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 17:42, 4 March 2021 (→Map: btw). 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)

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is currently unanimous consensus that Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Artsakh are parties to the conflict and are belligerents.

Regarding Turkey: there appears to be a strong consensus to include Turkey as a party to the conflict, and a weak but present consensus to list them as providing support and separately as an alleged belligerent. Some of the sources provided by those who argue Turkey are a belligerent do not seem to strictly indicate anything beyond support, but it should be noted that support does not preclude Turkey from being a belligerent. Future reporting and investigations may change this, and a new RfC may be appropriate at that time, but there does not appear to be consensus at this time among editors that Turkey qualifies a belligerent.

Regarding Russia: there appears to be a weak consensus to include Russia as a party to the conflict. There exists a consensus of equal strength to list them as being an arms dealer to Armenia, though there seems to be a significant minority that dissents from this categorization. Very few RS were presented directlly in this portion of the RfC, so it may merit future discussion.

Regarding Israel: there appears to be a moderately strong consensus to include Israel as a party to the conflict as an arms dealer based upon public reporting from multiple reliable sources.

Regarding Armenian Volunteers: there does not appear to be any attempt at citation of reliable sources one way or the other, so consensus was hard to determine. That being said, the majority of editors in favor do claim that such sources exist and reference specific sorts of reporting (though not by link or publisher). Reading this charitably, I believe that they were referring to sources that are already present in the article. As a result, it appears that there is a weak consensus to include the for now based upon the sourcing in the article, which appear to satisfy the concerns of WP:PROVEIT that those in opposition inclusion implicitly have raised.

Regarding Syrian Volunteers: there appears to be a strong consensus to include them as a belligerent based upon the reporting on multiple reliable sources, including three sources listed at WP:RSP.

— Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:13, 4 March 2021 (UTC)(non-admin closure)[reply]

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]
  • Update for Belligerent The European Parliament has made an official statement condemning Turkey for its involvement in the war and confirming the Turkish government was responsible for deploying "terrorist fighters" (their choice of words):

38. Strongly condemns the destabilising role of Turkey which further undermines the fragile stability in the whole of the South Caucasus region; calls on Turkey to refrain from any interference in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, including offering military support to Azerbaijan, and to desist from its destabilising actions and actively promote peace; condemns, furthermore, the transfer of foreign terrorist fighters by Turkey from Syria and elsewhere to Nagorno-Karabakh, as confirmed by international actors, including the OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chair countries; regrets its willingness to destabilise the OSCE Minsk Group as it pursues ambitions of playing a more decisive role in the conflict;

--Steverci (talk) 05:09, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That proves exactly that Turkey was not a belligerent. It says "including offering military support to Azerbaijan". Military support is not a direct involvement. Grandmaster 20:45, 2 March 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]
Not one soldier has so far been identified. Parishan (talk) 07:06, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

1,600 missing Armenian troops

@Solavirum and Գարիկ Ավագյան: Armenia announced this figure today, so can you add this to the casualties, thanks. https://www.panarmenian.net/eng/news/290552/Official_in_Armenia_reports_on_1600_missing_troops_says_number_is_dropping PastaLaVistaWilly (talk) 16:51, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PastaLaVistaWilly, Done. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 18:53, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

'Suicide drones'

References to so called 'suicide drones' that are not direct quotes should be changed to state what they are, which is loitering munitions. In the 'Drone warfare' section is the section 'Close air support was provided by specialized suicide drones, such as IAI Harop'. If you click through to the Harop page, it is described as a loitering munition, because that is what it is. the term 'suicide drone' is not just factually incorrect, it is problematic in several ways. artillery shells are not suicide shells. IEDs are not suicide explosives, bullets are not suicide projectiles. Munitions are designed to explode/be destroyed, thus when they do that task, it is not suicide. Please purge this social media-driven fallacy and replace it with the factual and correct nomenclature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.177.242 (talk) 12:28, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox countries' positions

I want to request comments from editors about changing positions of the countries on the infobox. In particular, changing sides from left to right and vice versa. In all the previous articles concerning the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, Armenia and Artsakh (Nagorno-Karabakh) were shown on the left side of the infobox and Azerbaijan on the right side. [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30]. It comes from the fact that on the main map of military operations Armenia and Artsakh are on the left side and Azerbaijan on the right side respectively.

