Talk:Second Nagorno-Karabakh War/Archive 21

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Update on Kommersant

 Note: Just to update you all on the RfC listed at WP:RSN regarding Kommersant, the discussion was recently given a formal close. The result of the discussion is now listed at WP:RSP. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 08:06, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Mikehawk10 Thank you so much. Could you remind, please, was it done in order to change "alleged by Armenia" to just "alleged" next to Turkey in the infobox? Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 16:07, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Is marking Turkey as "alleged" even nesscesary anymore? Some things in the infobox, like Russia being an arms supplier, are dependent upon a single source. --Steverci (talk) 02:58, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

RFC outcome was that "alleged by Armenia" could be included based on a very weak consensus. Grandmaster 07:41, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

The RfC outcome states "Future reporting and investigations may change this", which included the intention of seeing what the result of the RSN discussion for Kommersant would be. It is no longer correct to say only Armenia alleged Turkey was a belligerent.

Mikehawk10, do you mind sharing your thoughts? --Steverci (talk) 16:25, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Kommersant is not considered to be a top source. It is advised to use it with caution, especially "when the source is used in relation to events in which the Russian government has a close interest". Russian government is certainly has interests that contradict those of Turkey in the region of South Caucasus. Therefore unless there are better sources, we should stick to RFC results. Grandmaster 13:35, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Kommersant is considered one of the best sources in Russia. None of the Russian billionaire oligarchs have shown any interest in proving Turkey's involvement, so the only reason Kommersant's credibility could possibly be questioned does not apply here. Clearly the newspaper was not reporting on behalf of anything besides respectable journalism. --Steverci (talk) 00:11, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

See results of RFC on that source. Grandmaster 08:40, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

@Steverci, Գարիկ Ավագյան, Grandmaster, Jr8825, Alaexis, Brandmeister, Sinnikk, and Kheo17: Since there still appears to be a content/sourcing disagreement that is at an impasse regarding Turkey's status as a belligerent, even following the most recent RfCs, I would advise that seek dispute resolution at the appropriate noticeboard (though it is unusual for DR to work with this many editors party to the dispute) or to create a new RfC if a good number of you believe that there has been substantial new information that pertains to the coverage of the relevant events by reliable sources that you expect could reasonably change consensus on the topic. (I've tried to tag everybody who's commented on Turkey's status on the current version of the talk page, but please tag someone if I have missed them). — Mikehawk10 (talk) 22:28, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I would also be happy to provide for some form of mediation on this talk page, rather than on a noticeboard, provided that there is consent from all the editors involved if that this would be preferred to an RFC. This would be informal and it ultimately wouldn't be binding, though it might help to condense the numerous discussions that are taking place in different sections in a more coherent way that could be used to better evaluate what the current consensus is. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 22:34, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your proposal, I would really appreciate your help in resolution of the present disputes. The way I see the problem, it is more about reliability of a couple of sources, rather than anything else. And also, if a source is considered reliable to a certain degree, how could it be used in the article. A good example is Kommersant. The RFC on it decided that it could be used, but with caution. If it is a sole source for certain claim, then how should it be used in the article, if at all? Grandmaster 07:29, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Mikehawk10, Grandmaster I'm also quite perplexed by such a liberal use of sources that provide no actual evidence. A mediation on this would be much appreciated - which in my opinion shouldn't be difficult. All I ask is that we follow sources with actual investigative evidence and not just rumors whos "source of the source" eventually leads to hearsay of questionable origins. With allegations as significant as this, the onus should be on the "accuser" to provide the appropriate evidence for their claims. Sinnikk (talk) 19:54, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your response and effort during this dispute. I would like to note that Kommersant is not the only source claiming about Turkey's direct involvement in the war. [1]. In this case, "alleged by Armenia" seems inappropriate. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 07:45, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Naryshkin talks about Turkish intelligence, not Turkish military being involved in hostilities. Grandmaster 07:52, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Foreign intelligence is involvement in a conflict. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 09:54, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Not really. We don't even know how many intelligence services were gathering information about the hostilities. Probably all major ones were involved, including the Russian one. Plus, Naryshkin had no proof, he said that Russian intelligence "feels" the presence of Turkish intelligence, sees certain work elements. Grandmaster 17:50, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I would also appreciate further resolution and mediation because per RfC result "there does not appear to be consensus at this time among editors that Turkey qualifies a belligerent" and that "future reporting and investigations may change this, and a new RfC may be appropriate at that time". It's not merely about Kommersant. Brandmeister^talk 11:07, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Nagorno-Karabakh War

Can we capitalise the w in the title please.Walkingsense (talk) 02:49, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Walkingsense, this has been discussed before and the reason we're currently using lower case is that there doesn't appear to be an established proper noun for the war among reliable sources. You can find the previous discussions here and here. All the best, Jr8825 • Talk 03:33, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

There is a grand Wiki-conspiracy to decapitalize every word. be warned! 2601:85:C101:C9D0:B4AD:B3A5:3F74:41FD (talk) 19:05, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

If a full scale war breaks out between Armenia and Azeribaijan in the future as a result of tensions created in these wars, all 4 should be named consistently.

