Jump to content

Talk:Second Nagorno-Karabakh War/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 10

Iran fully supports the position of Azerbaijan

In recent days some top government officials and public figures of Iran displayed support for the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan, called withdrawal of the Armenian troops from the Azerbaijani territory and they have insisted to stop fighting, finding solution through the diplomacy. Here are the references: President Rouhani in telephone call with president Aliyev stated his support to the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan: https://www.tehrantimes.com/news/453318/Rouhani-telephones-Aliyev-says-neighbors-territorial-integrity Again, president Rouhani in weekly cabinet session emphasized territorial integrity of Azerbaijan: https://youtube.com/watch?v=JIc7YEoVeRM Ali Akbar Velayati top foreign policy adviser to the Leader of the Islamic Revolution calls Armenia retreat from Azerbaijani territory: https://www.tehrantimes.com/news/453291/Leader-s-aide-calls-on-Armenia-to-retreat-from-Azerbaijani-territory Imam Jumas, Supreme Leader Representatives in 4 districts of Iran made a joint statement for supporting Azerbaijan's position: https://en.radiofarda.com/amp/khamenei-representatives-declare-support-for-azerbaijan-in-nagorno-karabakh-conflict/30872059.html Ali Rabiei, spokesperson of Irani government urged Armenia to respect territorial integrity of Azerbaijan: https://www.tehrantimes.com/news/453300/Tehran-urges-Armenia-to-respect-Azerbaijan-s-territorial-integrity Saaeed Katebzadeh, spokesperson of Foreign Ministry of Iran emphasized respect for the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan, as well as the withdrawal of troops from the occupied cities: https://iranpress.com/content/28215 Alireza Arafi, public figure, prominent cleric, who considered by some people next Supreme Leader says "Nagorno-Karabakh belongs to Azerbaijan and it is part of Islam. It is now the religious, moral and human duty of Muslims to defend the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan with full awareness of the conspiracies and to resist the influence of foreigners in Islamic countries.": shorturl.at/kwEY7 (Wikipedia blocks the link, I added it in this way) Apollo (Helius Olympian) 05:32, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I think this is now correctly characterised on the page. If not, please try posting a paragraph here, as a block quote, of how you would like it to read, with citations.Johncdraper (talk) 08:35, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Novaya Gazeta report

Hey, Johncdraper, because I'm from Azerbaijan, I don't it would right for me to paraphrase important information from this report from "Novaya Gazeta". There are interesting stuff here, from how a parliamentary building in Shusha was shot as a result of internal treachery, to how Armenia employs volunteers from the Armenian diaspora. Can you check it out? --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 09:28, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

This is a request to me and while I am one of those who are de facto moderating (I hope!), I am not the moderator. To save space on this Talk, post this request to my Talk. To save time, post the relevant paragraphs in Russian as block quotes. Johncdraper (talk) 09:42, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

ECP Request on 9 October

İn the section on October 9, 2020 it incorrectly states that surç was taken control of. The correct village is Sor https://twitter.com/AzerbaijanMFA

Note, this was a malformed ECP request by Objecttothis. Johncdraper (talk) 15:31, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Done --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 15:49, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 October 2020

There is not such republic named” artsakh” recognized in the World officially. 20% of Azerbaijan lands were occupied/ invaded by armenian separatists and called the area «artsakh” 109.127.13.122 (talk) 20:09, 9 October 2020 (UTC) Please, correct this article by referring international law and human rights.

Not done. Forum-like. Everyone editing this page appreciates your concern. I have posted to your Talk how you may improve matters.Johncdraper (talk) 20:49, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 October 2020

Please remove Syrian mercenaries from the belligerents of Azerbaijan. If not, then I kindly ask you to add PKK/YPG mercenaries as the belligerents of Armenia. In addition, it would be better if you would change the name of Artsakh to Nagorno-Karabakh as its internationally recognized as Nagorno-Karabakh.

Comment : There have been numerous reports from reliable sources confirming that Azerbaijan is hiring mercenaries. Macron of France, Russian intelligence and Pentagon have confirmed the presence of mercenaries. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/armenia-and-azerbaijan-agree-to-cease-fire-after-weeks-of-deadly-conflict/ https://www.economist.com/europe/2020/10/10/the-azerbaijan-armenia-conflict-hints-at-the-future-of-war https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/armenia-azerbaijan-syria-war-fighting-mercenary-russia-b912446.html http://asbarez.com/197395/fragile-talks-end-with-agreement-on-ceasefire-on-oct-10/ Expertwikiguy (talk) 01:53, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Analysis

Political scientist Arkady Dubnov, an expert at the Carnegie Moscow Center and the Russia in Global Affairs magazine, https://carnegie.ru/commentary/experts/1113 https://globalaffairs.ru/authors/arkadij-dubnov/ believes that Azerbaijan launched this offensive, because after the clashes in summer 2020, Ilham Aliyev needs to prove that he is a capable leader, and September - a convenient time of the year for military operations in the region.https://echo.msk.ru/programs/sorokina/2716421-echo/ Dubnov believes that Azerbaijan started the war, justifying this assertion with a full-scale offensive in response to Azerbaijan's declared "indefinite shelling of Azerbaijani territory" and the fact that 34 days before the start of the conflict, the Azerbaijani authorities requisitioned civilian trucks and SUVs. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJBvtiqZB2w Strategos9 (talk) 06:42, 8 October 2020 (UTC)StrategosStrategos9 (talk) 06:42, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Partially done. Added, with ce, but while I can read Russian, I cannot follow it on Youtube, so could not include that part. He's probably making the same point in other media, so try looking for that. Johncdraper (talk) 08:45, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Russia and Iran

On September 29, 2020 Iran confirmed that it's air defense forces shot a foreign drone over it's airspace. The video was reportedly taken from the Aslan Heights, which is located near Azerbaijan’s southern border with Iran.

