Talk:Second Nagorno-Karabakh War/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 → Archive 10

Possible alternative name?

Assistant of the President of the Republic of Azerbaijan, Head of Foreign Policy Affairs Department of the Presidential Administration Hikmat Hajiyev have labeled this conflict "Operation for peaceenforcement of Armenia" (Ermənistanı sülhə məcburetmə əməliyyatı) (1, 2. Can we use that as an alternative name? --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 16:36, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

lol Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:26, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
thanks for an unconstructive response, didn't expected much more --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 17:31, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
No, ridiculous, pure Propaganda to keep happy moods at home.Mr.User200 (talk) 21:16, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
According to some experts operations were started by Azerbaijani side. So, it would be more reasonable calling it by this name. There are also examples like one of the decisive battles of Croatia-Serbian war which is called "Operation Storm", war by US led coalition against Iraq in 1991 which is called "Gulf War" or "Operation Desert Storm". As well as due to its nature (after very brief time, humanitarian ceasefire was agreed for unknown time), it is more like battle or operation, than conflict or war. At the same time it was called by one of the high ranking Azerbaijani official by this name. Perfectly, matches... Apollo (Helius Olympian) 21:43, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Mr.User200, I agree that it is a propaganda name. But, as in 2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria, the Turkish side called it "Operation Peace Spring". That's what I'm referring to here. As a name given by the Azerbaijani side. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 21:47, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
I agree, but to balance it out we should add the Armenian name ASAP when it's announced. RBolton123 (talk) 02:45, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Mockups destroyed

There are evidences in video from the Azeri MoD showing the destruction of at least 2 Armenian mockups but listed as vehicles. --Nicola Romani (talk) 07:52, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

end date as Oct 10th?

5 minutes after the ceasefire had been due to begin the hostilities started again. I've looked at multiple interwikis and none of them put today's date as the end date. Maybe you were a little... impatient. --Spafky (talk) 21:25, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Hummmmm....Not yet, I recommend to wait a little maybe two days or more. Fighting have been reported, specially at Hadrut, but in a small scale. It´s seems Armenia and NK are the only one complying the ceasefire.Mr.User200 (talk) 21:37, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Mr.User200, well, the Armenian MoFA tweeted that Stepanakert was bombarded today, and the Azerbaijani MOD reported bombarding of Tartar, and other places. So, not so small scale as you put it. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 21:48, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Is possible that Armenia have attacked cities(thus violating the ceaseire) but if you compare this events with those reported the past weeks, there is a obvious decrease on hostilities.Mr.User200 (talk) 21:55, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
I believe so. As since both Armenia and Azerbaijan have accused each other of violating the ceasefire, saying that it "formally came into effect" is fanciful optimism at best. I would personally put "A humanitarian ceasefire was brokered by Russia and facilitated by the International Committee of the Red Cross, which was agreed to by both Armenia and Azerbaijan; however, conflicts continued." Something like that. RBolton123 (talk) 01:05, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
The conflict has not ended, they just have a temporary truce for negotiations "After two weeks of fighting, the two countries agreed to a temporary truce during talks in Moscow on Friday." 80.221.244.5 (talk) 01:26, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
It seems not even the truce has been honored. RBolton123 (talk) 02:43, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Second largest city of Azerbaijan, Ganja, was struck again, with (according to initial reports) 3 deaths, and 40+ injuries. Per 1. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 01:09, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Another source https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-54488386 RBolton123 (talk) 02:43, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
There sure is a lot of fighting for the conflict wikipedia has so succesfully declared to be over already. Maybe wait for fighting to actually die down before we rush to mark the conflict finished?--Staberinde (talk) 09:36, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Russia supplier

How correct would it be to write to Russia as an arms supplier in the infobox? The links talk about the alleged transportation to Armenia through the territory of Iran. Russia has its own military base in Gyumri and transfers military equipment there. I think it is incorrect at this moment to write the name Russia as a supplier. Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 08:36, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I disagree, there are also reports about arms passing to Armenia via Georgia under discreet circumstances. Locals have also reported it, but I don't know any Kartveli. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 09:06, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
How it is relevant to the Armenian army, but not the Russian military base? Any other sources apart from the Azerbaijani? Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 09:26, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
That's really your own interpretation. Also, yet again, I don't know any Georgian to find it. But another user can help us out here. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 09:32, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Found ge.news%20-front.info/2020/10/10/saqarthvelo-somkhethis-sazghvarze-sabrdzolo-iaraghith-datvirthuli-satvirtho-ar-gaatares/%20one (remove space). But in any case, it is absurd to remove Russia here. Seems like people want to bash infobox with misleading information. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 09:36, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
More 1, 2. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 09:38, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for the soruces! According to the text, all of them are based on Azerbaijani sources. Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 09:43, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
That was disinformation by the Azerbaijani media. [1] I suggest to remove "Russia" from the infobox. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 11:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Գարիկ Ավագյան, well, Azerbaijan's President also accused Russia of arming Armenia for free, I've added that :d --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 12:02, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Comment I am not sure if the infobox is the place for that, but it can be added in the content if already not there. Expertwikiguy (talk) 10:13, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 October 2020 (2)

Could we possibly show the list of "Arms suppliers:" (within the "Belligerents" section of the right column) directly without clicking on [show]?

Could we include the attack on Martuni under "Timeline of military engagements", "1 October"? It is mentioned under the "Casualties and equipment losses", "Civilian Casualities" section towards middle: On 1 October, two French journalists from Le Monde covering the clashes in Martuni were injured by Azerbaijani shellfire.[297]. The photo and article in the paragraph below reflects the local civilian involvement.

