Talk:Second Nagorno-Karabakh War/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Freedom to report restricted

Catherine Norris-Trent a reporter from France24, who is reporting from Azerbaijan side of the border warn her viewers that her freedom to report is restricted (starting at 2:00). Can someone add this info (if that is acceptable as a source, of course). Since most of the information in this article is coming from the media, if the media is controlled (in Azerbaijan), then it could be relevant info. Hemşinli çocuk 04:55, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Not done the source doesn't even say that. It says that the Azerbaijani officials are protesting against France in political ground, not doing something against the journalists. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 09:33, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi. The source says exactly that, direct quote: Our Freedom to report is somewhat restricted. (at 2:55) Starting at 2:00, she caution viewers about what they are reporting. Ilya Azar cancelled journalistic accreditation is in the article. So why can't this be included as well? It is not like it is a secret that press freedom in Azerbaijan is far worst, ranked 168 out of 180 countries, comparatively to Armenia that is ranked 61. They restricted Internet access when the hostilities started, controlled the information (like restricting access to figures of military casualties), why this other info can not be added? Sincerely. Hemşinli çocuk 14:32, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM], Hemşinli. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 14:47, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

This does not answer my question. Why can't this source be in the article? Hemşinli çocuk 14:52, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

This is a video where Catherine Norris Trent mentions this live. --Sataralynd (talk) 11:28, 13 October 2020 (UTC). It is very clear that flow of information is tightly controlled by the government, and Journalistis are shown only what is approved by the government. I second Hemsinli’s comment regarding Press Freedom Index. We should be more cautious and overshare information about restrictions on journalists’ work in Azerbaijan due to the country’s track record --Sataralynd (talk) 22:28, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

While there are plethora of Azerbaijani media and state agencies backed coverage in this article, with sentences like cultural genocide, thereby insulting the Muslim world and being tantamount to state-backed Islamophobia... a picture of an intact Mosque just under the damaged Cathedral, with a link to an article about Armenian vandalism against historical and religious monuments of Azerbaijan gives an unbalanced coverage. While the claims article in the provided link (to the text under the mosque picture), except for two small paragraph, where this current conflict is cited, were published in the state sponsored media: years before this current war, often to counter back accusations of destruction of Armenian monuments.

If that claim under the Mosque, as well as the picture must remain, the background of accusations, from both sides, must be included (a picture on each side). Also, it should be elsewhere than under the picture of the Cathedral, because in the case of the Cathedral, it was damaged in this war, not years ago. Also, this article lacks real background information about why Armenians are refusing Baku rule. The Turkish journalist, Levent Gültekin in an article in a Turkish station HALK TV, expressed the states of affairs in Azerbaijan, by using rude words: ..."no democracy", "authoritarian rule," "there is no election", "now laws...". Sincerely. Hemşinli çocuk 01:29, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

I second that. The mosque picture seems out of context. Unless someone could actually elaborate and relate the specific mosque to the events after 27th of September, it should be removed--Sataralynd (talk) 03:01, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

My understanding is that one (not only) main dispute over mosques is the issue of the restoration of the Govhar Agha Upper District Mosque and the politicization of the issue. As such, I am WP:BRDing the image. Feel free to find more appropriate ones. The image may also need resizing. Johncdraper (talk) 10:12, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

The timeline, and pictures at right of the timeline, since it is an article on the current war, has to include elements related to the actual war. And that is why the image of the Cathedral is there. Both sides have grievances on the handling of monuments by the other side, but these are not directly related to what has happened and is happening since September 27. Hemşinli çocuk 14:23, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

This section (which is about restrictions on journalists/reporters) seems to have been mixed up with the topic of the picture of the mosque in the timeline. Thereby I am reproducing again what I mentioned above about Catherin Norris Trent from France24. This is a video where Catherine Norris Trent talks about restrictions on her reporting --Sataralynd (talk) 11:28, 13 October 2020 (UTC). It is very clear that flow of information is tightly controlled by the government, and Journalists are shown only what is approved by the government. I second Hemsinli’s comment regarding Press Freedom Index. We should be more cautious and overshare information about restrictions on journalists’ work in Azerbaijan due to the country’s alleged track record (i.e. their rating on the Press Freedom Index 169/180)--Sataralynd (talk) 22:28, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Turkish involvement

@Rosguill:, @Yerevantsi: placed Turkey as belligerent, although this source doesn't mention a direct involvement, but a speculation what would happen in a direct involvement. Beshogur (talk) 12:12, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, can ppl stop promoting this as a Turkish-Armenian conflict? It is really misleading.--► Sincerely: SolaVirum 16:20, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

How is it misleading? The Stratfor article lists 3 way Turkey is directly militarily involved: arms supply (primarily drones), recruitment and deployment of Syrian mercenaries, and air support. This isn't hard. ----Երևանցի ^talk 16:30, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree. The evidence is pretty overwhelming. I think we can just list official denials, no matter how unconvincing they appear at this point. Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:01, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I do not see any evidence in the article. One of them speculates what would happen, other claims an involvement without a proof. Plus what kind of involvement, ground, support? Beshogur (talk) 17:04, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

How is sending arms and sending unaffiliated troops a direct involvement? A direct involvement (combatant) would be Turkish soldiers fighting on the ground and Turkish aircraft attacking Armenian units. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 17:06, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Here, Turkey just fits as an arms supplier, don't mislead our readers. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 17:07, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

its ridiculous to mention turkey as a participant in the war. is america involved in the yemen war because saudi arabia uses american made weapons? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goklient (talk • contribs) 21:25, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

