Jump to content

Talk:Second Nagorno-Karabakh War

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Don-kun (talk | contribs) at 12:53, 20 February 2021 (→New Map: +other map). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

RFC on Infobox (Listing of Parties)

Which of the following countries and non-state actors should be listed in the infobox as belligerents or other parties? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For each of the countries and non-state actors listed below, indicate in the Survey whether they should be listed in the infobox. Indicate Yes or No for each country and non-state party, or indicate how to include them. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Armenia

Azerbaijan

Artsakh

Turkey

Indicate whether to list as a belligerent or an arms supplier or not list

  • Include as Support, not belligerent - Turkey's support to Azerbaijan, through diplomatic and arms sale means is obvious. But it's not a belligerent as there were no confirmed cases of Turkish troops fighting in Nagorno-Karabakh. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 07:42, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is confirmed by third-parties, including Russia, the co-chair of the OSCE Minsk Group. [5] Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 09:00, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include as Diplomatic Support - Turkish diplomatic support is undisputed and acknowledged by Turkey, Azerbaijan and Russia. No evidence of Turkish military support has been produced other than various allegations by Armenia and pro-Armenian sources. Stories by Armenian soldiers are not reliable because we cannot be certain of their veracity. Until there is verified non-partisan evidence of military support no allusions should be included.
  • Include as Belligerent since lots of WP:RS confirm the presence of Turkish officers, arm supply and transfer of the mercenaries by Turkey to the conflict zone. Best regards, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 09:04, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reports of mercenaries were debunked (most of the original sources were by Lyndsey Snell and Elizabeth Tsurkov), see here [1] Presence of Turkish officers in Azerbaijan is acknowledged but is not evidence of their involvement in the battlefield. Turkish involvement has always been Diplomatic, not belligerent.
Russia, US and France are not "Lyndsey Snell and Elizabeth Tsurkov". Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 08:56, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, EU resolutions on Turkey and Syrian mercenaries:

"On 27 January 2020, the European Parliament adopted a resolution in which it strongly condemned Turkey’s “destabilizing role” in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, accusing Ankara of sending foreign terrorist fighters from Syria and elsewhere to the conflict zone as confirmed by international actors, including the OSCE Minsk Group co-chair countries, and called for an end to Turkish military aid to Azerbaijan."[2][3]

Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 07:33, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include as Alleged Some Armenian soldiers who survived the war claimed to have faced Turkish soldiers in addition to Syrian mercenaries and Azeri soldiers. This cannot be officially confirmed, but Armenian infantrymen could be considered somewhat reliable sources. History Man1812 (talk) 22:13, 23 January 2021 (UTC)History_Man1812[reply]
  • Include as Support selling arms to Azerbaijan and giving diplomatic support doesn't mean that Turkey was a belligerent. First of all, no Turkish troops or planes were present in or over the battlefield. Transfer of the mercs also doesn't mean that Ankara fought there, the mercs were transferred via Georgia (or Iran, Russia?), that doesn't mean that they are also belligerents. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 10:47, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not include as Belligerent Turks is a close ally of Azeris, conducting joint exercises and training Azeri soldiers, for the last decades or so. Also has supplied weapons to Azerbaijan. These facts don't make it a Belligerent. Russia also ally of Armenia on mutual defence and conducted exercises with Armenia for decades, that didn't make it a Belligerent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.156.71.30 (talk) 13:03, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could only be included as Support for Azerbaijan, but certainly not as belligerent. The vast majority of reliable sources talk about Turkey providing diplomatic and military support to Azerbaijan, but do not support the claim that Turkish army was directly involved into the fighting. Supply of weapons and training does not make one a belligerent. According to the rules, we must stick to what the majority of reliable sources say. Grandmaster 23:08, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include as support - There was strong diplomatic support of Turkey for sure, but no direct involvement on the ground.KHE'O (talk) 01:16, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include as belligerent' (as on top of political and arms support, 600 Turkish soldiers, 200 of whom are classified as “regular war battalions,” were reported as deployed in Azerbaijan during the war, specifically - 50 trainers in Nakhichevan, 90 military advisers in Baku in charge of staff coordination, 120 aviation executives at Gabala base, 20 unmanned aircraft pilots at Daliar Airport, 50 trainers at Gevlach Airport, 50 trainers in the 4th Army Corps in Pirikeskul, 20 more officers at the “Heydar Aliyev” military base in Baku English language source Russian language source--Armatura (talk) 02:28, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Read WP:RS. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 04:37, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Both your sources refer to Russian Kommersant newspaper, who refers to an anonymous source. Cannot be considered anything but gossip. Plus, the majority of reliable sources do not support this claim. Grandmaster 23:15, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Kommersant is not a deprecated source, and if one would like to dispute its reliability, it would be best done on the relevant noticeboard. Regards, --Armatura (talk) 01:00, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do not dispute reliability of Kommersant in general, just noting that this particular article is not a proof of anything. It refers to anonymous sources, which is pretty much a hearsay. Grandmaster 22:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Anonymous does not mean unreliable, though. Being anonymous may be vital for the security of whistleblower, for example. WikiLeaks relied on anonymous sources for its leaks, yet they were considered reliable by media to be cited and referred to. Non-deprecated newspaper Kommersant considered its sources to be reliable before publishing that article, and we cannot ignore that. --Armatura (talk) 19:02, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is still a minority view. One anonymous source is not sufficient to claim something as a generally accepted fact. Grandmaster 23:34, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include as Support there are many sources for their support but no good neutral sources for their active fighting. < Atom (Anomalies) 11:11, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @AnomalousAtom: There is already a good neutral source confirming "direct military involvement by Turkey that goes far beyond already-established support, such as its provision of Syrian fighters", which are currently incorrectly listed under Azerbaijan. --Steverci (talk) 19:21, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include as Support. As evidenced by many sources, Turkey has not been a belligerent during that war in the sense of a direct engagement of its armed forces. Brandmeistertalk 15:32, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include as Belligerent Numerous third-party sources confirmed that Turkey was playing a critical role,[4][5][6][7] Erdogan made a statement confirming Turkey engaged in the war[8] and that fact that it was Turkey (not Azerbaijan) that controlled the Syrian mercenaries.[9]
  • Include as support (status quo version) – my understanding, from participating in this topic area over the last few months and consequently following media coverage of the conflict, is that the current infobox reflects what the RS say about Turkey's involvement. Jr8825 • Talk 18:34, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Jr8825: The current infobox incorrectly lists the Syrian mercenaries under Azerbaijan instead of Turkey, while citing a reliable source that confirms "direct military involvement by Turkey that goes far beyond already-established support, such as its provision of Syrian fighters". Through the Syrian mercenaries, Turkey can be considered a full belligerent. --Steverci (talk) 19:21, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Syrian mercenaries are not Turkish army, and "provision of Syrian fighters" is certainly not direct involvement. Direct involvement means direct involvement, and not via someone else. Grandmaster 23:17, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Turkey was directly involved in providing thousands of front-line combatants. --Steverci (talk) 03:51, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Employing contract killers is more than just "support". In law, the employer of contract killer bears no less responsibility than the killer himself. A parallel can driven to Sultan Abdul Hamid II's use of Hamidiye armed groups of Kurdish and other non-Turkish ethnicity to exterminate Armenians. Sultan Hamid was not just "support" in that case, but the mastermind, organiser, make-it-happen person of those massacres. --Armatura (talk) 13:56, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • First of, the existence of those mercenaries is being disputed. Second, they were not employed by Turkish government, the allegation is that they were employed by a private contractor. And most importantly, the majority of reliable third party sources mention Turkey as support, and not as belligerent. According to the rules, we cannot present a minority view as a fact. Grandmaster 23:23, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • If you were motivated by the rules, you wouldn't be disputing the mercenaries, because they have had a great deal of third-party coverage. Please provide a source for the mercenaries being employed by a "private contractor", because the source currently cited, as well as the majority of reliable sources that covered the mercenaries, report the mercenaries being employed by the Turkish government. The majority of third-party sources actually say that Turkey played a decisive role in the result. --Steverci (talk) 15:53, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include as Belligerent since lots of WP:RS confirm the presence of Turkish military personnel (high brass, and special forces on the ground), arms, and drones in the conflict zone. HyeProfile (T-C) 19:30, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include as belligerent Lot's of news about it. Expertwikiguy (talk) 03:42, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include as Support. There is not a single confirmation whatsoever of Turkey's direct involvement in the conflict. Not one representative of Turkish military personnel was spotted in the conflict zone during the war. Every reliable source cited here that supposedly mentions Turkey's involvement talks about support at best. Parishan (talk) 00:33, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Russia

Indicate whether to list as an arms supplier

  • Include (status quo version) – it's widely documented in RS coverage that the Armenian army was largely equipped and supplied by Russia. Distinguishing Russia as (only) an arms supplier (as opposed to the active Turkish support for Azerbaijan), is sufficient differentiation in my view. Armenia is/was widely described as a strategic Russian ally, albeit one that Russia was unwilling to make any sacrifices for in this conflict. Jr8825 • Talk 18:32, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But we include arm supply during (!) the conflict. There is not enough coverage for that. Otherwise, we can add Russia as Azerbaijan's supplier as well. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 20:44, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Israel

Indicate whether to list as an arms supplier

  • Include - I'm sufficiently convinced by the high quality sources that AnomalousAtom and Steverci have presented here, particularly the coverage in France24, The Times of Israel and Haaretz. Jr8825 • Talk 18:33, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Include - I'm with User:Jr8825 here. Of course, France24, Haaretz, Asia Times, Noam Chomsky, and other reliable sources. Just because a Saudi source reported it doesn't mean it isn't true. Moreover, the Prime Minister of Armenia Nikol Pashinyan[18] and Nagorno-Karabakh (Artsakh) President Arayik Harutyunyan[19] both accused Israel of aiding Azerbaijan directly, so at least put an 'allegedly' tag. Talk 3:48, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Include Lot's of news about it. Evidence was found in downed drones for drones made in israel. Expertwikiguy (talk) 03:43, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include Many WP:RS confirm the sale of Isreali manufactured drones to Azerbaijan and their use during the conflict. For example, according to [[14]] Baku acquired Israeli-built Harop loitering munitions, also known as ‘suicide’ or ‘kamikaze’ drones, designed primarily for destroying enemy radars as part of suppression of enemy air defenses (SEAD) operations, and many Armenian radars were destroyed during the war. 2 + 2 = include. HyeProfile (T·C) 23:57, 1 February 2021