There is a photo in this Wikipedia article of a residential building in Azerbaijan hit on Oct. 4. Could we also include the photo (of a civilian and his destroyed home) that is presented on the journal le Figaro webpage (https://www.lefigaro.fr/international/le-conflit-du-haut-karabakh-nouveau-defi-d-ankara-a-moscou-20201001)? Thank you kindly! SacredForest (talk) 04:54, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Not really; it's easier for mobile users, apparently.
  • No. They were not belligerents or apparently targeted.
  • Sorry, no. The image is copyrighted. Johncdraper (talk) 14:11, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello,

  • Ok. It is really curious, though. I will look into this & confirm. How would an extra click be easier for mobile users? It should be even easier without the extra function. Thanks.
  • Regarding Oct 1: there was targeting of civilians in Martuni. This is reflected in the media I shared from Figaro (a verified, reputable source). You can vividly see the civilian who lost his home. Why would acknowledgement of civilian targeting on this day & in this area be specially omitted? If the image is copyrighted, we really need to find other images of the destruction to civilian areas in Martuni on Oct. 1 and certainly of Stepanakert on other days. Not a single image of damage to Stepanakert civilian areas has been included. I really have to wonder about the neutrality of this. It is again compromised. May I somehow include photos and captions of Oct. 1 Martuni civilian targets and subsequent targeting of Stepanakert civilian structures?
  • Ok, perhaps a request for permission to use could be made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SacredForest (talk • contribs) 14:54, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Re Martuni, Okay, I am beginning to see what you mean, but I really need a non-paywalled version of the exact language used in the Le Figaro article. Can you post the paragraph here, please? Johncdraper (talk) 16:40, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Johncdraper, Do you mean you would like me to translate the Figaro article or paraphrase? The translation would be: "Published on October 1, 2020 at 1:40 PM [...] Médusé, a man stands in front of his brother's house destroyed by bombing, Thursday in Martuni, Nagorno-Karabakh. -/AFP" It's still necessary to find an image that is not copyrighted from the Martuni destruction. It seems an image could just be uploaded to this thread. Is this how to share a photo with you or the other editors? Also, you had mentioned that the [show] function of "Arms suppliers" was easier for mobile users. Could you share your source on that? I couldn't find info on this. Why does it seem like an extra function? This is because on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nagorno-Karabakh_War the corresponding information does not need to be clicked on. The older page just seems more user-friendly.
I read advanced French. Post the whole paragraph in French, please, to my Talk, so I can blank it immediately afterwards (because it's in copyright). If you have a copyright free image (i.e., you took it yourself), you need to upload it first. You can do that through 'Insert images'. My source on the mobile users and 'not really' is Help:Infobox: concise. Johncdraper (talk) 12:23, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. Regarding Oct. 1 in Martuni, there is also this source for the following quote & image: https://ca.reuters.com/article/us-armenia-azerbaijan-idCAKBN26M5IJ "A house, which locals said was damaged during a recent shelling by Azeri forces, is pictured at the town of Martuni in the breakaway region of Nagorno-Karabakh October 1, 2020. Areg Balayan/ArmGov/PAN Photo Handout via REUTERS ATTENTION EDITORS - THIS IMAGE HAS BEEN SUPPLIED BY A THIRD PARTY. NO RESALES. NO ARCHIVES. MANDATORY CREDIT." It sounds like this image could be used so long as credit is given. Is that right or is this considered an archive?

Additionally, there is timing shared on reddit from another source, which mentions both civilian and journalist involvement: https://www.reddit.com/r/armenia/comments/j3g62t/oct12020_events_war_in_karabakhartsakh_yerevan/ Could we include such timing? Here, I can type out anything to be included.

Ok, this is Le Figaro caption: Médusé, un homme se tient devant la maison de son frère détruite par des bombardements, jeudi à Martouni, dans le Haut-Karabakh. -/AFP https://www.lefigaro.fr/international/le-conflit-du-haut-karabakh-nouveau-defi-d-ankara-a-moscou-20201001 I'll look into posting this on your own page too. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SacredForest (talk • contribs) 04:01, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Not done. Reason: copyright problems, as discussed on my Talk. Johncdraper (talk) 14:22, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

"Facebook Source"

Enough with obnoxiously and blindly removing Facebook and Twitter sources. It's like stubborn professors and academia blindly dismissing Wikipedia. It's both lazy and obnoxious. The Azerbaijan and Armenia MoD's both relay official information through social media (Twitter). President Aliyev and PM Pashinyan both use Twitter for public announcements. Should we not use those then?? Does it make a difference if the info. is on Twitter or an official website?? SOHR before it had a formal website was on a Facebook page. Does that make SOHR from 2011-2014 less credible? When I add (https://www.facebook.com/herbimedia/) for Azeri casualties, don't remove it User:Beshogur and write "Facebook Source" as an excuse. It's an unofficial casualty estimate by an Azeri research institute, and it's worth displaying under 'Other Sources:' in the infobox. It's unlikely the Azeri MoD will release an official casualty list after the war. We rely on unofficial Azeri and independent sources.
User178198273998166172 (talk 10:20, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

