2020 war. Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 17:06, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

As far as I understand, the references regarding Israel's involvement talk about Israeli drones being used in the conflict. Balkan Insight writes how Azerbaijan found Serbian-made weapons used by Armenia (Argument 1). The Armenian diplomat confirms this and notes that much more weapon was sold to Azerbaijan, in the interview given to N1, stating "Serbia exported much more weapons to Azerbaijan than to Armenia" (Argument 2). So, considering what the two articles, from neutral and respectable sources state, Serbia plays a double role, providing arms to both Azerbaijan and Armenia. I don't know when these arms contratcs were signed, but it seems to me they are still in force. --Governor Sheng (talk) 17:17, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Governor Sheng, Israel was added, because it was suspected that it sent arms to Azerbaijan DURING the conflict. --► Sincerely: Sola Virum 17:43, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I understand. I agree Serbia can be removed. --Governor Sheng (talk) 17:49, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Wrong date showing

Typo mistake in article Official statements under heading Armenia and Artsakh. In last paragraph date should be 3 October instead of 3 September.

Thank you. I've fixed. Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 18:13, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

References

Second attempt: International reaction map

After a long discussion, I believe that there is consensus on the map of international reactions, which is why I am asking for its inclusion for the second and last time. I metion the participants of these discussions. @Solavirum, F.Alexsandr, Johncdraper, and Beshogur: et. al. --KajenCAT (talk) 11:06, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps a different shade for Uz, Ky, Kz? Beshogur (talk) 11:10, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

To reiterate and clarify my position. Firstly, what does the key mean? The problem is that 'support' is not defined. Diplomatic support, yes, but for what, exactly? Support for Azerbaijani territorial integrity Vs. Support for the Nagorno-Karabakh Line of Contact? In that case, you would need to check the statements of every country re territorial integrity. This is complicated by the fact UNSC resolution 884, which everyone editing this page should probably read, and which "reaffirmed the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Azerbaijani Republic" is still in force. Thus, all UNSC countries which voted for this would bound to be categorised as 'Support for Azerbaijani territorial integrity', as would those countries which expressed support for the resolution at the time, unless their positions have been amended. Secondly, what does 'Peace' mean? Conditional peace? Unconditional peace? And peace to what end? Peaceful negotiations according to UNSC 884 and/or the Madrid Principles? I have no problem with maps per se and supported the present geomap, but this map is highly problematic. Add: Well, the geomap that showed town-level details at one point. However, that was conditional support, given the difficulty of keeping it current with reliable sources. Johncdraper (talk) 11:37, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

As I have said, Ky, Kz, Uz have published their own statements, which are neutral. You have said that TC statement should be interpreted as a stance of all TC countries. I will need a source from TC documents that says that a statement by TC (Mind you, a statement, not a joint Resolution) should be interpreted as official stance of all states. But even then a TC statement merely REMINDS of 1993 UN resolution, not calls for its enforcement, and even if it did, it would hardly be a statemnt of support for AZ in this particular conflict. F.Alexsandr (talk) 11:49, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

This debate is very politicised and I shouldn't be surprised because of the few times that I have collaborated in something in the English Wikipedia, it has been similar or worse. People who far from collaborating or helping you as they do in any other Wikipedia, do the opposite; hindering you in almost everything you do. And yes, I'm talking about all of you except some people like Solavirum. For this reason, and also due to lack of time, I am withdrawing from this debate.--KajenCAT (talk) 12:54, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Every UN member state supports Azerbaijan's territorial integrity, including Cyprus, and even Armenia for that matter, so equation this position with support of Azerbaijan's current offensive is going too far. We don't have enough information yet and the map as it is now gives the wrong impression to reader. --Antondimak (talk) 22:39, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I will remove this map, since it doesn't represent the support to the army. Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 07:43, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Գարիկ Ավագյան, what do you mean by "it doesn't represent the support to the army"? Super Ψ Dro 10:13, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

One person was colouring countries (KZ, UZ, KG) as suppporting Azerbaijan, saying that a statement of a head of a Turkic Council that called for adherency to 1993 UN resolution is a sufficient reason to colour a country as supporting Azerbaijan. Truth is, all countries recognize the Azeri claim to Karabah, but that does not translate to support for their current Actions. F.Alexsandr (talk) 15:03, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

The map should not be removed only because of 3 countries out of ~194. Super Ψ Dro 21:16, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism

The page is "being prevented by vandalism", but it definitely experiences one by biased moderator Գարիկ Ավագյան. One of Sources that says Serbia supplement Azerbaijan is written by Armenian writer (biased) and another is unrelated as well as reference that mentions Armenia's being supplemented by Serbia, not Azerbaijan's. Syrian Turkmens should be mentioned as such( as Syrians fight for Armenia indicated as such), but not as Syrian National Army. Turkish military support and Syrian division's support citated from weak and one source and should not be on the main scheme SafaviNihad (talk) 20:35, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Those are my edits. The article that talks about Serbia supplying Azerbaijan isn't written by an Armenian, but by N1 TV Channel from Belgrade. --Governor Sheng (talk) 21:06, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

In the infobox we only mention countries which supplied arms during the war. The fact that Serbia sold weapons before the conflict is Irrelevant. F.Alexsandr (talk) 09:12, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Russia is supplying weapons to both sides

As stated on sources (Al Jazeera, Al Monitor...) that I supposed had been deleted by someone not happy with them. That is vandalism too.--HC PUNXKID 22:24, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

During this conflict Russia has only supplied Armenia. We dont put in the selling of arms before the conflict started. F.Alexsandr (talk) 08:51, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH. --► Sincerely: Sola Virum 10:06, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 October 2020

105.112.117.5 (talk) 20:12, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Not done: no request made. Johncdraper (talk) 11:22, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism

The page is "being prevented by vandalism", but it definitely experiences one by biased moderator Գարիկ Ավագյան. SafaviNihad (talk) 20:04, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

A Wikipedia Talk page is not a forum: engage on a specific point, or this comment may be removed. Johncdraper (talk) 12:00, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Image dating

@Emreculha: for the benefit of the readers, could you label the map or caption it to indicate the timing of the map? As in, what date is being indicated? Juxlos (talk) 11:22, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

@Juxlos:, Is it an update date(for progress)? So of course I can add.--Emreculha (talk) 12:06, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

@Emreculha: Just indicate when the map is, yeah. Juxlos (talk) 12:07, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

@Emreculha:, I'll handle it :) --- Emreculha (talk) 12:19, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

@Emreculha:, you can add the city of Jabrayil. --► Sincerely: Sola Virum 12:51, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

@Solavirum:, @Marjdabi: already did it.---Emreculha (talk) 13:07, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Pilots downed

• As per various sources on the 27 September 2020 was shotdown the State Border Guard Service Sr. Lt. (baş leytenant) Xalid Həsən Gözəlov (Khalid Hasan Gozelov) from the village of Aşaği Cürəli (Ashagi Jurali, Bilesuvar Region) an Azeri Mi-17 Helicopter pilot born on 1996.
• On the same day was downed the Maj. Abbas Rza oğlu Qasımov from Baku, born on 1986, not clear if on the same helicopter belonging to the State Border Service as well.
• As per Armenian sources the Su-25 pilot downed by an alleged Turkish F-16 on 29 Sept. was Maj. (մայոր) Valeri Danelin (Վալերի Դանելին).

