Talk:Second Nagorno-Karabakh War/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

This article is completely neutral

It stated what both the Armenian and Azerbaijani side claimed in terms of casualties and the fact that Azerbaijan started these clashes by bombing and attacking a few villages. Greglawl (talk) 15:52, 27 September 2020 (UTC)Greglawl

Agree Huskermax5 (talk) 18:50, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 September 2020

Please change the number of casualties per Armenian sources to dozens. The source is a press release by the President of the Artsakh Republic who states that there are dozens of casualties on the Armenian side. See video here: https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=814151416014805&extid=Wu5kLVfkAHLOGUNz Younghistorian19 (talk) 20:06, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:55, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

flag errors

Hi, there are some flag errors on the right information bar. The Turkish flag is posted next to Nikol Pashinyan instead of the Armenian flag. Other similar errors follow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.199.232.116 (talk) 20:12, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Background part

The sentences in the Background part of this article seem to be against the principles of WP:TOOLONG.

In the first paragraph, Although it is stated in the article "Nagorno-Karabakh" that this region belongs to Azerbaijan, it is repeated in that page's first sentence and Republic of Artsakh is defining "self proclaimed" again, which is already described in its article. So, this sentences are against WP:TOOLONG. If we look at the previous conflict page, the background is quite short but clear and plain. I suggest rewriting this sentence as "The clashes stem from the dispute over the Armenian-majority Nagorno-Karabakh, a de jure territory of Azerbaijan, and de facto territory of Republic of Artsakh.".

The second sentence can be shortened as "The Nagorno-Karabakh War had ended with a ceasefire in 1994, with Armenia in control of the Nagorno-Karabakh region, as well as in the surrounding districts."

The third sentence is totally irrelevant about this conflict. It is relevant with Armenia-N.K. Gov relations. I believe this sentece should be deleted.

The last sentence in this paragraph has no problem as I see.

The second paragraph is also not directly relevant with this conflict. It looks more like a compile of the news. But, If the Wikipedia community considers these events are significant, this paragraph should be shortened.

Last paragraph is relevant and important about this page but I guess it's place is not "Background" division. Those claims should be moved to another part. For example, a new headline like "Claims" under "Clashes" part. ––Amillians (talk) 08.25, 28 September 2020 —Preceding undated comment added 05:25, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Neutrality of the article, facts are deleted immediately

Could you, please, explain why my edits to this article are erased? The information is deleted minutes after it’s added.

I quote international sources and official government reports - UN declarations, US government website, international news outlets. One of my sources is The 2018 War Report prepared by the Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights from RULAC. I find it as a reputable source given this definition and would like to know on which grounds the direct quotes of the report that I have used to add these 2 sentences to Background section of the Wikipedia article are deleted.

my text is below:

The war resulted in Armenian occupation of the Nagorno-Karabakh region, as well as in the surrounding districts Aghdam, Jabrail, Fuzuli, Kalbajar, Gubadli, Lachin and Zangilan of Azerbaijan. According to The 2018 War Report prepared by the Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights, 'Armenia exercises its authority over Nagorno-Karabakh by equipping, financing or training and providing operational support to the self-proclaimed Nagorno-Karabakh Republic and its forces, but also in coordinating and helping the general planning of their military and paramilitary activities'.

it contained links to the above mentioned report as well as Wikipedia article

Grazie!!!

--XASRx (talk) 16:14, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Your recent edits are trying to make the point that one side of the conflict has more legitimacy than the other. It violates WP:NPOV, and that is why your edits are being removed. Acebulf (talk) 17:14, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

"I quote international sources and official government reports - UN declarations, US government website, international news outlets." We can clearly see your bias here. Please refrain from attempting to smear either side by using biased articles such as the ones you provided, per WP:NPOV. Thank you. Balkanite (talk) 01:45, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Total mobilization

I know sources use that term, but what does it mean? It needs to be explained in the article. ― Hebsen (talk) 21:30, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

It's wikilinked, and the "total" is self-explanatory and somewhat redundant anyway. If you personally were wondering, it means that a country is preparing its entire armed forces for war at short notice rather than typical peacetime operations. See DEFCON for what this looks like. mossypiglet (talk) quote or something 13:43, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Minor spillover in Iran

Per this report:

Iranian officials reported that as a result of the clashes, an artillery projectile hit the village of Khalaf Beygluy-e Sofla in the Khoda Afarin County, with no "financial or human damage." (sources: اصابت راکت به یکی از روستاهای آذربایجان شرقی,

— اصابت راکت به روستای خلف بیگلو خسارت مالی و جانی نداشت)

can we say that the location of the clashes include Iran? Note that a similar thing happened in 2016 clashes. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 07:11, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I think this is too minor for the infobox. Simple mention within the article's body should suffice. Brandmeister^talk 08:45, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 September 2020

The General Secretariat of the Organization of American States (GS/OAS) strongly condemned "the recent military aggression of Azerbaijan". GevHev4 (talk) 07:48, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done, kind of. I phrased it differently to better match how we have written about other reactions. TompaDompa (talk) 13:21, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 September 2020

This request is rather trivial and borders on nit-picking, but the proper term for a tank exploding in the manner shown in one of the pictures below is "Cooking off" Perhaps the word "exploding" could be replaced with a bluelink to here https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Cooking_off#Tanks Benjideaula (talk) 09:13, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done, kind of. Linked Cooking off on the destroyed Azerbaijan tank on military casualties section.Mr.User200 (talk) 18:12, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

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

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

• Dead Armenian soldiers in Talış heights.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:09, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Armenian tank getting destroyed.jpg
• Dead Armenian soldiers in Talış heights.jpg
• Destruction of an Armenian arms depot.jpg

You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:53, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 September 2020

I would like to improve the article on the ongoing Nagorno-Karbakh Conflict. Carthago814 (talk) 18:04, 28 September 2020 (UTC) I

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. TompaDompa (talk) 19:33, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 September 2020

Carthago814 (talk) 18:05, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. TompaDompa (talk) 19:33, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

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

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

• Annihilation of Azerbaijani military equipment.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:53, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has be en nominated for speedy deletion

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

• Armenian military equipment getting destroyed.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:53, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 29 September 2020

2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War → 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict – Blatant original research in the current title. Page was moved a few hours ago from "conflict" into "war" on the basis that there is consensus for the move. Despite not a single reliable or even unreliable source using the word "war" to describe the clashes. Resapp (talk) 16:15, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I've restored the previous title, per this thread there has been no consensus for the move. Brandmeister^talk 16:26, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll close this move then. Resapp (talk) 17:00, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 September 2020

Where the article says "Artsakh authorities have reported the deaths of 855 servicemen", this is most likely a mistype, as the article cited says 84 killed (which I assume the original poster of the information rounded up to 85). JSUMN (talk) 17:43, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

JSUMN, mistype, yes. But with the addition of the killed Su-25 pilot, the death toll reaches 85. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 17:57, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done with Solivarirum remark on the pilot.Mr.User200 (talk) 18:06, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Add some sub-headings

In the September 28th and 29th sections, there's a lot of "at about X:00". Could these be converted to sub-headings instead? It would make the page so much easier to navigate and read. ijedi12345 (talk) 18:37, 29 September 2020 (UTC)Ijedi12345

No, we don't do blow-by-blow by am, early evening, etc. Johncdraper (talk) 20:52, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Map Color

The map in the international reactions section uses colors that certain colorblind people cannot differentiate. Could the colors for support Armenia and Support Azerbaijan be changed to one becoming, say, yellow or orange? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Referencer12 (talk • contribs) 16:07, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Syrian "mercenaries" and PKK

Please remove both of these, ridiculous claims. Beshogur (talk) 17:05, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Beshogur I think it is fine since both are clearly labelled as allegations not established facts and therefor also not included in the infobox. Both sources obviously have their biases, but should not be rejected just because they are Greek and Turkish. Besides the SOHR also has a story alleging SNA presence in Azerbaijan. [[1]] Even if one or both turn out to be false they can of interest as examples of the ongoing propaganda war. Icarusatthesun (talk)

Corrected dead link and found a Reuters article confirming SNA presence in the fighting [[2]] Would someone be so kind and add both to the source material? Icarusatthesun (talk) 14:04, 28 September 2020 (UTC) —Preceding undated comment added 18:22, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

the rejection of the claims by the azeri side, in particular by the defense ministry of Azerbaijan(azeri defense minster said there is no need for such a force as Azerbaijan has conscription as well as a large standing military) as well as lack of tangible evidence or presence observed should be mentioned.