There have been several prior attempts to make the naming consistent with the Azeri-Armenian War just after WW1, which were shut down as the latter two wars were exclusive to the disputed Nagorno-Karabakh Artsakh region.

If a full scale war were to break out in the future between nations over the accepted borders, similar to what occured in the 20s, I'd suggest naming them the First, Second, Third, and Fourth Azeri-Armenian Wars.

Corridor

Super Dromaeosaurus I reverted your edit as there is only Lachin corridor in the agreement. There is nothing about other corridors in the agreement. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 07:25, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

I also agree with you that there is no territorial corridor. The word "corridor" itself is not right to use as there is only Lachin one. Do you have other options to include this information in the infobox? Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 07:28, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, from what I've seen, "corridor" is by far the most common form of referring to the transport link that will connect Azerbaijan with Nakhchivan. I think referring to it as the "Zangezur transport corridor" might be better. Is there any problem with mentioning Zangezur? Super Ψ Dro 08:20, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

There is a problem with both "Zangezur" and "corridor". The Zangezur corridor is a term used by the Azerbaijani President and it refers to historical Armenian province Zangezur (modern-day Syunik). Also, as I said before, there is only one corridor - Lachin corridor, which is written in the 2020 agreement and which is also the official Armenian position. [2] Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 10:14, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

I see "transport corridor" widely used in sources, and such a concept exists and even has a page in Wikipedia. Although I agree the use of Zangezur might be controversial. Do you have any proposals? Super Ψ Dro 13:50, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, "transport communication" will be the right option, however, as I see many sources use "corridor". Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 09:12, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

It's just you failed to mention that you created that page you are referring to yourself, Super Dromaeosaurus...: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zangezur_corridor&action=history

There is no "corridor", "Zangezur corridor", "land corridor" in that ceasefire agreement, (although those wishful thinking concepts are circulating in partisan Azerbaijani sources), I amended the ceasefire agreement text everywhere by copy-pasting from official English translation of the official document on official Kremlin website. Regards --Armatura (talk) 15:00, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I am obviously aware I am its creator. I don't see any point in this discussion where I would have needed to mention this. Super Ψ Dro 16:55, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Armatura Could you help us to find solution? The New York Times and many other sources use "corridor", which is not correct. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 19:26, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Oh, I see you already edited the article. Thank you. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 19:28, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Գարիկ Ավագյան what matters is the official English translation of ceasefire agreement on Kremlin website - the fact that it does not say corridor supersedes all possible inaccuracies in all possible articles that refer to it. If the original document says "mouse" but the journalist mis-cites it as "bear", it is the journalist's problem, not Wikipedia's. We should stick to original sources and not Chinese whispers --Armatura (talk) 19:43, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Visually confirmed equipment loses

Someone has made a list of all visually destroyed, damaged and captured tanks etc for both sides, add under casualties please https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2020/09/the-fight-for-nagorno-karabakh.html

It is mentioned in the article. Grandmaster 08:49, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

RfC on Turkey listed as a belligerent "alleged by Armenia" or just "alleged"

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.

---

In light of Kommersant recently being recognized as a generally reliable source, should the wording in parentheses after Turkey in the infobox be changed from "alleged by Armenia" to simply "alleged"? Steverci (talk) 00:15, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

• Change to alleged. Kommersant, RIA Novosti are not Armenian sources. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 09:48, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
• Remain as Alleged by Armenia. The WP:RSP on Kommersant states "editors have expressed concerns regarding how limited media freedom in Russia may affect the source's reporting, and as such caution should be applied when the source is used in relation to events in which the Russian government has a close interest." The RIA Novosti source doesn't even state anything of credence, aside from the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service "sensing" a Turkish involvement. Allegations of this significance require more evidence. There is still talks on whether Turkey should even remain listed as belligerent or removed, due to lack of evidence, so this RfC is very premature. Sinnikk (talk) 15:04, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I have strong concerns that account Sinnikk was created specifically to discuss this topic. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 17:44, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand this unnecessary accusation. This is a topic that is of interest to me. I don't believe there are any rules that state what topics I am allowed and not allowed to take part in here. Sinnikk (talk) 18:59, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose the detail of whom is doing the alleging is necessary. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:47, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

  That's what the citations are for. --Steverci (talk) 21:01, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

• Weak Support We have established that some of the mercenaries were there because of Turkey, and Turkey supplied some military experts as well, I think involvement has been proved beyond a doubt, which leads me to believe that this isn't so much an argument about presence as much as it is on what counts as a belligerent. Considering this, because many small barely active rebel groups are counted as belligerents on some articles, and that considering they have actually sent mercenaries to Azerbaijan I'm weakly leaning on support. I think we need to make a more consistent policy on this. Flalf^Talk 18:00, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

  This is not about whether to list Turkey as a belligerent, but whether to list it as "alleged by Armenia", or just "alleged", because Russian Kommersant newspaper also made such claims. But Kommersant is not a top source for the purposes of Wikipedia, according to the results of RFC on it. Grandmaster 08:01, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

  This is a good point. When the overwhelming amount of third party reliable sources have confirmed Turkey was recruiting and deploying thousands of combatants, it's very misleading to portray its role as being alleged in anyway. This kind of situation is definitely worth discussing for the template. --Steverci (talk) 21:01, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