No other info about other claimed downings --95.234.160.36 (talk) 09:26, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I may be missing something, but today's date is 3 October 2020. Can we double check the date of the shooting down of the State Border Guard Service pilot as it lists a date in the future? Perhaps it was suppose to be 27 September 2020. Jurisdicta (talk) 01:42, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

@Jurisdicta: You are right, my mistake. Already fixed. --Nicola Romani (talk) 12:41, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

show source. --► Sincerely: Sola Virum 13:00, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

@Solavirum:: [1]; [2]; [3]; --Nicola Romani (talk) 13:18, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

About Belligerents

Azerbaijan doesn't need the help of some militant groups from Syria when they can handle Armenia very well on their own. A country with 10 million population is fighting against a country with 3 million population and the bigger and militarily superior country would need the support of some militants when this would only help Armenia to get the support they want from the International community? Come on. Surely both the Turkish and Azerbaijani goverment isn't dumb enough to play right into Armenia's hand. Abcdefg9583 (talk) 15:35, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

You're going to need better sources than your own opinion here. You are fully welcome to contribute to any of the many discussions above on this subject, probably with reliable references rather than personal hunches. Unknown Temptation (talk) 16:33, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Well videos show otherwise, Syrian terrorists are seeen on the battlefield. Elserbio00 (talk) 07:26, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

@Elserbio00: Can you give a link rather than just saying? Ahmetlii (talk) 16:56, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 October 2020

Change Territory captured by Azerbaijan to Territory liberated by Azerbaijan, which was written under the first photo. Because Nagorno Karabakh and other 7 regions around are sovereign territory of Azerbaijan which is recognized with international laws. According to UN 4 resolutions, Armenian troops, which occupied those territories, must immediately, without any condition leave these territories. Therefore, Azerbaijan is not capturing any territory, rather liberating its occupied areas. For this reason, I kindly ask you to change that sentence. 213.172.79.57 (talk) 15:03, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

I do not think so. Yes, the attack to "liberate" the territory was indeed started by the Azeri/Turkish forces. But the conflict should be viewed in a wider historical context which involves the Armenian genocide still unrecognized by Turkey (this is just like the role of the Holocaust in Jewish history), the rights of nations to self-determination, etc. [4]. My very best wishes (talk) 15:22, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

My very best wishes, Turkish forces are not in the battlefield, at least per third-party sources and both Azerbaijan Turkey, and Armenian genocide has nothing to do with this, so WP:NOTAFORUM. --► Sincerely: Sola Virum 17:00, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

What exactly Turkey does there in terms of weapons (such as drones) and people (such as adviser and fighters) may be debatable, but the conflict is generally described in sources like “Turkey-Azerbaijan ... vis-à-vis Armenia". [5]. As about the Armenian genocide in relation to this conflict, this is not my idea, but something directly mentioned in NPR source [6], and other sources. Obviously. My very best wishes (talk) 18:19, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Villages and cities names

Hi there! According to our NPOV policy, since this is a territorial dispute, is it possibible to write down the Places names using both versions e.g. Varanda/Füzuli (Armenian/Azeri)? Thank you in advance. --Nicola Romani (talk) 12:10, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

I updated to map for 2 languages(in Karabakh).. If i made mistake please write to me---Emreculha (talk) 13:11, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. --Governor Sheng (talk) 18:26, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Who Removed SNA from combatants?

Who Removed SNA from combatants? The duscussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#2020_Nagorno-Karabakh_conflict has resulted in Moderator seeking a compromise and putting SNA in the belligerents section for now. The discussion is not over yet, so you shouldnt remove it from there. F.Alexsandr (talk) 09:07, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

The removal is of the entire "Alleged" section. Alleged section cannot be added to campaignbox per WP:NPOV and WP:EXCEPTIONAL. If you like add them as regular combatants or supporters following discussion, "alleged" is not appropriate in Wikipedia.GreyShark (dibra) 09:40, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

@Greyshark09:, as @F.Alexsandr: has said, discussion is not over yet so no changes should be made until then. EkoGraf (talk) 09:47, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

It appears to have been changed from the compromise that I recommended at the beginning of the DRN discussion of full belligerent (with a disputed tag) back to "Alleged" in this edit, at which point there was further edit warring over whether an alleged claim should be included. I've reinstated the old version. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:45, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Third Party Involvement. Turkey and Syrian National Army

Dear Sir/Madam,

I appreciate your hard work. Please ADD the following:

Days after the outbreak of the fighting in the Artsakh region, a high-ranking official in the US Defense Department confirmed the validity of the information that spoke about sending hundreds of Syrian mercenaries from Turkey to support Azerbaijan.

The official, who asked not to be named, revealed to Sky News Arabia - “The reports and information that spoke about dozens of trips between Turkey and Azerbaijan in the past days to transport hundreds of Syrian mercenaries are proven and correct."

1) Here is the link to the Article: https://armenpress.am/eng/news/1029857/

2) The Source is a HIGHLY REPUTABLE news agency called Armenpress. About Us Key information

“Armenpress” news agency was established on December 18, 1918 when by the decision of the National Council of the first Armenian Republic an unprecedented state-run news agency, Armenian Telegraph Agency, was created. Currently, “Armenpress” news agency operates as a Closed Joint-Stock Company the stocks of which are owned by the Republic of Armenia. The agency is the oldest in Armenia. At the moment it produces eleven newslines: official, politics, economy, society, regional, international, Armenian world, culture, sport, life, innovation,interviews and photo news. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3A2020_Nagorno-Karabakh_conflict&action=edit&section=new

Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strategos9 (talk • contribs) 13:32, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Strategos9 Armenpress, a state owned media outlet is not reliable enough of a source for such claim as a "high-ranking official in the US Defense Department confirming" the issue on hand. --► Sincerely: Sola Virum 13:37, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello. In that case, here is the reference that the article from Armen Press is quoting from. The English quote from Armen Press is an exact and a direct translation of the following article, which is in Arabic from SkyNews Arabia: https://www.skynewsarabia.com/middle-east/1380657-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D8%B3%D9%85%D8%A7%D8%B1%D9%8A-%D8%AA%D8%B1%D9%83%D9%8A%D8%A7-%D8%AA%D9%86%D9%82%D9%84-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A7%D9%95%D8%B1%D9%87%D8%A7%D8%A8%D9%8A%D9%8A%D9%86-%D9%84%D9%8A%D8%A8%D9%8A%D8%A7-%D8%A7%D9%94%D8%B0%D8%B1%D8%A8%D9%8A%D8%AC%D8%A7%D9%86 Sincerely, --Alex662607004 (talk) 18:17, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Not done. An unnamed, not ranked, alleged source simply does not merit mention.Johncdraper (talk) 09:04, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Solavirum recent edits