It should also be mentioned that the Azeri Envoy to Ankara has claimed that there is involvement of ASALA linked fighters involved in the Nagorno-Karabakh region. https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Armenian_Secret_Army_for_the_Liberation_of_Armenia

https://www.aa.com.tr/en/politics/armenia-deploys-terror-groups-pkk-asala-to-occupied-areas/1987803 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Midgetman433 (talk • contribs) 00:10, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Remove “Syrian Armenian Mercenaries” that is BS propaganda Avedji (talk) 10:07, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

The footnote (a) about fact that Syrian rebels fighting on behalf of Azerbaijan (e.g. Alleged by the SOHR,[219][172] etc.) should be reviewed and removed, main source for all of these articles and claims is simply an interview taken with a few of the hired men and further articles build on it. According to the text, those men are formally hired by private security company for security and guarding work, SOHR writes "It is worth noting that these fighters have not participated in any battles so far" (, and everything else is a speculation, there is no text in the articles, or interview results to confirm that they are participating in a combat. Reuters article also saying that "The two men, who spoke to Reuters last week, said they expected to be despatched on Sept. 25, to guard facilities but not to fight."

It is not a valid point and a complete speculation in mass media to create a sensation, should all expats then coming to work in private security sector in other countries called mercenaries and soldiers of fortune? Without robust evidences, these should be not treated as fact sources, but rather a mass media speculation. Natura rerum (talk) 12:53, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. ~ Amkgp 💬 19:04, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

References

Article should be renamed to 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War

As Azerbaijan and Artkash have both declared a state of war, this is a war and the article should be renamed as such. See here [3] and here [4].XavierGreen (talk) 17:14, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Too early. It could en in days or few weeks. There is nothing like full scale war right now. Beshogur (talk) 17:29, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

A war that lasts a few days is still a war. The Six-Day War comes to mind. To be clear I think it's wiser to hold off until we get a clearer picture of what's going on but it's probable that the death toll will go into the hundreds. I think this is a real war.--RM (Be my friend) 16:49, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

There is literally a declared war going on, it matters not how long it lasts or even if combat is actually occurring see for example Anglo-Swedish War. Since the parties on both sides have declared a state of war, it is now literally and legally a war.XavierGreen (talk) 17:39, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

The military activity is going on almost exclusively in Nagorno-Karabakh which is within the internationally recognized borders of Azerbaijan, so no formal declaration of war has been made. Also, none of the state sources (state media, Ministry of Defense, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, etc) reported the declaration of war. Brandmeister^talk 18:39, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree, it should be renamed. Wars don't have to last any specific time period, conflicts can last only for a few minutes (Anglo-Zanzibar War), and still be considered wars. Pisiu369 (talk) 17:38, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Pisiu369's suggestion. There was a war that was declared. Unless Wikipedia has other qualifications in its rules for what is and isn't a war, I see no reason not to change the title. --Grngu (talk) 17:55, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I disagree that the title should include the word war at this point, but something more definitive than "clashes" might be warranted at this stage. Acebulf (talk) 17:41, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Oppose state of war (curfew) and declaration of war are two separate things. Azerbaijan does not recognize the separatist regime in Nagorno-Karabakh, it can't declare war on it. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 18:03, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Azerbajan declared a state of war to exist, while it did not declare war on Nagorno-Karabakh the Azerbaijani government considers itself to be at war according to the sources stating such like Al-Jazeera [5]. And recognition has nothing to do with a state declaring war, Egypt does not recognize ISIS but Egypt in 2015 officially declared itself to be in a state of war due to its ongoing conflict with ISIS in 2015.XavierGreen (talk) 01:04, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Also, Second Nagorno-Karabakh War is more fitting than that. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 18:04, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the suggestion of renaming it "Second Nagorno-Karabakh War". Ultimograph5 (talk) 18:09, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per Solavirum. Brandmeister^talk 18:39, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - Armenia is listed as a belligerent in the infobox. If we rename the article to include the word “war”, wouldn’t it imply Armenia and Azerbaijan are at official war when they’re not? — Coastaline (talk) 23:45, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Because Azerbaijan has declared itself to be in a a state of war and news sources are calling it a war see here [6]XavierGreen (talk) 00:55, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Instead of war or clashes how about hostilities? Huskermax5 (talk) 18:53, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Bloomberg News is calling this a war, see here [7]XavierGreen (talk) 00:55, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Comment Senior Advisor to the President of Azerbaijan, Ilham Aliyev, Hikmet Hajiyev: "war has been launched against Azerbaijan. The people of Azerbaijan are mobilized in such a difficult period. This is the Great Patriotic War of the Azerbaijani people."

I agree, this is war. Both nations are in martial law, and Armenia is beginning conscription. TheAwesomeAtom (talk) 19:28, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree that this should be called war as well. Both nations are involved in pretty heavy conflict and as TheAwesomeAtoms said both of them are in martial law and Armenia is beginning mobilization. Elserbio00 (talk) 00:15, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree that this should be called a war due to both countries referring to it as such and other aforementioned points PhamtomGuy (talk) 00:47, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

This is a declared war. 2601:600:C87F:C120:50B4:8F4D:F3B2:C7DA (talk) 01:28, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Definitely a war. I propose the temporary name "2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war", rather than immediately naming it the "Second Nagorno-Karabakh War". The war is only in its third day, and could still end up as a limited war akin to the 2016 "Four-Day War". Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 01:30, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I think this is definitely the best solution. Definitely a war, but not long in scale enough yet to be called the Second Nagorno-Karabakh War, while 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War is very fitting at the moment. The comparison to April is very fitting, as that was also called a war, and this is much more serious than that. An alternative option would be the September War, but I like the first option better. Achemish (talk) 08:30, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Neither official declarations nor length determine what is and isn't a war. The Vietnam War and Falklands War were both undeclared, and as others have mentioned, there have been very brief wars. The intensity of the fighting is enough to call it a war. Typical border clashes only involve infantry and we've seen tanks, artillery, and helicopters. Calling this a conflict misleads people who just glance at the article because it makes it sound similar to Kashmir or other contested borders. mossypiglet (talk) quote or something 13:40, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose: I think it's to early to refer to the conflict as war. No major newspaper referred to it as such for now, and it is possible that it won't last long. --Governor Sheng (talk) 16:38, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Actually your wrong there, several major international news outlets are referring to it as a war such as Bloomberg News[8].XavierGreen (talk) 21:10, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

(talk) Yes. The trend is certainly towards war. However, the same Bloomberg article also shows a video titled 'Are Azerbaijan And Armenia at War?', and the BBC is going with 'battle'. I think we are 24-48 hours away from seeing a consensus in the reliable secondary sources that would likely resolve in use of 'war' and require an article rename, etc. But, not as of datestamp in my sig. Johncdraper (talk) 21:24, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose No indication this clash/skirmish has expanded into a full-fledged war and doesn't seem to be in the future as well. Moreover even if it does/did turn into a war that would require a new article itself with this being an initial part of it; not a simple renaming as is being suggested. Gotitbro (talk) 18:21, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose: BBC is describing this is a battle = Military engagement.Johncdraper (talk) 18:30, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose: Too early to call it war, several clashes have happened and also Armenian territory not directly involved to call it a Armenian Azerbaijan War (or Second Armenian Azerbaijan War). Lets wait some weeks.Mr.User200 (talk) 18:37, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

It’s too early to call it a war. It will most likely calm down within a couple days. It happened already over the summer and a couple hundred died in 2016. FirstAccount101 (talk) 22:07, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

This is a war. The Prime Minister of Armenia has already stated it is a war.[9] The government of Armenia has also referred to it as a war.[10] Government overpowers what the press refers to it any day. 94.59.117.48 (talk) 04:55, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

There may have been a declaration of war. That is largely irrelevant, as it is a primary source, and may be only posturing. As soon as AP, AFP, Reuters, BBC start calling it a war, Wikipedia will call it a war. This Reuters page https://uk.reuters.com/search/news?blob=Nagorno-Karabakh page] is useful. Johncdraper (talk) 13:19, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 September 2020

On 28 September, the President of Nagorno-Karabakh Republic Arayik Harutyunyan claimed, that "during the night, the Defense Army carried out several brilliant military operations, restoring lost positions in various parts of the defense line or making some progress". GevHev4 (talk) 07:59, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:58, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

References

Source of Armenian forces killing two Azerbaijani children

A news article by Report Information Agency says:

A whole family was killed in the city of Naftalan as a result of the shelling of our settlements by the Armenian Armed Forces on September 27.

