Talk:Second Nagorno-Karabakh War/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Splitting Fuzuli, Jabrayil, and Hadrut

I will go ahead and try to split these three. In the meanwhile, what names should we use? Fuzuli and Jabrayil are whole districts, and operations to seize full control are ongoing. Maybe Battle for Fuzuli/Jabrayil, and Battle of Hadrut would be fitting? In the meanwhile, feel free to WP:BOLD my sandbox, which includes all three subjects. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 15:16, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm not very experienced in this area but "Battle for Fuzuli/Jabrayil, and Battle of Hadrut" looks fitting to me. Flalf^Talk 17:10, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I think that we should split these three battles and make them one. Because the Azerbaijani sources use "Fuzuli-Hadrut-Jabrayil direction of the front", while the Armenians use "the southern front". And most of the causalities in the southern front reported by both parties are totaled, and not separate for each district. What I think is that there should be two separate articles for the ongoing battles. One for the south, and the other for north (A.K.A. Talysh-Sugovushan direction of the front). --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 17:31, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree we need to separate out the battles as accurately as possible, on a collegiate basis, so that we can condense the Timeline of military engagements in this article. Johncdraper (talk) 11:27, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

For those interested, there is now a Battle of Hadrut main article; it needs more work, including updating, naturally on a collegiate basis. Johncdraper (talk) 06:30, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Turkey alleges arms supply to Armenia

The Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has stated that Russia, France, and the United States supply arms to Armenia [during the conflict]. At least that's what Google Translate says. Here's a RIA Novosti report on it: 1 --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 14:00, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Here's my translation of the original Turkish text from Euronews and Toplumsal:

They talk about the Minsk trio. What is this Minsk trio? US, Russia, and France. They were always with Armenia, they give all kinds of arms support to the Armenians. For 30 years they didn't finished these talks and didn't gave the lands our Azerbaijani brothers to themselves.

The original:

Minsk üçlüsünden bahsediyorlar. Nedir bu Minsk üçlüsü? ABD, Fransa ve Rusya. Bunlar Ermenistan’ın yanında yer aldılar, Ermenilere her türlü silah desteğini veriyorlar. 30 yıldır kalkıp da bu müzakereyi bitirmediler ve Azeri kardeşlerimizin topraklarını kendilerine vermediler.

--► Sincerely: SolaVirum 14:08, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Seriously? Any information on the piece of French and US equipment that the Armenian forces allegedly used, and how was it transported? Shows how without a filtering mechanism, there is no way to get rid of fancy info; obviously a sentence like this will never be balanced by a refutation from the sides concerned, because most of the time they will not bother replying to stuff that aren't even worth replying to. Hemşinli çocuk 15:39, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Ermenermin, you can, for as I'm concerned, open Gmail, Yahoo Mail, or any other that emailing service you prefer, add @tccb.gov.tr in the address section, and write down your concerns about the statement. Because I'm not the President of Turkey. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 17:38, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, the statements from Turkey, which is a party to the conflict, are not considered as an independent source. Also, it is not specified that the support for weapons was always or definitely at the time of the conflict. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 09:58, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Please delete the Yukhari Govhar Agha Mosque image

Johncdraper I find it completely ridiculous to include a picture of the mosque and caption that reads: Yukhari Govhar Agha Mosque in Shusha. The status and treatment of mosques is a subject of contention in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.
You can mention all the Azeri sources you want, but the fact is it has absolutely nothing to do with this current war (the subject of this page). The Mosque has not been damaged at all. Additionally, those sources are just pure evil propaganda meant to demonize Armenia. All the mosques Armenia has are under the care of Iran. See here: https://www.azatutyun.am/a/28915717.html
If Armenia decides one day to blow up that building to spite Azerbaijan, please by all means mention it. Until then, please do not use these irrelevant captions meant to demonize Armenia.
User178198273998166172 (talk) 13:05, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM and WP:OPINION for the "demonize Armenia" and "All the mosques Armenia has are under the care of Iran", as there are reports of Armenian seperatists using mosques for cattles (1, 2). --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 12:28, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

That first website is a heavily political-propaganda source, and I wouldn't trust it very much; information from such sites is sometimes accurate, but with all the surrounding POV tone, suspicion about accuracy should be high.104.169.21.247 (talk) 07:49, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