May I know why do you consider PanARMENIAN.Net not a reliable source? Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 10:47, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Գարիկ Ավագյան, do not misquote me. I said that Twitter wasn't a reliable source for such a thing, which the article on hand referenced it. See WP:USERGENERATED --► Sincerely: Sola Virum 10:50, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

The article refers to the researcher on the Middle East, like most Azerbaijani websites refer to Ilham Aliyev's Twitter. Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 13:17, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Ilham Aliyev is a head of state, your whataboutism is absurd... --► Sincerely: Sola Virum 13:34, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

@Solavirum: Elizabeth Tsurkov is an American expert on Syria. Even BBC quotes her. Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 13:43, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Map greens

The two greens in the map are waaay too similar. Fully sighted people will be confused, to say nothing of the color blind. 74.96.157.142 (talk) 15:09, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Support statement on the top

"while Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan, Turkey, and Northern Cyprus have expressed support for Azerbaijan's territorial integrity."

All countries, including Armenia, support Azerbaijan's territorial integrity. I think, should be removed. Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 12:47, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Maybe, We can add Armenian's support, too. Helius Olympian (talk) 13:24, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Oppose. Armenia does not support Azerbaijan's territorial integrity. Supporting it means withdrawal of Armenian troops from the occupied territories, which Armenia clearly does not support nor follow. Saying "We support territorial integrity of Azerbaijan" is a well-known and clear statement of support to Azerbaijan's side. — CuriousGolden (talk· contrib) 13:39, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

You can support the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan, but condemn military action. Also, "supporting it means withdrawal of Armenian troops" is cleary your own interpretation. Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 13:53, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Գարիկ Ավագյան supporting Azerbaijan's territorial integrity means removal of Armenian troops and dissolution of the seperatist regime. That isn't his/her 'own interpretation'. How can country A support the territorial integrity of country B and simultaneously occupy its territories? --► Sincerely: Sola Virum 14:14, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

The UN recognizes the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan and the people's right to self-determination. Whom they support? Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 14:23, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

According to the "1960 Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries" of UN, you can justify secession of people from the mother state only in the situation that people are oppressed or the government doesn't represent the people's interests. So, territorial integrity is superior right than self-determination. Helius Olympian (talk) 15:09, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

This is the personal statement the Secretary-General made. These are the words the UNSC used in its recent statement. This is the list of all the UNSC Resolutions on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict to date. These are the UNSC's exact words on the present clashes. However, I cannot find the statement on the UN site, yet. It might help to have a summary section of the UN response, which included not just the UNSC but the General Assembly, on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict page. At the moment, resolutions are mentioned but are somewhat dispersed throughout the article.Johncdraper (talk) 15:35, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Positions of Iran & Afghanistan

It is clear that Turkey, Pakistan & Northern Cyprus support the Azeri side, but how is this true of Afghanistan & Iran? Afghanistan is alleged by some users to support Azerbaijan, but not a single source has been provided. Iran made a vague statement in relation to respecting the borders of Azerbaijan, but Iran has, to my knowledge, not pushed a partisan position in this conflict. It is wrong to use their statements as evidence of support for Azerbaijan and to group them together with Turkey, Pakistan & Northern Cyprus. --Mrodowicz (talk) 15:25, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Mrodowicz The Afghanistan citation was missing but has now been added. We are using this for Iran:

Iran has called for a peaceful resolution, in line with Azerbaijan's territorial integrity, and for Armenian troop withdrawal from occupied territory.

with this specific citation being important for the form of words: https://en.farsnews.ir/13990709000952%7Caccessdate=1. Thank you for raising the Afghanistan issue. Johncdraper (talk) 16:07, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 October 2020

You should remove that this conflict is backed by Northern Cyprus since it an entity not recognised as a country. And by default Is Not A Country rather than illegaly ocupied land. 92.5.243.23 (talk) 00:46, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

 Partly done, I removed Northern Cyprus from the lead, as it is hardly due given that the only source mentioning their support is a Northern Cypriot source. Given the particularly close relationship between Northern Cyprus and Turkey, I'm uncertain that it's even due for inclusion in the article body, and have tagged it with {{undue inline}} for further discussion here. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:58, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

@Rosguill: It should be removed, clearly an undue statement with POV wording ["and partially recognised (by Turkey)"] to drive a point across. We already have reactions/statements from other major countries including Turkey this is unneeded. Gotitbro (talk) 03:35, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Gotitbro, I've gone ahead and removed it, as I agree it's undue. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 03:55, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

NPOV issues with the map

The current map has some problems with regard to WP:NPOV. All of the sources used for the reported territorial changes are so far pro-Azeri. While the text does state that these claims are per Azerbaijan, this is not the impression the map provides as the first thing you see in the article, displaying the claims of territorial changes in strong colors that gives the impression that these are verified facts. International media has so far not gone further than describing the claims as claims made by Azerbaijan and they have not been verified independently. There should be a similar basis for edits as is standard for edits on pages like the Syrian Civil War map - to require sources not potentially biased with regard to the nature of the edit. Therefore, pro-Azeri edits has to use neutral or pro-Armenian sources and vice versa. I would reiterate a call for use of Template:Nagorno-Karabakh conflict detailed map and Module:Nagorno-Karabakh conflict detailed map in the thread above. AntonSamuel (talk) 01:59, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Though in principle it shouldn't be a problem, it is indicative that the author himself is an Azerbaijani, with possible biases. The map must be balanced, and only mainstream, reliable and neutral sources can be used. --Governor Sheng (talk) 02:32, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Agree. For example the government of Artsakh denied the claim that Azerbaijan had taken control of Jabrayil city [7]. It is inappropriate to present Jabrayil under Azerbaijan's control on the map. Nexsonsh (talk) 05:27, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

The caption states that it is per Azerbaijan. According to Artsakh authorities, they have lost nothing at this point. --► Sincerely: Sola Virum 08:05, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Only present per Azerbaijan on the map is already a POV issue. A conflict map should not present information only rely on source from one side. Where is per Armenia/Artsakh on the map? A map showed on the top of the Article only presenting one side information is completely misleading. Nexsonsh (talk) 15:53, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Nexsonsh, Armenia and Artsakh has stated that they have lost nothing. It doesn't makes sense to add their claims, because Azerbaijan is the only side that has claimed that the line of contact has moved. --► Sincerely: Sola Virum 18:14, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

• I think that the biggest issue with the infobox map right now is that the color choices and incomplete labeling makes it look like Artsakh claims all of Azerbaijan (or at least all of Azerbaijan on the map) as its territory. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:03, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

  I've partially fixed the issue by adding Armenia and Azerbaijan proper to the map legend, although adopting the detailed map and a new color scheme would probably be a further improvement. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:14, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Turkey and Syrian Army

Please RECONSIDER your decision regarding this information about Turkish involvement in Azerbaijan.

