This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Requested move 29 November 2020
2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war → Second Nagorno-Karabakh War – By far the name most supported by editors, "Second Nagorno-Karabakh War" is the name of the article of the Azerbaijani Wikipedia page and is included as an alternate name on the Armenian Wikipedia page. I would also venture to say that it is the most popular name in Azerbaijan, and the country's President Ilham Aliyev has used this name already.
Furthermore, it makes no sense that the First Nagorno-Karabakh War was moved and this article was not. The first war happened 30 years ago, and it was never referred to as the "First War" until two months ago, and yet it was moved. Meanwhile, some people were already talking about this conflict as the "Second War" from the first days it started. Super Ψ Dro 14:27, 29 November 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. TheTVExpert (talk) 15:22, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Honestly, I cannot understand why the war was renamed to First Nagorno-Karabakh War. The very first Karabakh war between two countries was in 1918-1920. Karabakh was settled in favor of Azerbaijan, which didn't satisfy ethnic Armenians of Karabakh and which resulted to another war in 90s. I'm against of any renamings to First, Second, Third etc. as it is controversial regardless what media outlets write about this conflict. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 15:35, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
- I don't know much about the 1918-1920 war, but from what I see, it was not limited to Nagorno-Karabakh, it was a full-scale conflict that also occurred in Nakhchivan, the modern south of Armenia and inner parts of Azerbaijan. The 1988-1994 and 2020 wars were, however, concentrated mainly in the Nagorno-Karabakh region. Super Ψ Dro 23:00, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
- Super Dromaeosaurus It is because no ethnic Armenians left in Nakhijevan, but the ethnic Armenians of Karabakh resisted. These all three wars are interconnected. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 09:46, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, they were, but still, I don't think the 1918-1920 can be exclusively considered a "Nagorno-Karabakh War". Super Ψ Dro 12:49, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
- War numbering is wrong. This gives the wrong impression that the war of the 90s is the first war for the region and before that there were no wars. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 13:54, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- Lot of sources refer to the first war as the first war, nobody calls that war happened 1 century ago the first war. Beshogur (talk) 15:41, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- So why in the Background section of every clashes between Armenians and Azerbaijanis we write about war for Karabakh in 1918-1920, which lead to another war? If we want to call 90s the First and 2020s the Second, it supposes that there was no war before. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 15:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
- Lot of sources refer to the first war as the first war, nobody calls that war happened 1 century ago the first war. Beshogur (talk) 15:41, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- War numbering is wrong. This gives the wrong impression that the war of the 90s is the first war for the region and before that there were no wars. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 13:54, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, they were, but still, I don't think the 1918-1920 can be exclusively considered a "Nagorno-Karabakh War". Super Ψ Dro 12:49, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
- Super Dromaeosaurus It is because no ethnic Armenians left in Nakhijevan, but the ethnic Armenians of Karabakh resisted. These all three wars are interconnected. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 09:46, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
- I don't know much about the 1918-1920 war, but from what I see, it was not limited to Nagorno-Karabakh, it was a full-scale conflict that also occurred in Nakhchivan, the modern south of Armenia and inner parts of Azerbaijan. The 1988-1994 and 2020 wars were, however, concentrated mainly in the Nagorno-Karabakh region. Super Ψ Dro 23:00, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Isn't there a discussion above? --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 15:36, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Neither the discussion above nor this move request show this name being used by reliable sources, let alone becoming a common name. Even the Aliyev source above calls it the "Second Karabakh War", not the "Second Nagorno-Karabakh War". CMD (talk) 01:14, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
- Aliyev (or Azerbaijanis) does not say "Nagorno-Karabakh" because the region is called "Karabakh" in Azerbaijani. "Nagorno" is just a Russian word that means "Mountainous". And the war did not happen in only mountainous regions neither in the first or the second war. In fact, the first war is also called "Karabakh war" in Azerbaijani. The reason why he (or Azerbaijani people) does not call it as "Mountainous Karabakh War" is because the war did not happen only in the mountainous region. The region surrounding the mountainous region was also occupied. Tulparus (talk) 03:34, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
- Support We've gone over this a few times before, I have the same arguments that were presented before. FlalfTalk 02:17, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
- Support First Nagorno-Karabakh war implies the existence of the second one. The main combatants are the same, the location is the same. The reason of this war is tightly connected with the previous war. Unlike the minor clashes since the first war that did not change anything, this time the result is a decisive victory, resulting in the capitulation of Artsakh and the surrender of Armenia. Tulparus (talk) 03:22, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose "Second" is subjective and also vague, 2020 is far better. Vallee01 (talk) 05:55, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
- I consider 2020 being more vague as the July 2020 Armenian–Azerbaijani clashes also happened this year. Furthermore, this is the only major conflict since 1994, the others were clashes and skirmishes with few casualities (compared to this war) and few changes on the map. Super Ψ Dro 12:49, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
- Can't agree with you. July 2020 Armenian–Azerbaijani clashes took place far away from the Nagorno-Karabakh. Secondly, 2016 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict which was actually a war, took the lives of not "few casualties", but thousands of soldiers. --Ліонкінг (talk) 11:12, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, that conflict had heavy casualities, but its consequences are not comparable to those of the 1988-1994 and 2020 wars, Azerbaijan only regained a few lands. It cannot be considered one of the "Nagorno-Karabakh Wars". Super Ψ Dro 11:43, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
- Not all wars have in final result a large victory of some party. Some terminate at status-quo. Once again, you have initially told that there were "few casualties" in 2016. There were over 1,000 deaths in 2016, compared to over 5,000 in 2020. For sure, there were fewer casualties in 2016, but 5 times, not 50 times. In 2016, it wasn't a local skirmish, it was a large-scale offensive of Azerbaijani Forces, using combat aviation, tanks, and artillery systems with attempts to take the positions along the entire frontline. Somewhere they managed to succeed, from some taken positions they were forced to flee by Armenian counter-offensive. I hope that I have responded to all your arguments. --Ліонкінг (talk) 07:57, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, that conflict had heavy casualities, but its consequences are not comparable to those of the 1988-1994 and 2020 wars, Azerbaijan only regained a few lands. It cannot be considered one of the "Nagorno-Karabakh Wars". Super Ψ Dro 11:43, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
- Can't agree with you. July 2020 Armenian–Azerbaijani clashes took place far away from the Nagorno-Karabakh. Secondly, 2016 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict which was actually a war, took the lives of not "few casualties", but thousands of soldiers. --Ліонкінг (talk) 11:12, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
- I consider 2020 being more vague as the July 2020 Armenian–Azerbaijani clashes also happened this year. Furthermore, this is the only major conflict since 1994, the others were clashes and skirmishes with few casualities (compared to this war) and few changes on the map. Super Ψ Dro 12:49, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
- Support Third time supporting the move and third times the charm. Cem456 (talk) 10:56, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
- Support It makes sense to call it Second as the territorial changes are akin to First, the losses for 44 days are comparable to losses of First(taking into account obviously the non active phases and the change in technologies), Its being actively called Second by Russian and Azerbaijani Media, i have also seen across most of Media and some Armenian Political Analyst calling it Second war as well, also it helps to to remove the confusion between two wars. Regarding the war of 1918-1920 unlike Frist and Second N/K War it was not limited to Qarabaqh region but was all over Azerbaijan and Armenia as well parts of modern Day Turkey Agulani (talk) 12:43, 7 December 2020 (UTC) 12:09, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
- Support Nafis Fuad Ayon (talk) 18:53, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose - I've not seen any evidence presented to show that reliable secondary sources have started using this term since the previous discussion on renaming was closed just under a month ago, with a consensus against using "Second" or "War" (proper noun). I've searched through a collection of standard news sources (BBC, The Guardian, NYT, Al Jazeera, The Economist) and none of them call it the "Second Nagorno-Karabakh War", preferring to simply describe it as a war or conflict. So far, I've not seen any use of the phrase among well-established current affairs publications, let alone widespread use. There's no rush to change the name – we should wait to see if it becomes adopted over time, at which point it can moved with uncontroversially without the need for discussion. It would be WP:OR to make this change now with no precedent in the secondary sources. Jr8825 • Talk 20:05, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
- Support per nom. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 21:15, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
- Support This is my third or fourth time supporting a move; per nom. ➤ Zᴇᴇx.ʀɪᴄᴇ ✪ (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 21:52, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
- Support Same arguments as above. First implies second. 2601:85:C102:1220:F5D2:F274:C714:342E (talk) 02:27, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support. This was clearly the second full scale war for the region. Grandmaster 16:16, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- Fully support it. Sweetkind5 (talk) 19:02, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support First war implies the existence of the second one.Yakamoz51 (talk) 08:08, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support as consistent with first. Vici Vidi (talk) 08:20, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose There were wars in Karabakh between Armenians and Azerbaijanis in 1918-1920, 1991-1994 (1987-1994), 2016, 2020. How should we count them, and whether should we count them at all? Even here, there are disputes on that, so what for should we give the original number of the war, creating disputes and inaccurateness, instead of linking it to the year which no one can doubt that the war has happened in 2020. --Ліонкінг (talk) 11:52, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- As someone pointed out before, nobody calls the 1918-1920 war (which wasn't limited to Nagorno-Karabakh) as the "First Nagorno-Karabakh War" or something like that. And again, the 2016 war did not have the scale of the other two wars or its consequences, nor have I seen anyone referring to it as the "Second Nagorno-Karabakh War" or similar. Super Ψ Dro 11:43, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
- You are right, that the war of 1918-1920 wasn't limited to Nagorno-Karabakh. But it is a great fault to say that the first war in Nagorno-Karabakh between Armenians and Azerbaijanis occurred in 1991, because the war of 1918-1920 was widely affected Nagorno-Karabakh with major battles happening there. The terms "First" and "Second" war are attempting to establish Azerbaijani state-funded media, that's why no one called the other wars by numbers. As for 2016 war, many sources called it "Four-Day War" or "April War" - there are respective references in the main article. I've mentioned above, that Azerbaijan has launched a large-scale offensive along the entire frontline, using aviation, artillery systems and tanks. Over a thousand soldiers died. I can't stand, why in this uncertain dispute situation with the numbering of Nagorno-Karabakh wars, we should provide the article names with the dispute and unreliable names with numbering, instead of just putting the year which is completely reliable and undisputable. --Ліонкінг (talk) 08:08, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- As someone pointed out before, nobody calls the 1918-1920 war (which wasn't limited to Nagorno-Karabakh) as the "First Nagorno-Karabakh War" or something like that. And again, the 2016 war did not have the scale of the other two wars or its consequences, nor have I seen anyone referring to it as the "Second Nagorno-Karabakh War" or similar. Super Ψ Dro 11:43, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose the reasons proposed for moving are either OR or OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I agree that it's less than optimal that this page and First Nagorno-Karabakh War follow conflicting naming schemes, but the solution to that is a discussion that addresses both at once, not a knee-jerk mimicking of the other article, especially when the discussion for renaming there didn't take into consideration parallel arguments made about titles at previous move discussions here. signed, Rosguill talk 16:49, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Conditional support: If this is going to be named to First Nagorno-Karabakh war, not War, because it is not a proper name like the first one. Beshogur (talk) 17:05, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support Though much shorter in duration, this was a major war, and it reversed most of the results of the first war.--RM (Be my friend) 17:56, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support I support. Because this war is second full-scale war in Nagorno-Karabakh and the Azerbaijani people call this war the “Second Nagorno-Karabakh War”.EljanM (talk) 21:29, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support Second Nagorno-Karabakh War sounds rad, eh. A lot less clunky as well than 2020 and also is widely used in the media. -- Abbasi786786 (talk) 16:37, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose and comment. Jr8825 put it best: there has been no evidence presented to show that reliable English secondary sources have started using this term. The recently-closed move discussion at First Nagorno-Karabakh War was similarly light on evidence, and did not sufficiently argue a case backed by WP:COMMONNAME.
- Some of the arguments I see in this thread are that we should rename based on "what people are saying", "what Aliyev has said", "what the Azerbaijani Wikipedia is doing", and what is "less clunky", but none of these represent "a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources". We should instead be looking at standard news sources (BBC, The Guardian, NYT, Al Jazeera, The Economist) and well-established current affairs publications, none of which have started using this name.
- I think naming these conflicts the "First" and "Second" Nagorno-Karabakh Wars (with capital W, no less, which indicates a proper noun) is getting way, way ahead of the sources – we should wait longer for the significance of this new conflict to forge a clear WP:COMMONNAME. — Goszei (talk) 01:36, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support, with a capital W. "Nagorno-Karabakh War" was a proper name, I fail to see why that has ceased to be the case just because there's now a first and a second. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 23:06, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- Comment The all-capitalized term "Second Nagorno-Karabakh War" seems to have gained some currency among think tanks and specialists in military and foreign policy matters. For example, it has been used in a publication of the Royal Australian Air Force (link here), and of the Valdai Discussion Club (Moscow think tank, link here). It was used by the Director of the Russia Studies Program at the CNA think tank in Arlington, VA who wrote an article entitled "The Second Nagorno-Karabakh War, Two Weeks In" which is listed in his bio page at the CNA website (click on "See more" until October 14, 2020); this is not necessarily a "reliable source" strictly speaking but it's indicative of usage in specialist circles, in this case by a Washington-based military analyst. It has been used by Armenpress (main state news agency of Armenia, link here) in all-capitalized form, and in case-insensitive form by various Armenian, Azerbaijani and Turkish sources. On the other hand, the term "2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War" (or "war") is used in a publication of the European Council on Foreign Relations (link here), and of the American Enterprise Institute think tank (link here). This is a very plausible renaming, although usage seems to be split. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 04:16, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- @P.T. Aufrette: Thank you for locating these sources. However, I think the usage by think tanks at large is still dwarfed by other options. For the following, I used the specialized Google think tank search engine provided by Harvard's library [4] (capitalization insensitive):
-
- "Nagorno Karabakh war" – Captures results about the old fighting as well. Usage appears largely descriptive, as in the phrase "the new Nagorno-Karabakh war".
- "2020 Nagorno Karabakh war" – Only returns the AEI and ECFR titles that you provided, from what I can see. Note: both the AEI and ECFR articles are using it descriptively in the body instead of as a proper noun, i.e. lowercase.
- "Second Nagorno Karabakh war" – Almost no results, one of which is the CNA link you posted. The story doesn't appear to be endorsed by the think tank, though, just written by its expert, who was writing for warontherocks.com.
-
- A simple unqualified search for "Nagorno Karabakh" and a look through the results reveals that there is clearly no proper, capitalized name for this conflict, only various descriptive ones ("fighting", "violence", "conflict", "war"). A similar confusion is the source of the multiple RM's that have transpired at Talk:Syrian civil war.