The Agdam mosque is located in a ghost town along the front-line buffer zone, so the Armenian authorities cannot manage it properly obviously and it has fallen into some disrepair. Azerbaijan has been known to purposely destroy cultural sites (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_cemetery_in_Julfa), while Armenia has never done that. This isn't based on an Azeri or Armenian perspective, this is based on what is right and what is wrong.
User178198273998166172 (talk) 13:42, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Okay, this is just an expression of a viewpoint, and is getting unrelated to the subject as it can get. If you want to label Azerbaijan as a "lying, killing, Christian-hating, church-destroying Shi'ite Muslim devil", go ahead. Do it. But Wikipedia isn't a place for that. Also, see the Saint Gregory the Illuminator Church for once. Ultimately, not done --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 13:06, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree, that mosque has nothing to do just at the right side on the timeline, and just under the Cathedral that was actually damaged in this war. While I don't see the purpose of including subjects not directly related to this war, if the treatment of monuments that were not damaged in this war has to be discussed, then a section has to be created for that purpose, that covers both positions. Hemşinli çocuk 14:15, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. There are already a number of third-party references confirming the damage sustained by Ghazanchetsots. Including an image of the mosque in Shushi or Aghdam or Ganja and saying that Azerbaijani sources allege that they, too, have been damaged or there is "concern" about their status, seems inappropriate to me since it elevates on a plane level with that of Ghazanchestsots. I would suggest removing the image of the mosque pending third-party confirmation. Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 16:16, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Someone, any comment? Sincerely. Hemşinli çocuk 19:10, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Already have posted below: the image and the caption are completely irrelevant within the section, at least. In fact, i would say the cathedral′s image should be a different one -- showing the destruction as this would make it relevant to the section. Axxxion (talk) 14:27, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

There are no neutral authoritative sources to confirm this. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 10:00, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Solavirum edits

Could you explain what is wrong with the description? Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 12:12, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Գարիկ Ավագյան, it is redundant to add more and more information about the cathedral in the image caption, which should've stayed short and exact. The article is clearly not about the cathedral itself. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 12:14, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

P.S. if you want too add that date so badly, you can add it to the body of the article, but not the image caption. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 12:15, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Solavirum I don't find anything redundant in adding the date (which is historical). If you look at the photographs of the monuments, you will see the dating in each image. So, this is your personal opinion and please do not impose your opinion here. We have clear Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The date is short enough to be included.

P. S. This is not the first time you remove/revert information about the church or the image itself. [1] Try to keep it more neutral, not biased. Please, self-revert. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 12:29, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Գարիկ Ավագյան, it being historical or not has nothing to do with this. I've stressed that the date itself is not the problem, but its addition to the image caption is unnecessary. We have clear Wikipedia policies and guidelines, but you don't dare to cite a specific one? Moreover, reverting stuff related to cathedral is not being biased, which other users have done the same. Stick to the WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH and don't refer to non-existent guidelines. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 12:40, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Here is Wikipedia's guidlines [2] Please, read them carefully. Your " it being historical or not has nothing to do with this " is still your personal opinion. If it did not have historical significance, we would not have included it in the article with the image. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 14:40, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree the particular info was redundant in this article. Much more so is the info about the Shusha mosque, which is completely outside this narrative.Axxxion (talk) 14:22, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

@Axxxion:, well, Johncdraper can provide better explanation about that addition, as he added the caption/image. In the meanwhile, there were reports of mosques getting damaged during the conflict, like the cathedral. I don't know why we should directly prefer the cathedral over the mosque to give it a Christian struggle vibe. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 14:25, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Axxxion May I know what you think about adding the word historical in the Ghazanchetsots Cathedral as it is historical monument based on the references. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 14:44, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Գարիկ ԱվագյանI am generally, as a matter of principle, against any wanton superlatives/characterisations, especially where the actual meaning thereof is not entirely clear, or precise, unless this is referenced as per Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. That said, i aint an expert on this particular issue.Axxxion (talk) 18:55, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Do we have reliable images of destruction to the mosque?Axxxion (talk) 14:30, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Axxxion No image/report confirming destruction of the mosque, but lots of international reports about the Ghazanchetsots Cathedral's destruction. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 14:46, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Hey Johncdraper, may we know what you think of adding the word historical under the title of Ghazanchetsots Cathedral image, since it was published in the world media because the Cathedral itself is a cultural and historical heritage. Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 09:50, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

@Գարիկ Ավագյան: I will have to check out its main article first. Heritage is universally important. Please take this to the Cathedral's Talk page. Johncdraper (talk) 10:21, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 10:01, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Rename page to "2020 Azeribaijan-Armenia Conflict"

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

---

This has recently spiked in media usage the last three days due to contensious issues on whether to call it Nagorno-Karabakh or Artsakh. So this has taken off recently. It also fits the criteria(Combatant names), fits the precedent set by "Russo-Ukrainian War", and is neutral.

Alternatives are Armenian-Azeribaijani, Azeri-Armenian, or replacing Conflict with war. 206.174.216.170 (talk) 15:09, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Not done WP:COMMONNAME --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 15:33, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Solavirum edits

He is the Commander of anti-tank battery. Whom we include in the infobox if not them? Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 16:09, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Գարիկ Ավագյան:, his rank is captain, and just leads a battery. Too minor to include. There are many Azerbaijani officers with minor ranks too, but we are not mentioning them in the infobox because it is redundant. Differently, Hikmat Hasanov, Hikmat Mirzayev, and Mais Barkhudarov lead the offensives. There is huge difference between being a corps commander and a anti-tank battery captain. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 16:43, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Celebrity section - really?