Turkish troops/advisors caught on camera in Ganja.

First, the Source is assistant of the Azerbaijan's president's foreign policy. He uses the twitter to communicate. So, once again, to clarify, your argument (not a fact) that "twitter is not a reliable source." I am not saying that So the source is the Twitter is a source (whether reliable or not). I am saying that the source is the high ranking official of Az. government. He uses the Twitter, just like he can use the government website or a chalkboard, to convey his message. Second, the fact that he published then DELETED it, means it was a damning evidence hurting his claim. (a) The photo was published by advisor Hikmet Hadjiev who later on deleted his own tweet. This is an ADMISSION by the party who denies there are Turkish soldiers supporting Azerbaijan.

Third, (b) @MuradGazdiev He is a military correspondent and Emmy0-nominated; RT Correspondent. The two photos are linked below. He is not sitting in an ivory tower but is on the ground.

Fourth, assuming Hikmet Hadjiev, the high ranking foreign policy official, later on tries to "rationalize" if the person is a civil training member, it means that (a) this photograph is AUTHENTIC and reliable; (b) the community should know both sides of the story and decide whether Mr. Hadjiev is lying or not. You or I should not decide who to trust. The photograph is an UNDISPUTED fact since Mr. Hadjiev does not deny its existence; he admits that the photograph is true (he simply explains the meaning of the person's so-called, alleged role).

I have provided FOUR (4) powerful arguments which suffice that the information and the photograph be published. P.S. I am an experienced trial lawyer and this evidence will be 100% admissible because it is (a) RELIABLE, (b) it is an ADMISSION of a party (Mr. Hadjiev), (c) the fact that he deleted it shows he has something to hide and that he is not trustworthy; (d) the fact that he wants to give an explanation means that the jury, i.e. the reader can decide who to believe or not to believe.

Thank you for your time.

The first link: https://twitter.com/TheArmenite/status/1312666984115572737/photo/1 The second link: https://twitter.com/MuradGazdiev/status/1312679245911674881/photo/1 The third link: https://twitter.com/AiRMENIA/status/1312764047864061953/photo/1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strategos9 (talk • contribs) 08:11, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Not done. Twitter is not a reliable source. Try again. Johncdraper (talk) 08:41, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Note The Office of the President of Azerbaijan stated that he was a civil protection servicemen of Azerbaijan who had passed a joint training. So, not done. --► Sincerely: Sola Virum 09:03, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

• Using primary source documents like photos to establish claims is original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. A plausible argument explaining the inference isn't sufficient, you need to be able to verify claims directly in reliable sources. If reliable sources (e.g. Reuters, Deutsche Welle, Al Jazeera) report that Turkey is involved, then we can add it. RT, on the other hand, is not reliable (RSP entry). Also, if you have additional comments to make after editors have responded to you, it's generally a better idea to write your additional statement as a separate signed comment. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:39, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Islamic World News

I have searched about this site and it just seems to one man with Twitter account and a website. The Twitter account claims it's a group, but the account username A7_Mirza and the fact that maps of countries at war look same always, makes it suspicious. Who is this person and how is he a reliable? This ISW is certainly not reliable. He seems to be more of a military map maker and chronicler. Not a real journalist. Regardless of whether this person may have been used in past by others, editors can't make a source reliable just because they use it. This is to EkoGraf who re-added it. And I doubt anyone who tweets this can be a professional media site. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 23:41, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

We should remove it. --► Sincerely: Sola Virum 06:44, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

the alleged PKK involvement in Armenia

Please ADD the following to the allegations of the PKK fighting in Armenia.

CNNTurk was caught in fake news about the false allegation of the PKK involvement in Armenia. #CNNTurk publishes footabe of "#CNNTurk publishes footage of "#PKK fighting alongside Armenian #ASALA terrorists in #Artsakh".Seems that someone has to teach those ignorants that this is the flag of the #Colombian #FARC movement and not the Armenian flag. Colombian flag turned backward becomes an #Armenianflag" There is a screen shot from CNN fake news. Here are the sources (1) ; (2) from Twitter

Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strategos9 (talk • contribs) 06:33, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

@Strategos9: WP:RS. Ahmetlii (talk) 07:35, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Foreign / Syrian militants involvement

Novaya Gazeta claims that it was able to establish the details of the recruitment of Syrian militants in Karabakh. According to a source in Syria, a man named Seif Abu Bakr, a recruiter for the Khamzat brigade, which is fighting as part of the Free Syrian Army that cooperates with Turkey, is engaged in the registration of mercenaries. According to the newspaper's source, any Syrian citizen who wants to fight on behalf of Turkey can volunteer, the fighters are sent to the Turkish border town of Killis, dressed in civilian clothes and sent to Baku via Gaziantep airport. The source of the newspaper adds that the flight passes through the airspace of Georgia, and the monthly salary of the mercenary is $ 1,800, Turkish citizenship is guaranteed for the fighter and his entire family, in case of his death, the family will receive a one-time payment of 30 thousand dollars.

Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 07:24, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strategos9 (talk • contribs) 04:48, 6 October 2020 (UTC) 

Not done. Not characterized as an edit request. Your other posts have been deleted as forum-like. Basically, try again, using the edit request format. Thank you. Add: Or, WP:BOLD it yourself. Johncdraper (talk) 06:08, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Done Thank you. I will surely add this info. I found Novaya Gazeta's research. Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 08:39, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Change Article Name to the "Azeri-Armenian War"

Here's my reasoning why, listed in several points.

1. MEDIA USE This name, and it's various slight variations (Armenian-Azerbaijan War, Armenian-Azeri War) have become heavily dominant in media and general discussion of it, far more then the tongue challenge that it currently is named. And after all, this is the peoples encyclopedia.

2. NOT A CONFLICT, A WAR! I'm partially using the same argument as the other name change topic, but it's true. This has gone past a border conflict, and into a full scale multi-state war. The title is underplaying it. As for why I disagree with the other name, aside from point 1 of course, see 3 and 4. I'd also like to site the recent changing of "Russian Military Intervention in Ukraine" to "Russo-Ukrainian War" as solid evidence of my support for this distinction, and that was LESS of a true war then this is by all metrics, thereby this should DEFINITELY count.