Not done. We already have this subject and multiple citations for several Iranian shootdowns in the Intro section of the Timeline of military engagements.Johncdraper (talk) 09:05, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

<ref>https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/iran-shoots-down-suspected-azerbaijani-drone-video/<ref>

Azerbaijani embassy in Iran said this:

It was noted that the target of Azerbaijan’s Armed Forces in implementation of the counteroffensive operations is the fire positions of Armenia’s occupational forces situated on the opposite side and on the right-hand direction of the frontline: “While the points where the missiles and rockets have fallen on within territory of the Islamic Republic of Iran are left behind or on the left hand of Azerbaijan’s military units. Shells or rockets falling on the territory of the Islamic Republic of Iran have targeted friendship and kind neighborhood relations between Azerbaijan and Iran by Armenian forces, and we consider it as the nasty intention of the enemy.

Apparent visual confirmation of Turkish F-16s at Ganja

Still a lot of things in flux, I know, but I thought I'd just share this Twitter account operated by a member of the New York Times visual investigation team for potential future use. There appears to be more concrete details about the presence of the Turkish F-16s based out at Ganja's military air base just prior to its destruction. Regards, Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:50, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

When did Ganja airport got destoyed? 2 month ago, Turkey had deployed its jets there for drills. Fringe theory. Beshogur (talk) 19:12, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
The same air base that, in this article we say has been closed down since March, and yet we have footage of F-16s during the Turkish-Azerbaijani military drills in July this year? Anyways, third-party sources lead the way of finally confirming much of the information that has been presented in this article so far.Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 19:24, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Please make sure to distinguish between Ganja International Airport and Ganja military airbase, situated at the airport, using reliable secondary sources, which by now are out there. An air base may be open, while an international airport may be officially closed, but reliable secondary sources must be referred to. Johncdraper (talk) 21:02, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
So they're one and the same, then? Perhaps it would be more correct to say that the airport has been converted to military use or its runways and facilities are dual use (like Erebuni Airport in Armenia).Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 21:25, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
On Wikipedia, it's correct to say whatever reliable secondary sources say.Johncdraper (talk) 21:36, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
What make thee (or anyone else) of this? Worth adding? Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 04:23, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Personally, I consider The Drive's The War Zone a reliable secondary source on stories like this. Johncdraper (talk) 08:25, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Julian Röpcke from Bild debunked it. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 08:37, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Okay, but a normally reliable secondary source trumps a tweet, and that Twitter link has disappeared; can you check Bild itself? Johncdraper (talk) 09:00, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
@Solavirum: Nope! Julian Röpcke deleted his post because Azerbaijan did not get M-346 yet! He wrote a new Tweet on the matters, here we are [1]. Delivery is supposed for 2021 [2]. --Nicola Romani (talk) 10:53, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Removing mention of Wagner group involvement

In my edit here I've removed mention of the Wagner group's alleged involvement and related denials by their master Prigozhin. I did so per this Bellingcat article which seems to debunk it quite thoroughly. Eik Corell (talk) 12:24, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Some POV issues on infobox

There are no reliable third-party sources on military support from Turkey (which gives diplomatic support, and denies that it had assisted Azerbaijan militarily during the conflict), showing Turkey as a combatant is misleading. Only Armenia has claimed that Turkey was apparently commanding the Azerbaijani troops, even sending fighter jets. On the other hand, only the Armenian side claims that the combatants from the Armenian diaspora are volunteers, while Azerbaijan calls them mercenaries. In this two cases, the article has clearly taken the Armenia's side, which is biased. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 14:27, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

So Solavirum you propose that "volunteers" on both sides be called mercenaries? Also pinging @Գարիկ Ավագյան:.VR talk 00:06, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Vice regent, no, to put "mercs" on the Alleged section. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 08:08, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
A neutral word commonly used in reliable sources is 'fighters'. We could apply this to both sides. Johncdraper (talk) 15:31, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

regarding SNA

@Rosguill: considering, SNA is removed from the infobox, should I remove Hamza and Sultan Murad as well? Beshogur (talk) 15:41, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Beshogur, I think that given the close and the relative strength of sources attached to the claim, my suggestion would be to keep Sultan Murad and Hamza under alleged, but remove the umbrella of SNA. I'm going to go ahead and make some changes because I noticed other inconsistencies as well as a result of the DRN close. signed, Rosguill talk 16:08, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

The timeline of events in this conflict should be moved to it's own page.

This conflict is currently ongoing, and there is a possibility that it might stretch for months, even years. Adding events on this article everyday will make this page far too long. NinjaWeeb (talk) 16:09, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I'd give it two weeks and then split it. I honestly hope this will end within that timeline now that increasing numbers of people on both sides, both soldiers and civilians, are dying, and given the international community has remembered the conflict. If it is split, I will develop a draft summary of the timeline in a draftspace, receive comments, and then split and replace the timeline. Johncdraper (talk) 16:16, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Countries section needs reworks

Per WP:MOSFLAG, and WP:QUOTEFARM, the current state of the "Countries" section isn't well at all. The previous version was much better. Can someone reconvert it to prose? --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 16:57, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I can do that for unrecognised countries, maybe hold that section very short, merging Ossetia, Transnistria and Abkhazia, on the other hand Northern Cyprus. Any other opinions? Also instead of revert, please someone should do that manually, because there were some wrong references. Beshogur (talk) 17:04, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Please do. I will help. Having rated 8,000+ WP:International Relations pages, I am strongly against quotefarms. They promote sensationalism and fix periods of time and tend to prevent page improvement. Johncdraper (talk) 18:06, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

UAE

@Vallee01: have you even read the source? I do not see anything about UAE officials, the opinion piece looks more like a conspiracy than a reaction. Please revert. @Rosguill:, could you check the source, does not look like a reaction. Beshogur (talk) 18:55, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Beshogur, could you provide the diff here? signed, Rosguill talk 18:57, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
@Rosguill: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2020_Nagorno-Karabakh_conflict&diff=982523233&oldid=982521340 Beshogur (talk) 19:25, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Beshogur, I agree that the source doesn't directly make any claims of support. Rather, it's speculating motives for the UAE to eventually get involved. Maaaaaaybe it could fit into the analysis section, but given how peripheral it is to the conflict it's probably not due unless UAE is confirmed as involved by reliable factual reporting. signed, Rosguill talk 19:39, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Well there isn't really an UAE involvement, UAE has barely any relation with Armenia or Azerbaijan. Beshogur (talk) 19:55, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Should Iranian Azerbaijanis be listed under "Azerbaijani diaspora"?

