Talk:Second Nagorno-Karabakh War/Archive 15

Military Equipment - "Ballistic Missile"
There is a statement that Armenia used a ballistic missile. There reference is an article written by a person with Azerbaijani name. The article says "Azerbaijan on Saturday accused Armenia of striking its second-largest city with a ballistic missile that killed at least 13 civilians and wounded 50 others." Then it says that the Armenian side denied this. Even if we put aside the civilian deaths, where is the third party confirmation that a ballistic missile was used? 2003:CB:B710:2000:9189:7601:1FD9:8777 (talk) 11:08, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The ballistic missile attacks on Ganja have been confirmed, with Artsakh even taking responsibility for the first strike. Third party sources such as the BBC have articles on this. Flalf Talk 12:57, 22 October 2020 (UTC)


 * @Flalf in the link you posted I could not find the term "ballistic". This information is not true.

2003:CB:B710:2000:2581:380E:39D:9F79 (talk) 13:34, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Most of the sources aren't specific, but it was a scud missile. There is enough pictures and non azerbaijani sources for it to be believable. I'd recommend you check out 2020 Ganja ballistic missile attacks and the sources there as well.     Flalf Talk  13:50, 22 October 2020 (UTC)


 * @Flalf I checked all the links you listed. Aljazeera wrote: Azerbaijani authorities say Armenia fired a ballistic missile at Ganja city, a claim Yerevan denies.

The other sources only mention the announcement by the Assistant of the President of the Republic of Azerbaijan. That is not a third party source. 2003:CB:B710:2000:2581:380E:39D:9F79 (talk) 14:23, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * There is more than enough photo evidence as well as the fact that Artsakh claimed responsibility. Flalf Talk 15:30, 22 October 2020 (UTC)


 * @Flalf please do not misinterpret the facts. Artsakh has stated that in Ganja there are military objects which we will target. But Artsakh has not stated that it will use a ballistic missile. My point is about the ballistic missile for which you have no evidence.

134.155.146.59 (talk) 17:07, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Third-party sources have confirmed it was a ballistic missile attack. And all of the missiles have struck everything but the airport. --► Sincerely:  Sola Virum  18:06, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You can't just say "third party sources have confirmed" and expect us to take your word for it. Present those sources. So far, every presented source has been Azerbaijan making a claim and Armenia denying it, and not a single third party. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 18:21, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The fact is that Armenian side does not specify everything about the war like other side/sides; (for example, what is the lost settlements), so we must trust to third party sources like BBC (which has been considered as reliable source and has documented as well), Reuters, Al Jazeera, and others.Ahmetlii (talk) 19:59, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but none of those third party sources are third parties in terms of verification of the weapon type used. BBC is reporting that Azerbaijan claims ballistic missiles were used, and reporting that Armenia denies it. Reuters is reporting that Azerbaijan claims ballistic missiles were used, and reporting that Armenia denies it. Al Jazeera id reporting that Azerbaijan claims ballistic missiles were used, and reporting that Armenia denies it. None of these are third party verification of whether a ballistic missile was used. They are just news sources reporting the claims of the involved parties. Do you understand the difference? A third party verification would be something like an OSCE investigation into the matter and determining that ballistic missiles were used. Third party doesn't mean multiple news organizations reporting what each involved side is claiming. Third party is a body separate from the two warring parties conducting an investigation and determining what weapon was used. Until that happens, it's "he said/she said." This is the same standard already applied in other conflicts. In Syria, for example, allegations of government use of chemical weapons by opposition forces aren't taken simply at face value. Rather, third party investigations are conducted by groups such as the OPCW. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 22:03, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Here is a good example of a third party (UK's Telegraph) reporting evidence on cluster munition use by Azerbaijan against Armenia. The headline reads: The Daily Telegraph saw evidence of the banned munitions' use in the capital of Nagorno Karabakh Therefore, I support the above motion to remove the reference to ballistic missiles used by Armenia, unless an independent third party source (similar to the Telegraph piece witnessing evidence firsthand) could be produced by those opposing the request--Sataralynd (talk) 23:00, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Despite the fact that no third party source was mentioned, in the right column of the main page under "Strength" the ballistic missile is still listed. Editors please remove it. 193.196.11.188 (talk) 04:56, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * While I'm not comfortable stating it as fact without independent, third party verification, I'm also not comfortable with just removing it. Simply removing it would be taking the side of the Armenian denial just as much as including it takes the side of the Azerbaijan claim. Instead, I've edited the infobox to state that the ballistic missile use is alleged by Azerbaijan, and leaving it to the reader to decide who to believe. I think that's the most balanced, neutral way we can present it right now. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 14:42, 23 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I am trying to not break 3RR here, but your reverts of my edits are in complete opposite to what has been discussed here on this talk page. The most recent |source you have presented isn't even an attempt at being a third party verification. It's literally a statement from the Azerbaijan Ministry of Defense. That makes it an Azerbaijan allegation, which Armenia has denied. Please justify not stating as such that the ballistic missile use is currently alleged by Azerbaijan, and not confirmed by any third party, or please present third party verification. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 15:26, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That's visual confirmation we've got there. Which Armenia confirmed. So, if footage ain't enough for ya, nothing is. --► Sincerely:  Sola Virum  15:31, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Your second source absolutely does not say that Armenia confirmed they had used ballistic missiles. In fact, the only statement I see in that AP article from Armenia is a report of attacks by Azerbaijan, and that "Nagorno-Karabakh’s forces 'resolutely suppress all enemy operations.'" There is nothing in that article about the use of ballistic missiles, or confirmation of such use. Your "visual evidence" from Azerbaijan is some fuzzy photos that I sure can't tell if they are ballistic missiles, and they aren't ballistic missile impacts on cities. They are not shown in the photos even being fired. They also are not from a verifiable third party source. Do you understand that we can't just take the word of one side over the other without some sort of verification? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 16:11, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * There are pictures, videos, and plenty of other sources that have shown evidence that Armenia is in possession of ballistic missiles, and honestly I would be more surprised if they didn't have any ballistic missiles. We've thrown plenty of sources at you, here's another from an independent third party UK based NGO. Flalf Talk  16:16, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that the infobox isn't simply a list of all of the military equipment each side owns, but what it has actually used. Thus far, no one has presented anything other than Azerbaijan claims that ballistic missiles have been used by Armenia. Actually, correction,, you have actually presented a third party verification source on this. In your source, Amnesty International's Crisis Response team investigators say they have examined evidence that does show (or at least strongly indicate, which I think is good enough for these purposes) that Armenia used ballistic missiles. Your source is the first one that has been presented that is a third party, and not just Azerbaijan claiming one thing, and Armenia claiming another. That is all we were talking about getting this entire time, a third party verification, and you've provided it. With that, I have no problem with the infobox stating Armenia used/has been using ballistic missiles. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 20:47, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * REPOST: Example of a third party evidence Here is a good example of a third party (UK's Telegraph) reporting evidence on cluster munition use by Azerbaijan against Armenia. The headline reads: The Daily Telegraph saw evidence of the banned munitions' use in the capital of Nagorno Karabakh Therefore, I support the above motion to remove the reference to ballistic missiles used by Armenia, unless an independent third party source (similar to the Telegraph piece witnessing evidence firsthand) could be produced by those opposing the request
 * 'Both sources cited by and  don't qualify as evidence by a third party that Armenia'' is using ballistic missiles. They talk about ballistic missiles in generic terms and based on reports that could be by either party. Please provide a third party source not affiliated with the Azeri government who confirmed the use of ballistic missiles. To my knowledge BBC and France24 were in Ganja, you may be able to find on their websites if such confirmation exists--Sataralynd (talk) 00:58, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

