Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:43, 10 December 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Second Nagorno-Karabakh War article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23Auto-archiving period: 8.5 days

Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article: You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances) Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

A news item involving Second Nagorno-Karabakh War was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 27 September 2020.

This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Armenia High‑importance Second Nagorno-Karabakh War is within the scope of WikiProject Armenia, an attempt to improve and better organize information in articles related or pertaining to Armenia and Armenians. If you would like to contribute or collaborate, you could edit the article attached to this page or visit the project page for further information.ArmeniaWikipedia:WikiProject ArmeniaTemplate:WikiProject ArmeniaArmenian High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Artsakh High‑importance Second Nagorno-Karabakh War is within the scope of WikiProject Artsakh, an attempt to improve and better organize information in articles related or pertaining to Artsakh and Artsakhians. If you would like to contribute or collaborate, you could edit the article attached to this page or visit the project page for further information.ArtsakhWikipedia:WikiProject ArtsakhTemplate:WikiProject ArtsakhArtsakh High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Azerbaijan High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Azerbaijan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Azerbaijan-related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AzerbaijanWikipedia:WikiProject AzerbaijanTemplate:WikiProject AzerbaijanAzerbaijan High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. International relations Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Limited recognition Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Limited recognition, a WikiProject dedicated to improving the coverage of entities with limited recognition on Misplaced Pages by contributing to articles relating to unrecognized states and separatist movements. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join our WikiProject by signing your name at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.Limited recognitionWikipedia:WikiProject Limited recognitionTemplate:WikiProject Limited recognitionLimited recognition Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Russian & Soviet / Post-Cold War This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force Post-Cold War task force

Section sizes Section size for Second Nagorno-Karabakh War (46 sections) Section name Byte count Section total (Top) 46,402 46,402 Naming 7,997 7,997 Background 654 15,646 Soviet era 5,478 5,478 First Nagorno-Karabakh War 4,548 4,548 Frozen conflict 4,966 4,966 Course of the war 78 45,984 Overview 18,606 18,606 Ceasefire agreement 6,151 6,151 Territorial changes 1,893 1,893 Non-military actions taken by Armenia and Azerbaijan 1,057 19,256 Armenia 8,068 8,068 Azerbaijan 10,131 10,131 Casualties 1,030 30,537 Civilians 5,417 5,417 Military 7,941 7,941 Infrastructure damage 6,556 6,556 Equipment losses 9,593 9,593 Suspected war crimes 3,049 3,049 Aftermath 16 26,879 Armenia 7,091 7,091 Azerbaijan 16,689 16,689 Transfer of territories and flight of Armenian population 1,268 1,268 Turkish-Russian peacekeeping 91 91 Post-ceasefire clashes 76 76 Canada's boycott of arms exports to Turkey 1,648 1,648 Analysis 16 29,694 Nationalist sentiment 2,605 2,605 Azerbaijani aims 2,457 2,457 Turkey and Russia 1,787 12,374 Turkey 4,889 4,889 Russia 5,698 5,698 Military tactics 5,028 12,242 Drone warfare 1,833 1,833 Targeting of pipelines 2,240 2,240 Use of propaganda 969 969 Cyberwarfare 2,172 2,172 Official statements 26 21,297 Armenia and Artsakh 6,786 6,786 Azerbaijan 14,485 14,485 Allegations of third-party involvement 329 329 International reactions 99 99 See also 387 387 Notes 24 24 References 30 30 External links 1,753 1,753 Total 230,107 230,107

Pakistan support

Isn't it true that Pakistan provided diplomatic support to Azerbaijan throughout the conflict?

Even in the Armenia-Pakistan relations article, it mentions this. In 2015, they went as far as to say the recognition of Armenia is contingent on the Armenians leaving the disputed zone. And they openly celebrated and praised the cease-fire when it happened. OperativePhase33 (talk) 04:16, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Dot-points under result parameter

Vanezi Astghik, per MOS:MIL, which gives voice to the template documentation for the result parameter, additional dot points are not supported. The documentation is quite specific in how it is to be filled. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:34, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm confused, where does it say that in the documentation? And if it's reliably sourced content, why can't we make an exception even if true? Vanezi (talk) 06:09, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

It is quite specific as to what is permitted under the result parameter. It does not includes dot-points. WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE tells us not to write the article in the infobox and that less is better. This infobox is excessively bloated and such "detail" contributes to this. The infobox is unsuited to prose or prose like statements. That is what the lead is for. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:51, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Articles like Croatian War of Independence have been promoted to good article with the bullet points. I don't question the GA criteria and if it was good enough for a GA article, it should be here too. Vanezi (talk) 08:12, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

It was listed as a GA in 2011. Things change. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:01, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Belligerents