3. NAME ITSELF IS NON-NEUTRAL AND IS PICKING SIDES The Azeri's call it Karabakh, the Armenians call it Artsakh. EITHER WAY, you're picking a side and spoiling any neutrality in an ongoing conflict, which is obviously not ideal. This is one of the two reasons I disagree with the other title change option and the current one, the other being.

4. THE 88-94 CONFLICT WAS MORE OF A PROTO-STATE WAR, WHILE THIS IS A TRUE MULTISTATE WAR AND SHOULD BE TITLED AS SUCH 60% of the 88-94 NK conflict took place BEFORE either country was independant, when they were still squabbling militants within the USSR. And while it continued nearly 3 years after the CCCP fell, this would make it more akin to a Proto-State conflict fought between new nations shortly before and after forming, like the Yugoslav Wars or the Soviet Proto-state wars from 1918-1923 or so.

And it just rolls off the tongue easier, so there's that.

So, a name that rolls off the tongue, is popular in media and discussion, DOESN'T implicitly pick sides, accurately describes the nature of this WAR and fits the standard co, and sets it apart as a true multi-state conflict, would likely be preferable. Make the right choice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.144.93.30 (talk) 00:43, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

OPPOSE The war is between Artsakh supported by Armenia, and Azerbaijan supported by Turkey, not between Armenia and Azerbaijan. I propose these three:

- Artsakh-Azerbaijan war

- 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war

- Second Nagorno-Karabakh war

— [ kentronhayastan ] 01:08, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Oppose, but I do agree to a name change, just not this one. Seeing President Aliyev's tweet, I noticed many people are saying "Second Nagorno-Karabakh War" already, so it's best we use that one. Soon, the media will call it that, or "Artsakh War" if they prefer the Armenian(?) name. RBolton123 (talk) 01:49, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Support 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war, I originally proposed this title a couple days after the war broke out. At the time several people opposed on the basis that the conflict was too short to be called a war, as it has now gone on longer than the Russo-Georgian War, that objection is plainly irrelevant and news sources are calling this a war with ever increasing frequency.XavierGreen (talk) 02:36, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Oppose A quick lookup for "Nagorno Karabakh War" gives news articles which refer to the affair as a "conflict". It doesn't matter what we as editors assess the conflict's scale as - sources refer to it as a conflict and so should Wikipedia. Wikipedia will probably be the tipper of the scale in this case if we prematurely switch. Juxlos (talk) 03:19, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Oppose "Azeri-Armenian War" On point 1, the majority of sources I could find are referring to the current conflict as either the "Nagorno-Karabakh conflict" or "Nagorno-Karabakh war" (with some Armenian sources instead using the equivalent "Artsakh war" or "conflict"). On point 3, the name Nargorno-Karabakh is used by both Armenians and Azeris, Artsakh is just an alternate name used by Armenians. (In fact, the republic writes both N-K and Artsakh on its coat of arms.) Also, the proposed title "Azeri-Armenian War" is ambiguous with the 1918-20 Armenian–Azerbaijani War. I have no strong opinions on whether to refer to the present conflict as either simply a conflict or a war, they both seem to be suitable and both are in use. -Thespündragon 03:49, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Oppose. What you, I, discussions, or Donald Duck popular media thinks is irrelevant. Again, Wikipedia uses Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources on such matters. Find a consensus in these for the name change. And then present it here. Thank you. Add: The next time that someone opens a 'War Name' discussion without checking Wikipedia reliable perennial sources, I will be tempted to remove it as forum-like, ESPECIALLY if they start throwing in all caps. Johncdraper (talk) 06:05, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Oppose especially the word Azeri. --► Sincerely: Sola Virum 06:42, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Support: Unfortunately, this round of fighting has escalated beyond "clashes". I am open to different names, but the name should reflect that this is a war. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 06:59, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Support: While I'm a bit iffy on some points, this is clearly gone beyond a conflict, and the siting of the Russo-Ukrainian War example seems to fit this name, so I'm in favor. 206.174.216.170 (talk) 14:59, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Georgian comments

Ahmetlii, I don't see why this is due for inclusion in the article. Not all information related to the topic needs to be included, especially in this manner, as a totally disjoint one-sentence paragraph. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 07:07, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

@Rosguill:, because basically that indicates the opinion of Georgia - which country is indirectly involved because of the location- about it. That's my point. Ahmetlii (talk) 07:16, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Except Georgia apparently just popped in to say that no mercenaries have come through Georgia, a claim that is not made anywhere else in the article and that readers would have no reason to assume. Additionally, its placement at the end of the section on allegations of mercenary movements supported by relatively strong sources could mislead a casual reader into thinking that Georgia disputed the presence of mercenaries in general, rather than the passage of mercenaries through its territory in particular. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 07:24, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill, you are wrong. The Turkey and the SNA headline states that they have come through the Georgian airspace, citing a Russian newspaper. --► Sincerely: Sola Virum 11:33, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Solavirum, I see how it's been reintegrated into the article, which I think is a much more appropriate way to present the information than before. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:13, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Ahmetlii edits

I'm waiting for explanations. Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 17:13, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Only a source is not enough to give it in the title; for example, allegation of YPG/PKK. edit conflictAhmetlii (talk) 17:15, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I will add sources as well, if you want. Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 17:24, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Ahmetlii You meant, for the infobox, we need statements besides the Russian one? Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 17:32, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Գարիկ Ավագյան yes, this is a ongoing event and I don't think that Russian state news agencies will help to the article without another given independent and reliable source. Ahmetlii (talk) 17:35, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Ahmetlii Ok, I got it. I removed from the infobox until anyone else confirms these claims. Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 17:37, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

So, we are now going to accept Russian state propaganda? --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 17:38, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

You surely not. Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 17:51, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Borders on the map

In order to get the involved countries and combatants right one should probably include the enclaves in Armenia and Azerbaijan that are occupied by on another. See: Karki,_Azerbaijan, Barxudarlı, Yukhari_Askipara, Aşağı_Əskipara and Artsvashen — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonLiebing (talk • contribs) 17:33, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Can Emreculha take a look? --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 19:11, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Agree. Beshogur (talk) 19:15, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

You may have to "zoom out" the map a bit for all the de jure enclaves to fit, so a new version of the map would need to be created. I wouldn't neccesarily oppose it as long as it doesn't make the map far too complicated to be considered to be fairly understandable/readable for the not so familiar readers - it's pretty complex as it is. AntonSamuel (talk) 19:23, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Map colours

The colors on the map are too strong and sting the eyes, especially if a cell phone is used to read the article. I think it would be acceptable to make the colors a little more neutral, milder. And how about make colours indicate the connection between Armenia and Artsakh? Make them similar, but not too similar. --Governor Sheng (talk) 18:30, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