People, please: the term "Ballistic" for missiles refers to a high altitude missile that gains supersonic speed on its return journey towards the target. They are outdated, and were largely used to deliver nuclear weapons from the 50s to the 90s. Just call the missile by its name, and drop this "ballistic" nonsense. Ballistic missile.

'''Summary:I went through the thread again to be sure, and there hasn't been a single source provided by a third party who confirmed the use of ballistic missiles by the Armenian side, they just report what Azerbaijan claims. Moreover, the comment just above throws into doubt the practicability of its usage regardless of which side claims it was used against it. Therefore, could I ask you to remove all references to ballistic missiles? If anyone disagrees, please write here first '''providing third party sources confirming the use of the weapon. Don't unilaterally revert the changes'''--Sataralynd (talk) 03:39, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

or or  could you please support? The article is full of references to ballistic missiles used by Armenian side, where all the referenced sources talk about "claims" by the Azerbaijan side that were denied. Further, I started this talk to get third party evidence for their use, and none has been provided. The Article even mentions in the Equipment Losses section that Azerbaijan has destroyed Armenia's R-17 Elbrus systems that were bombing, referencing an Azerbaijan MoD source. The Article is heavily one sided. Could you help please keep the WP:NPOV here? Thank you.--Sataralynd (talk) 04:29, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If its only claimed by Azerbaijan, its just that, a claim by Azerbaijan. It can be mentioned in the article, but needs to be properly and clearly attributed to its source and not presented as fact. Armenian denial, if there is one, should also be added. However, if 3rd party neutral sources confirm it than it can be presented factually I say. EkoGraf (talk) 09:30, 29 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Can the disagreers point out what is wrong with the every link Flaf and Solavirum have provided proving the use of ballistic missiles? I'm having hard time understanding the problem. — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib)  09:49, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Forbes, a plainly non-Armenian and non-Azeri source, states that Armenian troops have in fact used ballistic missiles, but that the issue is whether or not they were launched from Armenian territory. See here .XavierGreen (talk) 13:21, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

POV violation. There is not a single third-party source confirming the use of ballistic missiles. Please, don't make these accusations Wikipedia's voice. Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 20:17, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Inserting arbitrary break here. I think we need to define what we mean by "third party verification" or "non-Armenian and non-Azeri" sources. Additionally, just a reminder to people that when referencing older comments, such as someone saying "no third party sources have been provided," you can't point to a source provided after that comment was made to discredit that comment. That comment was valid when it was made; additional sources can be provided later, but that doesn't mean that older comment was dismissing sources they couldn't know about because they had not been provided. With that, let's get into this.

Being a third party or "non-Armenian and non-Azeri" source doesn't simply mean that it is a website or news source that is based somewhere other than Armenia or Azerbaijan. Yes, BBC is based in London and not Baku, and Forbes is based in Jersey City and not Yerevan, but that on its own does not make them third party sources that confirm or disprove claims by Armenia and Azerbaijan. If all that the BBC is reporting is "Azerbaijan claims X, Armenia claims Y," then the BBC source can only be used to report the claims of one side or the other. It cannot be used to say, definitively, that one side claim is correct just because the claim is being reported by an author in London and not in the Caucasus. That's how we properly use reliable sources, we can use them as sources for what they say, and not what they don't say. If BBC is only reporting that one side has a claim, and another side denies, that's all we can say from the BBC source. Additionally, we cannot use a source that doesn't even mention ballistic missiles at all as evidence of anything about ballistic missiles.