  That is why Turkey is listed as support, and not as a combatant. Belligerent is someone whose soldiers are directly involved in fighting, and support is someone who provides weapons, training, etc. Grandmaster 15:49, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

• Weak Support When an important detail is being included in an article, the ideal would be to have more than one source to confirm the veracity of the detail. I am hesitant to embrace including a detail when the source may or may not be the most reliable source. I also agree with the point made by flalf, that we need to establish a more consistent policy on issues such as these. Jurisdicta (talk) 04:31, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Cannot be changed from "Alleged by Armenia" to just "alleged", because the only other source than Armenia making such an allegation is Kommersant, and that is a source that is recommend to be used with caution. One weak source is not enough to support such a change. In general, including allegations into infobox is problematic. Why should we only include allegations from Armenia, and not from other parties? Azerbaijan and Turkey also allege that PKK was involved in fighting on the Armenian side, so if we include allegations, it would make sense to include other allegations too. Grandmaster 15:58, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

  Kommersant is regarded as a generally reliable source, and no Russian oligarchs have shown any interest in exposing Turkey's role in the war. Including the PKK is a completely false equivalency because: (1) only Turkish and Azeri sources have made that claim, (2) the few third-party sources to even mention the PKK claim said it's doubtful and has no evidence,[3][4] and (3) the accusation is clearly copied from the accusation that ISIS terrorists were fighting for Azerbaijan, which is alternatively confirmed by numorous sources. --Steverci (talk) 01:37, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

  One source of not top quality (Kommersant) is not sufficient to make a generalization. As for PKK, if we list claims by Armenia, why not list claims by Azerbaijan? Both sides should get equal treatment, and their claims reflected in line with NPOV. Regardless if this claim is supported by anyone else, since it is made by the government of Azerbaijan, it could be listed with proper attribution (i.e. alleged by Azerbaijan). Grandmaster 15:51, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

  As for PKK, if we list claims by Armenia, why not list claims by Azerbaijan? Both sides should get equal treatment... Because this is the opposite of how Wikipedia's guidelines work. See WP:WEIGHT: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." --Steverci (talk) 03:32, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

We have analysis of the third parties regardless the PKK which simply rejects their involvement. Do you have reliable third-party sources that can reject Kommersant and RIA Novosti's claims? Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 12:22, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

You still don't understand. We don't need third party proving PKK involvement. It is an allegation by Azerbaijan, it does not matter if it is true or not. It should be listed as an allegation, if we list allegations by other parties. And Kommersant is contradicted by every other source (which all talk about support, and not direct involvement), and RIA Novosti does not support the claim of Turkish military involvement, it is about suspicions of Turkish intelligence. Grandmaster 16:30, 9 May 2021 (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.

Map update request 31 May 2021

Hi all, I opened a new map discussion thread here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2020_Nagorno-Karabakh_ceasefire_agreement#The_green_arrow_over_Syunik_in_Ceasefire_agreement_map, to update the ceasefire agreement map, everybody is welcome to join. Regards, --Armatura (talk) 17:05, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Institute for the Study of Human Rights

I've added a new source from Columbia University's Institute for the Study of Human Rights. This source lists the leaders of the war, and includes the Turkish leaders as well, detailing their involvement with a wide variety of sources. This is not a "blog", but rather "the first academic center in the world to be founded on an interdisciplinary commitment to the study of human rights"[5].

The website also addresses its stance here:

(Editor's note: PBHR recognizes that violent conflict affected all sides in the conflict. However, PBHR believes that the collateral damage of Azerbaijanis is different from the policy of atrocities such as mutilations and beheadings committed by Azerbaijani forces and their proxies in Artsakh. We, of course, lament any loss of life and human suffering.)

Thus, the institute has no affiliation with Armenia, and is simply a neutral and reliable source that reported the truth.

And regarding requests for more sources, I'd like to point out the Columbia article has several sources listed from a variety of places (Armenia, Turkey, Azerbaijan, UK, US, Russia, various western and middle eastern sources, etc.). This is probably the first academic article about the 2020 war.

There are also other parts of the infobox such as Russian arms suppliers and Armenian diaspora volunteers that rely on a combination of a few questionable sources and original research. Russian arms supplies basically comes down to one source of one quote by an Armenian official taken out of context, and Greek City Times is being cited for hundreds of Armenian diaspora volunteers, yet the same source published an article about Turkey being a belligerent. If there can be used as citations, then surely the Columbia University source can be as well. --Steverci (talk) 01:19, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I expressed my view on this source above. There's no author byline and while it may be written by academics, it isn't peer-reviewed like a journal article would be. Unlike media sources that specialise in international relations (e.g. Foreign Affairs etc.), there's no indication of editorial oversight. I think it should be treated as equivalent to a think-tank source, i.e. inappropriate for exceptional claims that aren't echoed elsewhere (that may well change as time passes and more rigorous sources appear). I also find it concerning that it fails to even even mention Armenia's behaviour in the conflict, for example, its well-documented use of cluster munitions. For example, Amnesty has documented human rights violations carried out by both sides. Describing civilian deaths from indiscriminate bombing as "collateral damage of Azerbaijanis" doesn't inspire confidence in the source's impartiality. Neither does partisan language such as "Foreign Terrorist Activities in Artsakh"(!!!) That said, "mutilations and beheadings" are clearly serious occurrences. However, you're not trying to use the source to support details relating to those atrocities, you're trying to use it to support a broader claim about Turkish involvement, and it isn't clear to me why it should be considered authoritative on that issue, particularly as it seems to be relying on a combination of official Armenian statements and a translation of a not-especially-trustworthy Russian newspaper.