I do know there are people who think that the whole world revolves around what (primarily American) celebrities say in ephemeral social media messages, but do we really need a section on it? I know it's a much bigger conflict, but just for comparison, I see nothing on World War II about how Bob Hope and Vera Lynn backed the Allied side.

Most of the listed celebrities are self explanatory. Mkhitaryan is Armenian. Cher and Kardashian are Armenian Americans. West is married to Kardashian. Ozil is an ethnic Turk who is best friends with Erdogan [3]. And then there's Cardi B, who put up an Instagram story because the realtor selling her house was Armenian and asked for it. Then she backtracked by saying she didn't know anything about the conflict. [4] <- This source also mentions Serj Tankian and Alexis Ohanian. Can you, without looking, guess which side those celebrities support?

This is Wikipedia, not TMZ or the National Enquirer. Unknown Temptation (talk) 13:19, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Personally, i'd think that, if you'd make a citation about celebrity actions, you should talk about the activism supported by Serj Tankian, he promoted several fund-raising institutions on his social media, as he posted in Instagram , at least i found that useful, since it's not just saying, it's supporting existing movements like the Armenian Diaspora 2804:5C:4FE4:4A00:5831:F97D:567:E88E (talk) 14:31, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, celebrity section is silly and should be removed.--Staberinde (talk) 11:19, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

References

My position on this has been clear. A sense of proportion is important. I would not allocate more space to Celebrities than to supraregional organizations, major powers, mid powers, etc. Johncdraper (talk) 18:29, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I see your point that Armenian and Azeri celebrities obviously would post supporting messages for their own, but there is also Cardi B, Elton John, Peter Gabriel and Michael B. Jordan. But I just saw that someone has already removed it without a consensuses. What was posted before clearly represented both sides and it is important to cover their messages as them being such important figures and talking about the issue. Can we please start a voting process to KEEP or REMOVE? Expertwikiguy (talk) 02:25, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

(Move this if I've got the indenting etiquette wrong, delete if the discussion is over) In my own personal opinion, nothing else, these non-Caucasian (in the geographical sense) celebrities are the least important of them all. One user gave links to how Serj Tankian, a noted political musician, has been fundraising. Cardi B, who sings about other stuff, posted an Instagram story and then apologised by saying that she had no idea about the conflict. I'll accept good faith that all these celebrities had honest intentions, but I don't see the notability of their tweets apart from in a world that reduces everything to celebrities and Twitter. Unknown Temptation (talk) 19:09, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Important? Not really, there is a reason why one struggles to find celebrity sections in any wikipedia military conflict article. Not everything that gets mentioned in news is actually important here. Also one doesn't really need a consensus to remove something that was unilaterally added merely two days earlier.--Staberinde (talk) 07:40, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

BTW, this was discussed before in the talk page. One person had opposed and one person besides me agreed. So since it was 2-1 and no one else commented, I went ahead and added it. See details here. So based on prior votes and discussion above, I am counting 3 votes to KEEP, 3 to DELETE and one additional person is OK to KEEP as long as it is proportional to superregional organizations. I think there is no consensus yet. We need more people to comment. Expertwikiguy (talk) 08:46, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Analysis section completely biased

"Analysis" section is completely biased and propaganda against one party, it will seriously affect wikipedia impartial factfulness reputation. I am sure there are 100s of noted analysts saying same for armenian army. Please read below what is written about ajerbaijan, though we know ajerbaijan army is in more commanding position in war. It is written

"One analyst in the journal Foreign Policy predicted that Azerbaijan would have great difficulty in trying to occupy the entire area of Nagorno-Karabakh due to the extremely inaccessible mountainous terrain controlled by Armenian troops. In addition, he opined that the readiness of the Azerbaijani army was very poor, with morale low, its structure corrupt and inefficient, and a desertion rate as high as 20 percent. Furthermore, despite large investments in the purchase of military equipment from oil profits, the Azerbaijani army was said to lack adequate training for the use of new equipment.[84]"

Please edit and remove this "analysis" part. Wikipedia is not analyst, it presents the truth and facts from all sides and not propaganda of any party or individual. Nawaab Sahaab (talk) 16:41, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree that this particular Foreign Policy 'analysis' is ridiculous. The article just reads "Azerbaijan - bad, Armenia - good". --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 16:47, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Unclassified files (2018) shows that Azerbaijan had even more problems than what Foreign Policy claims:

(5) (U) Training. Roughly 18 to 20 percent of serving personnel desert their units. Another 20 % of the total number of conscripts are constantly in hiding. As a result, the Army has been undermanned. Consequently, Azerbaijan was forced to extend the service term for sergeants and soldiers illegally and this has brought about an increase in the number of deserters and poor discipline. In particular, instead of 18 month enlistments that are stipulated by the law, servicemen have to serve 36 to 42 months. In late 2013, the number of citizens of draft age who, in compliance with requirements of the law on the Fundamentals of the Military Service Draft, had been granted a deferment from the draft exceeded the number of draftees who had been called into active military service by the military commissariat during the course of the year. Poor living conditions and morale contribute to high desertion rates, and the short-term of service for conscripts adds to unit training burdens and problems at unit level.