We can also have sources where a news agency explicitly says "X side has used ballistic missiles." That is the source saying that, yes. I hazard against fully calling it third party verification if they don't present the evidence or who made that determination (are they just reporting one side claim and not stating as such? was there an investigation by an independent body?), but I can at least understand treating this as more than just "X side claimed one thing, Y side denied it." Here, I guess we need to go with how trustworthy the source is, and there are pages on Wikipedia discussing this.

Then there are sources that present not just claims and not just statements, but either evidence or stating that it is from an investigation done by something like Amnesty International, OSCE, OPCW, etc. Ideally, this is what we should look for in sourcing these claims, but this can be hard to get while the conflict is ongoing and the attacks so recent. There may not be time yet to conduct that investigation, or it may not be safe for investigators to be on the ground in the region.

Lastly, the worst source is going as a primary source from one side or the other. Photographs and statements from the Azerbaijani Ministry of Defense or the Armenian Ministry of Defense fall in this category. These are not the least bit independent sources and both sides have a strong motivation for painting their opponent in a negative light. There is a saying that "the first casualty of war is the truth." It is not acceptable to treat statements from either belligerent as simple fact. There are editors on this article who have strong pro-Azerbaijani bias and have tried to present their MoD statements as fact, and there are editors with similarly strong Armenian bias. These types of sources can only be used to present what one side or the other is claiming. That is still true even if they present photographs, since most of us here aren't in a position to interpret the veracity of these photographs. If one side presents photos of supposed missile launchers that, to the untrained eye, just look like trucks, we have to be careful. Even if they are clearly mobile TELs for missiles, we have to be careful on whether they actually are what is claimed (are they really Armenian mobile TELs, or are they photos of someone else's? are they really photos of anything in Armenia at all, or somewhere else?) Again, the first casualty of war is the truth. We can treat these types of sources as claims by one side only until there is third party verification, and that verification is NOT just a BBC article reporting on one of the two MoDs releasing photographs (unless the BBC has presented some sort of expert analysis supporting the claim).

I don't know how many people here are old enough to remember the run up to the Iraq War and the 2003 invasion, but one of the big things that happened was US presenting "evidence" to the UN of chemical weapons or chemical weapons manufacturing capability that supposedly existed in Iraq. Secretary of State Colin Powell even presented photographs of supposed chemical weapons facilities and evidence of mobile chemical weapons labs that were in trucks. Many at the time believed it, but these turned out to be false. At best, they turned out to be claims from barely a handful of intelligence "sources" highly biased against the then Iraqi government, and at worst they were flat out lies. When these trucks were found, for example, they turned out to be perfectly legal hydrogen generation facilities for weather balloons, and not chemical weapons labs. The US never had real third party verification; in fact, third parties (such as UN weapons inspectors) in the run up to that war flat out said the US evidence was false.

Let's breakdown the provided sources: That is all of the sources that have been presented during this discussion. Of the 10 or so presented sources, almost all of them can only be used as in this article to say "one side claims X, the other denies it," and some don't even meet the standard for that. Some don't even present anything about ballistic missiles at all, and several are from belligerent or belligerent adjacent state run sources. One source present third party verification of ballistic missile use, but not who used it or what the targets were. One final source seems to actually meet the standard of saying anything factually, and it was only presented today. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 20:20, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * provided a BBC source that never mentions ballistic missiles, so is not evidence of ballistic missiles (again, it doesn't matter that the BBC is in London if it doesn't even mention ballistic missiles)
 * provided sources from Al Jazeera stating that Azerbaijan claimed Armenia used ballistic missiles, and Armenia denied it. It doesn't matter that Al Jazeera is based in Qatar, it can only be used as a source that one side claims one thing, and the other denies it.
 * provided an RIA source reporting on the claim by Azerbaijan. All it can be used is to report the claim by the president of Azerbaijan.
 * provided an Anadolu source reporting on the claim by the Azerbaijan General Prosecutor of ballistic missile use, and the Armenian denial (this source is also questionable as it uses words like "vile" to describe Armenia; it is definitely one sided, and is from a Turkish state run news agency, and Turkey is very much on the Azeri side in this conflict)
 * again provides a TRT World which presents the claims of the Azerbaijan government, and again is questionable in how it presents both sides, and again is a Turkish state run news source
 * presents a source from the Telegraph. It is behind a paywall and I cannot read it, but Sataralynd describes it as not being about ballistic missile use, so cannot be used as a source for that. If Sataralynd is describing it correctly (I can only take their word on that since it is behind a paywall), it is an actual third party source in that it claims that its reporters are on the ground in the conflict and have personally seen evidence of Azerbaijani use of cluster munitions, but, again, that's not relevant to the claim on ballistic missiles. (I also note that Sataralynd suggested the term "ballistic missile" is an outdated term for nuclear weapon delivering weapons from the 1950s to 90s, but this is plainly false as at least as far back as V-2 rockets in the 40s, SCUDs at various times up to the present, and many other instances of conventional use of ballistic missiles exist)
 * at various points just states "third party sources say X," often without providing any sources at all (we can't just take your word for it, that's not how this works) and eventually presents the Azerbaijan Ministry of Defense as a source. That in no way meets the definition of third party. It's essentially a primary source, and can only be used to state what the MoD is claiming. I've previously discussed the issue with using the photo evidence that they or their Armenian counterparts provide. (I also note that Solavirum has done some personal attacks in edit summaries and comments, including accusing me of "disruptive editing" when I made only a single edit to this article, and it was after talk page discussion in this very section for at least a day)
 * presented an AP source they claimed to have photographic evidence in support of the ballistic missile claim, but it isn't. It's photos of damage from the way, certainly, but in no way says how that damage occurred, and the text of the article never says anything about ballistic missiles (it does say that the Azerbaijani side claims Armenian missiles, but it does not present third party verification of what type of weapon was used, or even claim the missiles were ballistic, so it is just a claim by one side saying "missiles"). The photos are tragic, but they don't tell us whether ballistic missiles or artillery or or air-to-ground missiles or any number of other weapons were used.
 *  presented an Amnesty International source claiming their investigators had found evidence ballistic missile use (as well as indiscriminate use of artillery against civilians). This is third party verification. I may have jumped the gun in immediately accepting this, as technically it doesn't say which side used what weapon. Perhaps that is splitting hairs; as far as I have found, only Armenia even has ballistic missiles and Azerbaijan does not, but that would violate to use as fact and claim this prove Armenia used ballistic missiles. Still, at the point that  presented this source, it was the first source that wasn't just one side claiming one thing, and the other side denying it, the first third party source.
 *  today presented a Forbes article that is incredibly specific overall in its sourcing, its evidence for what weapons have been used, who has attacked what, who has broken cease fires, etc. This source does seem very definitive. It states that Armenian Scud and Tochka ballistic missiles have been fired at Azerbaijani cities. I do wish it was a little more specific on the Armenian ballistic missile info (which is somewhat less specific than much of the other information in the article), but given how strong the evidence overall in the article is, I'm willing to accept it. Among its sources is an article from The Drive, which also presents evidence that Azerbaijan has used Israeli made LORA ballistic missiles to attack at least a bridge, so it would seem that both sides have now used ballistic missiles.

