Talk:Second Nagorno-Karabakh War

Proposal: Rename to "2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War"

The last rename proposal failed to gain consensus, but from the comments of most of the editors who responded it appears that there is strong support if not a consensus to rename the article to 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War, which is a neutral but accurate title in conformance with the manual of style. The majority of major media outlets are now referring to this as a war see [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] and combined arms conventional warfare is in fact taking place on the ground.XavierGreen (talk) 17:25, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

• Support. This is really a war. The word "conflict" is used generally for a small war.Fullscaledx (talk) 11:24, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support as nominator.XavierGreen (talk) 15:11, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support fits the definition. EkoGraf (talk) 15:13, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support per above. Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 16:08, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support per above reasons. Mgasparin (talk) 16:13, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support but Change to Second Nagorno-Kabarakh War This is war has been going on for a few weeks and casualties may surpass the First Karabakh War at this rate. Plus I've seen many sources on both sides calling this the 'Second War' due to its scale. User178198273998166172 (talk) 18:32, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

While I agree that its likely sources will use that title in the long run, as things stand right now only a handful of them appear to be actually using "Second Nagorno-Karabak War". As such, its not the "common name" for the war at the present time. Given that, we must use the standard conventions from the manual of style for naming wars (ie: the geographic area in which the war is taking place or the names of the belligerents). XavierGreen (talk) 17:38, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

• Comment:, who is the nominator? + it is wrong way to request a move. Beshogur (talk) 16:37, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

I clearly stated above that I am the nominator. I am auto-confirmed and have move privileges, as I stated above from the last move request there appears to be a clear consensus to rename the article to 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War. However, because this is a high profile and controversial page, rather than moving this page without any further discussion I elected to open this discussion to make sure prior to moving the page (that way people can see in the talk page archives why the title was changed). In the event this proposal proves controversial (which so far it does not), i'll open a formal move request.XavierGreen (talk) 17:25, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Didn't see it. Ok it's fine. Beshogur (talk) 17:35, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

• Support per above reasons. Furthermore, we should consider renaming the Nagorno-Karabakh War article as "First Nagorno-Karabakh War" and this article as "Second Nagorno-Karabakh War" if this goes on for a long time.--RM (Be my friend) 18:14, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support - I agree, although I don't understand why this wasn't done as a WP:RM.--Staberinde (talk) 18:17, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Because WP:RM says only controversial moves should be done via a WP:RM, a prior move discussion related to a different proposed name showed a consensus to change the title to 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War, hence the proposed title change here is not actually controversial. However since that discussion didn't actually propose using that title i figured it best to just open up this confirming discussion here before being bold and making the move to confirm that the consensus that was apparant actually affirmatively existed.XavierGreen (talk) 20:38, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

• Support per above reasons. Wowzers122 (talk) 18:22, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support to Second Nagorno-Karabakh War --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 18:28, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
• I think we may still be jumping the gun a bit although some sources are clearly calling this a war; we should not be calling anything "War" in upper case until sources actually use that as a name for the conflict. "2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war" may be justifiable. Oppose "Second Nagorno-Karabakh War" as no sources appear to be referring to it that way, although it may be appropriate to create redirects from First Nagorno-Karabakh War and Second Nagorno-Karabakh War pointing to Nagorno-Karabakh War and here respectively as they are likely search terms. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:57, 14 October 2020 (UTC) 16:32, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
• Only perennial reliable sources (PRS) count at this stage. This is my analysis of some (not all; I am officially busy) as of 14/10/2020 21:30GMT (note: Jerusalem Post is not a PRS and is discounted):

1. BBC: War.
2. NYT: Only one mention of "what would seem to be a local war" is not a strong endorsement for a name change. Moreover, the byline reads "extended conflict". So, Neutral.
3. Reuters. "Conflict". This is worth refreshing every day: https://uk.reuters.com/search/news?blob=Nagorno-Karabakh&sortBy=date&dateRange=all
4. AP: "hostilites" and "fighting".
5. AFP: War.

Analysis: No consensus for a name change in the PRS. Note: you can do this search and update this list with timechecks yourself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources. In other words, this is essentially an automated process. No opinions are, or should be, involved. Johncdraper (talk) 20:39, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Al Jazeera is also referring to it as a war, see here [6]. NPR refers to it as a "hot war" here [7]. XavierGreen (talk) 21:53, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

• Support per nominator and perennial sources. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 21:54, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support and again please fix the timeline, the ceasefire hasn't done anything. RBolton123 (talk) 23:31, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose For now. A lot of the information is tentative at this point and it doesn't hurt to wait for sources to unanimously refer and analyze it as such. Gotitbro (talk) 01:43, 15 October 2020 (UTC)]

What information is tentative? Major news outlets (as i cited above) are referring to the subject matter of this article as a war and actual conventional warfare is occurring and has occurred on the ground.XavierGreen (talk) 02:31, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Johncdraper Has done a good job of highlighting that there is still no consensus among sources regarding the description of this conflict. That is why its tentative unless unanimity emerges among them. Gotitbro (talk) 06:56, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

• Support For 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War. Almost every major news organization and think-tank is referring to it as a war and leaders of both countries openly declare about capturing or attacking pieces of enemy territory, nothing short of an open declaration. Even the death tolls clearly indicate a war-like situation. Striking my previous oppose. Gotitbro (talk) 15:56, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Per above. --Jujuy88 (talk) 02:07, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
• Weak Support. Armenia and Azerbaijan dont trade blows outside NK so the name fit. If fighting take place outside NK. The name should be changed to Armenian Azerbaijan war.Mr.User200 (talk) 02:44, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support, with the number of casualties, sustained military engagements, and rocket strikes at cities far from the front, it is hard to call this anything else. Vici Vidi (talk) 06:26, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
• Clarification. To clarify my position, I am proposing a daily semi-automated search of every green checked non-paywalled WP:RPS, with a GMT 19:00 Timestamp, reported here. When they change, we change. Johncdraper (talk) 09:46, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support: This is doubtlessly a war by now. For the record, I voted against the previous proposal. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 16:18, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support to Second Nagorno-Karabakh War Agreed with SolaVirum above. CrusaderToonamiUK (talk) 17:03, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
• Report of Time Checked (01:30GMT) Analysis of Multiple Perennial Sources Follows.

1. AFP. War.
2. Al Jazeera. War.
3. AP. Fighting.
4. BBC. Conflict.
5. Bloomberg. Conflict.
6. CNN. Conflict.
7. The Conversation. "engaged in the flames of war" (does not mention war as name; may be rhetorical)
8. Time. Conflict.

Analysis: As of Time stamp, not yet War. Reason may be because in addition to the problem that the War has never really ended, War could obligate triggering the Armenian-Russian defense pact. Apologies for the late arrival of this status check. I have been busy with some very complex geopolitics. Johncdraper (talk) 00:42, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

• Support to Second Nagorno-Karabakh War if we are going to move the article, this is the most adequate title. Super Ψ Dro 13:22, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

@Super Dromaeosaurus: I will certainly consider your opinion. Would you mind doing this evening's Report of Time Checked Analysis of Multiple Perennial Sources yourself? I am officially busy. Johncdraper (talk) 13:30, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Johncdraper, what? Just so you know, I didn't respond to your message. I have only stated my preference. Super Ψ Dro 18:21, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

• Support to Second Nagorno-Karabakh War (but mainly replacing conflict with war), as this is already probably the most intense conventional war of the last decade. The amount of units eliminated by drone strikes, artillery and ambushes really speaks for itself.--Ermanarich (talk) 18:04, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Not even close. The military action against ISIS alone makes the current conflict in N-K look like a park picnic in comparison, sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.169.21.247 (talk) 07:54, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

• Procedural question - shouldn't this be an WP:RM, tagged with {{rm}}? Lev!vich 20:49, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it could be. But, it would still have to overcome the 'Report of Time Checked Analysis of Multiple Perennial Sources'. Johncdraper (talk) 09:30, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

• Support to Second Nagorno-Karabakh War. Clearly a coordinated invasion that has almost certainly left +1000 people dead (going just off the self-reported Armenian casualties). Please just call it what it is. We have like thousands of articles that are just titled [Year] [Location] clashes/conflict. I get why we want to stick to strict guidelines given that we literally are a website that anyone can edit, but I feel like we are just obsessing over checking and rechecking all the technicalities to a point where it isn't helpful. ᗞᗴᖇᑭᗅᒪᗴᖇᎢ (talk) 22:41, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support Many press are reporting it as war. In conflict people would not be fighting for weeks and so many die. It's more than a conflict.Expertwikiguy (talk) 02:36, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per Johncdraper and WP:COMMONNAME.Ahmetlii (talk) 11:15, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support The article on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict even refers to the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict as a "Full-scale war". Pisiu369 (talk) 16:33, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support I believe the term "war" is more apt in this scenario than "conflict." R. J. Dockery (talk) 20:03, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support This conflict has been going for some time already with many casualties, use of advanced weapons, many displaced persons, international actors, high coverage in the Media. I believe that the term "war" is better for this. Elserbio00 (talk) 23:42, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support to Second Nagorno-Karabakh War I think ‘Second Nagorno-Karabakh War’ is the most fitting name. Flalf^Talk 00:35, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
• Launching Time-Stamped Name Check Analysis of Multiple Perennial Sources. Please hold. Johncdraper (talk) 07:29, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
• Report of Time-Stamped (10:00GMT) Semi-Automated Analysis of Multiple Perennial Sources Follows.

1. AFP. War.
2. Al Jazeera. Battle/Conflict.
3. AP. Conflict.
4. BBC. Conflict.
5. Bloomberg. Fighting.
6. CNN. Conflict.
7. The Conversation. "engaged in the flames of war" (does not mention war as name; may be rhetorical)
8. Time. Conflict.

Analysis: No change, as per above, and see below. Add: I am now officially busy. Johncdraper (talk) 09:05, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

(Sigh) Frankly, it's absurd to argue that this is not a war. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 09:53, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Johncdraper, BBC appears to be using "war" and "conflict" interchangeably, see [8], [9].

One thing that I think should be considered as well is that if RS's descriptions start including "war", our naming should be "2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war", not "2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War", as the title is not yet a proper noun but rather a description. At this time, arguments for "Second Nagorno-Karabakh War", (as well as some of the arguments for the 2020 variation) are totally at odds with our policy against original research. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:41, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

As indicated above, reliable sources are calling this a "war", most without using any sort of specific name for it. Right now, war is being used interchangeably with "conflict". Since there is clearly overwhelming support to change the title to war as indicated above. I ask you as an administrator User:Rosguill to make the move, since the page is now extended-protected and I can not do so.XavierGreen (talk) 15:48, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@XavierGreen: That is a factually incorrect statement. As of the Timestamp, one is. Johncdraper (talk) 15:58, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I have posted several sources above, and even more below.XavierGreen (talk) 16:06, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

XavierGreen, I'm not going to do that. Right now, while I think that a case can be made for "2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war" as described in my comment above, the vast majority of arguments here are original research, such that I think it would be a grave error to close in favor of them. As I am currently the only editor to be taking this specific position (although it is largely reconcilable with the blanket oppose !votes), I'm going to have to consider myself involved here and ask that this be closed by a third party. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:29, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Rosguill: i would not be opposed to having the w in "war" lower-case if thats what the manual of style dictates. The issue as to whether or not the w should be capitalized or lower case has not really been addressed here. I will ping additional administrators (from Wiki:MilHistory since this is in their scope) and ask that they make the move based on the clear consensus established here. Peacemaker67 Parsecboy Eddie891XavierGreen (talk) 17:25, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Note that RM discussions are generally left open for at least a week unless there is unanimous consensus; this discussion has only been open for 5 days. I think you're rushing this close more than is appropriate. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:20, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill, it has now been more than a week with support strengthening even further for the proposed move, with one of the handful of opponents changing his mind to support, as the Wiki:MilitaryHistory coordinators failed to respond to my request. I have opened a request to effectuate the move on the Admin noticeboard here [10].XavierGreen (talk) 13:54, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

@Rosguill: The BBC stabilized their coverage under the heading "Nagorno-Karabakh conflict". I think someone mentioned the implications of the alternative to them. Johncdraper (talk) 15:50, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

The BBC called this a war in a piece they did 2 days ago, see here [11]. There are also a myriad of other reliable sources using "war". The New York Times [12], Radio Free Europe [13],Politico [14], Newsweek [15], XavierGreen (talk) 15:55, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@XavierGreen: Newsweek is no longer a PRS and is discounted. The BBC was an op-ed based piece; the BBC present category heading is very specific. The New York Times piece is an op ed, by Anton Troianovski. Per WP:Reliable sources/Perennial sources: " WP:RSOPINION should be used to evaluate opinion columns". More importantly, the op ed is filed under the NY Times category "The Conflict Over Nagorno-Karabakh". For Politico, "Politico is considered generally reliable for American politics. A small number of editors say that Politico is a biased source." For Politico, I quote:

POMPEO TO HOST ARMENIAN, AZERBAIJANI FOREIGN MINISTERS AMID DEADLY CLASHES. The visits offer the Trump administration a chance to showcase an attempt at global leadership just days before President Donald Trump faces reelection. What’s happening: The foreign ministers of Azerbaijan and Armenia, two countries at war with each other, are scheduled to separately meet with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in Washington on Friday.