What enough? These youtube videos used were pure original research, some users made their own analyses. Please see WP:RS. That page is not a ngo at all. Expect you to revert your unjustified edit back. Beshogur (talk) 09:35, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
User178198273998166172, alright, this is ridiculous. I don't what to say. You're adding Armenian fake news and propaganda pages as a "Azeri research institute". Check the "Page transparency" section of the page, it says: "Page created - Հարթակ December 3, 2011", and was changed to "Herbi Media" in 2017. Administrators should intervene, Rosguill, Ymblanter. I'm also tagging Beshogur to notify him about it. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 10:56, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
The page is already extended confirmed protected, there is nothing to do here as far as I am concerned.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:00, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
EkoGraf, please explain your edit here. This is extremely unrespectful to not only our readers, but also me. That page is literally a fake news outlet, created by Armenians to erect panic within Azerbaijan. I've given factual arguments above. Thank you. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 14:03, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Solavirum If you checked you would see I made another edit [2], five minutes before you made your comment, where I removed the source and info since I tracked it to another Armenian media outlet and thought one claim by Armenia citing social networking users was already enough. My edit was in no way meant to be unrespectful. However, I would remind you to stick to Wikipedia's policy on assuming good faith from your fellow editors. Also, as per Wikipedia's policy, a source needs to be established to be unreliable based on other more reliable sources, and not on simple arguments declaring a source as "fake news" based solely on a personal opinion. Cheers! EkoGraf (talk) 14:49, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

About the revert of a image

Johncdraper I understand that what do you mean by saying "copyvio", but it is subject to "fair use".--Ahmetlii (talk) 16:09, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

@Ahmetlii: Yes, but the problem is that Wikipedia cannot guarantee 'fair reuse'. That is why CC4.0 is Wikipedia's gold standard. Johncdraper (talk) 16:12, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia supports territorial integrity of Azerbaijan

During the phone calls today Azerbaijani Minister of Foreign Affairs Bayramov with Saudi Arabian counterpart, he voiced his support to the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan.

Reference: https://mfa.gov.az/en/news/6946/view

https://www.arabnews.com/node/1747356/saudi-arabia

Apollo (Helius Olympian) 16:22, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Solavirum Editing and References Misuse

Hello Johncdraper Rosguill Dvtch , please have some patience in going through the below points and act accordingly. Much appreciated.

A. Solavirum edited [3] at 19:18, 4 October 2020. The article references the sentence "which Armenia regards as a military target" (the current form of the sentence).

One reference used for the above sentence is: [4] . Issues with this sentence and reference: 1. The article is a translation of a discussion between two Russian reporters and expresses their point of view. It is not an official statement, nor an Armenian statement. 2. The sentence "which Armenia regards as a military target" is not mentioned in the article, both before and after translation to English. Hence, the sentence seems to be a personal conclusion and not relying on any valid source.

Another reference used for the sentence above is: [5] . Issues: 1. Only the title is used as a reference, not the article context which is different than the title itself. A Wikipedia editor needs to pay attention to the context and not get drawn behind the title only without going through article context. 2. The person being interviewed in the reference article quotes from a Russian general. A quote of a quote that expresses an opinion, not a fact, and not stated by a person currently in charge.

Sincerely, --Alex662607004 (talk) 13:59, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH and WP:CIVIL. Also, even the article about the reservoir mentions it as a military target. I got the references directly from that article. It isn't news that Armenian officials has voiced their opinion about shooting it, which would result in most of Azerbaijan to be submerged. --► Sincerely: Sola Virum 14:11, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello. Based on [6] I suggest again going through article contexts and not solely rely on titles, and definitely not come up to conclusions not mentioned in references but used in the main article. As for the resevoir point, by this the sentence is stuck in a circular reasoning loop [7]. Also, please point out any "uncivilized" or "bad faith" points mentioned above. Sincerely, --Alex662607004 (talk) 14:28, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Present arguments for your claims, don't give a link to other Wikipedia articles. As I said, the references are from the reservoir's article, where it was pointed out that the Armenian military sees it as a potential military target. Also, claiming that I've somehow manipulated the references is a violation of WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH. If you have no arguments for these cases, then have a nice day. --► Sincerely: Sola Virum 14:34, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello. The following sentence appears in the original article "which Armenia regards as a military target", and this one appears in User talk:Solavirum's first reply "where it was pointed out that the Armenian military sees it as a potential military target". Compared to the original reference [8] which includes a statement by a Russian scholar and not an Armenian military personnel, both of these statements are incompatible since they are affirmative of the resevoir being a target. The closest expression, even though still not exact, to the original article is the resevoir's Wikipedia article which states “scholars and politicians have speculated the possibility of the Mingachevir reservoir being used as a military target by Armenian forces in case of another war”. SPECULATED, POSSIBILITY. This wasn't used as is in the main article but transferred into an affirmative and consenting statement. I have to mention this again: it is of utmost importance to go through every reference, not just their titles, even the references of other Wikipedia articles since those could also contain misinterpreted or incomplete information. Sincerely, --Alex662607004 (talk) 22:56, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Re Alex662607004 I am not sure what your specific request is. If you could rewrite the section as you would like it to read, with citations, posted as a block quote here, that might help. A quick note to all: headlines do tend to be 'sensational', designed to sell copy; the text in articles is often more reliable. Johncdraper (talk) 15:04, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
I'll second this response; given that there were additional sources provided on top of the ones you've taken issue with, it would help if you would clarify whether you think all of the content in that edit should be removed, just the weak citations, or if there's specific claims that need to be rephrased.
Regarding the accusations of not abiding by WP:CIVIL, I think that the actual content of this section is civil, but the section's title accusing an editor of "reference manipulation" is less so. signed, Rosguill talk 15:27, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Note: before being changed after Rosguill's comment, the header accused me of 'manipulating the references'. --► Sincerely: Sola Virum 21:26, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello Johncdraper, Rosguill. Right after this section, please follow up the points B-C-D regarding the original title of this paragraph. Here is the sentence in question: at 19:18, 4 October 2020 Solavirum added this: "which Armenia regards as a military target" which has 4 references to it. Please refer to the reply above for details about the exact statement (which is closer to the reference content) required to be replaced by the current one. So, the original sentence of 4 words has 4 references to it, 2 of which are highly inaccurate as explained above. I cannot claim the other two references are accurate or not. Hence, I request the rephrasing of the sentence so the statement accurately reflects what is was mentioned in the references. Additionally, in the original article it is not clear which sentences are direct quotes by whom from the references, which give the impression that a sentence is a fact rather than an quoted opinion. Sincerely, --Alex662607004 (talk) 22:56, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