I apologize for how long that was, but, you asked "disagreers" to point out what was wrong with every single link, so there you go. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 20:40, 29 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the rigorous analysis. The source from Telegraph as you say was not used to support the ballistic missile use claim. It was used as an example of a third party source verifying evidence. I understand it may not be accessible to all. A day after my post, Human Rights Watch issued the following report on the same topic, which to me is unambiguous. Further I didn't make a comment about ballistic missiles being outdated. It was done by another user who didn't sign their edit (see here). I agree about the falsity of that claim.
 * Regarding the Amnesty International piece, I think the fact that it is making a general claim about evidence of ballistic use, doesn't warrant to assume it means both sides have used it, or worse synthesize that because there is evidence of possession on one side over the other, then they used it. Similarly, I would press the point that the Forbes piece and The Drive piece it mentions albeit well researched in general, cannot be used as presenting third party evidence of Armenian side's use of ballistic missiles against Azerbaijan, especially compared to the rigour of the HRW piece on cluster bombs. There seem to be evidence of ballistic missile possession (Iskander-E, Tochka-U, and Scud) by Armenians, but no evidence of use. Thank you again for the hard work--Sataralynd (talk) 21:47, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I had provided a DW source and an Azerbaijani MoD source with visual confirmation of R-17 Elbrus. Throughout the article, including the map, we've used visual confirmation. I don't know what's wrong with such thing. --► Sincerely:  Sola Virum  12:47, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Did I mention to you that you need to provide sources? Ok so here is the only DW source on this page and it doesn't mention the word ballistic. Just in case this is a mistake, I searched dw.com for articles on the topic that includes ballistic and the only one that came up is this, talking about a claim (no evidence). The MoD source needs to be bolstered by a third party evidence and cannot stand on its own--Sataralynd (talk) 04:15, 31 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Summary: to my reading there is not a single piece of evidence that the Armenian side has used ballistic missile up to this point in this conflict. Most of the sources talk about claims from the Azerbaijani side, and the couple of sources that mention ballistic missile (Forbes and TheDrive) only talk about their availability on the Armenian side and not their use. If anyone has Reliable third party SOURCE that confirms evidence of ballistic missile use by Armenia or NK forces against Azerbaijan, please present it. Please don't just write a comment for the sake of writing to push your POV. Bring in a source, and for reference cite the line you think is evidence for all to review, and if valid it would remain in the article. Otherwise, I would ask ALL ballistic missile references to be removed from this article for the sake of WP:NPOV.--Sataralynd (talk) 02:58, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay. I will do it in other articles as well like Barda ballistic missile attacks and 2020 Ganja ballistic missile attacks. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 09:04, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes please. Up until today not a single piece of evidence has been presented on the question of ballistic missile use by Armenian forces--Sataralynd (talk) 05:54, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Further to my comment above, please see here commentary of the use of Azerbaijan of ballistic missiles against Armenia, whereas the article, which is published in a military journal claims how Armenia's use of non ballistic missiles like Tochka-U and Scud-B is affecting its ability to target military targets. Here are the relevant citations:

Azerbaijan's use of ballistic missiles: One of the more notable events of the conflict was Azerbaijan’s use of an Israeli-made LORA ballistic missile to target a bridge on the Akari river connecting Armenia with Nagorno-Karabakh, complicating Armenia’s transfer of reinforcements to the front.

