Misplaced Pages

Talk:2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict/Archive 13

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Talk:2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflictRedirect page

Redirect to:

This talk page is a redirect. The following categories are used to track and monitor this redirect:
  • From a page move: This is a redirect from a page that has been moved (renamed). This page was kept as a redirect to avoid breaking links, both internal and external, that may have been made to the old page name.
When appropriate, protection levels are automatically sensed, described and categorized.

Shusha capturee

Hi, please update the map and the information to reflect the capture of Shusha by Azerbaijan. I cannot edit them, otherwise I would have done it myself.Thank you. Jajo2005 (talk) 09:58, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

These are just one-sided claims. We need third party to confirm this or, at least, from all fighting sides. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 11:34, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

There is a video now showing shusha and the centre under AZ control. Also Poghosyan admited that Shusha isnt under Armenian control anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8109:1EBF:E7D0:3820:A11:B39D:4D8E (talk) 13:47, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Poghosyan did say that Shusha fell, the claims are not one sided. Flalf 15:07, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 November 2020

This edit request to 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add ] Ál (talk) 21:38, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

To editor Ál:  done, and thank you very much! P.I. Ellsworth  ed.  00:38, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

21 servicemen captured

Armenian side released updated number of captured soldiers, according to them 21 Armenian servicemen are now POW's in Azerbaijan Link - Russian 37.211.153.197 (talk) 07:58, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Done yesterday. Forgot to respond. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 07:24, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Syrian Mercenaries fighting on Azerbaijani side?

This is not confirmed officially as there are no legitimate proofs showiny their involvement. Please correct. Tookiedough (talk) 11:14, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

See previous discussions on the issue. DRN decision stands. EkoGraf (talk) 13:14, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages: Notability?

www.syriahr.com How safe and worthwhile is a UK-based website run by only one person? The numbers she gives as the number of Syrian fighters are made up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.135.206.230 (talk) 09:41, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

SOHR uses a network of activists within Syria and SOHR's reliability was discussed at least a few dozen times during the last nine years during its usage at the Syrian Civil War articles and its been deemed to be reliable. SOHR has been cited thousands of times by reliable sources over the years and deemed an authoritative source on the matter of Syrian casualties. When there are counter-claims regarding the numbers we still use their figures, but provide proper attribution so readers know they are coming from SOHR. EkoGraf (talk) 12:57, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
@EkoGraf: Should we put up a thing that queries related to the syrian mercenaries won't be responded to considering that there is like two of them per day? Flalf 14:59, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
@Flalf: Getting a bit redundant to repeat the same things over and over again yes. EkoGraf (talk) 18:17, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

supported by Turkey

In the first paragraph, Azerbaijan, supported by Turkey gives the impression that in this war ; turkey has been actively involved whereas these are not the facts. Turkey is only involved as much as Russia therefore I would like to dispute the first paragraph. If you say Azerbaijan, supported by turkey then you have to say Armenia, supported by Russia. As you know Russia invited Turkey to official discussions. So turkey is not at war does not support any party but support the view that Azerbaijan land has been occupied by Armenia. This view is shared by many other nations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.215.232.70 (talk) 06:34, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Sources do not support this view. Vici Vidi (talk) 08:22, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Vici Vidi (talk) could you please advise which sources? Mirhasanov (talk) 17:30, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Aliyev literally thanked Turkey for their support. . Juxlos (talk) 05:35, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

If the support of Turkey is included in the article, then so should the support of Israel, Pakistan, Ukraine to Azerbaijan, and the support of France towards Armenians as all of these are not military by political supports, similar to the case of Turkey. This inclusion is misleading and confusing for the readers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parepic (talk • contribs) 10:54, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Armenia made an application against Turkey at the European Court of Human Rights. The resulting ruling was against Turkey and they appealed which was not successful https://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/euro-courts-decision-on-turkish-role-in-nagorno-karabakh-conflict-political-minister-158962.Spinosaurus5 (talk) 17:12, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, I forgot to mention that the application was about the Turkish involvement in the conflict.Spinosaurus5 (talk) 17:14, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Azerbaijan arms suppliers information box is missing

According to SIPRI, arms purchases of Azerbaijan between 2006-2019 are attached.

Accordingly, in the last 14 years; Belarus Turkey's second floor, there are four solid Ukraine, Israel 8 katie, katie 21 Russia has made exports.

(Note: Figures are units, not currencies. Only large gun purchases are included.)

Source : SIPRI search source:

Azerbaijan Arms suppliers:

I don't believe all of these are supplying during the war. Flalf 19:46, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Syrian mercenarries and PKK fighters.

Use of Syrian mercenaries by Azerbaijan is a claim by one side which requires a proof. The source of the information is probably Armenian and should not be included in the article unless a proof is provided.(Or it must be included as Armenia and France president claim ).Situation is much like the same about PKK fighters by Armenian side.It is better to be included as Azerbaijani and Turkish authorities claim. Another Unused Name (talk) 17:08, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

This has been discussed extensively with reliable sources for Syrian mercenaries presence provided. No such reliable sources for PKK claims. What is reliable source - see Misplaced Pages rules. Regards Armatura (talk) 17:22, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Claims of Kurdish militias are also discussed in article. Flalf 17:26, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
As stated above, as per earlier DRN decision, consensus was reached that the Syrian fighters presence is backed up by enough 3rd party reliable sources and is to be included in the infobox, but with a footnote that emphasizes Turkey and Azerbaijan's denial of their presence. As for Kurdish militias, their presence has, for now, only been claimed by Turkish and Azerbaijani sources. Still, the allegations have already been mentioned in the main body of the infobox. EkoGraf (talk) 17:37, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Are those enough 3rd party reliable sources mentioned in the article or somewhere? Can you provide those sources? Another Unused Name (talk) 19:32, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I'll give a few but they're in the article you could just look there. Flalf 19:43, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
There's a dozen or so spread out in the infobox and the main body of the article where we have a section dedicated specifically to the subject. EkoGraf (talk) 20:35, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Indeed, there are plenty of sources on the Syrians. Claims of PKK are a Turkish talking point that is sparse on sources. Vici Vidi (talk) 08:23, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Washingtonpost article has an Armenian author right at the top, how can that article be a source? This section is full of misinformation. While you, editors should be neutral and cite independent sources in this kind of situations however, you are biased and taking sides. No wonder there's an infobox about neutrality of this article on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1elvinn (talk • contribs) 10:01, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

The article has a Turkish author as well. Also, the Washington Post is considered as a reliable/verifiable source by Misplaced Pages, as well as all of the other sources currently cited for the presence of the mercenaries (Reuters, BBC News, AFP, Guardian, France24, The Independent, The Times, The Wall Street Journal, the Pentagon, etc). EkoGraf (talk) 10:47, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Showing any other Armenian source as a third independent party is irrelevant.Article is not neutral without a doubt.Easy to realize that it is one sided.I watch BBC,Al Jazeera,even France24 none of those channels give the information like "Syrian mercenaries fight alongside Azerbaijani army"they emphasize that it is only claim by Armenian side.It must be changed Another Unused Name (talk) 10:45, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

BBC, like most of the others cited, actually conducted interviews with the Syrian fighters themselves, while France24 shared videos. EkoGraf (talk) 10:53, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

There is what BBC wrote about Syrian fighters claim."There are claims that Azerbaijan has drafted in foreign mercenaries to bolster their forces.