According to the Ministry of Education, two of the victims were schoolchildren.

It was noted that Shahriyar Gurbanov, born in 2007, and his cousin, Fidan Gurbanova, born in 2006, are students of Gashalti Garagoyunlu village secondary school named after Z. Rustamov.

Since yesterday, the Armenian side has been grossly violating the norms and principles of international law, the 1949 Geneva Conventions, by purposefully targeting the civilian population and infrastructure of Azerbaijan.

The leadership and staff of the Ministry of Education express their sorrow and condolences over the death of all our compatriots, including a whole family and students in the city of Naftalan, who lost their lives as a result of the Armenian aggression.

Today, we wish success to our soldiers, who have made history and are a source of pride, in the liberation of our lands from occupation!

The original text:

Sentyabrın 27-dən Ermənistan silahlı qüvvələrinin yaşayış məntəqələrimizi atəşə tutması nəticəsində Naftalan şəhərində bütöv bir ailə həlak olub.

Təhsil Nazirliyindən "Report"a verilən məlumata görə, bu təcavüz nəticəsində həlak olanlardan ikisi məktəblidir.

Bildirilib ki, 2007-ci il təvəllüdlü Şəhriyar Qurbanov və onun əmisi qızı, 2006-cı il təvəllüdlü Fidan Qurbanova Z.Rüstəmov adına Qaşaltı Qaraqoyunlu kənd tam orta məktəbinin şagirdləridir. Ötən gündən başlayaraq Ermənistan tərəfi Azərbaycanın mülki əhalisini və infrastrukturunu məqsədyönlü şəkildə hədəfə almaqla beynəlxalq hüququn norma və prinsiplərini, 1949-cu il Cenevrə Konvensiyalarını kobudcasına pozur.

Təhsil Nazirliyinin rəhbərliyi və kollektivi Ermənistanın təcavüzü nəticəsində həyatını itirmiş bütün həmvətənlərimizin, o cümlədən Naftalan şəhərində bütöv bir ailənin və şagirdlərimizin həlak olmasından kədərləndiyini bildirir, dərin hüznlə başsağlığı verir.

Bu gün tarix yazan və qürur mənbəyimiz olan əsgərlərimizə torpaqlarımızın işğaldan azad edilməsi yolunda uğurlar arzulayırıq!

--► Sincerely: SolaVirum 09:52, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Report Information Agency was established and it's owned by the Azerbaijani state oil company SOCAR, so I find their reports unreliable. I would oppose using them as a reference. --Governor Sheng (talk) 12:09, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Governor Sheng the article says that the information came from the Ministry of Education. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 12:14, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I suppose the Ministry of Education of Azerbaijan? I would rather wait for an independent source to confirm such a claim. --Governor Sheng (talk) 12:19, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

It currently already asserts "claimed by". You can cite that caveat. 37.186.97.171 (talk) 12:59, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Reactions from supranational organizations

Regarding this edit: Is there any good reason to quote people directly when we could perfectly well paraphrase them (especially when some of them express similar sentiments which could be summarized), to use an eyesore of a bulletlist, to have a flag salad, or to remove the Organization of American States' reaction? To my eye, what we end up with looks extremely unprofessional and frankly kind of embarrassing to have linked from the WP:Main page. TompaDompa (talk) 17:57, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

@Beshogur: Care to elaborate on your reasoning? TompaDompa (talk) 23:10, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I have restored the earlier version (slightly modified). TompaDompa (talk) 12:26, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

rejection of Madrid Principles and recent rhetoric and behavior by the Pashinyan administration as part of Azeri Casus belli

It seems to be a very significant element to the Azeri side in opposing fait accompli in regards to the conflict. The recent election which brought a "velvet populism" with regards to the conflict should be mentioned.

some excerpts cited by an azeri analyst as to their rationale around the conflict:

"Recently, those observing the Armenia–Azerbaijan conflict witnessed another brick falling from the already shattered peace process. At the end of August, Anna Hakobyan, the wife of the Prime Minster of the Republic Armenia, Nikol Pashinyan, participated in publicized military training in the occupied territories of Azerbaijan; her targets, picturing Azerbaijani subjects, went viral on social media. This happened only one year after her famous call for peace that saw her pictured with a bouquet of flowers in hand."

Reactions on the Azerbaijani side were rightly both confused and irritated – but also, somehow, acquiescent. Unfortunately, the July 12–14 clashes at the international border in the direction of Tovuz district of Azerbaijan, as well as the events preceding them and ensuing after this escalation, do not leave much room for optimism that the incumbent Armenian leadership will in any way commit to meaningful peace negotiations from now on."

"The list of provocations and disruptive actions further include Nikol Pashinyan’s infamous ‘Karabakh is Armenia and period’ statement that was also coupled with the rejuvenation of a dangerous miatsum (unification) ideology in regard to the Nagorno-Karabakh region of Azerbaijan; the organization of the so-called ‘parliamentary and presidential elections’ in the occupied territories of Azerbaijan; and Pashinyan’s visit to the historical Azerbaijani city of Shusha in May 2020."

"However, the real step towards halting the negotiations was taken in March 2020, when the Armenia rejected the existence of any document at the negotiation table, despite both sides, under the auspices of the OSCE Minsk Group co-chaired by France, Russia and the U.S.A., working on the so-called Madrid Principles for the resolution of the conflict. Those Principles were first revealed in 2007 and revised in 2009."

https://www.eurasiareview.com/18092020-velvet-populism-ends-decade-long-discussion-of-the-madrid-principles-oped/

https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Madrid_Principles

The rejection of the Madrid Principles, which there was some agreement on both the armenian and azeri side, coupled with the talks of annexing the territory into Armenia proper should be mentioned as cause.

I want to second this. Seems like important background information. Icarusatthesun (talk) 13:39, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Madrid Principles and cite now added. I will now update the Madrid Principles page. Johncdraper (talk) 13:46, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 September 2020

Article title should be changed to 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict. This name is the result of a large conversation earlier in the page. TheAwesomeAtom (talk) 03:54, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Cleanup

Can someone add notes on ""per armenia"", ""per azerbaijan"", etc.? Beshogur (talk) 10:17, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Beshogur, an Armenian user is removing them. Please, comment on the issue below. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 10:29, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

POV-pushing

Armenian users have been POV-pushing. The allegations of Syrian and Turkish involvement have been presented by the Armenian side, and apparently, two Syrian rebels. Stop removing the claim. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 10:26, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

"Turkey's involvement is direct and explciit" is a groundless statement. A statement by a user is not a source. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 10:27, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Source provided clearly states that these are allegations from the Armenian MFA. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 10:30, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Beshogur (talk) 10:43, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

An allegation made by Armenia regarding Syrian fighters is added to the infobox but yet users are removing PKK/YPG involvement as unconfirmed. Two sided?Resapp (talk) 11:58, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Baku claimed ASALA is there. Can always add it as "per AZ" 37.186.97.171 (talk) 13:07, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

There are multiple sources for SNA militia presence in Azerbaijan, while ASALA is defunct for almost 30 years. But maybe all those 70 year old Armenians are still fighting... I think it is pretty clear which side does POV pushing here... Icarusatthesun (talk) 13:25, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Icarusatthesun, who is the "side"? Mention the IP-user only, who talked about the so-called ASALA-claim (which is untrue). --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 14:08, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Solavirum You are correct, I do think you and @Beshogur: have good intentions here. Shouldn't have put you in the same basket. Please accept my apology. But sadly @Resapp: is very likely a sockpuppet.Icarusatthesun (talk) 15:01, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