Should information about Iranian Azerbaijanis be listed under Azerbaijani diaspora, or should it be added to a separate section? (currently:[3]) - LouisAragon (talk) 14:37, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

  • No, it shouldn't. The Azerbaijanis of Iran live outside of Azerbaijan and are therefore members of the diaspora. Why split a section that is already that short? Super Ψ Dro 15:40, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Who says that Iranian Azerbaijanis live outside Azerbaijan? They live in Azerbaijan (Iran). The Azerbaijan of Iran is the area originally named Azerbaijan. How on earth can a region that predates the foundation of Azerbaijan Republic by centuries, possibly be referred to as a "diaspora"? - LouisAragon (talk) 15:56, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
For the record, amongst the dozens of WP:RS sources that verify this: ""The region to the north of the river Araxes was not called Azerbaijan prior to 1918, unlike the region in northwestern Iran that has been called since so long ago." -- Rezvani, Babak (2014). Ethno-territorial conflict and coexistence in the caucasus, Central Asia and Fereydan: academisch proefschrift. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. p. 356. - LouisAragon (talk) 16:01, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
They still don't live in the country of Azerbaijan, regardless of whether the region they live in has been named that way before today's country. Super Ψ Dro 16:52, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
"They still don't live in the country of Azerbaijan" They are Iranians living in Iran. "Azerbaijani" is their ethnicity, not their nationality.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 20:47, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Azerbaijan is a UN Member State; a homeland may or may not be historical, but definitely is in this case ever since the UN Security Council recognised the state of Azerbaijan, thus they are members of the diaspora. Add: For an interesting comparison with the British situation, note that Angle Land (England) is definitely not the historical homeland of the Angles. Johncdraper (talk) 17:01, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Comment : Iranian Azerbaijanis are not diaspora, since they are Iranian citizens and their historical homeland is Iranian Azerbaijan, please read the definition of Diaspora. If Iranian Azerbaijanis were Azerbaijani diaspora, then oddly Australians would be some British diaspora ...---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 20:23, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Then a solution could be to rename the subsection, but I am opposed to splitting it. Super Ψ Dro 20:38, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Why exactly are you opposed to splitting it ? There is no argument in your sentence. Again, Iranian Azerbaijanis are not Azerbaijanis diaspora and i provided reasons for that just above.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 20:44, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Because the subsection is already too short, it is unnecessary to create even more shorter sections. And again, I think the problem can be solved much more easily by renaming it. Super Ψ Dro 20:55, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
The subsection might be too short, but the current version is obviously misleading. What new name do you propose ?---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 20:59, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
"International Armenian and Azerbaijani communities"? "External minorities"? "Armenians and Azerbaijanis in other countries"? I honestly can't think of any good short names but even if the subsections for the Azerbaijani diaspora and the Iranian Azerbaijanis were split, I imagine they would still be under a common section (and not directly under the International reactions one), so that problem would remain anyway. Super Ψ Dro 21:08, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your proposal. "External minorities" sounds good to me.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 21:17, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
I renamed the section. Is it good? Maybe we could use a more precise name than just "Armenians" and "Azerbaijanis", but I'd rather avoid using the word "minorities" again. Super Ψ Dro 21:22, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
I was editing that part too, we edit conflicted and i dropped my edit. The current version sounds good, in my edit, i was about to rename the two subsections "In Georgia and Croatia" and "In Iran" and also move the stuff about Azerbaijanis in Georgian that are supporting Azerbaijan in the first subsection.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 21:27, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Oh, sorry about that. I think it is better for the moment not to specify about the countries so people continue to add information about minorities in other ones. Readers and less experienced editors may want to add information about a country that does not have a subsection and feel that it is inappropriate to do so because of that reason. Super Ψ Dro 21:35, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
No worries about the edit conflict. Ok, let's keep it as it is currently, that sounds quite good to me. Best.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 21:41, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Okay, good that we resolved this! Super Ψ Dro 22:20, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Comment: When providing answers to the question, please provide WP:RS that uses the term you suggest you should use. The opinions of editors are of little importance. What matters is what the WP:RS says. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:54, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@ZaDoraemonzu:'s edits

@Rosguill:, please check his edits, obsessed with Iran and disrupting the sections. adding Iran to infobox, again, changing again, despite Iranian official statements, adding his own words. and this, adding his own words again. I do not want to revert him due to 3rr. But help. Beshogur (talk) 11:47, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm not obsessed with Iran. I think you don't understand the role of Iran. I want to correct the Iranian stance. What ever you accuse me then that's your problem. I defend my opinion. ZaDoraemonzu (talk) 11:51, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
I removed your fake reference about "Azerbaijan accused Iran" here does not mention any allegation, just rumours about Iran, which they already denied here. Beshogur (talk) 12:57, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Your bold claim is justifying a wrong signal that Iran is siding with Azerbaijan in the problem. You are Turkish, you know it better, your Turkish people support Azerbaijan and not else. Don't forget your countrymen's media have reported about Iran's tacit support for Armenia against Azerbaijan. This is why I am demanding a clarification of Iran's activities. ZaDoraemonzu (talk) 06:45, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@AntonSamuel:, check references below on international reactions section. Beshogur (talk) 13:39, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