Vanezi Astghik, the belligerents section is for state players or similar - not just anybody that wants to throw an iron in the fire. Just like the PPK, Syrian mercenaries and Armenian diaspora volunteers are not state players that would be listed as belligerents in the infobox - regardless of sources that say they were present. It is a miscategorisation. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:14, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

@Cinderella157 I am not sure where you are quoting "state players or similar" from, but according to the military conflict infobox template: particular units, formations, or groups may be indicated if doing so improves reader understanding. So you were right to unlist Armenian diaspora volunteers because that refers to unrelated individual cases, not any kind of group. But the Syrian National Army is clearly its own group, and very relevant because its units were in the frontlines. Vanezi (talk) 18:19, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

The infobox listed Syrian mercenaries, with sources to support this description even though the link was piped to Syrian National Army. The sourcing does not appear to support this piping. Furthermore, it as alleged that they were recruited by Turkey. What I was quoting was from my edit summary. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:25, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

There are reliable sources confirming Syrian mercenaries from the Syrian National Army.

• Although Azerbaijan and its ally Turkey deny the use of mercenaries, researchers have amassed a considerable amount of photographic evidence, drawn from videos and photographs the fighters have posted online, which tells a different story.
• According to sources within the Syrian National Army (SNA), the umbrella term for a group of opposition militias backed by Turkey, around 1,500 Syrians have so far been deployed to the disputed Nagorno-Karabakh region in the southern Caucasus ... Shortly after conflict erupted between Armenia and Azerbaijan, Turkey sought to mobilize the SNA, sometimes called Turkey’s proxy army ... The first fighters were transferred in late September to southern Turkey and then flown from Gaziantep to Ankara, before being transferred to Azerbaijan on Sept. 25.

The only error was the mercenaries were bullet pointed under Azerbaijan. From what these sources confirm, the mercenaries should instead be under Turkey, and the "alleged" comment should be removed. Vanezi (talk) 16:41, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Turkey can only be listed as "alleged by Armenia" per community consensus at this RFC: , and another one later on, which also decided on Syrian mercenaries: If you want to change that, start a new RFC to form a new community consensus. Grandmaster 13:18, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

These are mercenaries. Whether they had previous service with the Syrian National Army does not change their status as mercenaries. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:42, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

There is a strong consensus to keep Syrian mercenaries as belligerents. Vanezi (talk) 05:57, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Yerevantsi, please see this RFC. To change the consensus, we need to have another RFC. A single user cannot undo the consensus reached by the wider community. Grandmaster 09:21, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Erdogan: "We entered Karabakh"

Leaving this here for the record. "We must be very strong so that Israel can't do these ridiculous things to Palestine. Just like we entered Karabakh, just like we entered Libya, we might do similar to them," Erdogan told a meeting of his ruling AK Party in his hometown of Rize. --Երևանցի 07:39, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

It is an ambiguous political statement. He did not say that Turkish army was in Karabakh. Entering could mean many things. The article also says "he did not spell out what sort of intervention he was suggesting", and that "Turkey has denied any direct role in Azerbaijan's military operations in Nagorno-Karabakh, but said last year it was using "all means", including military training and modernisation, to support its close ally". Grandmaster 08:01, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

It is reasonable to conclude that Erdogan was referring to a military intervention (entry, incursion, invasion). It is hard to assume that Turkey intends to invade Israel's cultural or spiritual life. Of course, we are talking about a military intervention. Ավետիսյան91 (talk) 14:16, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

That's one interpretation. There can be others. You can see that the Reuters journalists are not certain "what sort of intervention he was suggesting". Grandmaster 14:51, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

There could be other interpretations if the context of Erdogan's speech were different. However, if we are talking about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the possible entry of Turkey into Israel to help the Palestinians, there can be no other interpretation. Turkey will certainly not intervene in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with an educational, scientific, or cultural entry. It is obvious that he means a military entry (invasion). Adding some more links: , . Ավետիսյան91 (talk) 16:31, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I should also add that Israel interpreted Erdogan's speech as a threat of military invasion. Here is the link: "Erdogan is following in the footsteps of Saddam Hussein and threatening to attack Israel". Russia also responded to the military comments of the parties. Azerbaijan also commented on Erdogan's speech, naturally denying: "After Erdogan’s ‘just like we entered Karabakh’ speech, Baku claims no Turkish troops were involved". All possible sides interpret Erdogan's speech as a threat of military invasion in both Karabakh and Israel. Ավետիսյան91 (talk) 05:56, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

It is still a matter of interpretation. He did not explicitly say that Turkey sent troops to Karabakh, and it is still generally accepted that Turkey provided support in 2020. Pretty much all sources reporting on this speech mention that. NYT that you quoted writes:

“Just like we entered Karabakh, just like we entered Libya, we can do similar to them,” he said, referring to Turkish support for Azerbaijan in its conflict with Armenia last year and his country’s military intervention in Libya.