I want to bring to your attention the existance of Template:Nagorno-Karabakh conflict detailed map and Module:Nagorno-Karabakh conflict detailed map. These were created on 19 June 2016 and last edited on 4 October 2020. I bring this up because i noticed in this talk page archives some disagreements with respect to the map in this article ([8], [9], [10]). War article picture maps are usually based on the template/module maps. For example, the Syrian civil war article map (Syrian Civil War map.svg) is based on Template:Syrian Civil War detailed map and Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map. The advantage of this approach is that everyone participates in the updating of the map based on consensus and reliable sources as described by the rules of the template/module. Then, on a regular basis, someone captures the screen of the template map to create a picture file to be inserted in the article (2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict) according to the procedure described in the chart below:Tradedia^talk 20:02, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

@Governor Sheng: I have now softened the colors of the map a bit, as well as ordered them a bit more logically. AntonSamuel (talk) 22:41, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• QarabaghWarMap(2020).svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:25, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Georgia

Georgia's response is notable, as Georgia is a major player in the region, and critically sits between Russian and Armenia (we assume Armenia can't use Azerbaijani territory to connect to Russia). Georgia's response has included halting transfer of military materials to both sides. Xinhua: [11]. --Calthinus (talk) 17:21, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Georgia is significant. Russian military supplies have been supposedly going to Armenia via the Caspian-Iran route. Vici Vidi (talk) 05:55, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 October 2020 (3)

Not done. No request made. Johncdraper (talk) 07:01, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Unreferenced Numbers

Hello. In the references below, the first reference mentions 24 casualties at 15:30 on October 4-2020. The second reference mentions a deceased casualty around 15:00 on October 4-2020. The latest addition to the article regarding this, which was at 14:35 on October-4 2020, states 25 casualties. Looking at the timestamps alone, the number of 25 casualties is not mentioned in those reference and clearly contradicts them.

Cabayi I kindly ask fellow editors to follow this up and act accordingly.

24 civilians killed

14-year-old

Sincerely, --Alex662607004 (talk) 19:07, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Partially done. Superseded by events (now up to 28 civilian death toll). Johncdraper (talk) 07:03, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

International reactions section looks messed up and disorganized

Someone PLEASE format this section as soon as possible.

• If a country says the same thing as another country did, then group them in the same thing.
• If a country had something specific to say about the conflict, make a seperate paragraph and put that country's flag next to it.

Example: - Edi Rama, former President of Albania said: "This conflict must be met in a peaceful conclusion as soon as possible."
Another example: Albania, Bangladesh, France, The Netherlands, Zimbabwe, South Africa, Russia, and China have all called for peaceful intervention as soon as possible.

If a user were to look at this section in the article, they wouldn't be able to tell what's more important and what's not, so let's tidy this one up, shall we? Balkanite (talk) 15:01, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

WP:QUOTEFARM and WP:MOSFLAG. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 15:07, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

To be honest it doesn't even look that bad. It is quite decently organized for an article that has had so much impact and views. Super Ψ Dro 15:46, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Not done. Agree that this is actually okay for this stage in the article's history. Paragraphing is more concise; if not, you just get a long list scrolling down the page. Johncdraper (talk) 07:10, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

References

Recognise vs recognize?

Some sections using both, which one is correct or is appropriate? Beshogur (talk) 21:51, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Looks like the page was tagged as {{use British English}}, so "recognise" is correct. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:56, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

@Rosguill: I changed few words, someone reverted me without even noticing. I'll try to change all to recognise. What about motorized or motorised? Seems like sources use motorized, is it mandatory to use British spelling on wiki? Beshogur (talk) 04:09, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Beshogur, MOS:ENGVAR is the relevant guideline. It's also not necessarily the highest priority for an article that's likely to get entirely rewritten several times over in the next year or so. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:13, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

It's not a big deal, better to focus on the content. Also while Yankees stick to the Zs, Brits use both Z and S in many words, with preference to S. The difference is more definitive in o vs. ou (color/colour) and er/re (center, centre). Vici Vidi (talk) 05:52, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Recognise. See https://www.dictionary.com/. Johncdraper (talk) 07:12, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 October 2020

Not done. No edit request specified. Johncdraper (talk) 07:14, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Unregistered Users

Is it ok if Unregistered users can edit this talk page and put some information and stuff? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.128.133.52 (talk) 13:37, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

This talk page is not protected. So, the answer is yes; if you are not an extended autoconfirmed user and know how to make edit requests, do that, following the edit request Help. However, please use common sense. Over the past few days, most of the editors improving this page have realised that their role is more like that of diplomats than warriors. Some basic tips follow. Use of the Talk as a forum is a no no. Spamming the Talk with multiple different requests that could be grouped under the same heading as a list is a no no. When you make points, try to support them with reliable secondary sources. Reopening discussions on e.g., 'Name of the conflict' without relying on reliable perennial sources is a no no. Maps are contentious, including because of reliability of source, language in keys, use of language in labelling villages and towns, etc. While WP:BOLD still applies, if you are a newbie and need advice, try raising it with an editor who may agree with you in how you want to improve this page on their Talk page before trying anything that may be perceived as radical. Finally, peace. Johncdraper (talk) 13:57, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Iranian alleged support

It's absurd to add Iran while they denied several times and made supportive statements on Azerbaijan. Plus Khamanei's clerics did statement that they were supporting Azerbaijan. Beshogur (talk) 09:48, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

@Beshogur: It would be good if you could provide recent Iranian position statements, at the highest possible level you can find, preferable with a secondary source citing it, too. If any of it were in English, that would be even better, but English is not necessary. Google Translate works with Farsi. Johncdraper (talk) 14:05, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

@Johncdraper:, I added Iranian spokesman for their gov. here. There are other Iranian sources mentioning the same. Beshogur (talk) 14:07, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 October 2020 (3)

Hello, I'm just reposting. (The reason for requesting English for the map is to uphold neutrality throughout labels of disputed territories, as Armenian characters are excluded. If towns named by residents in Armenian are suddenly presented in Azerbaijan characters, there is a certain message being sent implicitly. The essential question being argued in this 2020 conflict is: Whose territories are these? The map's disputed towns are now displayed in large Azerbaijan-language characters and small, barely legible English-language letters for some reason, and Armenian is nowhere to be found.) This is a request to: Please change all map labels back to English because some are now in Azerbaijani. Since this article is written for the English-version of Wikipedia, it's consistent to list in English the names of towns in the disputed region in and not in the Azerbaijani language with Azerbaijani characters. We don't view towns and cities in Armenia proper in Armenian letters here. On this new map, we see English letters and Azerbaijani letters; so, there is an imbalance. This new map which has been added reduces the readability and reduces the neutrality of this article due to the names being written in a language other than English, as though these are Azeri towns (whereas, they are disputed at present). How to resolve this? Let's revert back to a map in English only. It is more appropriate to have names listed in Azerbaijani characters on the Azerbaijani-language version of the Wikipedia entry. Similarly, the names of the disputed towns would be written in Armenian characters on the Armenian-language version of the Wikipedia entry. The way the map is presented today reflects partiality and has reduced readability. SacredForest (talk) 20:06, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