The Greek City Times wouldn't be acceptable by itself for a controversial claim as it doesn't have the same reputation that long-standing high-quality broadsheet newspapers and newswire services have built up. However, there are four strong-looking sources supporting the inclusion of Armenian diaspora volunteers in the infobox, so it isn't being cited for a particularly unique claim (I'm thinking here of WP:EXCEPTIONAL). The article in question appears to be factual reporting in an area where a Greek newspaper's journalists would be expected to have expertise/leads (Greeks leaving the country to volunteer), rather than editorialising/analysis, like the Human Rights Columbia source. Jr8825 • Talk 03:22, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Institute for the Study of Human Rights as a source cannot be taken seriously. It is a very obscure organization without established reputation as a human rights campaigner, and most importantly, it blatantly takes sides and does not even try to look neutral. Indeed, statements like "collateral damage of Azerbaijanis" show their true colors. How could bombing of residential quarters of Ganja and Barda with ballistic missiles and cluster munitions, which resulted in deaths of more than 50 civilians, including little children, be "collateral damage"? These bombing were condemned by the EU and other organizations, and HRW and Amnesty International consider them to be war crimes, but for these "scholars" it is nothing but "collateral damage". They also make no mention of torture and beheading of Azerbaijani POWs by Armenian forces, documented by HRW and Amnesty. And sources they refer to are almost exclusively Armenian or otherwise partisan. I believe this source cannot be used in the article in any form due to extreme bias and lack of any credibility. Grandmaster 23:41, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Grandmaster and want to emphasize one more possible flaw regarding this source. Salpi Kevorkian is an ethnic Armenian who is the manager of the research lab at the Institute for the Study of Human Rights and she is a co-author of many articles published by this organization. In my opinion, this definitely needs to be taken into account while assessing the reliability of the source.KHE'O (talk) 06:39, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the ethnicity of the author has any bearing on the reliability per Wikipedia policies. By the same reasoning maybe we also need to take into account the editors' ethnicity when evaluating their contributions? Alaexis_¿question? 06:34, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Ethnicity shouldn't be a problem, but the article in question uses Armenian websites like Razm.info, Armenian government delegation in OSCE, Greek Cypriot websites and other sources with conflict of interest as its references. The article in question is very biased and unreliable. 185.81.83.20 (talk) 10:23, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

I think we had a similar issue with RFE/RL quoting Azeri and Turkish experts. Both there and here, the important thing is that the publishing entity itself is reliable, meaning that they are supposed to have some kind of vetting process. When they attribute something to the Armenian delegation to the OSCE we could do the same in the article. Alaexis_¿question? 13:25, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

The article also uses Turkish websites like Haberturk, Atalayar, Turan, Hurriyet, SADAT's website, Duvar, and Ahval, and nonpartisan websites like Memri, Al-Marsad, Washington Post, SOFREP, Al-Monitor, and JISS. --Steverci (talk) 15:46, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

This source is very biased and unbalanced. It makes no mention of the Armenian war crimes whatsoever, and considers Armenian war crimes such as bombing of Ganja and Barda to be "collateral damage", while HRW and Amnesty International consider them to be war crimes, and EU condemned bombing in Ganja in strong terms. This source cannot be compared to RFL which makes no controversial claims, and does not accuse anyone of anything. Plus, publication itself is not a peer reviewed scientific source, and has no strong reputation as a human rights campaigner, unlike HRW and Amnesty. Grandmaster 16:46, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

What exactly is proposed to be added from this source though? Sorry if it has been mentioned but I haven't found it. Alaexis_¿question? 18:58, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

It was used to make strong claims that certain Turkish generals were involved in fighting, and it was the sole source for those claims. I removed it, until there is a consensus that this source could be used, because presently there's no consensus that this source is reliable, and such extraordinary claims require good sources, and normally more than just one. Grandmaster 22:11, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Also, this is not a good source either. [6] It was used to claim in the article that "Major General Bahtiyar Ersay had been overseeing the Azerbaijani General Staff, following the dismissal and arrest of the First Deputy Minister of Defense of Azerbaijan and Chief of General Staff Colonel General Najmeddin Sadikov". Such extraordinary claims cannot be based on such a weak source. It is clearly not accurate, because Sadikhov was not arrested, just dismissed from his position. In fact, Sadikov was recently on vacation in Dubai, there is a video of him. Grandmaster 22:15, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Why do you say it's not a good source? Considering that it's part of Columbia University the burden is on you to prove that it shouldn't be trusted. You can't just say that you don't like the sources they used. Alaexis_¿question? 06:09, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Unless we have other reliable sources describing them as unreliable in general, or unreliable for this particular topic, it's a perfectly good source. If what they say is contradicted by other sources then we can mention that too, with attribution. Alaexis_¿question? 06:12, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