As for the (previous) paragraph title, which was not modified by me, here are more points supporting that claim:
B. At 09:16, 5 October 2020 Here, while using the same reference, Solavirum edited the phrase: "the Armenian MoD stated that the Artsakh Defense Army destroyed three planes" to "the Armenian MoD stated that the Armenian forces had destroyed three planes". The Reference used clearly states that those two planes were destroyed by the Nagorno-Karabakh (Artsakh) army, NOT the Armenian army.

C. At 11:01, 5 October 2020: EkoGraf edited 25 Azerbaijani and 20 Armenian civilians killed using the Reference that was published on OCTOBER 5, 2020 12:21 PM with new info (Reuters). At 11:02, 5 October 2020 Solavirum re-edited 25 Azerbaijani and 18 Armenian civilians killed using the Reference which was published on OCTOBER 4, 2020 at 5:57 PM. This shows that the editor in question has not only didn't properly check the new information, but also rejected an update by a fellow editor and reverted to the previous number of deceased civilians while using the same source as the other fellow editor (Reuters).

D. Here the numbers of the deceased was changed without relevant references. Sincerely, --Alex662607004 (talk) 22:57, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Regarding B, the content appears to now just say that Armenia's MoD reported 3 planes destroyed, which seems to address the immediate content concerns; I note that throughout the article there's ambiguity as to whether "Armenian forces" specifically means forces of the military of Armenia, or whether it can refer to Armenia and Artsakh's forces collectively. This will be a difficult issue to unravel, as Azerbaijani sources seem to consistently fail to make any distinction when reporting battle results. We may want to have a discussion about how to address this issue, although I suspect that we're unlikely to be able to find a satisfactory result until much later, once academic sources about the conflict are available. Regarding C/D, given the short amount of time between the edits and the edit summary, my guess would be that the edit was primarily intended to change the location parameter of the infobox and had an edit conflict with the previous update of the casualty count. The count has since been further updated and is supported by the currently provided source. signed, Rosguill talk 23:25, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello Rosguill. The only focus here is the content of the reference and its modification by the editor in concern. The reference very clearly states that "The Nagorno-Karabakh (Artsakh) Defense Army destroyed three planes and two tanks belonging the Azerbaijani military", a statement made by the "Armenian Defense Ministry spokeswoman". Indeed, the official army naming issue seems ambiguous which is yet another reason for sticking to the exact content of references. Sincerely, --Alex662607004 (talk) 00:00, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Note that in the "Timeline of military engagements headline", only "Azerbaijani forces" and "Armenian forces" were used, the latter being used to describe both the Armenian Armed Forces and the Nagorno-Karabakh Defence Army. --► Sincerely: Sola Virum 06:38, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello Solavirum. Looking at the info box of the main article, there is a distinction between Armenia and its military and the Nagorno-Karabakh Defense forces. Additionally, there is a clear distinction in news outlets: "Armenian Forces" are the military forces of the Republic of Armenia, and the "Nagorno-Karabakh Defense Forces" are those of Nagorno-Karabakh. One cannot put both of these military bodies under the same name.

E. At 13:21, 6 October 2020 the term „Artsakh’s presidential spokesperson“ was substituted with the term „Armenian MoD“ which is not what the reference shows.

F. At 11:59, 6 October 2020, TheEpicGhosty added the following information Official statement top Armenian diplomat to Fox New.
At 12:06, 6 October 2020, Solavirum removed the official statement.

G. Here and here are descriptions of the photo that was added by another editor and removed by Solavirum from the associated paragraph with the explanation that "this info is already in the article; you don't have to spam it everywhere". It is the norm of professional article writing that photos with their titles have to be mentioned in the main text or main paragraph. Also, calling it a "spam" is such a judgmental accusation. Additionally, the same editor has a similar behavior he/she is advising others not to do but going ahead and removing their edits nevertheless, as depicted here and here. Sincerely, --Alex662607004 (talk) 17:59, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I kindly ask Johncdraper Rosguill Dvtch to act accordingly based on the points above (A-F). Sincerely, --Alex662607004 (talk) 20:21, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I've addressed E, as that was a clear deviation from source material. While there's likely a place for the statement added by TheEpicChosty in F, it doesn't belong in the October 6 section where it was placed, as the source was written on the 5th. It may also fit better in a section on reactions to the conflict, rather than in the same section as blow-by-blow battle descriptions, and the literal quote itself is likely undue (although this depends a bit on where the claim as a whole is included). signed, Rosguill talk 20:41, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
My position on Artsakh Defence Army (ADA) versus Armenian military is that they are in principle different (ADA in the Azerbaijani view is a subnational regional guard) and so that in maintaining the Wikipedia voice we should try as much as possible to respect reliable sources when they distinguish between Armenian and Artsakh forces, just as we are doing with Azerbaijani regular versus foreign fighters, etc. This is particularly because fighting may continue between regional or irregular forces even following a ceasefire, and we need to be mindful of this; see Yugoslav Wars.Johncdraper (talk) 10:14, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Brazil's position