To Goklient, does America set the conditions for the end of Saudi Arabia strikes in Yemeni war, like Turkey does in the case of NK? How many other examples can you provide of a noninvolved nation (to a war) set conditions? Besides, the SNA (at least, its constituents) answer to Turkey. Members of that group have operated alongside the Turkish Armed Forces in Syria. There is no evidence that members of this "Turkish foreign legion" were recruited by Azerbaijan (as if Sunni would accept being under Shia command-possible?-Really?). All the sources show the wages were ensured by Turkey, not Azerbaijan! Similarly to Syria (and elsewhere) where it's Turkey who paid them! Even the language used in news outlets is revealing, "| Turkey 'deploys' Syrian mercenaries to Karabakh war." Besides, Turkey openly started threatening of military interventions since July, even just a couple of days before this clash started, the Turkish defense ministry renewed these threats. While sources claim that Turkey already started recruiting and sending these men. And I'm not even going to start with (not today) with the involvement of Turkey that goes further than providing manpower. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck. Ermenermin (talk) 00:04, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

@Rosguill:, perhaps you may be busy, sorry if that's the case, what's your opinion? Beshogur (talk) 08:55, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I do recall seeing RS suggest that Turkey is providing Syrian mercenaries during the DRN discussion about whether to include the mercenaries in the infobox. That was about a week ago, and there may be even clearer sourcing now. My opinion is that if RS confirm that Turkey is providing mercenaries, that is sufficient involvement to justify inclusion in the infobox. I may be able to investigate more thoroughly later. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:41, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Is providing mercenaries a direct involvement though? Turkey would become a direct belligerent if Turkish soldiers were on ground or air fighting, yet there's nothing proving this. The only thing about Turkish involvement is arms supply and the mercenaries, which I believe doesn't mean it's a direct belligerent but rather an Arms Supplier or at most, a supporter (under Supported by: tab on Infobox). — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 17:53, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Listing Turkey as belligerent is favoring the Armenian narrative that is trying very hard to paint this as a Turkish-Armenian conflict. Even the two so called "sources" cited here are speaking of strong Turkish support, but not evidencing anything that would warrant Turkey's involvement as belligerent. Moreover, the second "source" is authored by a hugely-biased Armenian journalist, so how is this an objective source of information on the opponent? If this Wikipedia page aspires to be neutral, such transgressions should not be tolerated. Elpatron81 (talk) 10:15, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

I would say that Turkey should be made a direct belligerent only then we get some proof of Turkish military personnel actually participating in combat operations. Until that happens it would be more accurate to keep Turkey as "supporter". Also that The National Interest article is literally in a blog, it even has "blog" written in url.--Staberinde (talk) 18:37, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

A blog written by a very biased Armenian journalist.... How can this be used as an independent source?! Ridiculous. Elpatron81 (talk) 10:15, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Why does it matter whether or not they were mercenaries hired and deployed by Turkey VS members of the Turkish armed force paid and deployed by Turkey? Isn't a pie, a pie, whether it's made of apple or cherry? Are there other articles on Wikipedia, that doesn't include as belligerent a country that hire manpower (whether they're called mercenaries, legions, army, etc.), provides logistics/equipment, air power? Also, there are now sufficient sources about Turkish implication (not only the mercenaries) to create an article just about that. Ermenermin (talk) 19:50, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I'll give you an example- in the ongoing Libya Civil War Libyan Civil War (2014–present), Russia is not listed as a belligerent, but rather its mercenary unit is listed. That's the right way to do it, if you can prove of course that the alleged Syrian mercenaries allegedly funded by Turkey are fighting. And even then it can't have Turkish flag, because the alleged mercenaries are Syrian. Everything else is quite misleading. Luckily those who are better informed about the conflict, know very well that Turkey is not a belligerent. Sooner or later this page will have to acknowledge this. Elpatron81 (talk) 10:15, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the link, that was a good read. But there seems to be differences. The mercenaries were recruited officially, by the Wagner Group, who took credit. There are sources that say that the group is backed by the ministry of defense, but this does not make a lot of differences. Because this group is identified, and is under belligerent and is Russian flagged. The power shift in the case of the Karabakh war due to Turkish implication is much more evident (and fewer nations are directly involved). I have left some info in my sandbox and the situation of the Azerbaijani army. I can provide more materialsadded to the fact that the beginning of this war, strategists were doubting of a significant Azerbaijani advance. But the Turkish recruitment of mercenaries sent reportedly in the front-line (shielding the Azerbaijani army), by highly relying on Turkish drone (including operators) for air supports, with continuous cargo Turkish import during the war, has shifted the balance of power. And it can't be ignored that Turkey itself set conditions under which the attacks would stop, making itself a party in this war. Hemşinli çocuk 18:29, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

@Staberinde:, can you please justify you're removal of Turkey from belligerent, by providing examples from other similar articles on Wikipedia? Sincerely. Hemşinli çocuk 18:52, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, first off I justify it by lack of consensus in this talk discussion to back up the Yerevantsi's unilateral change of turning Turkey from supporter into a full belligerent. For an article example, Soviet military personnel directly participated in Spanish Civil War but they are only "supporter" there. Anyway, frankly this thing is quite subjective, so one option would be to have a WP:RFC to get some wider community input here.--Staberinde (talk) 19:29, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Bombing of Ghazanchetsots Cathedral - 8th of October

In the Timeline heading 8th of October, the bombing of the Ghazanchetsots Cathedral is only mentioned in passing. When we say "it was reported...denied by Azerbaijan" it throws an event that has otherwise been reported and witnessed by AP, under unwarranted doubt. There has been reports of several journalists, one of them Russian called Yuri Kotyonok, to have been seriously injured by a second blast. There is a supposed video of Kotyonok being carried away. Please elaborate on the writing to take into consideration the above elements (third party witness/confirmation and journalists being injured by repeated shelling) --Sataralynd (talk) 11:38, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

The damage to the Cathedral was not witnessed by AP; it was reported by AP. There is some caution warranted here; Azerbaijan may not have fired on the Cathedral; irregular forces (foreign fighters) may have. However, I have toughened up the language on this. Johncdraper (talk) 14:02, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I take back AP witnessing the event as I mixed it up with AFP who actually witnessed the event. Please see here, the tweet says "where AFP journalists saw the church had suffered serious damage". Besides, source 409 in the Article references the Russian journalist, and if you read the source it says he was injured during the bombing Ghazanchetsots. It would make sense to mention the journalist being injured during bombing of the cathedral either in the timeline, or when the reference to the journalist is made (Casualties and equipment losses > Civilian casualties). Finally, the word "apparently" in reference to the bombing doesn't seem warranted. After all, we don't expect every event to be witnessed by journalists (as opposed to their consequences)--Sataralynd (talk) 22:27, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