Armenian volunteers

Indicate whether to list as a non-state participant

  • Include (status quo) - on the basis that there is reliable sourcing demonstrating that there was unquestionably some involvement of the Armenian diaspora. Mentioning this is not a judgement about how significant their actual role was to the conflict (just as the inclusion of Syrian mercenaries on the Azerbaijani side is not an indication about the scale of their involvement), it's simply an acknowledgment of well sourced fact. Jr8825 • Talk 18:39, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Syrian mercenaries

Indicate whether to list as a non-state participant

Remove as belligerent or clarify as alleged. Most-to-all sources (at least the ones referenced here) cite social media users and interviews with people they don't clarify the identity of, making them unknown. There is no full proof of their involvement, thus it is absurd to claim their involvement on Wikipedia's behalf. There are also reports on SDF's involvement, including ones from major third-party sources, but we don't add that; unbalanced much? Furthermore, others to allege it are Armenia (which is a belligerent in war), France (which supports Armenia politically[20][21] and is in a proxy-war with Turkey[22]), and Bashar al-Assad (who opposes Turkey[23][24] and is an authoritarian ruler[25]), giving them political bias. None of the sources are able to provide legit photo/video evidence showing Syria-based militant organisations fighting for the Azerbaijani war effort, and geolocating is done by, yet again, social media users. Even the geolocators fail to prove their presence in the battlefield, most say Horadiz, which was still under Azerbaijani control before the war. My point here is that we're obliged to add belligerents we are sure that are involved, not some unproven media reports. Though, I would appreciate feedback and opinions from third-party editors. I don't exclude the possibility of my arguments/views being wrong, but, as I said before, showing unproven claims as the truth on Wikipedia's behalf is wrong and undue, giving bias to the whole article. Let me remind you that there are also major sources questioning these reports, this case should be checked for balancing issues. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 13:41, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And most importantly, not a single journalist, reporter, or a correspondent in Nagorno-Karabakh during the war was able to confirm Syrian involvement. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 16:35, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Remove For all the talk of 541 killed Syrians at least one should be definitively shown with proof and not by the likes of Lyndsey Snell and Elizabeth Tsurkov who were discredited for provided patently false information, see [26]
  • DO NOT INCLUDE as per SolaVirum. These are "reports" and allegations, have no proof. Already included in 'Allegations of third-party involvement' section, along with PKK/YPG allegations on Armenian side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.177.243.85 (talk) 14:32, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Include as Belligerent , Syrian mercenaries participating in hostilities were confirmed by United Nations, USA, France, Russia, Syria, Armenia, Artsakh and lots of reliable sources including BBC, The Guardian, Kommersant, RIA Novosti, SOHR and etc. Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 17:11, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This was also discussed in WP:DR and result was to include. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 19:09, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, EU resolutions on Turkey and Syrian mercenaries:

"On 27 January 2020, the European Parliament adopted a resolution in which it strongly condemned Turkey’s “destabilizing role” in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, accusing Ankara of sending foreign terrorist fighters from Syria and elsewhere to the conflict zone as confirmed by international actors, including the OSCE Minsk Group co-chair countries, and called for an end to Turkish military aid to Azerbaijan."[27][28]

Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 07:32, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Remove. Everyone who claims about alleged Syrian mercenaries on Azerbaijani side never was in the zone of the conflict and all there sources are anonymous people, videos from social media etc. No any correct evidences. But, independent journalists who was in Karabakh during the war and after (either from Armenian side as from Azerbaijani) did not say that they have the evidences about the presence of some Syrian mercenaries. For example, correspondent of ANNA News Aleksandr Kharchenko, who was on Armenian side during the several battles told to Russian TV that he never saw even a single Syrian fighter among the hostaged Azerbaijani soldiers. All, who was seen by him, were Azerbaijanis. I think we can mentioned the reports about alleged Syrian mercenaries in the text of the article, but not in the infobox as it is not confirmed information and can be potential fake news. Interfase (talk) 17:47, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Archived version of the same interview. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 04:40, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Remove There was not any proof on the ground. The sources claiming the involvement were either unreliable or backed one side of the conflict politically. KHE'O (talk) 00:42, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Remove or include as an unfounded allegation only until clear undisputable evidence from a non-partisan source emerges. Here is an article in EUReporter arguing that a Syrian Kinan Farzat Khaddour was killed in one of the battles in Karabakh. Later it turned out that this person had died in 2012. Furthermore, 'a similar situation arose with another ‘Syrian mercenary’ in Azerbaijan, Mohammad Mustafa Qanti. [Elizabeth] Tsurkov claimed that she recognized Qanti, noting his place of birth and residence. However, the soldier in the footage published by Tsurkov, speaking of heavy shelling by Armenian forces, had actually died three years earlier.' This claim is a very strong candidate to remove from the article as there are no reliable non-partisan sources so far. [29]