The accusations are often targeted at Turkey, which backs Azerbaijan, claiming that it has facilitated the drafting of Syrian fighters into Azerbaijan's military.

The Turkish government has strongly denied these allegations, despite French President Emmanuel Macron and human rights organisations concluding that these fighters are present.

Turkey has previously sent Syrian fighters to another conflict zone, in support of the UN-backed government based in Tripoli, Libya, against rival forces.

BBC Arabic has contacted one man who says he was recruited in northern Syria "to guard military points" on Azerbaijan's borders.

Speculation has been heightened by a slew of viral videos on social media claiming to show Syrian fighters involved in the conflict. It is difficult to confirm if these viral images do indeed show Syrian mercenaries operating within the current conflict." Another Unused Name (talk) 11:42, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

"It is difficult to confirm if these viral images do indeed show Syrian mercenaries operating within the current conflict." Another Unused Name (talk) 11:43, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Plus, DRN decision/consensus already reached in line with WP policy/guidelines. EkoGraf (talk) 12:29, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I am convinced. Another Unused Name (talk) 17:25, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 November 2020

This edit request to 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The information about Syrian mercenaries fighting in Azerbaijan side is misinformation and inaccurate. No independent source has confirmed this accusation. I request you remove these entries from this article and cite only official and independent sources.

1elvinn (talk) 16:07, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Not done As per earlier DRN decision, consensus was reached that the Syrian fighters presence is backed up by enough 3rd party reliable sources and is to be included in the infobox, but with a footnote that emphasizes Turkey and Azerbaijan's denial of their presence. EkoGraf (talk) 16:18, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Colonels KIA

Since Shukur Hamidov a colonel is mentioned as KIA, we should also provide colonels of the same rank that are KIA from Armenian side the following are KIA according to Armenian sources

1. Vyacheslav Valerievich Voskovsky ArmenianReport - 21st of October
2. Gegham Edikovich Gabrielyan ArmenianReport - 20th of October
3. Ashot S. Ghazaryan ArmenianReport - 20th of October
4. Vahagn Asatryan ArmenianReport - 15th of Cotober

or otherwise we should remove Shukur Hamidov from the box and mention all colonels in the casualties section as separate box and mention only high ranking officials in the main box. 37.211.153.197 (talk) 14:08, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Done. No reason to remove, considering all of these are "National heroes". What do you think @Rosguill:, these are colonels, but awarded as "National heroes" by both sides, do you think they're notable enough to stay in infobox? Beshogur (talk) 14:25, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Infobox will simply get too long if we start including every colonel.--Staberinde (talk) 16:22, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Also, the relevant guideline from Template:Infobox military conflict: "For wars, only prominent or notable leaders should be listed, with an upper limit of about seven per combatant column recommended."--Staberinde (talk) 16:26, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
@Staberinde:, @Flalf:, @EkoGraf:, how are these not notable since all of these are "national heroes"? In Syria articles, even most irrelevant field commanders are on the infobox. If we are going to remove these because "the infobox looks big", we have to delete literally everything. Or we can use collapsible list for KIAs. Beshogur (talk) 17:27, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS just because other articles do things is not a reason for inclusion. Flalf 17:32, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
@Flalf:, could you tell me how these are not notable? Considering I told my reason. Beshogur (talk) 17:33, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
That still doesn't warrant putting too many commanders who are less relevant than the current ones. Flalf 17:35, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Why do you think they are less relevant? Beshogur (talk) 17:56, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
I think at least Deputy commander should be put there, he is notable military commander also i agree with Beshogur where we can have collapsible list, there are not like 50 colonels and we only include the KIA or WIA, also when it comes to notable commanders MP Sasun Mikaelyan should be included as he is notable commander Sasun WIA 37.211.153.197 (talk) 18:43, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I propose this:

KIA KIA

Better? Beshogur (talk) 20:22, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Still oppose due because Template:Infobox military conflict clearly states: "For wars, only prominent or notable leaders should be listed, with an upper limit of about seven per combatant column recommended.” Flalf 00:20, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Infobox isn't place for such "kill lists", it is to display the most important commanders, which in case of war article like this one are the top political and military leadership.--Staberinde (talk) 10:17, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. "Hero of Azerbaijan Shukur Hamidov Died". Turan Information Agency. 23 October 2020. Retrieved 26 October 2020.
  2. "Legendary commander bestowed with title 'Hero of Artsakh' for occupying strategic heights". Artsakh Press. 2 October 2020. Archived from the original on 7 October 2020. Retrieved 2 October 2020.
  3. "New heroes of Artsakh: President awards 5 other servicemen with Hero of Artsakh highest title". Aysor. Archived from the original on 11 October 2020. Retrieved 11 October 2020.
  4. ^ "Полковники Гегам Габриелян и Ашот Казарян посмертно награждены орденом «Боевой крест» 1-ой степени" (in Russian). 20 October 2020.
  5. "Никол Пашинян: Героически погиб полковник Асатрян" (in Russian). 15 October 2020.
  6. "Офицерам Минобороны Армении посмертно присуждены высокие награды за мужество и самоотверженность в боях" (in Russian). 21 October 2020.

Sergey Shakaryan KIA status

Armenian News segment is reporting that

Both are done. Beshogur (talk) 13:57, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Deputy Commander KIA

According to Armenian sources News.am deputy commander of MOD of NKR is KIA. 37.211.153.197 (talk) 13:32, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Background section - Armenia and Russia joint military exercises - Please remove

"On 23 July 2020, Armenia announced the start of a joint air defence system exercise with Russia and an analysis of the July 2020 clashes."

Was there really a connection between the joint military exercise on the 23 of July and the clashes that happened in Tavush 12-16 of July that month? It is not that Armenia and Russia decided in less than a week to organize a military exercise. Reading the reference, it just says that the clashes earlier in the month have been analyzed during the military exercise (i.e. they just coincided together).

Further, this source here has the Russians denying any connection:

“I categorically deny any link between the activities held by the armed forces of the Russian Federation and the escalation on the Armenian-Azeri border,” deputy defence minister Alexander Fomin said in a separate statement, quoted by Russian news agencies.