What I find curious is that war does not appear to be in the title. Now, weigh all that up against the Report of Time-Stamped (10:00GMT) Semi-Automated Analysis of Multiple Perennial Sources Follows. Analysis: still no consensus as per WP:PRS. Add: From a purely semantic perspective, note that "at war" lacks a definitive article. Perhaps we could provide the latter ourselves, on a collegiate basis... Johncdraper (talk) 21:41, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

• Support Conflict started in 1988, but this now is full-scale war, like it was in 1991-1993.--HCPUNXKID 16:14, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support for 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War and Oppose for Second Nagorno-Karabakh War as the 1994 Nagorno-Karabakh War finished with the Armenian victory but with ceasefire. Also, the second war was the April War, not this. Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 16:15, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Just to comment: I know this is kinda irrelevant, but aren't the Crusades listed without including the minor ones? Like between the First and Second Crusade, we had the Crusade of 1101, the Norwegian Crusade, the Venetian Crusade, and the Crusade of 1129. I know the format is different for a modern war, but still.ᗞᗴᖇᑭᗅᒪᗴᖇᎢ (talk) 23:19, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
    • Comment no way lmao. Only Yerevan calls that a war and they have their governmental reasons for it. That ain't a war though. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 12:59, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support Agreed, this has been formally classified as a war and is the most intense conflict since the original 1988 war.Greglawl (talk) 20:33, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Comment: I would like to point out that "war" and "conflict" are not mutually exclusive. The media uses them interchangibly about almost every war, even though a "conflict" can be completely bloodless. The real issue isn't which term is most commonly used in the media, but the fact that this is objectively a war. It's been less than a month, the number of deaths have already eclipsed those of the Falklands War, and Azerbaijan has taken over a large chunk of Nagorno-Karabakh. It is absurd to insist that this is not a war. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 07:33, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Hundreds of people are dying, and we're wasting time debating whether or not this is a war. Jesus Christ. This is Wikipedia at its worst. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 12:38, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

References

• Support as I believe there is ample sources to show that this should be renamed from "conflict" to a "war". Technically, war is defined as "a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations." (see https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/war) As reputable news organizations have labeled this action as a "war" and it fits the definition of a war, I support changing the the title to "2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War". Jurisdicta (talk) 00:38, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

"2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War" or "Second Nagorno-Karabakh War"?

People who support the move seem to be divided between which title to use, so I think it would be better to clarify as soon as possible what the name of the article would be in case it is moved to avoid possible posterior problems. I personally support "Second Nagorno-Karabakh War", I don't see the point in specifying the year, we don't say "1939–1945 World War" or "1998–2003 Congo War" for example. Super Ψ Dro 12:43, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

While there are ample sources to support usage of the term "war", there are at present only a handful of sources which use "Second Nagorno-Karabakh War".XavierGreen (talk) 13:33, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Major sources, like for Al Jazeera, still call this a conflict that can escalate to a war. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 14:05, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

@Solavirum: That article says that it could escalate into an all-out war; it does not say that this is not "yet" a war. And even if every single media outlet on planet Earth refused to call this a war, hundreds of deaths and large-scale destruction would speak otherwise. Frankly, this reminds me of how diplomats avoided using the word "genocide" about the events in Rwanda long past the point where there was no ground for doubt. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 15:25, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Mikrobølgeovn, on what ground you can prove that calling an armed conflict a "war" by its causalities is correct? We have guidelines here, which follows the media's WP:COMMONNAME of the topic. And last time I checked, I wasn't a diplomat that wants to keep good relations with a certain government. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 15:29, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

@Solavirum: Well we aren't calling it 'Azerbaijani Aggression' or 'Operation for peace enforcement of Armenia' I think in the early stages of a conflict like this there isn't a super well defined name. For now I think 'Second Nagorno-Karabakh' war is fitting. Flalf^Talk 15:35, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

@Solavirum: This is not really a matter of "name", as there is no commonly accepted name for this war yet. Rather, the question is which title is the most suitable in the meantime. Since this is no doubt a war, the title should reflect that. (And if WP:COMMONNAME keeps us from calling a war a war, this case seems like a clear candidate for WP:IGNORE.) Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 15:44, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

• A lot of previous conflicts/skirmishes after the major war in the 1990s have been termed as wars by many sources and there were wars in the area even prior to that. Terming this as second is clearly problematic, the year is the default choice unless clearly noted otherwise (not the case here). Gotitbro (talk) 16:02, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Usually, in unconventional circumstances war is only used when deaths exceed 1,000; since Azerbaijan hasn’t released their casualty figures, I believe we should wait for the Armenia/Artsakh death toll to hit that before we rename the conflict. 8889stanzaexcel (talk) 22:59, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

That definition is nonsense. Countless wars had fewer than 1,000 deaths, including the Falklands War. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 00:34, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Per Mikrobølgeovn it's ridiculous that this is even an argument, hundreds of people are dying in an armed conflict between two states, yes this is a war. Flalf^Talk 12:49, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I would also note that the "1000" deaths threshold argument is moot, as looking at reliable sources, more than 1000 deaths have already occured.XavierGreen (talk) 00:26, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I had support the name of the Second Nagorno-Karabakh War as if we called it the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War it just would not work. Plus this is the second major war of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict (Though you can argue that the Four-Day War is the second one but its not a major conflict as it only last for four days.) CrusaderToonamiUK (talk) 17:07, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Note only Yerevan dubs the 2016 clashes as "April War" or "Four-Day War", Azerbaijanis call it clashes. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 18:05, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

• Support: per nom. Beshogur (talk) 22:32, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support the renaming to Second Nagorno-Karabakh War--RicardoNixon97 (talk) 14:07, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
• Conditional support, the word "war" should start with a lowercase letter, as currently it's not a proper name (in the same way as Hundred Years' War, Punic Wars, etc), but a descriptive title. Brandmeister^talk 14:58, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

If the manual of style says that the "w" in "war" should not be capitalized, i'm fine with that.XavierGreen (talk) 15:20, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

The map

Emreculha keeps extending the green areas as s/he prefers without any evidence. Here is a video released by a Russian journalist reporting from Hadrut after Azerbaijan announced that it is under their control https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kn5miUcazvo. Why is the map based only on the claims made by Azerbaijan?2003:CB:B710:2000:7450:37A9:DBCF:2ADF (talk) 16:14, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Here is another evidence that Hadrut is not under Azerbaijani control https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3ud3pUBKjA2003:CB:B710:2000:7450:37A9:DBCF:2ADF (talk) 16:35, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the map, I've earlier ([16] [17] [18]) called for a more neutral and accurate depiction of the situation on the ground, and found Liveuamap to be sufficient for use. However, lately their depiction of captured areas haven't been properly substantiated by providing geolocation of visual sources, and disputed areas are added based on one single report of shelling or clashes in the area. Their current depiction of areas around Martuni and Kalbajar suddenly being disputed without providing proper sources regarding it and the the southwestern part of the Jabrayil district being captured based solely on pro-Azeri reports warrants another approach - as I've argued before, there should be a similar basis for edits as is standard for edits on pages like the Syrian Civil War map which require sources not potentially biased with regard to the nature of the edit. Therefore, pro-Azeri edits has to use neutral or pro-Armenian sources and vice versa. Potential relatively pro-Armenian sources would be sources such as: [19]. So I would argue that the map should currently use at least one pro-Armenian or neutral source for confirmation and that only these confirmed areas should be displayed on the map. AntonSamuel (talk) 10:46, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

So the footages aren't enough? Do you expect france24 or someone else going to these ghost towns and record videos? We have to wait an eternity if that's what you want. Syrian civil war detailed map reports were majority of twitter, you can not have reports from western news agencies for all these small uninhabited villages and bigger towns. Beshogur (talk) 10:57, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@Beshogur: If they're relatively reliable and neutral/pro-Armenian then Twitter sources would be sufficient for Azeri gains in my view. Ideally, Template:Nagorno-Karabakh conflict detailed map should be used. AntonSamuel (talk) 11:01, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

The only video we saw from a western agency was a footage from Suqovushan, so are we going to mark that place only? Ridiculous. There are numerous footage from the Azerbaijani side of captured places including Jabrayil and Fuzuli that can be manually verified. Of course Armenians are not going to report their withdrawal. Beshogur (talk) 11:17, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@Beshogur: There have been numerous reports in international media and by pro-Russian/pro-Armenian sources regarding the capture of specific towns and villages and depiction of the situation on the ground through maps. One example is the source I linked to earlier. AntonSamuel (talk) 11:41, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@AntonSamuel: That sounds biased. For a truly neutral point of view, we need reports from both Armenia and Azerbaijan, but only fully highlight (in the map, that would be cyan) the areas confirmed by third-party sources. RBolton123 (talk) 13:41, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@RBolton123: What you're describing is pretty much exactly what I'm calling for - I stated that neutral or pro-Armenian sources should be used to confirm Azeri claims of captured areas, and that's the areas that should be displayed on the map. And if there are Armenian claims of the recapture of areas, these should be confirmed by pro-Azeri or neutral sources. AntonSamuel (talk) 13:45, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Considering that Armenia has denied almost all Azeri advances, then I guess we should just put the status quo map before the war and call it a day. Footages from the recaptured towns/villages are enough to confirm (unless in some specific cases if the videos' titles do not show the exact location/village). I think we should show areas Azerbaijan has claimed to have captured but hasn't released footages of yet (e.g. Murovdagh, Fuzuli) in grey colour. But ones that they have claimed to have captured and released footages of (or confirmed by other independent sources in Twitter geo-locating the footages (the best person for unbiased geo-locating, in my opinion, is Ryan O'Farrel)) to be shown in blue colour. The current map is good except the fact that it shows weirdly big areas (especially around the north-west, around Murov) that Azerbaijan has never claimed and no other source has been able to confirm. — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 11:24, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@CuriousGolden: As far as I've seen Armenia/Artsakh's general policy has been to not specify regarding any territories lost, while confirming some withdrawals. Footage from a town cannot be seen as sufficient evidence of the capture of the town without additional verification - both pro-Azeri and pro-Armenian sources have published these videos and photos as proof, while the situation on the ground may be subject to change. I've updated Template:Nagorno-Karabakh conflict detailed map to what I would argue is appropriate to currently display considering the published material about the situation in the region. Azerbaijani or pro-Azeri claims that have not been reported by other sources should not be being displayed on the map I would argue, these claims would be given undue weight, the reliability of these reports is questionable due to the potential bias of the sources. AntonSamuel (talk) 11:41, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@AntonSamuel: I don't see a problem with displaying claims of AzMOD that haven't yet been captured if both in the map and in the infobox it's clearly stated that these are claimed but not confirmed. We have to show claims of both sides to be unbiased. — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 11:57, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@CuriousGolden: It's fair to say that there seems to be political motivations heavily in play with regards to claims on both sides. Claims over a region or over a town are seemingly used to argue that fighting is of a defensive nature in that area because of the ceasefire. Therefore it is quite problematic to display claims from the Azerbaijani government on the map, and is not standard on Wikipedia for other maps displaying the situation on the ground with regard to ongoing conflicts. AntonSamuel (talk) 12:02, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@AntonSamuel:, I am trying to map the developments in LiveUAMap as soon as possible. I followed that resource as we decided to use LiveUAMap in our previous discussion. Again, it is useful to repeat, anyone can update this map. However, let's make a firm decision about which resource to use. If you want, even if it is included in LiveUAMap, let's not update it immediately. However, it is necessary to set a standard for this.Let me arrange the map accordingly.--Emreculha (talk) 12:41, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@Emreculha: My first statement in this thread pretty much sums it up - Liveuamap's recent updates have been quite dubious and unsubstantiated. Pro-Azeri edits should use neutral or pro-Armenian sources - this map (by a relatively pro-Russian/pro-Armenian source) is useful: [20] When going for neutrality and accuracy, a delay in updating the situation on the ground may be a result, however - as I stated earlier, this is the standard on Wikipedia for maps like this regarding ongoing conflicts. AntonSamuel (talk) 13:05, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

The map they post there doesn't seem to include Mravi, so I think it's balanced enough to be a third party source. Of course, it does show major gains by Azerbaijan in the main fighting area (the southeast), but Mravi is both strategic and one of the earliest points to be claimed captured by Azerbaijan. RBolton123 (talk) 13:43, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Not done that would be extremely misleading. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 12:55, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@Solavirum: How would it be misleading? By the way, "Done" or "Not done" are responses typically used on Wikipedia talk pages for edit requests from unconfirmed editors. AntonSamuel (talk) 13:05, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@AntonSamuel:, the Armenian-backed separatists deny every Azerbaijani advance. I don't think they can be considered anything but reliable at this point. First, it was Liveumap, which we agreed on despite protesting it, now this? What else do you want? You were to protect Liveumap's assertions so fiercely, now you want to revert them, because, I suppose, WP:IDONTLIKEIT. These request are getting ridiculous. And for the last sentence, no, that's not the case. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 13:09, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@Solavirum: I believe that I've explained quite thoroghly now in this thread why the recent edits are problematic. In short: the edits haven't been substantiated through geolocation like many updates on Liveuamap were earlier and many aren't based on Azeri claims. I've argued all along that neutral and reliable sources are necessary, that Liveuamap is not ideal, but relatively neutral, if a better source comes along then I'm all for it, and now that its reliability is significantly in question - I believe that the matter should be examined. AntonSamuel (talk) 13:17, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@AntonSamuel:, any alternatives? Surely, this one you provided above isn't one. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 13:19, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@Solavirum: I do think the Iranian map would be an example of a relatively pro-Russian/pro-Armenian or neutral source with regard to this specific conflict. https://syriancivilwarmap.com/ have posted updates on Karabakh too and is another potential source. Political Geography Now is another one [21], and there are also other pro-Russian sources such as MilitaryMaps on Twitter [22]. AntonSamuel (talk) 13:28, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@AntonSamuel:,I can understand you. However, I could not access any sources regarding Armenian sources (Twitter, video, etc.). There are only statements and photos that deny Azeri advances. If you have an Armenian source that you can suggest, let's use that too. If Russian, American etc. If there is a third source, let's compare them all. And let's make a list together as "RESOURCES TO USE". These can include sites like LiveUAMap, trusted journalists on Twitter. If there is a Telegram group, we can also discuss it there.---Emreculha (talk) 13:31, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@AntonSamuel:, I saw the Liveumap changes. It seems that the biggest issue here are Martuni and Shusha. Not official, but there are reports of Azerbaijani advancements close to Shusha, but still, they are unconfirmed. Wish there were Western sources for it. But Liveumap is the best we've got. Although the advancements along the Araz River are confirmed with footage, can't say the same about others, and we should avoid marking them. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 13:37, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