The Ministry of External Relations of Brazil asked for both sides to stop the agressions, respect their national and religious identities and return to negociations. Enfrentamento militar entre a Armênia e o Azerbaijão

Rede Sustentabilidade (Sustainability Network), a Brazilian Political Party, defended a pacific solution for the conflict and the respect of rights of peoples to self-determination. Nota Սարգիս (talk) 03:52, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

So what? What importance has a political party from a corner of the world? Beshogur (talk) 15:28, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

It is still an important view on the conflict.98.114.153.55 (talk) 16:37, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Not even regional/surrounding states' political parties reactions are present. So no. Beshogur (talk) 16:55, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
It's listed other countries position like Brazil's neighbors (Argentina, Chile and Uruguay), so there are no reason to don't include such continental power in it (at least if you are interested in a partial position)! Սարգիս (talk) 00:57, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Facebook and youtube

@Rosguill:, people keep adding fb and yt sources and making analyses themselves, or unreliable "ngo", which isn't a ngo at all. There are not RS, I try to remove them. What is your opinion on that? See [this https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2020_Nagorno-Karabakh_conflict&diff=982942470&oldid=982941887] Beshogur (talk) 09:34, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Beshogur, User178198273998166172, this example is particularly egregious, as it cites a facebook page rather than a specific post. Even before getting into the issue of facebook posts not being reliable, this totally fails at being verifiable. It's the equivalent of just citing the front page of a website for the content of an article. signed, Rosguill talk 17:02, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Comment : I believe that a social media page can be used as a source as long as it is the official channel the message was released on. For examples, if Trump releases a message on his Twitter, that can be used as a source. However, it should be stated that the message was posted on the person's social media. Celebrities also often post statements on their social media, which can be referenced in such a way. Expertwikiguy (talk) 02:13, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 October 2020

In the Infobox, change '1 BM-27 Uragans destroyed' to '1 BM-27 Uragan destroyed'. 150.203.68.27 (talk) 11:05, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Done. Johncdraper (talk) 11:56, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Civilian causalities in Ganja

Adding civilian deaths and injuries in the timeline section is unnecessary. I've reverted ones about Armenian civ causalities too. And I don't want to engage in an edit war. Please, revert it yourself. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 10:32, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Oppose : I don't see how it is unnecessarily to add deaths and injuries. After all this is very relevant info about the subject of this page. Expertwikiguy (talk) 02:15, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
The present generally agreed position is to mention only mass casualty incidents in the timeline, while accurately recording the death toll in a separate main section that clearly highlights civilian casualties in a subheading. Johncdraper (talk) 12:13, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Should international reactions be split into an article entitled: "International reactions to the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict"?

I think it should due to the large volume of information. Splitting the page will prevent the article from becoming too long. NinjaWeeb (talk) 18:21, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, other conflicts have their own international reactions pages anyways, so it's nothing unusual. Super Ψ Dro 22:32, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I agree with it. It's important to increase this section with a separate article as the conflict is in the Internacional agenda of all Internacional Organizations and countries! Սարգիս (talk) 03:17, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
  • No, "reactions to" articles have a tendency to be (or become) absolutely awful, complete embarrassments to Wikipedia. It's better to judiciously edit this section to keep it from becoming too long than to split it off (at least for now). We don't want another flag salad WP:QUOTEFARM. TompaDompa (talk) 04:38, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I support this. Lets keep the reactions segment relatively short. F.Alexsandr (talk) 09:11, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I condensed it quite a bit and removed the flags (again) to this end. TompaDompa (talk) 02:50, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
My tendency is to keep it, not split, and edit properly as others have already said. I am curious, does OP have any examples of a similar intl reactions as a separate page that seems to have been useful? MrSirGuyFriendBuddyOlPal (talk) 05:52, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Conditional on the ceasefire holding and substantive talks not breaking down, I do not think splitting this section is necessary. I would like to close this discussion and remove the template, if possible over this weekend, due to the high hit count on the article. The template can always be added back in if necessary. Johncdraper (talk) 09:12, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I agree. There are so many international reactions not listed yet and it's hard to read and find each country or organization position in this way. Sarkoulik (talk) 14:34, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Rename Article 2nd Nargono-Karabakh War

This conflict has expanded beyond a border dispute and lasted long enough that it will probably be called a war by future historians

https://warontherocks.com/2020/10/the-second-nagorno-karabakh-war-two-weeks-in/ https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-54522278

Here is an example of articles calling it that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:184:4A80:9FF0:B405:6365:CCCE:A18D (talk) 21:32, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

There is already a discussion concerning the article title above, i suggest you participate in that rather than opening a new one here.XavierGreen (talk) 21:52, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Azerbaijani losses per other source

How reliable is the website added şhəhidlər.info display azerbaijani losses? It looks like typical armenian government propaganda Apollo (Helius Olympian) 07:42, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Dubious website. I checked its ip, it based in "San Francisco California United States of America". @Rosguill: another dubious website with another self count. Beshogur (talk) 09:31, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
It is extremely offensive to add such website as sources. That's intentional lying we see here. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 10:31, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
As per Wikipedia's policy, unreliability needs to be established and we can not remove the info solely based on our personal opinion of the source. If you can provide other reliable sources confirming the unreliability of şhəhidlər.info please do. Just calling it "propaganda" or "fake news" based on personal opinion, without corroboration, isn't acceptable per Wikipedia's guidelines. As long as its properly attributed we leave it to the readers to decide whether they trust it or not. EkoGraf (talk) 11:05, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Come on @EkoGraf:, do not expect this should stay there. Such a dubious website based in USA acting like official MoD website. Perhaps we can add all dubious wordpress websites? The website doesn't have any other content except some names without any additional info. Didn't expected from you believing into cheap things like this. Beshogur (talk) 11:09, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