@Sataralynd: The tense in the AFP article is past perfect. If the journalists had witnessed it being damaged, the sentence would read, "AFP journalists saw the church suffering serious damage." Moreover, there would have been a graphic account. Finally, as I have made clear, the "apparently' is there because we are very, very careful on this page about who did what given the large number of foreign, irregular, and non-state fighting units on the ground. Johncdraper (talk) 09:45, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

@Johncdraper:, are you questioning that the Cathedral was damaged, or that someone witnessed a projectile hitting it? Sincerely. Hemşinli çocuk 19:03, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

@Ermenermin:. Not the former. There is a massive hole in the cathedral's vault. At this stage, given the available sources, I am also not questioning that it was hit, likely by a projectile. What is not clear in the sources is who, exactly, fired it. For instance, regular or irregular forces? What I am highlighting and have been consistent in highlighting is that, given the level of projectiles in the air, who, exactly, fired the projectile(s) that hit the cathedral has not yet been established. Given the militarization, it cannot be established until an independent investigative mechanism is established. Both sides have consistently denied targeting civilian infrastructure and cultural heritage. Yet, civilian infrastructure and cultural heritage have been hit, most likely by irregular or regular forces from the other side. You will note that this problem is not one just facing us, here on Wikipedia. Perennial reliable sources are being careful in their wording. Thus, so are we. When they confirm, we do. Johncdraper (talk) 19:57, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

@Johncdraper:, I see, but how many of the events are documented with a live footage of ballistic actually hitting a building? Here you will find an interview with a Zeitung journalist reporting the conflict. Comparing this conflict with other heavy ones he has reported: The most intense of civilians shelling that I have seen so far. He also was there after the first attacks on the Cathedral (the second attack happened 45 minutes after he left), he integrate this attack in the context of massive civilian infrastructure targeting. The situation from what he recount was just too extreme and systematic, to assume that the shelling of Shush(i/a) and the building that were hit was the work of some irregulars. Hemşinli çocuk 20:31, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

@Ermenermin: I understand your point. Specifically, "The legal recognition that the defense of cultural objects is more important than the use or destruction of that culture for military purposes, and the protection of culture always has precedence over any military necessity" and subsequent UN treaties covering the intentional destruction of cultural heritage. When that basic recognition breaks down during armed conflicts involving potentially large numbers of irregular forces armed with weapons up to and including heavy artillery, verification of what happens during armed conflicts is highly problematic, which in my understanding is the precise problem facing the reliable sources. If you cannot find anything new in the reliable and perennial reliable sources in the next couple of days, what I recommend you do is to pull together all the sources you can and edit the Cathedral's Wikipedia page. Establish a consensus based on reliable sources there. Given the circumstances, this may take time. Then, you bring that characterization here, back to this thread, or as a new thread. Until then, based on how reliable sources are characterizing the destruction, I suggest my last five words above still apply. Johncdraper (talk) 21:11, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Armenian diaspora volunteers--belligerent?

How exactly those were used? The Syrian SNA mercenaries were experimented, even trained by the Turkish armed force. Do we have some names of diaspora Armenians with documented prior experience in warfare? I have attempted to find any info, without any luck. It just doesn't look right, to add "diaspora volunteers" under belligerent if most were tasked at doing other stuff, because of no prior experience. Ermenermin (talk) 00:58, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I’m curious as to why the names of the diaspora volunteers are necessary to, from what I gather here, vet their competency in combat? That seems a little strange. The fact that they’re volunteering to aid the Armenian military should be sufficient enough. Syd Highwind (talk) 12:38, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello Syd Highwind. Asking for the names of such volunteers seems irrelevant indeed. However, so far there have been no confirmation of the nature of those volunteers. Claiming that those volunteers "aid the Armenian military" without providing any references doesn't seem right. Besides, having "Armenian Diaspora Volunteers" included under "Belligerents" category doesn't seem right as well, again, without proper references. The definition of the word "Belligerents" is clear. Hence, I suggest removing "Armenian Diaspora Volunteers" from the "Belligerents" part of the infobox. Sincerely, --Alex662607004 (talk) 00:21, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Integrating Ceasefire section to the timeline

Well, the clashes are continuing at full force and Armenia just reported Azerbaijani offensives in the northwestern front, from Murovdag area. I don't see any reason to separate the post-ceasefire timeline with the pre-ceasefire one. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 20:09, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Yup, same here just came to ask the same. Do we separate the events displayed day by day after and before the Ceasefire OR report the Ceasefire as another event of 10/11 October.Mr.User200 (talk) 02:09, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Northwestern front news from Armenia dont look like another new front. It only cite a plane shot down, most possibly a Recon AN-2 drone(Chinese modification) for targeting and spotting purposes. But, maybe we should consider the ceasefire as another event inside 10 October events. Most likely because of the political/mediatic repercutions. Because I only see escalation on attacks on urban areas. Ground fighting have stopped mostly with the only exception of Hadrut. But after the Russian brokered ceasefire hostilities have reached a diferent level. Maybe the beggining of a new phase of the conflict? Mr.User200 (talk) 02:14, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

There has been wide reports in the media of clashes and civilians dead in Nagorno Karabakh itself after the ceasefire. There has also been reports of dead soldiers on the NK side with names reported widely in the media (91 only on 12th of Oct). I think we should reinstate the timeline section and report the ongoing hostilities on both sides as they occur. Reading the Ceasefire section now, there is virtually no mention of any fighting or dead in NK itself --Sataralynd (talk) 11:49, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, the separatist regime activated its militia this morning. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 09:35, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

While activating the militia is related to the resumption of fighting, there is no mention in the source that there is actual fighting going on. It is just a law that has been passed, which could have been passed after the fact

However, in the sources I provided here and here, and widely reported now, it is clear fighting continues. We should reinstate the timeline and give the community the chance to add events to it. The timeline section of the article shouldn't stop at 9th of Oct, when fighting is clearly continuing. It is misleading.