There are enough reliable sourcing confirming the death of mercenaries during Karabakh war. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 08:53, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not even one. Only reports (based on unreliable anonymous people, videos from social media etc.) without any confirmation. --Interfase (talk) 16:45, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are lots of sources in the article. More like WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 17:51, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
More like misuse of guidelines on your part. Nobody here says publications haven't commented on it, but the main argument here is that no journalist, researcher, or anyone has actually seen Syrians in Nagorno-Karabakh, and all publications cite social media users. I've thoroughly cited the existing guidelines to prove why showing social media posts as facts is wrong. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 19:56, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Solavirum: Could you explain what do you mean by saying "misuse of guidelines"? Also, the sources not only reliable enough, but we have statements on official level from, at least, U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, France and Russia, while Russia itself confirmed even captured Syrian mercenary by Artsakh forces.
The main argument here is that no journalist, researcher, or anyone has actually seen Syrians in Nagorno-Karabakh. That's not even an argument. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 09:12, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing here matches with WP:JDL, citing unrelated guidelines won't make your point more reasonable. In the meantime, no, politicized statements have no value. For as I all care, Burkina Faso can claim the presence of Syrians. Russia also confirmed Kurdish fighters in NKR. So, should we add that too? Furthermore, yes, like it or not, that's an argument, an argument that you don't like that you don't even reply to. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 10:37, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Include as Belligerent as multitude of third-party sources reported Syrian mercenaries' transported by Turkey and Russian and Iranian officials still raising concerns about them not being evacuated from the region. --Armatura (talk) 02:28, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Include as Belligerent Large number of third-party reliable sources provided to confirm their involvement and their inclusion was already previously discussed at WP:DR and compromise consensus was reached to include them with the properly cited references, but leave a note that Azerbaijan and Turkey deny their involvement. EkoGraf (talk) 01:34, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Include Multiple Western media, and realaible sources even SOHR mention them. Even SOHR have been counting their losses in NK and Libya.Mr.User200 (talk) 12:23, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Include Many sources says they are fighting. Like this source [30] Shadow4dark (talk) 16:44, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Include there are quite a lot of reliable sources backing up the claim. Those who oppose appear to be exhibiting some WP:JDLI. Unfortunately, Wikipedia does not work that way. Étienne Dolet (talk) 17:29, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong include. This has been revisited dozens of times on this talk page (just search the archive) and we've established that there's very strong sourcing supporting inclusion of Syrian mercenaries in the infobox. Each time, a small number of editors have sought to remove this – unfortunately, almost always along partisan lines. The question was taken to the dispute resolution noticeboard, where there was a consensus to include the mercenaries with a footnote including Turkey and Azerbaijan's denial. High quality sources describe it as a major element on the conflict, not necessarily because of their impact on the fighting but because of their geopolitical significance. I'm disappointed to see the same regular editors still !voting to exclude this information after so many conclusive discussions. We're here to build an encyclopedia that reflects the reliable sources, and the sources have treated the official rebuttals as plausible deniability. A compromise has already been found on this issue that acknowledges this, it would now be helpful to drop the stick. Jr8825 • Talk 18:04, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include There are several reports from reliable sources (BBC [15], Reuters [16], The Guardian [17]) utilized on the page, clearly describing the presence of Syrian mercenaries in the conflict. AntonSamuel (talk) 23:31, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
AntonSamuel, I know that wikipedia does not necessarily reflect the truth and that it is based on reliable sources, and my aim in writing this is not to confront you. But do we should not absolutely care or check for absurdity the articles/source provide? BBC article by this guy named Ed Butler says "The men, many of them with no military experience, were being recruited for war - as they soon discovered when they were taken to the front line and ordered to fight." Can you please explain me, why would Azerbaijan bring Syrians with no military experience to fight well-trained Armenians (supposed, due to many exercises with Russia and overall Armenians military experience) ? To give Armenians absurdly high kill ratios? And the Reuters article only states what France/Macron said and "France accuses Turkey of sending Syrian jihadists to Nagorno-Karabakh" and "Neither Macron or the French presidency provided evidence to support the accusation about the mercenaries and the Kremlin made no mention of the accusation.", and France is supporter of Armenia calling it "friend", while it has population of 600,000 Armenians, and it is known that France doesn't like Turkey. Why should this wikipedia article iclude accusations with no evidences on infobox? --212.156.71.30 (talk) 08:31, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for bringing in Syrian mercenaries into the conflict is complex - the analyses I've seen have mostly pointed to political motivations that Turkey has had to give the conflict a religious/pan-Islamist tint, as well as the usage of the mercenaries as effective "cannon fodder" and the simple use of them as a modern version of the French Foreign Legion, bringing them into conflicts as a proxy force to support their allies, without having to send any Turkish soldiers, which would have serious additional domestic and international ramifications. Turkey has had a strong involvement in directing Azerbaijan in the conflict and has heavily armed Azerbaijan in preparation for the conflict in 2020. Some useful analyses on CivilNet regarding the issue of Syrian mercenaries can be found here: [18] [19] [20] The evidence at this point for the presence of Syrian mercenaries is pretty overwhelming I would say. AntonSamuel (talk) 09:53, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