There is a reason why Azerbaijan release no information on military casualties, to prevent desertion in the army, why foreign mercenaries were send there and the heavy use of drones. Azerbaijani mothers have already started requesting answers about their sons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ermenermin (talk • contribs) 18:06, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Ermenermin, firstly, the families of the dead aren't kept in the dark here. Everyone is informed about the KIAs, and they are getting buried in cemeteries with the involvement of the masses. Only thing that the Azerbaijani government undiscloses is the exact number. You're directly lying in this page, and you're statements are offensive to ones who lost their loved-ones, including me, and I will report you if you continue to do so. Also, Tolish Media is an Armenian-owned page, which even Facebook confirms. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 18:40, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Your rude comment was uncalled for. I replied in your talkpage. Hemşinli çocuk 19:17, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

• Noting that the above comment is sliding into WP:NOTFORUM territory, Foreign Policy is a well-regarded American global affairs publication, and its perspectives are generally appropriate to include in an Analysis section. Objections to the content should make the case for why the source is not reliable/due in this context, or present other RS that directly contradict FP's claims. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:17, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Map updates

This map indeed seems to be produced by the Azerbaijan Ministry of Defense. Most locations that were attacked by Azerbaijani forces but were repelled are shown as if they are controlled by Azerbaijani forces. For example, there was an unsuccessful offensive on Hadrut and since then this website shows that it is under Tatar control despite the fact that there were many videos of foreign journalist reporting from the city.

Emreculha, and others, the Azerbaijani authorities renewed their claims, as seen here. Green shows the areas under Azerbaijani control, while the red shows ongoing clashes. So, what we can do is adding areas captured by Azerbaijan and confirmed by third-party source with turquoise, and the claimed but not confirmed areas with grey. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 13:29, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Solavirum: So, this is exactly what I've argued is problematic in the thread above [5]. I repeat the problems with adding Azerbaijani government claims to the map again: There is an information war going on with regards to claims, claims are politically charged and seem to be used for arguing that fighting in a region is defensive with regards to the ceasefire(s) - therefore it is not proper with regards to neutrality to display these claims on a map featured on a high-profile Wikipedia page such as this. AntonSamuel (talk) 13:36, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I disagree with that. Adding the claims are appropriate, hell none of the claims by Azerbaijan have been disapproved at this point. But for neutrality sake, we add the confirmed ones in turquoise, and the claims in grey. It is absurd to not the add claims. Otherwise, the readers will not be able to see the full picture. I propose that we add the claims with a separate key, what the hell is wrong with that? --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 13:59, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Solavirum: I explained why I think it's an issue to include the Azerbaijani government claims - you haven't really addressed the points I made as to why it is problematic with regard to WP:NPOV. I still think the most prudent course of option is to keep the map as accurate as possible since it's supposed to depict the situation on the ground, with regard to that, the "full picture" does not include any government claims in my view. AntonSamuel (talk) 14:21, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Please stop treating the map as if this were the Azerbaijan Ministry of Defense website. We should be extra cautious with claims from both sides and until territorial claims are verified by a third party, maintain the WP:NPOV--Sataralynd (talk) 02:01, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Ceasefire Violations section (since 10 October 2020) - 15-17th of Oct

The Ceasefire violations (since 10 October 2020) section, specially the last two paragraphs, are solely reporting attacks on the Azerbaijani side. On the three days 15th, 16th and 17th of Oct, there has been attacks and shelling in NK side as well but these are not included in the section. 15th here and here, 16th here and here, and 17th here and here. These sources and what they report need to be added, to provide a holistic view to a casual reader --Sataralynd (talk) 15:56, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

@Sataralynd: Would you be prepared to conduct a rewrite in your sandbox and then invite comments? Johncdraper (talk) 18:02, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

You can WP:BOLD it yourself. Please feel free to provide alternatives. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 21:27, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

@Johncdraper: I will add a write up to the sandbox and tag you and Solavirum for comments. On a separate note, below the new announced ceasefire, we should mention that the spokesperson of Armenia's MoD declared that the ceasefire has been broken by the Azerbaijan forces both in the northern and southern fronts. Here is the source --Sataralynd (talk) 23:36, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