Please remove the irrelevant sentence from the Background section--Sataralynd (talk) 04:09, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

White phosphorus needs to be added

Yerevan/Stepanakert says Azerbaijan uses white phosphorus. Baku denies, and in return, says that the Armenians were bringing phosphorus-containing ammunition to the Martuni Province, while Presidential Office authorities state that the Armenian military set forests on fire to prevent the capability of drones. These are some serious stuff. Why no one added these? --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 20:36, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

SolaVirum We should definitely cover this, the only proof of this is the video but, it doesn't show when it was taken and whether the bomb is phosphorus or not. Let's add the following:

Possible use of white phosphorus

A video showing possible use of white phosphorus occured in social media following Yerevan and Stepanakert accusing Azerbaijan. In a response Defence Ministry of Azerbaijan stated that, Azerbaijan army inventories doesn't contain any prohibited ammunition that prohibited according to Geneva convention. In addition to this, Defence Ministry of Azerbaijan mentioned about intelligence information that Armenian separatist forces bringing phosphorus-containing ammunition to the Agdere (Martuni) Province. Lately, aide to the President of Azerbaijan Hikmet Hajiyev accused separatist forces conducting eco-terrorism by intentionally setting fire in a surrounding forests of Shusha to hinder the drones. So far both side didn't provide any valid proof to justify their accusations. Mirhasanov (talk) 17:08, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Azerbaijan army inventories doesn't contain any prohibited ammunition that prohibited according to Geneva convention. White phosphorus isn't by itself prohibited according to Geneva Convention. It is prohibited to use it on civilians or maybe directly on combatants as a burning agent. So even burning trees to get hidden soldiers out of the woods or burning to hide from drones may be technically acceptable according to the rules of war (the environmental issue, unless it threaten civilians, are another matter). The Nagorno-Karabakh Human Rights representative, Artak Beglaryan accusations are that many civilian hide in the forests to escape and shelter, so uses of white phosphorus would be prohibited in that context. Hemşinli çocuk 17:51, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Hemşinli çocuk thanks for clarification. I also agree with your point. The similar tactic was used in Syria to avoid Russian air defence to support ground troops. It seems like tactic used by Armenians to burn forests to hinder air support drones. Is it logical that armenian civilians to find shelter instead of moving to north, which is much more safer, will move to south forests where Azeri army conducting offensive operations? What do you think, how we should capture it? I see it as a war tactic, as you mentioned if the ammunition is used to burn trees there is no offence according to international conventions. Mirhasanov (talk) 18:09, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

There are a plenty of sources available on this war, explaining why as the war progresses, it may become harder for the Azerbaijani army to track down combatants retreating in the woods, it can be confirmed by the aerial pictures. This compares more to the wooden environment and conditions of the Vietnam war not how and where it was used in Syria. Not the smartest move for combatants to throw a very asphyxiating substance where they are hiding. White phosphorus was often used during conflicts to flush soldiers out of hiding in forests. But all of this is irrelevant here, because the position of the Armenian side, is that civilians are also hiding in these forests, so its use would be here prohibited according to Geneva convention. Hemşinli çocuk 19:17, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
There is no PHYSICAL EVIDENCE pointing Azerbaijan.

I think Armenia did it in the forest not to harm its citizens.

If it was Azerbaijan, they would use it on Armenian military assets instead of desolate areas.

Doing stupid irrational risky illegal things is so Armenian. --45.135.206.230 (talk) 19:17, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. https://www.bbc.com/russian/live/news-54686682?ns_mchannel=social&ns_source=twitter&ns_campaign=bbc_live&ns_linkname=5f9d443345324002c52d83b9%26%D0%9E%D0%B1%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%BD%20%D0%B7%D0%B0%D1%8F%D0%B2%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F%D0%BC%D0%B8%20%D0%BE%20%22%D1%84%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%84%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BD%D1%8B%D1%85%20%D0%B1%D0%BE%D0%B5%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BF%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%B0%D1%85%22%20%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B6%D0%B0%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%81%D1%8F%262020-10-31T11%3A02%3A11%2B00%3A00&ns_fee=0&pinned_post_locator=urn:asset:65d7e08f-6ab9-4fc9-8434-0189eee7b0dd&pinned_post_asset_id=5f9d443345324002c52d83b9&pinned_post_type=share

SOHR

SOHR article has no reference to prove those numbers, as well as statements. No visual proofs have been included in that website. Total disinformation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1elvinn (talk • contribs) 13:48, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Done It was correct for the casualties but it wasn't for the overall numbers. Flalf 16:59, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Beheading of Armenian Soldier under 'War Crime section'

Same discussion with same sources has already answered on higher up on this page, see here. Ahmetlii (talk) 09:04, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

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.

Under the 'War Crimes' section, add that the Azerbaijani military reportedly beheaded an Armenian soldier. Greglawl (talk) 22:46, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Support Sources are independent and accurate. Therealelgreco (talk) 22:52, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Comment You grabbed one of my sources. Is it also independent and accurate? 131.111.5.153 (talk) 22:54, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Can you fix it? Apparently I cannot. Thanks 131.111.5.153 (talk) 23:01, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Weak Oppose One source is Public Radio of Armenia. It is obviously not independent. The other source is a independent but it is not part of the mainstream media so it is hard to comment on the accuracy. Besides, it says "accused of", so it refrains from using a strong voice. If indeed this is correct, other independent and more credible sources will be publishing it in the near future. Then I will change my vote to support. 131.111.5.153 (talk) 23:00, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Comment I'd wait. Determine based on coverage by ("mainstream") international media (Western, Chinese, etc.). --Calthinus (talk) 23:44, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Comment considering the scale of the overall conflict, I doubt mainstreamn media would make a dedicated specific article about this specific incident for the time being. Most likely if any confirmation we have would be a post-conflict report by organizations like the HRW or something of the sort. Juxlos (talk) 01:40, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Information given by Arman Tatoyan and Karapetyan Marianna does not seem neutral. Another Unused Name (talk) 17:02, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. "Azeri forces accused of beheading Armenian soldier". Morning Star. 2020. Azeri soldiers have been accused of beheading an Armenian and taunting the victim's family by posting a photo of his decapitated head on social media, human rights defenders said today. Human Rights Defenders of Armenia spokesman Arman Tatoyan said the incident took place on Friday when a member of Azerbaijan's armed forces phoned the brother of an Armenian soldier and said he had been captured. Azerbaijani troops then beheaded the Armenian and posted the photo on his brother's Facebook page. The perpetrators used the Armenian soldier's mobile phone to make two calls, Mr Tatoyan said, reporting the "cruel and terroristic methods."
  2. Karapetyan, Marianna (19 Oct 2020). "Azerbaijani military forces beheaded an Armenian soldier - Human Rights Defender". Public Radio of Armenia. On 16 October, at around 13PM a member of the Azerbaijani armed forces called the brother of an Armenian soldier and said that his brother is with them; they beheaded him and were going to post his photo on the Internet. Afterwards, several hours later, the brother found the photo of on his killed brother's social media page. The conviction is that these were members of Azerbaijani army who posted the Armenian solder's photo on his social media page. There were two phone calls with Azerbaijani soldiers who used hate speech with intention to humiliate the Armenian killed soldier's brother. As the latter informed the Human Rights Defender, the calls were made from the Armenian soldier's phone number.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)
  3. "Lawyers see war crime attributes in beheading Armenian soldier".
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.