AntonSamuel, I am almost speechless. You did not answer my questions and provided videos where armenians talk. Thank you very much, really. --212.156.71.30 (talk) 11:27, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Remove Most of the remarks made by countries officials are of political measure to pressure Azerbaijan at time of war to stop further advances(speculation but again this is geopolitics no one will in their right mind state this directly) , there were rumored to be there during initial stage of conflict ;however, as conflict dragged on there were less and less reports on it. There has been no substantial evidence of any corpses that Armenian side claimed as Syrian citizen which by itself is very strange. Two Syrians that were captured were not even returned to Azerbaijani side which again raises more questions than answers! also German MOFA said and i quote "There is no evidence of the participation of mercenaries on the side of Azerbaijan" during PACE' yesterdays session (https://haqqin.az/news/199911). Most of the initial reports came from pro-Assad journalists that have anti-Turkish stance, i seriously can not trust a journalist who refers to this conflict as "Aggression against Artsakh" Journalism by itself should take neutral side. Also Azerbaijani president several times asked for concrete evidence which surprisingly none of the official governments reps provided. While i understand there were a lot of rumors there but as same goes with CHVK Wagner we should take this sources with precaution and remove Syrian Mercenaries until there will be concrete evidence of their involvementAgulani (talk) 09:20, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's almost no media freedom in Azerbaijan because of government pressure, do you have a non-Azerbaijani source for the claim that the German government has said there's no evidence of mercenaries? It seems very unlikely to me. Also, the reports didn't come from pro-Assad journalists, they came from highly regarded outlets such as The Independent (1), BBC (1, 2), and The Guardian (1, 2, 3). Plus you've got the UN weighing in, too. To be frank, if you're reading/relying on Azerbaijani media for your information on this topic, you're not going to be able to meet our reliable sources policies and will have a hard time remaining neutral. Jr8825 • Talk 18:03, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I like how having an Azerbaijani source literally "triggers" into attacking mode, its always amusing to watch! Should we trust Armenian media or government officials like Artsrun Hovhannisyan?(Armenian media has been repressed under both Pashinian and Serj)or maybe trust articles written by Armenian Diaspora members? in a lot of news source weighting in conflict of Azerbaijan-Armenia, i rarely see an ethnic Armenian being honest and unbiased, same goes to Bellingcat how i'm supposed to take Masis(Bellingcat) serious when he writes that "Turkic tribes only appeared in Caucasus in 1750" and editorials are fine with it? so please do not tell me which media is neutral or repressed! regarding Pro-Assad i mentioned "EARLY", which is correct the first tweet came from Lindsley(please do not tell me that she is neutral) and later on was picked up by Russian Pro-Armenian Sources like WarGonzo and later Armenian sources, I'm not denying involvement of Syrian Turkmen groups but there is no concrete evidence, with same logic then CHVK Wagner should be included as well! we are trying to keep Wikipedia neutral not a source of propaganda! Thank you and have a good day! Agulani (talk) 07:36, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include as a no-brainer. Multiple third-party sources, videos, and cellphone intercepts confirm that Turkey armed and deployed the Syrian mercenaries. HyeProfile (TC) 19:31, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include Lot's of news about it from credible publications, CNN, etc. Expertwikiguy (talk) 03:44, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove. Reports mentioning Syrian mercenary involvement go as far as allegations as well references to shady one-man bands that claim to be human rights organisations in possession of some sort of data that has never been formally confirmed. This is a strong allegation to make, and without there being independently confirmed reports, such information may not be added in the infobox. I have nothing against these reports being mentioned in the body of the article, however. Parishan (talk) 00:33, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include Per Jr8825, for months we have established mercenary involvement. Also, even though a significant portion of the sources are interview & video based, but that's pretty reliable considering just how much there is and how many reliable sources have covered it. RS supports it as well, don't really know what's up with this RfC anyway. [21][22] FlalfTalk 04:55, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources that themselves base their reports on anonymous "interviews and videos" mention them as allegations and not as an established fact. Parishan (talk) 22:18, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include I haven't worked on this article much, but the few times I did, all the sources I read and found was about how Syrian soldiers were doing much of the fighting in Azerbaijan they contribute an immense amount to the fighting, and there is no shortage of RS sources mentioning them. Des Vallee (talk) 20:47, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Threaded Discussion