@Sataralynd: Nothing doing re Twitter. Have are you progressing on the rewrite? Johncdraper (talk) 09:18, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@Johncdraper: I wrote in my sandbox and tagged you. Could you check? Also regarding the violation of the ceasefire, here is a non-Twitter source and now both sides are accusing each other of ceasefire violation --Sataralynd (talk) 11:40, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@Sataralynd: I would need the link to your Sandbox. You can provide the link here or email it to me. Accusations of ceasefire violations are to be expected until the OM gets on the ground. We should be aware that there is a difference in scale between what is happening now and long-range heavy artillery and ballistic missile exchanges. Johncdraper (talk) 13:04, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello @Johncdraper: did you get a chance to work on the 15-17 of October reports from the Armenian side? Sataralynd (talk) 03:29, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Sataralynd: I have now made a first pass at this; Artsakh/Armenian sources may need to be better distinguished and places should be Wikilinked if it is their first mention. Thank you for the NPOV material. Johncdraper (talk) 07:04, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Johncdraper: thanks. I will review later and provide comments if any. --Sataralynd (talk) 12:33, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Sataralynd, well, sorry, but the tagging didn't work. Anyways, I found the sandbox myself and I have few comments on it. If it is not a mass-causality incident, we don't mention it on the timeline; and we've already summarized the civilian causalities. But we can add that the places mentioned in the sandbox were targeted, while changing the names of the settlements (like Berdashen to Qarakənd) per WP:COMMONNAME. I will more comments after I'm able to get some sleep. In any case, Johncdraper, here is Sataralynd's sandbox. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 05:16, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I disagree that only mass casualties are to be included. Besides, even if that were the case, here are entries under 16 October which are not mass casualty but are mentioned: The Azerbaijani MoD stated that Armenian forces shelled Goranboy, Tartar, Aghdam and Aghjabadi Districts. In the evening, the Azerbaijani MoD stated that the previous day Armenian forces had fired a missile at Ordubad, in Nakhchivan The 1,2,3 references don't mention any casualties, and yet the information is included. Again I repeat, we need to ensure to not provided a one sided view of the events to the usual Wikipedia reader. --Sataralynd (talk) 12:31, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

You can disagree as much as you want, that's what we've agreed on per WP:SIZE. Also, you didn't get my point above. We can add the fact of shelling, but not include someone getting a paper cut. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 13:05, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Solavirum: I have seen you removed sentences about injured and killed civilians after changes made by @Johncdraper:. Your words paper cut is a value judgement that should not be made here. Please report the sources without interpretation and assessment on injuries whether they are paper cuts or not. @Johncdraper: could you help defer this to a third party for resolution? The timeline section as it stands is one-sided. Thank you. --Sataralynd (talk) 16:06, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Sataralynd: do you even realize how many people have been injured from both sides? Nearly 400, and Wikipedia isn't a memorial for them. There are 282 injured Azerbaijani civilans, do we mention every single of them? No. The timeline section is not one-sided and you're just being WP:TENDENTIOUS. Yet again, I'm saying this for the last time, avoid mentioning minor injuries and non-mass-causality incidents. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 16:46, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I would not comment on opinions. I would ask this to be resolved by someone other than you and me. @Johncdraper: could you nominate a third party? --Sataralynd (talk) 17:01, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello solavirum. "If it is not a mass-causality incident, we don't mention it on the timeline" has there been any discussion and a consequent mutual agreement on this somewhere? That "we don't mention it"? If so, could you please provide a link. Another thing, "changing the names of the settlements (like Berdashen to Qarakənd)" and using the word "settlement" itself demonstrates strong bias. I suggest adding both variations of names per your example, and refer from using the word "settlement" (even in the talk section). Sincerely, --Alex662607004 (talk) 23:09, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Alex662607004, ah yes, the person who reports me to every page he or she knows. Anyways, if you check the archives, you can see that several users wanted to the trim the info on causalities due to WP:SIZE, and Johncdraper was one to comply to that. Also, for the settlement name, if you think that WP:COMMONNAME guideline is biased, you can ask the community to alter it. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 04:28, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Splitting Fuzuli, Jabrayil, and Hadrut

I will go ahead and try to split these three. In the meanwhile, what names should we use? Fuzuli and Jabrayil are whole districts, and operations to seize full control are ongoing. Maybe Battle for Fuzuli/Jabrayil, and Battle of Hadrut would be fitting? In the meanwhile, feel free to WP:BOLD my sandbox, which includes all three subjects. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 15:16, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm not very experienced in this area but "Battle for Fuzuli/Jabrayil, and Battle of Hadrut" looks fitting to me. Flalf^Talk 17:10, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I think that we should split these three battles and make them one. Because the Azerbaijani sources use "Fuzuli-Hadrut-Jabrayil direction of the front", while the Armenians use "the southern front". And most of the causalities in the southern front reported by both parties are totaled, and not separate for each district. What I think is that there should be two separate articles for the ongoing battles. One for the south, and the other for north (A.K.A. Talysh-Sugovushan direction of the front). --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 17:31, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree we need to separate out the battles as accurately as possible, on a collegiate basis, so that we can condense the Timeline of military engagements in this article. Johncdraper (talk) 11:27, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