It is not just me. Please see above the opinion of Jr8825, and other editors. Being affiliated with Columbia University does not automatically make a source reliable. You can see that it pretty much takes the Armenian side, refuses to make any mention of the war crimes committed by Armenians, while those crimes are very well documented by other much more respected human rights campaigners. Plus, this source is not peer reviewed to qualify as scientific. The claims that this source makes are exceptional, and to prove that certain Turkish generals were in charge of Azerbaijani army we need best quality sources, and not just one that has no established reputation, unlike HRW and Amnesty. According to WP:V, "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources". Exceptional claims like involvement of Turkish generals require multiple top quality sources, and this one source is not sufficient to make such claim. Grandmaster 07:54, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Why is it exceptional? The extensive Turkish support is well documented by a lot of sources: drones and other armaments, military advice, Turkish fighter aircraft that were present in Azerbaijan during the war. Given this context, I don't see anything exceptional with the claims in question.

Again, the burden is on you to demonstrate that this information is inaccurate by showing that reliable sources either put the reliability of the source in question in doubt OR report different information. The part about the involvement of the Turkish defence minister is originally from Kommersant which is again a perfectly acceptable source (midway between "generally reliable" and "additional considerations apply" according to the RfC you initiated). Alaexis_¿question? 08:26, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

The claim that Turkish generals were in charge is very exceptional. It is not just support, but direct involvement. Kommersant with its anonymous sources is not sufficient, but it is quoted in the article anyway. But this particular source does not qualify as reliable. If you check ICHR's own sources, for example the claim that Bahtiyar Ersay was in charge of Azerbaijan's army General Staff is based on following sources: Memri; OSCE; Asbarez; Hurriyet; Razm. Hurriyet article is from 2016, and reports on Ersay's career before 2016. Karabakh and Azerbaijan are not mentioned. Memri is discussed above, very unreliable source that claims Sadikov was arrested, when he was not. OSCE is in fact "Statement by the delegation of Armenia", not a third party source by any stretch of imagination. Asbarez and Razm are Armenian news outlets. So sourcing is extremely poor, and is highly partisan. Unlike HRW and Amnesty, this entity did not travel to both countries, and conducted no investigation of its own on the ground. So with consideration to the above, how can this source be trusted? Grandmaster 09:26, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Also, I did not initiate the RFC on Kommersant. It was someone else. Grandmaster 09:50, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, for some reason I thought it was you. I'm definitely not an expert so it's hard for me to assess these arguments on their merits. From which policy does it follow that "Kommersant with its anonymous sources is not sufficient"? Regarding the exceptional-ness of the claim, feel free to open an RfC, I don't see anything exceptional in it given the close relations and other ways Turkey supported Azerbaijan. Alaexis_¿question? 16:28, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Exceptionality is not decided by an RFC. According to WP:EXCEPTIONAL, exceptional are: Claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions—especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living and recently dead people. The prevailing view is that Turkey provided support, but its military was not directly involved in fighting. If 1 source claims otherwise, it is an exceptional claim, and needs multiple high-quality sources for verification. If you check the discussion above, there's a number of editors who do not find ICHR to be a reliable source. So clearly there's no consensus here to use this source in the article. Kommersant is mentioned in the article, so I do not see your point. Grandmaster 18:05, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

If you say that it's contradicted by the prevailing view, can you provide some sources which explicitly contradict it - that, is, that say that the Turkish military was not directly involved? Alaexis_¿question? 19:42, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Practically every source on the conflict talks about Turkish support, and not direct involvement, i.e. Turkey provided arms, training and advice, but no boots on the ground. RFL is just one such source. Here's more: [7] [8] [9] [10]. All those sources talk about support, and not direct involvement of Turkey. Sources that claim otherwise are marginal. Grandmaster 08:09, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

That source is not flagged on the perennial list, so you were quite wrong to call it "not a reliable source". MEMRI is citing both Russian and Azeri sources for the arrest and includes that the Azeri government denied it. It takes a very fair stance on the matter. I will add "reportedly" before arrested and include Azerbaijan denied it. There were many sources reporting his arrest and he could've since been released, there is no evidence he wasn't arrested. I also added the sources that the Institute for the Study of Human Rights had been citing. --Steverci (talk) 17:40, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Also there is no evidence that he was arrested. A claimant has to prove it, the accused side has no obligation to prove its innocence. I am totally against using the Institute for the Study of Human Rights as a source in this article. That source is clearly a partisan source.KHE'O (talk) 18:58, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Memi is not a reliable source and cannot be used in the article. It has no reputation for fact checking and accuracy. Its report is nothing but a collection of baseless rumors. We don't have to proof that Sadikov was arrested. It is up to you to do that with reference to multiple reliable sources. Note that it is a severe violation of WP:BLP policy to claim that someone was arrested without strong sourcing. It was never officially announced that Sadikov was arrested, it was only announced that he was dismissed from his position. A couple of weeks ago he was seen at a luxury resort in Dubai, which is not something an arrested person can do: [11] So unless you can provide reliable sources that Sadikov was arrested, that info cannot be included in the article. Grandmaster 08:22, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Steverci, please do not try to insert ISHR source into the article without consensus on its use on talk. Multiple users do not find it to be unreliable, please also see the opinion of Jr8825 above. Acting against consensus is not acceptable, and is a violation of WP:CON. If you insist on its inclusion, you must follow WP:DR, and not revert. Grandmaster 08:27, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Alaexis, by re-adding claim about arrest of Sadikov with a reference to a single unreliable source you violate WP:BLP rules. According to WP:BLPPUBLIC: If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. We don't have any serious source to prove that Sadikov was arrested, so it cannot be included. And any source making such outrageous unproven claims cannot be considered reliable. Next time I will have to take it to BLP board. Grandmaster 08:59, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Also, inclusion of all those Turkish generals in the article with reference to little known or partisan sources is also a BLP issue. We cannot just drop names without reference to multiple reliable third party sources, as per rules. Grandmaster 11:13, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I'll note that the previously quoted Turan source doesn't mention Akar, so shouldn't be used for that particular claim. Brandmeister^talk 09:42, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