References

  1. ^ Jeune, Phillip. "https://www.eureporter.co/general/2020/11/10/war-in-karabakh-how-fake-news-appears-on-western-media/". EUREPORTER. EUREPORTER. Retrieved 25 January 2021. {{cite web}}: External link in |title= (help)
  2. ^ "Implementation of the Common Security and Defence Policy - annual report 2020". 2021-01-20.
  3. ^ "Implementation of the Common Foreign and Security Policy – annual report 2020". 2021-01-20.
  4. ^ Analysis: Russia and Turkey keep powder dry in Nagorno-Karabakh conflict
  5. ^ Nagorno-Karabakh peace deal reshapes regional geopolitics
  6. ^ An Assertive Turkey Muscles Into Russia’s Backyard (note this source is highly biased and written by the Turkey Bureau Chief)
  7. ^ Armenia and Azerbaijan: What Sparked War and Will Peace Prevail?
  8. ^ https://www.1lurer.am/en/2020/12/09/Erdogan-admitted-that-Turkey-supported-Azerbaijan-in-the-war-against-Artsakh/374546
  9. ^ "F-16s Reveal Turkey's Drive to Expand Its Role in the Southern Caucasus". Stratfor. 8 October 2020. Archived from the original on 10 October 2020. Retrieved 11 October 2020. The presence of the Turkish fighter aircraft ... demonstrate[s] direct military involvement by Turkey that goes far beyond already-established support, such as its provision of Syrian fighters and military equipment to Azerbaijani forces.
  10. ^ Analysis: Russia and Turkey keep powder dry in Nagorno-Karabakh conflict
  11. ^ Nagorno-Karabakh peace deal reshapes regional geopolitics
  12. ^ An Assertive Turkey Muscles Into Russia’s Backyard (note this source is highly biased and written by the Turkey Bureau Chief)
  13. ^ Armenia and Azerbaijan: What Sparked War and Will Peace Prevail?
  14. ^ [1]
  15. ^ [2]
  16. ^ [3]
  17. ^ [4]
  18. ^ https://www.primeminister.am/en/interviews-and-press-conferences/item/2020/11/03/Interview-Jerusalem-Post/
  19. ^ https://www.timesofisrael.com/armenian-leader-accuses-israel-of-aiding-genocide-against-his-people/
  20. ^ https://www.euractiv.com/section/politics/short_news/massive-french-support-for-armenians-of-nagorno-karabakh/
  21. ^ https://www.dw.com/en/armenians-in-france-plead-for-nagorno-karabakh-intervention/a-55335674
  22. ^ https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20200927-fight-over-the-mediterranean-frances-proxy-war-and-the-budding-turkish-russian-alliance/
  23. ^ https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-armenia-azerbaijan-syria-turkey-idUKKBN26R0U1
  24. ^ https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/01/world/middleeast/turkey-syria-assault.html
  25. ^ https://www.economist.com/middle-east-and-africa/2020/06/18/bashar-al-assad-has-no-solutions-to-syrias-crisis
  26. ^ Jeune, Phillip. "War in Karabakh: How fake news appears on Western media". EUREPORTER. EUREPORTER. Retrieved 25 January 2021.
  27. ^ "Implementation of the Common Security and Defence Policy - annual report 2020". 2021-01-20.
  28. ^ "Implementation of the Common Foreign and Security Policy – annual report 2020". 2021-01-20.
  29. ^ Jeune, Phillipe. "War in Karabakh: How fake news appears on Western media". EUREPORTER. Retrieved 25 January 2021.
  30. ^ https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/stories-55238803

New Map

2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war map (SVG file)

Hello. I felt like the current map used in the article was too messy (unmatched widths everywhere, not-so-pleasant colours, lot of cluttering) and way too detailed (inclusion of almost every single village in Nagorno-Karabakh and outside areas), therefore I made a new and a simpler one. I've made sure the new map doesn't lose any necessary information for the sake of simplicity. I've already tested it on my sandbox to see how it would look and you can check it out too: User:CuriousGolden/sandbox/test

I'll clarify why I don't think too much detail is good. Firstly, we already have a very detailed map of the whole situation here: Template:Nagorno-Karabakh conflict detailed map, which is linked under the map. Second, most of the tiny villages and text aren't readable unless you click the map and enlarge it, which, most of our readers most likely don't do. So, I don't think we should be sacrificing good look and simplicity for the sake of too much unnecessary detail.