What are the English names of these towns/villages? Never knew the Englishmen had named these places before. We use both Azerbaijani, and Armenian names for the settlements. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 21:18, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello Solavirum! I will look into the names and also check the previous versions of the map. I suggested using English characters only because Armenian-language characters have been totally excluded. To maintain neutrality, it is either both languages (Azerbaijan & Armenian) or neither. Yes? That would be neutral. Also, we are using the name "Azerbaijan" in English for "Azərbaycan" and the name "Armenia" for "Հայաստան". This is not disputed for our article here & has not been contested as an issue of "Englishmen" naming. Every language has translations for other countries and their regions and cities . Do you not give the name İngiltərə for England on the Azerbaijan-language Wikipedia page? Does this mean Azerbaijan citizens came and named the country? No, this is just a translation. This article we currently discuss about the conflict is written in English, so readers will expect to for the most part see this language's characters. Please let me know why there would be the names for the towns written in Azerbaijan-language characters & in almost illegible letters below in English (not Armenian characters)? This cannot be reflective of neutrality, but neutrality is a core principle of Wikipedia. Is it impolite to point out this standard? No, it is a principle of Wikipedia. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by SacredForest (talk) 05:15, 7 October 2020 (UTC) SacredForest (talk) 05:52, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

This is WP:EN. The map should be in WP:EN. On WP:AZ it would be in WP:AZ. Johncdraper (talk) 14:00, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I recently updated the map to show Azeri and Armenian place names next to each other in equal font size for the sake of neutrality. I don't necessarily think that using Armenian town names in Latin letters instead of Armenian letters is a problem - I would even argue that it makes the map more neutral with regards to readability of the Armenian names as most non-Armenians can't read the Armenian script. If the map is to be further improved by consensus English names I don't have a problem with that as long as it does not reduce readability significantly, but I would argue that in its present form - the format of the map is sufficient for use on the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict article on Wikipedia. The issue regarding that neutral and reliable sources need to be used to display claims of captured areas can still be discussed I think, but that's another issue. AntonSamuel (talk) 14:02, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

14:24, 7 October 2020 (UTC) 

AntonSamuel, to be honest, most English readers cannot read the Azerbaijan script either. Would you agree or disagree? For example, the titles for Stepanakert, Martuni, etc. are readable now. When they were only listed in Azerbaijan, these places weren't even possible to find before. Before, when it was in Azerbaijan script, these locations on the map were totally unreadable and could not be found. This does not work for a map which should reflect the article's content. It is better now, but may still be best to include Armenian characters is Azerbaijan characters are already included. Others will weigh in on this? Perhaps it could be Armenian/English for Armenia...Azerbaijan/English for Azerbaijan...& all 3 for the disputed areas? Perhaps that would be totally unreadable for the disputed territory, though. This was why I orginally suggest keeping it in EN as Johncdraper mentioned. In any case, when clicking on the map, I was wondering why the map overall couldn't be enlarged along with its characters, as the labels are teeny tiny! Perhaps this could help with overlapping names too? Is there a way to size up the map?

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 October 2020 (2)

Syrian National Army

This link is wrong. Azerbaijan is fighting alone. This is a provocation. There is no evidence. This is another provocation of the Armenians. Please take this into account.

This is confirmed by SOHR, France, Armenia, Russia, BBC, The Guardian, RIA Novosti, Novaya Gazeta and many others. Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 14:16, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Գարիկ Ավագյան is there currently active discussion on this? If not, the tag should be removed. Also, WP:NPOV require we note that while some accuse the SNA of participating others deny this. VR _talk 14:06, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Vice regent, there is a discussion on the correct choice of name: Syrian National Army or the Syrian mercenaries, etc. Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 15:42, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Johncdraper edits

May I know why added again the Madrid Principles? It's been discussed earlier here. Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 17:04, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Գարիկ Ավագյան|talk: Are you stating a) that the Madrid Principles do not represent the latest in international mediation, b) are not relevant, or c) have not failed, or a combination of a, b, and c? Johncdraper (talk) 17:09, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

@Johncdraper: See here and here. Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 17:57, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Գարիկ Ավագյան|talk What are the specific problems with the two citations, one by one, please? Note I am using Google Translate with the Russian. Note that Armenian opposition to the Madrid Principles is quite well established Note also that the summary emphasizes only the failure of international mediation, i.e., that the international community failed both sides. Add: I added the Armenian source, so now one Armenian, one from an Azerbaijani, and one from the former colonial power which I think is a verbatim report, in Russian, of the Artsakh position. Johncdraper (talk) 18:18, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

@Johncdraper:

• 1. https://www.aravot-ru.am/2020/09/11/335932/

From the articles it becomes clear that neither Armenia nor Azerbaijan has rejected the Madrid principles. There is no statement by the Foreign Ministry or officials that they have rejected the Madrid principles. At the moment, they are simply not discussed at all, from both sides. Nothing about inefficiency or the failure of international mediation. The title of the article that "Stepanakert rejects the Madrid principles" is just wrong, non-professional interpretation of the interview.The editor of the article makes his own conclusion.

2. https://armenianweekly.com/2016/08/10/time-to-get-rid-of-the-madrid-principles/

This is 2016 year article.

3. https://www.eurasiareview.com/18092020-velvet-populism-ends-decade-long-discussion-of-the-madrid-principles-oped/

Azerbaijani editor blames Armenia. Not realiable.Actually, non of the articles can be considered as third-party source. Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 08:34, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Գարիկ Ավագյան|talk I will work through these now. This may take time. While I do, is there anything incorrect about this statement?

The Madrid Principles represent the latest in international mediation in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and have failed.

First article.

Direct quotes from first article:

In this sense, today we are not discussing a single option that could weaken the security of Artsakh,"Arayik Harutyunyan stated... "We also have to be realistic, we know that the chances of solving this issue within decades are extremely low. Impossible, we don't see it. Therefore, by strengthening our army, forcing the enemy to reckon with the Armenian forces in Artsakh, maintaining the status quo until serious geopolitical events occur, this is what can lead to at least a partial solution to the Karabakh problem. A complete solution is not possible... Thus, the President of Artsakh raises the prospect of recognizing Artsakh by maintaining the status quo and strengthening the army. Of course, this is not a new approach, but it should be understood whether official Yerevan fully shares this course? Of course, official Yerevan cannot declare that it is pursuing a policy of maintaining the status quo, this will mean that the Armenian authorities simply participate in the negotiations for the sake of participation, but in fact they do not believe in the possibility of achieving results through negotiations. However, this position has a right to life for Stepanakert, since Armenia for many years has been negotiating with a country whose leader periodically leads negotiations to a dead end, does not comply with the demands of the mediators and regularly creates tension on the border and the contact line, propagandizing Armenian-phobia and war.