It's not that big of a deal to remove the arrested part, but please restore the rest of the cited information you erased. The content you removed was written as claims, like most things in the article, not definitive facts. This is not like deciding what to include in the infobox, removing Asbarez and Razm just because they are Armenian sources is not acceptable. There are plenty of highly doubtful claims by Azeri sources in the article that are written as allegations. Besides, Razm actually has photographic and video evidence of Turkish generals in Azerbaijan, so it is certainly worth including as claims at the very least. --Steverci (talk) 02:58, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Memi is not a reliable source. If it provided inaccurate info on arrest of chief of staff, it cannot be trusted on the rest. Asbarez and Razm are partizan sources. There are plenty of things I can include in the article with reference to Azerbaijani news outlets, but we should refer to third party sources to maintain the quality. Razm does not have any reliable photographic evidence. Just some person photographed from behind that it claims is a Turkish general. Verification by a reliable third party source is required. Grandmaster 07:37, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

One again, MEMRI is not blacklisted as an unreliable source. And it is just reporting what Russian and Azeri sources were reporting. By same logic, most Turkish and Azeri sources shouldn't be considered reliable for reporting the PKK with zero evidence, yet this is still included in the article as a claim. --Steverci (talk) 16:17, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

A source should not be blacklisted to be considered unreliable. Rules do not require that. An unreliable source reporting what other unreliable sources say does not make it reliable. That source clearly reports things that never happened, therefore it cannot be trusted. And PKK is alleged by government, and government position is notable for inclusion, with proper attribution, regardless if it is true or not. Grandmaster 13:24, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

You should open a discussion on RSN if you have a problem with MEMRI, but it probably won't accomplish much because the source only stated what "a number of Russian and Azerbaijani publications reported" and included that Azerbaijan denied it. The dismissal of Sadigov and most other information in the article is still verified by most sources. --Steverci (talk) 00:11, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

A source that reports rumors cannot be taken seriously. And it says that Sadikov was arrested, which is not true, and shows bad quality of research. As I said above, mentioning someone by name and making strong claims about him is a BLP issue, and according to the rules we need multiple top quality sources to confirm the fact. One source of dubious quality is not sufficient. You are welcome to take it to WP:RSN, if you still think that the source could be used. Grandmaster 08:46, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

MEMRI doesn't give "support" to anything and these "rumors" are actually reports by Russian and Azeri media. And it does not definitely say Sadikov was arrested, and even includes Azerbaijan denied it. As I just said, many times. You're just running around in circles at this point. Making such blatant false accusations about a source, which you hypocritically accuse of "bad quality of research", makes it seem you haven't even read it. It's starting to appear you don't actually have an argument against the source and are just brigading against something you WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. You're the one questioning a source that isn't listed as unreliable, you're the one that needs to go to RSN. In the meantime I will restore the information you removed and mark them as claims. --Steverci (talk) 00:13, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I explained in much detail why exactly this source is unreliable. I'm not alone, a number of other editors explained their disagreement with the use of this source. Unless there's a consensus, you cannot include this source. And if you still insist on use of this source, it is up to you to build a consensus, and get it approved by the community. Grandmaster 07:58, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

And one more thing. MEMRI article is just a translation of an article in Russian pro-Kremlin news outlet vz.ru/Vzglyad (newspaper). This is the original article in Russian: [12] And vz.ru is not a trustworthy source to be used for such strong claims, which also violate BLP by making assumptions about living persons: [13] Grandmaster 08:23, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I took Vzglyad to RSN. Let's see what the community decides. Grandmaster 17:38, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I removed Vzglyad and MEMRI while they are being discussed but Kommersant, Razm, and the various other sources are still reliable unless any proof otherwise can be presented. Keep in mind consensus includes strength of argument, it does not mean any edit you don't like isn't allowed. --Steverci (talk) 20:59, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

What makes Razm.info a reliable source? It is an Armenian blog [14], i.e. it is a self-published source, and according to WP:RSSELF it is strictly forbidden to use "self-published sources as independent sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer". Also, according to WP:V, articles should be based "on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Razm is not independent, is self-published, and has no reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. And BLP rules require multiple reliable third-party sources to support an allegation about a living person. If you continue to violate the BLP rules, this will need to be dealt at BLP board. Grandmaster 10:11, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