- My conclusion from this is that there is not yet a proper name for this war, which will likely take time. Think tanks are generally more long-term/history-minded than the media (which certainly has not decided on a proper name), so we should continue to look to the think tanks moving forward. As I said above, I think we should remain at a non-judgmental descriptive title per naming policy, either "2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war" or "conflict". — Goszei (talk) 22:03, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Goszei: A newer example from December 7: OC Media used the term "Second Nagorno-Karabakh War" (link here). "OC" = "Open Caucasus", this publication specializes in the region and has some very major European donors and sponsors including governments and Soros-style NGOs (scroll to the bottom of their About Us page). Also, for what it's worth, the podcast Radio War Nerd by Mark Ames and John Dolan used the term (fully capitalized on the podcast episode's web page) back in October. It's an example of specialist usage, in the sense that these two guys have considerable background (journalistic rather than academic) in both the post-Soviet sphere and warfare. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 18:14, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
- Some more usage by think tanks or specialized publications focusing on geopolitical matters:
- The conservative newsmagazine The National Interest used the term "Second Nagorno-Karabakh War of 2020" (article here) in an article about Russia's S300 air defense system.
- The Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies used the term "Second Nagorno-Karabakh War" (article here) in an article about the war. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 20:03, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
- Some more usage by think tanks or specialized publications focusing on geopolitical matters:
- @Goszei: A newer example from December 7: OC Media used the term "Second Nagorno-Karabakh War" (link here). "OC" = "Open Caucasus", this publication specializes in the region and has some very major European donors and sponsors including governments and Soros-style NGOs (scroll to the bottom of their About Us page). Also, for what it's worth, the podcast Radio War Nerd by Mark Ames and John Dolan used the term (fully capitalized on the podcast episode's web page) back in October. It's an example of specialist usage, in the sense that these two guys have considerable background (journalistic rather than academic) in both the post-Soviet sphere and warfare. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 18:14, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support The conflict is clearly a sequel to the 1988-94 Nagarno Karabakh war and most sources call it that. Even more sources will call it the second nagarno karabakh war as time passes, since the conflict has just occurred . Ridax2020 (talk) 10:55, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support per others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.81.121 (talk) 22:48, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support per others Glide08 (talk) 18:18, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose 2020 is more representative and descriptive for someone that doesn't know when this happened. The proposed name can be a redirect. Expertwikiguy (talk) 18:53, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support The Azeris call it that, this war followed the first. 2601:85:C102:1220:30DF:5AD2:CB13:D2 (talk) 00:23, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support Second Karabakh War — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.156.71.30 (talk) 11:38, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support. There should be a second war. Look at the casualties. You know it was WAR for sure. Firejore (talk) 18:30, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose. Many of the supports don't seem to be responsive to the real issue here: is "Second" a WP:COMMONNAME for the war? It's used in secondary sources, for sure, but not in quite the proportion it'd need to be to be the common name. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/11/world/europe/nagorno-karabakh-armenia-azerbaijan.html is a recent source from just this month that says "second" nowhere in it, for example. So best to keep it to a descriptive name with 2020. (And I agree that the move of the other war to "First" is pretty shaky and possibly ill-advised.) SnowFire (talk) 00:25, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Kind of, despite it fits the criteria for the name, the main problem is that World media and articles, dont use that name.Mr.User200 (talk) 19:14, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support The move discussion on Talk:First Nagorno-Karabakh War#Requested move 30 November 2020 ended with no move (the title of the article is still "First Nagorno-Karabakh War), so it would be nonsensical to have a first but no second war. And there seems to be an emerging WP:COMMONNAME as cited by P.T. Aufrette above. So moving would be the most logical course of action. 2601:85:C102:1220:19A2:AC61:752E:CF83 (talk) 22:34, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose it's too soon to tell what will be the permanent name of this article, we should stick to a descriptive name. Some sources are calling it the Second Nagorno-Karabakh War, but not enough, not yet. I don't think a year-based name for First Nagorno-Karabakh War has been proposed; if this isn't moved somebody should propose one. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:11, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- The first war spanned several years, ending in 1994, but the exact starting year is a matter of subjective interpretation: anywhere from 1988 to 1991, or even 1992. The conflict slowly escalated for years before turning into full-scale conventional warfare. So a year-based name would be fairly problematic, because it wouldn't use a single year like "2020", nor could it use a "year1–year2" range. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 13:44, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose 2016 clashes is sometimes also called second war. Shadow4dark (talk) 00:22, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support nom I think that for now, we should adopt this title. Several editors above pointed out that an increasingly large number of outside sources are using it, and while I fully admit that it isn't a clear majority, we can't expect anything to be in a clear majority so soon after the event occurred. "Second Nagorno-Karabakh War" is just a logical and concise name for the conflict, and we should adopt it until and unless a different name becomes widely adopted. -AsianFire- (talk) 20:03, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose per @Vallee01. Ytpks896 (talk) 03:30, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- Support Cause is similar to the "First Nagorno-Karabakh War" over the same land, by the same states. FernandoAguado — Preceding undated comment added 19:11, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Charles Essie (talk) 02:57, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Carthago814 (talk) 12:37, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- Conditional support 2604:3D09:1F79:4400:79E3:9D64:D2A6:6F84 (talk) 16:32, 5 January 2021 (UTC) I support it if and only if we incorporate the war in the 1910s and 20s into the counting sytem. They are three parts of the same grand sceheme, starting when the Ottomans and Russian's lost control after WW1 in the first war, and resuming as the CCCP broke up in the second one, with the Azeri's counter attacking in this third one.
- Comment. I see a lot of empty supports or supports-per-nom. Just want to emphasize that nom's argument is a weak one on usual English Wikipedia naming principles: most popular name in Azerbaijan isn't relevant. The name on other wikis is interesting but not determinitave. And the consistency argument doesn't always match reality - wars routinely aren't named by any systemic basis, we have Iraq War not Second Gulf War, and it could potentially be resolved by moving the other article, anyway. What matters are actual high quality sources that use "Second", and yet it's the opposers who have been offering the best sources. Here's a few other examples: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-54885906 , https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/azerbaijan-reports-attack-on-its-troops-in-nagorno-karabakh/2020/12/28/853775e8-48eb-11eb-97b6-4eb9f72ff46b_story.html , https://www.economist.com/europe/2020/12/16/azeris-return-to-their-ruined-old-homes (which incidentally DOES use "first" for the 90s conflict, but not second for the recent one!) . No cherry picking here, just grabbed relevant stories from these sites via a Google News search and saw what they used, and there are no "Second"s in any of the text of these articles. SnowFire (talk) 23:09, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Israel allegation
It is well known Israel and Azerbaijan are Allies, however Azerbaijan has other allies, and the references Haaretz and Alarabiya doesn't cite OFFICIAL statements. The point I make is that the information should be deleted untill there is trustworthy evidences of substantial Israeli involvement. Otherwise we are presenting speculations as facts.--Vanlister (talk) 22:57, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
- I agree. Unless there's no objection, I will delete it. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 19:34, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- The infobox mentioned Israel as an arms supplier to Azerbaijan during the war. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 23:46, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- And there are two articles cited in the body of the article saying precisely that. So there is objection to their removal from infobox. Could you please restore Israel to infobox as arms supplier to Azerbaijan? Many thanks. Armatura (talk) 10:00, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- Ahahaha, no. This thread is basically closed, open a new one, also don't forget to tag Vanlister. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 10:10, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- I see nothing funny about a polite request of bringing the sentence deleted without sufficient justification back. And no thread is closed until it is closed. If I decide to open RfC then I will open a new thread; I see nothing wrong with this one for general discussion. I tagged Vanlister as you asked and you are welcome to tag anybody else whoever you think is worth tagging, preferably not from one side. I'd perhaps tag Steverci who also saw injustice to history in the removal of Israel as arms supplier to Azerbaijan and holding Russia as arms supplier to Armenia in infobox, looks like frequent changes to these two aspects are interconnected. For everybody on this talk page, a polite reminder about the benefits of using the word please - Please is a word used in the English language to indicate politeness and respect while making a request. Regards, Armatura (talk) 13:06, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- Check out the dates between the comments by editors here. You like popped up here a month later. Also, can you please stop dramatizing stuff? Me writing ahahahah isn't the end of the world. And the reason why I asked you to tag Vanlister was because he was the original applicant. And, finally, we're not obligated to "please spam" here, and it will be better if you stop diverting the topic on hand. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 15:45, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- Please keep the discussion to the point and avoid attacking the editor who questioned your removal of a piece of this article per WP:AVOIDYOU. If there is nothing convincing to justify the removal with, other editors are entitled to restore it. Regards, Armatura (talk) 16:30, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- Check out the dates between the comments by editors here. You like popped up here a month later. Also, can you please stop dramatizing stuff? Me writing ahahahah isn't the end of the world. And the reason why I asked you to tag Vanlister was because he was the original applicant. And, finally, we're not obligated to "please spam" here, and it will be better if you stop diverting the topic on hand. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 15:45, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- I see nothing funny about a polite request of bringing the sentence deleted without sufficient justification back. And no thread is closed until it is closed. If I decide to open RfC then I will open a new thread; I see nothing wrong with this one for general discussion. I tagged Vanlister as you asked and you are welcome to tag anybody else whoever you think is worth tagging, preferably not from one side. I'd perhaps tag Steverci who also saw injustice to history in the removal of Israel as arms supplier to Azerbaijan and holding Russia as arms supplier to Armenia in infobox, looks like frequent changes to these two aspects are interconnected. For everybody on this talk page, a polite reminder about the benefits of using the word please - Please is a word used in the English language to indicate politeness and respect while making a request. Regards, Armatura (talk) 13:06, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- I agree, Israel should be returned to to infobox, their arming of Azerbaijan is well documented. --Steverci (talk) 00:07, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- Ahahaha, no. This thread is basically closed, open a new one, also don't forget to tag Vanlister. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 10:10, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- And there are two articles cited in the body of the article saying precisely that. So there is objection to their removal from infobox. Could you please restore Israel to infobox as arms supplier to Azerbaijan? Many thanks. Armatura (talk) 10:00, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- The infobox mentioned Israel as an arms supplier to Azerbaijan during the war. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 23:46, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- How did you reach to such a conclusion? Which documentation is that? Are you able to provide sources? The Israel had sold arms to Azerbaijan before the war, and there's not enough sources (except for Yerevan-based ones) on it. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 03:50, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- I've checked out the single source mentioned by Armatura above. No, we're not going to use Al-Arabiya, a Saudi government owned media outlet based in Dubai, for allegations towards Israel. If we must, we can also use Turkish and Pakistani sources on Armenia. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 04:11, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- "We" and "I, Solavirum" are different on Wikipedia, though. Al Arabiya is not a deprecated source, hence editors are generally allowed to use it as a source. You are welcome to take it to "Reliable sources" discussion if you are questioning their or their article's reliability with reasonable proof for unreliability, rather than just not liking its contents or perhaps having anti-Arabic sentiments. Turkey and Pakistan openly, actively, partisanly supported Azerbaijan, at least politically, in Azerbaijan's attack on Artsakh, when all other the countries in the world were calling for peace, hence no need for comparing Turkey and Pakistan to other countries in this aspect. But there's also the Haaretz (Israeli) article pointing out the same thing, in its very title, and Haaretz is considered good, reliable source. Regards Armatura (talk) 13:45, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- I advise you to first avoid that sarcastic rhetoric. Then, you should check the discussion archives on Al Arabiya and its anti-Israel bias before making assumptions. And there are articles on this issue too. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 15:36, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Hello, thank you for the notification. My first message was clear, if there is no formal statement it is not a reliable information, and it cannot be presented as a fact, because it is an allegation. An article of Haaretz arguing about the issue, is not a proof of anything. The article do NOT claim to have evidence that Israel is behind Azeri war effort. Rather it cite "anonymous sources" and formulate hypothesis. Presenting speculations as fact is problematic, as it is misleading. --Vanlister (talk) 14:59, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- "We" and "I, Solavirum" are different on Wikipedia, though. Al Arabiya is not a deprecated source, hence editors are generally allowed to use it as a source. You are welcome to take it to "Reliable sources" discussion if you are questioning their or their article's reliability with reasonable proof for unreliability, rather than just not liking its contents or perhaps having anti-Arabic sentiments. Turkey and Pakistan openly, actively, partisanly supported Azerbaijan, at least politically, in Azerbaijan's attack on Artsakh, when all other the countries in the world were calling for peace, hence no need for comparing Turkey and Pakistan to other countries in this aspect. But there's also the Haaretz (Israeli) article pointing out the same thing, in its very title, and Haaretz is considered good, reliable source. Regards Armatura (talk) 13:45, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Solavirum, there's no need for advice or, as a matter of fact, attacking tone. When you state something that is your own opinion, there is no need to show it as collective opinion. You are welcome to put a link to archives you are referring to and I'll have a look, there is nothing in the Reliable/Perennial sources page about not citing Al Arabia on Israel related issues. And as you are questioning it's reliability, you're welcome to take it to Reliable Sources discussion, as I said above. I understand you have no argument against Haaretz article. And unfortunately in Vanlister's argument I cannot conclude anything apart from IJDLI. Israel is never going to officially admit that it carried on arms supply during war, as it's a bad thing to do, one doesn't need that official confirmation or refutation as long as there are reliable third party sources. Regards, Armatura (talk) 23:09, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- I think you didn't understand my arguments and you continue giving your opinion on geolpolitcal matters. It is fine in real life to have strong beliefs without evidence, but it is not the case on Wikipedia. That's all. You can translate for example this article for an other point of view on the issue : https://www.israeldefense.co.il/he/node/47511
Best regards. --Vanlister (talk) 13:21, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- When you state something that is your own opinion, there is no need to show it as collective opinion, I've not shown an opinion, [5] this is enough for it too prove that many other users are in the same road when it comes to this. Also, the source doesn't solely needs to be a deprecated one for us to avoid its usage. As for the Haaretz, I didn't respond as I found Vanlister's reasons enough. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 13:49, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Solavirum, the link takes me to a list of discussions where somebody mentioned Al Arabia, that's all. I didn't see deprecation of it on Wikipedia. Again, if you are discussing Al Arabia's reliability as a source, Nagorno Karabakh war talk page is not the place for it - please dispute its reliability on the relevant noticeboard. You said the source doesn't solely need to be a deprecated one for us to avoid its usage. - What else do "we" need? Armatura (talk) 21:37, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Vanlister, the Hebrew article you provided a link to only mentions drones, not weapons sold during the war in general, I don't see how does it deny the continued arms sales by Israel during war. Please don't imagine that you are speaking the "honest truth" while everybody else just expresses their skewed "beliefs", as it's simply not the case. Armatura (talk) 21:37, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Solavirum, I'm for adding Israel back to the arms suppliers list. According to this Asia Times article[1], Israeli weapons exports to Azerbaijan significantly increased after the war began. This was also confirmed by the Israeli Defense Ministry. I quote from the article: "Moreover, the intensification of hostilities has not slowed Israeli arms sales to Baku. On the contrary, reports have flagged a significant airlift of arms and supplies from Israel to Azerbaijan over the two-and-a-half week conflict. The senior Defense Ministry source confirmed the continuous airlifts, probably the most extensive aerial resupply Israel has executed." I'm with Armatura on this one - I recommend adding Israel back to the list of arms suppliers. By the way, if you're wondering, Media Bias/Fact Check places Asia Times in its "least biased" category and confirms its high factual reporting.[2] Arandomguy12345 (talk) 1:14, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- Asia Times isn't listed in WP:RSP and that's what matters on Wikipedia. Asia Times is the publishing site that posted this horrible, unsourced article, which was subject to high controversy afterwards. I'd like to see your source for it being confirmed by Israeli Defense Ministry. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 08:35, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- CuriousGolden, if you have an issue with Asia Times you are free to nominate it to be added to the perennial list, but it is not currently listed as either a depreciated or unreliable source. That article you nitpicked is citing Russian press and doesn't state it to be fact. Meanwhile, Azeri media such as AzerNews and Capsian News have made completely unfounded claims of PKK supporting Artsakh, and yet are cited several times throughout the articles. --Steverci (talk) 17:37, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- Every time those are cited, there's either a "Azerbaijan claimed", "Azerbaijan accused" or they're used as primary sources to tell what the Azerbaijani media are saying. So, your comparison is invalid. And since AsiaTimes is not on the perennial list, it's not WP:RS either, so we can't state what they claim as a fact until it's confirmed WP:RS, which you can nominate it for, if you want. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 17:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- Steverci's whataboutism fails here as we're talking about the infobox here, not the article's text. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 19:15, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- The perennial list is just a "non-exhaustive list of sources whose reliability and use on Wikipedia are frequently discussed...If your source isn't listed here, the only thing it really means is that it hasn't been the subject of repeated community discussion." So, the fact no one has ever started a discussion about Asia Time's credibility is all the better.