"Territory recaptured by Azerbaijan"

If this isn't POV pushing I don't know what is. Are we to assume that every reader coming to this article is immediately aware of the past 30 years of conflict? The article is about the clashes that began two days ago. Using the word recaptured for a territory that is recaptured after 30 years makes it seem, as if Azerbaijan captured the territory it lost 2 days ago. Please fix this to "captured". Since this article is about the 2 days of clashes. Not the 30 year old frozen conflict which has a separate article. @Solavirum, JHunterJ, Interfase, and Beshogur: Resapp (talk) 11:44, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

There's no reason to ping every recent contributor to the article. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:53, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree, call me biased, but the fact of the matter is that Nagorno-Karabakh has been a de facto state since 1992, so it should just be captured. TheAwesomeAtom (talk) 18:17, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Destroying Azeri helicopter

Here is the video of the Armenians destroying an Azeri helicopter from today. The video is properly licensed and can be used on here if anyone wants to upload it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7O1mO0XLXwY&feature=youtu.be Elserbio00 (talk) 11:55, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Oic

Oic commented too. Obviousiy supporting AZ. Also Iran issued a denials its soil was used to send arms. 37.186.97.171 (talk) 12:41, 29 September 2020 (UTC) Also one member of the tripartite presidency on Bosnia. You can guess who supported whom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.186.97.171 (talk) 12:44, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Armenia claims Turkish F-16 shot down Armenian Su-25 today

Add this to "per Armenia" losses maybe? Ref:[11]. @Solavirum, JHunterJ, Interfase, and Beshogur: Resapp (talk) 14:18, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Done. Beshogur (talk) 14:20, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

@Resapp: Please stop pinging me here. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:23, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Update, Turkey denied the allegation ref:[12] @Solavirum, Interfase, and Beshogur: Resapp (talk) 14:39, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Turkey is not directly helping

Turkey should not be put as Belligerents nor units involved these are false and will misguide many people. Turkey is supporting Azerbaijan diplomatically. these accusations by armenia have been denied by Turkey & Azerbaijan. consider these first before you let people do one sided edits.

Kind regards VK — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gloriouswish (talk • contribs) 23:47, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Turkey is now listed as a disputed belligerent, which is the most balanced way to put it as one side claims they're involved and the other claims they are not. I've added 'disputed' to the TuAF listing under units as well. MDDevice ^talk 02:38, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Armenia stopped announcing casualties

I think a small tag under per Armenia saying: "85 killed (27-28 September)" would be appropriate. @Solavirum, Interfase, and Beshogur: Resapp (talk) 07:04, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I mean Azerbaijan hasn’t announced anything about the number of Azeris killed at all, so that is not necessary. Anita escobar (talk) 08:11, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Not announcing anything is one thing, misleading readers is another. Armenia announced casualties for the first two days, showing it as up to date of day 4 deliberately misleads readers. Resapp (talk) 11:10, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Including the YPG/PKK under belligerents because of a single Turkish-media article is ludicrous.

At this point, with even the BBC interviewing SNA fighters in Azerbaijan, I think we can say it is confirmed, however the notion that the PKK and/or the YPG is fighting here is nonsense. It is based off a single Turkish government mouthpiece before the conflict started to justify its involvement and has no evidence whatsoever behind it. It is an incredibly dubious claim with nothing backing it up made by a very unreliable, biased, and untrustworthy source. It must be removed immediately and it is shameful that a supposedly neutral page is including state propaganda as fact despite there being no evidence or rationale whatsoever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.0.5.228 (talk) 13:52, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

This is already being discussed above. Resapp (talk) 13:57, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Belligerents

i think it would make sense to interchange the parties in the Belligerents category (to Armenia left, Azerbaijan right) because then it would match the orientation on the map (Armenia West/left, Azerbaijan East/right). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwtipp (talk • contribs) 16:03, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@Mwtipp: Template:Infobox military conflict lists the belligerent on the offensive as combatant1 and the belligerent on the defense as combatant2. This is consistent in all Wikipedia articles. Resapp (talk) 16:06, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Servicemen&location

Can we remove this word, it is very unnecessary. & about the location "Nagorno-Karabakh, Armenia & Azerbaijan", does this imply that Nagorno Karabakh is in Armenia since we see the comma? Plus I didn't find any source about fight going on inside Armenia or on the borders. It should be changed to Nagorno-Karabakh, Azerbaijan. Beshogur (talk) 09:03, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Armenia reported developments in Vardenis yesterday. Source: 1, 2. And per Armenia, an Azerbaijani UAV was shot down near the same city. Source: 1. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 11:20, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 September 2020

Domestic reactions---Armenia

On 28 September, Armenia accused Turkey on Monday of providing direct military support for Azerbaijan. The Armenian foreign ministry said in a statement that Turkey had a “direct presence on the ground”. It said Turkish military experts “are fighting side by side” with Azerbaijan. An unimportant person (talk) 15:22, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

References

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:15, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Disputed neutrality

Because of some Armenian "trusted" authors, page became less neutral. Most of information source is unreliable and unverified site. Some of them don't have any source even. Please don't prefer Armenian sources only, because it is not one-sided war. The table showing Syrian militants and Turkey fighting against Armenia is not confirmed detail. Correction needed. --Ayxan İsmayılov (talk) 14:17, 27 September 2020 (UTC).

Yes, currently the article merely reports statements from both sides per WP:ATTRIBUTE. As the article's creator I can say that so far none of them is presented as an undisputable, widely accepted fact. Brandmeister^talk 14:55, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

A woman and a child were killed by Azerbaijani shelling of civilian settlements in Martuni province in Nagorno-Karabakh, the country's human rights advocate Artak Beglaryan said on 27 September. According to him, schools have been shelled, and there is large-scale damage to civilian infrastructure in many settlements. According to Beglaryan, "In Stepanakert alone, there are more than 10 injured, including children and women". You can't find these statements in any neutral verified sites like BBC, Reuters or New York Times etc. Source of this statement is Armenian website. For sure, they will write everything for their revenues. The fact "five members of the same family were killed by Armenian shelling of one village in Azerbaijan." is from verifiable source. Unseen this, we can see that all statements are againist of Azerbaijan. --Ayxan İsmayılov (talk) 16:50, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree, we cannot trust many news sources since most of them can be considered to be biased, especially when it mentions "human rights". We should take percautions per Wikipedia's neutrality policy, and punish those who do not adhere to this rule. Ethnic tensions between both peoples belonging to the warring belligerents have no place in this community, and they have no right to voice their opinion, as I believe there will be consistent edit wars over this article.Balkanite (talk) 01:42, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Information about Syrian militants was confirmed by many international sources, not just Armenian sources. There is absolutely no bias when it comes to that. Anita escobar (talk) 08:16, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Dito. Reuters and The Investigative Journal reported, as well as other international sources. Blairewaldorf01 (talk) 20:13, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Report on PKK/YPG involvement

Here is an article by James Wilson on The European Union Political Report, "PKK’s Involvement in the Armenia-Azerbaijan Conflict would Jeopardise European Security". --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 22:02, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Should be added to the sources. Icarusatthesun (talk) 14:04, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

With respect, the article is worth nothing. First of all, a bias against the PKK is noticeable there. This is untypical for serious reporting and only legitimate if a factual situation is commented on. And I think a comment or an opinion is no proof of an argument. Furthermore, the website itself is not a serious source. It is a personal blog, nothing more.

Furthermore, the author has not considered an important fact: the Kurdish parties in the Kurdish autonomous area cooperate with the Turkish state. If there were a movement on the part of the PKK to transfer fighters to Armenia, this would never be possible without attracting attention.