Background Section far from NPOV

Background section has several NPOV issues.

  • Neo-Ottomanism has nothing to do with the current conflict. Sahar Sojla, given as the author of the article cited for Neo-Ottomanism is a student Peace and Conflict Studies at NDU Islamabad. It is not specified whether she is a PhD student, which would give her some credibility. She has only five articles in moderndiplomacy, which itself is not very heard. She has been active for the last two months, so there is some chance it is an alias for another author, who might not be neutral or qualified. At the end, no reputable work in this topic published in peer-reviewed journals, do not include Armenian as consequences of Turkey's Neo-Ottomanism policy. As a result, Sojla Sahar does not back her claims in the cited article, they are just blurted out.
  • Armenia do not appear in the article cited in the background page. It is given as if it supports Sojla Sahar's conclusion yet, while the article, published in a peer-reviewed journal, doesn't mention Armenia at all. Note that Syria, Iraq and Cyprus, the true victims of the Neo-Ottomanism policy are explicitly mentioned in this article. The author of this article, Edward Wastnidge has a PhD in Middle Eastern Studies from the University of Manchester. He is traceable and has the appropriate degree, yet he makes no mention of Armenia in his Neo-Ottomanism article.
  • Neo-Ottomanism article has a mention for Armenia, only using Sojla Sahar's article. Turkish foreign policy regarding Syria and Palestine is given explicitly, yet Armenia is only mentioned with no reputable source.

These are the grounds that Neo-Ottomanism was removed from the Turkey and Russia section, yet it still persists in the background. If Neo-Ottomanism is to be remain in this article, a reliable source is needed, i.e., we need more than a blog page of a student.

Turkey is given undue weight in this page. Turkey is not one of the combatants yet it is mentioned almost as much as Azerbaijan. Turkey is mentioned as

  • helping Azerbaijan to gain its independence and recognising it. This has literally nothing to do with the current conflict. "One nation two countries" saying, however, has gained traction both in Turkish and in Azerbaijani media after the start of the current conflict so it should remain.
  • Turkey's expansionist policy has nothing to do with the current conflict. If it does, a reliable source is needed per above. Until a reliable source is found, that sentence need to be removed.
  • Armenian Genocide has nothing to do with the current conflict. Yet, assuming the shear size of the tragedy, it might have affected Armenian relations with other Turkic countries as well. I am not suggesting to remove it altogether, yet the following part needs to be removed to make it concise: where 1.5 million Armenians were systematically mass murdered and expelled by the Ottoman Empire. Otherwise, it creates undue weight issues. I have to emphasise that it is nothing to do with sources. No one disputes Armenian Genocide and I don't believe it even needs sources as it is common knowledge. Yet, it is unrelated to the current conflict.

The final issue is the status of Artsakh. It is currently not recognised by Armenia, which turns everything into an international law nightmare, as Armenia constantly states they are not involved in the attacks against non-military target and Artsakh accepting them. Therefore Armenian unrecognition of Artsakh must be mentioned in the article by changing the first sentence ending as "which is supported but not recognised by Armenia".

I believe these changes will bring more neutrality to the article. 131.111.5.153 (talk) 22:24, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Here's a link mentioning Neo-ottomanism in the context of current Karabakh conflict (among others), from Balkans. https://wgi.world/the-revival-of-neo-ottomanism-in-turkey/ Armatura (talk) 23:22, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

This is no more RS than Sojla Sahar article. Still modern democracy, still an author who doesn't mention his credentials. If the claim is true, scholarly articles would at least be giving it a notable mention. 131.111.5.153 (talk) 23:28, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't see a point of giving undue weight of the non-recognition of Artsakh by Armenia, there is enough text on Artsakh recognition on the relevant page. Armatura (talk) 23:26, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

We can then remove the background section altogether, because Nagorno Karabakhh is mentioned in the relevant page, Azerbaijan is mentioned in the relevant page and I can keep going. Background should give all the relevant information about the conflict, not just selected pieces and the legal status of the entity directly involved is relevant. 131.111.5.153 (talk) 23:32, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "scholarly articles" and "modern democracy". Here's another one, by Turkish author https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/turkeys-hateful-neo-ottoman-campaign-against-the-armenians/ Uzay Bulut Distinguished Senior Fellow, Gatestone Institute Uzay Bulut is a Turkish journalist and political analyst formerly based in Ankara. She studied at Istanbul's Boğaziçi University and Ankara's Middle East Technical University. Her writings have appeared in various outlets such as the Washington Times, Christian Post, the Daily Caller and Jerusalem Post. Bulut's journalistic work focuses mainly on human rights, Turkish politics and history, religious minorities in the Middle East and anti-Semitism. She is a Distinguished Senior Fellow at the Gatestone Institute. Not a student, not an amateur, not even Armenian or Christian. Regards. Armatura (talk) 00:11, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