AntonSamuel, Solavirum ; In addition, village names are starting to not fit anymore. Should we show them as dots or stay as they are? If we show them as dots, we may need to delete village names from the whole map.---Emreculha (talk) 13:43, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@Emreculha:, minor villages' names should not be added. Only the ones with strategic importance. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 13:49, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@Emreculha: I've updated the map now and listed the sources that I used for the Azeri claims confirmed by the neutral/pro-Armenian/pro-Russian sources: https://english.iswnews.com/15804/azerbaijani-army-captured-fuzuli-town-south-of-nagorno-karabakh-map-update/ https://twitter.com/MilitaryMaps/status/1317764818804330496 https://twitter.com/MilitaryMaps/status/1317533394692169730, in line with the updated Template:Nagorno-Karabakh conflict detailed map. AntonSamuel (talk) 13:57, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@Emreculha: Regarding villages/sites, perhaps keeping the ones on the frontline would be more prudent. However as the situation is subject to change - I don't think there is a problem keeping most intact for the time being. AntonSamuel (talk) 14:01, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@AntonSamuel:,When we write the name of the area as Artsakh, Azerbaijani users object. My opinion is that either nothing should be written or only Nagorno-Karabakh should be written--Emreculha (talk) 14:03, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@Emreculha: "Nagorno Karabakh/Artsakh" would be fine in my view, just as long as there is not too much confusion with the NKAO since the map displays its borders. AntonSamuel (talk) 14:05, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@AntonSamuel:, I think it is an issue that needs attention. Armenians objected that cities and villages do not have two names on the map. Azerbaijanis also object to the name of the region. I think a common name should be found. Only Karabakh can be written.In addition, the gray areas were very useful to us. It prevented many discussions.---Emreculha (talk) 14:11, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@Emreculha: Showing "Nagorno Karabakh/Artsakh" would satisfy neutrality in the same way the "Israel/Palestine" does, I would argue. Regarding the grey color on the map: It's not standard as far as I have seen to display claims rather than confirmed captured areas on Wikipedia maps. It gets more complicated when taking into consideration that both sides are basically involved in an information war, I've stated earlier in the thread that it therefore is problematic with regards to neutrality and reliability to display claims by the Azerbaijani government, especially if it's used as the infobox map of this article. I think a list of potential sources is a good idea. However, just in general, holding to the time-honored principle on Wikipedia military control maps of using reliable pro-X or neutral sources to confirm pro-Y claims and vice versa is a good idea. I would argue that in its current state, Liveuamap can no longer be considered reliable (I've explained why more thoroughly above) as a neutral source used on its own, if used then it should be complemented by additional sources. AntonSamuel (talk) 14:24, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@AntonSamuel:,Dağlık Karabağ olarak eklenmeli diye düşünüyorum, en az iki cümle eklenmeli. Azerbaycan, Xudaferin bölgesini ele geçirdiğini açıkladı ve hatta o bölgeden bir video yayınladı. Bu durumda ne yapmalıyız?--Emreculha (talk) 21:16, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@Emreculha: I don't speak Turkish, but if I get the translation correct - you're asking what is prudent to do regarding the Azeri claim of capturing the area around Xudafərin, including videos and pictures of Azeri troops in the area - I argued earlier in the thread why I think it's necessary to find reliable as well as neutral or pro-Armenian/pro-Russian sources confirming that the area has been captured to include it on the map in light blue as areas that have been "captured by Azerbaijan according to third-party sources". AntonSamuel (talk) 21:36, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@AntonSamuel:, I think I'm a little confused :) The page you shared on Twitter is Russian Source but I have little difficulty reading. It is necessary to turn tweets into tweets. The other page is the Iranian source, but even the latest news updates 2 days ago. What sources does the detailed map on Wikipedia use? They are editors like us. Also, how neutral are Russian and Iranian resources? Perhaps some of them support Azerbaijan and the other part Armenia. I'm pretty confused right now. In a new discussion, I think that all sources should be listed separately and reliable ones should be determined jointly (with the participation of Azeri, Armenian and other users). I'm very interested in maps. It is not easy to create such a map. You know more or less how the map was prepared. I am trying to contribute and improve the map. But now I am unable to contribute to the map. Although I am Turkish, I also considered the sensitivity of the Armenian users here (I even learned a little Armenian Alphabet while researching city names :D ). But I think the same sensitivity should be observed for Azerbaijani users. As Wikipedi editors, we need to determine the criteria in accordance with Wikipedia's spirit and impartiality.--Emreculha (talk) 21:57, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@Emreculha: If this map is to be utilized for this relatively high-profile Wikipedia page, there needs to be certain standards as to what it is based on. I recently updated the Template:Nagorno-Karabakh conflict detailed map, and have used the same sources I used for the infobox map, I stated them here in this thread and in the edit summaries of both maps. As I argued above - because of the information war that is being waged and claims are quite politically charged, it's sound to follow the basic standard for Wikipedia military maps: "use reliable pro-X or neutral sources to confirm pro-Y claims and vice versa". I'm not saying the sources that I've found are the ideal ones or that you can't find superior ones, but I would say that they were more accurate and reliable than Liveuamap. You can find the sources Wikipedia lists as reliable sources here: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. I would advise you to keep on searching until you find additional sources that can back up the pro-Azeri claims. AntonSamuel (talk) 22:10, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

First, using the so-called "Artsakh" shows a pro-Armenian bias by user AntonSamuel. You won't find this word on maps published by neutral sources. What is the point of using a word that is not recognised by anyone in the world, while there is a toponym perfectly acceptable for everyone - Nagorno Karabakh. Otherwise, this is pretty much a very pro-Armenian map, and does not belong to a page which should be neutral. Secondly, why not use one color for areas claimed as recaptured by Azerbaijan and another color for those that have been proven by 3rd parties and by geo-location evidence (even if Azeri). Surely, Armenians and pro-Armenian sources are not going to admit their losses! It is ridiculous to demand this in order to make changes to the map. Again, pro-Armenian bias here. I invite other users to comment on these changes by AntonSamuel, as they are strongly biased and do not belong to a neutral page. Elpatron81 (talk) 22:19, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@Elpatron81: Well, while I don't agree with your assessment, I believe I've adressed the topics you mentioned already in this thread and the earlier threads I've linked. Including that I'm perfectly fine with "Nagorno Karabakh/Artsakh" on the map as well. "Artsakh" was featured earlier on the map before it was removed. I'm happy to accept the input of other editors as well, and hope more will contribute and improve the map's accuracy and neutrality. AntonSamuel (talk) 22:26, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

AntonsamuelHello! I am a new user. I am a neutral reader, neither pro azeri nor pro armenian. I think it would be great to add the claims of Azerbaijan too, you guys could use a footnote to exclaim that these claims may be greatly exaggerated. And, I am confused about Fizuli, last time it was confirmed to be taken by Azeri army, now it is again unconfirmed??103.147.163.6 (talk) 03:43, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@AntonSamuel:, don't change the map without reaching to a consensus. You are the only one calling that source reliable, and you have to prove it. We will use Liveumap until your argument reaches to a consensus. Also, @Emreculha:, please update the map, Azerbaijan announced 13 more settlements. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 04:50, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

The map atm is very misleading. Nothing was said about the liberation/seizing control of Khojavend. Stick to the official sources only. You can't say that Azerbaijan claimed [blank] when it hasn't. For the record, Azerbaijan says it has taken control of Fuzuli, Khodafarin Dam, and several villages along the Aras River. I don't know if Armenia denied any of those, so, edit accordingly. As I don't know how to edit SVG files. We shall keep the "claimed/not confirmed" key though, it is useful for Murovdag and Çaylı (and possibly, future claims). --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 04:52, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Solavirum: I have argued my point in this thread numerous times now and in the previous threads that I linked - why it is problematic to include the Azeri claims. Please adress these issues if you do not agree (Not standard on Wikipedia for military conflict maps, breach of NPOV with regard to the information war, the present unreliability of Liveuamaps markings). The original map did not include the Azeri claims. The version that included a large chunk of territory around Martuni as captured but unconfirmed was not up to the standards with regards to neutrality, reliability and accuracy that a relatively high-profile Wikipedia page like this requires. AntonSamuel (talk) 06:25, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@AntonSamuel: I haven't seen any user on this discussion that agrees with not showing Azeri claims. It's important to show Azeri claims to stay neutral. Most of what Azerbaijan claims is usually confirmed by footages a few days later anyway, so not like Azerbaijan has lied continuously about their gains. Again, it is completely okay to show Azeri claims with a gray colour and write clearly in both the map legend and in the infobox that the gray areas are areas claimed to be captured by Azerbaijan but not yet confirmed. Wikipedia's job is to do show things in a neutral way without eating away one side's view/claim. — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 07:03, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@CuriousGolden: As I stated before - it's precisely because of WP:NPOV that it's problematic to display the claims of the Azerbaijani government. Regarding Wikipedia:Consensus, I would point out the basic definition/description of consensus on Wikipedia: "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which is ideal but not always achievable), nor is it the result of a vote. Decision making and reaching consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines". So far, the counterarguments here have focused on evading the main issues I have brought up instead of addressing them. AntonSamuel (talk) 08:35, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the latest edit to the map by another user on Wiki Commons - it seems that at least one pro-Russian source (MilitaryMaps on Twitter) also reports this now: https://twitter.com/MilitaryMaps/status/1318077289360482304/photo/1 So, it may be proper to keep the area around Xudafərin marked as captured. However, I would reiterate the need to include third-party sources when making changes to the map - if it's to be used as the main map for this article. AntonSamuel (talk) 08:40, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@AntonSamuel: You unilaterally and arbitrarily changed the map, while not a single user agrees to removing the claimed area. Your own opinions and views are not a basis and justification for such changes. This is against the principles of the Wikipedia community; you must first get consensus. As you saw in this thread, no one supported your removal of the claimed areas. With claimed areas, everyone can see in the legend that this means "claimed". Removing this equals denying people the right to have the information. Those who are sceptical, can remain being so. It is up to them how to interpret it. But you can't deny them the information. That's the whole point of having a live map. And again, every opinion voiced here is in favor of keeping the claimed area. So, please do us all a favor and revert to having those areas indicated on the map. Elpatron81 (talk) 12:21, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Elpatron81: Again, I do not agree with your assessment. Regarding the issues of consensus and neutrality with regards to the Azeri government claims - I believe that I've sufficiently addressed these issues in this thread now. AntonSamuel (talk) 12:46, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@AntonSamuel: It's your business to agree or not agree. But no one here is supporting your unilateral and arbitrary changes. I have invited users to comment, it's for everyone to see how you blatantly are trying to ignore the consensus among users. What you did with removal of claimed areas is incorrect AntonSamuel, and ignoring the rest of us only further implicates you in your pro-Armenian bias. Nothing wrong with being biased - again, it's your business - but don't make changes to a neutral page to force your bias onto others. @Emreculha: please do intervene here, we cannot allow this on a neutral page. Elpatron81 (talk) 12:59, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Elpatron81: Again, I welcome the input of other editors to this discussion and in contributing to the map. If you have a specific issue regarding edits by users which you consider biased, then its fine to let them know. However, repeatedly throwing around accusations of Wikipedia users being biased overall without substantiating your arguments properly does not show good faith. AntonSamuel (talk) 13:23, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Hallo from GermanWP, please be more patient about drawing that map, because liveuamap doesn't check or confirm Azerbaijani footages of captured cities and villages. According to that news on "Caucasian Knot" (BBC confirmed that) the Azerb. footage about its control in Hadrut from 13th october was a falsification. According to that footage of Armenian jounalists from 17th october (they speak about a repulsed Azerbaijani attack up from 11th and about following humanitarian truce) Hadrut is still under Armenian control.--WajWohu (talk) 13:15, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@WajWohu: I agree, with regards to valuing neutrality and accuracy over speed with regard to the updates - this is precisely what I've argued for with regard to the map. With regards to Hadrut, it seems a number of third party sources at this point does agree that the town is under Azeri control from what I've seen. If further reliable and neutral sources can be found that disputes this then the matter can be further looked in to of course. AntonSamuel (talk) 13:23, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi I might have jumped the gun on editing one of the maps but I noticed the MilitaryMaps source only mentions an announcement from Aliyev ("#Арцах (Нагорный Карабах) ☾ Ильхам Алиев заявил о контроле над н.п. Солтанлы, Амирварлы, Машанлы, Гасанлы, Аликейханлы, Гумлаг, Гаджилы, Гойерчинвейсаллы, Ниязгуллар, Кечел Мамедли, Шахвелли, Гаджи Исмаиллы, Исаклы" / "# Artsakh (Nagorno-Karabakh) ☾ Ilham Aliyev announced control over the settlement Soltanly, Amirvarli, Mashanli, Hasanli, Alikeykhanli, Gumlag, Hajili, Goyerchinveisalli, Niyazgullar, Kechel Mammadli, Shahvelli, Haji Ismayilli, Isakli") and the LiveUAmap entry for the same regions also only mentions an announcement from Aliyev ("Aliyev: Soltanli, Amirvarli, Mashanli, Hasanli, Alikeykhanli, Gumlag, Hajili, Goyerchinveysalli, Niyazgullar, Kechel Mammadli, Shahvelli, Haji Ismayilli, Isaqli villages of Jabrayil region were captured."). I do not think this counts as third party confirmation unless there are more tweets or entries that I missed? --LOLCaatz (talk) 13:24, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@LOLCaatz: While MilitaryMaps source might not be ideal since it's (mainly) a Twitter source (the do have a webpage too: militarymaps.info), it does seem that they do have at least a somewhat pro-Russian/pro-Armenian point of departure. They regularly update and the posts they've shared and the Azeri claims they've "confirmed" seem generally more conservative than other sources that I've seen. However, if you can find more reliable and neutral sources to base the map on - I'm all for it. AntonSamuel (talk) 13:42, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree about some of those empty villages in the south, when both parties mentioned the same (like in Aras region). But which third party sources confirm Azeri control in Hadrut and Armenian villages to the north and in the west by own investigations? I don't know them, the film upstairs show an Armenian control in Hadrut... Best regards.--WajWohu (talk) 13:51, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@AntonSamuel: I'm not arguing whether MilitaryMaps is pro-Russian or pro-Armenian however the basis for the specific tweet that was mentioned was an announcement from Aliyev with absolutely no other first-hand or other sources. In other words that tweet is pretty much directly quoting Aliyev without offering anything new. I do not consider Aliyev, as the president of one of the major warring parties in this conflict, neutral or a reliable source. The "claimed but not confirmed" area of the map is specifically for a situation like this where one side claims that an area is captured however no reliable or neutral sources are available to confirm this. Especially in the case of this war, where there is a huge amount of misinformation being propagated by both sides I think it is necessary to err on the side of caution and only mark something as confirmed when it is beyond reasonable doubt. --LOLCaatz (talk) 13:58, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@AntonSamuel:,@Elpatron81:, First of all i apologise for delay..As far as I can see LiveUAMap, Azerbaijan Ministry of Defense does not show that region as captured, without releasing a video about the region.

If I claim to have captured Paris, I'll put my flag on the Eiffel Tower and prove it. This is how the Azerbaijani side proves its claims. However, I have not seen the Armenian side defend its claims in this way. If they say Hadrut is under our control, they should broadcast videos in the same way. But the issue is that important cities have been ghost towns for nearly 30 years, and I don't know if they have landmarks such as the Eiffel Tower (for example, Grandpa-Grandma statue in Stepanakert / Khankendi). For this, Azerbaijani-Armenian users should support us.

There is no reason why we should not argue nicely here without offending each other. Our update of the map will not change the facts of the conflict, and the facts will emerge sooner or later.What we need to do is to observe the sensitivities of Azerbaijani and Armenian users and to contribute to this delicate matter in an impartial and in accordance with the spirit of Wikipedia. However, I would like you to show the same sensitivity and respect for us.

AntonSamuel advocates the evaluation of all unbiased sources. As far as I understand, Elpatron81 argues that this situation should not be exaggerated and that the Armenians reject everything. We'll find the middle ground somehow. If the neutral Armenian users do not contribute to the debate and simply reject every claim, our effort to be neutral will show the matter as pro-Armenian and this is a great misunderstanding. They must come and defend their claims by citing the source.--Emreculha (talk) 14:09, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Emreculha: Like Azerbaijan, Armenia/Artsakh have published many videos in and around Hadrut as well - as I've argued earlier - this in and of itself cannot be relied on for verification because of the rapid changes on the ground - even though the claims may prove to be correct. With regard to Wikipedia:Consensus I would again repeat its basic description "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which is ideal but not always achievable), nor is it the result of a vote. Decision making and reaching consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines". This should be the general guideline when seeking consensus with regard to disputes. Of course, I share your call for civility on all sides. I think your last edit to the map when you included third party sources in the edit summary was good. AntonSamuel (talk) 14:30, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Emreculha: I'm not from either country and have no ties to either country. I would argue that there is an information war going on and therefore both sides are pushing unsubstantiated, partially true or false claims as a matter of course. We have very few sources that can be classed as reliable outside of certain contexts (For example I would not consider Azeri MOD a reliable source however their footage of Armenian armor being destroyed is not deniable - in the same vein, I would consider videos of piles of dead Azeri soldiers to be not deniable in terms of Azeri casualties). In addition what may be considered good evidence may not actually be (for example the raising of flags over a settlement shows that soldiers were present and raising a flag at that point in time only and does not necessarily mean a confirmed capture). The challenge for us and for everyone analyzing this conflict is looking at intrinsically unreliable sources and finding some reliable information from them.

I don't think looking for "unbiased" sources is going to help us as even the most unbiased source suffers from very little reliable information from the battlefield. It is important in my opinion to evaluate every single piece of information individually instead of looking for confirmation from "pro-Azeri" or "pro-Armenian" or "Russian" sources. Does a video show a substantial military presence of a particular faction at a location? When were these videos taken, and is there a possibility that the dates were falsified? Is there any counter-evidence in the form of other videos, photos etc that might call the authenticity of the original evidence into question?

I think regarding the map it is important not to over-simplify the situation. If Azeri claims to have captured a location but multiple conflicting video evidence that "confirms" as well as "refutes" the claims it should be reflected in the map somehow - it is not up to us to decide that it is confirmed to be captured based on this video or not captured at all based on that video. It may well be that the majority of the captured areas are gray - this is simply a reflection of how little information is available to us. LOLCaatz (talk) 14:39, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I should add, that if we wanted a more neutral way to present "Areas claimed by Azerbaijan but not confirmed by third party sources" we could word it as "Ownership not clear due to conflicting claims" or "Status unknown" or something similar. --LOLCaatz (talk) 14:46, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Ok, one more try :): did anybody read the article of Caucasian Knot and watched the film from saturday in Hadrut know? There are falsifications of footages and there are impressive indications of an Armenian presence in (parts of) Hadrut. Only the Azeri footages and tweets from liveuamaps are not valid enough. So Hadrut and some villages around, some in the southwest and around Fizuli are not confirmed know. So they may stay grew, not green, I think. Only the tweets and unconfirmed claims of one side on liveuamap are not valid sources for some villages and for Hadrut, I think. Is there any confirm source to remove the grew color around Murov Dagh? --WajWohu (talk) 16:31, 19 October 2020 (UTC)Sincelery.

@Emreculha: Thank you for the call to civility, I hope all users on this forum heed it given how sensitive this matter is. We should allow readers the opportunity to view perspectives from both sides and let them decide how to interpret the information. Denying access to information in itself, or using ambiguous argumentation to filter the information is nothing else but manipulation. We are in no position to do this. Why should the readers not see on the live map that Azerbaijan officials claim to have liberated the area of Murovdag? This is a strategic geographic position, so even if it is just a claim - official claim, mind you - this in itself is a useful nugget of information for the readers. That is why claimed territory should be in the legend. Anyone capable of reading can see that this is only claimed and is not yet confirmed by third parties or by geo-location. Btw, just as someone commented here earlier, the Azerbaijan MoD has shown consistently that they back up their claims with evidence. And I still maintain that changing the map arbitrarily without soliciting the reaction of the users on the subject matter is totally incorrect. Even more disturbing to me is that after being called out for it, AntonSamuel ignored the fact that every user reacted in opposition to his change. This is not in spirit of civility and respect for objectivity. Elpatron81 (talk) 18:19, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Elpatron81: I believe that I've sufficiently addressed your concerns and that I've explained my edits and viewpoint sufficiently at this point. AntonSamuel (talk) 18:31, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Elpatron81:, @AntonSamuel:, I think the summary of the debate is that there are allegations on the map that have not been proven by everyone, but have been made public by the authorities of Azerbaijan. If we agree on this situation, we must carefully decide even the sources we will accept as "CLAIM". If the main issue of the discussion is whether the claims are included in the map (gray area), I think we can consider this situation as a new discussion with a large number of users. However, if we are going to show the claims on the map, we should be very careful with the sources we use, and the finalization of the claims is another matter (turning from gray to blue). Also @LOLCaatz:, if you share the videos published by Armenia (official) , it will contribute to the discussion.--Emreculha (talk) 19:39, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Emreculha: My main concern is with regards to the unilateral changes by a certain user to: (1) add the word "Artsakh" to the region while it is not a common practice on neutral maps. "Nagorno-Karabakh" or "Karabakh" have been widely used since the beginning of this conflict; everyone knows what it is and where it is; (2) remove claimed areas that the previous version of the map used to show. Whether here or in a separate section, these need to be addressed. And for the future, the said user should refrain from such unilateral edits. Elpatron81 (talk) 20:07, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Elpatron81: Once again, I believe that I've addressed the issues you've raised and that I've explained my edits and viewpoints sufficiently at this point. If you want further input - I would advise you to ping an administrator. AntonSamuel (talk) 20:08, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@AntonSamuel: And in turn I think it's been explained multiple times to you what the concept of a consensus is, and why other users on this platform believe that you acted incorrectly in removing the claimed area. I suggest you and User:Elpatron81 speak to each other and find a solution that works for both of you (and the rest of the editors of this page) also it appears both of you have opposing sympathies in this conflict so a solution that works for both of you will likely work for the majority of readers of this page --LOLCaatz (talk) 22:34, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Emreculha: I agree with most of your post and yes we have to be very careful with claimed and "confirmed" territories. We might even have to acknowledge how little actual information is available in the article itself so as not to mislead readers. Whether there are Armenian sources or not isn't relevant. A claim is not confirmed just because Armenia hasn't issued a counter claim and also, the video mentioned by WajWohu may offer a counter-claim against Hadrut, for example. This makes it a disputed claim and absolutely not confirmed unless it can be proven that the counter-claim is incorrect. Ilham Aliyev claiming that a settlement has been captured means absolutely nothing and for many of the small settlements in the south his announcements are the only source available - it appears to me that he has a vested interest in announcing territorial gains (true, partially true or false) for the same reason he is choosing not to announce casualties. --LOLCaatz (talk) 22:34, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@LOLCaatz: I have not really seen argumentation that really deals with the concerns that I've raised so far with regard to quality/accuracy and WP:NPOV (Not standard to display claims on Wikipedia for military conflict maps, breach of NPOV with regard to the information war, the unreliability of the Liveuamaps markings that were used for claims), instead the arguments have mainly evaded these issues. Regarding consensus, I've explaied why my edits, in my view, have been in line with the basic description of Wikipedia:Consensus: "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which is ideal but not always achievable), nor is it the result of a vote. Decision making and reaching consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines) numerous times and reiterated that the removed feature was not originally part of the map." @Emreculha: Regarding claims - by their very definition they're statements declaring that certain advances have been made, unconfirmed by third-party sources. I reiterate - their inclusion are not standard for Wikipedia military control maps. See maps used on the articles listed here: List of ongoing armed conflicts Their inclusion is problematic with regard to WP:NPOV considering the ongoing information war and especially relying on videos posted by the Armenian and Azerbaijani militaries as primary sources. However, marking ongoing clashes with symbols such as used on the Political Geography Now Map may be useful - when either neutral and reliable sources or both pro-Azeri and pro-Armenian sources report this. AntonSamuel (talk) 23:10, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@AntonSamuel: Re claims: it is not a violation of NPOV if we state what Azeri MOD or president say as a statement from them and not a fact. If Aliyev says (made up example) "We have captured Hadrut", Azeri capturing Hadrut isn't an objective statement however "Aliyev said Azeri has captured Hadrut" or "Azeri has claimed to have captured Hadrut" is an objective statement and not violation of NPOV - it says nothing about the status of Hadrut but rather talks about the statement that was made about Hadrut. I suspect to create a functional map in a scenario with such little reliable information re captured settlements some unusual steps might have to be taken such as including claims - this shifts the decision of whether these claims are legitimate or not to the reader. If not then a neutral "Contested" or "Status unclear" region of the map as a blanket for situations where ownership of the land is unclear. And then perhaps we can draw attention to this in the article somewhere with a statement that Azeri and Armenian government are pushing very different ideas of what has been captured and who currently is on what territory and that there is a lack of reliable information to an outside observer on what is actually true. This I think (stating that we have a lack of information and allowing the reader to come to their own conclusions) embodies NPOV more than having one region for Azeri controlled territory and one region for Armenian controlled territory and us having to make decisions for readers on who owns what. Re consensus: while it is my belief that you have followed the spirit of finding consensus as stated on the wiki page, I don't think you can be the judge of whether you have really achieved it - it is up to the editors of this page as a whole to decide that and the general opinion seems to be that you took these steps against the wishes of the majority of the editors of this page.--LOLCaatz (talk) 04:35, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

@LOLCaatz: The points I've made still haven't been addressed properly: There is an information war that both sides are engaging in, including with regard to claims - arguing that fighting in a specific region is defensive with regard to the ceasefire(s). Presenting the claims of Aliyev on the map is therefore problematic with regards to WP:NPOV and runs the risk of potentially including state propaganda on the map, instead of depicting the situation on the ground - which is the purpose of the map, and best done by basing the data regarding captured areas on reports from neutral (or pro-X sources for pro-Y claims) third-party sources. These reports should of course also be scrutinized in order to evaluate if they are reliable or not. Regarding the objection made by editors on this page - I would argue that I've responded thouroghly to each and every one - while the main points that I've made were not properly addressed. There has also been further input in earlier threads as I stated ([23] [24] [25]) Another point with regard to quality is that if you check other maps on Wikipedia articles for ongoing conflicts, including government claims is not standard: List of ongoing armed conflicts. I've said in my previous reply that I think it would be reasonable to display "reported clashes" through symbols or such if reliable and neutral sources or both pro-Azeri and pro-Armenian sources report this - as has been featured on other Wikipedia maps. If you believe my argumentation is problematic - please ping an administrator for their input as I believe that I've explained my viewpoints quite thouroghly now in this now very long thread. AntonSamuel (talk) 07:34, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

@LOLCaatz: A fair summary of the issue here, but unfortunately a certain user is so blinded by his/her bias that they simply can't see the problem. @AntonSamuel: Just because you argue and you believe, does not make your position right. This is just your personal point of view, which no one supports here. There are other users, and most of them neutral, who explained to you that in fact it is your unilateral edit that compromises WP:NPOV. You alone cannot be the judge of what is allowed to be shown and what it is not. As simple as that. Elpatron81 (talk) 08:04, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

@Elpatron81: Again, I don't believe you've made a fair assessment while avoiding the core issues that I've brought up, instead focusing on criticizing me personally as an editor. If you want further input - I would advise you to ping an administrator. AntonSamuel (talk) 08:09, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