It is correct that serious ceasefire violations are occurring. However, these are clearly happening (at the moment) within the context of the ceasefire, and neither president has formally rejected the ceasefire. In addition, there is a separate Timeline main article. Johncdraper (talk) 14:34, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the Armenian attack on Ganja in the 4th paragraph of Ceasefire section, specifically lines "this was denied but subsequently confirmed." we need elaboration on who denied it, which in this case was the Armenian Foreign minister, but more importantly how was it "confirmed". I think a cleaner approach is to mention the bombing, and end by saying that the Armenian FM denied it as per the source.--Sataralynd (talk) 23:58, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Further in the same paragraph, regarding the Armenian attack on Mingachevir Hydroelectric Power Station, the source mentions that "Ethnic Armenian forces in Karabakh denied the assertion" which must be mentioned for consistency --Sataralynd (talk) 00:31, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses citations for support and to direct interested readers to further information. Re the Armenian attack on Mingachevir Hydroelectric Power Station, my understanding is that Armenia has not denied it. If they have, that can certainly be included. Moreover, we are careful to use 'claimed', which, in the context, implies that the statement has been challenged by the other side. Johncdraper (talk) 10:22, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Here is the source that was referenced in the article. It is clear that the Armenian side has denied the attack. I cite "Azerbaijan accused Armenia of also launching an unsuccessful rocket attack on an Azeri hydro-electric power station in Mingachevir. Ethnic Armenian forces in Karabakh denied the assertion.". Please include the denial in the article.--Sataralynd (talk) 01:23, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

The timeline ends after the "ceasefire"

As I had posted a few days ago, the "ceasefire" on October 10th seems to have not been honored at all, as fighting remains intense. Despite this, the timeline is much less detailed following the ceasefire section, which does not accurately represent the current situation. RBolton123 (talk) 12:17, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Reliable perennial sources are characterizing the ceasefire as fragile and shaky. Furthermore, neither president has formally ended the ceasefire. The level of detail is therefore proportionate and correct. If you want more detail, I suggest you edit the Timeline page. Johncdraper (talk) 13:58, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I wish I could, but it's extended protected. This isn't necessarily an edit request per se so that's why I haven't added the template thing. Anyways, I still hold that the ceasefire is not "shaky", but practically non-existent. RBolton123 (talk) 23:16, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

The ceasefire is plainly not in effect, the Azerbaijan government has resumed offensive operations and today announced capturing several more villages.XavierGreen (talk) 14:29, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

I've merged this section into the main one since I didn't see this part before. RBolton123 (talk) 00:26, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Syrian mercenaries footnote again

Rosguill Sorry to bother you with this again, but apparently someone, contrary to what was agreed to at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard, reinstated that the mercenaries' presence is "alleged" in their footnote and even wrote its only alleged by Armenia, France and Russia, even though references have been provided that its been confirmed/reported by Syrian fighters themselves, activists, the United States, international journalists and news agencies etc. If my understanding is correct, the agreement at the discussion was their presence is not considered alleged but to mark them with a footnote emphasizing its denied by Turkey and Azerbaijan? The edit would seem to have been made by an editor who was not involved in the previous discussion which was successfully concluded. Further, its been added that Georgia is also denying the existence of the mercenaries, even though per their reference they are not denying the existence of the mercenaries, just that they have not transited through them to Azerbaijan. Which would be a misinterpretation of the cited source. EkoGraf (talk) 01:51, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

This is heading out of hand. I think a pending review protection could help. To many reverts, errasing of information by various editors.At the end many valuable information is lost after several edits of differemt users. New people editing the article dont respect the concenssus already achieved.Mr.User200 (talk) 02:40, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Pending changes only applies to editors that can't edit an ECP protected page, so there isn't any protection that is going to help here. Consensus can be challenged, but at this point requires discussion on the talk page before changes are made. Regarding the Georgian claim, claiming that Georgia is denying the existence of mercenaries is a clear misreading of the source involved (assuming that it's still the same source as the last time I looked into it). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 05:06, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill Basically yes. Earlier (a week ago) it was a TASS report regarding Georgia's denial of transit. This time it was a news.ru report, but again about the same subject and date of publication was the same as the TASS report. As for the insertion of "Alleged by Armenia, France and Russia", I will remove it later today (since I don't want to be accused of a 3RR violation at the moment), unless someone else removes it, and leave an edit summary redirecting editors to the DRN and reminding them of the requirement for discussion first as you say. Also wanted to first check with you if I appropriately understood the DRN. Thanks! EkoGraf (talk) 07:29, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

a — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.162.46.88 (talk) 05:32, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

With the amount of sources, and countries, covering the Syrian fighters, it is beyond just an allegation. Specific details may be alleged, but the overall presence of a group of Syrian fighters at the front is confirmed fact. Vici Vidi (talk) 06:39, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

So trying to censor something is better? Say me a reason why there shouldn't be a footnote? Beshogur (talk) 12:00, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Nobody has said there shouldn't be a footnote. There should be yes, regarding the Turkish/Azeri denial of the mercs presence as per the DRN consensus. The issue was that somebody reinserted once again after the DRN was closed that their presence is only "Alleged by Armenia, France and Russia", despite the fact that as per the DRN "alleged" is not to be used and its especially not just by those three countries but that its according to a multitude of other 3rd party sources. Regards! EkoGraf (talk) 13:36, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

EkoGraf edits

There is no need to add +1 in the infobox of Armenia's casualties. It is already counted. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 07:39, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Գարիկ Ավագյան I wouldn't say so. Its clearly stated that the (current) reported number of 532 servicemen killed is referring to deaths among members of the Artsakh Defence Army, while the military pilot that was killed belong to the Air Force of the Armed Forces of Armenia (separate military entity). EkoGraf (talk) 11:05, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