"Background should give all the relevant information". Precisely why Armenian Genocide and Neo-ottomanism should stay as the current (proxy) war is not an isolated conflict but an event in larger continuum of Anti-Armenianism and Turcic expansionism. As for non-recognition of Artsakh by Armenia, then limited recognition by Abkhazia, several US states should also be mentioned which will take a bulk of space whereas this information is available in detail in the relevant page. Regards. Armatura (talk) 00:19, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Abkhazia or Osetia are not parts of the conflict so their recognition is irrelevant. Armenia however, is part of the conflict and its recognition is more related. As I mentioned multiple times, relevance of Neo-ottomanism is not backed by any RS. You suggest blog pages, not peer reviewed journals. There are hundreds of peer reviewed journals on Turkish foreign policy and neo-ottomanism yet all fail to state Turkish-Armenian relations are affected by neo-Ottomanism. If Turkic expansionism has something to do with the current conflict, then find an appropriate RS. Neo-Ottomanism is not about news, it is a scholarly studied topic therefore requires at least one peer-reviewed journal, like the by Edward Wastnidge which fails to mention Armenia as well.
Note that wikipedia reflects the common consensus, not a few people's claim. The common consensus is that Neo-Ottomanism has nothing to do with Turkish Armenian relations. Otherwise, you would find at least one article published in a peer reviewed journal.
Armenian Genocide, which didn't occur in the current areas of the conflict, didn't commited by any of the combatant parties is relevant but legal status of Artsakh is not? This makes it harder to assume good faith.
I will forward you to Gatestone Institute page to help you understand why a Gatestone Institute blog page is not an acceptable RS. Thanks.131.111.5.153 (talk) 00:30, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
Here are three (1,2 and 3) reliable third party sources linking Turkish Neo-ottomanism with Turkish-Armenian relations in the context of the current conflict. I think the standard of peer-reviewed journals linking is unduly high. After all, we don't hold all claims on Misplaced Pages to that standard, why should we do here, especially when reliable outlets are already reporting on the connection?--Sataralynd (talk) 11:46, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
I have explained why American conservative cannot be an RS. (See Gatestone Institute.) The third source is as much reliable as moderndiplomacy.eu, i.e., they are all blog posts. I, and of course you, can write a blog post and have it published in a similar website but it will not be a reliable source. I was actually intrigued by the Bloomberg article, as it would be considered reliable with reasonable accuracy, but it states Armenia not as a Neo-Ottoman target for Turkey but only in the list of countries Turkey is in a strenuous relationship. Turkish-Armenian conflict is 100 years old while Neo-Ottomanism is at best 40 years old.
You are treating neo-ottomanism as a piece of news. It is not. It has a definition in political sciences. That is why an RS, suitable for news publishing is not necessarily an RS to support a scientific idea. This is why it must be uphold to higher standards than say, who is currently holding Murovdag. Still, the lack of a single peer-reviewed journal must give you an impression about how the academia sees Neo-Ottomanism: not related to Turkish Armenian relations. After all, no one would write in a scientific journal "neo-ottomanism is not related to Turkish Armenian relations". Therefore, I cannot prove the negative, that is why you need to find a good source to prove the positive.
"we don't hold all claims on Misplaced Pages to that standard" Maybe we should. But it is not for me to decide. However, when a scientific, in this context political scientific, claim is made it must be upto this standard. It is like saying Helium makes hydrogen bonds and citing blogs when all peer reviewed journals doesn't mention Helium in the context of hydrogen bonding. 131.111.5.153 (talk) 13:28, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Adding one more argument to Sataryland's one, do not expect the peer-reviewed scholarly articles about this conflict to be published streightaway, those who have ever submitted an article to scientific journals know that the process is slow and involves multiple revision-submission cycles. So I'm sure there will eventually be "scholarly articles" on this subject after a few months and even years later. Armatura (talk) 13:17, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Then we must surely wait for the peer-review journals rather than basing our claims on blog posts by unknown students, misinforming right-wing think tanks and google searches that includes neo-ottomanism and Armenia in the same page. Otherwise, it becomes original research. 131.111.5.153 (talk) 13:33, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
See here. The American Conservative is "usable with attribution". The Bloomberg piece doesn't specifically list Armenia as Neo-ottoman target, but it doesn't list other countries as well. This is becuase the writer of the piece thinks it is at least in part the ideology that drives Erdogan's foreign policy, including his support to Azerbaijan in this war.
You said above "If Neo-Ottomanism is to be remain in this article, a reliable source is needed, i.e., we need more than a blog page of a student.". I brought you (arguably) 2.5 reliable sources and you are now challenging their contents. To me this is clear POV pushing.--Sataralynd (talk) 16:02, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
Unfortunately, you are POV pushing. The inclusion of Armenian Genocide and Neo-Ottomanism, i.e., Turkey's unrelated crimes disturbs the neutrality of the article. I have to tell this one last time, Neo-Ottomanism is a scientifically discussed topic in peer-reviewed journals and none mentions it in the concept of Turkish Armenian relations. You brought me two blog posts and one newspaper article, not stating the fact you are defending and written by a cricket player. The Gatestone Institute author, Uzay Bulut, claims to hold a Master's degree from Middle East Technical University but I cannot find her master thesis in the thesis database. Again, Uzay Bulut has not published anything in a journal indexed by Scholar Google. One article indexed by scholar google quotes Uzay Bulut saying she is a reporter not a political scientist. Give me something published in the European Journal of International Relations orAmerican Journal of Political Science or anything similar and I will stop pushing. Misplaced Pages does not lead, it follows the scientific community and the community never mentioned Neo-Ottomanism in terms of Turkish Armenian relations.
I don't really see the point of further discussion. Give me a single peer reviewed journal and I will drop this. I can find you hundreds that focus on Neo-Ottomanism and Turkish foreign policy that doesn't mention Armenia, yet it is impossible to prove a negative. Thanks 131.111.5.153 (talk) 16:19, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
See also ] and check if the current version upholds the attribution standards.131.111.5.153 (talk) 16:25, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Dear User 131.111.5.153, according to extremely high standards you suggested above most of the Misplaced Pages articles should be taken down, especially the articles on ongoing developments. You are welcome to suggest those high standards to Misplaced Pages administrators on Misplaced Pages improvement pages, without mentioning Armenia at all, see what the wider community says. Not all Misplaced Pages editors have Cambridge degree in Neo-ottomanism, and most of use indeed uses Google for searching most things in the internet, but we really try to do our best. If not satisfied with anything that you're unable to resolve on this talk page, you can always open a dispute. Regards, Armatura (talk) 18:23, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Please stop the ad hominem responses. You can check ] that the Neo-Ottomanism claim is not really scientific. Moreover, the existing structure suggests that a significant minority believes Turkish Armenian relations are impacted by Neo-Ottomanism, when in truth, no one with the appropriate degrees have such a claim. Per intext attribution, if such a thing is to be stated, it needs to be stated that "Sohla Sahar, a student in Peace and Conflict Studies, Uzay Bulut, a fellow of a far right think tank known to have bias against Muslims and who has never published an article in a peer reviewed journal and Slaviša Milačić, a historian graduated from an unknown institute claims that Turkish involvement in this conflict is related to the Neo-Ottoman policy adopted by AKP, the ruling party in Turkey, while the overwhelming majority of the community did not comment on whether Turkish Armenian relations are impacted by Neo-Ottoman policies." This is how you give attribute. Either change it like this or remove Neo-Ottomanism claim. Our task as wikipedia editors is to reflect the common consensus and comment on significant minorities, not ragtag group of conspiracy theorists. Thanks. 131.111.5.153 (talk) 18:35, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Possible use of phosphorus munitions