- Other sources confirming Israeli involvement are France24[3], Haaretz[4], and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty[5] which also confirms that Turkey and Russia have supplied arms to Azerbaijan. --Steverci (talk) 19:59, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- Every time those are cited, there's either a "Azerbaijan claimed", "Azerbaijan accused" or they're used as primary sources to tell what the Azerbaijani media are saying. So, your comparison is invalid. And since AsiaTimes is not on the perennial list, it's not WP:RS either, so we can't state what they claim as a fact until it's confirmed WP:RS, which you can nominate it for, if you want. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 17:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- CuriousGolden, if you have an issue with Asia Times you are free to nominate it to be added to the perennial list, but it is not currently listed as either a depreciated or unreliable source. That article you nitpicked is citing Russian press and doesn't state it to be fact. Meanwhile, Azeri media such as AzerNews and Capsian News have made completely unfounded claims of PKK supporting Artsakh, and yet are cited several times throughout the articles. --Steverci (talk) 17:37, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- CuriousGolden, what you implied "source x isn't listed in WP:RSP hence it cannot be used or is not reliable on Wikipedia" is just not true. As per WP:RSPMISSING, a source's absence from the list does not imply that it is any more or less reliable than the sources that are present, did you know that?. Solavirum, speaking of "somebody's whereaboutism" is not the best example of collegial or civil behavior toward the other user. Both, if you are questioning a particular source's reliability, you are welcome to do that on the relevant noticeboard please, rather than continuing here. Denying something that has been supported by multiple third party sources does not go with Wikipedia standards. Regards, Armatura (talk) 20:37, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- It's interesting that you understood that from my comment. I'm not saying sources that aren't listed in WP:RSP can not be used. I was replying to the comment of another user implying that AsiaTimes was a confirmed reliable source, which it isn't. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 20:41, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- CuriousGolden Asia Times can be used as a source to reference this article, including its infoboxes, as long as it is not deprecated by a community discussion on Wikipedia, this is what matters Armatura (talk) 20:51, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- When there's a WP:CONSENSUS for it, then sure. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 20:54, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- You're the one who claimed a source not listed on RSP cannot be used at all. And consensus doesn't mean brigading against everything you don't like. --Steverci (talk) 21:04, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- Luckily, consensus in Wikipedia does not mean that CuriousGolden should necessarily agree to the proposed change, per WP:OWNERSHIP. Fighting against an article that one doesn't like the content of, without even trying to discuss it on the relevant noticeboard for the consensus one keeps advertising, falls below the Wikipedia standards. Armatura (talk) 21:16, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- Jeez. It's surprising that you keep reminding other users to keep civility like here:
Solavirum, speaking of "somebody's whereaboutism" is not the best example of collegial or civil behavior toward the other user.
, yet you still make comments like above. WP:AGF; I'm not interested in being involved in unconstructive discussions. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 21:22, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- Jeez. It's surprising that you keep reminding other users to keep civility like here:
- When there's a WP:CONSENSUS for it, then sure. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 20:54, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- CuriousGolden Asia Times can be used as a source to reference this article, including its infoboxes, as long as it is not deprecated by a community discussion on Wikipedia, this is what matters Armatura (talk) 20:51, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- It's interesting that you understood that from my comment. I'm not saying sources that aren't listed in WP:RSP can not be used. I was replying to the comment of another user implying that AsiaTimes was a confirmed reliable source, which it isn't. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 20:41, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- Looks like you missed my last comment where I explained precisely how I didn't say what you claimed I did. And consensus means reaching an understanding between two sides that disagree with each other. I don't appreciate your WP:AGF violations. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 21:18, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- CuriousGolden If you are adressing me, I may assume that faith back, when you finally start a dispute of the source reliability on relevant noticeboard (where there isn't a high concentration of editors with particular national POV, and where there are a lot of uninvolved editors who are extremely likely to conclude that there are no grounds for criticising the source at all), rather then denigrating it here, on this very talk page (with support from editors from your "side", with this pattern ). Armatura (talk) 21:31, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- It was addressed to Steverci, not you. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 21:46, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- It's hard to assume good faith when you're making up rules, and even sharing a guideline that states the opposite of what you're saying. Any input on the France24, Haaretz, and Radio Free Europe sources? --Steverci (talk) 22:46, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not even going to ask what rule you think I'm making up because this discussion is too toxic and unconstructive at this point. Follow WP:CIVILITY. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 07:46, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
- It's hard to assume good faith when you're making up rules, and even sharing a guideline that states the opposite of what you're saying. Any input on the France24, Haaretz, and Radio Free Europe sources? --Steverci (talk) 22:46, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- It was addressed to Steverci, not you. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 21:46, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- CuriousGolden If you are adressing me, I may assume that faith back, when you finally start a dispute of the source reliability on relevant noticeboard (where there isn't a high concentration of editors with particular national POV, and where there are a lot of uninvolved editors who are extremely likely to conclude that there are no grounds for criticising the source at all), rather then denigrating it here, on this very talk page (with support from editors from your "side", with this pattern ). Armatura (talk) 21:31, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- Looks like you missed my last comment where I explained precisely how I didn't say what you claimed I did. And consensus means reaching an understanding between two sides that disagree with each other. I don't appreciate your WP:AGF violations. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 21:18, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
The discussion is toxic because an information has been removed in a rash, without even waiting for concensus, by one editor with strong pro Azerbaijani POV, upon the request of another editor with strong pro Azerbaijani POV, citing "no criticism to removal". And now, when there is a strong criticism, supported by multiple third party sources, by more than one user, every effort is made and every WP rule is (mis)cited in order to defend the denial of Israeli arms supply during the war, essentially owning the article to the detriment of its objectivity. Armatura (talk) 10:56, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
And don't tell me about assumption of good faith please as these action literally rule out any possibility of that good faith. Armatura (talk) 10:58, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
- You do realize that these people opened a discussion, waited more than a week to allow any possible disagreers to voice their opinion, and after a month of no one saying anything against their proposal, you've arrived and are blaming them for removing something no one objected? Discussing unimportant things such as why they removed it instead of explaining why you think it should be added back won't lead this discussion anywhere and has created the toxic environment I talked about. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 11:06, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
- CuriousGolden Hope you do realise that whatever changes they have made in the article, they are not written on the stone and are subject to change in view of accumulating evidence? Hope you appreciate that instead of going into the article and adding Israel back (and starting an edit war) attempts in good faith are made to reach a consensus based on the presented sources (and not the number of battling participants). Yet all I see is defending the current Israel "did not supply" arms (and Russia "did supply" arms during war in the other thread) baseless content of infobox, in view of evolving love affair between Azerbaijan and Israel and pro-Azerbaijani editors IJDLI-ing the articles that criticise Israel's involvement, as simple as that. You, a proponent of consensus, chose to not respond to the sources provided, but chose attacking the providers instead. If the practice of 1) disputing the reliability of disputed sources here instead of reliability noticeboards and 2) attacking the editors presenting the sources instead of reflecting on the content of cited articles continues, I will take this to dispute resolution and the attention of admins. Regards, Armatura (talk) 13:17, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
"Operation Iron Fist"
The "Operation Iron Fist" is mentioned in the first sentence of this article, along with 2020 NK war, but I see no reference that would describe that operation's structure (goals->planning->realisation steps). Is there a source that provides those details? If not, then I would argue that while "Operation Iron Fist" should still be mentioned in the article, it should not be in the very first sentence, giving undue weight to a concept that is coined by Azerbaijani government after the war, perhaps only for the purposes of announcing on a military parade. Armatura (talk) 11:59, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
- That isn't an undue weight though. See 2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria. And declaring it post-war doesn't mean that it was just decided after the war. operation's structure (goals->planning->realisation steps), I don't get it. We can't just show it in the Azerbaijani perspective, but sure that this is an Azerbaijani offensive. There's enough information on this in Analysis section. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 17:48, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Does the combination of 1)Azerbaijani government denying they attacked first and 2)Azerbaijani government speaking of a offensive special operation (that requires planning and cannot be just spontaneous) sound logical to you? To non-Azerbaijani editors, declaring it post war on a military parade, without description apart from a cool name, may sound a bit like coining a cool name for the war solely to the tribute of Azerbaijani president,hence my argument for giving it undue weight in the very first sentence of the article. I see no problem if it's mentioned in the body text though. Regards, Armatura (talk) 23:35, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
- Vici Vidi, well, Azerbaijan claims that it had launched a counter-offensive against the Armenian forces when they shelled the village of Gapanly on 27 September. Counter- or not, that's still an offensive. And also, the ceasefire violations like in Gapanly was happening basically every day since the signing of the 1994 Bishkek protocol. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 15:26, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
- Vici Vidi, Solavirum Everything that is not against the laws of physics is theoretically possible, however apart from Azerbaijan nobody else claimed a counteroffensive and this very article states that International analysts believe that fighting likely began with an Azerbaijani offensive,with the primary goal of reclaiming the less mountainous districts of southern Nagorno-Karabakh.