For those interested, there is now a Battle of Hadrut main article; it needs more work, including updating, naturally on a collegiate basis. Johncdraper (talk) 06:30, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Turkey's role till now

Turkey maintains that so far it has kept its involvement limited to arms sales, advisory and doctrinal assistance. Baku confirms it. [Turkey maintains that so far it has kept its involvement limited to arms sales, advisory and doctrinal assistance.] Nawaab Sahaab (talk) 04:36, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

@Jawaid1504: Please make a specific request with a cite. Johncdraper (talk) 05:51, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

The question isn't what Turkey and Baku are saying, nor what Armenia is saying, but what reliable sources are saying. Reliable sources suggest much more Turkish involvement. Confirmation varies by topic, but involvement in the Syrian fighters appears high. Vici Vidi (talk) 08:18, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Background section - Number of displaced persons

In the first paragraph of the Background section, it is mentioned The Nagorno-Karabakh War displaced over 500,000 Azerbaijani residents who used to live in the territory and surrounding provinces. The provided reference from The Conversation links back to the book The Black Garden by Thomas de Waal, ISBN 0-8147-1944-9 Page 285. However, the same page also lists 353,000 displaced Armenians from Azerbaijan as a result of the conflict. To avoid giving a one sided view to a casual reader, I suggest the following sentence to be included right after the above "The conflict also displaced 353,000 Armenians from Azerbaijan". I would also suggest referring directly to the book as a reference for both sentences, instead to The Conversation Article which itself refers to the book --Sataralynd (talk) 23:18, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Not done this refers to the people displaced from the Karabakh region only, and it should remain like that. Because another 500,000 Azerbaijanis were deported from Armenia. The article is about the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, not the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict in proper (which traces back to very early 1900s). --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 05:06, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

The 353,000 of Armenians figure that I cite above is, verbatim from the source, as a result of the conflict and not as you mention early 1900s. It is based on the work of Yunusov and provided as a reference in the book I cite. Further, the majority of the 500,000 figure currently cited in the Background section are Azerbaijanis who were displaced from regions outside Nagorno-Karabakh, namely the seven Azerbaijan regions around NK, as most census data put the number of Azerbaijanis in NK at less than 25% of the 160,000 population prior to the conflict. Therefore, I would ask to include number of displaced persons out of Azerbaijan from the Armenian side. This is a contentious article and we need to be extra careful to not provide a one sided view to the ordinary Wikipedia reader--Sataralynd (talk) 11:07, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it happened in the late 80s, and 90s, but not in Karabakh, but deep in Azerbaijan and Nakhchivan. As for the figures, I didn't said Nagorno-Karabakh, but Karabakh, where the conflict mostly took place. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 12:09, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Obviously no problem in mentioning the displaced Azerbeijanis from Armenia as well. I see a problem however in only focusing on the effects on one side, to the exclusion of the other, which is how the sentence reads. Therefore, please include both figures. The same source, namely Thomas de Waal's The Black Garden Page 285, puts the number of displaced persons from the Azerbaijani side at 750,000. What I suggest the sentence to read is The Nagorno-Karabakh War resulted in the displacement of 750,000 Azerbaijanis and 353,000 Armenians from both Azerbaijan and Armenia. I say this again, we need to provide a balanced viewpoint to the reader who actually wants to learn about this conflict. Thank you.--Sataralynd (talk) 16:21, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Done. Thank you. Johncdraper (talk) 06:26, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Could you just fix the reference of the sentence to The Black Garden by Thomas de Waal, ISBN 0-8147-1944-9 Page 285? --Sataralynd (talk) 08:33, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

4 October

More than 12 days have passed and still there is no confirmation that the Mingachevir reservoir was attacked (no video, no images, no third-party sources).

At approximately 22:40, the Azerbaijani MoD stated that Armenian forces had rocketed Tartar City and Mingachevir, the latter housing a water reservoir, which Azerbaijan claimed that Armenia regards as a military target

What about re-editing this part? Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 09:54, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

We can remove the parts of Artsakh claiming recapturing some areas, still no update as well. Beshogur (talk) 10:09, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

@Beshogur: could you give an example of the article please? Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 17:14, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Didn't Hajiyev shared images of neutralized ballistic missiles? --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 12:42, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

@Solavirum: I couldn't find the image in the article, could you share it please? Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 17:14, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

@Գարիկ Ավագյան: this is one of many. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 17:27, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

@Solavirum: It is not clear from this image where it is. Just one image, not confirmed by any authoritative source. An attack on a reservoir is a serious accusation. Johncdraper and Ahmetlii May we know what do you think about this? Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 09:37, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Johncdraper, Ahmetlii, may I ask your opinion about this sentence? Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 17:14, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