PKK involvement in the conflict in Armenia is only a smoke screen. This is intended to relativize the Turkish Jiadistan from Syria, which has been transferred to Azerbaijan, Güney Yalcin (talk) 02:34, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Territorial changes

@EkoGraf: Has added a reference in which Armenia claims "...that they restored a number of previously lost positions." However he worded it as, all lost positions are captured[13]. Please revert this and do not repeat disruptive editing in the future. Resapp (talk) 12:05, 28 September 2020 (UTC) @Solavirum: @Benjideaula: @Beshogur:. @MarshallBagramyan: Resapp (talk) 12:05, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Al Masdar, which is generally unreliable cites Sputnik, which is banned to use here. I'm just saying this. Beshogur (talk) 12:12, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Resapp, like I said at your talk page, please refrain from making accusations against your fellow editors as per Wikipedia's policy on assuming good faith and civility. The edit I made was based on the title of the article which simply stated Armenia retook the territory it had lost. Even the sentence you pointed out can be interpreted they retook all of the territory they had lost. However, for sake of compromise, I reworded the sentence that they retook a number of the lost positions. I would also advise you to read up on Wikipedia's policy and assume a less combative stance against your fellow editors. As for Masdar's reliability, they have already been confirmed to be mostly reliable in regard to reporting on military territorial changes. Also, they are citing Armenia, so they are not making the claim themselves. And the claim of the recapture has been properly attributed to Armenia, just like we have properly attributed the claim on the capture of 7 villages to Azerbaijan. EkoGraf (talk) 12:20, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Adding information without reading the reference is disruptive, whether you do it knowingly or unknowingly. There are no personal attacks directed towards you with this regard, warning are made to improve Wikipedia, if you feel that warnings are attacks directed towards you personally please see WP:BATTLEGROUND. Resapp (talk) 12:18, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

@Beshogur: Reuters added instead [14]. EkoGraf (talk) 12:25, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Why did you even wrote such a long text, didn't accuse you of something, just the truth about both new outlets. I said "generally unreliable". Beshogur (talk) 12:26, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

@Beshogur: The long text was in reply to the message Resapp left on my talk page accusing me of biased disruptive editing. It wasn't in reply to you. Sorry for the confusion. I would never think you were making accusations against me Beshogur since you and I have had a good working relationship for a long time now, always finding a compromise. EkoGraf (talk) 12:30, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello everyone, I would like to ask a question to User:Resapp, you have been acusing other editors of disruptive editing and threatening other of being blocked. A conduct I have seen repetively on Sock accounts made by a Evasive Sockpuppet Master Gala19000 and Ramdomuser. I have also doubts about your behaviour. You have just created a account in this month but you look too familiar of how Wikipedia works. Have you been banned before? Do you use multiple accounts?Mr.User200 (talk) 13:17, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I concur with Mr.User200 that Resapp is very likely a sockpuppet of Interfase, who apperently has a history of edit wars. @EkoGraf: @Beshogur: @Solavirum: @Brandmeister: Icarusatthesun (talk) 17:10, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't have any sockpuppets in Wikipedia. --Interfase (talk) 17:15, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

A LOT of bias going on here. Calling Armenia’s claims “unreliable” but how do you know for sure that Azerbaijan is telling the truth? Wikipedia bias should not be allowed. Anita escobar (talk) 08:14, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Syrian National Army

This conflict is only in its third day. While there are several reports that Turkey has been recruiting SNA fighters to go to Azerbaijan, I have yet to see proof that they have fought on the frontline. For all we know, this conflict could end tomorrow. Let's hold off on adding the SNA to the infobox until there is conclusive evidence that their fighters have not only arrived to Azerbaijan, but have been deployed on the frontline. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 01:19, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

There is no evidence, elementary lie.--Nicat49 (talk) 01:55, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I tried removing it, someone reinstated it with the note "Alleged by Armenia, denied by Azerbaijan. Personally I'd like it taken down for now.--RM (Be my friend) 02:09, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

@TheEpicGhosty: Since you used the word "allegation": The infobox is meant to summarize the content of the article. Allegations can be mentioned in the article itself, but shouldn't be in the infobox. Don't worry, though: If the allegations hold merit (which I personally think they do), Turkish/SNA involvement on the ground will be confirmed soon enough, and we can add Turkey/SNA/both to the infobox without a footnote. Let's take it easy and wait until there's conclusive proof that the SNA has fought on the frontline. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 04:27, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

No Syrian or Kurdish "ghost fighters" were reported among the causalities with a proof. But Vagif Dargahli said that there were Syrian mercs among the casualities. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 06:10, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

If it was just Syrian mercs as opposed to organized SNA forces then they shouldn't even be in the Infobox as they were just paid by Azerbaijan and under Azeri command.--RM (Be my friend) 08:45, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

There is about as much evidence for the SNA involvement as claimed by the armenians as there is evidence of PKK/YPG and ASALA linked fighters as claimed by the azeri side, by which I mean there is no real tangible evidence for either. but im noticing a disproportionality in how those elements are being mentioned and written about in the article. and in the listings as belligerents, there seems to be a bias favoring the Armenian side, IMO on the matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Midgetman433 (talk • contribs) 13:15, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Various pro-Syrian Rebel activists on Twitter are confirming that there is SNA involvement. https://twitter.com/Elizrael/status/1311196525977100289?s=20 Avedji (talk) 09:39, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Comprehensiveness versus conciseness

I know this is a tense moment for many people (including many editors), since this war is unfolding before our eyes, but I think we should refrain from writing this article as if it's sports commentary. Seemingly ever instance of conflict between tanks and infantry is being reported and either being confirmed or denied (there's really no surprises there). However, I would suggest to editors that they try to resist the urge to report each and every engagement that has taken place over the last few days (and in the coming days, weeks, etc.) and each and every unimportant official or officer and try to aim for conciseness and information that really is worth reporting to readers (such as the shoot-down of the Armenian SU-25 by the Turkish air force or civilian casualties). Otherwise, this article becomes unreadable and gets jam-packed with so much information to overwhelm the reader simply to push one agenda over another. Regards, Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 15:17, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Agree here. I really dont thing this is a War, a conflict maybe. But not a full scale war. Take for example that tomorrow a cease fire is achieved by UN or Russia coordination. All will be over and everyone to their normal live. But the article should be checked by veteran historian editors not by enthusiasm driven editors. This is not a sport commentary of competition. I really see a very agresive way of editing on some Azerbaijani editors as well on one Armenian and a lot of Sockpuppets making comments fuelling hate and a Wiki-Battlegorund. This is lame a lot of people have died on both sides, whole families of servicemen btw.Mr.User200 (talk) 15:26, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Both sides are waging an information war, and that has now bled onto the pages of Wikipedia. I'm not sure if some of the more aggressive editors understand that once these clashes wind down (soon, I hope) most of the information posted here is going to be culled and reduced into much less ideologically-driven prose. But I guess there's no way of avoiding it.Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 15:35, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Yup, also Talk pages are not Forums. So most of that ideological driven edits will be erasen too.Mr.User200 (talk) 15:37, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I would note how the entire "War" section are official press releases by the warring states, which would probably not be too reliable. At this point I don't expect Reuters to be on the frontlines, but someone should make sure that claims aren't presented in wikipedia's voice as facts. Also, is the Azeri military more active on their social media accounts or is there a noticeable overrepresentation of their press releases? Juxlos (talk) 16:28, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I object over this. Every official information is noteworthy. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 16:31, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Official statements by either side are by definition NOT WP:NPOV. I have now copy-edited the entire timeline and introduced some basic standards for copy-editing in a separate section (see below). If they are not assiduously followed, I will remove every non-WP:NPOV; this may happen anyway. Johncdraper (talk) 21:00, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Syrian-Armenian mercs in the clashes

Governor Sheng, why are you removing information? This is clear POV-pushing. Why add the Armenian claim, but not the Azerbaijani one? Here are some sources 1, 2, 3. I won't join this edit war, but this makes the articles extremely biased in favour of the Armenians. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 17:17, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

You are using Reuters and Arab News as sources, but non of those support the claim that Armenians from Syria are involved in the conflict. You can use other sources if you like, but do not misuse those sources which do not deal with the issue whatsoever. I'm not removing information, only the references that do not support such a claim. --Governor Sheng (talk) 17:19, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

These claims are getting out of hand. Apparently, now Pakistanis are part of the conflict. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 17:33, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Can Brandmeister, Interfase, and Beshogur comment on the issue? --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 17:34, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