You linked a completely separate website; this is just an English-language blog, while Razminfo is a news and analysis website (Razminfo is an English-language blog run by the team behind the Razm.info — an Armenia-based web site specializing on military news and analysis). It even specifies the blog was launched in 2016, while Razm.info was created in 2011; they are two separate things. --Steverci (talk) 01:36, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Razm.info and razminfo are both a blog at wordpress. I could not find any other razm.info. Grandmaster 15:54, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Also, razm is not a third party source. If razm is acceptable, then so are caliber.az, day.az, etc. The rules require using third party sources for controversial information. Grandmaster 18:16, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Redacted. --Steverci (talk) 03:32, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

What does it have to do with this? Grandmaster 08:11, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

What I meant to say was, Razm.info does not have wordpress in it's url. Razminfo seems to essentially be the equivalent of an opinion column. And there are already multiple ".az" sources on the article for claims, such as the PKK, that have far less due weight. So by your own logic, it's only fair to include Razm.info information as well. --Steverci (talk) 03:16, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

It does not have to have wordpress in url, you can check and see that it is a blog at wordpress. And it is one thing to refer to an Azerbaijani source to quote the words of an Azerbaijani official, and another to make BLP claims about a living person. In any case, if you want to challenge reliability of a certain source, you can do it, but existence of other sources do not make this one reliable. And you can always take raяm to WP:RSN, to verify its reliability. Grandmaster 15:19, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

They are two separate websites with creation dates several years apart. But if you're not happy with just Razm, here's the newspaper The Armenian Mirror-Spectator confirming the same information.[15] This isn't really a correct use of BLP. This is not libelous so much as journalists discovering something meant to be kept secret. There are lots of things written on Wikipedia that political figures would prefer to censor, but that alone isn't good enough reason to. Akar already confirmed by non-Armenian sources, so this is nothing outrageous. --Steverci (talk) 19:49, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Once again, these are not a third party sources. Those are partisan sources. Armenian Mirror-Spectator is itself a partisan publication, and the article there is written by the same people from ISHR, which we have discussed above. It contains ridiculous claims such as this: Major General Mais Barkhudarov, Commander of the 2nd Army Corps of Azerbaijan, was responsible for the southern frontline in Artsakh. He led the occupation of Jabrayil where many civilians were killed. How could Azerbaijan occupy its own Jabrayil district, which had no civilian population whatsoever to be massacred? If we are to use partisan sources, there are plenty of things written in Azerbaijani sources that we could also present as facts. But the rules require the use of neutral third party sources. Grandmaster 15:27, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

The TAMS source is written by David Phillips, Director of the Program on Human Rights and Peacebuilding at Columbia University and former Senior Adviser and Foreign Affairs Expert. Once again you're twisting to meaning of partisan for any Armenian source just because it is Armenian. --Steverci (talk) 03:52, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

He is from the same ISHR. Heads the Artsakh Atrocities Project, which is ISHR publication discussed above. Uses partisan language, and makes absurd claims, as I showed above. Grandmaster 08:48, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

As I already pointed out, leaked government secrets are not the same thing as libel. Mentioning the Turkish generals does not violate any of the conditions of WP:BLPREMOVE. It's not poorly sourced (not the same thing as partisan), it has been reported by other Armenian sources besides Razm, it is not self-published, and the newspaper is not considered an unreliable source. --Steverci (talk) 00:25, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

We have already discussed the sources that you have provided. None of them is of good quality. For claims like this, we need top top quality sources. Grandmaster 16:40, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Guys, please remember to outdent discussions so that mobile users can more easily view them. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 19:47, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

@Grandmaster Mirror-Spectator isn't listed as a perennial source, so you have no reason to suggest it is not of "good quality", unless you just don't want Armenian sources included. --Steverci (talk) 22:44, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

day.az is not listed either. Could it be used as a source of information, say on PKK fighters in Armenia? Grandmaster 23:07, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Not even remotely similar in due weight. Only Azeri and Turkish sources claim PKK fighters were in Armenia, while many neutral sources confirmed Turkish forces in Azerbaijan. --Steverci (talk) 04:41, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

We are talking about particular sources. We have already discussed that this author belongs to the same instition that was not accepted here as a realible source, and who makes outrages claims like "many civilians killed in Jebrayil", a ghost town. I do not see this discussion going anywhere. Why don't you try a dispute resolution? Grandmaster 08:29, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

My offer for informal mediation (which was archived after the most recent RfC started) remains open. I'd need to get consent of all the parties involved for it to be meaningful, but I can still set this up if you all would be OK with it. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:56, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I think it would be very helpful. Alaexis_¿question? 05:22, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Mediation for what exactly? Can someone explain? ZaniGiovanni (talk) 10:48, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

RFC result

We have recently had an RFC on whether to list Turkey as "alleged by Armenia" or not. The result was: For now, however, "alleged by Armenia" should be maintained in the absence of a rough consensus to change it. Editing against consensus is a violation of Wiki rules. There are ways to achieve consensus is accordance with Wikipedia rules. Anyone wishing to change the infobox must discuss and reach a consensus here, before making any changes. Grandmaster 14:42, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Reminder on 1RR rule

A kind reminder to all editors of this article that no more than 1 revert can be made within 24 hours. Hence, @Kevo327:, do you want to self revert the last change you made to avoid violating 1RR? Thanks. --Armatura (talk) 00:06, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I have one reversion in the last 24 hours, thank you for reminding nonetheless. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 05:53, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the latest edit. There is no need for an edit war. We can discuss here how to formulate that line better. According to the ceasefire agreement:

All economic and transport connections in the region shall be unblocked. The Republic of Armenia shall guarantee the security of transport connections between the western regions of the Republic of Azerbaijan and the Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic in order to arrange unobstructed movement of persons, vehicles and cargo in both directions.