I don't think will pass muster as RS, but I thought I would just add this video filmed by the Armenian side here for the benefit of all concerned, editors, journalists, human rights observers, the military-inclined alike who visit this page, of footage showing the Azerbaijani side apparently deploying White phosphorus munitions. The narrator of the video is apparently an Armenian soldier and says that the munitions are burning the forests and wooded countryside in NK. Regards, Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:42, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

or, alternately, thermite. Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:47, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
video/photo published with confirmation by HR Ombudsman in Hetq, Armenpress, and News.am. Will keep an eye on more 3PS --Sataralynd (talk) 21:37, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Also, Al-Masdar now Étienne Dolet (talk) 21:40, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
WP:RS. Beshogur (talk) 21:45, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
As Sataralynd and Beshogur pointed before, I'm waiting from a 3PS/RS source rather than deprecated/possibly biased sources, especially the original video's properties (like where did someone get) is lacking and both sides did accusations like this before. (here is a source from 2016, which says Azerbaijan has alleged Armenia about white phosphorus)Ahmetlii (talk) 21:52, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
A large number of eco organization based in Armenia including some European ones have signed a joint letter regarding this. https://www.ecolur.org/hy/news/biodiversity/12807/ . There is also a video. Of course the Turkish side is going to deny this but this is indisputable and will be confirmed because the locations of fires can be detected from satellites. Taking advantage of this they will continue to destroy the environment. The Turkish forces made advances in open fields but they were stoped as they approached forests and that is the simple reason why they apply such methods. Meanwhile you can dispute this. 2003:CB:B710:2000:C956:9D61:169D:4F0C (talk) 18:23, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

4.3 Turkey and Russia

This episode is so ridiculous Is Erdogan guilty for the occupied Azerbaijani lands? YOU ARE NOT NEUTRAL!! a country is liberating its territory from occupation. The country, which is very close to each other, gives military and political support. But No, Is Erdogan guilty?--45.135.206.249 (talk) 18:31, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Dear user under IP 45.135.206.249, it would be useful to 1. tag the user you are addressing 2. avoid emotions as much as possible (it's an encyclopedia, not a social media platform) 3. (while calling others not-neutral) avoid from expressing non-neutral views such as "a country liberating its territory" if you want the discussion to be as productive as possible. Regards Armatura (talk) 01:36, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

(User:Armatura) ! :You have no right to talk to me over the top. This is a 💕 what I said is facts.

Any uninvolved and impartial admin looking at this page please? @Rosguill? Any reaction to this lack of understanding what Misplaced Pages is? Armatura (talk) 17:17, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 October 2020 (2)

This edit request to 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Lemanhasan (talk) 15:40, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
What do you want me to change? Mgasparin (talk) 21:22, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 October 2020

This edit request to 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Under the 'War Crimes' section, add that the Azerbaijani military reportedly beheaded an Armenian soldier. Greglawl (talk) 03:22, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Oppose Please provide reliable and independent source

 Not done Yes, you provided sources. Edit requests such as this are used for uncontroversial changes. You will have to establish consensus for this to be added. Mgasparin (talk) 21:21, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
see here for a third party report on the topic--Sataralynd (talk) 21:46, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Oppose The source that Sataralynd provided states that these should be provided by international experts, and others are falling per WP:RS; so it's WP:TOOSOON due to lacking citations.--Ahmetlii (talk) 21:57, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. https://moderndiplomacy.eu/author/sojlasahar/
  2. "Azeri forces accused of beheading Armenian soldier". Morning Star. 2020. Azeri soldiers have been accused of beheading an Armenian and taunting the victim's family by posting a photo of his decapitated head on social media, human rights defenders said today. Human Rights Defenders of Armenia spokesman Arman Tatoyan said the incident took place on Friday when a member of Azerbaijan's armed forces phoned the brother of an Armenian soldier and said he had been captured. Azerbaijani troops then beheaded the Armenian and posted the photo on his brother's Facebook page. The perpetrators used the Armenian soldier's mobile phone to make two calls, Mr Tatoyan said, reporting the "cruel and terroristic methods."
  3. Karapetyan, Marianna (19 Oct 2020). "Azerbaijani military forces beheaded an Armenian soldier - Human Rights Defender". Public Radio of Armenia. On 16 October, at around 13PM a member of the Azerbaijani armed forces called the brother of an Armenian soldier and said that his brother is with them; they beheaded him and were going to post his photo on the Internet. Afterwards, several hours later, the brother found the photo of on his killed brother's social media page. The conviction is that these were members of Azerbaijani army who posted the Armenian solder's photo on his social media page. There were two phone calls with Azerbaijani soldiers who used hate speech with intention to humiliate the Armenian killed soldier's brother. As the latter informed the Human Rights Defender, the calls were made from the Armenian soldier's phone number.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)

infobox equipment +

https://www.cnnturk.com/dunya/ilk-kez-libyada-kullanilmisti-bu-kez-azerbaycanda-goruntulendi https://www.stm.com.tr/tr/cozumlerimiz/otonom-sistemler/kargu-otonom-doner-kanatli-vurucu-iha-sistemi

Turkish sources report that the kamikaze UAV system, STM Kargu, has been transferred to Azerbaijan. Let's enter information in Azerbaijan infobox. --45.135.206.249 (talk) 22:34, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Already added by me. Beshogur (talk) 12:03, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
thanks.--45.135.206.249 (talk) 18:05, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

About Lyon

EtienneDolet, why do you keep adding Lyon incident? Its participants were Turkish people, not Azerbaijani. Also, there's an ongoing anti-Macron protests in the World among the Muslims. WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH for assuming any relation. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 16:06, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Because it’s relevant to Karabakh. The article itself says that clashes and tensions are a result of the Karabakh issue, the article says nothing about Macron. Étienne Dolet (talk) 16:09, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
EtienneDolet, if you believe that it is notable enough, add it under a different section. Turkish people aren't Azerbaijani and their actions don't represent the Azerbaijanis. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 16:11, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
EtienneDolet, there's also a certain POV in the text you added. The incident happened in a backlash to the clashes between Armenians and Turks on 28 October, when the Armenians protestors met with some Turks. Here's the source. There is also the other side of the story. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 16:16, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
They are clearly in support of Azerbaijan and this march comes amid an earlier protest that was pro-Armenian to which an ethnic Turk attacked the peaceful Armenian protestors with a hammer. You don’t have to be an ethnic Azeri to support the Azerbaijani position on Karabakh. Étienne Dolet (talk) 16:14, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
EtienneDolet, in support of Azerbaijan, or not, they are not Azerbaijanis as the section's title suggests. The text you provided literally accuse Azerbaijanis of Islamism, which they never showed. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 16:16, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
P.S. adding them to Turkey section is the best thing we can do. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 16:18, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
No, because the source specifically mentions Azeris, even in the title. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:40, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
@Solavirum: I checked and can confirm that the title says "Turkish and Azeri" nationals. @EtienneDolet:, thanks for amending; as it appears that Azerbaijanis and Turks are mostly marching / protesting side by side (mentioned and pictured together in the same subsection), do you think the "Azerbaijani" section in Ethnic Minorities could be renamed to "Azerbaijanis and Turks" to reflect this? Thanks. Regards Armatura (talk) 19:13, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Actually, after looking at the section, it might be wise to add Turks to the section header. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:31, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
EtienneDolet Agreed and done. Also added the hammer attack on Armenians on Lyon raod that directly preceded the Lyon march of Turks and Azerbaijanis. Armatura (talk)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 October 2020 (2)

This edit request to 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Whole text in the section to be removed and replaced with text below, which includes all information previously published. The below text gives more details and includes recent Barda missile attack.