I think it would be more correct if we switch the countries' position for this article as well: Armenia and Artsakh on the left side of the infobox, and Azerbaijan on the right.

I would be glad to see other editors' opinions.

Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 08:26, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This really doesn't need to be an RfC, if there aren't any objections from regular editors to the article you could just go ahead and make the change. It's a pretty insignificant (and unnecessary tbh) tweak. Jr8825 • Talk 18:53, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Jr8825 As far as I remember, there was a discussion in which the editors were against the changes. That is why, I raised RfC. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 13:51, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This seems pretty unnecessary and minor. As far as I know, the side that started the offensive is shown as combatant1, while the side who the offensive is against, is shown as combatant2 and this is the norm in most Wikipedia conflict articles (it should probably be changed in other Karabakh clashes articles too). — CuriousGolden (T·C) 15:45, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No victory for Azerbaijan

It seems with Russia's intervention and Karabakh having become a Russian protectorate, Azerbaijan would not be able to retake Karabakh, ever. So this is no victory for Azerbaijan.

45.74.75.58 (talk) 02:03, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Russia has come as a peacekeeper in the Lachin corridor. Karabakh is not a protectorate. Azerbaijan has retaken most of Artsakh. This is a victory for azerbaijan. FlalfTalk 02:15, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Map

Shelling/bombardment by Azerbaijan
Shelling/bombardment by Armenia

Speaking of maps, I made one about the shellings and bombardments during the war. It may also find its place in this article or the timeline. --Don-kun (talk) 12:52, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don-kun thank you for your effort. The targets are used based on Azerbaijani and Armenian statements? We don't have enough WP:RS for most of the cities and towns. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 16:50, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, based on the statements of either side. I used those documented in the timeline (only those with sources) and added some not mentioned there, that are mentioned in the German article which was in part written by me. So I was familiar with the sources. Listing every source for every target would be a mess though. --Don-kun (talk) 18:51, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Don-kun Well, we would need reliable sources because, for example, attacks on Mingechavir is serious accusation. I would like to see what other editors think. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 11:46, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I feel like we can show it in the war crimes section with the caption clearly noting and emphasizing that these are alleged bombings and not confirmed. It would be very hard to confirm each bombing, and it's not something that regular Wikipedia editors like us can do. On another note regarding design, Don-kun, great job on the map. I do have one suggestion. Currently cities in Azerbaijan are half anglicized and half native. Could they all be anglicized? — CuriousGolden (T·C) 15:30, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! As the description of the map says, these are all the reported bombings and many of them were contested. We cannot verify them without doing original research (even then it would be hard to do) and showing only the confirmed bombings would lead to showing only a ridiculously small number. Of course, this should be mentioned in the image caption. The cities in Azerbaijan should all be written in their local name. Is there any error besides Baku? --Don-kun (talk) 11:30, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Don-kun, There's also "Beylagan", but honestly I'd prefer if it was anglicized as this is the English Wikipedia (similar to how Armenian cities are in English names). If you do agree, then I could help you with the anglicization. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 11:55, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to create a map as international as possible, so it could be used in man languages. That's why there is no caption in the map. Armenian names had to be transcribed of course, but the Azerbaijani names should stay as they are. Now all are written like in Azerbaijan. --Don-kun (talk) 17:38, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Btw: I also created File:Karabakh war 2020 I.svg, which shows the events prior to the war, from July to September. Maybe there is also an english article where this is useful. --Don-kun (talk) 17:41, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Second_Nagorno-Karabakh_War&oldid=1010276803"