It sounds doublethink to me. Where is the description of that "Iron First" special operation? Does it exist at all? Regards, Armatura (talk) 06:19, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
- The key word here is to me. Give a guideline where it says we have to give a whole viewpoint of the side that launches the offensive. I've not even seen such thing in WW2-related articles. In any case, Azerbaijan disclosed everything after the war, no wonder why they do the same about the operation. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 13:17, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm one of the editors of this article and my opinion should be taken into account as every other editor of this article. Surely a credible operation should have more than a coined cool name available. Here's a WW2 special operation example https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Barbarossa#:~:text=Operation%20Barbarossa%20(German%3A%20Unternehmen%20Barbarossa,to%20repopulate%20it%20with%20Germans. And give me guideline that says everything that Azerbaijani president says as part of his propaganda should be included in the very first sentence of the article describing a war. Regards, Armatura (talk) 19:51, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
- Avoid stuff like Azerbaijani president says as part of his propaganda, we are not Reddit or something. I'm trying to help you out here, and understand what you want. Surely a credible operation should have more than a coined cool name available, is this a joke or something? Also, about the naming, we can't use Operation Iron Fist in the title, because the coverage doesn't mention it enough. Like Operation Olive Branch, or Operation Peace Spring, it is still a code-name for the offensive. If you have any legit arguments, come up with them, instead of you make Aliev propaganda. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 00:57, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Please avoid commanding language and ad hominem remarks as WP:CIVILITY. Saying "please" should not be that difficult in a civilized world. We both know well WP is not a place for jokes, neither it is social network, I'll leave to the judgement of uninvolved editors who's using emotional social media language on this talk page. I'm saying we shouldn't use an operation code-name in the first sentence of this article, as there's nothing else about that operation apart from code-name. So far, there is no publication that would describe that operation details, there's essentially nothing but a name. Mentioning that codename somewhere in the article should be okay, though. This conversation is likely to end up in a deadlock, hence I may take it to dispute resolution unless a concensus is reached with third party editors. Regards Armatura (talk) 01:18, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Please avoid commanding language and ad hominem remarks as WP:CIVILITY. Saying "please" should not be that difficult in a civilized world. We both know well WP is not a place for jokes, neither it is social network, no need for questioning this constantly and I'll leave to the judgement of uninvolved editors who's using emotional social media language on this talk page. I'm saying we shouldn't use an operation code-name in the first sentence of this article, as there's nothing else about that operation apart from code-name. So far, there is no publication that would describe that operation details, there's essentially nothing but a name. Mentioning that codename somewhere in the article should be okay, though, as it is something a president said. This conversation is likely to end up in a deadlock I understand, hence I may take it to dispute resolution unless a consensus is reached with third party editors. Regards Armatura (talk) 01:28, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
- Ugh, I can't believe you can claim victimhood after such a rhetoric. Anyways, ask any third-party editor you want. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum
- No changes should be made regarding the code-name Operation Iron Fist. I agree with SolaVirum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.156.71.30 (talk) 06:12, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- Dear unsigned user writing from (Turkish) IP 212.156.71.30, this is not voting and simply supporting one of the editors in dispute without elaborating on the reasons of that support hardly counts as impartial addition to discussion and hardly helps in reaching a consensus. Regards Armatura (talk) 15:12, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- What a detective. Dear pro-armenian (maybe even an armenian), as I said I agree with SolaVirum's reasoning, you simply "wp:idontlikeit" the code-name. Most, if not all, war pages have a code-name in first sentence. And there is no dispute here. I am sure if armenia had a code-name then it would have been added too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.156.71.30 (talk) 18:42, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- Dear user now writing from another Turkish IP 37.155.240.129 (Ankara, Turkey), then and then manually editing your ip to make it look like it is written from the previous Turkish IP (Kazan, Turkey, 50 km away from Ankara), and trying to accuse me of "Trying to steal last ditch piece of victory" please avoid ad hominem remarks, revealing the user's ethnicity, mis-citing WP guidelines, off-topic comments and under-cover editing (all violations of WP guidelines). Saying the same thing does not give more weight to the already said thing. First, most wars (unlike most special operations) do not have code-names (would be interested to see where you took that generalization from) and second, the claimed special operation should be credible/verifiable for its codename to be used in this article in general and in the very first sentence of this article in particular, to avoid undue weight to something that has no description beyond the code-name. There is a dispute here, as you can see from me disputing it, even if you do not like the dispute, sorry. A friendly advice - drop this behavior please, to avoid administrative sanctions. Regards, Armatura (talk) 19:39, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- You are not disputing it, you are "i just dont like it". Keep you "friendly" advice to yourself next time. Yes, I replied and then edited my own ip address so that it would be clear that I am the same person, it's just one was from work computer and now I reply from my home computer. It's unclear where you are going with this editing accusation, you are the first to be a "detective" and "reveal" my Turkish ip, no one was trying to hide. Uhh, Talking to you is useless. I won't reply to you anymore, in this topic. Go on with you personal likes/unlikes... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.155.240.129 (talk) 20:09, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- User 212.156.71.30/37.155.240.129 I see no reason why you would not login with a username, to avoid making "false impressions", unless your account has been banned. I am sorry, but this kind of activity may be unacceptable not only to me. You are welcome to defend your point to uninvolved admins on Administrators Noticeboard where you are invited for your activity surrounding the NKR-related topics here and elsewhere, as you can see from notices on your talkpages. Regards, Armatura (talk) 20:53, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- You are not disputing it, you are "i just dont like it". Keep you "friendly" advice to yourself next time. Yes, I replied and then edited my own ip address so that it would be clear that I am the same person, it's just one was from work computer and now I reply from my home computer. It's unclear where you are going with this editing accusation, you are the first to be a "detective" and "reveal" my Turkish ip, no one was trying to hide. Uhh, Talking to you is useless. I won't reply to you anymore, in this topic. Go on with you personal likes/unlikes... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.155.240.129 (talk) 20:09, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- Dear user now writing from another Turkish IP 37.155.240.129 (Ankara, Turkey), then and then manually editing your ip to make it look like it is written from the previous Turkish IP (Kazan, Turkey, 50 km away from Ankara), and trying to accuse me of "Trying to steal last ditch piece of victory" please avoid ad hominem remarks, revealing the user's ethnicity, mis-citing WP guidelines, off-topic comments and under-cover editing (all violations of WP guidelines). Saying the same thing does not give more weight to the already said thing. First, most wars (unlike most special operations) do not have code-names (would be interested to see where you took that generalization from) and second, the claimed special operation should be credible/verifiable for its codename to be used in this article in general and in the very first sentence of this article in particular, to avoid undue weight to something that has no description beyond the code-name. There is a dispute here, as you can see from me disputing it, even if you do not like the dispute, sorry. A friendly advice - drop this behavior please, to avoid administrative sanctions. Regards, Armatura (talk) 19:39, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- What a detective. Dear pro-armenian (maybe even an armenian), as I said I agree with SolaVirum's reasoning, you simply "wp:idontlikeit" the code-name. Most, if not all, war pages have a code-name in first sentence. And there is no dispute here. I am sure if armenia had a code-name then it would have been added too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.156.71.30 (talk) 18:42, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- Dear unsigned user writing from (Turkish) IP 212.156.71.30, this is not voting and simply supporting one of the editors in dispute without elaborating on the reasons of that support hardly counts as impartial addition to discussion and hardly helps in reaching a consensus. Regards Armatura (talk) 15:12, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
Dear fellow editors, I am declining the invitation to provide a third opinion and have removed the listing from the 3O page: there are too many people involved already. Other options include WP:Requests for Comment, the dispute resolution noticeboard or one of the other WP:Dispute resolution options. With all respect and friendly regards to all, Springnuts (talk) 19:26, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
Duly noted. Opened a discussion on noticeboard, everybody is welcome to participate.Regards, Armatura (talk) 13:18, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Dear Jr8825, would you be able to archive this thread now that a solution has been found by introducing Naming section in article? Many thanks, Armatura (talk) 16:53, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
RfC about including "Operation Iron Fist" in the lead paragraph
Should lead paragraph of this article include code-name "Operation Iron Fist", yes or no? WP guidelines state the lead section should be carefully sourced. So far, there is only a phrase from Azerbaijani military parade on 10th December (a month after the end of 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war on 9th November), referenced by two-sentence Azerbaijani-language stub in Report.az, which links to itself as its source. I suggest moving it to aftermath, into the paragraph of the mentioned parade. No consensus reached with involved editors. Armatura (talk) 20:07, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- Yes it should. Does wp guidelines also allow same talk initiated 2nd time by the same user? https://mod.gov.az/en/news/a-victory-parade-dedicated-to-victory-in-the-patriotic-war-was-held-at-azadlig-square-baku-34045.html What better source than official Az MoD ? Since the sentance already says "code named Operation Iron Fist by Azerbaijan". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.155.240.129 (talk) 22:03, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- The operation's name was disclosed after the war, like literally everything else, including the casualties. There are thousands of sources mentioning that name, and Report IA isn't something small. Per manual of style, the attacking side's code-name for the ops is mentioned in the lead. You can see any other articles on warfare. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 16:43, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- Solavirum, 37.155.240.129 RfC is designed to attract uninvolved editors. Regards, Armatura (talk) 22:24, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- And what stops me from pointing out my opinion? --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 22:30, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- Your opinion is already extensively pointed out on this talk page. Regards, Armatura (talk) 22:44, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- And what stops me from pointing out my opinion? --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 22:30, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- Solavirum, 37.155.240.129 RfC is designed to attract uninvolved editors. Regards, Armatura (talk) 22:24, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- The operation's name was disclosed after the war, like literally everything else, including the casualties. There are thousands of sources mentioning that name, and Report IA isn't something small. Per manual of style, the attacking side's code-name for the ops is mentioned in the lead. You can see any other articles on warfare. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 16:43, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- No - A case of UNDUE - there's no mention of the name in reliable sources whatsoever. A Google search turns up nothing but a handful of mentions in Azerbaijani media (which is controlled by the government). It's clear that nobody was aware of the name until well after the fighting had finished, let alone referred to the conflict by it, including in Azerbaijan. And given this, Armatura's original concern, that it could've been invented for propaganda purposes, is entirely plausible. Even if there were trustworthy sources, I don't see how it would be relevant or notable enough to include in the lead. In the previous discussion a military campaign was given as an example of including codenames, this is a false equivalence – while it may be relevant for an individual offensive, this article is about an entire conflict. As an aside, I'm not optimistic about the chances of this RfC, particularly as the statement isn't brief and neutral. Jr8825 • Talk 20:32, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- Armatura I moved the whole topic to a separate section in order to avoid anything undue. I hope this works. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 16:20, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
- Solavirum Thanks, this looks better, I have therefore closed the RfC and I think this section in talk page can be archived. Armatura (talk) 00:01, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- I personally liked it better as an {{efn}}. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 16:25, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
- Solavirum Thanks, this looks better, I have therefore closed the RfC and I think this section in talk page can be archived. Armatura (talk) 00:01, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Dear Jr8825, would you be able to archive this thread now that a solution has been found by introducing Naming section in article? Many thanks, Armatura (talk) 16:54, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Russia doesn't support Armenia
If Israel, which militarily supported Azerbaijan but made no official statements, is removed from the belligerents, then so should Russia, which did not offer Artsakh any support and even made an official statement that it would not do so.
- "The treaty envisages Russia's military support if Armenia is attacked - but it does not include Nagorno-Karabakh or the other Azerbaijani regions around it seized by Armenian forces."[6]
- "Moscow has sought to remain neutral during the conflict, while consistently stressing its strong ties with Azerbaijan."[7]
- "In response, Russia’s ministry of foreign affairs released a statement that did not confirm talks would begin but stated: “In accordance with the treaty, Russia will provide Yerevan with all the necessary assistance if the clashes are transferred directly to the territory of Armenia.”"
- Link to official Russian government statement saying they will not support Artsakh
- “It should be said that our position is absolutely open with regard to the possibility of handing over these five plus two [surrounding] districts to Azerbaijan, alongside the provision of a specific regime for the Karabakh zone and the securing of a link with Armenia,” Mr Putin said on Thursday.[8]
- "He [Putin] has referred to both Armenia and Azerbaijan as valued Russian partners. And he has specified that Russia’s treaty obligation to defend Armenia – both are members of the Collective Security Treaty Organization – applies only to Armenia itself, not to Armenian-controlled territory in and around Karabakh."[9]
If no reliable sources can be provided that Russia supported Artsakh, I will remove it. --Steverci (talk) 20:59, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- I agree with you, but there is more than that: all allegations should be removed from the infobox. Remove Russia, remove Turkey and syrians. Because all those are allegations and have no proof. The source for Tukey says that: F16 presence shows that bla bla bla. Ilham Aliyev said that "the world powers have high tech satellites, don't they see? Of course they do, No one can prove that those jets were used, because they were not. Their presence is symbolic and a moral support, a message." Russia has a whole military base in armenia and no one says that it was a direct support to armenia. I always said that the infobox is inclined in favor of armenia. By removing only Russia you will make it even more inclined in favor of armenia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.135.144.173 (talk) 09:38, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- Both Turkey and Syrian terrorists confirmed by multiple third-party sources. --Steverci (talk) 15:20, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- First, they are not alleged as "terrorists" but as "mercenaries". Second, sources, right? Have you read those sources? They only make things up out of thin air, and shamelessly multiply these allegations without poofs. Normally the sources must be analyzed one-by-one. It would be a very long discussion, longer then I can allocate my efforts on, but if you read them it's very clear to an unbiased eye. Take 1st source for example. BBC article editor claims to have talked with 4 Syrians and that "The men, many of them with no military experience, were being recruited for war". So, this editor wants a reader to believe, that Azerbaijani army with well-trained soldiers, better weapons and numerical superiority recruited syrians with no military experience to fight armenian soldiers which also were well-trained (maybe not as well as azeris, but they had their regular trainings too, including military exercises with Russia)? Unfortunately these "third-party sources" are affected by armenian diaspora, more armenians live outside of Armenia than in Armenia, mostly in US and France. More azeris live outside Azerbijan as well but those are mostly in Iran. 2nd source is Reuters: accusation by France, surprise! "Neither Macron or the French presidency provided evidence to support the accusation about the mercenaries." And it goes on and on. About Turkey, not selling military equipment to Armenia doesn't mean that it militarily supports Azerbaijan, Turkey isn't a major weapons supplier, not an only supplier, and doesn't supply best weapons out there. Armenia had plenty suppliers to choose. 4 Turkish jets doesn't mean it militarily supported Az, as Russian military base in Armenia doesn't mean the equal. Turkey have been sharing it's military experience and conducting trainings with Azeris for decades, as Russia was doing same with Armenia, doesn't mean there was a direct military support by any side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.135.144.173 (talk) 17:47, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- Both Turkey and Syrian terrorists confirmed by multiple third-party sources. --Steverci (talk) 15:20, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- No one is inclined to adress the same issue dozens of times. See the result regarding your request in DRN. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 13:42, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- Solavirum Nobody said "don't address this issue", though. The DRN was closed not because something was wrong with the dispute subject but because "editors made introductory statements, but did not reply within 48 hours to a question by the moderator". That DRN closure note says "The editors are advised to resolve their dispute on the article talk page", which is precisely what the editor continuing the discussion in this thread is doing. I suggest staying calm and answering the raised questions, please. Regards, Armatura (talk) 01:11, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry but ethnic Azeri protestors in Iran is not a reliable source. And why would you also supporting removing Israel, which has been confirmed by third parties to have armed Azerbaijan? --Steverci (talk) 15:20, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- I don't know why are you confusing a phenomenon and a source. For the other thing, I clearly stated that in one of the threads that if no one objected it, I will remove the part several days later. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 16:47, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- Armenians in Israel also protested against Israel's arm supplying Azerbaijan.[6] Do you have a reliable source that Russia supported Artsakh or not? --Steverci (talk) 19:46, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- So what? If you objected Israel's removal, you could've said that anytime. But here, you're just engaging in whataboutism. To explain how Wikipedia works, the same thing about your statement on having sources or not can be said about the Syrians, as there's literally no solid and factual proof of them fighting in the war, but only reports. Again, we had closed the case on Russian aid before. No need to spam it every single day. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 20:34, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- It's simply keeping the article consistent. If you're actually disputing the Syrian terrorists, which have been confirmed by many third party sources, but defending Russian support, which only Azerbaijan claims, then this is WP:POVPUSH. This section is just for Russia in the infobox, which only you objected to removing before. --Steverci (talk) 21:39, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- So what? If you objected Israel's removal, you could've said that anytime. But here, you're just engaging in whataboutism. To explain how Wikipedia works, the same thing about your statement on having sources or not can be said about the Syrians, as there's literally no solid and factual proof of them fighting in the war, but only reports. Again, we had closed the case on Russian aid before. No need to spam it every single day. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 20:34, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- Armenians in Israel also protested against Israel's arm supplying Azerbaijan.[6] Do you have a reliable source that Russia supported Artsakh or not? --Steverci (talk) 19:46, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- I don't know why are you confusing a phenomenon and a source. For the other thing, I clearly stated that in one of the threads that if no one objected it, I will remove the part several days later. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 16:47, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- I think we should stop arguing as you started labelling these mercs as "terrorists". Also, no, talking to "Abdullah" doesn't mean that the Syrian mercs were there. That's why we say "X outlet reported". Just like how the articles mention reports of Russian arms supply to Armenia. Both Syrians and Russia are reports. That's it. And, on my behalf, I can also accuse you of massive POV-push. But meh, I don't care. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 23:51, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- They've been called terrorists by Russian officials and the president of Iran.[7][8] And they've gotten enough third-party coverage to be treated as fact. BBC ran a sympathetic article for the terrorists that even said the evidence is undeniable.[9] Do you have a reliable source for Russia supplying arms to Artsakh or not? --Steverci (talk) 00:15, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- I think we should stop arguing as you started labelling these mercs as "terrorists". Also, no, talking to "Abdullah" doesn't mean that the Syrian mercs were there. That's why we say "X outlet reported". Just like how the articles mention reports of Russian arms supply to Armenia. Both Syrians and Russia are reports. That's it. And, on my behalf, I can also accuse you of massive POV-push. But meh, I don't care. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 23:51, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- Like it or not, we're not the Russian government or the Iranian regime. You can always check the Russian Wikipedia for promoting Kremlin's narrative. Calling them terrorists is just your POV, and only the pro-Assad sources like to label FSA terrorists for obvious reasons. Anyways, I'm not here to defend FSA. I again say that BBC's report, which cited a so-called FSA leader called "Abdullah", is not a direct and solid evidence for the involvement of the Syrian mercs. The sole reason why we add them is the coverage and their speculated involvement. The same goes for the Russian involvement. The removal of Russia from the infobox is blatantly misleading the readers. The issue is notable enough in the infobox just because of the fact that it was considered true enough to cause mass protests in Iran (with hundreds of arrests), and several official statements by the Iranian leadership. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 03:45, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- "Four Syrians have told the BBC that after enlisting for sentry duties in Azerbaijan" is not an "undeniable evidence" (even this phrase was never stated in the article). --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 04:09, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
İ don't see Russia listed as a belligerent in the infobox. Correct me if I'm wrong. It is only listed as an arms supplier. What is the argument about here? Grandmaster 14:21, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- Grandmaster Russia supplied arms to both Armenia and Azerbaijan before the conflict, it is common, openly available knowledge. No proof that Russia supplied arms to either side during the conflict, so far only accusations by Azerbaijan, based on unverified footages on social media, as the text of the article says. The argument here is that Russia, being neither belligerent nor arms supplier during conflict, should not be in the infobox either as belligerent or arms supplier, for either side. It (despite Armenia and Artsakh asking for help) chose to remain neutral. If we are to list arms suppliers before the conflict, then there will be a decent list or countries under Azerbaijan's arms suppliers in the infobox. Solavirum To keep this thread focused, please see/discuss Israel involvement in Israel allegation and Syrian mercenaries in About Syrian mercenaries in the infobox Regards, Armatura (talk) 15:26, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- Russia did not get directly engaged in the conflict, but it did supply arms to Armenia during the conflict. It was confirmed by Armenian officials, Movses Hagopian being one of them. See his interview quoted on BBC: [10] So Russia should not be listed as a belligerent, but only as an arms supplier. Grandmaster 17:37, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- Grandmaster Where in that article is the proof of Russia's sale of arms to Armenia during the recent war? I don't think you can derive such a serious conclusion from "Россия полностью выполнила все обязательства перед Арменией и поставила ей все вооружение, даже то, о чем и не мечтали", сказал Акопян." If you read the article to end you will see the discredited general's announcements were deemed "made-out" and "absurd" and are subject to investigation. Regards, Armatura (talk)
- Many in Armenia accused Russia that it did not fulfill its obligations under mutual defense treaty during the war. General was responding to that. Russia repeatedly stated that its obligations do not cover the territory of NK, however there were almost daily flights from Russia delivering weaponry, in particular advanced anti-aircraft systems. Armenia did not make a good use of those due to lack of skilled personnel. It was all revealed by Armenian officials. Akopian makes specific mention of Pole-21 systems supplied by Russia that Armenia did not have before the war. Grandmaster 20:06, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- Btw, does the "arms suppliers" field cover only those countries which supplied arms before the war, or those who supplied arms before the war as well? Grandmaster 20:15, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- Grandmaster. I don't think one can conclude from "Ранее об использовании "Поля-21" не сообщалось" ("no previous reports of Polya-21 use") that the Polya-21 system was supplied during this war, as it may have been supplied before war, just not used before that war. Do you have reliable references for "daily flights from Russia delivering weaponry, during the war, as revealed by Armenian officials"? As for who is the arms supplier, I think as long as we specify which countries supplied arms before the war and which ones carried on supplied weapons during the war, it should be okay. What is not okay - is leaving that important distinction ambiguous Armatura (talk) 20:29, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- Akopian clearly says "from the first days of war": [11] Grandmaster 21:20, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- Also an interesting source about Russian arm supplies: [12] Grandmaster 21:23, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- Grandmaster I don't think we can safely include anything from Sputnik which is a deprecated source. And if even the general have said such a thing, it will be a sensational piece of allegation till supported by third parties. As for the Ng.ru article, the only citable phrase is "постоянные рейсы транспортных Ил-76 из российских Минеральных Вод в Армению" (regular races of Il-76 from Mineralnye Vody to Armenia), however with no proof that they were transporting arms supplies. The author himself calls the publication of AsiaTime about «Красуха-4» station wrong. Then same sensationalist piece of General Hakobyan about Поле-21Э stations follows... To blame Russia which was praised by Azerbaijani president for staying neutral during the war one needs more than an anti-Pashinyan general with sensationalist claims I am afraid. To demonstrate my point about sensatinal claims, I'd like to cite a paragraph from Pap of Armenia article: "Terentius sent two generals to capture and execute Pap. Both generals gave an excuse that Pap had used magical powers to avoid capture and used a dark cloud to mask his party. Faustus in his Epic Histories also claimed that Pap was possessed by devs (demons)." Armatura (talk) 21:52, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- Bloomberg is not deprecated, as far as I can see. [13] Press-conference by Hokobyan was reported by many news outlets, and there are even video and audio footage of his statements. And this person was one of the top Armenian military officials during the war, and his statements were not refuted by the government of Armenia. Grandmaster 17:50, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Grandmaster I don't think we can safely include anything from Sputnik which is a deprecated source. And if even the general have said such a thing, it will be a sensational piece of allegation till supported by third parties. As for the Ng.ru article, the only citable phrase is "постоянные рейсы транспортных Ил-76 из российских Минеральных Вод в Армению" (regular races of Il-76 from Mineralnye Vody to Armenia), however with no proof that they were transporting arms supplies. The author himself calls the publication of AsiaTime about «Красуха-4» station wrong. Then same sensationalist piece of General Hakobyan about Поле-21Э stations follows... To blame Russia which was praised by Azerbaijani president for staying neutral during the war one needs more than an anti-Pashinyan general with sensationalist claims I am afraid. To demonstrate my point about sensatinal claims, I'd like to cite a paragraph from Pap of Armenia article: "Terentius sent two generals to capture and execute Pap. Both generals gave an excuse that Pap had used magical powers to avoid capture and used a dark cloud to mask his party. Faustus in his Epic Histories also claimed that Pap was possessed by devs (demons)." Armatura (talk) 21:52, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- Grandmaster. I don't think one can conclude from "Ранее об использовании "Поля-21" не сообщалось" ("no previous reports of Polya-21 use") that the Polya-21 system was supplied during this war, as it may have been supplied before war, just not used before that war. Do you have reliable references for "daily flights from Russia delivering weaponry, during the war, as revealed by Armenian officials"? As for who is the arms supplier, I think as long as we specify which countries supplied arms before the war and which ones carried on supplied weapons during the war, it should be okay. What is not okay - is leaving that important distinction ambiguous Armatura (talk) 20:29, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- Grandmaster Where in that article is the proof of Russia's sale of arms to Armenia during the recent war? I don't think you can derive such a serious conclusion from "Россия полностью выполнила все обязательства перед Арменией и поставила ей все вооружение, даже то, о чем и не мечтали", сказал Акопян." If you read the article to end you will see the discredited general's announcements were deemed "made-out" and "absurd" and are subject to investigation. Regards, Armatura (talk)
- Russia did not get directly engaged in the conflict, but it did supply arms to Armenia during the conflict. It was confirmed by Armenian officials, Movses Hagopian being one of them. See his interview quoted on BBC: [10] So Russia should not be listed as a belligerent, but only as an arms supplier. Grandmaster 17:37, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
As I said earlier, allegations of one general are not enough for putting anything in the infobox as a "fact". You're welcome to cite him in the article text with appropriate attribution. I don't know what do you mean by saying "Armenian government didn't refute it", did you see Armenian PM's calling these allegations absurd above? And to be fair, one wouldn't need Armenian governments agreement or refutation, as one can't expect 100% honest reply from governments of Armenia and Russia who have conflict of interest in this issue. One just needs third party sources to support the allegations. Armatura (talk) 22:54, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- But he is not just any random person, and not just any general. He was a top Armenian military official, so he is a well informed person. If top Armenian military confirms arms supplies, then it is more than just an allegation. He even provides details of the type of equipment that was supplied, such as Pole-21. Grandmaster 21:45, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
It's your point of view, Grandmaster, which doesn't agree with my point of view, as simple as that. Armatura (talk) 07:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- Let's ask other editors for their opinions. There are uninvolved editors here who may kindly share their opinions. Grandmaster 00:12, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Grandmaster That's a good thought. How to ask their opinons, though. RfC maybe? Armatura (talk) 04:24, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Updated Armenian Losses
According to Armenian sources the current number of confirmed KIA stands at 3330Armenian Source, Bodies to be identified via DNA test is 871 which i assume would be added to total confirmed KIA, also Interesting enough de facto "NKR" sources have confirmed around 1800 KIA which from my understanding is not included in Armenian Ministry of Health number as technically they are two different entities any thoughts on this? Agulani (talk) 18:29, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- done the first part. Agulani, I'm not sure about the second part, as you've not provided any sources on it. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 19:08, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- Solavirum here you go, Kavkaz-uzel last available source is 1779 KIA as per "NKR" ministry of Defense, its mentioned separately from Armenian sources and is not complied together, also Armenian sources in news clearly always mention that 3300(latest figure) are Armenian soldiers which seems to indicate only citizens of Armenia not "NKR", i would understand why they would try to not compile the numbers as it comes closer to total tally that has been mentioned by Armenian opposition Agulani (talk) 08:28, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
I got what you mean. We could add the casualties from Armenia and the Republic of Artsakh/NKR seperately. As both of them are seperate entities. Though other editors, like EkoGraf, also commenting would be useful. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 08:39, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose. Cited source Kavkaz-uzel states the Armenian PM stated 2,400 Armenian soldiers were killed, while the "NKR" ministry of Defense published the list of names of 1,779 killed soldiers. Both figures can be originally cited to two earlier statements. The PM originally put out a figure of 2,400 Armenian soldiers killed on 16 November [14]. Also, on 11 December, [15] the NKR military's death toll was put at 2,996 dead (cited to the Armenian Ministry of Health), of which 1,779 were identified. Further, at the start of December [16], the NKR military's death toll was put at 2,718 (cited to the Armenian MoH), of which 1,746 were identified, and mid-November the NKR stated the bodies of 2,317 of their servicemen were examined (also citing the Armenian Ministry of Health), of which 1,586 were identified [17][18]. In addition, virtually all third party independent sources are citing only one (the higher) figure of Armenian dead. So, no indication these are two separate sets of figures for two separate entities. Instead, higher figure is the number of all bodies of ethnically Armenian servicemen examined/processed, while the lower figure is the number of those servicemen who have been identified. I would also remind, as per our earlier discussion, its well established that regular servicemen of Armenia who were killed during the conflict are on the NKR's lists of dead servicemen. One example, the Armenian Air Force pilot that was shot down at the beginning of the war is listed on the NKR's list of servicemen killed (we established this in an earlier discussion). EkoGraf (talk) 16:24, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
References
- ^ https://asiatimes.com/2020/10/israel-to-maintain-azeri-edge-in-karabakh-war/
- ^ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/asia-times/
- ^ [1]
- ^ [2]
- ^ [3]
- ^ Armenia, Azerbaijan and Russia sign Nagorno-Karabakh peace deal
- ^ Armenia calls for Russian help as fight with Azerbaijan intensifies
- ^ Russia open to return of occupied Azeri land by Armenia
- ^ Small outpost is Russia’s first visible aid to Armenia
Post-ceasefire clashes
What about moving Post-ceasefire clashes to 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh ceasefire agreement to shorten the article? Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 07:13, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Գարիկ Ավագյան: sounds like a good idea. They should definitely be removed from the lead. Jr8825 • Talk 19:50, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Cheap vs. state-of-the-art?
"... and had also amassed a large fleet of cheap Turkish drones and state-of-the-art Israeli ones..." without source. Do we have any evidence that Turkish TB-2s are "cheap"? Wikipedia articles indicate a Turkish TB-2 unit cost US$ 5m whereas Israeli Harops were sold to India US$ 100k apiece. The same goes with numbers: I thought the number of TB-2s employed by Azerbajian was classified. But I would expect them to be less numerous than Harops as the latter is an expandable loitering munition. Filanca (talk) 13:26, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Filanca, I copy-edited that section recently. The language was adopted from The Economist which wrote "A fleet of cheap Turkish drones is slicing through Armenian defences", while another source cited in that para described the Israeli drones as "state-of-the-art". If I got the wrong end of the stick and incorrectly made it a comparison, please feel free to go ahead and reword it. Jr8825 • Talk 01:01, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
- Dear Jr8825, while the Economist is a respectable paper, I quoted two Wikipedia articles about costs of these military hardware, both of which with proper sourcing. A TB-2 is about 50x more expensive than a Harop. Adjective "cheap" is always in comparison to something, so when you use it within the same sentence in comparison with a radically cheaper drone, I would tend to say it is an incorrect comparison. The "large fleet of" is also misleading as Harops, being loitering munitions, have a single mission lifetime, hence, logically should be numbered more than a regular UACV fleet when used so extensively in a war. Note that number of TB-2s in Azeri inventory is classified information. I think there are two possibilities explaining this situation: Either the Economist makes a mistake (which could be the case about "large TB-2 fleet"), or you are creating a erroneous impression of "many cheap Turkish drones versus advanced Israeli drones" by bringing these adjectives in the same sentence, whereas the Economist uses them separately. By "cheap" they might be comparing a TB-2's value to the value of military items it destroyed. In any case, drones played a crucial role in this conflict so it might be a good idea to avoid misinterpretations in wording them. You might want to check these articles: [19] [20] Filanca (talk) 21:25, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Splitting proposals
The article is reaching 500K at this point. So, I propose to trim and split some parts of it. For example:
Suspected war crimes
; split to War crimes in the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war.Official statements
; trim to other sections.International reactions
; split to International reactions to the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war.