@Beshogur: The source refers to a call by the Iranian government spokeman for Armenia to withdraw with regard to UN resolutions calling for that, not Iranian support for Azerbaijan's military operation. AntonSamuel (talk) 13:48, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
I Understand. Beshogur (talk) 14:02, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I am not going to say I am obsessed with Iran. In fact, I found Iran's role has been misleading and still uncertain. The problem is a number of people are trying to make Iran like an innocent player or either supporting Azerbaijan, while the reality isn't. What I require is the honest role of Iran in the conflict. ZaDoraemonzu (talk) 11:54, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Iran officially denying arm supplement, supporting Azerbaijan offically, what else do you want? Beshogur (talk) 11:56, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Please, look at previous discussion "Iran fully supports the position of Azerbaijan" Apollo (Helius Olympian) 14:22, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Iran's role is far complicated. In October 6, Iran has accused Turkey of inflaming the conflict. Turkey is Azerbaijan's traditional ally and Turkish media has several times reported about Iran's tacit support for Armenia. Azerbaijani intelligence also accused Iran the same so. Iran says it support Azerbaijan. Why does Azerbaijan state otherwise? ZaDoraemonzu (talk) 06:48, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Since I was pinged, my only comments are that it looks like the at-issue content has already been removed. I don't think that there's anything egregiously bad about the edits at issue, although I do think that Turkish state media alone (Anadolu Agency, TRT World) is a rather weak citation support for claims like this, and thus generally agree with removal for now. I think that calling ZaDoraemonzu "obsessed" was unnecessary and a minor personal attack. signed, Rosguill talk 16:01, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
The problem is this guy has tried to portray Iran like an innocent country or pro-Azerbaijani while Iran's reaction is far complicated. I want to confirm that problem to be solved. If Iran truly supports Azerbaijan, then why Azerbaijan accused Iran? This is what I have questioned the most of it. Turkish media has traditionally sided with Azerbaijan and still so. ZaDoraemonzu (talk) 06:45, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Downed jet SNAFU

Hi! I don’t know how this works exactly. I just wanted to hint at a wrong information in the article because of someone probably misinterpreting a source. It’s stated that Armenia claims to have downed anzukriegender F16 and the linked source is a tweet by the Armenian government. The wording of the tweet is a bit odd but the Armenian government clearly alleges that a Turkish F16 Shot down an Armenian SU-Foghter jet, and not the other way around. They have pictures of the downed jet included in the tweet and the wreckage of the jet shows the Armenian Air Force insignia. Hope this helps to clear things up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.187.122.189 (talk) 10:46, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Would someone tracking this please help this person's request out? Johncdraper (talk) 12:12, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Better Images

Kroger4 (talk) 07:53, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Oppose these are not free images, except for the second one. Early on, images from the Armenian MoD were also deleted. Plus, the first one is from July. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 09:20, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Note: blanked in-copyright images. Johncdraper (talk) 12:25, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Al Arabiya's broadcast of Armen Sargsyan's speech

I notice out that during the conflict, Al Arabiya broadcasted a speech of Armenian President Armen Sargsyan, where he condemned Turkey and Azerbaijan for inflaming the conflict. Al Arabiya is owned by the Al-Saud which has ruled Saudi Arabia since 1923, so while I'm not a theorist, I think Saudi Arabia is backing Armenia against Azerbaijan diplomatically. Again, this depends, but it is worth to mention out. ZaDoraemonzu (talk) 14:30, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Possibly but since no Saudi Authority have made a clear statement, we cant add that. Unless a RS cite them. Mr.User200 (talk) 14:33, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
I doubt so. Saudi Arabia doesn't have a tradition of freedom of speech, all media is under state-control. In this case we can draw comparison to China, where its mouthpiece (Global Times, Xinhua, etc.) are actually representing the government of China's viewpoint. Or like Erdoganist Turkey since late 2010s, where media is increasingly censored and Turkish news like Anadolu Agency or TRT frequently using Erdogan's propaganda to represent its views. Saudi Arabia's relations with Turkey have deteriorated since 2010s, so while I maybe wrong, I don't think Saudi Arabia's tacit support from its state-run media is impossible to judge out. ZaDoraemonzu (talk) 14:51, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@ZaDoraemonzu: there is not "I think", please avoid your own theories and other opinion pieces are not valid as a reaction. Perhaps put it on analyses section if it's good sourced of course. Beshogur (talk) 14:57, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@Գարիկ Ավագյան:, infobox

"The clashes occure not only in Nagorno-Karabakh", come on. What's the reason of changing this to a disambiguation page? Beshogur (talk) 11:34, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

@Գարիկ Ավագյան:, we do not use Artsakh instead of Nagorno-Karabakh, or Shushi instead of Shusha, if these aren't the commonname on wikipedia. Beshogur (talk) 12:02, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Գարիկ Ավագյան can not distinguish between a region (Nagorno-Karabakh) and a country (Republic of Artsakh), putting the Armenian name of Nagorno-Karabakh on the infobox. Considering, NK region is de jure Azerbaijan, it should be Nagorno-Karabakh, Azerbaijan. What is your opinion @Rosguill:? (talk) 13:01, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Beshogur, regarding the quote you mention at the beginning of this section, I can't find it so I can't comment. Regarding the location, ultimately this should be decided by its use in sources, but informally I've yet to see a RS prefer the term Artsakh over NK for the region itself (as opposed to the unrecognized state, which I think is more commonly referred to as Artsakh at this point). I'm going to change it back to Nagorno-Karabakh until sources establishing a case for Artsakh can be found. signed, Rosguill talk 15:49, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
@Rosguill:, and about Shusha/Shushi dispute? Shusha isn't Azerbaijani either. It's the English spelling of Şuşa. Beshogur (talk) 16:06, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Beshogur, Based on Shusha, and that "Shushi" appears to be primarily used by Armenian sources, I would default to Shusha until proven otherwise. signed, Rosguill talk 16:14, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Rosguill, Beshogur International sources also use the name of the city as Shushi. [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10] etc. I think a "double" name would be an acceptable solution. Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 08:46, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Shusha. See this meta-search of Oxford University Press encyclopedias, especially The Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Place Names (5 ed.), which I think should be followed for the map. Johncdraper (talk) 09:10, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
The same source is saying Khankendi, while Stepanakert is a WP:COMMONNAME. Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 13:55, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Beshogur. There is a WP:COMMONNAME. Let me remind you that this is not the Armenian Wikipedia, major publications call it Nagorno-Karabakh. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 13:08, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
The fact there is a diversity of opinion is why I suggest a consensus formed from reliable sources like those indicated in the meta-search, especially for smaller settlements. Johncdraper (talk) 15:50, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Neo Ottomanism