It might be my fault by mixing these citations while trying to clean out the infobox with notes. But other sources telling Azerbaijani officials claiming there are Syrian-Armenian fighters there. So what is the dispute? Beshogur (talk) 17:36, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Solavirum, the source you included states that the ethnic Armenians, not only from Syria, but also other Middle Eastenr countries are involved in the fighting. Thus, I changed the input accordingly, from "Syrian-Armenian" mercenaries to "Armenian Middle Eastern mercenaries". Syria is in the Middle East, is it not? Thus, it's more inclusive. The source says it itself. What's the issue with that? --Governor Sheng (talk) 17:37, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I suggest having non-Azeri and non-Armenian/non-Artsakh belligerents either in a footnote or in the article's body, but not as they are presented now. Syrian or Pakistani groups are not the main belligerents compared to Azerbaijan or Armenia. These are only factions or some groups, assuming the claims are true. Brandmeister^talk 17:43, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

How about including them as supporters like in the Syrian civil war article? --Governor Sheng (talk) 17:46, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Governor Sheng, Beshogur, I don't object that. I'm talking about this edit, which adds Pakistan as one of the combatants. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 17:55, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

There is exactly 0 evidence that ethnic Armenians from Syria and Lebanon, most of whom have moved to Armenia/Artsakh because of the civil war and the crisis/blast, are mercenaries (as opposed to volunteers). ----Երևանցի ^talk 19:29, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Yerevantsi, it seems to me you are correct. It would be logical ethnic Armenians would rather volunteer than be paid by Armenia to join the conflict. However, it's an Azeri claim that they were mercenaries. I have nothing against including them as being combatants, however, I'd place my bet even if they are involved, they're probably included in the regular military structure. --Governor Sheng (talk) 19:52, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Eik Corell, why did you remove Pakistani involvement from the infobox? There is no less evidence of Pakistani involvement than there is of Syrian mercenaries, thus if the latter stays up, so should the former. Achemish (talk) 19:32, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

We can't just be putting up whatever the Azerbaijani alleges into the infobox as this can be highly misleading. Given that there's absolutely no corroborating evidence allegation. Absolutely none. It's a disservice for our readers to even imply that there is anything of that sort on this article. Perhaps, it can go into the body of the article. But that's as far as this should go. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:39, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Adding Armenian claim, and removing Azerbaijani claim will make this article extremely biased. Wikipedia is not a WP:BATTLEGROUND. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 20:02, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Solavirum, I agree. What about the claim of Pakistani involvement? The claim is as strong as Azerbaijan's claim of Middle Eastern involvement. --Governor Sheng (talk) 20:06, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

The thing is, the SNA involvement is heavily collaborated by various reputable international media agencies. The claim of mercenaries in Armenia is Azerbaijani government propaganda with no collaborating evidence. It is super misleading to present them as the same on the infobox. I think if we insist on keeping baseless claims like this in the infobox, they should at least have (alleged) written afterwards. The same would go for the Turkish Air Force involvement, as this is alleged by Armenia without any proof shown yet. And also for the Pakistani involvement claim, as it has just as much evidence as the other two claims. Achemish (talk) 20:10, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I would agree with you that only claims reported by the mainstream media should be included, no matter how one-sided. However, including obscure claims would make the whole article look like a combination of various propaganda leaflets. --Governor Sheng (talk) 20:13, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Governor Sheng, tbh, I have no idea about that claim. The source, Zee News, is based in India, which is in a conflict with Pakistan. Also, I don't think we can compare both claims. The claim of Syrian-Armenian involvement comes from the Azerbaijani government, but this one comes from a partisan Armenian website, namely, "Free News.AM". I will wait on comments by other users. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 20:14, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Achemish, do you realize that there is no material evidence of the involvement of these Syrian "ghost fighters" too? --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 20:17, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Solavirum There is strong evidence for Syrian fighters having been transported to Turkey by Azerbaijan. Multiple international media outlets have reported on it, including Reuters and The Guardian. There has been geolocated video of these fighters near the frontlines of Karabakh. Meanwhile, the claims of mercenaries in Armenia are being made specifically by Azerbaijani propaganda outlets. Achemish (talk) 20:22, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Achemish, and would you mind showing this "strong evidence"? --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 20:41, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Solavirum https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/sep/28/syrian-rebel-fighters-prepare-to-deploy-to-azerbaijan-in-sign-of-turkeys-ambition. The Guardian, an reputable international outlet (not an Azeri or Armenian source), stating that is has spoken with rebel fighters deploying to Azerbaijan. Achemish (talk) 22:30, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Achemish, this article doesn't provide "strong evidence" as you said before. There are no footages, no proof. They have just talked to three rogue Syrian rebels. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 06:05, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Solavirum, it’s an international outlet that has spoken to Syrians who are being sent to Azerbaijan. The Guardian clearly felt these claims were credible enough to publish the article. Reuters also had separate interviews https://www.reuters.com/article/us-armenia-azerbaijan-turkey-syria/turkey-deploying-syrian-fighters-to-help-ally-azerbaijan-two-fighters-say-idUSKBN26J25A. There’s a Twitter thread locating a video of Syrian rebels in Azerbaijan. https://twitter.com/leonl62342286/status/1310560737123856387?s=21. There have been various flights seen on FlightRadar24 from both Syria and now Libya. I think it’s fair to say that the claims of Syrian rebels in Azerbaijan are valid. The Reuters and Guardian accounts are evidence alone. This is compared to 0 evidence for mercenaries in Armenia. It’s ridiculous to present them as equal. Achemish (talk) 08:36, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Achemish, you are clearly have mistaken the difference between a source, and an evidence. Footage circulating Twitter are mostly fake news, and are not credible. Because there are videos of the so-called Armenian mercs too. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 08:46, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Solavirum What will be sufficient evidence for you? Achemish (talk) 01:34, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Solavirum, it is true that Wikipedia is not a WP:Battleground, however, Wikipedia should also represent WP:Neutral point of view. This means that Wikipedia users must write objectively, without any subjective intentions. Deliberately equalizing the parties to a conflict, in this case by adding combatants, is a subjective intention. For example, if Tom is 185 centimeters tall and John, 170, the objective goal of Wikipedia users is to promote that truth, and not to falsely add centimeters to John's height so that neither of them would be offended or so that their height, for some subjective sense of fairness, would be equal. If it is proven that the Syrians are fighting on the side of Azerbaijan, and that claim is conveyed by the objective mainstream media, many times and by many of them, then I think it is fair to add something like that to the article. However, this does not have to be accompanied by the addition of foreign fighters or mercenaries on the Armenian side to follow that subjective sense of justice. --Governor Sheng (talk) 20:41, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Solavirum, your POV-pushing is disruptive and not constructive. Try to find consensus on the talk page before reverting the ridiculous Azeri claim that ethnic Armenians are fighting as mercenaries. There are thousands of diaspora Armenians living in Armenia who've enlisted with the military. Virtually all are Armenian citizens. The fact that you claim it's no different from Syrian mercenaries fighting for Azerbaijan, there's literally more non-Armenian sources corroborating on that than Armenian ones. See Reuters and others.  ----Երևանցի ^talk 07:28, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

There are no Ethnic Armenian "Mercenaries" who came to fight. The Syrian Armenians that came to Armenia came as refugees and received Armenian citizenship long ago, if they are fighting they do so as Armenian citizens NOT as mercenaries. Stop publishing straight up propaganda from unreliable sources. Avedji (talk) 09:36, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

There is nothing disputed about Turkish involvement through Syrian mercs. Several reputable sources including the BBC, Guardian and Reuters confirmed their presence in Azerbaijan.[15][16][17][18]-Kathovo talk 15:10, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, there's literally countless accounts of their recruitment, their presence, and their deaths at this point. Azerbaijan simply denying it isn't enough for this to be marked as "Disputed", considering the wealth of reputable articles confirming this fact. Solavirum Achemish (talk) 04:04, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

War Map

I prepared a map to show the instant progress of the war. You can find the map here. I am waiting for your feedback on the missing details on the map and correcting the wrong places. If the map is deemed appropriate, a constantly updated map such as the Syrian Civil War map can be added to the item.---Emreculha (talk) 21:06, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