--► Sincerely: SolaVirum 07:31, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Good suggestions, Solavirum Armatura (talk) 20:29, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- Agreed, I think #2 and #3 are particularly high priorities. I'll try to help if I can find the time. Jr8825 • Talk 19:40, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- I support all. First priority should be the international reactions. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:37, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Russia-Turkey proxy conflict.
The 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War is not part of any proxy conflicts. There are no credible/enough sources to back that claim up. Even the Russia-Turkey proxy conflict Wikipedia page doesn't include the Nagorno-Karabakh war. So please, remove the "part of the Russia-Turkey proxy conflict" segment from the main infobox. It should not be stated as a fact. If needed, a separate subdivision can be created that talks about how it could be linked to the Russia-Turkey proxy conflict; but it certainly shouldn't be stated as a fact. Sweetkind5 (talk) 09:08, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- I agree, there's not enough reliable sources that state this. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 09:20, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- There are plenty of RS describing it as part of Russia-Turkey strategic competition. The problem is that this relationship is much more complex than simply being "conflict" and there are elements of pragmatic compromise where interests align. The link belongs in this article on the basis that sources describe Turkey-Russia competition as key to the way the conflict unfolded and was resolved. It seems to me the problem is the outdated and rather shambolic Russia–Turkey proxy conflict article. I think the solution is a thorough rework of that article.
- Some very quickly gathered sources describe the NK war in the context of:
- "managed competition"
- "broader Russia-Turkey competition"
- "Russia’s zone of influence at risk" Jr8825 • Talk 11:08, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
First of all, the sources you provided either aren't reliable or talk about a different topic. Secondly, there are very few (almost non-existent) sources that regard this war as a part of a proxy conflict (whether it be between Iran and Israel or Russia and Turkey). And lastly, neither Russia nor Turkey were involved militarily in the War and Russia didn't even support Armenia, both of which make it impossible to be considered as a proxy war. (Hence why the article didn't even mention the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict) Sweetkind5 (talk) 12:01, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- You'll find I'm partly in agreement with you. I don't think it's accurate to describe this as a proxy war between Russia and Turkey. However, saying it is part of a proxy conflict isn't the same as saying that it's a proxy war itself. Turkey and Russia are competing with each other through indirect means, and there are plenty of good sources describing how this competition was absolutely crucial to how the NK war panned out. More specifically, the sources I linked above (which are reliable and relevant) emphasise how Turkey's actions to alter the regional status quo (which favoured Russia) facilitated the outbreak of war and how Russia-Turkey relations played a formative role in (and enabled) the ceasefire agreement.
- neither Russia nor Turkey were involved militarily in the War ... which make it impossible to be considered as a proxy war the entire point of conflict by proxy is that neither side gets directly involved in hostilities
- hence why the article didn't even mention the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict ...because you've personally removed the NK war from that article repeatedly over the last month? I'm capable of checking an article's history, you know... Jr8825 • Talk 19:34, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- I think to label this as a proxy conflict would be a simplification. In fact, Russia and Turkey became sort of de-facto guarantors of the ceasefire agreement. So it is more of a cooperation, than a competition. Even the corridor to Nakhchivan seems to be benefiting both countries, as it opens direct rail and motorway communication between the two countries via Azerbaijan and Armenia. So it is rather a partnership, than a proxy conflict. In any case, the relations between two countries are very complex to label them simply as proxy conflict. Very often it is in fact quite the opposite, a cooperation between the two countries on the basis of mutual interests. Grandmaster 00:32, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
- I agree with your points Grandmaster. I'll raise the issue on that article's talk page, it needs a more nuanced and up-to-date narrative – right now it has almost no narrative at all, it's just a list of events that doesn't get across the managed rivalry between the two. The thing is there are lots of high quality sources describing Turkey and Russia as being involved in proxy wars against each other in Syria and Libya, and at the time of the fighting in NK a similarly large number of sources didn't just describe it as being influenced by Russia and Turkey, they described it as having the potential to become another proxy war. The problem is how to express the nuances, without neglecting the important role the Russia-Turkey relationship had. Jr8825 • Talk 05:08, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
- I think to label this as a proxy conflict would be a simplification. In fact, Russia and Turkey became sort of de-facto guarantors of the ceasefire agreement. So it is more of a cooperation, than a competition. Even the corridor to Nakhchivan seems to be benefiting both countries, as it opens direct rail and motorway communication between the two countries via Azerbaijan and Armenia. So it is rather a partnership, than a proxy conflict. In any case, the relations between two countries are very complex to label them simply as proxy conflict. Very often it is in fact quite the opposite, a cooperation between the two countries on the basis of mutual interests. Grandmaster 00:32, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Levon Stepanyan statement with deprecated source
Somebody added "Former military commissar of Armenia major-general Levon Stepanyan stated that the number of deserters in Armenian army was over 10,000, and it is not possible to prosecute such a large number of military personnel." citing Sputnik [deprecated source]: "Степанян: нужно найти способ наказать дезертиров, бежавших с поля боя в Карабахе". Sputnik Армения. 13 November 2020. Retrieved 3 January 2021. Either self-remove or reference with a non-deprecated sources, please. Armatura (talk) 15:52, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
- I've replaced it with a non-deprecated source. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 16:01, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Dilgam Asgarov & Shahbaz Guliyev
This sentence "Dilgam Asgarov, a Russian citizen of Azerbaijani descent, who was detained by the Armenian-allied forces alongside Shahbaz Guliyev, an Azerbaijani citizen, in 2014, during an incident in Kalbajar, in an interview he gave after being released, also stated that the Armenian captors had tortured the Azerbaijani POWs.[542]" is placed by somebody at the end of the Armenian section of Suspected War Crimes. Both were detained long before the 2020 war, and do not have anything to do with this war. Whoever added this sentence, can this be removed, please? Thanks, Armatura (talk) 16:38, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
- Armatura, yes, they were detained in 2014. But after his release, Asgarov, as a person who was in Armenian imprisonment for six years, stated that the Armenian captors had tortured the Azerbaijani POWs. It is very related to the mistreatment of Azerbaijani POWs during the war. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 17:36, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
- Solavirum Did he specify that Azerbaijani POVs from this ( 2020 September 27-Nov 9) war were tortured? This wiki article is about 2020 war and the section is about suspected war crimes by Armenia during 2020 war. Regards, Armatura (talk) 17:52, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
- Armatura, you are free to check the reference. But I can translate the quote for you. For the background, he says that he was transferred to Goris during the war.
- Solavirum Did he specify that Azerbaijani POVs from this ( 2020 September 27-Nov 9) war were tortured? This wiki article is about 2020 war and the section is about suspected war crimes by Armenia during 2020 war. Regards, Armatura (talk) 17:52, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Original:
Həbsxananın təcili yardım maşınında gördüm ki, bir nəfər də var. Bildim ki, azərbaycanlıdır. Gorusda onun əşyalarını gördüm. Yaralı olaraq əsir düşmüşdü. Yevlaxdan idi. Bizi 3 kameraya saldılar. Sonra həmin soydaşımızı harasa apardılar. Ona da işgəncə vermişdilər, döymüşdülər. Sonradan ailəsi və özü ilə maraqlandım, onu tapdım. Bu müharibədə əsir düşən hərbçilərimizə İrəvanda işgəncə veriblər. Özləri danışırdılar. Şprisin içinə spirt doldururlarmış, ayaqları kəsilənlərin qollarına, ayaqları olanların ayağına vururlarmış.
Translation:
I saw that there was a man in the prison ambulance. I knew he was an Azerbaijani. I saw his belongings in Goris. He was wounded and taken prisoner. He was from Yevlakh. They put us in 3 cells. Then they took our compatriot somewhere. He was also tortured and beaten. Later, I became interested in his family and himself, and I found him. Our servicemen captured in this war were tortured in Yerevan. They talked about it themselves. They filled the syringe with alcohol, hit the arms of those whose legs were cut off, and the feet of those who had legs.
--► Sincerely: SolaVirum 17:59, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks very much for translation. Thant article gallantly portraying Armenians as Nazis in Treblinka and going as far as claiming that "the PKK militants imprisoned in Shusha prison were later released and sent to fight." looks like a pure piece of confabulation for propaganda purposes. No wonder that BBC Azerbaijan did not mention all of that, whereas Virtual Az does. Unchecked, uninvestigated, unsupported by any other source, it has undue weight in this article. As all the other "torture" references from Azerbaijani media which has one of the worst index of media freedom in the world have the same features. Torture of prisoners is a serious allegation that requires more than just purely one-sided sources to be in the article. Armatura (talk) 19:14, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
- To clearly adress your unconstructive statement, I have to notify you that we're not talking about the source itself. The article covers Virtual Azerbaijan's interview with Asgarov, who's notable enough. These are Asgarov's words, not Virtual Azerbaijan's. Also, unrelated, but might ease your concerns, Asgarov, in his latest interview with Kanal13, compared the police brutality in Azerbaijan with the Armenians' mistreatment of him during his imprisonment in Shusha. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 20:23, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
- Also, the reason why BBC Azerbaijani Service didn't mention it was because, one, the interview was given after BBC's coverage, and two, the interview itself is not in BBC's ownership. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 20:25, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
- You are very kind to "notify me" what you are (or not) talking about (although just telling would be fine), Solavirum, but I am talking about the source itself. Are you able to provide even a moderate-quality non-Azerbaijani/Turkish source that cites that interview? If we leave the details of the torture aside, the article suddenly starts telling about "PKK fighters imprisoned in Shusha who were freed to fight on Armenian side" - something extraordinary that does not appear in other sources. I am asking as it is not a secret that media in Azerbaijan is almost entirely controlled by government, and while there is no reason to doubt it when it cites government positions, there is a valid reason to reasonably doubt everything else, especially with extraordinary statements incriminating Azerbaijan's archenemy in multiple aspects. And, yes, a self-respecting news outlet would have at least a mailbox within its domain, instead of "To place an ad, please contact virtualaz.org@gmail.com Regards, Armatura (talk) 01:50, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
- For the future, know that you're not forces to mention the situation of the media and the Armenian Genocide on every thread. Secondly, Virtual Azerbaijan is heavily used by Eynulla Fatullayev, who is a dissident and was previously arrested for his comments on Khojaly massacre. Day.az has also published the same interview.[1] --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 10:00, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
- You are very kind to "notify me" what you are (or not) talking about (although just telling would be fine), Solavirum, but I am talking about the source itself. Are you able to provide even a moderate-quality non-Azerbaijani/Turkish source that cites that interview? If we leave the details of the torture aside, the article suddenly starts telling about "PKK fighters imprisoned in Shusha who were freed to fight on Armenian side" - something extraordinary that does not appear in other sources. I am asking as it is not a secret that media in Azerbaijan is almost entirely controlled by government, and while there is no reason to doubt it when it cites government positions, there is a valid reason to reasonably doubt everything else, especially with extraordinary statements incriminating Azerbaijan's archenemy in multiple aspects. And, yes, a self-respecting news outlet would have at least a mailbox within its domain, instead of "To place an ad, please contact virtualaz.org@gmail.com Regards, Armatura (talk) 01:50, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
- Also, the reason why BBC Azerbaijani Service didn't mention it was because, one, the interview was given after BBC's coverage, and two, the interview itself is not in BBC's ownership. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 20:25, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
- To clearly adress your unconstructive statement, I have to notify you that we're not talking about the source itself. The article covers Virtual Azerbaijan's interview with Asgarov, who's notable enough. These are Asgarov's words, not Virtual Azerbaijan's. Also, unrelated, but might ease your concerns, Asgarov, in his latest interview with Kanal13, compared the police brutality in Azerbaijan with the Armenians' mistreatment of him during his imprisonment in Shusha. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 20:23, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks very much for translation. Thant article gallantly portraying Armenians as Nazis in Treblinka and going as far as claiming that "the PKK militants imprisoned in Shusha prison were later released and sent to fight." looks like a pure piece of confabulation for propaganda purposes. No wonder that BBC Azerbaijan did not mention all of that, whereas Virtual Az does. Unchecked, uninvestigated, unsupported by any other source, it has undue weight in this article. As all the other "torture" references from Azerbaijani media which has one of the worst index of media freedom in the world have the same features. Torture of prisoners is a serious allegation that requires more than just purely one-sided sources to be in the article. Armatura (talk) 19:14, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
References
Solavirum, in implausable future, when Solavirum finally stops speaking to others with that unacceptable tone, I may consider taking advice from Solavirum. Till that happens, I view the constant attacks as a method of discouraging editors with views different from yours to work on this and related articles. You're the first one to mention genocide in this thread, completely unrelatedly and inappropriately, using a sarcastic tone. There is a reason not to trust non-free media sources, whether Azerbaijani or a different county with known non-free media, mocking a reasonable doubt raised by an editor who doesn't automatically believe in everything what president Aliev/his propaganda machine says, is unacceptable. You know better than me that Day.az is one of the frontline parts of that machine, praising the "Master and Margarita" day and night. Armatura (talk) 03:15, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
- I will not reply to you furthermore unless you stop that tone (Aliev/his propaganda machine says) and accuse others of doing what you're actually doing. And, as I saw here, you don't have real arguments apart from "Azerbaijan bad dictator country terrorist" rhetoric. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 03:59, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Azerbaijan is an authoritarian state where the same family has been in power almost non-stop for half a century already, where son inherits presidency from his father and makes his wife a vice president, where media is heavily controlled by government and where the voice of dissent is almost unhearable. Freedomhouse is just one of the hundred links I could provide about authoritarian regime in Azerbaijan. One of the admins here also mentioned many times that media in Azerbaijan is not free, as a reason for scrutinising materials published in Azerbaijani sources only. Loving one's country, one can do two things about that situation: take the reality as it is and try to make it a better, free-er country or try to falsify Wikipedia, fill it with Azerbaijani government's POV and hope that nobody will notice (WP:notthere). I am sure you'll eventually chose the first (mature) option and refrain from second (immature) pathway. And so you don't think I'm specifically denigrating Azerbaijan, I recognize that Armenia was oligarchic state till 2018, and that the judiciary system is still utterly corrupt and that core issues such as human rights have a long way to go to become a core value, and that patriarchal society is yet to be replaced with equality and fair competition. Also, even if all North Koreans attack me in Wikipedia, it wouldn't change the fact that Kim is a dictator, and that sources published only in North Korean media need utmost scrutiny. Can't pretend blind, sorry. Have a good day. Armatura (talk) 12:48, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
- You seem to forget the point here. I don't want to divert the topic like you're doing here, but no one here objected Azerbaijan's problems with its politics and human rights. Anyhow, this is an interview of Asgarov. These are his own words. Nothing else to say here. Furthermore, no one is attacking you, you're not a warrior. I don't care if Armenia was an oligarchic state in the past. I'm not pushing an agenda here, as you've seem to imply. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 12:57, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
No. They may be his own words. Or may be not. One cannot possibly know, unless one interviewed him. Bring me a good, English language, non-partisan source that cites that interview and I'll have no further objections. You (as all pro-Azerbaijani / pro-Turkish editors) get agitated when something in the article (unless it is the official position of Armenia) is referenced by Armenian-only sources, don't you? Armatura (talk) 13:40, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
- Ermm, no?