@Գարիկ Ավագյան: apparently it's updated now. Beshogur (talk) 17:15, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

@Beshogur: I don't find anything updated. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 09:31, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Գարիկ Ավագյան: I found that image from TASS. Ahmetlii (talk) 09:49, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Ahmetlii:, Attack on Mingechavir reservoir is a big accusation and this Russian source is not strong enough to confirm this huge accusation. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 10:16, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

EkoGraf, AntonSamuel, Mr.User200, CuriousGolden would you take part in this discussion? Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 10:20, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Գարիկ Ավագյան: I understand, but also we used that source several times on the page to confirm accusations. Ahmetlii (talk) 10:23, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Գարիկ Ավագյան:, there are not many journos on the ground and the most we've got are from Turkish and Russian ones. I mean, there are clear reports from the locals that explosions were heard. I don't think it is constructive to question that. It is a fact that Mingachevir was struck (by Armenia, or not). --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 12:03, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Գարիկ Ավագյան: I agree with Solavirum above. It's not only journalists but local reports that confirm the explosion (Mingachevir is a big city, most Azeris have at least one relative or friend there, so I can confirm). But I understand why that isn't reliable enough for Wikipedia. Nevertheless, the sources and images we have already proved it. Azeri side can't really do much more to prove it. They have provided images of the struck missiles and that's enough to confirm it. — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 12:31, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Just label it as claims, I have seen a small wooden support next to the alleged Armenian smerch so it fits in that hole, maybe in some weeks/months Western media and fact finding web cites start raising doubts on this Azerbaijani reports of the attacks. Could be a Fake like the Lebanon war photos. Also find to extrange that the missile struck the entrance of the Reservoir and a newly painted label have raise some doubts on me.Mr.User200 (talk) 14:10, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Գարիկ Ավագյան: In my view this is part of a larger issue with the timeline in which statements like "Azerbaijan claimed that..." and "Armenia/Artsakh claimed that..." is the main source of content, and either a large general cleanup is needed or the current inclusionist/maximalist state of affairs regarding the timeline remains in place. AntonSamuel (talk) 10:58, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Splitting

Someone has tagged the article for splitting at the top and I considered it myself as well per WP:SIZE. The timeline and Ganja shellings have been split by now, the next topic could be Casualties of the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict (similar to Casualties of the Iraq War, Casualties of the Syrian Civil War, etc). This is a good overarching source to start. Brandmeister^talk 19:03, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Agree. EkoGraf (talk) 19:14, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. I can help with the details. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 21:27, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Agree, I wish I could support but it's extended-protected and I don't edit that much. RBolton123 (talk) 03:06, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Disagree. Think it would be wise to wait until the most intense fighting is over before the article is split Daedal45^talk 01:34, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

No, I think it would be better if we created the articles early so that the main article page wouldn't get cluttered. RBolton123 (talk) 03:06, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Casualties are done now, the next could be International reactions to the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. I think soon we can remove splitting tags from the article. Brandmeister^talk 12:35, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I am presently working on condensing the article. Please hold. Johncdraper (talk) 13:21, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Support I created the summary of the chronology of the war to make it more reasonable. The timeline needs to go to it's own article, this article should just provide a general overview.--RM (Be my friend) 19:18, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Support I support the proposal. R. J. Dockery (talk) 20:05, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Brandmeister, splitted Hadrut. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 19:39, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Just making a comment that Current Events WikiProject is showing interest in this discussion. (Current Event WikiProject Coordinator) Elijahandskip (talk) 23:04, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
• Update We are now splitting out the battles (see work below). Further work is needed on condensing the timeline, as raised in an archived post. My Sandbox is still open for that. Johncdraper (talk) 06:35, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
• Split I think the article needs to be split, it is quite a big size and may be unhelpful for people trying to discover more about the subject. Belwine (talk) 15:17, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Background section - What do inhabitants of Nagorno Karabakh want?