EkoGraf Nope, Valery Danelin (the pilot) is included in the list [1]. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 12:07, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Գարիկ Ավագյան I can now confirm that Valery Danelin, who is on the Artsakh MoD's official lists, is the pilot of the plane claimed to have been shot down by Turkey [2]. Thanks! Will remove him from the infobox since its doublecounting. EkoGraf (talk) 13:43, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I must correct you. All Armenian military deaths in Artsakh are counted by the Artsakh MoD. That pilot was shot down in Armenian territory. Officially the Armenian Armed Forces are not directly fighting, rather they are merged with the Artsakh MoD, and accordingly Armenian regular army soldiers are counted among the death toll. The Artsakh Army is anyways comprised of 70% Armenian military at any given time. The list of casualties includes reservists and conscripts from all over Armenia, so by no means is the current death toll exclusively Artsakh-natives.
User178198273998166172 (talk) 13:15, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Գարիկ Ավագյան, ermm, no. Reported servicemen are from the separatist regime, not Armenia. And military forces of these entities are de facto seperate. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 11:58, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Although I wouldn't use the same description of the self-proclaimed Artsakh government as Solavirum, he is essentially correct. As stated by the cited source, the count is reported by Artsakh’s Defense Ministry and is referring to servicemen of the Artsakh military forces. While the pilot, who was shot down over Armenia, belonged to the Armenian Air Force, which is a separate military organization from Artsakh's forces, and his death was reported on by the Armenian Defense Ministry. EkoGraf (talk) 15:12, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

"Status" Field in Infobox

Hello. The current version of "Status" in the infobox is "Ongoing; temporary humanitarian ceasefire". Its single reference is from October 10, retrieved on October 11, and it states that "Renewed fighting in and around Nagorno-Karabakh has shattered a ceasefire between Armenia and Azerbaijan." Other sources such as [3], [4], [5] site the same condition as such. I suggest updating the status field in the infobox to keep the "ongoing" part only and remove the rest. Sincerely, --Alex662607004 (talk) 00:09, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

The infobox should show that the ceasefire has mostly lapsed. But it is that it be mentioned. Gotitbro (talk) 01:36, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello Gotitbro, agreed, which is not the case currently ("Status" is still the same from October 11). I don't understand what you mean by "But it is that it be mentioned". Thank you. Sincerely, --Alex662607004 (talk) 11:47, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

It should be either simply "Ongoing" or "Ongoing; fighting continues despite ceasefire agreement". Current status wording can create misleading impression of ceasefire being observed by the combatants.--Staberinde (talk) 12:21, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

@Alex662607004: I meant that it should be mentioned there was some kind of ceasefire which was not adhered to. Staberinde suggestion doesn't look too bad. Gotitbro (talk) 15:28, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

The map - Reportedly, or claimed?

AntonSamuel, please provide reliable sources for your statements here. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 15:22, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@Solavirum: Hi! I've raised the issue of the NPOV issues with the map on the talk page previously: [6]. In short: With regards to WP:NPOV it's preferable to have a more neutral source used for claims regarding captured areas seen on the map, than just relying on claims from the Azerbaijani government. I've used https://caucasus.liveuamap.com/ as a source, which features pro-Azeri, pro-Armenian and neutral claims and only confirmed captured areas (through geolocation of videos mostly) as captured. If even more reliable and neutral sources can be found that the map can be based on, I'm all for it. AntonSamuel (talk) 15:28, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@AntonSamuel:, I've been blocked just for using the word reportedly because some users thought it's propaganda, apparently I did more than 3 reverts so. I think that was unjustified, however I am glad you use that word as well. That's the correct term imo. Beshogur (talk) 15:38, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@AntonSamuel:, @Solavirum:, @Beshogur:, I will add the names of the alleged villages. If you agree, we will change the borders.----Emreculha (talk) 15:44, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

AntonSamuel, nope, that's absurd. It doesn't present the whole picture. And Emreculha, you've got at least my consent for the changes. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 15:47, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@Solavirum: Absurd how? I would argue it's far more in line with WP:NPOV to use conservative estimates from a relatively neutral source, rather than just relying on the Azerbaijani MoD for edits to this map. @Emreculha: Adding the mentioned localities is great, but as mentioned previously, showing these localities as captured on the map is problematic since their capture is both disputed and unconfirmed by neutral and reliable sources. AntonSamuel (talk) 15:50, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

AntonSamuel, it doesn't violate the neutrality guidelines when we clearly state that it is per Azerbaijan. Come with better arguments... --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 15:56, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@Solavirum: I'm still sticking to the issue of neutrality and reliability: displaying unconfirmed Azerbaijani claims as the main indicator of areas captured gives undue weight to these claims. This is part of the Wikipedia:Core content policies and not controversial. AntonSamuel (talk) 16:02, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@AntonSamuel:, @Solavirum:,Getting the right information can be difficult. Azerbaijani sources make an official statement. But if I am not mistaken, official Armenian sources do not make any statements. I think we only have LiveUAMAP and İlham Aliyev's Twitter Account. @Solavirum: wants the map to be updated as it is the official word of mouth. LiveUAMap, on the other hand, does not add to its map that the region is definitely taken without sharing a picture or video from that region. We will have to find a measure between us without discussion :) ---Emreculha (talk) 15:57, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Ahmetlii, please comment here before changing the map, and help us reach a consensus, to avoid edit wars. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 16:05, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@Solavirum: I did not see this conversation before, I will also add my statement later.Ahmetlii (talk) 16:09, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I am only adding village names to the map right now. Is everyone in agreement? @AntonSamuel:, @Solavirum:? ---Emreculha (talk) 16:24, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@Emreculha: Adding the relevant villages to the map without claiming them as captured (as long as the claims have not been verified) is fine by me. AntonSamuel (talk) 16:26, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

:: https://apa.az/en/nagorno_garabagh/President-of-Azerbaijan:-%22Hadrut-settlement-and-several-villages-liberated-from-occupation%22-332509 shows Hadrut and 8 villages. Add these with different notation.Fullscaledx (talk) 16:27, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