On 16 October, according to Armenia's ombudsman report, an Azerbaijani serviceman had called the brother of an Armenian soldier from the latter's phone number, saying that his brother was with them and that they had beheaded him and were going to post his photos on the internet; according to Armenian sources, they did post the image online
, I don't get "agiated" by this, which is only referenced by Armenia. There is also a difference between a news report and an interview. In many other cases, someone's "agitation" is not enough for deletion of information. And, finally, you drop that "pro-Azerbaijani/pro-Turkish editors" rhetoric. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 13:51, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
- Also, Virtual Azerbaijan's editor-in-chief is Eynulla Fatullayev,[1] a dissident. So avoid seeing it as New Azerbaijan Party's tongue. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 13:53, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
References
It's not a "rhetoric" (not that rhetoric is bad thing) but something I've come across in Wikipedia, the level objectivity and impartiality of pro Armenian and pro Azerbaijani / pro Turkish editors in matters involving the disputed territories - many of us chronically forget that Wikipedia is not a battleground, and assumption of good faith is difficult when I see, for example, pro Azerbaijani / pro Turkish editors have coordinatee their WP edits in NKR / Armenia related articles (see the link on my page). As for the subject, Azerbaijani sources, dissident or not, have similar "rhetoric" when it comes to Armenia - Azerbaijan hostilities, I can't assume objectivity on Fattulaev's side either, sorry. The fact that there's no nobody outside Azerbaijan (or its allies) addressed that interview means we should keep high suspicion index about its accuracy, especially with extraordinary claims about PKK in it. It's unreliable, and I'm happy to take this to wider discussion as it looks like we're not reaching any constructive outcome from this discussion Armatura (talk) 19:07, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Your example of Armenian ombudsman's official report is not equivalent to the thread's subject. The reports that are official announcement of government and its infrastructures (of which obbudsman is a party of) can and should be cited, az much as president's / PM's official announcement's can. Armatura (talk) 19:12, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
- The fact that some Azerbaijani Wikipedians did coordinated work 11 years ago in another Wikipedia makes it hard for you to assume good faith now? — CuriousGolden (T·C) 19:17, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
- Something you've came across here doesn't mean its okay. You dig a deeper hole in every single comment you make,
many of us chronically forget that Wikipedia is not a battleground, and assumption of good faith is difficult when I see, for example, pro Azerbaijani / pro Turkish editors have coordinatee their WP edits in NKR / Armenia related articles
. Also, I'd like to remind you that claiming PKK's involvement doesn't particularly mean you're biased or unreliable, just like how mentioning the Syrians isn't.The fact that there's no nobody outside Azerbaijan (or its allies) addressed that interview means we should keep high suspicion index about its accuracy
, no, Virtual Azerbaijan isn't a new or an non-credible website to claim that such interview didn't happen, which is apparently your issue here. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 19:46, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
The example of Armenian ombudsman's official report is not equivalent to the thread's subject. The reports that are official announcement of government and its infrastructures (of which obbudsman is a party of) can and should be cited, az much as president's / PM's official announcement's can. Armatura (talk) 19:54, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
PKK is speculation pushed forward by Azerbaijani media and a few bogus Russian magazines. No confirmation from parties without conflict of interest in this war. Imprisoned PKK fighters in Shusha released to fight for Armenians is a masterpiece of propaganda, it's something extraordinary that no other credible sources claim. What PKK fighters were doing in Shushi prison in the first place??? It's as science fiction as Martians imprisoned in Shusha released to fight for Armenians. Will take to wider discussion, okay Armatura (talk) 21:46, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
For Syrian's, see multitude of credible sources already cited. Trying to create a false balance by adding PKK on Armenian side , just because Syrian mercenary involvement in Azerbaijani side was heavily revealed by credible sources, is clear POV pushing. There are discussions about this in separate threads and no need to push PKK speculation here too. Armatura (talk) 21:50, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Non-reliable sources
The use of Al-Arabiya, a Saudi-owned news channel, on matters of Israel, like it was done in 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war#Israel is highly problematic. Al-Arabiya has been discussed in WP:RS and WT:V several times, with all of them coming to the conclusion that they're not a reliable source on Pan-Arabic and Israeli matters (1, 2, 3).
Aside from this, Arutz Sheva is used as a source for an alleged statement by Jewish scholars calling Israel to stop arms sales to Azerbaijan. Arutz Sheva itself has been discussed in WP:RS and has been mostly identified as a non-reliable source. (1, 2). Not only this, but the alleged statement is impossible to find anywhere else on the internet except deprecated Armenian media sources, which greatly reminds me of this discussion about a source that published an alleged statement by well-known scholars, but it turned out at the end that it was made-up. The language in the article by Arutz Sheva is also obvious WP:POV. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 09:26, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- Neither of those sources are deprecated, which is an important distinction to make. The linked discussions weren't RfCs and didn't come to a formal consensuses. It would definitely be preferable to replace them with better, more independent sources, but it's not a necessity – biased sources are acceptable as long as they're used carefully and balanced out. You could seek deprecation at the RS noticeboard if you felt strongly they need deprecation, but the bar is quite high (well, low). I haven't read the specific text you mention in the second example, but it sounds as if the issue is lack of relevance to the article as a whole and undue weight, rather than verifiability. You could remove it on those grounds (again, I haven't checked it myself). Jr8825 • Talk 14:30, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- I've renamed it to "non-reliable" instead of "deprecated" as that wasn't the correct terminology. And I don't think Al-Arabiya itself is unreliable all the time, but it surely isn't good to use a Saudi-owned news channel for news about that government's enemy, Israel. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 14:47, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- CuriousGolden It wouldn't not look good if it was the only source cited, but it looks okay when it is in the multitude of the sources saying the same thing, including the Israeli ones. Same way, Azerbaijani sources do not look good when they say something incriminating Armenia (like the ones about torture of Azerbaijani POWs), but they can be okay when multiple third party sources state the same. Regards, Armatura (talk) 16:05, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- I've renamed it to "non-reliable" instead of "deprecated" as that wasn't the correct terminology. And I don't think Al-Arabiya itself is unreliable all the time, but it surely isn't good to use a Saudi-owned news channel for news about that government's enemy, Israel. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 14:47, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- Neither of those sources are deprecated, which is an important distinction to make. The linked discussions weren't RfCs and didn't come to a formal consensuses. It would definitely be preferable to replace them with better, more independent sources, but it's not a necessity – biased sources are acceptable as long as they're used carefully and balanced out. You could seek deprecation at the RS noticeboard if you felt strongly they need deprecation, but the bar is quite high (well, low). I haven't read the specific text you mention in the second example, but it sounds as if the issue is lack of relevance to the article as a whole and undue weight, rather than verifiability. You could remove it on those grounds (again, I haven't checked it myself). Jr8825 • Talk 14:30, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- I disagree CuriousGolden, and I will explain why (instead of just voting to create a majority or agreeing with anybody without explaining why I agree):
- there is a lengthy discussion about Al-Arabia on this talk page already, no need to duplicate a discussion. Adding Saudi owned and UAE-based is fine as well, that info is openly available.
- none of the sources you are disputing are deprecated on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, and that is what matters on Wikipedia. The fact that somebody discussed it at WP:RS noticeboard , without the source being deprecated as a result of that discussion, means that they can be used on Wikipedia, including this article. If you want them to be deprecated, as a whole, or in questions related to Israel or NKR, you are welcome to create a discussion on the relevant noticeboard, letting less emotionally involved editors to reach a conclusion.
- when I see you removing information written in Azerbaijani-only sources (from a country with one of the worst media freedom indexes in the word), I may understand why you are vigilantly removing everything that you think is written in Armenian media only. The rest is WP:IJDLI
- The open letter of Israeli Academics, apart from Israel National News and Armenian media, is cited by Eretz,Institute on The Holocaust and Genocide in Jerusalem, Gagrule.net and you can find it on academic publications index Academia.eu.
- If you want to add something from the disclaimer "The following represents the personal views of a group of Israeli scholars of Caucasian and associated studies from different institutions of higher learning, and does not reflect the positions of the Hebrew University nor its Armenian Studies Program" for better attribution that is absolutely fine, keeping the already excessive length of this WP article in mind though. Regards, Armatura (talk) 14:58, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- And how exactly is 8 professors and 2 Doctors' call to end arms sale relevant to a section dedicated to Israeli arms sale to Azerbaijan? As you already pointed out, the article already has excessive length and this is clearly WP:UNDUE as Jr8825 pointed out above. This also applies to the Chomsky interview, you added which doesn't provide any new information rather than repeating same WP:UNDUE. We're not supposed to add every interview/statement about the conflict here, especially when this article is too long already. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 15:11, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- CuriousGolden I am afraid your efforts of removing/deprecating sentences that incriminate Israel in this war (from main text and infobox), unless well-supported by good sources, are consistent with WP:IJDLI. May I advise you not to misuse WP guidelines or senior member Jr8825's words, especially when he says he has not read the specific text you mention? The letter of Israeli academics asking to immediately cease arms sales by Israel to Azerbaijan in general and during the active war in particular is highly relevant - it highlights the problem (which some editors here are denying despite multiple sources, as they deny, for example, the Armenian Genocide ) and, along with Israeli publications and Jewish students' association's announcement demonstrate the fact that intellectual circles in Israel/Jewish world are aware of the problem and openly condemn it, unlike the Israeli government which puts money above humanity by continuing those sales. Same for Russia, as a matter of fact, that arms both sides, and everybody else who thinks it is a good idea to arm warring countries to the detriment of human lives on both sides, If there was a little shame left in the worlds' governments, an arm embargo would have been be in place both for Armenia and Azerbaijan since the very beginning of this chronic conflict. And if you are worried about excessive length of the article, look at Musayev's paragraph that itself represents an article, and then ask that question to yourself. This article's length does not mean you should remove relevant, confirmed, concisely written text. Armatura (talk) 16:00, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- It'd be nice if you kept your comments' content strictly about the thing this discussion is about rather than accusing me of random things, which I'm used to from you by now, as you do it in almost all of our interactions, and bringing in random topics such as Armenian Genocide (which you seem to be accusing me & others editors of denying when I don't) or expressing personal opinions about what foreign governments should've done. The only possible argument about the actual topic I could find from your comment is that you seem to imply that the statement of a few Israeli professors somehow shows that all intellectual circles in Israel condemn Israeli arms sales, which obviously isn't the case. It's still obvious to me that its inclusion is WP:UNDUE. And your last sentences are just whataboutism, therefore I won't respond to them. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 16:15, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- Kudoz for the courage of not denying something that is denied by your government, you are a rare exception then, I am only glad to hear that. As for the topic, it'd be nice if you don't look for implications where there aren't any - the text I added to article clearly describes who says what with proper attribution, without generalization for "all intellectuals". The counterarguments, though, appeared to try to trivialise those voices who had the courage to go for humanism against their (Israeli) government's foreign policy, hence the response that followed. Have a good day. Armatura (talk) 16:48, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- Still not sure how this makes it any more relevant. Do we just add every statement/interview by anyone in foreign countries who disagree with their government's position on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict? This is exactly why it's WP:UNDUE and doesn't actually help in adding anything of value to the question of Israeli arms supply to Azerbaijan during the war which the section is supposed to be about. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 16:57, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- And aside from these, you've also added a statement from World Union of Jewish Students. Literally a statement by just students. How is this any different than adding a statement by a random celebrity/blogger to a section about arms sales? — CuriousGolden (T·C) 17:20, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- CuriousGolden, a non-deprecated Israeli (non-Armenian, non-Azerbaijani) source is provided, linking to the letter itself on WUJS Facebook page (also available on their Twitter page, it is apparently not invented by Arutz Sheva or Armenian media. You are welcome to discuss it on noticeboard if you want Arutz Sheva deprecated. If you have problem with the newspaper being Israeli, or Zionism (a legal school of thought) which the newspaper is associated with, there is a Greek media, for example. I don't think CNN or BBC are going to write about it, but hey, not everything in this article is referenced by world's top 10 news outlets (look at the multitude of small Azerbaijani and Armenian sources used). I am not sure what do you mean "just students" and "random celebrity/blogger", sounds like triviliasing again. It's not just a couple of random students commenting in Reddit, it's World Union of Jewish Students with announcement on their rejection of Israeli arms sales (and also on recognition of Armenian Genocide). The organization is large and notable enough to have Wikipedia article about them, WUJS is an umbrella association with member organisations all over the world, with 41 National Unions and 2 Regional Unions (Latin America and Europe), representing the Jewish students of over 55 countries worldwide. Albert Einstein was their first President. If you are still not convinced about their notability or if you think they're just a random bunch of spoiled kids, then see WP:IJDLI Armatura (talk) 18:46, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- It indeed is a World Union. Of students. Having an article about them on Wikipedia doesn't justify the fact that their statement is irrelevant to the question of Israeli arms sale to Azerbaijan and is an obvious WP:UNDUE on an already-too-long article. And it's not "triviliasing", it's a fair comparison. The opinion of a student organization on state matters of arms sales is just as relevant as a random blogger's opinion on a conflict. And the fact that you're using "Einstein met with their president" as a way to justify their relevance speaks for itself. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 18:58, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- There is just no point in trying to convince me with those methods (WP:IJDLI-ism), CuriousGolden. Students are people, not a disadvantaged voiceless meaningless bunch of nobodies. Young Turks were students, you know. If you want to discuss WUJS notability, there is a separate talk page / noticeboard for that. Open a dispute resolution if you like. And Einstein did not meet their president, Einstein (one may argue - just a random guy) was their president (removed the redundant "with"), as well as David Ben Gurion - first Prime Minister of Israel. Good day. Armatura (talk) 19:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- Labeling every argument you don't like as WP:IJDLI won't get this discussion anywhere. Students are people, but their opinion isn't relevant enough to be featured in a Wikipedia article's section about one country's arms sale to another (unless they're a military expert or a prominent political figure). I'm not questioning WUJS's notability, I'm questioning it's relevance to this article's Arms supply section. I see no way how this is useful information to the section or helps in any way to prove or disprove the alleged Israeli arms sale during the war, which is what the section is supposed to be about. I'd open a dispute resolution if I knew that you were ready for a compromise (since that's how DRs work), but since you've demonstrated above that you're clearly not, I'd rather ask the opinion of other editors here. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 19:27, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- CuriousGolden Feel free to go ahead. Make sure the other editors are free of strong Azerbaijani / Turkish / Armenian / Israeli / anti-Isaraeli POV please. Armatura (talk) 01:58, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