War crimes

Armenian

Armenia has bombed several Azerbaijani cities outside of the conflict zone using ballistic missiles, including Azerbaijan's second-biggest city, Ganja. There have been 4 separate ballistic missile attacks on the city since the start of the conflict. The first missile attack on Ganja was conducted on 4th of October leaving one civilian killed and four wounded. The leader of the de facto Nagorno-Karabakh republic on his facebook page stated that, it was him who had ordered the attack. Later, he gave an order to stop the shelling in order to prevent the deaths of innocent peaceful civilians..

On 8th of October Ganja city was hit a second time by a rocket initiated from territory of the de facto Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. However, Azerbaijan officials claimed that the rockets were actually launched from territory of Armenia, Vardenis . No civilian casualties were reported, but a number of residential buildings were seriously damaged.

The subsequent, third rocked attack to Ganja conducted by armed forces of de facto Nagorno-Karabakh Republic was on 10th of October, where at least 7 people dead and 33 wounded including children as a result of shelling ..Further investigations showed that Armenian forces used Scud tactical ballistic missiles against civilians. However, the attack was denied by Armenian side and the de facto Nagorno-Karabakh defence ministry insisted Armenian forces were respecting the humanitarian ceasefire, calling claims that Armenian forces were responsible for shelling Ganja “an absolute lie” and accusing Azerbaijan of shelling civilian-populated areas. Later the defence ministry of the de facto Nagorno-Karabakh Republic said that they were targeting military assets located in Ganja city. The BBC's journalist Orla Guerin, who has visited the scene in Ganja found no evidence of any military target there .

The 4th missile attack on the city of Ganja was the deadliest one. On Saturday, 17th of October missile struck populated areas in Ganja that at least killed 13 people leaving more than 40 people injured. However, the attack again was denied by Armenian and followed by accuses to Azerbaijan of attacking civilian areas. The attacks were deplored by the European Union and UN Secretary-General António Guterres. Several other cities have also been bombed during the conflict, most commonly, Tartar, Beylagan and Barda.

The Barda attack on 28th of October was the deadliest reported attack on civilians since war over the occupied region of Nagorno-Karabakh broke out a month ago, leaving 21 civilians killed and more than 60 wounded. Considering that Barda doesn't hold any military base or target, Azerbaijani side called it as act of terror as the missile deliberately targeted bazaar area with using cluster munitions to inflict excessive casualties among civilians and firefighting station. Initial investigation concluded that the rockets fired to Barda are Smerch rockets equipped with special anti-personnel ammunition. It must be also noted that the day before the Barda attack, 4 civilians including 7 years old girl had died in a shelling of nearby villages of Barda. Officials of Azerbaijan invited Human Rights Watch to conduct site assessment of Armenian crimes in order to issue a report. Stéphane Dujarric Spokesman for the Secretary-General has strongly condemned the strikes on the city of Barda and other localities in the Nagorno-Karabakh zone of conflict, which reportedly killed and wounded many. There can be no justification for such attacks he mentioned in his daily press briefing.

There have overall been over 84 civilian deaths in Azerbaijan, outside of the conflict zone as a result of the bombings.

On 25 October, a video emerged online of an Armenian teenager in civilian clothing helping soldiers fire artillery on Azerbaijani positions. Azerbaijan subsequently accused Armenia of using child soldiers during the war. One day later Artsakh Ombudsman released a statement claiming that the boy in the video was 16 and was not directly engaged in military actions and was functioning together with his father.

Mirhasanov (talk) 05:44, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I think we shouldn't expand that much on the Ganja Attack as there is already an article about that, but we can expand on each attack a little bit and especially the Barda attack. — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 08:46, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
@CuriousGolden: you are welcome to change it as you wish. Mirhasanov (talk) 08:56, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
I have expanded on the Barda attacks. — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 09:05, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Oppose please specify the changes you want to make phrase by phrase and not the whole section. We cannot rewrite the whole section here.--Sataralynd (talk) 05:07, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-54407436
  2. https://www.azerbaycan24.com/en/the-rocket-attack-was-carried-out-from-the-vardenis-region-of-armenia-president-aliyev/
  3. https://www.france24.com/en/20201011-armenia-azerbaijan-continue-to-levy-charges-of-civilian-strikes-after-nagorno-karabakh-ceasefire
  4. https://sputniknews.com/asia/202010111080735287-at-least-5-bodies-recovered-from-debris-after-shelling-of-ganja-azeri-emergency-service-says/
  5. https://tass.com/world/1210917
  6. https://in.news.yahoo.com/5-dead-over-dozen-injured-041950791.html
  7. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-54488386
  8. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/17/nagorno-karabakh-azerbaijan-says-12-civilians-killed-by-shelling-in-ganja
  9. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-54581628
  10. "Nagorno-Karabakh conflict: Major cities hit as heavy fighting continues". BBC News. 4 October 2020.
  11. "Azerbaijan's No. 2 city targeted in fighting with Armenia". The Independent. 1 January 1970.
  12. Dettmer, Jamie (12 October 2020). "Why is Azerbaijan Fighting?". Voice of America. Retrieved 15 October 2020.
  13. Melimopoulos, Elizabeth; Alsaafin, Linah (11 October 2020). "Nagorno-Karabakh truce frays as both sides allege attacks: Live". Al Jazeera. Retrieved 15 October 2020.
  14. "Azerbaijan: Statement by the Spokesperson on the strikes on the city of Ganja". European External Action Service. 17 October 2020. Retrieved 20 October 2020.
  15. "Both sides obliged to 'spare and protect civilians' over Nagorno-Karabakh fighting declares UN's Guterres". United Nations. 18 October 2020. Retrieved 19 October 2020.
  16. "Nagorno-Karabakh conflict: Azerbaijan accuses Armenian forces of shelling the towns of Tartar, Barda and Beylagan". france24.com. France 24. 6 October 2020.
  17. Julia Hahn (26 October 2020). "Civilians suffer amid Nagorno-Karabakh conflict". dw.com. DW News.
  18. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-54722120
  19. https://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/bergkarabach-konflikt-angriff-auf-stadt-in-aserbaidschan-1.5097262
  20. https://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/bergkarabach-konflikt-angriff-auf-stadt-in-aserbaidschan-1.5097262
  21. https://www.news.az/news/azerbaijan-invites-human-rights-watch-amnesty-intl-to-conduct-on-site-assessment-of-armenian-crimes?
  22. https://www.un.org/press/en/2020/db201028.doc.htm
  23. {"Война в Карабахе: хроника событий с 27 сентября по 25 октября". bbc.com (in Russian). BBC Russian Service. 24 October 2020.
  24. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-54652704
  25. "Armenia uses child soldiers in occupied Nagorno-Karabakh, commits war crimes: Azerbaijan". dailysabah.com. Daily Sabah. 25 October 2020.
  26. "Azerbaijani MFA releases statement on Armenia's using children as soldiers in the occupied territories". apa.az. 27 October 2020.
  27. @ArtsakhOmbuds (26 October 2020). "About some speculated photos of children" (Tweet) – via Twitter.