@MarshallBagramyan:, your argument is your own pov, none of the sources mentions that. Please revert. Beshogur (talk) 17:28, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a Neo-Ottomanism page on my Watchlist. You might want to work this out there before bringing it back here. Johncdraper (talk) 17:33, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Isn't it absurd to label this conflict as part of Turkey's attempt to "reform the Ottoman Empire", at least in the name of Wikipedia? --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 17:42, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
That may be your interpretation of Neo-Ottomanism, but its definition is not as narrow as you're making it out to be. Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:16, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Good original research of you. Beshogur (talk) 18:20, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Say what? Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:23, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
  • [11] and [12] explicitly mention neo-Ottoman ideology in the context of the NK conflict. There's three additional sources that mention neo-Ottomanism, but 2 of them ([13], [14]) don't mention the NK conflict and the third is paywalled ([15], n.b. that it was published in 2019). I'll leave it to other editors to discuss the relative reliability and due-ness of these sources and claims. signed, Rosguill talk 18:33, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
@Rosguill:, don't know the others but ANF is pure PKK propaganda agency. Beshogur (talk) 18:39, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Armenian Weekly isn't reliable enough to quote on opinion pieces. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 18:42, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Explicit examples abound here and here. More will probably appear in the coming weeks once Turkey's precise role in this war clearly emerges.Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:49, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Daily mail is unreliable, can't say anything for other. Beshogur (talk) 18:54, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
It literally says Reuters in the by-line. Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:56, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
I have removed the two Armenian sources and one academic source that did not mention Azerbaijan. The statement still appears to stand. Johncdraper (talk) 19:27, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Both users(Beshogur & Solivarium) work in tandem to promote a POV view in the article. Keep personal beliefs out of the article please.Mr.User200 (talk) 13:07, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@Mr.User200:, thanks for the non argument yet again, contributing nothing to the discussion. Beshogur (talk) 13:12, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@Mr.User200:, WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH, for the billionth time. Accusing me of POV-pushing is ridiculous when I was adding statements from the Armenian government to the article, sigh. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 15:53, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Hadrut

Hadrut and 8 villages were taken by Azerbaijan. Why is it not shown in the updated map?
Here is the link: https://apa.az/en/nagorno_garabagh/President-of-Azerbaijan:-%22Hadrut-settlement-and-several-villages-liberated-from-occupation%22-332509
Official twitter account of AZ president: https://twitter.com/presidentaz/status/1314588966105030658 Fullscaledx (talk) 16:16, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@Fullscaledx: These claims have been denied by the Armenians and not confirmed by independent sources. We've been debating the basis for edits to the map in the thread above. AntonSamuel (talk) 16:17, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Pro Azerbaijani POV push by edits of user. Solivarium.

Could you care to explain this revert.Mr.User200 (talk) 13:04, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I believe this concerns the issue of one or more massive holes in the cathedral and where they came from. Given it could have been hit by munitions from anywhere, until there is an independent means of verification (reliable perennial resources, Truth & Reconciliation Commission or other investigation), how the holes got there is disputed. It may be possible to revise the caption to:

Ghazanchetsots Cathedral in Shusha; the Cathedral has been damaged during the conflict.

Also, it is perhaps noteworthy that personal Talk pages exist. Johncdraper (talk) 13:20, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Mr.User200, well. First of all, it would be way better if you stopped accusing me of POV-pushing, as per WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH. Secondly, the information was already in the body of the section, isn't it unneccesary to rewrite the same thing over again? I don't think Wikipedia is place to constantly try to victimise a party. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 13:21, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Mr.User200, Solavirum I am going to strongly suggest by WP:BOLDing it a concise form of words for the captions for both images; if you do not like it, take it to Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Johncdraper (talk) 13:32, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Johncdraper This is fine, one image per party. No POV here. Regarding the caption, I think is Ok as it is right now.Mr.User200 (talk) 13:35, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. Johncdraper (talk) 13:42, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
I would respectfully request that the caption as it stands now at least be revised by someone to clarify which report it is referring to. ("Ghazanchetsots Cathedral in Shusha. The Armenian Apostolic cathedral was damaged during the conflict according to the report.") The report? Which report is that? I got reverted when I tried to revise it. At the very least, it should be specified that, per witnesses on the ground, including civilians in town, and the Russian media team that was wounded by the bombardment, attested to shelling/aerial bombardment by the Azerbaijani side. Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:42, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
MarshallBagramyan, we previously decided that it should be "according to the reports", not "the report". Don't know who changed it. Also, I reverted it because you changed it against the consensus we've reached here. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 17:46, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Replacing the main map?