@AntonSamuel: I and several other users have explained to you at great length why your unilateral edits and your argumentation to justify those are incorrect. Please go back and read them. But you are refusing to see them. Maybe because you know we are right; but still desiring to force your personal POV, while having no legitimate arguments, you resort to denial. Paraphrasing Emreculha: sooner or later the truth comes out no matter how much one tries to deny or distort it. Elpatron81 (talk) 08:22, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

@Rosguill: @Johncdraper: @Vici Vidi: @EkoGraf: Hi, I would appreciate your input on the matter if you've got the time. I've seen that you've all contributed to the page and the talk page and are experienced editors. AntonSamuel (talk) 08:33, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

My position on maps was established early on. I believe this is now the longest thread on this page. IMHO, I recommend you take this to a draftspace (e.g., Sandbox with associated Talk), after agreeing on an involved NPOV editor via your own Talks, and then bring it back here. Johncdraper (talk) 08:43, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

@Elpatron81: @AntonSamuel: I don't think it's fair to call someone "blinded by their own bias" I do think Anton has a legitimate point even though I disagree with some aspects of its implementation. I agree that one user cannot be the sole judge of his own edits in regards to NPOV. Please don't be passive aggressive and refer to Anton as "a certain user" he does have a username you know. --LOLCaatz (talk) 09:11, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

@AntonSamuel: I agree that there is an information war and I agree that Aliyev is not a reliable source at all as it is in his interest to show and perhaps exaggerate Azeri progress in the war. You mention it being state propaganada and I agree that it should not be presented as fact but it should be presented as state propaganda or one side's viewpoint and I think that doing this while also supplying the context to the reader that there is an information war and their claims might not be accurate both gives a lot of decision making power to the reader and is objectively neutral. Removing the claimed area in my opinion potentially violates NPOV as a "claimed but not confirmed" area will then be shown in the map as still being under control of Armenia which may or may not be true - however, it might also be NPOV as only the confirmed claims from either side are on the map (although getting a confirmed claim will be very difficult and in this stage of the war it may under-represent Azeri gains significantly) - it really depends how it is implemented. Depicting the situation on the ground is the main purpose of the map, however we do not have many reliable sources of the situation on the ground and so the map will have to reflect that. It might be that the traditional format of a map as you might find on most other conflict pages isn't workable due to this. I think that "reported clashes" imply that the current territory is being contested and there is little reason for either side to falsify battles in progress and Aliyev-claimed-but-not-confirmed territories do not fall exactly into this category. Look man I get that you've explained your viewpoints in great detail but that does not automatically mean every single editor on this page agrees with you.--LOLCaatz (talk) 09:11, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

The map (part 2)

@LOLCaatz: Please refrain from lecturing. If you have something personal to say, you can write to me directly; no need to pollute here. And I would ask you to be more respectful in your comments. Earlier you made a reference to a "pile of dead Azeri soldiers". This is a disgraceful manner to talk about humans who perished serving their country. Imagine if you had loved ones who died in combat, and someone out there offhandedly referred to them as pile of dead bodies. Be respectful please. Elpatron81 (talk) 09:45, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

@LOLCaatz: I appreciate your input, call for civility and for addressing the main points that I made. I hope more of the editors that I tagged will chime in - I believe that the issue can be resolved.
By the way, there is an updated Iranian map: https://english.iswnews.com/15846/latest-military-situation-in-south-of-karabakh-19-october-2020-map-update/ as well as new Twitter source utilized by War Diary/R&U Videos [26]: https://twitter.com/rr0162/status/1318222320230694912/photo/1 These represent relatively pro-Russian/pro-Armenian viewpoints and are useful for confirming pro-Azeri claims. AntonSamuel (talk) 11:26, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

LOLCaatz, AntonSamuel, Elpatron81; I'm sorry I can't access the site often because I'm busy. As I said before, our updating the map will not change the reality of the conflict. The truth will emerge sooner or later. That's why we must respect each other, each other's ideas and values.

AntonSamuel thanks for the links you shared, I also looked at the Sputnik page, but there is only news from Azerbaijan and Armenia directly. (https://sputniknews.com/world/202010201080821925-live-updates-nagorno-karabakh-foreign-minister-calls-on-intl-community-to-recognise-republic/) . However, I repeat again. As Ilham Aliyev shares, if there are official statements of Armenia, they should be shared here. Let's produce ideas like "Azerbaijan shared this information, but Armenia refused, let's wait to paint the region blue". If there is a video, material or official statement from Armenia, we should definitely evaluate it. Otherwise, our task is not to constantly anticipate the claims that Armenia cannot prove otherwise. ---Emreculha (talk) 13:13, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I broke this into a new section as constantly scrolling down to edit was getting irritating.--LOLCaatz (talk) 01:31, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

@Elpatron81: No I believe you are in the wrong in this specific situation, you have been quite disrespectful to Anton and you have been "lecturing" him as well. Yes perhaps I had a poor choice of words in the future I will say Azeri casualties - however the videos clearly depict large amounts of deceased Azeri soldiers so my description is not inaccurate. --LOLCaatz (talk) 01:31, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

@AntonSamuel: If you read the Iranian map, it mentions an "alleged" Azeri advance and again quotes Aliyev as saying such and such village has been captured. It seems to me that the drawing of the map is based on these statements. This is to me an example of state propaganda as we discussed earlier. On the other hand Armenian military officials are saying that Azeri infiltrators are sneaking into and raising flags in areas still controlled by Armenia to use as "proof" that the areas were captured (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSe7svYnoTw - I don't understand Armenian but this video has been paraphrased elsewhere in English) - while this is also state propaganda it serves as a counter-claim against Azeri claims of captures with accompanying videos. The twitter page you link to (the series of daily maps) has absolutely no supporting source and since the author is based in Baltimore, MD (USA) he is not a first-hand source either so I don't really know if he is a reliable source.--LOLCaatz (talk) 01:31, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Ok so I did a bit of thinking about our priorities here and what we want to depict. I think our priorities should be: 1. NPOV 2. Accurate representation of what is going on 3. Complete representation in this order. Now what do we know? We know that prior to September 27, Artsakh controlled 100% of the territory that it had claimed was under its control. So for example Fuzuli - we know for sure it was controlled by Artsakh at the beginning of hostilities. We know that the Azeri government has claimed to capture it. There exists video of Azeri soldiers at Fuzuli on an undetermined date, and there exists video of Armenian soldiers claiming to be capturing Fuzuli but in an unclear location. The Artsakh army has claimed a "massive counterattack" has happened in the south - perhaps including Fuzuli. Again due to a lack of outside observers there are no neutral first-hand sources. So what do we mark it as?

• If we mark it as "controlled by Azerbaijan" that violates NPOV as it accepts Azeri sources over Armenian sources and also might not be entirely truthful
• If we mark it as "controlled by Artsakh" or "not captured by Azerbaijan" that violates NPOV as it accepts Armenian sources over Azeri sources and also might not be entirely truthful

Having a map without claimed areas gives us only these two options and therefore a map without claimed areas will violate NPOV in all circumstances of a disputed claim.

• If we mark it as "claimed to be captured by Azerbaijan but not confirmed by third-party sources" it is an accurate description but it presupposes that Azerbaijan is an unreliable source without addressing the reliability of Armenian sources. This is a violation of NPOV if there isn't another part of the map that is marked as "claimed to be captured by Armenia but not confirmed by third-party sources" but even if it were, it is more minor than the two above examples.
• If we mark it as "status unclear due to conflicting claims" it is an accurate description, while offering less context than the above example but also does not violate NPOV. To the reader though it does not provide as much value and does not help in offering a clear ground picture which is the purpose of the map.
• If we mark it as "contested" it does not violate NPOV but it is not accurate as contested implies an ongoing battle - and if one side claims to have captured an area, it implies that the battle has already ended.

• If we create two separate maps, a "pro-Armenian" map and a "pro-Azeri" map it addresses both viewpoints in a way that does not violate NPOV, and allows the reader to conduct their own analysis however it risks over-complicating the article. This however can be used to highlight the "information war" or the lack of reliable sources in the article.

In the end it all comes down to how you want to balance the three priorities I mentioned above. The problem will always be that in most cases the only first hand sources that a territory has been captured are: statements by Azeri or Armenian MOD/governments (state propaganda) videos of military presence at settlements (potentially unreliable) or neutral journalists (very rare) - most news or twitter sources can be traced back to these --LOLCaatz (talk) 02:08, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

@LOLCaatz: I understand your points, however, I would say that the requirements you list for considering a map to be valid for use are a bit stringent. As you've said before, there is a limited amount of information available which we have to work with. The state of affairs to begin with was full Artsakh control of the territory - which is not controversial. Therefore the WP:ONUS is on those that want to include and prove Azeri gains - not the other way around and I wouldn't say that the current map constitutes a breach of WP:NPOV in that it "underrepresents" Azeri claims. Other sources found online with maps depicting the situation on the ground such as MilitaryMaps, SyrianCivilWarMap, Political Geography Now, the one utilized by R&UVideos/WarDiary and the Iranian IWN map I linked before have not included claims as far as I have seen. Relatively neutral or Pro-Russian/pro-Armenian third-party sources such as R&U Videos/WarDiary, MiliaryMaps and IWN, that are "confirming" or at least "re-reporting" Azeri claims as credible can be utilized in our edits I would argue. Using the term "confirmed" may be a bit of a stretch, that's why I used the wording "according to third-party sources" in the map legend text, however it was later altered. We have to start with something, use the information that's available and at some point stand our ground and say that "this much we know" or at least "this is the probable state of affairs". I would say that creating an area which is reported to be "contested" would be appropriate for areas where clashes are taking place - reported by neutral sources or by both pro-Azeri and pro-Armenian sources. Featuring multiple maps in the infobox would serve to confuse more than inform in my view and because of the POV-nature of an Azeri claims-map, it wouldn't be appropriate to feature it there. I would agree on having a separate map that displays Azeri claims - however, not featured in the infobox. It should be featured alongside the "confirmed" map and that it's made clear that the map is based on Aliyev's/the Azerbaijani government's claims. It would perhaps be suitable to place it in the Official statements/Azerbaijan section. AntonSamuel (talk) 16:25, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

@AntonSamuel: Your point about WP:ONUS is correct. In this way I agree with your overall position regarding Azeri claims. I however would not agree that re-reporting an Azeri claim can be considered credible at all, even as a "third party source" - many of these websites, in an effort to build a complete picture of the conflict that people can understand, will simply parrot Aliyev claims without any fact checking or critical analysis whatsoever. In other words the only thing the "third party source" is contributing to the claim is repeating it. I think it's very clear now that in the context of this article and especially the map NPOV has several very different interpretations and that it is impossible to satisfy every single one - so that's where we as editors need to agree upon based on the priorities I mentioned above (not necessarily in the same order). Perhaps we can make another area of the map, with a very similar but slightly different color to the current Azeri confirmed color, named "Azeri military confirmed to have been present" for all of the almost-confirmatory-but-still-ambiguous videos and photos of Azeri soldiers at a given location, keeping in mind that the Armenian side considers some of these to be staged?--LOLCaatz (talk) 23:17, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

You guys are using an Iranian source as a reliable one? Lmao. Anyways, BBC has confirmed Azerbaijani presence in Zəngilan, so don't try to fool anyone. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 00:56, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Turkey/Russia Analysis is Shallow

"Turkey, driven by President Erdogan's ambitions to improve his popularity and divert attention from his country's economic issues..."

Quite a bit subjective -- also overlooks historical/cultural ties between Turkey-Azerbaijan and does not afford Turkey the same rationale (military alliance, etc.) as it does to the Russia-Armenia analysis.

— MaviLight (talk) 06:23, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@MaviLight: Agreed. I understand from @Solavirum: that the issues involved date back a over a century and include the Moscow Treaty of 16 March 1921. Would you kindly help out with a form of words and citations? Johncdraper (talk) 07:18, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, Turkey and Azerbaijan are bound by strong ethnic, cultural and historic ties, and refer to their relationship as being one between "two states, one nation." In short, ethnically, they have the same origin. In 1918, during the late stages of WW1, the Azerbaijani Government was formed. The two parties formed officials relations with the Treaty of Batum. Then, when the Ottoman Turks were campaigning in the Caucasus, many local Azerbaijani irregulars and commanders joined their ranks (See: Battle of Goychay, Battle of Baku, and Mürsel Bakû, the latter leading the 5th regiment only comprised of Azerbaijanis). During the Turkish War of Independence, the newly formed Azerbaijan sent economic aids to Turkey, using its vast oil reserves. In 1920, Bolsheviks occupied Azerbaijan, with many prominent Azerbaijanis escaping to Turkey, with some rose to prominence in Turkey (see: Ahmet Ağaoğlu). In the late 80s and early 90s, Azerbaijani and Turkish relations started to reform, as Azerbaijan was trying to get its independence. Turkey was the first country to recognize Azerbaijan's independence in 1991, while in 1992, Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic within Azerbaijan recognized Turkish Cyprus' independence. About Nakhchivan, the status of Nakhchivan was determined by the Moscow Treaty of 16 March 1921. With this treaty, it was decided that Nakhchivan (under the protection of Azerbaijan) should be an autonomous region. In addition, the Soviet Union and Turkey, the countries have been the guarantors of Nakhchivan. In 1992, Azerbaijani leadership were divided between Azerbaijan proper (Abulfaz Elchibey) and Nakhchivan (Heydar Aliyev; who would later overthrow Elchibey). The Armenian forces attacked Nakhchivan, which caused a political crisis between Armenia and Turkey. At the end, with the meditation of US, a ceasefire treaty was signed between Nakhchivan and Armenia. And Armenia's alleged rocketing of Nakhchivan caused some discussions over this treaty's terms.