For the title of the article, complain to the news agency. This article is a correct citation for the statement that "The Madrid Principles represent the latest in international mediation in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and have failed."

Second article. Diplomatic negotiations always occur over a period of time, in this case the timeframe of the Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict is decades, with the Madrid Principles beginning to fail around 2016, and it is clear that the Madrid Principles had been failing over a sustained period of time. This article remains a correct citation for the statement in question.Johncdraper (talk) 10:37, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Third article. Not an editor. An Azerbaijani source in a published media outlet (secondary source), and we are already using both Azerbaijani and Armenian primary and secondary sources on this page; this article is a correct citation for the statement in question.

Peace, Johncdraper (talk) 10:11, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

@Johncdraper: Thank you! Let me briefly explain what the matter is:

1. None of the sides till this time (neither Azerbaijan, nor Armenia) officially stated that the Madrid principles have failed or had been rejected. Not a single official structure has announced this until now.

2. In the sources that you cite, the editors express their own opinion and their own analysis, which is not based on the analisys of the primary sources (simply because there is none). SEE Opinion piece

3. In this case, it is inappropriate to write about the Madrid principles in the "Background", because this section is intended as one hundred percent confirmed information, mainly from the past.

4. The Karabakh issue is an ongoing issue. It is wrong to conclude that the Madrid principles are irrelevant, as this is part of a long negotiation. Until now, the war continues and both sides are likely to resort to the Madrid principles.

5. And the most important. We have no third party sources. SEE WP:RSEDITORIAL.

Since this Madrid Principles sentence constantly appears in the "Background", I suggest, according to the rules of Wikipedia, to use these statements in another section of Wikipedia and mention the names of the authors, per WP:RSOPINION.

I would like to ask Rosguill to summarize this. Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 16:16, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Okay. I appreciate the difference between de facto and de jure failure, and that there may be a grey area between them. Let us try to find a new for of words here, and then to save time copy that across to the Madrid Principles page and see what happens then. Do we have agreement that the three citations, taken together, support this statement? This may take time.

"International mediation attempts, particularly the Madrid Principles peace plan, have stalled, which has led to renewed hostilities."

Johncdraper (talk) 16:32, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Dear Johncdraper,

Since there is nothing official from the both sides, without any international statements, that the Madrid Principles failed, how can we confirm this as a fact? Wikipedia is based on facts, numbers, names, not conclusions. Statements like "which has led to renewed hostilities" is definitely not a fact and based on personal opinion.

The article Madrid Principles on Wikipedia uses 6 references, 3 of them are the same references that we have discussed and which are Opinion piece and not official. I beg your pardon for saying that again, but they are not reliable sources.

Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 17:35, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Գարիկ Ավագյան, Johncdraper, I think that International mediation attempts, particularly the Madrid Principles peace plan, have stalled. is well-enough supported to be included. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:45, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

International mediation attempts have absolutely not stalled. Check these references, please.

1. OCTOBER 5, 2020 U.S. DEPARTMENT of STATE

2. OCTOBER 2, 2020 Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 16:53, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Added, with the two citations. Johncdraper (talk) 09:12, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Johncdraper, Rosguill I think that mentioning of the International mediation attempts in the "Background", which are based on the official statements references and information, is supported well to be included, when we write it in this way:

"International mediation attempts (OSCE Minsk Group) began in 1994 by a series of peace process, which the Madrid Principles is the latest 3, 4. These International mediation attempts are continuing since this conflict has started in 27 September 5, 6".

Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 17:15, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

There are three points here. The first is that Wikipedia is not a news agency and actually prefers reliable secondary sources over official statements. I take your point re op eds, and suggest combining Rosguill's sources and these statements. Second, the death toll since the Madrid Principles began strongly suggests that the Madrid Principles are at best, in stasis. They exist, and when people die, they get noticed, and when people do not die, they 'stall'. So, I am trying to find a word to characterise 'stasis' or 'stall'. The third point is that yes, the Madrid Principles have thankfully been recently resumed with urgency. How about this?

Ongoing international mediation attempts to create a peace process were initiated by the OSCE Minsk Group in 1994, with the on-off Madrid Principles being the latest iteration.

Johncdraper (talk) 17:57, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Johncdraper, I don't like using the description "on-off", it's vague. I think that if we are stepping away from any mention of peace talks failing or stalling, we should simply mention that Madrid Principles were proposed in 2006 and last updated in 2009. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:03, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill I don't like it either. I prefer 'stall'; my point 2 is crucial, here. The specific problem is that 'stalled' does not translate well into some languages; it translates as 'hindered' rather than being seen as 'temporarily not working', as in a car or plane engine stall. Let me go through a thesaurus and language translators and get back on this point.Johncdraper (talk) 18:19, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Back again. Personally, I would like to use the word 'ponderous', which I think works in both Arabic and Russian, but sadly it does not quite work in English here, or I think Armenian. Try this:

Long-standing international mediation attempts to create a peace process were initiated by the OSCE Minsk Group in 1994, with the interrupted Madrid Principles being the most recent iteration.

Johncdraper (talk) 18:57, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Johncdraper! Now this looks more accurate. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 14:15, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Having reviewed the sources, as well as other articles that attempt to explain the background of the conflict, I think that it would be undue to claim in Wikipedia voice that Armenia rejected the Madrid Principles. The only source that claims this directly is Eurasia Review, which is an oped and based on the above discussion appears to be an Azerbaijan-aligned source. The aravot-ru source makes a claim with respect to Artsakh but not Armenia, and the armenian-weekly source states an opinion that the Principles should be abandoned, but does not represent anyone other than the piece's author, and is thus inappropriate to use in this context.

I think that it is worth mentioning the existence of a peace process in the Background section, and it should be relatively easy to find articles that assert that it failed or stalled; here's one that says that "peace talks" failed [12], and another that mentions their relevance [13]. I think these two sources would be a good support for the proposed statement made by Johncdraper above. The Eurasia Review source may be usable for adding attributed statements in the Analysis section. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:41, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

These two 13 14 references are opinion content and not enough supported to be included in "Background" paragrapgh. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 16:58, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Գարիկ Ավագյան, I don't see anything in the France24 piece that denotes it as opinion. I'd also note that claiming that past mediation attempts failed while conflict is actively being renewed is hardly an exceptional claim. Regarding your comment above, I don't think that the two primary sources you cited ([14], [15]), support the claim that prior mediation attempts are continuing: in addition to their primary nature and thus lesser quality, the sources just state a call for cessation of hostilities, and do not mention any continuity with past efforts. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:58, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I have now imported the latest form of words, with three citations, to the article.Johncdraper (talk) 12:14, 9 October 2020 (UTC)