How about moving the main map about the current front lines into the article and replace it with a neutral map of the region? I don't think that map will be accurate for some time as both sides keep refuting the other. Cem456 (talk) 18:49, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@Cem456: Hi! I don't think moving away the map would be very prudent. In it's current state, the claims displayed on the map are relatively conservative (check our discussion in the thread above), based on Liveuamap geolocation of Azeri claims: https://caucasus.liveuamap.com/. Even though there is always room for improvement, having the map in the infobox serves the purpose of giving readers a quick overview of the situation as well as familiarity with the specific towns and villages in the region. AntonSamuel (talk) 18:53, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
@Cem456: I oppose the current map to be something else: the map is a svg file, better than jpg, png etc. But, my main objection is that during a war atmosphere, "reported" and "claimed" are almost equivalent. Hence, the cities and villages that Azerbaijan says "liberated" must be shown as liberated area colors in the map.Fullscaledx (talk) 19:05, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
@Cem456:, I don't know if you had the opportunity to read previous discussions. While preparing the map, I started out from the "Syrian Civil War" map. I could not understand what is missing about the subject?---Emreculha (talk) 19:33, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
@Emreculha: Not really an argument from me, it just seems like current map can't be 100% representative of the current front lines because of the PR of both sides.Cem456 (talk) 20:25, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
@Emreculha:. BTW, thanks for your valuable contribution to the map by adding the villages recently in popular mode. But, as a positive criticism, I suggest you make a distinction between two: 1. villages "AZ said liberated + those shown in liberated areas" 2. villages "AZ said liberated + those shown in non-liberated (AR) areas". You show both in black. You can show the latter in blue points or marks to make distinction. This will provide the reading of the map more easily.Fullscaledx (talk) 20:19, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Timeline of military engagement split and request for assistance

Dear fellow editors. I propose that the Timeline be stabilised and then split over the weekend. This is a major exercise, will take time, and I suggest should involve the following process:

  1. Creation of a draft summary of the Timeline. We have one paragraph, but we need a multi-paragraph (I suggest three to four additional paragraphs initially, then cut down to a total of three) of the Timeline. My draftspace is open for the basic text: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Johncdraper/sandbox. This will require maximum conciseness and select use of citations. It will naturally be a challenge. However, it is absolutely crucial to get this right. No Wikipedia page is perfect, but overall, I think we have done a decent job of this page, in extremely difficult circumstances, on one of the world's longest and most contentious conflicts in the contemporary era. As such, we need to maintain focus, create a robust account of the timeline to date, and so try to promote the article quality to B. The Nagorno-Karabakh War was an FA. This means that it was, by Wikipedia standards, of the highest possible quality in terms of accuracy of characterization of the conflict. We are all here because of the same reasons that inspired the encyclopédistes of the 18th century and which still permeate the Wikipedia mission; Wikipedia influences the real world based on discussion, reasoning, and reliable sources.
  2. We need to copy over a stable version of the Timeline to the new page, which already has a prototype. This is not easy because of the need to fix citations and references on both pages. In particular, we need to copy over nameref references. Some of this will be done by bot, but to maintain the professionalism of Wikipedia, we need to tidy up, with no redlinks or errors, rapidly. I note the team that set up the prototype timeline may have some experience with this.
  3. We need a cleanup crew for the this article, i.e, the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict main article. This is again because of loose citations and nameref problems.
  4. We then need to maintain feedback from the timeline to this page and maintain momentum towards that B rating.

I would appreciate any comments, feedback and updates below; alternatively just WP:BOLD my sandbox. P.S. Welcome to my Sandbox, if you please. Thank you. Johncdraper (talk) 21:40, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Claims That Have Not Yet Been Proved (Map)

Fullscaledx, AntonSamuel, Solavirum, Ahmetlii, LiveUAMap paints unproven claims about a city in a circles. If the claim is proven, it makes paint blue the city . If Azerbaijan has a claim (for example Hadrut), let's show the area shaded rather than dyeing it directly blue or not. If the claim is proven, do we paint directly blue? If you want, let me give it a try? Below, we note "the areas claimed by Azerbaijan but not proven" by indicating the color?---Emreculha (talk) 21:15, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@Emreculha: I would advise at least waiting a bit with that, if the ceasefire holds, more concrete facts may come to light regarding the current situation on the ground. Right now there are some competing claims - especially with regard to Hadrut. AntonSamuel (talk) 18:30, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
@AntonSamuel:I wrote the proposal before the ceasefire. It makes the most sense to wait right now.-- Emreculha (talk) 19:13, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Change article name to the "Second Nagorno-Karabakh War"

I believe at this stage, given the many hundreds of casualties suffered on both sides, this is no longer a 'conflict' and has gained such intensity it has become a 'war' and I would recommend we change the name to the Second Nagorno-Karabakh War. At this current rate of casualties and destruction, this war may very well surpass the 1990s Nagorno-Karabakh War. I would also point out the use of heavy weaponry by both sides (rockets, heavy artillery, drones, ballistic missiles), and the objective of the Azerbaijanis is total re-conquest of all the territory as stated by President Aliyev. This is unlike Azerbaijani objectives in the 2016 war of scoring a small victory, and is neither a border-conflict like in the years 2014 or 2012. Fighting is along all fronts.
User178198273998166172 (talk) 24:08, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

I AGREE Elserbio00 (talk) 23:28, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I also agree. At this point the two countries are at war. Most likely over 1,000 people have died in this conflict which would make it a war. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be any end in site to the conflict either. Alex of Canada (talk) 23:32, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I oppose. This matter is being discussed, and there is no consensus. No major news outlet referred to the conflict as war yet. --Governor Sheng (talk) 00:49, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