You need to use NK, not NQ. Basically, you need to check your spellings are per WP:EN. Also, in the Key, 'Control Areas by' -> 'Areas controlled by'. Also, you would need to be prepared to do daily updates, using only WP:NPOV reliable sources. Are you? Johncdraper (talk) 21:14, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

First of all, i apologise for my English :) I re-edit the map. By the way i dont know what is "WP:NPOV reliable sources", i prepared from LIVEUAMAP. This source still using for Syrian Civil War. I can update day by day.. If i will do mistake. I will handle it immediately..-- Emreculha (talk) 22:52, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

"WP:NPOV reliable sources" means that the news feed for the map must not come from one of the belligerents. If that is true, and the map is ready, you can try inserting the map. Johncdraper (talk) 06:46, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@Emreculha: I think it looks much better than the current one. I support changing to this since its more detailed. Resapp (talk) 07:12, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@Johncdraper:, @Resapp:, I get the information from this site. If you see incorrect information, let me correct it immediately. However, I am not authorized to add the map to the page. Page is protected. But i inserted Turkish Wiki.--Emreculha (talk) 10:55, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@Emreculha: You can insert it by rewriting the current map in the commons. Resapp (talk) 11:07, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@Emreculha: Would you please add the little world map to your map in the top left so that we lose nothing from the present map? Johncdraper (talk) 11:13, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Johncdraper, I suggest not to use this map as this map doesn't show the Republic of Artsakh, Nagorno-Karabakh region and Armenian-controlled territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh. Also, most of the clashes in Nagorno-Karabakh use the same template. Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 15:08, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Գարիկ Ավագյան I did not add this map. You can revert it yourself, with a reason, if you feel there is no consensus. If you are not an extended auto-confirmed user, you can file a request to edit. Johncdraper (talk) 15:20, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Emreculha can edit the map accordingly to Գարիկ Ավագյան's request, if he does not object. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 15:23, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I will return the previous map, since it used in many articles about Nagorno-Karabakh clashes. Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 15:25, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Գարիկ Ավագյան,Johncdraper,Solavirum I suggested the map because it gives more comprehensive cities. We can add all approved progress on the war to the map. We can correct deficiencies or mistakes in the map.--Emreculha (talk) 16:07, 30 September 2020 (U

Գարիկ Ավագյան Political designations of territories may be contentious, and city-level data may be hard to establish in a few cases, depending on what happens. You could try revising the map and trying again. Johncdraper (talk) 16:20, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

“Strength”

Wouldn't there be some information regarding the sizes of the armed forces of Armenia, Artsakh, and Azerbaijan? Feels off to only have number associated with an at best expeditionary group and at worst nonexistent combatant. Juxlos (talk) 03:01, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@Juxlos: Strength is now in the Infobox. You can help populate this, but any help you might be able to provide would require reliable sources, and I am unsure as to whether or not these exist given that the sides are not fully committing nor specifying which forces are involved. Still, you can give it a try. Johncdraper (talk) 15:52, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Unknown whether Azerbaijan actually “gained” territory

Azerbaijan claims to have gained those lands; it is denied by the Armenian side. That map is not reliable. It should be added “claimed by Azerbaijan” to their apparent “gains”. Anita escobar (talk) 08:08, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

The map uses information from both sides. The infobox previously stated "Per Azerbaijan", someone removed it I guess. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 09:08, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

The map is obvious POV. The Armenian side claims it restored lost positions in various parts of the defense line and made some progress. see Arayik Harutyunyan's statement GevHev4 (talk) 09:25, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I disagree that the map is POV. Armenia itself admitted to losing "some" positions without specifying where. Azerbaijan simply defines the territory it captured. Resapp (talk) 09:45, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Artsakh admitted it on 3 days ago, then recaptured these positions. if lets say Artsakh admitts losing an unknown position, and Azerbaijan claims it occupied Fizuli, Tigranakert and Jabrail, we should add the Azerbaijani fakes as an info from the both sides? Not a good idea. With your logics we should add 550 killed Azeri servicemen as an info from the both sides, as Armenia specifies the number of killed Azeris, and Azerbaijan says "unknown number of our servicemen is killed", supporting Armenian claims. GevHev4 (talk) 10:23, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

The Armenians hasn't specified which positions they have allegedly "recaptured". While Azerbaijan has specified every single position. The map uses up-to-date info. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 10:26, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Gevhev4, Arsakh/Armenia have not claimed to recapture all lost positions. Only claimed that "some" of the lost "some" were recaptured. Which really is an ambiguous statement that can be interpreted in any way. Resapp (talk) 10:29, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

The map most definitely is a POV of Azerbaijan. Armenians denied losing any settlements. The map provided by the Azeri side includes settlements. Anita escobar (talk) 11:55, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Alleged Pakistan help to Azerbaijan

It has been alleged that Pakistan is assisting Azerbaijan. Check : www.dnaindia.com/world/report-big-disclosure-pakistani-army-fighting-on-behalf-of-azerbaijan-in-the-war-against-armenia-zee-news-reports-2846325/amp Teerthaloke102 (talk) 10:31, 30 September 2020 (UTC) The source there is to a conversation between 2 Azeri civilians. It was also om zer. That's not RS.37.186.97.171 (talk) 11:01, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Unreliable Indian sources, which has a conflict with Pakistan. Seems like propaganda. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 11:14, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I found some sources 1. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 14:26, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Գարիկ Ավագյան ZeeNews, TimesNow news have been on occasion held responsible for spreading fake news. Dnaindia.com is also a part of ZeeNews. So they should not be used to make controversial claim. News.AM is quoting report from newscomworld.com which is again an Indian website. Also just look at the language used by that website: Social Media in "Terrorist Nation" Pakistan came out openly in support of Azerbaijan. They also have "Hate corner" on their website. Do you really think that these sources should be used to make such a controversial claim? A2kb2r (talk) 15:28, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Honesty this allegation of Pakistan's involvement should put to rest already. It first came to surface on 28 September and there is currently no further information related to this. This rumor is also not supported by international media or the official representative of Armenia or Azerbaijan. So it is best to ignore this rumor. A2kb2r (talk) 15:35, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Reaction map

Hi, I created a International reaction map to these clashes/conflict of these days. It would be great to add it in their correspondent section. For sources, are in Catalan article.--KajenCAT (talk) 11:28, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure that this is necessary now that the UN Security Council has stepped in. The UN position is now officially in favour of peace, meaning that in the key, officially, every non-belligerent is in favour of peace. Johncdraper (talk) 11:42, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I highly doubt the UN will ever be in a position where it favors war between 2 member states. Juxlos (talk) 12:04, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Juxlos That was a coffee-spitting out moment for me. Thank you. My point is it does sometime take the UNSC a while to go from a 'neutral' position (essentially inaction) to official condemnation. Now there is official condemnation, I am wary about a map that may set in stone what are likely to be fluid positions now that the UNSC may take further action and most states will toe the UNSC party line. Johncdraper (talk) 12:23, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Looks pretty good and good to go. I don't see a reason why it should not be included. Clearly shows the countries diplomatically showing their position in the conflict. Resapp (talk) 13:03, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@Johncdraper: UN is not the same as their members states. Actually, some UN members states support only one side (Cyprus only to Armenia, Turkic countries to Azerbaidjan), others make silence as their position (Scandivanian countries, who were usually among the first to make statements). I don't see any issue here, sincerely.--KajenCAT (talk) 13:18, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@KajenCAT: You are absolutely correct. My point is that it is likely that the majority of UN Member States will soon toe the UNSC line and be supporting a peaceful solution. If the map is added, I, personally, will not remove it. However, monitoring it and keeping it up to date may be highly problematic, and others may. Johncdraper (talk) 13:24, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@Johncdraper: We always can separate public statements did the last days to hypothetic voting resolution of UNGA. So, in my opinion, it's not necessary to keep updating this map so long.