- Labeling every argument you don't like as WP:IJDLI won't get this discussion anywhere. Students are people, but their opinion isn't relevant enough to be featured in a Wikipedia article's section about one country's arms sale to another (unless they're a military expert or a prominent political figure). I'm not questioning WUJS's notability, I'm questioning it's relevance to this article's Arms supply section. I see no way how this is useful information to the section or helps in any way to prove or disprove the alleged Israeli arms sale during the war, which is what the section is supposed to be about. I'd open a dispute resolution if I knew that you were ready for a compromise (since that's how DRs work), but since you've demonstrated above that you're clearly not, I'd rather ask the opinion of other editors here. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 19:27, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- There is just no point in trying to convince me with those methods (WP:IJDLI-ism), CuriousGolden. Students are people, not a disadvantaged voiceless meaningless bunch of nobodies. Young Turks were students, you know. If you want to discuss WUJS notability, there is a separate talk page / noticeboard for that. Open a dispute resolution if you like. And Einstein did not meet their president, Einstein (one may argue - just a random guy) was their president (removed the redundant "with"), as well as David Ben Gurion - first Prime Minister of Israel. Good day. Armatura (talk) 19:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- It indeed is a World Union. Of students. Having an article about them on Wikipedia doesn't justify the fact that their statement is irrelevant to the question of Israeli arms sale to Azerbaijan and is an obvious WP:UNDUE on an already-too-long article. And it's not "triviliasing", it's a fair comparison. The opinion of a student organization on state matters of arms sales is just as relevant as a random blogger's opinion on a conflict. And the fact that you're using "Einstein met with their president" as a way to justify their relevance speaks for itself. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 18:58, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- CuriousGolden, a non-deprecated Israeli (non-Armenian, non-Azerbaijani) source is provided, linking to the letter itself on WUJS Facebook page (also available on their Twitter page, it is apparently not invented by Arutz Sheva or Armenian media. You are welcome to discuss it on noticeboard if you want Arutz Sheva deprecated. If you have problem with the newspaper being Israeli, or Zionism (a legal school of thought) which the newspaper is associated with, there is a Greek media, for example. I don't think CNN or BBC are going to write about it, but hey, not everything in this article is referenced by world's top 10 news outlets (look at the multitude of small Azerbaijani and Armenian sources used). I am not sure what do you mean "just students" and "random celebrity/blogger", sounds like triviliasing again. It's not just a couple of random students commenting in Reddit, it's World Union of Jewish Students with announcement on their rejection of Israeli arms sales (and also on recognition of Armenian Genocide). The organization is large and notable enough to have Wikipedia article about them, WUJS is an umbrella association with member organisations all over the world, with 41 National Unions and 2 Regional Unions (Latin America and Europe), representing the Jewish students of over 55 countries worldwide. Albert Einstein was their first President. If you are still not convinced about their notability or if you think they're just a random bunch of spoiled kids, then see WP:IJDLI Armatura (talk) 18:46, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- And aside from these, you've also added a statement from World Union of Jewish Students. Literally a statement by just students. How is this any different than adding a statement by a random celebrity/blogger to a section about arms sales? — CuriousGolden (T·C) 17:20, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- Still not sure how this makes it any more relevant. Do we just add every statement/interview by anyone in foreign countries who disagree with their government's position on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict? This is exactly why it's WP:UNDUE and doesn't actually help in adding anything of value to the question of Israeli arms supply to Azerbaijan during the war which the section is supposed to be about. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 16:57, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- Kudoz for the courage of not denying something that is denied by your government, you are a rare exception then, I am only glad to hear that. As for the topic, it'd be nice if you don't look for implications where there aren't any - the text I added to article clearly describes who says what with proper attribution, without generalization for "all intellectuals". The counterarguments, though, appeared to try to trivialise those voices who had the courage to go for humanism against their (Israeli) government's foreign policy, hence the response that followed. Have a good day. Armatura (talk) 16:48, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- It'd be nice if you kept your comments' content strictly about the thing this discussion is about rather than accusing me of random things, which I'm used to from you by now, as you do it in almost all of our interactions, and bringing in random topics such as Armenian Genocide (which you seem to be accusing me & others editors of denying when I don't) or expressing personal opinions about what foreign governments should've done. The only possible argument about the actual topic I could find from your comment is that you seem to imply that the statement of a few Israeli professors somehow shows that all intellectual circles in Israel condemn Israeli arms sales, which obviously isn't the case. It's still obvious to me that its inclusion is WP:UNDUE. And your last sentences are just whataboutism, therefore I won't respond to them. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 16:15, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- CuriousGolden I am afraid your efforts of removing/deprecating sentences that incriminate Israel in this war (from main text and infobox), unless well-supported by good sources, are consistent with WP:IJDLI. May I advise you not to misuse WP guidelines or senior member Jr8825's words, especially when he says he has not read the specific text you mention? The letter of Israeli academics asking to immediately cease arms sales by Israel to Azerbaijan in general and during the active war in particular is highly relevant - it highlights the problem (which some editors here are denying despite multiple sources, as they deny, for example, the Armenian Genocide ) and, along with Israeli publications and Jewish students' association's announcement demonstrate the fact that intellectual circles in Israel/Jewish world are aware of the problem and openly condemn it, unlike the Israeli government which puts money above humanity by continuing those sales. Same for Russia, as a matter of fact, that arms both sides, and everybody else who thinks it is a good idea to arm warring countries to the detriment of human lives on both sides, If there was a little shame left in the worlds' governments, an arm embargo would have been be in place both for Armenia and Azerbaijan since the very beginning of this chronic conflict. And if you are worried about excessive length of the article, look at Musayev's paragraph that itself represents an article, and then ask that question to yourself. This article's length does not mean you should remove relevant, confirmed, concisely written text. Armatura (talk) 16:00, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- And how exactly is 8 professors and 2 Doctors' call to end arms sale relevant to a section dedicated to Israeli arms sale to Azerbaijan? As you already pointed out, the article already has excessive length and this is clearly WP:UNDUE as Jr8825 pointed out above. This also applies to the Chomsky interview, you added which doesn't provide any new information rather than repeating same WP:UNDUE. We're not supposed to add every interview/statement about the conflict here, especially when this article is too long already. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 15:11, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- Let me remind you that we're not here for genocide denying or recognizing. You have to stop talking about everything else but the topic. Our personal opinion on stuff are unrelated and no one is obligated to satisfy one another. There was an Armenian here who systematically denied Khojaly massacre, did we care about it here? No. Just stick to the topic itself and don't focus on others' personal stuff. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 19:30, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- May I remind you that you should not attack / bully editors as per WP:HARASS and you should focus instead on the topic yourself, Solavirum. The methodology of attacking somebody when weak arguments do not work is not going to work for long in Wikipedia. Simply voting "I agree with my wiki-pal" is not an argument Armatura (talk) 19:53, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- You did it again. For the last time, I have nothing personal about you and I don't care (I don't have a reason to care) about your personal opinions. You're the one to divert the topic and then claim victimhood (seriously, bullying?) for many times. We're not here to say "X editor is a person, Y editor is a good person." CuriousGolden is not my "pal", like the editor who accused me of working for the government, if you have serious evidence, don't go for such heavy accusations. The reason why I said I agreed with him was because I believed that his/her argument was good enough. Again, for the millionth time, stick to the topic. Nobody here cares about others' personal life or opinions. We're talking about the Wikipedia article, not someone's personal thought. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 20:12, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- Please keep civil tone as per WP:CIVILITY, and focus on the topic, giving an example so others can follow, Solavirum. Or is this a case of "do what Romans say not what Romans do"? When a person feels attacked by yourself, and tells you about it, and your reply is "I am not attacking" instead of "sorry, did not want you to feel like that", it does not help. Reflection of what the others may feel, after the devastating war, is what's lacking. And derogatory comments about "victimhood" (for the millionth time, as you say) make it worse only. If you have problem with my behaviour, raise it on my talk page or the noticeboard of your taste, please. Armatura (talk) 20:42, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- You did it again. For the last time, I have nothing personal about you and I don't care (I don't have a reason to care) about your personal opinions. You're the one to divert the topic and then claim victimhood (seriously, bullying?) for many times. We're not here to say "X editor is a person, Y editor is a good person." CuriousGolden is not my "pal", like the editor who accused me of working for the government, if you have serious evidence, don't go for such heavy accusations. The reason why I said I agreed with him was because I believed that his/her argument was good enough. Again, for the millionth time, stick to the topic. Nobody here cares about others' personal life or opinions. We're talking about the Wikipedia article, not someone's personal thought. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 20:12, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- May I remind you that you should not attack / bully editors as per WP:HARASS and you should focus instead on the topic yourself, Solavirum. The methodology of attacking somebody when weak arguments do not work is not going to work for long in Wikipedia. Simply voting "I agree with my wiki-pal" is not an argument Armatura (talk) 19:53, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- Let me remind you that we're not here for genocide denying or recognizing. You have to stop talking about everything else but the topic. Our personal opinion on stuff are unrelated and no one is obligated to satisfy one another. There was an Armenian here who systematically denied Khojaly massacre, did we care about it here? No. Just stick to the topic itself and don't focus on others' personal stuff. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 19:30, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Armatura, I do not know, and do not care, about the strengths of either of your arguments - the Nagorno-Karabakh war is not in the least my area of expertise and I have literally no idea about the workings of NKR, Armenia or Azerbaijan. Wrangle about whatever it is you're wrangling about, it isn't a problem. However, I must ask you, what on Earth are you on about in this thread? What was uncivil in what Solavirum said? I am very sorry to say this, but you are the one who cast the first stone of hostility here starting with "I disagree CuriousGolden, and I will explain why (instead of just voting to create a majority or agreeing with anybody without explaining why I agree)". What is that even supposed to mean? It is a very well-known fact that arguments on Wikipedia are not won by number of !votes but by strength of arguments. Solavirum's blunt comment that they supported Golden may or may not have been needed, but why did you have to make a scene out of that, when you already knew that that !vote was pointless? You did not WP:AGF, I'm afraid, and from what I've seen elsewhere in this talk page, there has been literally zero 'uncivility', as you keep claiming for heaven alone knows what reason, on the part of CuriousGolden or Solavirum. Mere opposition to you does not amount to uncivility, nor does pointing out that you're bringing up stuff that is not particularly relevant to the discussion. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI converse | fings wot i hav dun 14:00, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI I don't know how you ended up taking the role of mediator (and sides) in a thread that discusses a topic that you have no idea about or care about, sorry. We care about the topic, and there is a lot of sensitivity to it. If I was you, I'd refrain from doing that, and from too much emotionality too ("what on earth", "heaven alone knows", etc). There is a long history of toxic interaction between Armenian and Azerbaijani editors preceding this thread (including, for example, a confirmed coordinated action of some Azerbaijani editors in Russian Wikipedia in Armenia / Nagorno Karabakh related topics - see my personal page), and you won't have complete understanding of it looking at things in isolation out of context. Have a good day Armatura (talk) 18:54, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
- Armatura, per every single comment, fails to provide a fair point or argument and wrongfully cites the guidelines.
We care about the topic, and there is a lot of sensitivity to it; There is a long history of toxic interaction between Armenian and Azerbaijani editors preceding this thread
, these are unrelated comments and undue at its best. And, just because several ethnic Azerbaijani editors did something in a different project more than a decade ago doesn't give a basis to engage in tendentious editing. You've mentioned that for God knows how many times, and you think that somehow that makes your point legitimate. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 19:49, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
It does, as a matter of fact, and I'll probably raise it on a noticeboard, as some of those editors (at least the same names) are currently editing AA / NKR topics on English Wikipedia, with same zealousness for pushing Azerbaijani POV forward, no change in behaviour, making assumption of good faith practically impossible Armatura (talk) 21:36, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Noam Chomsky's interview
CuriousGolden, you removed a fragment of Noam Chomsky's interview that was cited in Israel's arms supply section, with a comment "rv deprecated/non-reliable source (nothing about this alleged interview anywhere else other than this site". A couple of thoughts:
- a source cannot be called deprecated unless it is labelled as deprecated in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources
- removing a source without mentioning the reason why you would consider the source as unreliable, you are violating WP:IDLI principle
- not sure what search engine you are using that cannot find the interview "anywhere else other than this site", but simple search in Google gives same interview on Chomksy.info], and you can hear the podcast of the interview here. Try using TOR or a VPN in case Azerbaijani internet providers are blocking the websites that contain words Armenia and Armenian.
- Please re-instate the removed text, asking this to you instead of reverting your edit.
- Please refrain from reverting unless you see an open vandalism, habitual reverting in a highly sensitive article creates a non-friendly atmosphere, is a symptom of WP:OWNERSHIP and is a recognised trigger for WP:Editwarring
Regards, Armatura (talk) 14:21, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- Sure, but I'm going to replace the Armenian source with https://chomsky.info/20201010-2/ so others don't get confused like I was. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 14:35, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- CuriousGolden I have already replaced for your convenience. Armatura (talk) 18:48, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- That section needs copyediting. "[quote], [x person] told [y publication]" is not how Wikipedia uses prose. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 15:00, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Edit warring for the paragraph
Verman1 you removed the Noam Chomksy interview paragraph twice within 24 hours, thus exceeding 1-revert limitation applied by admins specifically to this article in Armenia-Azerbaijan category (where as the usual limitation in Wikipedia articles is >3 reverts). I wrote on your talk page about this with no answer over 24 hours. Can you please self-revert the changes you have done to demonstrate that violation of 1-revert rule was not intentional? Many thanks. Regards --Armatura (talk) 02:31, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
RFC on Infobox (Listing of Parties)
Which of the following countries and non-state actors should be listed in the infobox as belligerents or other parties? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
For each of the countries and non-state actors listed below, indicate in the Survey whether they should be listed in the infobox. Indicate Yes or No for each country and non-state party, or indicate how to include them. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Survey
Armenia
Azerbaijan
Artsakh
Turkey
Indicate whether to list as a belligerent or an arms supplier or not list
Russia
Indicate whether to list as an arms supplier
Israel
Indicate whether to list as an arms supplier
Armenian volunteers
Indicate whether to list as a non-state participant
Syrian mercenaries
Indicate whether to list as a non-state participant