I support the motion, but instead of calling it the second Nagorno-Karabakh war, it would be better to call it "Armenian – Azerbaijani War (2020)" or "Armenian – Azerbaijani Conflict (2020)" as media like the BBC 1 2, NYTimes 3 and The Washington Post 4 thus refer to the conflict in question. Since the conflict already goes beyond the Nagorno-Karabakh region and the Republic of Artsakh. Al Jazeera describes it as the "Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict" 4 LLs (talk) 01:33, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the Armenian language, the conflict is described as the "Armenian - Azerbaijani War (2020)" 1, the Armenian Wikipedia itself gives the title of the article on the fighting, while the Azeri Wikipedia describes it as "Karabakh wars (2020)" 2. LLs (talk) 01:53, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Oppose at this point. The Armenian and Azerbaijani governments have an interest in blowing the conflict out of proportion and calling it a "total war" seems to be internal propaganda. Until major external outlets such as Reuters or BBC or Al Jazeera does so, Wikipedia should refrain from fanning the flames. Juxlos (talk) 02:08, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
I don't think we would be fanning any flames by calling it a 'war' as opposed to the ambiguous terms 'clashes' or 'conflict'. Generally this entire territorial dispute is one big conflict between these 2 nations, however since the 27 September it has morphed into a full-scale war over Karabakh. The dead may very well reach into the thousands by now and fighting is along all fronts, unprecedented in its scale since the 1990s Karabakh war. As someone has mentioned, the Azerbaijani parliament has declared a state of war in many areas of the country.[16] And Armenia has fully mobilized while Azerbaijan has partially mobilized.
User178198273998166172 (talk) 4:35, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
I would wait until academics and analysts start using such a name. We are unfortunately not historians so we do not get to name the wars. Dvtch (talk) 03:41, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Support hundreds of casualties, multiple media outlets have referred to it as a war, and Azerbaijan's parliament declared a state of war. Jon698 (talk) 03:22, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Jon698, false, it declared curfew. --► Sincerely: Sola Virum 10:08, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Oppose this is ridiculous. There is no such WP:COMMONNAME. --► Sincerely: Sola Virum 10:08, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Support There are now bombs raining down on major cities, and the most intense armor-on-armor fighting in the Middle East since 2003. Sladnick (talk) 10:25, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Just noting that Stepanakert has a population of 50,000 and neither Armenia nor Azerbaijan are typically considered Middle Eastern. Juxlos (talk) 11:24, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Ganja is now being bombed. Sladnick (talk) 13:20, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Strong oppose Wikipedia relies on perennial reliable news sources, not posturing: BBC is still calling this a conflict, as is Reuters. See e.g., here. Johncdraper (talk) 10:48, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

That's fine to make a case that this method must be followed whatever the case, but to call what is happening in the real world in this case "posturing" is to be so absorbed in the minutia of online rules as to lose site of the real issue. Sladnick (talk) 13:20, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Glad you agree re the principle. Re posturing, perhaps, but remember that diplomatic corps take lessons in posturing as part of courses on negotiating. It is what all foreign ministries do and is a critical part of diplomacy. For instance, the minutes of United Nations General Assembly meetings are a fascinating insight into this practice. Posturing is definitely occurring now, in every single official statement, usually by stressing strengths, referring to humanitarian principles, or belittling the other side's achievements, and it is specifically designed to appeal to both domestic and international audiences, in different ways. In editing this page, we need ti understand that this is occurring, in near-real time.Johncdraper (talk) 11:16, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Oppose, obviously. Super Ψ Dro 10:59, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Support I've changed my mind, there are more arguments in favor of it being a war than against. Super Ψ Dro 12:19, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Support Now referred to as 'war' by Reuters in body text of article today; https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-armenia-azerbaijan/azerbaijan-says-armenia-attacks-city-threatens-retaliation-idUKKBN26P08K . It is clear that the events of the past few week have escalated beyond anything that has happened since the 90's. Muchclag (talk) 15:26, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Unless I am mistaken, the source states this: "Until now, the main fighting has been between Azerbaijan and Nagorno-Karabakh, an ethnic Armenian enclave inside Azerbaijan, but it now threatens to spill over into a direct war with Armenia itself." Johncdraper (talk) 06:43, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Support. This part of the conflict is a full-blown interstate war. Oranjelo100 (talk) 16:29, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Oppose. The weighted general usage is "conflict" right now. It's still inside of Nagorno-Karabakh War obviously. Ahmetlii (talk) 18:31, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Strong Oppose. By wikipedia standards, this isn't a war. Until it becomes a war, I am a strong oppose. Elijahandskip (talk) 14:53, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Support. This is approaching 1,000 deaths, and there were plenty of wars which were much shorter in length i.e. six-days war. Albertaont (talk) 21:04, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Oppose. No reliable source has called this conflict a war yet. Jujuy88 (talk) 22:40, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Support. It's obvious that per Azerbaijani (and Armenian) sources, they're capturing and re-capturing territory within Nagorno-Karabakh, which essentially means it's a full-blown war. Not entirely a war between Azerbaijan and Armenia, but a war between Azerbaijan and Artsakh (WITH Armenian support). I still do not understand why some people here just do not wish to call it a war because it's "heavily debated, and the weighted general of the word 'war' is too 'specific'" when it's CLEARLY A WAR BETWEEN A COUNTRY AND AN AUTONOMOUS REPUBLIC. Jeez, the nerve of these people... Balkanite (talk) 00:15, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Support : Sources now routinely call it a full blow war, and using First and second is the easiest and most logical way to deal with the separate pages on the wiki.--Aréat (talk) 01:45, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Support : I really don't see how this isn't a war, it is a war, and a very active one at that. Pisiu369 (talk) 16:48, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I also Support, I agree with all the people who support the change of name. I don’t know why other people think this is a conflict, it’s clearly a war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.128.133.52 (talk) 13:39, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Can any moderator lock this thread? This is not the way you ask a requested move. Beshogur (talk) 13:42, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