I don't think the conflict has progressed enough for a map like this to be made. Since it's just based on initial statements, it's highly speculative. Right now it's basically a map of what country has issued a statement, and of whether they named Armenia or Azerbaijan as the attacker in said statement. --Antondimak (talk) 14:53, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Turkey claims 300 PKK fighters crossed into Armenia from Iran

Maybe add this under alleged combatants in the infobox? Ref:[19] Resapp (talk) 11:38, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I would like to see that verified by a non potentially quasi-belligerent reliable source. The BBC may confirm it within a day or so. Johncdraper (talk) 11:47, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

If we are to do that we should remove Turkey as a belligerent too since only Armenia claims their involvement. If not then all the belligerents claims should be included without discrimination. Resapp (talk) 12:58, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I think its ok to keep the Turkey and PKK/Armenian mercenaries claim for now, although these sources are likely biased. In any case the article about PKK involvement clearly alleges they are there for training not in a fighting capacity, so they should be erased from they fighting strength box. Icarusatthesun (talk) 13:18, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I think we should all be able to discriminate what makes a source reliable and worthy of inclusion and what doesn't. The fact that Turkish F-16s are flying out of air bases out of Azerbaijan is far likelier than Armenian "mercenaries" from Lebanon and Syrian and Kurdish fighters traveling to Armenia. No one seriously denies that there are Armenians from Lebanon and Syria living in Armenia now as Armenian nationals who have decided to volunteer as fighters on the Armenian side; that 300 Kurdish fighters somehow slipped into Armenia, however, should be taken with a grain of salt. The Turkish state has been waging a war against the PKK and other Kurdish nationalist groups for 40 years now. This is not the first time that it is accusing Armenia (again, without any proof) of harboring Kurdish fighters. So we should not be afraid to sift through the evidence and decide on what information to treat as reliable and trustworthy and what to rule out as outright propaganda by, let's be frank, two states governed by leaders with authoritarian tendencies. My two cents, Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 13:32, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't expect anyone to except Armenian biased editors to accept this proposal since it is clearly one sided and original research regarding what should be considered reliable and not. Resapp (talk) 13:36, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Only Armenia has claimed that Turkish F-16's were in Azerbaijan without evidence so far. As of yesterday, satellite images have not found a single F-16 at the Ganja airport[20] which Armenia claimed housed Turkish F-16's. Satellite images:[21]. Resapp (talk) 13:42, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't know if the "Armenian biased editors" comment is directed at me, but it's an otherwise inappopriate remark. Knock it off. I am merely arguing for a more methodical approach to how we treat sources. We can await for further verification about the alleged attack by the F-16 fighter plane, but other matters we can treat more skeptically.Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 13:58, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

It's not directed at you. However so far there have been several editors who have been adding Armenian statements as facts while removing the other belligerents references, and it has to stop. Either we add both belligerents statements or remove both. This is not a battleground WP:BATTLEGROUND. Resapp (talk) 14:02, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Alright, I didn't mean to fly off the handle like that, but there are many things left wanting in this article and what we certainly don't want at this time is for it to become another venue for Armenians and Azerbaijanis to air their grievances.Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 15:00, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Agreed that Turkey often uses PKK as a jail-free-card and is maybe even less likely than Iranian or Turkish involvement. Like I said I can live with it being stated as an allegation for now. But I would be pleased if you Marshal Bagramyan or someone else could remove the PKK from the strength box since the source claims PKK's role as consulting. Thanks. Icarusatthesun (talk) 15:28, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Let 's please stop this "alleged" nonsense that has no verified sources at all. Given the political ramifications of "PKK support", such a claim should only be placed when there is clear, independent verification of their presence. Otherwise it is just unnecessary spaming of the page and misleading readers. MosMusy (talk) 19:59, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

The Kurds in Syria are not logistically able to help the Armenians, even if they want to.

What would be realistic would be that from Christian villages around Aleppo, which are administered by the YPG, some have volunteered to fight there. The question is: who organizes this logistical effort. Can the Armenians there simply give up their villages? How likely is the aggression of Turkey to take Aleppo after Afrin? Güney Yalcin (talk) 16:40, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Iran and Russia

I do not see anywhere Azerbaijan officials claiming that. I don't think it should be there like the Pakistan claim. Beshogur (talk) 12:12, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

From what I see the Azeri news agencies are presenting videos of the Iranian weapons as fact. Can't seem to find anything about Russia though. Juxlos (talk) 12:32, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

There have been footage released on Armenian/Azerbaijani/Turkish and even Iranian state TV[22] showing Russian equipment crossing into Armenia from the land border with Iran, which have supposedly arrived on ships via Caspian Sea from Russia. Resapp (talk) 12:55, 30 September 2020 (UTC)=

A member of parliament have mentioned it. Also, as stated in the article, government-owned SOCAR-affiliated Report.az have published an article about it. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 12:57, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

State tv or a member of the parliament does not show the opinion/claim of a government itself. There are always different views/claims/opinions from a parliamentary member, etc. Beshogur (talk) 13:09, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@Beshogur: I think video evidence of state TV showing Russian military equipment crossing the Iranian state border into Armenia in the middle of a conflict is well enough to even be considered an undisputed evidence of Iranian material support to a combatant. Resapp (talk) 13:39, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Well just, add it as "Denied by Iran". Beshogur (talk) 13:44, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

State media during effective warring between two states is no longer reliable as it is a) subject to restrictions and b) may be directly utilized for propagandizing. Reliable secondary sources should be preferred. Tit-for-tat statements and counter-statements are a headache for us all to moderate and should be summarized to the minimum possible level of content. Johncdraper (talk) 14:03, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@Johncdraper: State media is not of the belligerents" but Iranian state media. Resapp (talk) 14:05, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@Resapp: Apologies. Iran is not a warring state in this conflict. However, it is politically involved, and I would urge secondary sources be preferred to avoid tit-for-tatting. Additionally, those wishing to post using Iranian sources should check the reliability of those sources on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Johncdraper (talk) 14:16, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@Beshogur: In this video[23], there are purported trucks with Russian license plates carrying military equipment crossing the Iran-Armenia border. Resapp (talk) 14:10, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Doubtful sources claim that military equipment is being sent through Iran. Explain, please, if the equipment was supposedly sent through Georgia, would Georgia become a supplier/a belligerent? And since when Twitter is a reliable source? Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 14:36, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

The article does not cite the Twitter linked videos above. There are references in the article that claim Iran providing direct equipment support from its own arsenal. Please self revert since this change was already agreed upon before you reverted it. Resapp (talk) 14:44, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

None of the neutral sources named Iran is a supplier. Could you provide the source? Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 15:19, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Azerbaijan claims Armenia used OTR-21 Tochka ballistic missiles today

3 of the missiles failed to explode according to Azerbaijani statement. Maybe add this to the article? Ref:[24] Resapp (talk) 13:47, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Seems very trivial and unnecessary. We should not be mentioning every single engagement that does or does not take place in this article.Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 13:58, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

MarshallBagramyan, I agree. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 14:05, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

If this was the first use of ballistic missiles, it is actually relevant and worth mentioning as use of ballistic missiles in combat is generally a rather rare thing. For example, the Libyan Civil War page mentions when the Qaddafists used ballistic missiles.XavierGreen (talk) 14:49, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

XavierGreen, well, in any case, here are more sources: 1, 2, 3, 4. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 14:54, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Denied by Armenia, per Armenpress. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 15:21, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Alleged Involvement of Russia

There is an alleged involvement section of Iran, with mentions of the transport of weapons from Russia to Armenia. and a section for Turkey, but there is no section for Russia, when its fairly obvious there is russian involvement. How could a section mention that a state is complicit b/c its territories are being used to transport weapons, but not mention the state that is supplying weapons that are ending up in the conflict zone. Not to mention that the Russians are giving tactical military advise and have advisors at the military base in Armenia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Midgetman433 (talk • contribs) 14:47, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Midgetman433, I will mention Russian arms support on the same subtitle. But I'm in the dark about the other statements from you. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 14:50, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Israel supplying Azerbaijan with planes loaded with drones daily

Add Israel under Azerbaijan Arms Supplier maybe? Refs:[25][26][27][28] @Beshogur and Solavirum: Resapp (talk) 16:38, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I think Israel should be added as arms supplier of Azerbaijan F.Alexsandr (talk) 18:32, 30 September 2020 (UTC)