The map legend says "Areas REPORTEDLY captured by Azerbaijan in 2020". It does not say: "Areas captured by Azerbaijan in 2020". So, add the Hadrut and 8 villages as recently captured places.Fullscaledx (talk) 16:31, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@Fullscaledx: I added the "reportedly" since I still think it would be prudent to use even more superior sources for the claims than Liveuamap (even though I think Liveuamap's reports are decent with regards to reliability). However, if it poses a problem - then by all means remove the word "reportedly", or replace it with a better word. However the presence of the word does not cancel out the problematic nature of adding the pro-Azeri claims without additional verification as mentioned before. AntonSamuel (talk) 16:35, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Please, do not misunderstand me. I do not oppose to the usage of the word "reportedly". This word shows a claim. Hence, I defence that there is no danger adding "Hadrut+8villages" to AZ's territory. Eventually, "reportedly" includes a claim in itself. Am I wrong?Fullscaledx (talk) 16:40, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Dear @Marjdabi:, I guess you haven't seen the discussion about the map.We think to reflect the most accurate source on the map. Sorry we didn't ping you to discuss.I am only adding village names to the map right now. If we confirm information from all sources, we update the borders. I ask you to be a little more patient :)---Emreculha (talk) 16:57, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@Emreculha: Marjdabi has been blocked indefinitely on Wikipedia, as he's making disruptive edits and personal attacks now on Wikimedia Commons as well, I've reported him to the administrators: [7] AntonSamuel (talk) 17:05, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@AntonSamuel:, There is no need for us to insult each other. Sorry about this situation.---Emreculha (talk) 17:10, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@Emreculha: No worries! I really commend the contribution you've made with the map and your openness for discussion of it. AntonSamuel (talk) 17:22, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Emreculha, also, Murovdağ should be readded too. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 17:19, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@Solavirum: Murovdag is still featured on the map as far as I see, however, its capture by Azerbaijan has not been independently confirmed as far as I have seen. AntonSamuel (talk) 17:23, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@AntonSamuel: The fact is that Armenia&Artsakh or Azerbaijan are refusing nearly everything about opponent's claims as I seen before. I think that we should put Azerbaijani claims (which are more detailed) rather than waiting for confirmation (which can take several months in a recent situation). And, I'm not sure about there are enough reliable sources are confirming that captures or not. Ahmetlii (talk) 19:01, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@Ahmetlii: I don't think using Azerbaijani claims as the main indicator for the map is a good idea, I've provided the reasons why I think that way pretty thoroughly by now in this thread. I would point out that Liveuamap is updated quite regularly however. AntonSamuel (talk) 19:05, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@AntonSamuel: I agree about not using Azerbaijani claims as far as possible because of NPOV concerns, but also Liveumap is also getting informations from Azerbaijan generally as far as I know.Ahmetlii (talk) 19:35, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@Ahmetlii: Yes, Liveuamap uses pro-Azeri, pro-Armenian and neutral sources. But they've only marked areas in blue that have been confirmed as captured by geolocation. AntonSamuel (talk) 19:37, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@AntonSamuel: ok, but also it sometimes comes from unreliable sources like Tweets from unconfirmed accounts. Although it's sometimes reliable, it sometimes get informations from users, like a blog or internet portal. Ahmetlii (talk) 19:55, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@Ahmetlii: That is true, so if a neutral and even more reliable source can be found, I'm all for it as I stated earlier. AntonSamuel (talk) 19:57, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I am genuinely confused as to why areas claimed to be captured by Azerbaijan are not allowed to be shown when the text in the article can clearly state that it is only according to Azerbaijan. We need to present the claims of both sides. We can colour the claimed but not confirmed and claimed but confirmed lands differently to make it clear or perhaps only show the claimed but not confirmed ones with lines, but it has to be shown. — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 09:58, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

@AntonSamuel: You seem to be the one disagreeing with this. You seem to cite liveuamap a lot, though even in liveuamap, it shows areas claimed to be captured by Azerbaijan but not yet confirmed by other sources with a circle pattern. It's wrong to not include claims of AzMOD. We can show the unconfirmed ones with a line/circle pattern, but it needs to be included to inform the viewers. — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 17:37, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

@CuriousGolden: The map was updated a while ago to include disputed/unconfirmed areas as well. AntonSamuel (talk) 18:18, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

@AntonSamuel: Ah seems like it was added yesterday, sorry. May I ask why it's such a weird colour? It's barely distinguishable. Would be great if you could make it a bit darker colour, so it's not almost the same colour as the other occupied areas. — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 18:28, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

AntonSamuel Yes, the map is bizarre, it actually seems designed to confuse people. Can we find out who is responsible for the ridiculous shades of green and punish them accordingly? Billybostickson (talk) 06:50, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

@Billybostickson: Haha, well I'm not the original author of the map, but I did try to soften the colors a bit after a previous thread mentioned that the old colors weren't easy on the eyes and could be arranged more logically. You're welcome to modify them yourself - Inkscape is a good and free program for editing svg files. AntonSamuel (talk) 10:00, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

How reliable is liveumaps? It marks lands that Azerbaijan never claimed to be captured with circle pattern (like in north-west and recently between Hadrut and Fuzuli). — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 10:11, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

@CuriousGolden: Yeah, I've been thinking about that myself - some areas marked with the circle pattern on Liveuamap are used to mark areas that are possibly disputed. There were battles reported by Armenia on the northern front that were supposed to be the most intense yet, however little data about it is available. The fog of war complicates matters when both sides have an interest in selectively showcasing what is actually going on. Another useful map is this one: [8] However with regards to reliability and neutrality, neither that one or Liveuamap are optimal, but most other sources are Twitter-based. AntonSamuel (talk) 14:05, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

@AntonSamuel:, the map needs updating per Aliyev. Reportedly, or confirmed. Just needs to added. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 14:21, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

@Solavirum: I personally think the map should be more conservative and only display the areas that have been tentatively confirmed to be captured. Perhaps it would be prudent to require additional sources apart from Liveuamap as their map has become a bit messy and unclear regarding what sources they're basing "confirmed" areas on. Earlier they used to post entries showing geolocation, they haven't done so lately from what I've seen. AntonSamuel (talk) 14:42, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

@AntonSamuel: I believe liveuamaps gives circle pattern to areas that are claimed but not confirmed and also areas that are active fighting zones. So this can be quite misleading. We should remove additions liveuamaps has made without any Azeri announcement. (e.g. The gains in the north-west, except the Murovdagh peak and the recent fill of the big area between Hadrut and Fuzuli). — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 15:37, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Infobox: swap groups? Moving Armenia/Artsakh to the left column and Azerbaijan to the right?