The article said:

Azerbaijan granted transport communication to its exclave of Nakhchivan through Armenia.

I don't see that this is totally wrong, but maybe it would be better to put it like this:

Economic and transport connections in the region to be unblocked, including connection between Nakhchivan and rest of Azerbaijan.

If you have better ideas, let's discuss. Grandmaster 15:52, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

• All economic and transport connections in the region to be unblocked, including transport connections/links between Nakhchivan and rest of Azerbaijan. And if this is referenced by official Kremlin Link http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/64384, instead of Kramer from Tver' who mis-cites the agreement, then it would be accurate. --Armatura (talk) 16:59, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree on Armatura's version as well, the old one's tone had it like it already happened. Feel free to add this one with the Kremlin ref. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 17:11, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that looks good. Only the word "links" is not in the text, it uses the word connection. Otherwise, it is alright. Grandmaster 17:46, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

It does use 'links' once, just CTRL + F in http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/64384, but transport links and transport connections are true synonyms, unlike the notorious 'corridor', hence 'transport connections' is perfectly fine. Glad a consensus is reached, thank you Grandmaster and Kevo327! --Armatura (talk) 18:44, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for cooperation, glad that this was resolved. Grandmaster 19:05, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I hope Mastersun25 is also ok with this wording. Grandmaster 22:29, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

war result needs changing to partial armenian defeat

thehindu.com/news/international/explained-who-won-the-war-over-nagorno-karabakh/article33125724.ece

article needs clear explanation what parts and how much armenia still holds over nagorno karabakh region? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.151.65.38 (talk) 16:15, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Edit request

• Armenian serviceman and POW Erik Khachatryan, when talking about his time in Azerbaijani captivity to the Armenian media, said that "in general, the attitude towards him in captivity was normal, and he and his friend even read books".
• These are notable remarks, ans these should be added to "suspected war crimes" section.
• Source: PanArmenian. 185.81.80.240 (talk) 07:26, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Why does it belong to the war crimes section? This guy was apparently well treated while in captivity. I'm not sure it's notable - unless you want to say that being a PoW in Azerbaijan is so horrible that normal treatment is a notable exception. Alaexis_¿question? 07:48, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

User:Alaexis Armenia says POWs are mistreated, POWs say they were treated normal. To counter-balance the government claims and keep it neutral. 185.81.80.240 (talk) 10:31, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

It's not "POWs", it's only one person saying that. And I agree with @Alaexis that it isn't notable to be included. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 10:36, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

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

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

• Destroyed apartment located in Shikharkh.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:09, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Article issues

Being aware this article is subjected to discretionary sanctions I will likely not make any edits. There are some issues that need addressing along with the "To-do list".

• The article has been tagged since December 2020 that it "may be too long".
• The title is 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war. The "Naming" section indicates it is also referred to as "Second Nagorno-Karabakh War" along with several others. Since there is the First Nagorno-Karabakh War it should not be difficult for consensus to determine that reference to the "Second Nagorno-Karabakh War" (also referred to as) would be an important addition to the lead, possibly with a "See also" or "Not to be confused" at the top. If there was "the first war" and this is actually the "second" it would seem for a lack of confusion and like naming and consistency, this should be considered titled as the "Second Nagorno-Karabakh War.
• The body of the article has sections like the "Background" that has more condensed subsections, yet the "Course of the conflict" section has Timeline of the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war as the main article, and with the subsections (many with main articles) that appear to need trimming/condensing.
• The "Aftermath" section is extremely long and possibly mistitled. Because of the length of areas that appear bloated subsections like "Return of occupied territories and flight of Armenian population" showing a "Main article" and a paragraph that is exemplary, but others like "Turkish-Russian peacekeeping" and "Post-ceasefire clashes" suffer because adding even a paragraph just adds to the problem of article length. -- Otr500 (talk) 17:23, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

  I agree that the title should be changed to "Second Nagorno-Karabakh War", or this title should be listed as also known as/also referred to. Grandmaster 18:52, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

May the edits be reinserted?

It appears that my following edits were reverted by User:Lightspecs : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2020_Nagorno-Karabakh_war&oldid=1041341766 ( A few more edits were reverted, but this is how it looked before it was reverted) User:Lightspecs explained that I had to ask this on the Talk Page before making such large edits, so I am here to ask: Can I re-insert these entries? I will only do so if a consensus is reached. Dunutubble (talk) 14:54, 30 August 2021 (UTC)