In the second paragraph of the Background section, the sentence "While what the present inhabitants of the area want is unclear" is misleading. If you read the reference cited, the unclarity is about whether they want to be independent or part of Armenia. The 3 surveys cited in the article in 2011, 2013, and 2020 have 90+% of respondents wanting either to be independent or part of Armenia, and in 2020, the most recent survey, the reference mentions "there is near unanimous agreement that Nagorno-Karabakh should not return to Azerbaijan". I suggest reedit "while the question whether the present inhabitants want to be independent or part of Armenia is unclear, surveys indicate they don't want to be part of Azerbaijan" --Sataralynd (talk) 05:09, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Done. Johncdraper (talk) 08:01, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Wouldn't this question need take into account the 400,000 Azeris expelled from the districts occupied by Astrakh/Armenia? it's a pertenant question considering the Astrakhi population is 150,000 - Mutliple members of Armenia and Astrakh's governments have stated these lands should be given back in a peace deal besides a corridor connecting the territory to Armenia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:7DE1:E300:608E:71FB:B474:3392 (talk) 22:37, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Done. Already in: "The Nagorno-Karabakh War displaced over 500,000 Azerbaijani residents who used to live in the territory and surrounding provinces." Johncdraper (talk) 09:27, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I think, we should include facts about 1991 Nagorno-Karabakh independence referendum which held in Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast and Shahumyan Province where 99.98% of voters voted in favor of independence. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 09:50, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I second to include this in the Background section. However, we should include that the referendum was boycotted by the Azeri population which constituted 20% of NK population as per this Wikipedia article. This is aligned to Thomas de Waal's The Black Garden, ISBN 0-8147-1944-9 Pages 284-285, which cites a total population of Nagorno-Karbakh of 162,000, including 123,000 Armenians and 37,000 Azerbaijanis (22.8% Azeris). The book mentions the 1991 referendum, the fact that is was boycotted by the Azerbaijanis and the 108,615 out of 108,639 voting for independence on Page 162. I suggest to include the book as a source--Sataralynd (talk) 10:37, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Sataralynd Could you review this? I will try to add other sources as well.

On December 10, 1991, a referendum was held on the independence of Nagorno-Karabakh. The referendum was held on the territory of the former Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Region, the adjacent Shahumyan Province and part of the territory of the Khanlar District of the Azerbaijani SSR. 99.98% of voters voted for the independence of the republic. However, the referendum was boycotted by the Azerbaijani population, which constituted 20% of the population at that time.

Thanks for inviting me to comment. It looks good to me (though I cannot edit the article unforutnately). What I would suggest you either substantiate the 20% Azerbaijani rate with an independent source, or use Thomas de Waal's book as the source and mention that Azeris were 22.8% around that time. TdW's book and research has high third party credibility (despite him being attacked by both sides all the time). --Sataralynd (talk) 23:19, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

How are we doing with a form of words and reference for this? I have access to academic sources. Johncdraper (talk) 06:42, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Here is my stab based on the available info with me. Obviously @Johncdraper: you're welcome to improve based on the sources you have: "On December 10, 1991, a referendum was held on independence of Nagorno-Karabakh. This has been boycotted by the Azerbaijani population in the region, which constituted around 22.8%. 108,615 people voted in favor of Nagorno-Karabakh’s independence and 24 voted against (a rate of in favor), indicating the same result regardless of the Azerbaijani participation" Source is Thomas de Waal's The Black Garden, ISBN 0-8147-1944-9 Page 162

--Sataralynd (talk) 14:32, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

@Sataralynd:

Following both Armenia and Azerbaijan's independence from Soviet rule in early 1992, Nagorno-Karabakh declared independence and Azerbaijan revoked its autonomous status. A referendum subsequently characterised as a reductio ad absurdum of the region's legal status was held on 10 December, 1991, boycotted by the Azerbaijani population, which then constituted around 22.8%: 99.8% voted in favor.

The source appears particularly apposite; this may take time, but what do you think? Johncdraper (talk) 16:39, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Ceasefire violations list

I feel like this section is an example of WP:NOT; Wikipedia is not supposed to be take on the status of a ceasefire observer in the vein of the OSCE or similar agencies, reporting and listing every supposed violation. Unless one of these violations is somehow notable, or even verifiable by reliable, third-party sources, these listings, often using dubious, partisan, and non-reliable sources are not appropriate. Another way of putting it would be WP:INDISCRIMINATE -- Listing information just for the sake of listing information, with no weight given to context, importance, or relevance to other parts of the article, etc. Eik Corell (talk) 17:00, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I think it's helpful for the reader to know what is going on since the signing of the ceasefire, but I think it belongs more in the timeline of military engagements section for easier reading. Flalf^Talk 17:43, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Eik Corell, the article is being split atm. Missile attacks on Ganja, bombardment of Stepanakert and Battle of Hadrut already have seperate articles. And of course, the timeline section should be converted into a better running prose, describing developments rather than "A stated X, B issued denial and stated Y". But, it requires major work and a lot of third-party sources (which essentially means tons of research), and seems that the contributors (including me; come on, I did the splitting part at least ._.) are not interested converting the timeline section. There is also this sandbox, which the owner of the namespace gave permission to all to WP:BOLD it. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 18:05, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, this "Ceasefire violations list" list frankly quite ridiculous, as it implies we still have some sort of functional ceasefire and are dealing with mere "violations", while in practice fighting has continued in full force and casualty counts have practically doubled since the ceasefire agreement. It needs to be merged back into main conflict timeline, which itself should in future be converted into more concise summary of events.--Staberinde (talk) 18:27, 20 October 2020 (UTC)