Johncdraper, hope I've been able to explain it. But this feels like a WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. Might able to find real analyses from Western sources though. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 13:01, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Solavirum: We might need to update Moscow Treaty of 16 March 1921 with these more contemporary references. This could be taken to that page's Talk? Johncdraper (talk) 06:00, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

In this conflict Israel is not a neutral source. It has large defense contracts with Azerbaijan. 193.196.11.188 (talk) 07:04, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

References

Background

Turkish media close to President Erdogan claimed that YPG and PKK members from Iraq and Syria were transferred to Nagorno-Karabakh in order to train Armenian militias against Azerbaijan

More than two weeks have passed since the start of the war, and there is still no confirmation from authoritative sources about the participation of foreign mercenaries, particularly YPG and PKK members, on the side of Armenia. I think that this statement should not be included in "Background". In Background we write past facts, not uconfirmed allegations. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 09:43, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Johncdraper, sorry for taking your time again. May I know your opinion about this as well? Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 09:45, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

That claim is renewed every week by Azerbaijan. Whether it isn't, should we remove everything that's not updated in 2 weeks? Beshogur (talk) 10:05, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Background is not for claims. The past facts, confirmed by other sources, should be included there. AntonSamuel, would be nice to know your opinion as well. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 10:11, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Գարիկ Ավագյան: I understand your point and I'm supporting your idea in a point, but also I want to point out all of the article need a cleanup; especially about my previous concerns about social media services - especially when thinking both sides of the war has used effective propaganda techniques. Here is a good article about it. Ahmetlii (talk) 10:36, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Գարիկ Ավագյան: We need to do a perennial reliable sources (PRS) check for mercenaries on the side of Armenia. I remember noting one of the PRSs mentioning the issue, but I cannot recall what it said (my check was only for war), and I am not tracking mercenaries. Would you oblige? Johncdraper (talk) 11:33, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Գարիկ Ավագյան: While I think the Background section should be balanced and fair in its depiction of both sides - I haven't seen any reliable and neutral sources reiterating the claim regarding YPG/PKK fighters being present in NK/Artsakh. In my view it's likely a statement that was made with the intention to discredit the other side because of the designation of the PKK as a terrorist group by a number of countries and supranational organizations - similar to Turkey arguing that ISIL fighters were among the SDF/YPG combatants during Operation Olive Branch. AntonSamuel (talk) 10:47, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Agree The claim that "YPG and PKK members from Iraq and Syria were transferred to Nagorno-Karabakh in order to train Armenian militias against Azerbaijan" needs to be proven by a reliable secondary source in order to keep its place in the Background section. There has been firsthand reporting by New York Times, VICE, AFP, The Guardian and others in NK, and none to my knowledge confirmed the claim. If anybody has sources to prove the claim please post, or remove the sentence altogether --Sataralynd (talk) 22:24, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

-- Summary since there are no opposing opinions, also no authoritative sources, I will remove the statements Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 15:52, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Warnings issued to Civilians of Ganja on 4th of October (6 days before 1st attack)

On 4th of October, before the two major attacks on Ganja of 10th and 17th of October, the president of the de facto Republic of Artsakh Arayik Harutyunyan issued two warnings (here and here) to the civilians of Azerbaijan. This was after what he claimed was the use of "Polonez and Smerch multiple launch rocket systems" against Stepanakert. His words were "From now on, military facilities permanently located in major cities of Azerbaijan became the targets of the Defense Army. I call on the people of Azerbaijan to leave these cities as soon as possible to avoid possible casualties.". In the second warning he mentions calling off an attack on Ganja last minute to avoid civilian casualties, saying that "Azerbaijan can stop before it is too late". Why is this important point, that civilians and the Azerbaijani army were warned 6 days before the 1st attack isn't mentioned anywhere in the article? There seem to be room to mention Ganja 36 times, but none to mention this crucial important point --Sataralynd (talk) 23:05, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Sataralynd, I don't know what point you want to prove here. Two rockets were launched to Ganja on 4 October too, that's the first attack, which resulted in one person getting killed and 32 more injured (in varying degrees). One of the rockets hit an ex-Armenian quarter (Aziz Aliyev street) and hell, one of the people to get injured was a Soviet-Armenian. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 04:31, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Not trying to prove any point but mentioning a fact that I believe is not at all insignificant. Could I ask you (not only in this thread) to always provide sources for your claims - preferably secondary? A quick search yielded this from AlJazeera and DW and the number of injured (four) is lower than what you cite--Sataralynd (talk) 09:17, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Sataralynd I am tracking this. Please copy-paste this to the Ganja Talk page; I think it is better discussed there, first. Johncdraper (talk) 05:55, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Sataralynd, you realize that the dead/injured count rises as the search and rescue teams finds more people among the rubble? --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 12:05, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

@Solavirum: not sure if you're asking a question there, but please add whatever you need to add to the topic. We are not discussing casualties in this thread. If you want to discuss that, make a separate thread. Thank you--Sataralynd (talk) 12:20, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Map

The labels of minor places on the infobox map are too small to be readable even at full 1,280×881 px view. Since they are naturally smaller than labels for larger places, like towns and cities (and since there are more official updates on liberated villages rather than towns), I think this should be fixed somehow. Perhaps a larger resolution is warranted so that all labels would be readable. @Emreculha: maybe? Brandmeister^talk 13:09, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree. It's really hard to read the names of the liberated/captured villages, specially on mobile.103.147.163.6 (talk) 13:14, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Brandmeister, Hello, you are right that the villages on the map cannot be read without zooming. Since the area is almost a ghost town and we do not know enough which area is more important, I tried to add all the areas that are close to the conflict as much as possible. Since the subject is very sensitive, we have to write every city (if any) on the map in three languages. If we increase the font size, the texts will be very confused. However, if you are talking about some of the village names on the map deleted and important villages remain. You can present your opinion by proposing this topic and adding other users interested in the map to the discussion. Thank you :) --Emreculha (talk) 13:22, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I think the names of villages and towns could use only Azeri and Romanized Armenian spellings per our naming practice, no need to duplicate them into non-Latin spelling. Brandmeister^talk 15:54, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Totally agree with Brandmeister. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 18:21, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I applaud the inclusion of Armenian characters for Armenia and Artsakh as well as the inclusion of English translations for all the names. This is much more consistent with helping the readers to find the places mentioned in the article itself, the function of this map.

I wonder where the previous discussion of the map deletion is now. Has it been erased or is it archived?

Please, look to Stepanakert on this map. Is the Azeri name readable to anyone but someone who reads the language? No. The argument for having Armenian characters had been that no one but Armenians could read Armenian script. However, it is often the case that Azeri script is also unreadable to anyone who doesn't know the language. So, what is the objective reason for having Azeri script first & larger than Armenian script?

I believe the following suggestion can solve this current neutrality issue.

• • First, overall, could we please enlarge the map so all labels are readable when the map is clicked on?

Option A) How about having the two local scripts (Armenian & Azeri) written in equally-large, font size & having English smaller within parenthesis below? If the map is larger, we would be able to find and read the English names.

Option B) Alternative: Another option was to write the English name in large font & have Armenian & Azeri script below in the smaller font (again, this would be visible if the map is made larger). This is not the ideal option, however, considering the past British involvement in the region. Option A seems much more respectful.

I had asked this in a previous discussion (which might be archived?) as to what map-making software is being used? It would be interesting for others to have the option to learn to use the software & perhaps contribute to updates rather than troubling you to make them.

Finally, the map's name has not yet been updated to match the name of the article. For consistency sake, it should really be consistent with the URL of the article, namely "Karabakh" (and not "Qarabagh"). Usually, it would be easy to update a file name before submitting newly adjusted maps to Wiki. Thank you & regardsSacredForest (talk) 06:39, 22 October 2020 (UTC)SacredForest

Usage of Sputnik Armenia

EkoGraf, Sputnik (or its Armenian bureau) is not a reliable source and its usage must be avoided per WP:RS/P. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 19:32, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree, Sputnik Greek was removed a while ago, this should be removed as well. Beshogur (talk) 19:33, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Just what makes it unreliable? Russia was the major neutral party involved in negotiating the humanitarian truce previously agreed on. Russia has a great deal of influence in the region. It is unreasonable to totally exclude a major Russian news source. It is highly necessary that the article includes some sort of Russian source. Are there any major Russian news sources which have not fallen under some such sanction and are reporting on the Karabakh conflict? Beaneater (talk) 23:33, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Beaneater00, it has so far not shown unreliability on the issue of this conflict. Plus 3rd party sources can be found emphasizing Russia's neutrality so far in this conflict. Also, like I stated earlier, the Wikipedia designated deprecation is in relation to, as per Wikipedia's summary, the publication of Russian propaganda. However, in this case, Sputnik is a secondary source, not primary source, and the information its publishing is not coming from it. Proper attribution has been made so the reader knows from whom the information is coming. Finally, as I stated earlier, we can replace the source as soon as another one shows up. If we remove Russian sources such as this because it could contain propaganda (which it hasn't shown so far in relation to this conflict), then we would have to remove all Armenian and Azerbaijani sources from this article as well which contain propaganda most of the time. The current referencing and attribution has been previously agreed to. I suggest to wait for now and see if a more suitable replacement source shows up. EkoGraf (talk) 23:44, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

"There is consensus that Sputnik is an unreliable source that publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated as in the 2017 RfC of the Daily Mail. Sputnik is considered a Russian propaganda outlet that engages in bias and disinformation,[19] a significant proportion of editors endorse that view, with some editors considering it less reliable than Breitbart News. See also: RIA Novosti, whose international edition was replaced by Sputnik." Beshogur (talk) 23:47, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Does it engage in bias &c. with regard to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict? If not, then their activities in other fields, while resulting in the exercise of additional caution, should not incur total sanction from the entirety of Wikipedia. Beaneater (talk) 23:56, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Bias regarding Nagorno-Karabakh aside, Sputnik is known to publish disinformation. Just because Russia is publicly playing the role of mediator doesn't mean that it can't have ulterior motives with respect to the conflict (or even taking a relatively benign perspective, it could potentially benefit from downplaying the conflict to reduce tensions). There are more reliable Russian sources to use, such as TASS, RIA Novostii, Novaya Gazeta and Medusa. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:11, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Beaneater00. And again, the info from the cited reference is not being claimed by them, instead they are relaying (as a secondary source) the claim (from a primary source). If and when Russia shows any bias, I would be the first to say I'm fine with their removal. As for any possible current ulterior motives on their side, we shouldn't speculate on our own and walk into OR territory, unless confirmed by verifiable sources. EkoGraf (talk) 00:14, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

The issue isn't bias, it's reliability, and Sputnik isn't reliable. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:16, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I do not dispute that Sputnik is not reliable with regard to some sectors of international diplomacy, internal affairs, etc. That is why it has received a sanction, after all. But is there an incident in which it has published false or misleading information in the context of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict? Beaneater (talk) 00:22, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it's reasonable to demand proof that a deprecated source has been unreliable about a specific topic, particularly a topic as contentious as an ongoing military conflict; the burden of proof is on editors seeking to include the source to demonstrate why it is reliable in this context. Examples of cases where such a source could be usable would be if the author of the specific article has a reputation as a relevant expert, or if reliable sources are citing the specific report for their own coverage. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:31, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Here is Sputnik's interview with Ilham Aliyev. Would this be material for citation? Beaneater (talk) 00:40, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

That actually would be acceptable if we needed Aliyev's quote for something and couldn't get it elsewhere. But I wouldn't assume that anything in the interview is inherently due to for inclusion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:52, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

This discussion is useless, we have a clear consensus, I'm not going to hesitate someone defending Sputnik. Nuking Spitnik refs ASAP... --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 00:42, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I have requested a third opinion. Beaneater (talk) 00:53, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Beaneater00, there's already more than two editors involved in this dispute, 3O isn't applicable anymore. Next step here is to start a thread at WP:RSN. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:56, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't intend to dispute the reliability of Sputnik in general, merely in reference to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Beaneater (talk) 01:00, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill I've stated my opinion and won't go into further discussions or edits if editors like Solavirum are just going to threaten reversal of the references inclusion without discussion from the start and threaten reporting any of their fellow editors like he did here [27] which is in my opinion not in line with Wikipedia's policy on assuming good faith from other editors and open threat of edit warring. Although this appears nothing new since several other editors have already pointed out and reported this bad faith behavior in the last few weeks, which has not led to anything meaningful. Anyway, I will only additionally voice my opinion at a WP:RSN if needed. Cheers! EkoGraf (talk) 07:38, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

EkoGraf, y'all have the liberty of appealing for restrictions on me. If you're going to violate WP:CONSENSUS, of course I'm going to warn you about its consequences, which is not violating WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH. Furthermore, about the "since several other editors have already pointed out and reported this bad faith behavior in the last few weeks"; most or all of those reports were confirmed WP:BOOMERANG. I'm just going to remind that a group of users reporting a certain user "A" doesn't actually mean that the user "A" has violated anything. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 10:41, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Solavirum You have not warned, you threatened. There is a difference. As for your personal bad faith behavior, I did not take part in those reports at the noticeboards because I personally don't engage in those kinds of activities against fellow editors (always hoping that a compromise could be found), but generally agree with most remarks made by the editors who did file those reports or those who commented on your behavior here on the talk page. You should look at and follow the conduct of your fellow editor Beshogur during a dispute resolution with whom, despite a number of topics we disagree on, I managed to mostly find solutions over the years that were generally acceptable for all interested parties. In any case, like I said, I have nothing further to discuss on the issue here. EkoGraf (talk) 10:56, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

The fundamental problem with some deprecated sources is not that they are sometimes correct, but that they are sometimes correct in order to influence opinion when they are incorrect. Johncdraper (talk) 07:45, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand, it's the wikipedia's consensus to not to use Sputnik. Even you can not use normal sputnik links, they're blocked automatically. Beshogur (talk) 10:46, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Old reference

Azerbaijan's report of Armenia and Artsakh's losses must involve the line "as of 30 September 2020". --88.231.65.47 (talk) 07:17, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Also, Azerbaijan's report on Armenian manpower losses are also very old. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 10:04, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Infobox territorial changes "claims" should be removed