@Beshogur: If there were other readily available and more verifiable sources confirming the number of Azeri military fatalities I would agree and not include it. But, since there aren't we do with what we have and this easily falls into the category of "per other sources". Don't get me wrong, I am still against including any non-official Armenian claims of Azeri military fatalities, like Herbi Media which I myself earlier removed after establishing it was Armenian in origin. What makes this source different is the clear pro-Azeri attitude displayed by the creators of şhəhidlər.info on their FB page, while I have not seen any evidence, as of yet, that could confirm their unreliability. Pinging other involved editors to express their opinion on the matter since it appears to be contentus. @Mr.User200:@User178198273998166172:@Johncdraper:@Գարիկ Ավագյան:@AntonSamuel:@Yerevantsi: EkoGraf (talk) 11:19, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Nobody is obligated to prove that some random completely unknown website is unreliable, it is up to those pushing for inclusion of such source to make a case for its reliability. Also we have no obligation to include some numbers in infobox at all costs, leaving field empty is perfectly acceptable when no reliable information exists.--Staberinde (talk) 12:54, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
This is the result of a Backlink profile for şhəhidlər.info using https://ahrefs.com/backlink-checker. Report follows: "Domain including subdomains Domain Rating 0 Backlinks 0 Referring Domains 0." This appears to be a recent website with no authoritative sources linking to it or using it in any way at all. Wikipedia strives to be an authoritative source. I could file a deprecated source request, but I think that is probably unnecessary. Johncdraper (talk) 11:38, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
EkoGraf, do you even realize how ridiculous that sound? "Pro-Azeri attitude", same was the case in the so-called "Hərbi Media". Furthermore, even the name is misspelled. In Azerbaijani, it is şəhidlər, not şhəhidlər. If we are going to add every single Facebook page as a concrete source then we can state that there are 7 thousand Armenian soldiers killed during the conflict. And even Novaya Gazeta reported thousands of Armenian military causalities. You're damaging Wikipedia's look with these so-called sources, and insult the Azerbaijani readers/editors. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 11:42, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
WP:GOODFAITH For the second time, I would ask that you refrain from making accusations that I am trying to insult Azerbaijanis just because you don't like a source that wasn't even originally introduced by me. Thank you. I also did not get a reply regarding your earlier accusation which was made after I had already removed the pro-Armenian source. But no matter. We will leave the issue to other editors to decide as I said. EkoGraf (talk) 11:59, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
See wiktionary about it. It isn't Şhəidlər, it is Şəhidlər. But the so-called "reliable" source names itself wrongfully, while somehow showing "pro-Azeri attitude". --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 11:44, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Ş in English is "sh" sound, so the title would be accurate. The website name doesn't use any Azeri letters and the writing is in Russian, so I wouldn't disqualify it for not using Ş. I believe though the people who like this source want the information to be true, you have to register that.
User178198273998166172 (talk) 14:33, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

It's Mr.user200 who wrote wrongly. The site is called Shehidler. An official AZ website would never use Sh instead Ş. Beshogur (talk) 11:50, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

This is the result of a Backlink profile for https://shehidler.info/ using https://ahrefs.com/backlink-checker. Report follows: "Domain Rating 0 Backlinks 12 Referring Domains 8." My Analysis is the same: this appears to be a recent website with no authoritative sources linking to it. I suggest the revert stands. Johncdraper (talk) 12:03, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Fine with the revert. I never knew there was a spelling error on the URL. A prove that is not from Azerbaijan, despite that the site uses the emblem of the Azerbaijani Armed Forces. Also found strange that the siteUrl is a Azerbaijani word but the content is in Russian. Could be a fake site or a site made by someone(Russian Speaker) that decided to compile names and ranks from OSINT.Mr.User200 (talk) 13:45, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
After you have pointed out the spelling error I am fine with the revert as well. But would again ask Solavirum to stick to Wikipedia guidelines when communicating with fellow editors. Glad we cleared it up. Cheers! EkoGraf (talk) 18:23, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Very doubtful, ip adress is based in Los Angeles where Armenian diaspora is present. This says a lot. Beshogur (talk) 14:07, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Yes you are right Los Angeles have a largest Armenian population. Most posibly a Armenian author, Russia have not a large population at LA. Mr.User200 (talk) 15:24, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Resolved and to archive. Johncdraper (talk) 15:11, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Further sources needed for Ganja mosque damage claim

The article features a claim from the Azerbaijani government that the Imamzadeh/Goy Imam Mosque in Ganja was damaged during the conflict. I've tried searching for any neutral sources reporting this and for any visual proof (I've searched both in English and Azeri) and have found none. If anyone can find any sources or visual evidence then please add them, otherwise placing the picture of the mosque next to the damaged Armenian cathedral in Shushi (that numerous sources have confirmed to have been hit and have provided visual evidence of that) is misleading. AntonSamuel (talk) 15:59, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