To put them in the infobox military conflict on the same sides as shown on the map? -- Jeandré, 2020-10-14t17:01z

Agree. As in other articles related to the clashes. Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 12:00, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Seems reasonable.--Staberinde (talk) 16:03, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Seems unnecessary. — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 16:18, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

ongoing edit war

Yukhari Govhar Agha Mosque in Shusha. The status and treatment of mosques is a subject of contention in the broader Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.

Once again, this artistic idealized portrait of the Susha mosque and the Azeri-POV caption is highly irrleveant for this article concerning the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War. @Johncdraper
It's ridiculous why you would feel the need to add this again and again and undo my edits deleting it each time. This is why I have to repeat myself and ask for assistance. Add it to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict if you are so in love with the picture, where it will be seen by less people for sure, instead of forcing it on this current event article.
And the caption is very biased for Azerbaijan, and it's irreleavnt whether you use a Azeri source or neutral one. If Armenia was anti-Islam they could destroy that building today, located in the center of Susha, instead of renovating it and allowing it to become an Iranain cultural center. Please stop with this propaganda. And one or two Karabakh mosques not the 'center' of this conflict, it is about the land, so the caption is again wrong. All I ask is that you move it to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, where it belongs, and not on this article.
User178198273998166172 (talk) 16:16, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

For the last time, do not remove the image until the discussion is over and ready to be archived. This is my last appeal. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 15:28, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Have to take User178198273998166172's side on this one. Why is it that editors are insisting that this mosque be included in the main page despite the lack of coverage by third-party sources? "Concern" evinced by Azerbaijani sources does not pass muster for inclusion, much less juxtaposition with the well-documented damage inflicted on Ghazanchetsots. Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 15:30, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm not going to weigh in on whether or not the mosque image should be included in the long run at this time, but per BRD the onus is now on editors in favor of including the mosque to make the case for it here on the talk page. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:51, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

We had the Ganja mosque image preseneted in the article a few days ago, now we have another mosque image i see. Are we really trying to equal the two sides of the conflict at this point since there's a damaged cathedral image in the article? I believe so. And why did we remove the Ganja mosque image after all because i don't see any consensus made above? --Eurofan88 (talk) 17:00, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

We are going nowhere with this type of discussions, despite Wikipedia is not a Democracy, the same issue is once again on the talk section. Why not to cast a vote in Support or Against. just to have a Concenssus, and end this once for all.Mr.User200 (talk) 17:21, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

References

Armenian source regarding Azerbaijan losses

Another source was added to the infobox by @Reenem: link, citing "Karabakh records" if you look carefully, picking few names "Bayramov E." or "Bəşir Abbasov", you see that these names are taken from "https://shehidler.info/" yet again. Beshogur (talk) 11:39, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

@Beshogur: I would kindly ask that you cancel your edit here [9]. First, I agree with your edit here [10] and thank you for your removal of the Armenian claim from the "per other sources" section of the infobox. Second, unlike the cases with shehidler.info and Herbi Media where primary sources were cited, here we have a secondary source being referenced (a 20-year-old Armenian news agency). Thus, there is no reason to exclude it from the sentence which is devoted to Armenian claims on Azeri casualties. Third, the sentence has been there for two weeks now and constantly updated, that even SolaVirum has accepted it being mentioned, with appropriate language/text being included of course. Fourth, considering shehidler popped up in the last week or so, it would seem that shehidler is the one that is taking the names from Karabakh Records (which has been around longer), and not the other way around as you suggested. If you want, we can further expand the sentence regarding the attribution of the claim. For example, not just "an Armenian media source", but instead "PanARMENIAN.Net cited the KarabakhRecords website of providing the names and ranks of 517 reportedly killed Azerbaijani servicemen." EkoGraf (talk) 12:38, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Reverted, adding unreliable source tag tho. Beshogur (talk) 13:07, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

@Beshogur: Thank you and agreed. When a more verifiable source appears we can replace it. EkoGraf (talk) 14:18, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

@Beshogur: I see you also reinstated the figure into the infobox as per Reenem's edit. Are you sure about this considering its an Armenian source and doesn't really fit into the "per other sources" category? Like I said earlier, I'm fine with removing it from the infobox. Or, maybe we could put the "documented" figure in brackets beside the claimed overall figure by Armenia (5,319). That way both claims would be in the "per Armenia" section. Or leave it where it is in the end since its not an "official" Armenian claim? Would be fine with that as well, whatever. EkoGraf (talk) 14:25, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Replaced the "Armenian media source" in brackets with "Karabakh Records" to be more clearer on the original source of the claim and that it's not an officially claimed figure, unlike the other one (5,319). That way we leave the "Per Armenia" and "Per Azerbaijan" sections for only official claims. EkoGraf (talk) 14:32, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Hmmm…… still wrong. The article says 600s but the link is Pan Armenian and only list 500. Seems Karabakh Records updated the toll but the source is on Twitter.Mr.User200 (talk) 16:01, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

That's why both links are in the reference. For the initial Pan Armenian report (415) and for the later updated number by Karabakh Records (619). We remove the Twitter link after a news report picks it up, like they have done so far. EkoGraf (talk) 17:38, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

@Rosguill:, could you check the source and the previous discussion? Thanks. Beshogur (talk) 18:12, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Beshogur, I'm not really sure what you're expecting me to check for here. The above discussion appears to establish that the source should be considered a low-quality biased source, much like the other sources that we have been using to establish casualty counts at this point in time. The compromise of leaving it in and tagging it with {{unreliable source inline}} seems appropriate _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:20, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

As there have been repeated issues with unreliable sources being put into infobox for casualties, lets clarify a bit about infobox usage itself. Fortunately the ways to use it are nicely explained in template documentation: Template:Infobox military conflict. I would especially highlight following sentence:

Information in the infobox should not be "controversial". Refer the reader to an appropriate section in the article or leave the parameter blank rather than make an unsubstantiated or doubtful claim.

Now that we got this out of the way, lets look at this "Karabakh Records". They have website, which at bottom includes "Prepared with the assistance of the Public Relations and Information Center of the Office of the President of Armenia, Yerevan." So we are dealing with entity that is affiliated with Armenian government institution. They also have a twitter where they sure love to use #ArtsakhStrong, which is most blatant nationalist sign one could imagine. Sorry but that is simply not infobox material, we don't need multiple partisan Armenian sources for Azerbaijani casualties, the one we already have does just fine.--Staberinde (talk) 17:34, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Staberinde, as I stated in the edit summary, the sentence from their website you are pointing out has been there from before the current conflict (a few years) and the government assistance was in relation to the documentation of the first war (1980s-1990s). As for the current documentation of Azeri servicemen killed, as stated by them, its being done through research of open sources solely. Nothing about the Armenian government assisting them in this as well. Due to its pro-Armenian stance, it was agreed to leave a potentially "unreliable source" tag and leave it up to the readers. Further, we are not just referencing their twitter updates of the count (primary sources), but the 20-year-old Pan-Armenian news agency as well as a secondary source. Between, if we did as you suggest, by that logic, we would need to remove both official Armenian and Azerbaijani claims of their enemies casualties due to them inherently being controversial as potential propaganda claims. However, as I already voiced my opinion in the earlier discussion, due to this being more of "per Armenia" than "per other sources" thing, I suggested we leave their "documented" count in brackets beside the "claimed" count by Armenia in the "per Armenia" section. Thus both figures would be within only one section and unified under Armenian claims. So if you agree, we can try it this way. EkoGraf (talk) 17:54, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

By the way, how is this "documented", really? The source doesn't even show single evidence, what documents? Beshogur (talk) 18:46, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

It claims it is. Besides, it's bizarre that this is even debated, when this article relies heavily on Azerbaijani press, ranked 168 out of 180 countries, for freedom of press. Hemşinli çocuk 18:55, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Its "documented" as "per Armenia". However, the wording can be changed to something you find more appropriate like "named" or maybe better "listed". Although I see my edit has already been canceled out by Solavirum. I hope it will be reinstated (with some different wording). As I already stated at the very start of this discussion, I also had no problem with the removal of this figure from the infobox, as long as its mentioned in the main body of the article. However, after seeing that a number of other editors approved and continued to edit/update/add the figure and wording in the infobox, I found it to be essential that a compromise solution be found. However, if some editors continue to insist on simple removal without attempts at compromise than I simply don't care how its presented really, even though I think compromise that satisfies both parties is still the best course of action. Cheers! EkoGraf (talk) 18:59, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

We are still talking about Armenian gov-related source which cites so-called "open sources". Why won't they show those "open sources"? Morover, the "20-year-old Pan-Armenian news agency" is not an argument here. It doesn't matter how hold the agency is, in general, the claim of documented Azerbaijani KIAs seems very dubious and shouldn't be added to the infobox. I've seen so-called Armenian research centers 'documenting' Armenian KIAs too, why won't I add them? Because these, also the so-called Azeri research centers, are just fake pages created to erect panic in the other country. For Pete's sake, we've been mostly discussing the infobox since the conflict began and it is getting irritating. It is just a way to mislead the readers, who jump to the infobox as they open this article. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 18:59, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

EkoGraf, that "unreliable source" tag solution is quite silly to be frank, especially considering that we could end up stuck with it for weeks or months here. When something is tagged it should result in a discussion, and after discussion the tag should be removed, which may or may not also include changes or removal of the material. Anyway, in article text there is plenty of room to provide clear attribution so I have no problem it remaining in main text casualties subsection, and in fact with proper attribution making clear it is an Armenian source the tag should be removed. But not everything that goes into article fits into infobox, which by its nature is a very short summary. Claims by combatants themselves are notable on their own and their blatantly partisan nature is extremely obvious for reader. But we don't need to clutter infobox with additional unreliable partisan claims, especially when it requires such a ridiculous tagging solution. As for adding it into "per Armenia" part, that makes more sense, I still feel it would get quite cluttered though. I guess it could work as a note there, just like the note we have about combatant "Syrian mercenaries" informing who alleges, who denies etc.--Staberinde (talk) 19:01, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

@Staberinde:, wasn't me who added the "unreliable source" tag but I was fine with it as long as a compromise could be found. I am also fine with adding just a footnote as you suggested and think it might be the best solution yet, thank you. But at this point I am leaving it either to you or some other editor to potentially add it because, like I said in the edit summary, I would not like to risk a violation of 3RR. Also, despite all my good will to try and find a compromise solution between two different sets of editors, I would not honestly like to continue to be accused of posting "fake news", misleading our readers or insulting Azerbaijanis as I have been by Solavirum so I am leaving it to others to sort it out. I will just voice my support on any solution for the issue that can be found. Cheers! EkoGraf (talk) 19:19, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello Solavirum. You adding the statement "Azerbaijan claims victory" in the infobox (which stayed up for 7 hours) while there was no explicit mentioning of it in the reference, which was a personal biased interpretation as you admitted on multiple occasions, is confusing the reader as well "who jump to the infobox as they open this article". Your bias is unbelievable. Sincerely, --Alex662607004 (talk) 22:44, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Beshogur could you care to explain this or is just one of your typical reverts? Mr.User200 (talk) 18:25, 15 October 2020 (UTC)