Armenia's use of non-ballistic missiles which is hindering its ability to target with precision: '''Armenia’s response illustrates the difference in effect. Armenia used Tochka-U and Scud-B missiles, with respective CEPs of 150 and 900 metres against cities such as Ganja and Mingachevir, as they were unable to target specific military targets. '''

Therefore, we need to remove references to ballistic missile use by Armenia in the Article, as again I reiterate there is not a single piece of evidence of use of ballistic missiles by Armenia, against mounting evidence of use by Azerbaijan. Please also add the above example of Azerbaijan's use of LORA to target the Akari river bridge, in the Military equipment section--Sataralynd (talk) 06:47, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, it seems like I was a bit busy, but now I will be able to remove these claims. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 15:33, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I see it is much more balanced now and aligned to WP:NPOV--Sataralynd (talk) 19:12, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

IAGS open letter
I have drafted the following text to include in War crimes > Azerbaijan subsection, feel free to comment with improvement suggestions: '''On 22th October 2020, International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS) issued an open letter, describing the air raids conducted by the Azerbaijani military on October 8 and 9 on Shushi Holy Savior Cathedral as a part of policy of the “cultural genocide that the Azerbaijani government has been implementing over the past 30 years by systematically destroying the Armenian historical heritage”. .'''
 * For the editors of this article, IAGS is a global, interdisciplinary, non-partisan organization that seeks to further research and teaching about the nature, causes, and consequences of genocide, and advance policy studies on genocide prevention. The Association, founded in 1994, meets regularly to consider comparative research, important new work, case studies, the links between genocide and other human rights violations, and prevention and punishment of genocide. The Association holds biennial conferences and co-publishes the scholarly journal Genocide Studies and Prevention. A central aim of the Association is to draw academics, activists, artists, genocide survivors, journalists, jurists, public policy makers, and other colleagues into the interdisciplinary study of genocide, with the goal of prevention.
 * Here are is Google Scholar search for articles mentioning them: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?lookup=0&q=International+Association+of+Genocide+Scholars&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5 Armatura (talk) 18:03, 28 October 2020 (UTC)


 * And under what convention is this a war crime? — CuriousGolden</b> (talk·contrib) </b> 18:21, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't get the question. Are you contesting that genocide is a crime, whether a genocide during war is a war crime or whether cultural genocide is a form of genocide? "Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Approved and proposed for signature and ratification or accession by General Assembly resolution 260 A (III) of 9 December 1948 entry into force 12 January 1951, in accordance with article XIII, Article 1 -"The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish."  If you have a better location in the article for IAGS letter, please suggest. Armatura (talk) 18:44, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Only thing I can understand from your comment is that IAGS thinks that damaging a single church is a cultural "genocide". Not going to talk about how that's wrong yet, but under what convention is cultural genocide a war crime (FYI cultural genocide is obviously not same as a human genocide)?
 * Edit: Oh God. Just read the article and what a mess. Just going to put only some of the wild sentences from the article here for readers to realize the level of the article.
 * "Furthermore, it is documented that Turkish armed forces and air forces directly participate in hostilities."
 * "..a substantial number of mercenaries identifying as jihadists from Syria and Libya, and likely also from Afghanistan and Pakistan.."
 * "The objective of the Azerbaijani-Turkish bandits is not about claiming territory."
 * "consequently recognizing of the independence of the Republic of Artsakh is the way to save Armenians of Artsakh from extermination now or in the near future"
 * And again, them being quoted in some articles/books does not make everything they publish reliable. So much for an "objective" NGO. <b style="color:#D4AF37">Curious</b><b style="color:#D4AF37">Golden</b> (talk·contrib) </b> 18:59, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comment. I understand you don't share the statements in their letter, and I can see you naturally don't share any statements that are showing actions of Azerbaijan under negative light. However, apart from emotions, I see no concrete argument against the suggested addition (so far). To me, your argument amounts to WP:IJDLI. As for the "mess", I would like to cite "Try not to get too intense. Passion can be misread as aggression, so take great care to avoid the appearance of being heavy-handed or bossy." part of Civility policy. Thank you. Armatura (talk) 19:25, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Firstly, WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH, not even going to reply to the first 3 rude sentences of yours which are violation of WP:CIVILITY which you love to cite so much. Secondly, calling every reply which points out mistakes and asks questions (which you haven't replied to yet) a "no concrete argument" and "just emotions" is in itself a violation of WP:IJDLI. Answer the questions I've asked in a normal manner and reply to the points I've raised to reach a consensus rather than making comments about policies, all of which you yourself broke in a single comment. — <b style="color:#D4AF37">Curious</b><b style="color:#D4AF37">Golden</b> (talk·contrib) </b> 19:39, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I did not call you rude, but you did. I did not call the materials you add a "mess", but you did. Good faith is something I always assume first, then that faith changes based on what I see. I can see no questions of yours about my this suggestion, only a monologue about how all the signed scholar's statement and their scientific achievements are not worth a dime. I already answered your question about the Genocide Convention. What other questions do you have? Regards Armatura (talk) 19:47, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't call you rude. I called your comments about me rude, which they were. I did not call things you did a "mess", I called the article you shared a "mess". Not sure how calling the article a mess is rude to you. If you look a little bit above my "monologue", you can see the question I asked. And again, that "monologue" is to show what I think of the article and why I don't think it's reliable nor unbiased, if you don't think it's biased, then that's your own opinion and I respect it. Just as you should respect mine. — <b style="color:#D4AF37">Curious</b><b style="color:#D4AF37">Golden</b> (talk·contrib) </b> 19:57, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * What is generally perceived as cultural genocide you can read in Cultural genocide. The church has not been accidentally damaged, it has been targeted, TWICE within 24 hours, with great precision, and with people inside. As TASS journalist Saadat Kadirova said "мочить их в сортире". It does not matter whether it was 1 church or 1000 churches, it doesn't even matter that to Artsakh that church is what Westminster Abbey is to UK. What matters is intentional destruction of cultural heritage of a nation, to hurt it, and that church is cultural heritage of Armenian nation, and that is what these genocide scholars make a point about. Provide a respectable source in the same weight category as IAGS that says it is not an act of genocide, and I will respect that opinion on the same scale as the letter of IAGS. Armatura (talk) 20:18, 28 October 2020 (UTC)


 * to say that the attack "was intended" is your own WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. As far as I'm concerned, even the Armenian side might have shot that place, accidentally, or not. Furthermore, if we have to go with your assumption, the Armenians have been intentionally striking Ganja's densely populated places for the 5th time with ballistic missiles, intentionally. --► Sincerely:  Sola Virum  02:05, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * One is entitled to have conspiracy theories and irrational concerns, it's a free world. I have not touched Ganja's subject at all, and I have no reason to think that it is Azerbaijan shelling its own city, I hope Azerbaijani people are better than that. A consensus of genocide scholars is backing the claim that the church was targeted rather than accidentally damaged, otherwise there would be no such letter at all. You are welcome to provide your published third party reliable sources, if there are any. Armatura (talk) 02:55, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Jesus Christ. I hope Azerbaijani people are better than that, you've got no limits. --► Sincerely:  Sola Virum  03:09, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The "Armenian side might have shot their own holy place (the seat of the Diocese of Artsakh)" was obviously a very "reserved" phrase to write. I don't want to bring a similar example on a mosque, out of respect for cultural and religious feelings Armatura (talk) 03:23, 29 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Support I support this addition. It's a legit organization making the statement. Expertwikiguy (talk) 03:13, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support inclusion in article. Notable organization, probably in "Reactions" or if the church's attack is already mentioned. I would separately like to nominate the rhetorical question "under what convention is cultural genocide a war crime" to be archived for posterity. Juxlos (talk) 03:18, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Provided links are not reliable. If we want to cover deliberate attack to religious centers by Azerbaijan for sake of objectivery, Armenians converting Aghdam Jamia Mosque Pigsty needs to be addressed . Mirhasanov (talk) 08:05, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * To address the mosque it would have to be claimed, or proven, by a reliable third-party source that the Armenians intentionally moved pigs into the mosque. What we know for sure is that pigs were in the mosque - we do not know how they ended up in there. I would be happy with including the claim about the Armenian cathedral if it is represented as a statement by Genocide Watch but not as absolute fact. Of note is some additional context which supports the Genocide Watch claim - the destruction of Armenian khachkars in Azeri territory during peacetime - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_cemetery_in_Julfa --LOLCaatz (talk) 09:43, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The reason this thing would be notable to include into the article is not particularly the event itself but the fact that an important third party reacted to it. Also LOLCaatz what you just said is so ridiculous I don't even know how to reply to that. <em style="font-family:Lucida;color:Indigo">Flalf <em style="font-family:Lucida;color:Indigo">Talk 17:09, 29 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Support the IAGS addition. Not sure why are we talking about the Agdham mosque which dates back to 1992. It has nothing to do with the present conflict, as opposed to the church bombing--Sataralynd (talk) 13:13, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Support per Juxlos Deprecated source <em style="font-family:Lucida;color:Indigo">Flalf <em style="font-family:Lucida;color:Indigo">Talk 14:54, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * it seems pretty reasonable to me, if you could point out what is ridiculous I can address it. I'm comparing mirhasanov's example - where the sole source is one video of pigs inside a mosque with absolutely no context of how they got there - with the statement by IAGS which is still an opinion, but from a relevant third party source as multiple people above have stated. Of course it would not work if we just stated their claim as fact "there is a cultural genocide going on" and put that in the article but what would work is if we said something like "IAGS claims that this represents part of a larger cultural genocide". The cemetery I mentioned isn't relevant to the article but I thought it was relevant to the current discussion as it is a historical example of the deliberate destruction of Armenian culture which might also fall under the category of "cultural genocide". --LOLCaatz (talk) 03:48, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I think neither the IAGS thing, from an unreliable source, or the pigs thing should be included in the aryicle. Since this discussion isn't productive I won't spend more time on it, I just think your argument on 'the pigs were just there' was a bit ridiculous. Sorry if bothered you. <em style="font-family:Lucida;color:Indigo">Flalf <em style="font-family:Lucida;color:Indigo">Talk 12:56, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It's fine, if anything I explained my point of view poorly in my first message. I am also happy if neither claim is included as they are not particularly relevant to the article itself. --LOLCaatz (talk) 00:32, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Oppose Open letter by International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS). What you have mentioned is only published on site called voltairenet.org which from content of the site it is clear that not independent. I tried to find the letter in the official site https://genocidescholars.org/publications/ but unfortunately was not able. Could you please show direct link where the organization officially published the letter? I guess if it is true we must refer to original site not to some third side which is doing armenian propaganda content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirhasanov (talk • contribs) 05:52, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose – an easy one, as the source is deprecated for use on Wikipedia per WP:RSP. I can't see any other copies of the letter elsewhere on the internet, which leads me to strongly question its veracity. I suggest an uninvolved editor closes this discussion. Jr8825  •  Talk  19:26, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

More third party reports on IAGS' take on the conflict here--Sataralynd (talk) 02:56, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That link took me to pure unrelated chaos. <em style="font-family:Lucida;color:Indigo">Flalf <em style="font-family:Lucida;color:Indigo">Talk 16:16, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Dears, considering that there is not reliable source provided under this topic, shall we consider this section as closed and star work on other sections? Please put your voting as Agreed in below:

Agreed to close the topic and remove relevant wording or information. Mirhasanov (talk) 08:49, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I have removed that IAGS sentence a few days ago already. However, the Genocide Watch has published the IAGS letter here https://www.genocidewatch.com/single-post/statement-of-genocide-scholars-on-the-%C4%B1mm%C4%B1nent-genocidal-threat-%C4%B1n-artsakh. It is not a hoax. One reason that may explain why it is not available on IAGS website itself is that their website is undergoing maintenance works as stated on their website. Any opposition for including it now? Regards,  Armatura (talk) 12:36, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

interesting that you found it on GW. I am ok with including it.--Sataralynd (talk) 04:30, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I'd be grateful if somebody could add it back with Genocide Watch reference, please. I'm left with a phone only. Armatura (talk) 20:23, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Dear all, I recently got an official email from IAGS confirming that no official statement was released by organization about this issue. What is the way to share it ? if Genocide Watch starting publish things that is not officially confirmed that means the side itself maintained by unprofessional people. For that reason I continuously underpin that we shouldn't refer to GW as they are not acting professional and independent 3rd party organization.

I am offering to remove GW references as this site can't be trusted as 3rd independent party. Mirhasanov (talk) 04:58, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * your personal email communication cannot neither be used as evidence, even if it was possible to share it here. Armatura (talk) 22:03, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Here is the president of IAGS confirming that the letter is legit. Please add it to the Article and close this thread--Sataralynd (talk) 13:36, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That one you mentioned is IAGS' president letter to IAGS members, though. It has a lot of important points, any particular sentences that you think are worth citing? Armatura (talk) 22:03, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

GW removed the three reports from their website. I propose to remove all the section on them because the topic can't be referenced properly:

Genocide Watch has described the situation as a "genocide emergency" for Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh, citing Azerbaijan's current targeting of civilians in Nagorno-Karabakh, denial of past genocide against Armenians, and its official use of hate speech as factors leading to their assessment.[482][483][484][unreliable source?] While for Azerbaijanis, GW has described that current Armenian and Artsakh governments deny involvement in past crimes against Azerbaijanis, erase their history from Armenian textbooks, preventing Azerbaijani IDP's the right to return to their former homes and villages, and denial of war crimes such as the Khojaly massacre and the current shelling of Azerbaijani civilians.[485][unreliable source?]

improper quotes
Under minorities abroad there is :

'''Amid tensions among protesters over Nagorno-Karabakh, dozens of Turks and Azeris marched through the streets of Lyon, France on on 28th October 2020 and chanted pro-Erdogan slogans while threatening Armenians. Some of their chants included "Allah Akbar", “Where are you Armenians? Where are you? We are here… sons of bitches”, and "fuck Armenia, we will fuck you."['''

I believe these quotes serves no purpose, if you agree, could someone please remove.
 * Unsigned user, there is already a discussion about that march in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2020_Nagorno-Karabakh_conflict#About_Lyon Regards, Armatura (talk) 19:47, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Now that the above discussion is closed, i am bringing my point again as it asn't been adressed. I beleive the quotes from the protesters serve no purpose here and are innapropriate to the tone of the article. (sorry for not signing or improper formating, first time getting involved in wikipedia and i am not really understanding the formating part yet) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:4F00:903:A202:4CE2:958D:BDB0:23CB (talk) 16:11, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

No worries about signature, just put four ~ symbols side by side at the end of your messages. I'd encourage to get registered and to log in as well. As for those phrases, the behaviour of the mob was improper, not the citation. Regards  Armatura (talk) 17:54, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

More on Genocide Watch
Genocide Watch, which was cited in the article, says that Armenia is at Stage 8, Persecution, and Stage 10, Denial. It cites The First Armenian Republic's discriminatory policies against non-Armenians, namely Muslim Azerbaijanis and Kurds, who were systematically expelled. Also, it mentions the Armenian Dashnaks massacring Azerbaijani and Kurdish people and burned villages from 1918 to 1921. In addition, in March 1918, Armenians and their Bolshevik allies killed over 10,000 Azerbaijanis in Baku, during the "March Days" in Azerbaijan. Genocide Watch then mentions the fact that from 1947-1953, the ''Armenian Soviet Socialist Republic carried out a policy of ‘ethnic homogenization' by deporting Kurds and Azerbaijanis from Armenian territory. Over 40,000 Azerbaijanis were expelled to the Azerbaijan Soviet Socialist Republic. "Armenianization" depopulated and renamed abandoned Azerbaijani villages, towns, and cultural landmarks. Out of a population of 180,000 in 1989, only a handful of ethnic Azerbaijanis are still living in Armenia''. The organization then continues to the late 1980s, stating that ''from 1988 to 1994, over 600,000 ethnic Azerbaijani and Kurdish civilians fled Artsakh. These people now live as internally displaced people in squalid camps throughout A­­­­zerbaijan''. Another interesting quote is this: ''During the Artsakh war of independence from 1988-1994, Armenian forces frequently executed Azerbaijani civilians and looted their property. The worst instance of violence against the Azerbaijanis occurred in Khojaly when Armenian forces shot hundreds of Azerbaijan civilians fleeing from their destroyed village in 1992''. It also stated that the ''current Armenian and Artsakh governments deny involvement in past crimes against Azerbaijanis and erase their history from Armenian textbooks. Armenian and Artsakh authorities deny Azerbaijani IDP's the right to return to their former homes and villages. Artsakh artillery targets Azerbaijani civilians living along the "Line of Contact" between Nagorno-Karabakh and Azerbaijan''. It also says that Armenia denies Khojaly massacre and other crimes against Azerbaijanis, and is currently shelling Azerbaijani civilians.