Let me know what you think. Feel free to suggest any additions/removal/changes. Cheers. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 18:39, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Map Update: I've added breaks between roads between Azerbaijan-Armenia to show that the road in the border doesn't exist, per User:Mapeh's request (except in Lachin and Kalbajar, where it either still operates, or operated until very recently); I've replaced Machkalashen with Amaras Monastery as it's more relevant; I've added Russian-Turkish Joint Monitoring Centre. I've done some other things, which you can view on the File's page. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 12:58, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Map Update #2: I've asked my friend to remake the map in SVG so it's easier for others to edit and translate. There's no real difference other than the fact that it's now SVG instead of PNG. You can view the new file here: [File:2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war.svg File:2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war.svg] (@Mapeh: This should pique your interest). — CuriousGolden (T·C) 17:47, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. Grandmaster 00:11, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the dividing line runs closer to Machkalashen as according to Armenian reports, Azerbaijani soldiers are standing within just 1.5 km from Amaras Monastery. Also, should the road leading to Shusha not be included into the Lachin Corridor? The official Russian military map shows that the area is dotted with Russian observation points, and there is no confirmation of any Armenian military presence there (as proven by Azerbaijan's recent attempt to secure control of Böyük Qaladərəsi, Kiçik Qaladərəsi and Yextsahoğ just a few weeks ago). Parishan (talk) 00:45, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The current line runs very close to Amaras Monastery, I just have marked Machkalashen instead of Amaras, which makes it look much bigger in real life (Amaras isn't too close to Machkalashen). I don't feel like the road to Shusha should be included into it, because the orange colour denotes Areas inside Nagorno-Karabakh where Russian peacekeepers operate, it's not colour to denote mixed Armenian & Russian control. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 07:40, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@CuriousGolden: Fair enough. Would it make sense to add the names of other settlements mentioned in the news in the aftermath of the war, like you did with Chaylaggala? For instance, Charektar and Umudlu (vacated en masse by the Armenian settlers without there being such an order) instead of Haterk, which does not appear too "newsworthy". Parishan (talk) 03:23, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This looks waaay better. Thank you. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 01:14, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure! — CuriousGolden (T·C) 16:59, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks much better, can you add Artsakh in bold as well? Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 08:38, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I specifically tried to not add any titles in the conflict area (like Nagorno-Karabakh, Karabakh, Garabagh or Artsakh) to keep the map's focus area clean and because the inclusion of any of the 4 names won't sit well with some group out there. I hope that's fine with you as well. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 08:42, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This gives impression that the fighting were only between Armenia and Azerbaijan. What if we remove town Vank in the middle and put Artsakh there? Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 10:31, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really get that impression to be honest. I mean the ceasefire map also doesn't use titles, which makes it look better and simpler in my opinion. The only reason I'd rather not include is that if we add that, we're going to have to add "Nagorno-Karabakh" too, which is just going to turn the map into a cluttered mess. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 10:39, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Em.. Not mentioning the party of the conflict would be inappropriate. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 09:47, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nice map. And like you say, esthetically more pleasing. That said, I have a few suggestions/questions :
  • Numerous roads seem to cross borders that are closed. I feel this is misleading, as if there were still the ease of transport of Soviet times. Could the map not show a clear break where there is one (such as what Google Maps does here, with a break between Heydarabad and Yeraskh, but not at Karki/Tigranashen).
  • The Lachin and the Dadivank peacekeeping zones are very hard to see. The latter is barely 3 pixels big at the resolution used by the infobox on the article. Could they be made more visible ?
  • The different transfer zones are not distinguished. Could this possibly be added ?
  • I see that Dadivank/Vang is bilingual, but not the rest, any reason why ?
Thanks, Mapeh (talk) 09:55, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I can definitely add a break between the closed roads. In my opinion, the Lachin corridor is really easy to see, so I don't see any problem there and Dadivank is already marked slightly bigger than it is in real life and making it any bigger would make it include other villages in the area that are not under Russian control (The map is simple, but I don't want to sacrifice or change necessary information for the sake of simplicity). About the different transfer zones, I didn't distinguish them, because I don't really think they're relevant for the war map. They're relevant for the ceasefire map, where it's already included. Also, I didn't add the Dadivank label near Vang for a bilingual purpose. The reason for it was that I didn't separate the village marker and the monstery marker, so I just merged both of their labels together. Multiple different names in the current map was one of the reasons I decided to create a new map. It simply made the map more complex without adding much value. We have WP:COMMONNAME policy for a reason. Cheers. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 10:03, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see, thanks for the explanations. Could you also upload an svg version of the file, if you have one ? It makes it infinitely easier to modify afterwards (say someone wanted to translate the map to Russian for use on that Wikipedia). Mapeh (talk) 11:12, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I, unfortunately, don't have an SVG version. But I do plan on translating it into a number of languages (including Russian). — CuriousGolden (T·C) 11:15, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Minor note, please make sure you attribute the source you got the data for the map from (also, if there is no SVG map available, perhaps uploading a version without the names would be useful). — Yours, Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 13:07, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Will do, thanks for informing. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 13:16, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Map looks great, and now even has an svg version 👌. I do have three comments:
  1. I did prefer the borders in the png (with dashed lines for the NKAO). It seemed more legible to me.
  2. I must join Գարիկ Ավագյան when they say "Artsakh" should be mentioned. It was one of the three main actors of the war, this is a crucial point. We can't mention Iran but not Artsakh. Where to put the label is a bit of an issue, maybe where Vank is (as Գարիկ Ավագյան suggested)?
  3. Would it be feasible to "fill" up Iran with roads and towns ? It is quite empty.
Regards, Mapeh (talk) 11:18, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I switched the places of dashed lines as, in my opinion, it fits better for the pre-2020 LoC (having a still border for it like the state borders, would imply it was fully recognised with those borders). I still don't think adding Artsakh or any other title in the conflict zone is a good idea, because from how I see it, it's the war being fought on its territory, it's not just belligerent, but it's the country that's being warred over (for example, I wouldn't type a large Syria in the middle of a detailed Syria civil war map, but would write the names of neighbouring countries). About Iran, I intentionally left it empty to keep the map focus on Armenia-NK-Azerbaijan, but I'll feel it up a bit to not make it completely empty. Cheers. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 11:49, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly do not get your point fully. You can easily remove the names of the towns in Artsakh like Khojaly, Vank, Haterk etc. where military operations did not take place and add Artsakh there. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 16:14, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @CuriousGolden:. To add to the one issue at hand, there are multiple precedents of putting the disputed zone on a conflict map: [1], [2], [3]. Maybe something like the NKAO label (— Border of Republic of Artsakh before the war), but I agree that an Artsakh label similar to those of Azerbaijan and Armenia would be better. Mapeh (talk) 17:29, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mapeh:, will you be able to add Artsakh to the map? Seems like CuriousGolden is not much happy about that. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 14:48, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
File is an SVG for a reason. Any of you can edit it. I haven't added it because I haven't found time to edit the SVG. Though as I said previously, if we're adding Artsakh, then we're going to have to add "Karabakh" as well. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 14:55, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I will ask Mapeh to add Artsakh and Nagorno-Karabakh to the map, if he has time. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 08:03, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Գարիկ Ավագյան, I've added "Artsakh" in bold-italic to distinguish its status. Didn't add Karabakh nor Nagorno-Karabakh because it takes up too much space. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 11:38, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
CuriousGolden Thank you, I think, it looks fine now. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 08:03, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Map seems great ! Mapeh (talk) 17:28, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Shelling/bombardment by Azerbaijan
Shelling/bombardment by Armenia
Speaking of maps, I made on about the shellings and bombardments during the war. This may also find its place in this article or the timeline. --Don-kun (talk) 12:52, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Biased article