Politico: Turkey supported Azerbaijan during the Second Nagorno-Karabakh War against Armenia in 2020, though has long denied any direct involvement, and has deployed troops in Libya in support of the United Nations-recognized government since 2020.

In any case, this is a primary source, and can only be quoted with attribution. Grandmaster 07:02, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

That site you got is Armenian propaganda HeydarISm (talk) 07:13, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

If there is a doubt regarding the interpretation then one option would be to add a direct quote. Alaexis_¿question? 17:37, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 September 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Assyrian Volunteers to the war Twitchi667726 (talk) 13:19, 17 September 2024 (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. CMD (talk) 16:06, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Foreigners fighting for Armenia

There were tons of foreign fighters from countries like Lebanon, Syria and Greece etc. fighting for the Armenians, noted by Russian newspapers and even by reports coming from the countries where the foreign mercenaries fighting for Armenia came from. We need to add foreign mercenaries for the Armenian belligerent section of the page. Reread the page where it talks about third party allegations. HeydarISm (talk) 07:21, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

The belligerents section is for state players and sometimes for politically/ideologically organised groups - ie who are the warring sides. Mercenaries don't count wrt the infobox though if sufficiently significant, they might be mentioned in the body of the article. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:24, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

RfC on inclusion of Syrian mercenaries in infobox

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: History and geography Politics, government, and law Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

The RfC is whether to retain or remove Syrian mercenaries from the belligerents section of the infobox. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:58, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

See #Belligerents for preceeding discussion.

MilHist notified. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:01, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• Case for removal Per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, the infobox is to summarise key facts from the article and is a supplement to the lead. We are advised that less is better and we shouldn't try to write the article in the infobox. Per the template doc, in an international conflict, the beligerent section is for the nations that participated in the conflict. An exception might include smaller groups if it improves reader understanding. The spirit and intent of the doc is that such inclusion would be exceptional.

Discussions here and elsewhere (eg Russian invasion of Ukraine) affirms that we don't add nationals from various countries that have volunteered their services under this heading. The same reasonably applies to guns for hire. The mercenaries were reportedly provided by Turkey and, if anything, they are part of Turkey's alleged involvement. Consequently, they do not represent a separate belligerent to be represented as such in the infobox. Their inclusion can be seen as detail, which is not what the infobox is for.

The body of the article makes quite limited mention of the mercenaries (that they accounted for 541 deaths out of 7,630 Azerbaijani soldiers). They are mentioned in two sentences in the section on military tactics attributed to a single source. Two other passing mentions relate to them being supplied by Turkey. The body of the article does not appear to establish that they are not of themself key or significant to the conflict. They are not mentioned in the lead. On the otherhand, the article very clearly establishes the significance of Turkey to the conflict.

There is also an issue with (mis)representing the mercenaries under the flag of the Syrian opposition rather than being guns for hire with an allegiance bought and paid for.

There is a strong P&G based argument for their removal from the infobox. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:58, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• Yeah, I think it would make sense. For the avoidance of doubt, they definitely should be mentioned elsewhere in the infobox, for example in Units involved section. Alaexis_¿question? 15:30, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
• I agree that belligerents should only include state actors. Non-state actors could be mentioned, if needed, in other sections, for example, in Units involved, as suggested above. Grandmaster 15:51, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• Comment. If the Syrian mercenaries are to be removed from belligerents, then it should be on the condition of Turkey being listed as a full belligerent. There are a great amount of sources confirming Turkish involvement, including providing the mercenaries. Erdogan has openly admitted Turkey was involved and compared NK to other wars that Turkey’s involvement is not questioned. And the Syrian mercenaries should remain under units, as has already been suggested. Vanezi (talk) 18:39, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

  Turkey was definitely involved, but I think that we need stronger sources to include it as a belligerent. A few years have passed already so we should try to use sources that are more reliable than newspaper article. Note that the Nordic Monitor doesn't state it as fact that Turkey participated in the war but rather quotes Erdogan who might have his own reasons to play up the role of Turkey. Alaexis_¿question? 20:43, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Misplaced Pages In the news articles
• C-Class level-5 vital articles
• Misplaced Pages level-5 vital articles in History
• C-Class vital articles in History
• C-Class Armenian articles
• High-importance Armenian articles
• WikiProject Armenia articles
• C-Class Artsakh articles
• High-importance Artsakh articles
• WikiProject Artsakh articles
• C-Class Azerbaijan articles
• High-importance Azerbaijan articles
• WikiProject Azerbaijan articles
• C-Class International relations articles
• Mid-importance International relations articles
• WikiProject International relations articles
• C-Class Limited recognition articles
• Low-importance Limited recognition articles
• WikiProject Limited recognition articles
• C-Class military history articles
• C-Class Russian, Soviet and CIS military history articles
• Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force articles
• C-Class Post-Cold War articles
• Post-Cold War task force articles
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment