Talk:Second Nagorno-Karabakh War/Archive 22

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15 ← Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23

Manipulation of ethnic situation of the region

Shared image "Ethnic groups of the region in 1995." in main page contains manipulation by showing 1995 map, one year later end of the First Karabakh war resulting Azerbaijani Karabakh citizens turning into refugee and leaving the region. I Added 1991 map and reverted. Couldn't understand the reason, it suspects me about some wikipedians are moving with their ideologies instead of the idea of improving the page. BerkBerk68 (talk) 21:14, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, what is the point in including ethnic map after the massive ethnic cleansing of Azerbaijani and Kurdish population in the region? Grandmaster 08:50, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
This map more or less represents the status before the 2020 war. If we are to include the map representing the situation before the first Karabakh war, where do we stop? Should we include a map before the Shusha massacre, before the 19th century migrations and before the partition of the Kingdom of Armenia? Alaexis¿question? 11:54, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
What is the point in this map anyway? It does not present accurate picture of ethnic composition. The reference point for the modern conflict is 1988, when it all started. I think it would be best to remove it. Grandmaster 14:54, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
The map shows the ethic composition of the region where the conflict took place before the said conflict. Others might have different reference points. In what way is it inaccurate by the way? Alaexis¿question? 15:50, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
The map provides inaccurate view of ethnic composition of the region before the conflict. At the very least, if this map is used, it should explain that it reflects the results of ethnic cleansing after the first war. Grandmaster 08:51, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
In what way is it inaccurate? Regarding the explanation, I'm not against it, but then we should explain that the Soviet-era Azeri majority in Shusha is the result of 1920 ethnic cleansing etc. Alaexis¿question? 10:05, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
What is the use of this map anyway? Those occupied regions hardly had any population. And regarding Shusha, it had Azerbaijani majority until the end of the 19th century. We don't need to go that deep into history. This article is about the modern stage of the conflict. Grandmaster 14:16, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
I don't see any actual argument to remove this map here. It is on a background section, so it is normal that it shows the ethnic situation of the region before the war. I oppose a removal of the map. Super Ψ Dro 16:27, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Does expanding the caption to provide greater context help resolve people's concerns? Jr8825 • Talk 11:26, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I think yes. Grandmaster 12:48, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Pkk,France support armenia

French President Macron openly supported the Armenians. and PKK soldiers fought to help the Armenians.

( Icameforarealhistory (talk) 17:22, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Ypg and pkk support armenia

Ypg fight for armenia. Sources: 1."Azerbaijan: Armenian-Syrian mercenaries helping Armenia | Some corpses found among Armenian army casualties found to be mercenaries coming from Syria, say Azerbaijani officials". aa.com.tr (İngilizce). 29 Eylül 2020. 29 Eylül 2020 tarihinde kaynağından arşivlendi. Erişim tarihi: 29 Eylül 2020.

2."Vagif Dargahli: "There are mercenaries of Armenian origin from Syria and different countries of the Middle East among the losses of the enemy"". apa.az (İngilizce). 28 Eylül 2020. 29 Eylül 2020 tarihinde kaynağından arşivlendi. Erişim tarihi: 29 Eylül 2020.


Pkk fights for armenia Sources: 1."The PKK's so-called 'special forces' are in 'Karabakh'." www.cumhuriyet.com.tr. Archived from its source on 17 September 2020. Access date: 19 December 2020

2."Security Sources announced: Hundreds of PKK terrorists are in Nagorno-Karabakh!". calendar.com.tr. Archived from the original on 27 December 2020. Accessed on 19 December 2020. Icameforarealhistory (talk) 17:28, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Are there any third-party reliable sources that confirm this? Alaexis¿question? 18:50, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

RfC Turkey as a full belligerent

Should Turkey be listed as a full belligerent (not just support)? In light of 11 Turkish soldiers, including 3 pilots, recently being awarded combat medals for the war, for showing "great success in the victory in the Nagorno-Karabakh War between Azerbaijan and Armenia".[1][2] --Steverci (talk) 17:53, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

  • Support as nominator There have been past discussions concerning whether to list Turkey as a main belligerent or only as supporting. The last consensus was to only include Turkey being a belligerent as alleged, while closer Mikehawk10 noted "future reporting and investigations may change this, and a new RfC may be appropriate at that time". The main argument against Turkey being a full belligerent was that there wasn't enough sources of Turkish armed forces participating.
Notably, the 3 pilots align with the 3 Turkish F-16 fighter jets that were spotted in Azerbaijan, as already mentioned in the article.
There have already been many strong sources provided confirming that Turkey played a massive role in the war, such as by arming and deploying thousands of Syrian terrorists, and many sources used terms like "decisive", "vital", and "critical" to describe Turkey's role. The only argument against Turkey being a belligerent was that Turkey and Azerbaijan both denied the involvement of Turkish forces. Now they have admitted to it. It's time for Turkey to finally be listed as a full belligerent, and for the article to be rewritten where needed to reflect that.
Update I would also like to point out that Turkey being responsible for training, arming, and deploying Syrian mercenaries has been unanimously confirmed by a wide variety of sources: US, UK, EU, Israel and Iran. Yet the infobox still falsely lists the Syrians under Azerbaijan, not Turkey. This is yet another reason why Turkey should be listed as a full belligerent. The loophole for Turkish national forces no longer exists, so the article no longer needs to listed information proven incorrect by the sources being cited. --Steverci (talk) 18:03, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
You need to demonstrate that the majority of reliable sources consider Turkey to be a belligerent. You cannot start another RFC every time you find 1 or 2 sources which you believe confirm the claim. I do not see that there is a consensus among reliable sources to consider Turkey a belligerent. On the contrary, I can cite hundreds of top sources that state Turkey supported Azerbaijan. Until it becomes generally accepted that Turkey was directly involved, we cannot list Turkey as a belligerent. And we have already discussed this a number of times before. Grandmaster 20:28, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
I can say I could cite thousands of sources confirming Turkey is a belligerent, but it also wouldn't mean anything without proof.
Third party sources can be a deciding factor for things disagreed on by both the first and second parties. In this case, however, both parties confirm the same thing. The third parties could still be noteworthy if they had a different stance but, as I've already pointed out, most took a 'neither confirm nor deny' stance while also confirming vital Turkish involvement. --Steverci (talk) 01:29, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. While I would not be surprised if you are correct, I don't believe your argument is sufficient for us to make this change. First, I should note that the medal was awarded by Azerbaijan, not Turkey, making the connection a little weaker. Second, even if it was awarded by Turkey, it would not be appropriate for us to infer conclusions from it; to do so would be WP:OR. If or when reliable sources start to explicitly state that Turkey acted as a belligerent in the war, then we can make this proposed change - but not until then. BilledMammal (talk) 10:14, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
BilledMammal The source states: "The medals were given to the soldiers in a ceremony organized by Amasya Governor Mustafa Masatlı." So it was clearly acknowledged by the Turkish government. The source also says: "11 soldiers from the Amasya Merzifon 5th Main Jet Base Command, which showed great success in the victory in the Nagorno-Karabakh War with Armenia." This is not original research, it's explicitly confirming the involvement of Turkish forces. --Steverci (talk) 20:00, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
In addition to already mentioned sources, there is a new one [3]

"The Azerbaijani army is commanded by Turkish generals. During the war in Karabakh, the drones were also commanded by a Turkish general." — Researcher and turkologist Viktor Nadein-Raevsky.

Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 14:00, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

  • Oppose Impartial RS in third-party countries (i.e. not Azerbaijan, Turkey, Armenia or Russia) unanimously describe Turkey as supporting Azerbaijan, but not directly fighting Armenia. I can gather sources if others would like me to, although any cursory search of standard international RS news media will show this. The recent RfC (closed in March) also explored this question, and in that discussion there was a consensus that Turkey didn't qualify as a belligerent. Jr8825 • Talk 16:01, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Jr8825 That's a very faulty and inaccurate interpretation of what most third-party sources report. I would be surprised if you could find a single one that explicitly states Turkey did not directly fight against Armenia. The New York Times takes a "neither confirm nor deny" position ("Armenia has said that Turkey was directly involved in the fighting in and around Nagorno-Karabakh, and that a Turkish F-16 fighter shot down an Armenian jet. Turkey denied those accusations"). Reuters takes a similar position while implying Turkey is lying ("Ankara denies its troops are involved in fighting but Aliyev has acknowledged some Turkish F-16 fighter jets remained in Azerbaijan after a military drill this summer"). And yet, these sources and many other third-party ones use words like "vital" and "decisive" to describe Turkey's role. The last consensus was Turkey deployed thousands of combatants, but the argument against listing Turkey as a full belligerent hung on a weak thread of Turkey denying its involvement. That thread no longer exists. --Steverci (talk) 20:00, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
I went through every article covering the NK conflict in The Guardian and Independent (including newswires) since last December. Most didn't mention Turkey, the minority which did are exemplified by the following: [4] [5] [6]. None of these articles support the statement that Turkey was a belligerent/directly involved in the conflict, but they do support the statement that Turkey "actively supported" Azerbaijan, its close ally. We're not looking for sources "that explicitly state Turkey did not directly fight against Armenia" – interpreting the absence of such statements as proof Turkey was a belligerent is confirmation bias – what we need for such a change is multiple strong sources which explicitly state Turkey did fight directly against Armenia. High quality RS, independent of the influence of states involved in the conflict, do not seem to say this (please point me to ones that do, I'm quite prepared re-evaluate my position if I've overlooked/not seen sources). I don't know whether the weight of sources will change in the future once the dust has settled; speculating on this is WP:CRYSTAL. I don't see how the RS evidence has notably changed since the last time we discussed this. Jr8825 • Talk 00:02, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Assuming that these sources would endorse Turkey not being a belligerent just because they use the term "support" is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. It would be no less credible to say these sources are confirming Turkey is a belligerent. For example, you can find many sources saying the US "supported" South Vietnam, yet the US is still listed as a belligerent on the Vietnam War article. I think you're putting too much importance on the words of a journalist in London who probably couldn't point to Armenia or Azerbaijan on a map. We now have acknowledgment from both the Turkish and Azeri governments that Turkish forces participated in the war. This is a very immense change since the topic was last discussed. --Steverci (talk) 01:29, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
@Steverci: no, that's completely upside down. It's not OR/SYNTH to use wording which follows precisely what the sources say. It's OR/SYNTH to adopt wording which doesn't match what the sources say. And I contend that there are very few RS that currently say words to the effect of "Turkey was a belligerent". Reports of medals given to Turkish soldiers is not a clear acknowledgment/declaration that the Turkish military fought in combat, as you're claiming it to be. It could, for example, have been for sharing expertise and military tactics, i.e. "support". We need evidence of a weight of sources for such a change in the infobox. Absent a clear weight in favour of the statement (not the case), it's appropriate to label it "alleged", as we currently do. Re: "the words of a journalist in London who probably couldn't point to Armenia or Azerbaijan on a map", these are high quality broadsheet newspapers (actually the highest quality broadsheets, based on their reputations) which have networks of global correspondents, and newswires which employ journalists globally. They are more trustworthy sources than Russian newspapers, because of the influence/pressure the Russian government exerts on media. The only sources stronger than independent, RS broadsheets/newswires are academic papers in peer-reviewed journals, or reliably published books by established experts. Jr8825 • Talk 14:05, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Jr8825 The word "support" is correct in the context of both a full belligerent and a partial one. We need a clear definition of what a full belligerent is, or it's just OR. The last consensus decided proof of Turkish forces was needed, and now we have that. The medals were not just awarded for "tactics", the medals were literally awarded "For excellence in battle". You're moving the goal posts half way across the world for no reason. If both parties of the crisis in Venezuela report the same thing, we don't also need a hundred sources from China giving their take on the crisis. --Steverci (talk) 04:13, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose (Summoned by bot) in the absence of independent RS, it would be WP:SYNTH to conclude Turkey was an active belligerent. The relatively small number of personnel and planes also tends to confirm this. As BilledMammal says, even if it were unsurprising if this were partly true, we still need RS stating this explicitly. Pincrete (talk) 17:52, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Pincrete Both Armenian and Russian sources reported thousands of Turkish forces, so the true number is likely much bigger. As I told BilledMammal, "which showed great success in the victory in the Nagorno-Karabakh War with Armenia" doesn't get much more explicit. --Steverci (talk) 20:00, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
You state explicitly above that Western sources are extremely equivocal (at best) about the involvement. You propose ignoring those sources in favour of partisan ones which say something different, and SYNTHing a conclusion. The infobox is not the place for disputed/nuanced information, but it is even less the place for conclusions arrived at by OR or SYNTH. As Jr8825 and others say, you need more, better, more explicit sources. Pincrete (talk) 08:01, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Official government statements are neither partisan nor synthesis. Nor do they contradict anything the Western sources stated, which also confirmed the presence of Turkish fighter jets in Azerbaijan that Azerbaijan denied the existence of. --Steverci (talk) 01:29, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is the third or fourth time we are voting on the same thing this year. How many times we can vote on the same thing in 1 year? I think this has to stop. No new sources have been provided. The fact that Turkish pilots were awarded medals in Azerbaijan does not mean that Turkish army participated in the war. These were pilots of Turkish F-16 that were stationed in Ganja airport, but took no part in fighting. So no new sources, and no new information. Also, 1 or 2 sources alleging Turkish direct involvement are not sufficient to support the claim anyway. To list Turkey as a belligerent, the overwhelming majority of reliable sources must support this claim, i.e. there should be a consensus among reliable sources, which presently does not exist. Grandmaster 18:38, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
    Btw, the most recent PACE report and draft resolution do not mention self-proclaimed Nagorno-Karabakh republic as a party to conflict. According to PACE, the war was between Armenia and Azerbaijan, which is true, because "NKR army" is made up mostly of conscripts from Armenia. Turkey is not mentioned as a party to the conflict either, only as a supporter to Azerbaijan. That is in line with what most reliable sources say. Note that PACE actually conducted its own investigation, and its mission traveled to both sides of the conflict. Quote: The Parliamentary Assembly regrets the tragic humanitarian consequences of the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Grandmaster 19:04, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Turkish governor of Amasya Mustafa Masatlı awarding medals to Turkish Air Force members, which quote: "showed great success in the victory in the Nagorno-Karabakh War with Armenia" is a pretty clear statement to me. And I don't see the bias of Turkish sources in this context (if someone could enlighten me, please do so). So far, I'm leaning towards support. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 21:47, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
showed great success in the victory great success in doing what? It simply doesn't say and could involve any 'support' role as much as any 'combat' role. Even if true, - three pilots? Pincrete (talk) 08:09, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Turkish military members playing any roles makes Turkey a belligerent. And if number 3 bothers you, it's unanimously confirmed by reliable sources that Turkey deployed thousands of mercenaries [7], [8], [9], [10]. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 19:45, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose This has been rejected in the past. There are no grounds to label Turkey as a full belligerent considering their minor support and minute number of troops deployed. Awards or rewards given internally between armies do not carry any factual relevance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DriedGrape (talk • contribs)
Note for arbiter – DriedGrape (talk · contribs · count) WP:SPA account, recently banned from AA area. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 21:40, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose per BilledMammal. Adding such information leads to WP:OR. It's not a guesswork, there are no references to solidify Turkey's direct involvement in the war as a belligerent. — Toghrul R (t) 07:57, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Support I understand where the opinions above that "big international media has not cited direct participation of Turkey, etc" come from and I embrace the healthy dose of scepticism from several co-editors above, but who says it has always be big international media to rely on for a regional conflict like NK war? Turkish media (generally reliable for reporting Turkish government statements) reporting on a Turkish governor (part of government of Turkey) thanking Republic of Azerbaijan for war services medal given to Turkish military pilots for their being Azerbaijani army's "guide" in Nagorno Karabakh war proves their participation of Turkish Army in NK war. Being a belligerent does not mean only walking on the ground in military boots and shooting from rifles, Turkish pilots did indeed provide war services to Azerbaijan in NK war, I see no reason to suspect that Governor Masatl is lying. War services means war services - they did not get medals for repairing Azeri plane motors or cleaning Azeri soldiers' boots or simply patting on Azeri soldiers' shoulders for encouragement, they got it for providing war services. Compare to Soviet or British medals for war services in World War II and there will be no questions left. I don't think we in Wikipedia are entitled to deny what a government official directly confirms. To make things crystal clear, the infobox, apart from saying "belligerent", should specify what is specifically known - "Turkish Air Force guided Azerbaijani military operations in NK war", not more but not less. --Armatura (talk) 11:29, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
    War services of Turkish pilots consisted of stationing F-16 airplanes in Azerbaijani airports, as a sign of support to Azerbaijan. They did not take part in fighting. The sources that you quote say nothing about "guidance". Quite the contrary, the governor clearly talks about support: Masatlı stated that with the understanding of "One Nation, Two States", Turkey provided the necessary support to brotherly Azerbaijan to save the Karabakh lands from the occupation. In general, airplanes were used very little in this war, drones replaced them. Also, the governor of a Turkish province is not in a position to know what was happening in Azerbaijan. And most importantly, 1 or 2 sources (especially of dubious quality) are not sufficient to claim that a country was a belligerent. You need to demonstrate that it is generally accepted to consider Turkey a belligerent in this war. These 2 sources certainly do not prove global acceptance of this claim. Grandmaster 14:43, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
    Governor does not say medals "for stationing F-16 airplanes in Azerbaijani airports, as just a sign of support, but not fighting", though, he explicitly says "for war services", I hope every editor here understands the difference between "war services" and "support". It cannot be clearer than that - Turkish pilots provided war services to Azerbaijan. If the governor wanted to say "Y" he would say "Y" but he said "X", hence we stick to what he literally said (X), without WP:OR. --Armatura (talk) 17:40, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
    Exactly. What were those "war services", if Turkish airplanes were not involved in hostilities, and were just stationed in Ganja airport? War service could be anything, training of personnel, for instance. That does not make a country a belligerent. Grandmaster 21:19, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Except that you don’t train personnel ‘during’ the war leading to victory. And he says war services, not training. You might want to look into a dictionary to have better understanding what war services are. In UK, for example, it’s the synonym of conscription. --Armatura (talk) 06:37, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
They may have trained personnel before the war. Your sources do not explain what exactly those services were. War service could be anything that helps a country to win a war. Anything at all. In any case, 1 or 2 sources are not sufficient to claim direct involvement. We cannot include fringe theories and minority views into infobox. We can only include what is generally accepted by majority of reliable sources. Grandmaster 08:33, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
"They may have trained personnel before the war" - we surely do not use editor-generated theories but instead refer to WP:RS in Wikipedia, do we not? Another reliable source mentioned above - Kommersant (a liberal newspaper with good standing in Russia and abroad) wrote that Turkish Armed Forces Commander and Turkish Minister of Defense Hulusi Akar arrived to the war zone and took over the general control of the operation on Karabakh Front and now the Turks' war services are officially acknowledged by Azerbaijan - how is this "fringe theory" and "minority view"? Specific names, numbers, medals referred to by WP:RS - are these to be ignored? With all respect, I have to remind the participants of this discussion of the staunch resistance of some editors to inclusion of Turkey-backed Syrian mercenaries as belligerent and including Israel as Azerbaijan arms supplier (including during the war) with apologetic arguments, despite WP:RS pointing to those facts, and hope for we don't see a repetition here. --Armatura (talk) 09:21, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Kommersant refers to an anonymous source, so pretty much a gossip. And by Wikipedia standards it is not a top reliable source, as per discussion at WP:RSN. I never objected to those things you mention. And according to WP:weight, minority view cannot be given the same weight as majority view. 99.99% of reliable sources state that Turkey supported Azerbaijan. Grandmaster 21:13, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Where is the rule that says the sources have to be named for an article / newspaper to be reliable? It is perfectly conceivable that the newspaper may not identify its military-diplomatic information sources if doing so would pose danger to the information source. I could not find a reliable source that says that this particular article is "pretty much a gossip" or that Kommersant (a newspaper with good reputation) spreads gossip. As for WP:RSN, it actually lists Kommersant as a generally reliable (a.k.a. as "top") source with green checkmark, specifically - "Editors generally believe that Kommersant is one of the better publications in Russia and believe its reporting is generally reliable on most matters. However, editors have expressed concerns regarding how limited media freedom in Russia may affect the source's reporting, and as such caution should be applied when the source is used in relation to events in which the Russian government has a close interest. In such contexts, use of the source should generally be accompanied with intext attribution.. And we will use it with such attribution, I don't see a problem here either. By the way, for the comrades above asking "3 pilots?", Kommersant actually mentions 600 servicemen. --Armatura (talk) 13:53, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
@Armatura: the key bit there is that "caution should be applied when the source is used in relation to events in which the Russian government has a close interest". Aside from the fact that Armenia is Russia's strategic ally, and Russia has a close interest in the region (especially now it has peacekeepers on the ground), we have RIA Novosti, a formerly-state owned agency with an unclear relationship to the state, sharing a similar story. None of this means these sources aren't usable – they should be included, with attribution, in the section on Turkey – but it does mean these sources are insufficient on their own to demonstrate a weight of sourcing for the claim that Turkey was a direct belligerent, and are certainly not enough to state this in WP:WIKIVOICE or as fact in the infobox. We need a broader range of sources for that, which there currently doesn't appear to be. Jr8825 • Talk 14:28, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Turkey has been controversially listed as a belligerent for several months already. Per above, there's sufficient rationale to remove it. Mentioning in "Supported by" should suffice. Brandmeistertalk 17:01, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Support per Գարիկ Ավագյան. Some of the most reputable sources of information regarding this conflict have confirmed that Turkey fought alongside Azerbaijan in the war. We already have Turkish backed up mercenaries listed and confirmed by multiple sources. Now Turkish sources confirm the role played by Turkish military forces directly, and them receiving awards by Turkish government officials is further proof of their participation. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 19:54, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Neither Turkey officially declared war to Armenia and/or Artsakh or Artsakh and/or Armenia declared war on Turkey. Turkey might be one of the supporting sides, but you are totally ignoring legitimacy by saying that Turkey is one of the sides directly. BerkBerk68 (talk) 21:05, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
What does official declaration of war have to do with the fact of warring, though? Azerbaijan didn’t declare war, either, it’s just suddenly attacked, initially not saying anything, then saying it was a defence to Armenia’s attack, then that it was a antiterrorist action, and so on. War very frequently is not declared, but it doesn’t stop the sides from being warring sides. Turkey waged a proxy war against Armenians, using predominantly Azerbaijanis and Syrians, but proof is provided that Turkish servicemen did conduct war services in NK war as well. --Armatura (talk) 23:21, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
If Turkey is a side, then why it didn't participate in peace conference? So Armenia and Turkey is still on a war? BerkBerk68 (talk) 06:36, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Read what Proxy war and Circular reasoning are and many things will become clear. --Armatura (talk) 09:08, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Are there sources which said that Turkey was a side to the conflict following the story with the awards? If not it would be OR to claim that it is one. Note that this information (about the awards) should be incorporated in the section on Turkish involvement. Alaexis¿question? 12:01, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Alaexis PanARMENIAN.Net reported that and also made the connection between the 3 Turkish fighter jets and the 3 Turkish pilots. And Haqqin.az confirms the 11 were combatants because the medals are "For excellence in battle". --Steverci (talk) 04:13, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
This article says "Turkey supported Azerbaijan militarily" which is already written in the infobox. Alaexis¿question? 05:21, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Yes, supported military, as in being a side to the conflict. What are you trying to say? --Steverci (talk) 18:56, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
  • support: per points made by nom. Adding my two cents into this, the Syrian mercenaries who we're brought there fight under Turkey, as they do in Libya and northern Syria, fighting through mercenaries directly paid and "shipped" by them is enough for me to earn the full belligerent listing. - Kevo327 (talk) 16:54, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose I think this news is fake. I couldn't find anything in (Azerbaijani) reliable sources. I could only find this which is talking about "For Distinction in Battle Medal" (Azerbaijani: Döyüşdə fərqlənməyə görə medalı). Turkish sources say the medal is "For War Services". There is "For military services medal" which is "Hərbi xidmətlərə görə medalı" in Azerbaijani. It is not even clear exactly which medal was given. These sources contradict each other. This or that? Also, these medals are official government awards. Only the government has permission to award these medals. I couldn't find any decree/order about this in president.az & e-qanun.az NMW03 (talk) 23:57, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
It was reported by Haqqin.az, the official site of the Ministry of Justice of Azerbaijan. --Steverci (talk) 18:56, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
It is the same text but in russian. Also it is not official website of Justice Ministry (justice.gov.az). Read their about page. NMW03 (talk) 20:45, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
It's a government watchdog website that is used to discredit reports of human rights violations. --Steverci (talk) 21:13, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
So why are you using it as a source? You said yourself it is not reliable. It is still not "official website" of ministry. It was reported by modern.az too but you can see that it is exactly the same text and mentioning "Turkish media" as a source. There is no important information in any of these websites. They copy+paste the same text. NMW03 (talk) 14:31, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Where did I say that? In this context, it is certainly reliable, as it proves confirmation from a Azeri government source. The haqqin source doesn't cite Turkish media, and it seems that haqqin is cited by other sources reporting it. --Steverci (talk) 03:22, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
Your arguments doesn't make sense. Azerbaijan denies Turkey's involvement, right? So why would a "government website" share such news? Also haqqin.az reported this on August 27. The websites I mentioned (azerforum.com and modern.az) and Turkish media reported this on 22 August. So how did these websites cite it? As I said above, haqqin.az's text is same as other websites but in russian. NMW03 (talk) 09:05, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
  • OpposeHere, the medals were awarded to some of the F-16 pilots who visited Azerbaijan, and as it is known from the news, not for participation in the battles, but only for being in Azerbaijan and insuring it from foreign interference. There are not any source that Turkish pilots took part in the battles. Ilham Aliyev also spoke about this it during the war.
Based on this news alone, Turkey cannot be considered as a full belligerent. You need to find reliable sources.
On the other hand, if Turkey was an active party in the war, did it sign a peace agreement with Armenia or Artsakh?)--Qızılbaş (talk) 23:09, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
1. There is no mention of pilots anywhere in that link.
2. The medals were awarded "For excellence in battle".
3. Aliyev is also denying the presence of Syrian terrorists, which shows how untrustworthy his word is. --Steverci (talk) 23:46, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
It is not clear whether this medal was awarded. There are no reliable source. Information about the awarding of this medal was provided on the president's website, and there is no information about it. You can enter and check it yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qızılbaş (talk • contribs)

RfC Pakistan as Support

Should Pakistan be included in the list of supported countries in the infobox, based on these sources? Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 06:08, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

1. Source: Arab News [11]

"Pakistan and Turkey provided support to Azerbaijan during the 44-day-long Second Karabakh War against Armenia."

<...>

"Pakistan and Turkey provided support to Azerbaijan during the 44-day-long Second Karabakh War last September in which Azerbaijan fought against Armenian armed forces until the conclusion of a Russia-brokered truce in November."

2. Source: Middle East Media Research Institute [12]

"...I will examine the Pakistani view of Pakistan's role in this war in which Azerbaijan defeated Armenia with the military help of Turkey and Pakistan."

"Syed Ali Haider, a senior journalist and host with Pakistan's leading TV channel Samaa, posted a video about Pakistan's role in the Nagorno-Karabakh war on YouTube which was highlighted in Urdu as "Pakistani air force ki tarbiyat kaam dikha gayi" – i.e., "Pakistani air force's training worked" wonders against Armenia."

"Roznama Ausaf – an Urdu daily published from six Pakistani cities, and London – carried a report titled as "Conflict with Armenia – Pakistani military's support for Azerbaijan."

3. Source: Kommersant [13]

"According to informed sources of Kommersant in Peshawar, Pakistan, "at least one batch of militants with weapons and ammunition has already been sent to Karabakh a few weeks ago."

"Recently, there was information about the recruitment of militants in Pakistan to participate in the Karabakh conflict. <..> At the same time, the Pakistani army and special services are not acting officially, but in the way they are accustomed to during many years of waging hybrid wars against Afghanistan and India, using a network of terrorist organizations controlled by the Pakistani Interdepartmental Intelligence Service such as Jamaat-i-Islami, Jaish-e-Muhammad "," Al-Badr "(all banned in the Russian Federation), their madrassas, mosques and recruiting infrastructure."

4. Source: Eurasia Daily [14]

"At the same time, Pakistan faced an adversary in the person of the Armenian National Committee of America, which called on US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen to include the country on the FATF blacklist for financing mercenaries who took part in the last Karabakh war."

5. Source PanARMENIAN.Net [15]

"The Armenian National Security Service has obtained concrete information that Azerbaijan is smuggling in a significant amount of ammunition, mercenaries and terrorists. <...> "A flight was carried out from Afghanistan's Bagram Airport to Pakistan Lashkargah to Baku was carried out on October 17".

6. Source WION [16]

"Pashinyan, in an exclusive conversation with WION, said, "We have information that armed fighters from Pakistan are participating in the war raging in the Karabakh region."

7. Source TASS [17]

"There have recently been reports about militants being recruited in Pakistan to fight in the Karabakh conflict, which is another move the Pakistani military is making in favor of its Turkish ally. Islamabad has little interest in the Karabakh issue itself, it is important for Pakistan primarily in relation to Turkey’s interests and in terms of boosting its strategic partnership," Serenko added."

8. Source Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty [18]

"Along with Turkey, Pakistan openly supported Azerbaijan during last year's 44-day war in Nagorno-Karabakh in which nearly 7,000 people were killed <..> Like Ankara, Islamabad has denied any direct involvement in the 2020 war in Nagorno-Karabakh."

Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 14:30, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Redrose64 Thank you for this information! I'll start a new RfC. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 06:04, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
There was no need to, and indeed is explicitly discouraged (see first paragraph of WP:RFC#Multiple simultaneous RfCs on one page). All you needed to do was add a brief statement to the existing RfC. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:03, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Redrose64 Thank you for your help! I hope now there are no errors. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 08:34, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Pakistan only made political statements in support of Azerbaijan, same as Afghanistan. If we list every country who made statements in support of one of the parties, then we should list France as support for Armenia. Grandmaster 08:54, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Have you looked at the sources? This is not about diplomatic/political support. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 08:56, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Yes. None of them could be considered reliable. RFE/RL's Armenian Service is also not very neutral, but even that one only talks about political statements. The rest are no good. Grandmaster 14:10, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for your opinion. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 15:36, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Russian sources are not advised by community to be used when an article concerns Russian interests. So Kommersant, TASS, Eurasia Daily are not acceptable. PanARMENIAN.Net and WION represent Armenia, and have a clear conflict of interest here. WION refers to Armenian prime minister Pashinyan, who is obviously not an objective source here. Middle East Media Research Institute is a shady organization, with low credibility, as is obvious from the article about it. And same goes for Arab News, which is not generally considered a reliable source. So we don't have much to talk about, the proposal lacks reliable sourcing. Grandmaster 21:55, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - per nom and the sources shown above. Seems to be that should've been included a long time ago. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 14:21, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
As far as I remember there must be more sources (concerning Pakistan's direct involvement in the war) that probably I missed. If you find them, please feel free to add here. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 15:39, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Does recognizing the territorial integrity of any state mean being a full belligerent? Pakistan has provided diplomatic support, and many other states have declared their support for territorial integrity during or before the war. Are they all on the full belligerent war now?

In addition, it is not clear what kind of support is in the news. It can be diplomatic or political support.

  • Oppose per mentioned arguments for opposition. — Toghrul R (t) 06:37, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The last two sources (TASS and RadioFreeEurope) are generally reliable but they say Pakistan was not involved since it had no interest in the NKR region denying any direct involvement. The Pakistani support has been mainly verbal, though pakistani mercenaries may have been used during the offensive. Marzbans (talk) 19:49, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Involving foreign mercenaries is also a support. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 13:46, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

20,000 - 25,000 Armenian soldiers

Can we use this statement made back in 2020 by the Prime Minister of Armenia as a source for Armenia/Artsakh military number during the war? [19] Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 13:48, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

I think he meant the lives of 25,000 who remained encircled in Mardakert/Agdere, Agdam, etc. After the fall of Shusha they were trapped. But I don't think it was the total number of Armenian army involved in hostilities. Grandmaster 08:47, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
Grandmaster You're right. Should we use this as the number of Armenian forces? For example, "at least 20,000-25,000" soldiers? Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 10:49, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
No, because as I said this was only the part that was encircled in Karabakh. As I understand, those who were in the border areas or in Armenia are not included in this number. But they were also combatants. Plus this number apparently does not include those were killed or wounded and evacuated. I think we need more a precise number from a source that would provide an estimate of the total number of the military personnel involved. Grandmaster 13:51, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I share your thoughts. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 10:06, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Suspected War Crimes Section

I can’t edit the page, but I think there should be more information about Azerbaijan’s shelling of civilian areas aside from the cluster munitions. As it stands now there’s a lot of focus on the cluster munitions and the attack on Gazanchetsots (which is good information to keep), but not much about the regular shelling of Stepanakert and other towns and villages Guardian1099 (talk) 21:41, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

We have new HRW report. I will update the article, based on their sources. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 08:23, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
The source says "The first children died on the first day of the war. On September 27, 2020 a shell killed Victoria Gevorgyan. She was just 9 years of age. The shell landed in the yard of her home in the Martuni region of Nagorno-Karabakh. On the same day, in the Azerbaijani town of Naftalan, a shell killed Shahriyar Gurbanov, 13, and his cousin Fidan Gurbanova, 14, and three other members of the family while they were in the yard of their home.". I couldn't find where it says that Gevorgyan was "the very first child victim of the war". Also, if this is added, shouldn't similar info about two Azeri child victims be added to Armenian (war crimes)? Also does the source say that all those 4 cities/towns were attacked "from the very beginning of the war"? Dian Nikolow (talk) 15:28, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment, Dian Nikolow, I will try to find some time and re-update the article. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 17:14, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Renaming to Second Nagorno-Karabakh War

I wonder if a year after the war ended, a move of this article to "Second Nagorno-Karabakh War" is now more plausible. Super Ψ Dro 13:20, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME: Google gives pretty the same results for the Second Nagorno-Karabakh war: 1,300 000 and 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war: 1,470 000. Same goes with the reliable sources. I would like to know other users' opinion as well. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 17:18, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
I remember I once asked this unformally on this talk page in 2020 and many users replied, but they had to reply again when I made the formal RM on a new section. I will make another if a few users show support here on this section so that doesn't happen again. Super Ψ Dro 18:30, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Both seem acceptable. "Second [Nagorno-]Karabakh War" has definitely grown in use: [20], [21] [22], [23]. A couple of sources which still use 2020 war/no proper noun: [24], [25]. Jr8825 • Talk 02:55, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
I think we can start a move request as there are sources that use the Second Nargorno-Karabakh War and the choice will most likely be on preference. I was previously against it, because in Armenian sources the 2016 clashes are also considered the April War or Four-Day War. But, as I see, now there are sources about the "Artsakh Second War". Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 14:42, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I believe the last move proposal was this one closed January 20, 2021. It's probably time for a new discussion, but I would encourage taking a bit more time to compile the best evidence for what name is most commonly used before starting the proposal. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 14:47, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I support the rename. The name Second Nagorno-Karabakh war is widely used in reliable sources. I believe it is time to open a new discussion on this. Grandmaster 07:56, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

International recognition

The first lines state that the disputed area is "internationally recognized as part of ..". This apprears to be the Soviets point of view. The UN resolutions were not an attempt to determine where the borders should be, but a simple reaffirmation of the Soviet era borders. The UN resolutions were merely a reiteration of Soviets viewpoints on how the region should be governed. But the interesting point here is that, Armenians did not agree with the Soviets.Marzbans (talk) 16:52, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

No, see diplomatic recognition. As for UN resolutions, whether they are reiteration or not doesn't matter. They were issued by the United Nations Security Council, which is specifically tasked with handling such conflicts, and authoritatively reaffirm status quo, specifically "the inviolability of international borders" and "the inadmissibility of the use of force for the acquisition of territory". Brandmeistertalk 21:50, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
If the whole world disagrees with Armenians, why not say the NKR region was "liberated"? back in 1990s when the war began, the UN security council invited both sides and has done that eversince to peace talks and respect of territorial integrity of Azerbaijan, at that time the NKR region was within Azeri territory. But who defined the borders? It turns out that NKR region was annexed to Soviet Azerbaijan apparently against the will of Armenians in 1921 by the Soviets:
"In July of 1921, when both Armenia and Azerbaijan had already been incorporated in the Russian Federation, the Kavbiuro (Bureau for the Caucasus in Moscow) gathered to decide the status of Nagorno-Karabakh. On 4 July 1921, it was decided that Nagorno-Karabakh would be unified with Armenia, and that a referendum would be organized in Nagorno-Karabakh. The next day, on 5 July 1921, after consultations with Stalin (Commissioner for Nationalities), Ordzhonikidze and Nazaretian asked for a re-examination of the decision. Nagorno Karabakh was left in the Azerbaijani SSR, with the status of Autonomous Oblast. The Central Committee of Azerbaijan would delimit the borders of Nagorno-Karabakh, to be submitted to the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Russia. After negotiations between the Kavbiuro and representatives of Armenia and Azerbaijan, a Special Commissioner for Nagorno-Karabakh would be appointed. And finally, Azerbaijan would decide on the degree of autonomy for Nagorno-Karabakh. The decision was taken without deliberation or vote. Both Stalin and Narimanov are said to have used a certain amount of pressure to guarantee this outcome." (State Building and Conflict Resolution in the Caucasus (2010), by Charlotte Hille, p.168, [26]) Marzbans (talk) 05:16, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
This goes further back than the Kavbiuro decision. We have been through it quadrillion times before, WP:NOTFORUM. Brandmeistertalk 10:14, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
The question is not if NKR is internationally recognized as part of AZ (because we know it is), the question is which entity decided that the NKR region belongs to AZ. I doubt official borders as we know today existed in the region before 1921 perhaps explaining why the Soviets were hesitant as well. Nevertheless, they were the first entity to determine the status of NKR. All the talks and discussions, including the UN resolutions were based on the key decision made in the year 1921.Marzbans (talk) 18:27, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Promoting Neutral Wording in the Key to the Map of Territorial Changes

Should the wording in the key to the Map in the infobox- "Vectorisation of File:2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war map.png" be changed as follows?

  • "Areas recaptured by Azerbaijan during the war" → "Areas captured by Azerbaijan during the war"
  • "Areas returned to Azerbaijan under the ceasefire agreement" → "Areas ceded to Azerbaijan under the ceasefire agreement"

In my view, this would incorporate a more neutral way of speaking about the conflict without making implied references to the claim Azerbaijan has to the land in the region and its legal status. I should stress that this is not intended to rebut the position of Azerbaijan in favour of the Armenian position or any other position, but it just seemed to me a little unnecessary to keep this wording and make reference to controversial territorial claims where there need not be any. Pseudoname1 (talk) 23:43, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Certainly. I remember it being discussed some time ago and I believe that per WP:NPOV neutral terms like "ceded" or "captured" should be used whether we write about the Armenians capturing land in 1993 or about Azerbaijanis doing it in 2020. The only possible justification of using different terms is their overwhelming use by reliable sources. I don't think it's the case here so we should stick with the neutral terms. Alaexis¿question? 06:39, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
If those areas were captured during the first war, logically they were recaptured/returned. After all, those areas are Azerbaijan's own territory, a country cannot capture its own territory, it makes no sense. Grandmaster 20:35, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Very good suggestion, Pseudoname1, agree. Those lands changed hands so many times in recent and not so recent history, that claiming original ownership by loaded words such as "recaptured" and "returned" does not make sense. And imagine what would the wording be if, say, Armenia now captures some of the land that went to Azerbaijan in 2020, and then that land goes to Azerbaijan in another military action - would that be re-re-captured and re-returned? --Armatura (talk) 21:42, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Agreed, Azeri sources routinely use the verb "liberation" and Armenian "occupation", the UN resolutions which were widely used to justify the war were based on Soviet era maps and contested by Armenians from day first. Using the words capture/seize and cede is definitely more neutral and a very good suggestion.Marzbans (talk) 04:35, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Instead of relying on personal preferences like the Armenian users did here, maybe you should all stick to the sources? Many sources certainly like to call it "recapture", like Radio Free Europe (another one; even the organization's Armenian service), Wall Street, BBC, France24, New York Times, The Independent, Bloomberg, National Geographic, Al Jazeera, Jerusalem Post, Carnegie, Concilation Resources, Worldview Stratfor, Christianity Today, and so on. The guy above me basically denied international law, worldwide consensus just to justify Armenia's occupation. You need strong arguments, not just blank numerical advantage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.219.164.8 (talk) 13:13, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
This proves nothing. It's just as easy to find reliable sources which use "ceded" ([27], [28]). That's why we should use WP:NPOV as our guide as use more neutral terminology. Alaexis¿question? 14:14, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
and just randomly checking the websites the ip has referred to, I came across this one (National Geographic) saying that the “provinces occupied in the first war, now recaptured” by AZ,..., I was not surprised to see that the author is an Azeri named Rena Effendi! Marzbans (talk) 17:34, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
I don't think that the authors' ethnicity per se has any bearing on the reliability. Alaexis¿question? 17:55, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
It almost certainly does, and I say this as an Armenian. In fact that's why I've refrained from doing any sort of editing on this article because I don't think I can do so in an unbiased manner. Dsobol0513 (talk) 03:23, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Alaexis – while it's a writer from either country is perhaps more motivated to write an article on NK (because it's an issue they care about/want to raise awareness of) that doesn't necessarily mean it isn't well-written and neutral. Regarding "recaptured/returned", I remember participating in some previous discussions on this (probably the ones Alaexis referred to), and have the following points:

  • I think we should generally use "captured/ceded" because they're (1) less confusing (extra context is needed for "recaptured" to make sense, i.e. an explanation of the 1st NK war, which readers may find confusing or be unfamiliar with), (2) they're perfectly valid in terms of accuracy, so there's no strong argument for not using them, and (3) they avoid any potential perception of editorial judgement regarding the righteousness/natural nature of one side's ownership. This is particularly the case when outlining military events, as we want to keep those sections succinct and factual (e.g. "Azerbaijani forces captured X", not "recaptured").
  • I think we should avoid "recaptured/returned" when describing the areas within the former NKAO that Azerbaijan gained control of in the recent war. There's a degree of contention over the status of these areas, irrespective of them firmly being legally de jure part of Azerbaijan (Armenians might argue that Azerbaijan never exercised full, sovereign authority within the NKAO by pointing to its degree of official autonomy, or the nature of Soviet federalism, or the illegitimacy of Soviet authoritarianism etc.).
  • I think it's fine to use "returned" when describing the parts of the Armenian-occupied territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh which were ceded in the ceasefire agreement, as (1) this is the language used on the Kremlin website, which (to my non-expert knowledge) seems to to be the authoritative English wording, (2) these areas are de jure part of Azerbaijan and were predominantly populated by Azeris and Kurds (not Armenians) prior to the 1st NK war (they did not have the NKAO's autonomy, and didn't unilaterally secede in 1991 with the Armenian-majority areas) and (3) reliable sources widely use similar wording, likely because their occupation was ubiquitously condemned internationally following the 1st NK war (unlike Armenian/Artsakh rule within the former NKAO proper, which was often seen sympathetically). However, I think we should still prefer "ceded" to "returned" in summaries, captions and first mentions within paragraphs/subsections (basically anywhere a reader is likely to skim to) as "ceded" is precise and helps to avoid confusion for those unfamiliar with the 1st NK war + the distinction between the former NKAO and surrounding areas. When this background is made clear by preceding text, and in the specific, narrow context of the ceasefire clauses regarding these areas, I don't see any compelling reason not to use "returned" interchangeably with "ceded". Jr8825 • Talk 19:24, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Why has it been changed with no consensus reached? Most realiable sources prefer returned/recaptured over others, as provided above, and How can we say "Areas surrendered to Azerbaijan under the ceasefire agreement" when they were literally "returned" per the agreement? [29] This change isn't more neutral, it is just plain false. Now, for Nagorno Karabakh region itself this could be debatable, but Azerbaijan mostly recaptured/returned the territories surrounding NK, which were not claimed by Armenians, but occupied as "security belt" and as a bargain for excahgne for "status". Dian Nikolow (talk) 14:21, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
I don't think it's been conclusively demonstrated that "[m]ost reliable sources prefer returned/recaptured over others." Alaexis¿question? 15:16, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Well, ip 89.219.164.8 above shared many sources, plus there is the ceasefire agreement source, whic is most important because it is legal signed by the sides? Dian Nikolow (talk) 15:32, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
I suggest to keep "captured" as is, because it doesn't sound super wrong for now, plus that territory includes some from NK as well (despite being NK-surrounding majority), but use "returned" for Kalbajar-Lachin-Agdam, per the agreement. Dian Nikolow (talk) 16:11, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
  • About these reverts[30][31]. First, we shall use term "recaptured", not "captured", because Azerbaijan took control over the territories that were under its control before 1992-1994 war. Second, we shall use term "retruned" for Kalbajar, Lachin and Agdam districts, because as per 9 November ceasefire agreement (which was signed by Armenian prime-minister as well) Armenia "shall return" these districts to Azerbaijan. Not "trancser", not "cede", but "return". They were not internationally recognized territories of Armenia, so Armenia could not "cede" them to Azerbaijan. Armenia "returned" to Azerbaijan its internationally recognized territories. We should describe it on such manner without giving false information in the article. Interfase (talk) 12:04, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
"Captured" does not imply anything other than the fact that one party has taken an objective by force from another party (without commenting on legality or anything else). It is the correct, precise, and neutral term to use. We also use "capture" instead of "recapture" in other articles like Operation Overlord despite the defending party also having been an illegal occupier. Lightspecs (talk) 23:42, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
I'd disagree. Strictly speaking, you don't capture what was once within your borders under domestic and international law. You reclaim, regain or reclaim it. Everything else may be captured. Brandmeistertalk 15:21, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
Interface You’re forgetting that international recognition of territories comes after delimitation and demarcation. Before that happens, the “international recognition” is about the right to have a territory belonging to that particular state, not about belonging of this and that territory to Armenia or Azerbaijan. If you want to go back in history, you’ll see how many times they changed hands between Armenia and Azerbaijan even the beginning of 20th century (when state of Azerbaijan was created), if you want to use re-recapture you may find that re-re-re-re-capture is what you really want to use, which obviously wouldn’t make sense. “Handed over”, on the other hand, suggested by Brandmeister, is a good neutral term, would agree with that. --Armatura (talk) 15:54, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
Let me correct you. When both Armenia and Azerbaijan joined to UNN in 1992, they joined to that organization within their borders recognized by all UNN states. That is why UNN CR described these territories as an Armenian occupied territories. And for that reason we cannot use term "captured". Or "recaptured, or "regained". We cannot go back in history. We shall describe the current situation. But for the Kalbajar-Lachin-Agdam we shall use the term "returned", because it is a fact confirmed by the text of ceasefire agreement. Interfase (talk) 03:54, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

No need to correct me with personal interpretations, and this is not a WP:FORUM. Borders are defined and lawfully recognised only as a result of delimitation and demarcation. You can use returned when citing the ceasefire agreement English text verbatim, but outside that we should use non-loaded, NPOV terms to assure unbiased WIKISPEAK --Armatura (talk) 06:27, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Delimitation and demarcation process still ongoing between different countries, even between Azerbaijan and Russia, between Azerbaijan and Georgia. It does not mean that these three countries do not have internationally recognized territories. Also we have large amount of 3rd party secondary reliable sources stated that these territories are internationally recognized territories of Azerbaijan (e. g. [32][33]). They are reliable for Wikipedia, your personal interpretations are not reliable for Wikipedia. And the term "return" is neutral because both sides of the conflict signed the agreement where this term was used. Using any other term instead "return" in case of Kalbajar-Lachin-Agdam is violation of WP:HOAX. Interfase (talk) 06:47, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
I suggest removing all the contentious words and using a neutral tone. Yes, Armenians signed the agreement but that does not reflect how they feel about the situation or what their point of view is, and I wouldn’t call them occupiers, that would be a violation of our NPOV policy. Marzbans (talk) 07:06, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
No, that would not. For example we use term German-occupied Europe in Wikipedia and it is not violation of our NPOV policy. If the territory was occupied it should be described as occupied. If it was returned, it should be described as returned. We should not be warn how somebody feel about the situation, we should rely on the reliable sources about the situation. And for reliable sources say that these territories are the internationally recognized territories of Azerbaijan some part of that was returned by Armenia after the war. Interfase (talk) 07:53, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
If Germans sincerely believe that France belongs to them, we as uninvolved editors need to make sure their point of view is presented in that page as well, in a neutral and dispassionate tone of course. Flat out saying that "AZ recaptured Armenian-occupied territories" is the Azeri side of the story.Marzbans (talk) 08:25, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
As I previously mentioned, in the articles on Allied offensives against German-occupied territory, we use the term "capture" instead of "recapture", even in battles that pitted, say, the French, Belgians, and Dutch against the Germans within the former's own countries. In some of them involving major cities or entire countries, the term "liberation" is also used but that is something most sources unanimously decided over the past 80 years. On the other hand, in the case of Nagorno-Karabakh, an ongoing conflict, it's far from a consensus. Lightspecs (talk) 10:53, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
Marzbans, talking about Kalbajar-Lachin-Agdam here, those territories are recognized as Azeri. Neither Armenia nor the unrecognized "goverment" claimed those territories as theirs. They occupied them as "security belt" and to exchange for "status". Armenia agreed to "return" them and so it did. Thats why we can't say "ceded" per the agreement when it was literally "returned" per the agreement. How Armenians feel about the situation and or what their point of view is exactly a POV, which should be avoided in wikipedia. "I wouldn't call them occupiers" is also a POV, your POV, which should be avoided in wikipedia. Dian Nikolow (talk) 19:05, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
Besides, how do you know what Armenians feel to the agreement. And if you really were so neutral you would also think about what Azeris would "feel" for not writing "returned" per the agreement while it is exactly so per the agreement. This whole "feel" thing definitely has no place here. Dian Nikolow (talk) 19:16, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
Regarding the Armenian perspective, please take a look at Artsakh, it's a bit too long, so I here is an excerpt: in the 1918 the newly founded Azerbaijan made claims on Armenian lands Karabagh, Zangezur and Nakhichevan and in 1921, the Soviets decided to include Nagorno-Karabagh within the borders of Azerbaijan, while granting Nagorno-Karabagh a wide regional autonomy with an administrative center in Shushi․ This decision raised the protest of the Karabagh population, where 95 percent of the population was Armenian. Marzbans (talk) 20:15, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
Dian Nikolow, "occupied" for Azerbaijani perspective, but "adjacent territories" or "security belt" from Armenian perspective (eurasianet.org) Moreover, after 2020 NK war, Republic of Artsakh considers Artsakh’s territories currently under Azerbaijani control as "occupied" (Public radio of Armenia). Wikipedia should not favour / adhere to any particular conflict side's point of view (especially when they contradict each other by 180 degrees) but use neutral, impartial terms, that do not imply anything other than change of control, transfer of territory administration etc. --Armatura (talk) 14:37, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Agreed with Dian Nikolow. Armenia agreed to "return" Kalbajar-Lachin-Agdam and so it did. For that reason we cannot use term "ceded". because per the agreement it was "returned". Also we cannot use the term "captured" for the territories that were taken by Azerbaijan during the war due to NPOV, only "recaptured" or "regained". "Captured" is not neutral term. These territories were captured from the Armenia's POV, but for the Azerbaijan's POV they were liberated. For international law they were occupied by Armenia during the First War and then recaptured by Azerbaijan during the Second War. Interfase (talk) 08:25, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
"Capture" is a neutral term. Again, it does not imply anything other than the fact that an objective has changed hands during a conflict. Lightspecs (talk) 11:36, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Agree...We need to find a better wording than "breakaway" and "self-proclaimed" to describe Artsakh (the orange colored area on the map), there are a plenty of reasons to guess that it will become a region with full or partial autonomy, for the simple reason that Armenians live there and it is connected to mainland Armenia, anybody have any idea? Marzbans (talk) 04:51, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
2020 Nagorno-Karabakh ceasefire agreement says that the occupied districts were to be returned to Azerbaijan. If Armenia and Azerbaijan officially agreed on return, we cannot invent our own terms. As for NK separatist entity, it cannot be called anything other than "self-proclaimed", it is the term used by reliable sources, and NK has no international recognition. Grandmaster 09:51, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

I've two points to make here. Firstly, regarding "returned" to describe the formerly occupied territories surrounding the ex-NKAO, we currently use "returned" and "ceded" interchangeably. "Returned" is used in the lead appropriately and clearly (the sentence explains that the surrounding territories outside the former-NKAO are being discussed, and that they were returned due to the ceasefire agreement). Given that the lead is the most trafficked part of the article, I don't this indicates downplaying/not giving enough weight to the language of the ceasefire agreement. Elsewhere we use "ceded", which is again appropriate as the context is not always quite as clear (for example in map captions), and it's just as technically accurate and precise. I don't support changing these uses of "ceded" to "returned" around further, it's unnecessary and in my view wouldn't be an improvement – plus it's likely to just cause more disagreement. Secondly, regarding Marzbanss suggestion that we drop "breakaway"/"unrecognised"/"self-proclaimed" to describe Artsakh, I'm afraid this isn't going to happen – it's a case of WP:NOTCENSORED, as sources agree that Artsakh is these things and we don't need to avoid saying the obvious to avoid offending one side. Jr8825 • Talk 14:05, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

I am referring to the first paragraph of the lead section: "a region partially governed by Artsakh, a breakaway state". "Artsakh the breakaway state" need to be replaced with "Artsakh the autonomous state" or something else, if you all agree that according to the truce the orange colored region will remain under the control of Artsakh.Marzbans (talk) 17:14, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
NK has no autonomy. Grandmaster 10:15, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
looks like the dispute is over the surrounding districts…and the peace agreement states that the road between Artsakh and Armenia will be protected for the next 5 years, and the map says that the orange colored area will remain under the control of Artsakh, Does that mean Azeris have admitted to a (partially) independent Artsakh? whats the Armenian point of view? Marzbans (talk) 05:07, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
No, Azerbaijan officially says that NK is part of Azerbaijan, and conflict is over. Dispute is over NK, surrounding districts are under control of Azerbaijan, except for Lachin and 2 villages next to it, which are under control of Russia. Autonomy is a legal status, NK does not have such a status by any law, and Azerbaijan does not consider autonomy for NK. Grandmaster 10:31, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Luke Coffey

Hello

Luke Coffey is not a reliable source. If his statements are to be represented, then as claims. And not as truthful realities. He works for TRT and Azerbaijani news, and both nations pursue irredentism and false accusations, especially Az.--217.149.166.11 (talk) 01:48, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Support the above per brought up arguments. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 14:03, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Do not support. His statements are already represented as his statements, not as facts, be it actually true or not. He authored articles on TRT world, but that is not his only work, he writes articles in other places as well, and there is nothing to show that he is somehow biased to one side. [34] His main work seems to be director of the Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation. And your POV in you last words is completely unnecessary and irrelevant. Dian Nikolow (talk) 15:37, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Again "Controll" and "Disputed" instead of "Occupied"

We have been through this before.--Geysirhead (talk) 12:06, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

To be clear, I reverted your edit because it contained multiple non-neutral changes, including the removal of mercenary groups, whose inclusion has been agreed upon in several previous discussions and an RfC, and your replacement of the neutral descriptor "disputed" with "occupied and ethnically cleansed" in the first sentence. Accusations of ethnic cleansing are numerous, from both sides, and quite often well-founded. They don't belong in the first lead sentence, though. "Disputed" is not judgemental language, it's a fact. Both groups claim the territory. Delving into the legitimacy of either side's claims isn't a job for the lead (or us as neutral editors). "Control" appears in a technical footnote explaining that the figures don't include the parts of the surrounding areas not controlled by Armenia. I don't see any need to change it either. None of these things are mutually exclusive with the fact that Armenia illegally occupied the surrounding territories. Jr8825 • Talk 12:13, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 27 December 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. It's been over a year since this move was requested, and I think it's long overdue to close it. Supporters have provided nothing new from the last discussion besides a Google search which proves little, besides that some sources use the title, which 力 has practically refuted.

I don't believe a relisting would help at all, and it's clear that the supporters have very little to prove that this move is justified. The rationale of the closure from the last discussion also mostly applies here. I would not suggest doing another RM unless someone can find something substantial to support the move. Thanks for your time and I hope this helps. (non-admin closure) TL | The Legend talk 05:14, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war → Second Nagorno-Karabakh War – "Second Nagorno-Karabakh War" has become a widely used name, including in the academic world [35]. I believe this title is more appropriate and several editors have expressed the same. It will also produce consistency with First Nagorno-Karabakh War and will go in line with most Wikipedias. Super Ψ Dro 14:08, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

  • Support. At present it appears to be the most accepted and appropriate name. It used by reliable sources, plus if there was First Nagorno-Karabakh War, following the same logic there should be second. If there was no second war, there cannot be first either. Grandmaster 15:34, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Support, books check confirms it appears frequently now. Brandmeistertalk 20:56, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:35, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Current name has broader use, and there isn’t any proof shown that the suggested one is more common, as simple as that. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 18:42, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose - I think it's too soon for this move. There are certainly sources using Second Nagorno-Karabakh War, but Second Karabakh War is also in use, and there are a lot of sources using descriptive names (such as 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war or "the recent conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan") rather than historiographic names. I would prefer to leave the article here for at least 6 more months to let the situation become clearer - but it is clear there is no title other than Second Nagorno-Karabakh War that this could be moved to so I do not object strongly to that move. 18:49, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose – I don't object to this change when it's obvious it's the established name, but the Google scholar and books searches linked above actually show that it isn't currently – I looked through the first few pages and most sources use descriptive names, as 力 points out in the above comment, while only a handful use Second Nagorno-Karabakh War. I don't think there's been enough time for the balance of sources to clearly change since the last move discussion. I suggest a longer wait to see whether one name becomes settled upon, bearing in mind that it may well take several years for this to happen. Jr8825 • Talk 19:24, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I don’t think there the most common name used by published sources. It’s also a source of confusion - everything more or less large scale currently named “clashes” is thought as “War” by some people / sources, with a year attached or duration - like the 2014 clashes or 4-day war. --Armatura (talk) 01:50, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Even if third-party sources use the name Second Nagorno-Karabakh War, I would still refrain from renaming, since the area of hostilities extends beyond Nagorno-Karabakh. I would even vote to return the name 1992-1994 Nagorno-Karabakh War instead of calling it the First Nagorno-Karabakh War. Also, let's not forget that the war over this region was back in the early twentieth century as well. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 14:50, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose See[[36]]] no new arguments provided Shadow4dark (talk) 00:38, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Discussion of move

In my opinion, there should be a continuity between the naming of the two articles about the wars in NK, i.e. First Nagorno-Karabakh War and 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war. If we have an article named First Nagorno-Karabakh War, but there is no Second Nagorno-Karabakh War, then I believe it makes no sense to have the first article named First Nagorno-Karabakh War, because that name suggest the 1992-1994 war to be the first in a succession of wars. I think the naming of these two articles should follow a certain logic. Grandmaster 09:41, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion, Wikipedia should not create names or advance particular names, but rather reflect the most commonly used / mainstream name. Second NK War is not the most common / mainstream name. We are not CNN to be creating news. --Armatura (talk) 17:35, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Second_Nagorno-Karabakh_War/Archive_22&oldid=1121770005"