My definitive statement. What you, I, discussions, or Donald Duck popular media thinks is irrelevant. Again, Wikipedia uses Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources on such matters. That is how it works here. Find a consensus in these for the name change. Then present it. Then, we can swiftly change the page name. 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 spamming of this page. Again, thank you. Johncdraper (talk) 06:05, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Support : It is all out war in NK territory, with change of land, flanking and attrition. Hitting supply depots, trying to hit key enemy infrastructure. High level talks for ceasefire and final agreement to solve Karabagh conflict alltogether, which elevate the importance of current battles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azkamil (talk • contribs) 15:41, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Update as of October 10. BBC: 'Fighting'/'Conflict'. Reuters stresses that "The fighting is the worst since a 1991-94 war that killed about 30,000 people and ended with a ceasefire that has been violated repeatedly.". AP: conflict. IMHO, the reason that the perennial reliable sources are being extremely careful here may be for de jure reasons that there cannot be a second war because there has been no permanent resolution to the first war; only a very long and interruptible ceasefire.Johncdraper (talk) 13:28, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Support : Definitely support calling it a war, but I think "2020 Nagarno Karabakh War is a better name." Expertwikiguy (talk) 19:35, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Suggested changes in a clear format:

Remove Syrian mercenaries from belligerents of Azerbaijan Change Artsakh to Nagorno-Karabakh Drsteel39 (talk) 19:29, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

The inclusion of mercenaries on the Azerbaijan side has already been discussed, see Talk:2020_Nagorno-Karabakh_conflict#Syrian_figthers. In order to justify the addition of mercenaries on the Armenian side, you would need to provide reliable sources establishing this; so far reliable sources have only confirmed the presence of volunteers from the Armenian diaspora on the Armenian side. Artsakh is used in the article to refer to the unrecognized Republic of Artsakh, which is a belligerent in the conflict; your argument appears to be about the region itself. signed, Rosguill talk 19:36, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

"Comment : There have been no sources to confirm Armenians have brought Mercenaries, only claims by Azerbaijan. There have been numerous reports from reliable sources confirming that the opposite is happening and Azerbaijan is hiring mercenaries. Macron of France, Russian intelligence and Pentagon have confirmed the presence of mercenaries. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/armenia-and-azerbaijan-agree-to-cease-fire-after-weeks-of-deadly-conflict/ https://www.economist.com/europe/2020/10/10/the-azerbaijan-armenia-conflict-hints-at-the-future-of-war https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/armenia-azerbaijan-syria-war-fighting-mercenary-russia-b912446.html http://asbarez.com/197395/fragile-talks-end-with-agreement-on-ceasefire-on-oct-10/ Expertwikiguy (talk) 20:32, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Ongoing v ceasefire

This is still ongoing, there is no point to end it as ceasfire. We can use perhaps:

Ongoing

  • Temporary ceasefire (and here the date)

thoughts? Beshogur (talk) 11:22, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

This was to be expected: initial ceasefire violations are normal in major conflicts, especially with irregular units like foreign fighters. Neither side has officially rejected the ceasefire according to reliable sources, so the temporary or permanent nature of the ceasefire cannot be established: it is a gray area. In reality, this this is a monitoring and policing problem for Russia; we need to closely follow Russian sources on this. Johncdraper (talk) 11:42, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
This ain't a real ceasefire, just temporary. Beshogur (talk) 11:56, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
The issue of how and why temporary ceasefires turn into enduring ceasefires and then a peace process, specifically "converting preliminary ceasefires into definitive ceasefires" is one of the most significant issues in peace building and key to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. See e.g., Ceasefire and global ceasefire. The ceasefire just made the BBC headline midday TV news (see here) and was reported as still in place if 'shaky'. Johncdraper (talk) 12:16, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
You could arguably say the same thing about the ceasefire in 1994, 2016, etc. I think that until we see reports of renewed hostilities it's ok to list the ceasefire as an end date (if RS are up front about it being merely temporary or hedge their bets with some other phrase, we can reprint that too). The other good news for us is that this may be an opportunity for reliable sources to confirm what territorial changes have actually occurred. signed, Rosguill talk 16:10, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Sadly both sides accuse each over of breaking the ceasefire that Russia made as mentioned by Al-Jazeera so it may not last long. (see here) CrusaderToonamiUK (talk) 16:16, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
@Rosguill:, 1994 is a real ceasefire. Bayramov says this is temporary. Fighting continues despite cf, minister says it's temporary, so it is continuing. During the 2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria, we saw that there was a ceasefire, although conflict lasted another 1 month, and then Turkey officially finished it. Beshogur (talk) 21:47, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Syrian figthers

There is no confirmation of Syrian figthers fighting for Azerbaijan, only allegations and anecdotal references. It has been also denied by Azerbaijan. Is it right to include it on Azerbaijani side? There are allegedly PKK figthers figthing on Armenian side, which is not included as a fighthing side in here presumable due to lack of evidence. I think Syrian fighters should be removed from Azerbaijani side. Please fix it. Thank you! Jajo2005 (talk) 13:40, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

This was discussed at length at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard and a compromise/consensus was established that, based on a multitude of 3rd party neutral and reliable sources, the fighters are to be included in the infobox on the side of Azerbaijan, but with a footnote that Turkey and Azerbaijan are denying their presence. EkoGraf (talk) 15:00, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

DO NOT AGREE There have been numerous reports from reliable sources confirming that Azerbaijan is hiring mercenaries. Macron of France, Russian intelligence and Pentagon have confirmed the presence of mercenaries. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/armenia-and-azerbaijan-agree-to-cease-fire-after-weeks-of-deadly-conflict/ https://www.economist.com/europe/2020/10/10/the-azerbaijan-armenia-conflict-hints-at-the-future-of-war https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/armenia-azerbaijan-syria-war-fighting-mercenary-russia-b912446.html http://asbarez.com/197395/fragile-talks-end-with-agreement-on-ceasefire-on-oct-10/ Expertwikiguy (talk) 01:55, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Second_Nagorno-Karabakh_War/Archive_5&oldid=1121770015"