@Mirhasanov, you claim that Barda doesn't hold any military base or target. The Defence Army relesed the list of military objects in this town. They include a rocket division, tank brigade, anti-tank division and other military objects https://hy.armradio.am/2020/10/29/%D5%A1%D6%80%D6%81%D5%A1%D5%AD%D5%AB-%D5%BA%D5%A2-%D5%B6-%D5%B0%D6%80%D5%A1%D5%BA%D5%A1%D6%80%D5%A1%D5%AF%D5%A5%D5%AC-%D5%A7-%D5%A1%D5%A4%D6%80%D5%A2%D5%A5%D5%BB%D5%A1%D5%B6%D5%AB-%D5%A3%D5%B5%D5%A1/ Spinosaurus5 (talk) 13:19, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

The timing of events and the sequence of sentences is abused in a very nasty way. It is written as if cluster munitions were used in civilian areas after which Artsakh authorities admitted responsibility. The reality is that Artsakh authorities have released the list of military objects which they are going to target. They have not said that we are going to shell this objects with cluster munitions and more important ex post they have not claimed responsibility for using cluster munitions.Spinosaurus5 (talk) 20:17, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

PKK fighters on the Armenian side, how are they a thing in this article?

There are 13 instances of PKK mentioned in this article in relation to allegations that they are fighting on the Armenian side. However, there has been no evidence by a third party (such as geolocated videos) in the media for a month now since the start of the fight. Sound clips posted on the Azerbaijan MoD website don't qualify, unless a reliable third party like BBC unambiguously confirms their authenticity. For reference, there has been ample evidence of involvement of Syrian mercenaries on the Azerbaijani side (see France24, The Independent and Guardian). I'm including the link to clarify what counts as confirmed evidence by a third party. Hence, could someone volunteer to clean up the article of these unconfirmed PKK allegations?
NB: before rushing to post please make sure to include third party sources confirming the evidence. Check the above sources to understand what counts.--Sataralynd (talk) 04:12, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Sataralynd (talk) Again you are attacking. I was planning to open this discussion anyway. We already started this discussion and I think it would be good to continue here. Regarding videos so far there is not any videos that confirming Syrian fighters in Karabakh fighting for Azerbaijan, except unproved Whatsapp conversations or phone calls that CNN and Guardian referred to, which is considered unreliable media as per "mediabiasfactcheck" organization.

https://www.eupoliticalreport.eu/pkks-involvement-in-the-armenia-azerbaijan-conflict-would-jeopardise-european-security/

is a Brussels based European multimedia news platform, providing online news and video comment on EU and world affairs in all EU official languages. https://www.eureporter.co/frontpage/2020/09/23/pkks-involvement-in-the-armenia-azerbaijan-conflict-would-jeopardize-european-security/

Because they are major allegations with even Russia putting it forward. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 09:12, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
@Solavirum: Please keep on topic, no one is attacking nobody unless bringing in sources and making arguments is considered attacks in your book. Anyway, please address these points:
1) the two sources you bring in are actually one source, and they only talk about "reports" not evidence (e.g. geolocated videos). Do you have sources with evidence?
2) Jujuy88 already answered you about your unreliability "source". Further CNN and Guardian are both listed as reliable as per WP:MBFC
3) Your claim "Because they are major allegations with even Russia putting it forward". Is there a source for this from the Russian Government? --Sataralynd (talk) 01:36, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Mirhasanov, Media Bias/Fact Check is considered unreliable per WP:MBFC. --Jujuy88 (talk) 14:12, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Jujuy88 (talk) Wow, thank you very much for this reference. I didn't know there is such list and it is very nice to have it.Mirhasanov (talk) 17:20, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Summary: Not a single piece of evidence, of the calibre of these sources in relation to the Syrian mercenaries has been presented in relation to presence of PKK fighters on the Armenian side. I would therefore ask for removal of PKK references from the article, except perhaps for the original claim with a sentence stating the lack of evidence. If evidence becomes available, we could start a talk and review again. I suggest this wording, and removing the rest of PKK references:
on 30 September, Turkish sources alleged that approximately 300 PKK militants were transported to Nagorno-Karabakh via Iran. However, these claims were not substantiated by evidence (see source and source) --Sataralynd (talk) 03:15, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Sataralynd At first, we need to first split into two names: "Armenian diaspora fighters" and "Kurdish militants". Then, remove one-sided statements with no confirmation from third-party reliable sources. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 10:27, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-guardian/
Why are you using the mercenaries term in the diaspora volunteers section. When Armenians from the diaspora are joining to fight or making financial donations they do that on voluntary bases. The mercenary term is very inappropriate. 193.196.11.188 (talk) 07:31, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Moreover that section is repeatedly using "Armenian terrorist" terms from Georgia, UAE and other places. What Armenian terrorist organizations operate in those countries? The names of those organizations should be specified. Otherwise it should be stated that Turkey accuses that there are Armenian terrorists from Georgia but there are no terrorist organizations in Georgia. The objective of these kinds of accusations is to throw in lot of rubbish to blur the picture. This rubbish should be cleaned or if you keep it you should provide more details to expose that they are nonsense.193.196.11.188 (talk) 14:12, 3 November 2020 (UTC)


The accusations that PKK is supporting Armenians should be presented in the historical context. Kurds have been used as an tool by the Turks to carry out the Armenian Genocide. You can cheek this in various sources https://www.amazon.com/Shameful-Act-Armenian-Genocide-Responsibility-ebook/dp/B00A3PJ9T0. Since then the relations between Kurds and Armenians are not good, to say the least. Turkey is making accusations to produce noise and divert attention from its crimes but accusations should be presented in the context of Armenian-Kurdish relations in order show how reasonable they are. 193.196.11.188 (talk) 07:47, 3 November 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

  1. "Armenia National Security Service: Woman in controversial video is indeed taken prisoner by Azerbaijan". www.news.am. News.am. 2020-10-13.
  2. "Armenian woman evacuated from territories liberated from occupation: "As a civilian, I saw warm attitude in Azerbaijan"". ONA.az. 7 October 2020. Retrieved 23 October 2020.