@AntonSamuel:, I don't think you know why we use the reliable source tag. The text already says that it is claimed by the Azerbaijani government, and the link provided is a reference to that statement. For Pete's sake, can you stop publishing such dubious edits? --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 16:28, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
@Solavirum: Requesting further confirmation of an unconfirmed claim by neutral sources is not a controversial move on Wikipedia. If a government a makes claim relevant to an issue and that claim is verifiable (which it needs to be to be posted on Wikipedia), then it can be (and should be) confirmed or refuted by neutral and reliable accounts. It's misleading and gives undue weight to place an image and caption of the mosque when the Azeri government claim has not been confirmed, next to the Armenian cathedral in Shusha - the damage to which has been confirmed. I've already talked with you before about the Wikipedia:Core content policies, such as WP:NPOV. I would advise you to familiarize yourself further with these principles a bit. AntonSamuel (talk) 16:42, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
@AntonSamuel:, yet again, you are requesting a reliable source to a statement by the government, not the actual event itself. Revise your move first, then call say that it "is not a controversial move on Wikipedia". --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 16:46, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
@Solavirum: I've already explained in my last statement why placing a government claim next to something that has been confirmed gives that claim undue weight. Wikipedia in an encyclopedia and should be based as much as possible on confirmed facts, not unconfirmed claims. AntonSamuel (talk) 16:48, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
@AntonSamuel:, I'm stating this yet again, and for the last time. You can add text that a claim was not confirmed, but can't put a RS tag to a text that mentions a claim. With this, you're just calling the reference an unreliable source, not the statement. If you want to preserve neutrality, do that. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 16:54, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
@Solavirum: All right, if you think there is a substantial technical issue with using a "better source needed" tag because of the current text and source, then I can add a "disputed" tag instead or text that explains that the claim has not been confirmed. I hope editors will contribute with sources that can either confirm or refute the claim. AntonSamuel (talk) 16:57, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
@AntonSamuel:, well, Johncdraper can provide an opinion (and possible, a solution) here, at least I hope so. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 17:02, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

What's the point of keeping the picture of the Ganja mosque next to the Shushi church if it's still unknown whether it has actually been damaged or not? No media coverage besides an Azerbaijani governnent claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.182.175.26 (talk) 18:47, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

It's so easy to understand, with no visual confirmation of damage, its just a fake claim. Otherwise, pictures of the damage had surfaced. So Ganja mosque picture must be removed, as it seems that it was added just to equal the two sides of the conflict.--HCPUNXKID 12:43, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
HCPUNXKID, its just a fake claim, see WP:NOORIGINALRESEARCH. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 13:26, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Everything you don't like is fake claim? Beshogur (talk) 13:53, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
I have investigated this and I think found a form of words that suits the Goy Imam mosque image. Please see the new caption. On WP NPOV, please note that perennial reliable sources are now covering damage to cultural heritage, meaning that a separate heading may be merited, with the content in question. Alternatively, the existing heading could be revised to Casualties, equipment losses and infrastructure damage. Johncdraper (talk) 16:02, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
@Johncdraper: As far as I can see, the source [9] does not mention the mosque in question. AntonSamuel (talk) 16:04, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
@AntonSamuel: I'm basing this on "while they changed architectural features of "Goy" mosque and claimed that it is an Iranian historical monument." Johncdraper (talk) 16:14, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
@Johncdraper: That's another mosque within Armenian-controlled territory that is being referred to, not the Imamzadeh/Goy Imam Mosque in Ganja, which is far from the frontlines. AntonSamuel (talk) 16:18, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
@AntonSamuel: I see. I'm happy to accept your word on the two Goy mosques and have changed the caption accordingly. Johncdraper (talk) 16:24, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

{U|Beshogur}} No, simply everything claimed by a partisan side without any type of neutral verification (in this case photo or video) is a fake claim. Not difficult to understand, huh?.--HCPUNXKID 21:14, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

To archive. Johncdraper (talk) 16:07, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 October 2020

Hadrut is not under Azeri control. Please DO NOT publish falsifications in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not Ilham Aliev's web recourse. Or, is it? The son of Heydar Aliev just inherited the (khan) power from his daddy, but does he have a power on Wikipedia too? 35.142.9.162 (talk) 16:18, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Done. Note the use of 'apparently'. It's probably not a good idea to try simultaneously contributing to and impugning Wikipedia. Johncdraper (talk) 17:26, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

typo edit request

In the ceasefire section there is a typo - random extra square bracket. Please remove it :)

retnikt (talk) 17:19, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Johncdraper (talk) 18:25, 13 October 2020 (UTC)Ctrl+F /Highlight all did not find one. Johncdraper (talk) 17:46, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 Not done: Couldn't find the typo in question. GreaterPonce665 (TALK) 19:22, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

The relevant section seems to have been removed

Request for expansion on Armenian International response under “Minorities Abroad” subsection of “International reactions.”

On 11 October 2020, the Armenian community of Los Angeles held a march from Pan Pacific Park to the Turkish Consulate of Los Angeles to protest in regards to the current conflict. According to the Los Angeles Police Department’s Wilshire Station, approximately 100,000 people were in attendance. This was in tandem with protests that occurred in Montreal, Boston, and New York that weekend. Given that the Armenian international community did coordinate these protests over the weekend, it seems pertinent to include them with the existing information about the CNN protest.