Just add the facts. All the major town that are "claimed" to be captured are confirmed captured. Add it as such. Only add the confirmed number of captured villages. Remove the confusing claims and report the facts. HersiliaAramazd (talk) 10:06, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Not done. @HersiliaAramazd: If you want to participate ongoing discussion about it, see Talk:2020_Nagorno-Karabakh_conflict#The_map and Talk:2020_Nagorno-Karabakh_conflict#The_map_(part_2). Ahmetlii (talk) 11:46, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Campaignbox Issues

I don't know if this is the right place to discuss this, but right now there happens to be two campaignboxes for this conflict. One is titled Template:Campaignbox 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War (which can be found at the bottom of the infobox on this article: 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict), and the other is titled Template:Campaignbox 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict (which can be found at the Battle of Hadrut article). One should be kept and the other deleted, because they are redundant. In addition, the articles listed in it should be in chronological order, so: Stepanakert bombings, Ganja bombings, and Battle of Hadrut. Also, for every article listed in a campaignbox, that article must have that campaignbox in it, for ease of access. Cheers. 2601:85:C101:BA30:CC7F:7F44:3C94:97EE (talk) 14:37, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Template:Wars involving Artsakh

"reduntant; its usage has never been seen, anywhere"

Solavirum Since when if the template is new we should not use it? Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 16:07, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Գարիկ Ավագյան, you've misunderstood my statement. How many articles on conflicts you've seen a template regarding 'a certain country's battles'? None. It kinda violates formatting. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 16:30, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Solavirum Here are the examples of the templates. [28] [29] I'm gonna create Armenia and Azerbaijan templates as well. Don't you think, they are useful? Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 16:43, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Գարիկ Ավագյան, huh, you've got my green light then, but they should be renamed to "Wars and battles involving [Armenia; Artsakh; Azerbaijan]", not just wars. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 16:51, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Solavirum That will take lots of time for including battles. I will focus on wars only. You can add battles further. Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 16:54, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

New villages liberated by Azerbaijan from Armenian occupation

Füzuli rayon: Gecegözlü, Aşağı Seyidehmedli, Zerger villages.
Cəbrayıl rayon: Belend, Papı, Tulus, Hacılı, Tinli
Zangilan rayon: Mincivan town, Huraman, Sarıl, Babaylı, Üçüncü Ağalı, Hacallı, Gırah Müşlan, Üdgün, Turabad, İçeri Müşlan, Meikli, Cahangirbeyli, Baharlı villages.
The map is very very obsolete. The whole southern front of the Armenian army was totally collapsed.Fullscaledx (talk) 16:55, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Emreculha, may you update the map please? In the meanwhile, Fullscaledx, I have added that statement within the article's body. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 16:59, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, SolaVirum. Fullscaledx (talk) 18:14, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Please stop using subjective words like 'occupation' and 'liberation'

'Occupation' and 'Liberation' are subjective terms and should not be used.
For the Armenians living in the inhabited Karabakh villages, they do not feel 'liberated' at all when they are forced to flee because of the war and advance of the Azeri army. They view the Azeris as brutes who execute and behead PoW's and execute civilians in their homes, not as friendly 'liberators'. Furthermore the Armenians would disagree with the word 'occupation' given that 99.9% of the current population of Armenian-controlled Karabakh/Artsakh is Armenian so this word does not make any sense. Almost no Azeris live under Armenian-rule, so the entire population of Armenian-controlled territories would disagree with the usage of 'occupation'.
I can understand the usage of 'liberation' when writing about former Azeri majority ghost towns like Fuzuli, Jabrayil etc. being 'liberated' (since no Armenians live there and the 30-year old Azeri IDP's welcome the news) but it is very biased to use the word 'liberated' when discussing Hadrut for example, which is 100% Armenian-inhabited and part of the former NKAO as well. The political status of the town is disputed.
With this in mind, please refrain from using the term 'liberated' especially when it is about the capture of Armenian-inhabited towns. Proper usage would be for Azeri ghost towns, but nothing else. Instead use neutral objetive terminology like 'captured' or 'taken', but not 're-captured' or 're-taken' since this implies Armenia is the aggressor in this war (obviously not the case).
User178198273998166172 (talk) 18:28 21 October 2020 (UTC)

From what I see, those words are only used in quotations. We can't alter someone's words when quoting him directly. In other instances the words "retake" or "reclaim" instead of "liberate" would be neutral, I think. Brandmeister^talk 17:43, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't mind NPOV wording on occupation/liberation thing, but we've all used them in quotes, and one quote even connects occupation with the Azerbaijani forces. And, yes, quotes are subjective, that's why they are quotes, duh. Also, Rosguill, what do you think of the same attitude this user have been displaying, ya know, WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS? E.g. statements like They view the Azeris as brutes who execute and behead PoW's and execute civilians in their homes, not as friendly liberatorsş --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 18:18, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I think that it's not really an actionable offense given the context of describing the various polarized POVs, but it is pushing the boundaries of civility. I would encourage User178 to reword that statement as a gesture of good faith; stating that Armenians view the Azerbaijani forces as "invaders" would be sufficient for the point they're trying to make. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:01, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Occupation and Liberation are not subjective terms:

Internationally, all of Nagorno-Karabakh is part of Azerbaijan. There are 4 UNSC resolutions that demanded occupier Armenia withdraw from the lands she occupied in Azerbaijan. User178198273998166172 misses the fact that 30,000 Azeri Turk was killed in Nagorno-Karabakh by Armenians, and 1,000,000 Azeri Turks were expelled from Nagorno-Karabakh. What minorities think as "liberated"/"occupied" is not relevant. Also, political status of Hadrut is not disputed. UNSC demanded Armenia withdraw from Hadrut as well.Fullscaledx (talk) 19:33, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Hol up. A million Azeris expelled from NK? The entire population of Artsakh is 150k, you're telling me it Nagorno-Karabakh (mostly a subset of Artsakh) was 6x as populated in 1991? --Golbez (talk) 20:07, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

"The population of Artsakh-controlled territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh was at least 201,016 and at most 421,726 people in 1989." methinks someone's using wrong numbers. --Golbez (talk) 20:10, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Golbez, not so wrong; from both Armenia and Karabakh, Al Jazeera says 1,2 million, CIA says about 800,000, while the UN says 750 thousand to 1.1 million Azerbaijanis became IDPs. There are about 250,000 Azerbaijani refugees from Armenia, and the rest are from Karabakh, which is between half a million to 950 thousand Azerbaijani refugees from all of Karabakh. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 20:36, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

But in any case, both User with numbers' and Fullscaledx's arguments mean nothing if we're trying to change something in the article. We ain't partisanin' here. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 20:42, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

The statement wasn't that there were 1 million IDPs; the statement was that "1,000,000 Azeri Turks were expelled from Nagorno-Karabakh". And I truly don't care how this goes, I put in my time 15 years ago, I'm merely a chaos agent now. --Golbez (talk) 21:05, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

As per multiple UN Resolution, nagorno Karabakh is part of Azerbaijan, So occupation and liberation is completely true and in context.. Nawaab Sahaab (talk) 00:20, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

It is loaded language and the UN is not the factual authority of the world. From a neutral standpoint the territory is within Azeri borders but is also claimed by Artsakh, who controls or has controlled it - the best way to describe it would be a disputed territory and thus terms like "occupation" and "liberation" are not applicable. "Liberation" also implies freedom and Aliyev's government, in my opinion (just from looking at the Ilham Aliyev wikipedia page) is not considered a free government which also makes this term not applicable. Neutral, non-loaded terms such as "captured" and "controlled" I consider to be preferable in this situation --LOLCaatz (talk) 07:47, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Agree, not correct to use these words. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 19:22, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Comment: The "1M IDPs" consisted of both Azerbaijanis and Armenians, as per link BBC "Azeris criticised on human rights", 600k and 400k respectively. Hardly an occupation if about 15% of their own citizens were displaced, no? --MarioLemieux999 (talk) 19:39, 22 October 2020 (UTC)MarioLemieux999 19:39 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Both words are contestedly accurate and are also slightly loaded. Liberation implies something good, potentially violating npov. Seeing as how I don't think said words would be needed in the text, maybe avoid them to at least avoid the issue. Bedfordres (talk) 21:19, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

After reading the other discussion, I'm unsure about occupation. Liberation still the same. Bedfordres (talk) 22:14, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Firstly, it is Azerbaijanis, not Azeris. Secondly, occupation is not a POV term. Occupation is occupation. It is absurd to discuss this term. @Rosguill:, @User178198273998166172: should watch his words, his topics aren't civil, always aggressive. His text is solely based on original research. Considering that text above is true, it is the third time he used that executioner argument. Beshogur (talk) 22:17, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Question Was Manchukou an occupied or a controlled territory of China? We are talking about protectorates, puppet states and satellite states of foreign powers on own territory. Do these foreign induced separatists just control or occupy? Geysirhead (talk) 07:53, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Map

Renew the map according to new liberated territories. Camal2015 (talk) 17:38, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Dosya koruma altına alındığından güncelleyemiyorum. 24 saatlğine koruma altına alınmış.---Emreculha (talk) 19:46, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Emreculha, you can ask for template editor rights here. And, for Pete's sake, you're the creator and the most frequent updater of the map; they should grant you permission I hope. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 20:04, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Emreculha, Thx for your feedback. While we wait for the termination of 24-hour protection, you can put updated map to Twitter Emreculha so that you finalize our wonderings on what is happening. Fullscaledx (talk) 20:04, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Why did Zangilian got removed from the map? There are several 3th party confirmations

Add more pictures of the conflict?

Most of the pictures here are of old photos of villages and other various places taken by Azerbaijan with a caption stating the area was retaken. Most of these pictures were uploaded early on when the conflict just started and information was limited. I think we should replace these images with pictures of the actual conflict (ie. soldiers in combat, shelling damage to Stepanakert/Ganja, etc.) now that they are more readily available. 8889stanzaexcel (talk) 23:03, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

There are not much free image on the topic. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 00:53, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Could we be more explicit about the connection of Turkey's Involvement with the Armenian Genocide

Turkey's involvement in this conflict is well established, including by Azerbaijan itself (source). I think we need to make the connection between the unrecognized Armenian Genocide by Turkey and the impact of Turkish involvement in this conflict on the Armenian side clear. Therefore, I ask to change the following sentence in the Background section from:

Turkey's high visibility role in the conflict has complicated it by raising the matter of the 1.5 million Armenians who died in the deportations, forced marches, and massacres by its Ottoman predecessors initiated in 1915.

to

Turkey's high visibility role in the conflict and its support to Azerbaijan has been perceived by Armenians as a continuation of the Armenian Genocide where 1.5 million Armenians died due to massacres, deportations and forced marches, especially given Turkey's denial of the Genocide. video source min 2:30 to 2:55 and source and source--Sataralynd (talk) 03:35, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Done, thank you, Sataralynd. Eurofan88 (talk) 07:19, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Armenian Genocide is an international lie: If there had been a genocide really, European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) would have punished Perincek who said "ARMENIAN GENOCIDE IS AN INTERNATIONAL LIE". The decision of ECtHR is not related with "freedom of speech":
One CANNOT say "The Holocaust is an INTERNATIONAL LIE" in Europe. The Holocaust HAPPENED. No freedom of speech to declare "The Holocaust is an INTERNATIONAL LIE".
One CAN say "Armenian Genocide is an INTERNATIONAL LIE" in Europe. The "Armenian Genocide" did NOT happened. Again:
Armenian Genocide is an INTERNATIONAL LIE.
European Court of Human Rights; Case of PERİNÇEK v. SWITZERLAND; ApplicationNo 27510/08
Armenian Genocide is an INTERNATIONAL LIE Fullscaledx (talk) 12:21, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

The ECtHR does not decide whether the Armenian Genocide happened, researchers do, and they have by and large determined that it definitely did happen.Stavd3 (talk) 12:46, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

This is also a misinterpretation of source material, the ECtHR does not say that the genocide was a lie, they said Switzerland's case against Doğu Perinçek wasn't worth conviction because of free speech not that because what he said was true. Flalf^Talk 13:06, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

This is just embarrassing, there is clear academic consensus that the Armenian Genocide happened, that ruling of the ECHR was about freedom of expression, not about the existence of the Armenian Genocide, please refrain from pushing Turkish Government propaganda. Jujuy88 (talk) 14:03, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

NPOV and the term "announced"

In several of the sub-sections in the "course of the conflict" section Aliyev's claims are phrased as "President Ilham Aliyev has announced the capture of such and such villages". I believe that the language used violates NPOV as it implies the announcements are fact, while they are simply statements from one side of the conflict which for the most part have not been confirmed by other first-hand evidence (some have been supported with video of Azeri forces at a settlement however most have not). I think they would be better phrased as "President Ilham Aliyev has claimed that Azeri forces have captured such and such villages" --LOLCaatz (talk) 07:41, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 October 2020

Can you please get an objective authot of this page, many thanks 62.134.62.230 (talk) 08:31, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Blablubbs ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:01, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Military Equipment

There is a statement that Armenia used a ballistic missile. There reference is an article written by a person with Azerbaijani name. The article says "Azerbaijan on Saturday accused Armenia of striking its second-largest city with a ballistic missile that killed at least 13 civilians and wounded 50 others." Then it says that the Armenian side denied this. Even if we put aside the civilian deaths, where is the third party confirmation that a ballistic missile was used? 2003:CB:B710:2000:9189:7601:1FD9:8777 (talk) 11:08, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

The ballistic missile attacks on Ganja have been confirmed, with Artsakh even taking responsibility for the first strike. Third party sources such as the BBC have articles on this. Flalf^Talk 12:57, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

@Flalf in the link you posted I could not find the term "ballistic". This information is not true.

2003:CB:B710:2000:2581:380E:39D:9F79 (talk) 13:34, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Most of the sources aren't specific, but it was a scud missile. There is enough pictures and non azerbaijani sources for it to be believable. I'd recommend you check out 2020 Ganja ballistic missile attacks and the sources there as well. [30] [31] [32] [33] Flalf^Talk 13:50, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

@Flalf I checked all the links you listed. Aljazeera wrote: Azerbaijani authorities say Armenia fired a ballistic missile at Ganja city, a claim Yerevan denies.