As many articles involving Azerbaijan and Armenia, this one is heavily biased for Azerbaijan, albein in subtle ways. Some incriminating facts regarding Azerbaijan and Turkey (such as clear evidence of use of ISIS mercenaries brought by Turkey to Azerbaijan and Artsakh) are omitted. Disproportionate attention is given to alleged war crimes on the Armenian side, despite overwhelming evidence of serious war crimes by Azerbaijan on civilians. Critical information and evidence regarding white phosphorus use by Azerbaijan is left out, and the whole section is presented in a diluted way so as to maintain doubt and uncertainty over what happened. These kinds of media and information manipulation and information control are widespread by Azerbaijani lobbyists and web users, not to mention the Azeri laundromat that has in a way bought the silence of foreign media and politicians towards Azerbaijani crimes. I am not saying that the Armenian side fought a perfect war and cannot be incriminated in any way. I just want to draw attention to the fact that Azerbaijani information control, history tempering and fact manipulation is very subtle and advanced, often difficult to discern to the innocent eye. Unfortunately, it has taken over Wikipedia where pro-Azerbaijani users heavily edit and product articles that are slightly but sufficiently pro-Azerbaijani while seeming unbiased on the surface. They also lock topics and monitor all vandalism on such articles and actively reverse the changes after having gained certain status as Wikipedia contributors. As a former major donor to Wikipedia, this has made me decide to withhold any financial contribution to Wikipedia going forward, and encourage others who believe in the importance of Wikipedia remaining credible to do the same. Isaacgira (talk) 23:00, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTAFORUM and WP:JDLI. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 09:29, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Isaacgira: Unfortunately there is some truth in this observation.[23],[24]. -- Tobby72 (talk) 16:46, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Witholding your donations isn't going to stop the insertion of bias because Wikipedia is a volunteer project. The only thing you can do to make a practical difference is volunteering some of your time to challenge edits which violate our neutral point of view policy, or pointing out examples of bias so that editors (or you yourself) can use reliable sources to fix them. Jr8825 • Talk 01:20, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update on splitting

Hello. I've removed the text from Return of occupied territories, Turkish-Russian peacekeeping, and Post-ceasefire clashes sections, as they already existed in other articles (see: Armenian-occupied territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh and Peacekeeping operations in Nagorno-Karabakh). If desired, someone can expand it a little to give brief information about the section, but I thought it can't simply stay as a repeated text. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 13:30, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

Shouldn't the Armenian side of the infobox list Artsakh first, then Armenia for the belligerents section? Especially considering that the Artsakh rebels did most of the fighting, and the Armenian armed forces did not fully engage in the fighting. 2601:85:C101:C9D0:2D84:734C:1F6E:EBB0 (talk) 00:16, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We've used alphabetical order and Armenia's extensive participation has already been discussed way too much in this talk page. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 06:44, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Russia's involvement

Գարիկ Ավագյան, explain yourself please. The New York Times deliberately states that the event happened during the war and had resulted in its end. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 16:45, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Solavirum This event is an incident, not about Russia's involvement to the war. It is already mentioned in 2020 Russian Mil Mi-24 shootdown. You may create another separate section for this, but definitely not under alleged involvement of third-party section. Also, why you restored Iskander issues? What it has to do here? Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 18:43, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
NYT wrote that the shootdown prompted Russia to give an ultimatum to Azerbaijan, warning Azerbaijan if it did not stopped after seizing control of Shusha. This is, if happened, is involvement. Also, the same article mentions Iskander, making it Russia-related. The downing of the Russian helicopter is for the background for the alleged development. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 18:53, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
From the article:

The same night, a missile of unknown provenance hit an open area in Baku, without causing any injuries, according to Azerbaijani sources. Some suspected it was a signal from Russia that it was prepared to get involved and had the capacity to inflict significant damage.

This sounds like WP:CRYSTAL. I also can't get why Iskander is seen as Russia's involvement? With the same logic, I can include Israel as alleged involvement. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 19:14, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

--► Sincerely: SolaVirum 18:54, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Գարիկ Ավագյան, because there are independent sources linking the usage of Iskander to Russia's approval. Iskander isn't a simple drone or something. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 19:49, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Israel's involvement

It looks like there is general consensus to include Israel as an arms supplier to Azerbaijan. As seen in the discussion above, the vast majority of people approve of the sources, like France24, Haaretz, Asia Times, Noam Chomsky, and even the Armenian government, confirming Israel's arms sales to Azerbaijan during the war. Moreover, the Azerbaijani government did not deny receiving direct support from Israel, though it did deny accusations of using Syrian mercenaries and the direct involvement of the Turkish armed forces. I forward this consensus. User:Arandomguy12345 (User talk:Arandomguy12345) 18:44, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well you can't deny something if there is not a big allegation about. Imo all arms suppliers should be removed. Beshogur (talk) 19:02, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Then Russia should be removed from the arms supplier list for Armenia. It's still there, however, so I think Israel should be added as well. User:Arandomguy12345 (talk) 22:20, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is enough reliable sources for Israel, however, it lacks about Russia. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 07:38, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wait until the RfC is closed. Don't rush to making controversial decisions. The purpose of RfC is to reach a consensus and until it's closed, we're keeping the last stable version before the RfC opened per WP:ONUS. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 16:16, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

9094 Wounded

Armenian side has revalued total number of wounded 9094 https://armenpress.am/eng/news/1043836/Agulani (talk) 20:08, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Second_Nagorno-Karabakh_War&oldid=1007888079"