Sources:

1.) https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-10-11/armenian-protest-turkish-consulate 2.) https://www.abc7ny.com/amp/armenia-rally-azerbaijan-conflict-turkey/6926478/ 3.) https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/10/11/metro/local-armenian-americans-protest-turkish-conflict/ 4.) https://www.beta.ctvnews.ca/local/montreal/2020/10/4/1_5132569.html Syd Highwind (talk) 13:11, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Done for LA and Boston; Montreal and Boston links revealed a security hazard and connection failure (site busy?). Johncdraper (talk) 14:17, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Hey @Johncdraper, The Armenian diaspora also held protests almost EVERYWHERE in Europe, but we can include these ones: Belgium [10], France [11], Germany [12], Spain [13], Italy [14], Sweden [15], Norway-Netherlands-Switzerland- Austria [16] Poland [17], Greece [18], as well as Agrentina and Brazil [19]. Would be thankful if you add them in the article, i'm just typing with a phone and it's a little hard for me to edit the article with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.182.175.26 (talk) 15:33, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't know the crowd sizes and therefore notability. Note: I don't do research for belligerents. Try making an Edit request, with the precise form of words. Johncdraper (talk) 17:23, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Johncdraper, I picked the ones with at least 2000 people. There have been protests in countries such as Hungary, Slovakia, Luxembourg but with smaller crowd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.182.175.26 (talk) 17:56, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
@46.182.175.26: Try looking for one source that mentions most of them. Otherwise, it's citefarming (a form of listing). Johncdraper (talk) 18:21, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Johncdraper This one Armenian source mentions them ALL, published yesterday. It also mentions the Montreal protest, as well as Glendale, Washington, Boston, New York, Fresno, San Francsico, Philladelphia and Dallas with THOUSANDS of people.
@46.182.175.26: Done. Note that this is WP:EN and EN sources are preferred. I am sure there are Armenian English-language summaries of these protests out there in more notable reliable sources. Also, I strongly encourage you, now that we have had this chat and you know what you're doing, i.e., providing a form of words with appropriate cites, to file a formal edit request through the article page, not Talk. It's more efficient. Johncdraper (talk) 20:50, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

PKK/YPG involvement

Toghrul Rahimli, and Yerevantsi, discuss here before reverting each others' edits. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 17:08, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I think this way we can settle the issue. Edit warring is never a solution. Toghrul Rahimli (talk) 17:11, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
The claim that PKK/YPG militants are fighting on the Armenian side is only claimed by Azerbaijan and Turkey and has not been corroborated by any independent source. In other words, there's really no evidence besides Turkish and Azeri claims. ----Երևանցի talk 18:24, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Dear Toghrul Rahimli, we discussed it earlier here. Infobox is not for "alleged" ones, also the sources are not reliable and independent. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 18:41, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
We need to be careful of Turkish claims, they are involved here, regularly blame the Kurds, and this may be a response to the verified information on Syrian militants fighting on the Azeri side. Vici Vidi (talk) 06:57, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Comment re Arms Suppliers

[Note: this comment was moved here by johncdraper for Talk page archiving purposes.] I see that the 'Arms Suppliers' section was added. Turkey and Russia should also be under Arms Suppliers of Azerbaijan. It was reported that a Turkish F-16 was downed, although Azerbaijan has denied using one. Expertwikiguy (talk) 02:20, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

The F-16s are disputed (and if used, are not Azeri but by Turkish pilots). However Turkish drones are confirmed to be used, particularly Bayraktar TB2, [20][21]. Vici Vidi (talk) 07:06, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Motion to use Şəhidlər. as source on Azerbaijani casualties

I checked Şəhidlər. (https://shehidler.info) once again and they updated their most recent casualty toll to 666 (as of 13 October) ahead of Karabakh Records' 619 listed, so I don't think they are operating as the same source. I tried to corroborate names of the deceased on Şəhidlər. to open Azeri sources, and found many matches. For example Səid Rəşidzadə was recorded killed, and he is listed on this site with the Azeri-style Səid Rəşidzadə Nofəl oğlu (son of Nofəl Qasımov) http://www.savash.org/aktual/28531-oglu-səhid-olan-kecmis-icra-bascisi-haqda-maraqli-faktlar.html
Many names on Şəhidlər. are in fact true and can be verified, so there is sense in using this as a source for now. However for some I didn't find a match, like Nizaməddin İsmayılov, who was not listed which I find strange since he was confirmed killed by Azeri sources and could easily be searched. https://www.meydan.tv/az/article/esger-anasi-bizim-ovladlarimiz-fexri-ad-alsinlar-amma-aldiqlari-sehid-adi-olmasin/?ref=search. And there are some others not listed, which can be verified through Azeri sources.
I would suggest since we are using Karabakh Records, to also use Şəhidlər. given this source provides a different figure and is just as reliable.
User178198273998166172 (talk) 19:19, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Can't believe this site is still taken serious, no source, nothing is given. Beshogur (talk) 21:08, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
@User178198273998166172: Please read the Talk carefully. including Archives. It is not a good idea to re-open discussions where the underlying circumstances do not appear to have changed. Everyone regularly editing this page has been on a journey recently, one where we all have a greater appreciation for accuracy. Note that this page is rated B by one project (Intl Relations). Milhist is, if Autorater 2.61 Milhist categories are followed, close to rating this B. The only category it does not auto-meet is References. I hope that clarifies the situation for you. Johncdraper (talk) 21:27, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
@Johncdraper: the current "source" used called Karabakhrecords using the same source, what's your opinion? Beshogur (talk) 07:21, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
@Beshogur: I am a bit busy; would you mind posting the URL here so that I do not have to dig it out of the page, please? Johncdraper (talk) 08:42, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
@Johncdraper:, url1, url2, url3. Beshogur (talk) 09:01, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
@Beshogur: 1 appears to be okay; while for 2 and 3, Wikipedia does not cite primary Twitter/Telegram/etc. sources. If they are notable, secondary sources will cite them. Johncdraper (talk) 09:22, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
However it's clearly visible that they're taking it from shehidler.info Even AzMOD face account replied to thenm; "do you have no other way left to deceive our nation." Beshogur (talk) 09:52, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
I swear if these fake propaganda channels get mentioned again I'm going to bash my head to the keyboard. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 12:00, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Second_Nagorno-Karabakh_War/Archive_6&oldid=1137178614"