The other sources only mention the announcement by the Assistant of the President of the Republic of Azerbaijan. That is not a third party source. 2003:CB:B710:2000:2581:380E:39D:9F79 (talk) 14:23, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

There is more than enough photo evidence as well as the fact that Artsakh claimed responsibility. Flalf^Talk 15:30, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

@Flalf please do not misinterpret the facts. Artsakh has stated that in Ganja there are military objects which we will target. But Artsakh has not stated that it will use a ballistic missile. My point is about the ballistic missile for which you have no evidence.

134.155.146.59 (talk) 17:07, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Third-party sources have confirmed it was a ballistic missile attack. And all of the missiles have struck everything but the airport. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 18:06, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

You can't just say "third party sources have confirmed" and expect us to take your word for it. Present those sources. So far, every presented source has been Azerbaijan making a claim and Armenia denying it, and not a single third party. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 18:21, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

@OuroborosCobra: The fact is that Armenian side does not specify everything about the war like other side/sides; (for example, what is the lost settlements), so we must trust to third party sources like BBC (which has been considered as reliable source and has documented as well), Reuters, Al Jazeera, and others.Ahmetlii (talk) 19:59, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, but none of those third party sources are third parties in terms of verification of the weapon type used. BBC is reporting that Azerbaijan claims ballistic missiles were used, and reporting that Armenia denies it. Reuters is reporting that Azerbaijan claims ballistic missiles were used, and reporting that Armenia denies it. Al Jazeera id reporting that Azerbaijan claims ballistic missiles were used, and reporting that Armenia denies it. None of these are third party verification of whether a ballistic missile was used. They are just news sources reporting the claims of the involved parties. Do you understand the difference? A third party verification would be something like an OSCE investigation into the matter and determining that ballistic missiles were used. Third party doesn't mean multiple news organizations reporting what each involved side is claiming. Third party is a body separate from the two warring parties conducting an investigation and determining what weapon was used. Until that happens, it's "he said/she said." This is the same standard already applied in other conflicts. In Syria, for example, allegations of government use of chemical weapons by opposition forces aren't taken simply at face value. Rather, third party investigations are conducted by groups such as the OPCW. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 22:03, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Here is a good example of a third party (UK's Telegraph) reporting evidence on cluster munition use by Azerbaijan against Armenia. The headline reads: The Daily Telegraph saw evidence of the banned munitions' use in the capital of Nagorno Karabakh Therefore, I support the above motion to remove the reference to ballistic missiles used by Armenia, unless an independent third party source (similar to the Telegraph piece witnessing evidence firsthand) could be produced by those opposing the request--Sataralynd (talk) 23:00, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Despite the fact that no third party source was mentioned, in the right column of the main page under "Strength" the ballistic missile is still listed. Editors please remove it. 193.196.11.188 (talk) 04:56, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

While I'm not comfortable stating it as fact without independent, third party verification, I'm also not comfortable with just removing it. Simply removing it would be taking the side of the Armenian denial just as much as including it takes the side of the Azerbaijan claim. Instead, I've edited the infobox to state that the ballistic missile use is alleged by Azerbaijan, and leaving it to the reader to decide who to believe. I think that's the most balanced, neutral way we can present it right now. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 14:42, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

@Solavirum: I am trying to not break 3RR here, but your reverts of my edits are in complete opposite to what has been discussed here on this talk page. The most recent you have presented isn't even an attempt at being a third party verification. It's literally a statement from the Azerbaijan Ministry of Defense. That makes it an Azerbaijan allegation, which Armenia has denied. Please justify not stating as such that the ballistic missile use is currently alleged by Azerbaijan, and not confirmed by any third party, or please present third party verification. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 15:26, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

That's visual confirmation we've got there. Which Armenia confirmed. So, if footage ain't enough for ya, nothing is. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 15:31, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

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

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

• InShot 20201020 202248937.webm

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:04, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Armenian-controlled_territories_surrounding_Nagorno-Karabakh#Requested_move_21_October_2020

Now there is a discussion about renaming the article. I expressed my opinion, but I would like to hear even more constructive opinions. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 19:10, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

This is an unrelated to this article and this thread is in itself not constructive or anything. If you would like to get other people's attention, write to them directly. You shouldn't open a new thread for every single developments on Armenian, Azerbaijani, or Nagorno-Karabakh Wikiprojects. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 20:15, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham

Since it's been confirmed, what do you think about adding the Nusra Front in the infobox along with Hamza and Sultan Murad.[34] Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 20:10, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

It has not been "confirmed" by third-party sources. It's just a Moscow claim. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 20:12, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Russia is a third party. Beaneater (talk) 23:24, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Beaneater, not if they're arming up Armenia. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 04:48, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Aznif Bagdasaryan

Beshogur, and Գարիկ Ավագյան, try neutral wording on the 'captured' Armenian civilian. Ain't it absurd for a civilian to be 'captured'? There is two sides to the story and 'captured', 'imprisoned', 'rescued' or 'freed' in this case ain't neutral thing to write down. Also, that goes to the casualities3= parameter.

References

Heads up - Users on social media are urging people to edit the Wiki pages (Especially the last couple of days)

Because people love to say "What about the other side" I will refrain from mentioning which side it is, but any examination of various social media websites will show people are being urged to do all they can including edit the "Wikipedia pages" - in addition the image was reverted based on a 2, almost 3 day old facebook post just before I made this post. Just letting people know why you might see increased editing and reverting for a bit and trying to draw attention to that - Also, note I didn't mention a 'side' so "If it don't apply, let it fly" dawg. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ETphonehomebeech (talk • contribs) 22:31, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

The article is already extended-confirmed protected, so new editors will not be able to edit the article directly for at least a month. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:37, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

More on the use of banned cluster munitions in civilian areas (Stepanakert)

The use of cluster munition by Azerbaijan against civilian areas of Nagorno Karabakh and in the capital Stepanakert has been well established by independent third party sources (see here and here). And yet, when checking whether the article adequately reflects the evidence, I actually found the opposite: in the Official Statements section, under Azerbaijan, the fifth paragraph starts with: Two days later, Azerbaijan stated that Armenia had deployed cluster munitions against cities.. Looking at the source, there is actually only a claim made by Hikmat Hajiyev, Ilham Aliyev's aide. This is a very serious accusation and we need more than an Azerbaijani source affiliated with the government to claim it. We actually need third party evidence similar to that of the above sources confirming Azerbaijan's use of cluster munitions. Therefore:

1) could we remove the above sentence from the article?

On the other hand, going back to my original point, the article needs to reflect the evidence that banned cluster munitions have been used by Azerbaijan against civilian areas in Nagorno Karabakh. Therefore:

2) in Official Statements section, under Armenia please modify the third paragraph sentence about cluster munitions to read: International third parties confirmed witnessing evidence of the use of banned cluster munition by Azerbaijan against civilian areas of Nagorno-Karabakh (see here and here)--Sataralynd (talk) 23:27, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

This is true. Human Rights Watch also reported that Azerbaijan has repeatedly used cluster munitions https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/10/23/azerbaijan-cluster-munitions-used-nagorno-karabakh. Yet the current article only mentions that the "Armenian side claimed" without mentioning that authoritative international organizations have verified this.

193.196.11.188 (talk) 10:09, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Please add a section on Russia under International Reactions section

Looking at the article, I see a need for a subsection on Russia under International Reactions. Russia is a key player in the region, a mediator in the conflict and has relationships with both parties. In fact, Sergei Lavrov who brokered the first ceasefire, spending 10 arguably difficult hours trying to make both sides agree, doesn't even get a mention! Here is a first stab. Open to your comments:

Being a co-chair of OSCE Minsk Group, Russia's main role in this conflict is that of a mediator. On 2 October, along with the other two co-chairs of the Group, France and the USA, it called for immediate cessation of hostilities in Nagorno-Karabakh, and asked both sides to continue negotiations without preconditions (source). On 6 October the Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and his Iranian counterpart Mohammad Javad Zarif expressed concern about the involvement of Syrian and Libyan fighters in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, with the possible support of Turkey. (source 1 and 2 and 3). Both Russia and Armenia are part of a mutual defence pact (source). However, President of Russia Vladirmir Putin on 8 October expressed that the fighting is not happening on the territory of Armenia and therefore Russia would not intervene in the current conflict (source). He also affirmed Russia's good relations with both Armenia and Azerbaijan. On 9 October, Sergei Lavrov mediated a ceasefire after 10 hours of talks between Armenian and Azerbaijan Foreign Ministers in Moscow. The ceasefire was quickly broken (source). On 22 of October, Putin indicated that the root of the conflict lines in interethnic clashes between Armenians and Azerbaijanis in the 1980s, and specifically referred to the massacre of Armenians in Sumgait (source 1, 2 and 3)--Sataralynd (talk) 02:27, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Done, Sataralynd. Eurofan88 (talk) 06:54, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Cyber warfare deserves a section of its own

Super Dromaeosaurus, thanks for your addition. But I think that "Cyber warfare" needs a section of its own and heavily expanding. There have been fake messages sent from Armenia in Azerbaijanis posing as official announcements, and I don't doubt similar things occurred in Yerevan too. What do you (and others) think about this? --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 09:43, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree with its expansion, this was my intention when adding the subsection, but if the result is the same as the section on the Azerbaijani Wikipedia, I think it would be too short to warrant its own section. However, it seems that the Azerbaijani Wikipedia has detailed the attacks on the first days of the conflict, so it is possible that it can be expanded much more. Super Ψ Dro 10:00, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Funny News on Armenian Public Radio

People's Radio of Armenia claims that some famous Turkish artists wearing military uniforms are advancing in the front by showing photos as if they were Azerbaijani soldiers. This is clearly a funny disinformation.

(1:https://tr.armradio.am/2020/10/21/guneyde-inatci-savaslar-devam-ediyor-hovhannisyan-nedenini-acikladi/)
(2:https://tr.armradio.am/2020/10/21/on-iki-kat-daha-fazla-ama-atilim-yapamiyorlar/)

(Artists: Serdar Ortaç, Aras Bulut İynemli) --Emreculha (talk) 12:16, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree on adding these to the article, though with more neutral wording. Here are the archives (1, 2) and confirmation of the identities (1), 2, 3). --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 12:23, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

This is apparently troll. Beshogur (talk) 12:51, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Proposed infobox

Hello,

Just wanted to propose the infobox I made in this edit that use images in their usual place and the map where it should be. The only issue with this edit was the map requiring coordinates in the "location" part of the infobox, though there may be a way to hide the coordinates. Thanks.--WMrapids (talk) 13:32, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Strong Oppose, the images are not informative at all. To me, this edit seems to be aimed at disrupting the article, and assisting the Armenian POV by hiding the front-line changes. Keep in mind that almost all battle and campaign articles place the map on top. @Solavirum and CuriousGolden: HersiliaAramazd (talk) 13:54, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

@HersiliaAramazd: I see two actions in your edit that should be evaluated in your future edits:

1. WP:GF – Please assume good faith. This edit was inspired by the WP:FA Nagorno-Karabakh War since it had similar pictures.
2. WP:CANVASS/WP:VOTESTACK – It appears that you are pinging two Azerbaijani users in an attempt to canvass support. This is strictly prohibited on Wikipedia and can lead to a ban on Wikipedia. For any users observing this discussion, keep this possible canvassing in mind for any future consensus decision-making processes on this page or any other related pages.

Also, this is not a simple battle or campaign. This article covers the entire conflict currently occurring while a battle or campaign would be a minor part of an entire conflict.--WMrapids (talk) 14:08, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

WMrapids, thank you for your addition; I took the liberty to compile them into one. Now, let me provide my opinion the main thing. HersiliaAramazd, firstly, with all respect, I would kindly ask you to not accuse others of pushing POV. But I agree that inclusion of a map is necessary. This is an ongoing conflict an a map on the infobox would provide better landscape for the readers. And we've got a map in the bottom per {{Infobox military conflict}}. So, I don't see anything problematic here. If you want to change this, you can always open a discussion subsection on the template's discussion page. Cheers! --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 14:17, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

@Solavirum: Thank you. If more images are added to Commons, I can use the same multiple image strategy for the infobox and we can add it appropriately.--WMrapids (talk) 14:21, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

War

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

---

Many WP:RS have called it a war: [35], [36], [37], [38], [39] [40], the death toll exceeded that of a "conflict", and not every wars have an official declaration. Not suggesting any immediate name change though, just pointing out incase of future RfC, there are already WP:RS taht states its a war, but I suppoert it staying as a conflict for now. Dilbaggg (talk) 13:40, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

There is already an ongoing discussion at the top of the talk page to change the name of the article to 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War.XavierGreen (talk) 14:00, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Map discussion

Pinging users that seem to be involved in map edits: @Emreculha, Brandmeister, Solavirum, AntonSamuel, Tigran Ovanyan, LechitaPL, and GrandEscogriffe:

Please move map discussion to a more appropriate space, such as on the file's discussion page. The article's talk page should be used for discussing specific edits on the article, not on changes to files within the article itself. Thank you.--WMrapids (talk) 14:45, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I Agree. People have been using this page as a bus depot for every thing slightly related to Azerbaijan or Armenia. We've got separate talk pages for separate topics, and a whole different project for free images. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 14:48, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

R-17 Elbrus

We've got confirmary footage on the usage of R-17 Elbrus missiles and some of their annihilation. End publishing disruptive editing. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 15:12, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

RfC about placing the war map at the top of the page

Should the map of the conflict be listed on the top of the infobox? HersiliaAramazd (talk) 15:17, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Follow the principle of neutrality.

Armenia claims that Syrian fighters fought on the Azerbaijani side. And this confirms in Wikipedia. Azerbaijan confirms that there are PKK members on the Armenian side, but wikipedia does not write it. You are biased. He confirms that the interrogated Armenian soldiers captured are members of the PKK. Fix this!--45.135.206.211 (talk) 16:09, 23 October 2020 (UTC)