This is noteworthy addition for the sake of neutrality. Here's the link for the article. --► Sincerely:  Sola Virum  20:10, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , may you look at this? --► Sincerely:  Sola Virum  20:12, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps as background info. Only the section about first war. Beshogur (talk) 20:19, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , there's a slight chance that you've misunderstood me. See this section. --► Sincerely:  Sola Virum  20:37, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, understood. Done. Beshogur (talk) 22:26, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Protests in Yerevan; parliament speaker lynched
I think we should add what's going on in Yerevan. Armenia's parliament speaker Ararat Mirzoyan was just lynched. Sources: 1, 2 --► Sincerely:  Sola Virum  00:47, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Sources in English will probably follow the news, if correct. --Governor Sheng (talk) 01:14, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * There ya go: protests, local quasi-official media on Ararat. --► Sincerely:  Sola Virum  01:44, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You need to be more careful with the words you use because that is not what lynching means sir. The sources do not say he has been killed so he has not been lynched. BCEVERYWHERE (talk) 07:37, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

I have videos of us outside pashinyan office at about 4-5am. I don't know how to upload it though. 2A02:2A57:173D:0:94C:8AD0:C456:3178 (talk) 09:54, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , you have to go here and upload it. Maybe it can be a bit complex for you being your first time, so you could use the basic upload method in which the only thing required is to give the file a name. Other users can take care of the rest. Oh and you need an account to upload files, IPs aren't allowed to. Super   Ψ   Dro  11:00, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

The lead is pushing a POV
"It was the latest escalation of the unresolved conflict over the territory, which is internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan, but mostly governed by Artsakh, a breakaway state with an Armenian ethnic majority of 99.7%."

Why should this be in the lead? It literally the second sentence of the article. I believe that this sentence itself avoids the fact that as opposed to Nagorno-Karabakh, its surrounding territories were occupied too, with Azerbaijani majority. In fact, if we look at the stats, more than a double number of Azerbaijanis became refugees than the whole population of Nagorno-Karabakh. I suggest altering the text. , and, what do you think about this? --► Sincerely:  Sola Virum  17:17, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The sentence may be overly long, we can shorten it like "It was the latest escalation of the unresolved conflict over the territory, which is internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan, but mostly governed by Artsakh" or "It was the latest escalation of the unresolved conflict over the territory, which is internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan, but mostly governed by the breakaway state of Artsakh". Since Artsakh is already wikilinked in the opening sentence, the reader can find all relevant details in that article itself. Brandmeistertalk  17:25, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn’t write this, but shouldn’t we include somewhere that the reason the first war happened was because ethnic conflict over the Armenians in de jure Azerbaijani land? <em style="font-family:Lucida;color:Indigo">Flalf <em style="font-family:Lucida;color:Indigo">Talk 19:24, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I've removed 99.7%, tweaked the wording to 'region' to avoid suggesting the conflict is restricted the former NKAO, and rewritten the footnote on demographics in the late Soviet era. I believe this resolves any POV issues here. The rest of the sentence is accurate and provides a valuable, succinct summary to the reader. The surrounding Azeri-majority districts are mentioned and explained in 1) the linked article within this sentence 2) the footnote 3) the final paragraph of the lead 4) the second paragraph of the background 5) the infobox. This seems more than sufficient to me. I think the background section already does a good job of explaining the context of the conflict and first war.
 * As an aside, I think we should be very wary whenever population statistics from 1988 onwards are included in this topic area, as they are ideal for POV pushing. The various pogroms, expulsions and conflict-driven exoduses skew the numbers towards whichever group is dominating at a specific time. (It works both ways; for example, Artsakh was 99.7% Armenian after 1994 & before the latest war, while in 1989, 98% of Shusha's population was Azeri – because the significant Armenian minority had been driven out in 1988.) Jr8825  •  Talk  20:13, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Just to confirm, were your concerns about this sentence resolved, ? Jr8825 •  Talk  14:56, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes. Thank you for your time. --► Sincerely:  Sola Virum  17:31, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Who asked for peace?
I did not find who requested peace. Can anyone find it and add it to the article as well as to 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh ceasefire agreement. Veverve (talk) 09:12, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , I haven't seen any mention of this kind of information in coverage so far. While it may be published at some point, it's possible that this information may not be available until much later, when historians publish academic texts on the conflict. signed,Rosguill talk 18:24, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Please remove link to Syunik from the Course of the Conflict > Ceasefire Agreement Section
The words "strip of Armenian land" in the second paragraph is linked to Syunik Province article in the south of Armenia. It is an incorrect link--Sataralynd (talk) 04:14, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I think this is the correct link, but it wasn't particularly well written (and the ceasefire doesn't specify where any transport corridor between Azerbaijan and Nakhchivan would be) so I've rephrased it (through → separated). Jr8825  •  Talk  08:46, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * .I see how you edited it, but it is confusing to a reader who doesn't know the geography as the width of Syunik is more than 50km. Further, there is no information about the location of the access, which you are assuming to be close to Iran > WP:ORIGINAL. Please edit as follows:
 * Additionally, Azerbaijan is to gain passage to its Nakhchivan exclave through the Armenian province of Syunik, which separates West Azerbaijan from Nakhchivan.--Sataralynd (talk) 01:04, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It looks like this text has been reworded anyway per summary style and the details have been split off to the ceasefire article, so the issue should be resolved. Jr8825  •  Talk  22:19, 15 November 2020 (UTC)