Talk:Second Nagorno-Karabakh War/Archive 3

Remove image
The main image of the article is literally pornographic Alondon17 (talk) 09:06, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Some Azerbaijani troll, probably.--78.102.53.207 (talk) 09:09, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Inappropriate photo of the conflict
The Picture of the map showing the scope of the conflict had been replaced with a picture from Kim K‘s sex tape. This is inappropriate and should be rectified as soon as possible.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 September 2020
Belligerents section indicates Syrian/Lebanese volunteers are sided with Armenia and Artsakh, which is wrong. Indicated references to the information clearly state the opposite, that Syrian mercenaries have been deployed in Azerbaijan.

Further credible referencing can be added, as such:

Reuters The Guardian BBC Turkish BBC Arabic BBC Russian

Thank you in advance, --Շահէն (talk) 19:42, 30 September 2020 (UTC) Շահէն (talk) 19:42, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. GreaterPonce665  (TALK) 19:25, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 September 2020
Greece expressed readiness to contribute to the efforts to de-escalate the crisis and condemned any third-party interference that stokes tensions, urging Turkey to abstain from actions and statements in that direction. GevHev4 (talk) 16:51, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — Yours, Berrely  • Talk∕Contribs 18:27, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

"Alleged" Syrian TFSA mercenaries are really there, with proof from different non biased sources
Even The Guardian and France has reported about it https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/sep/30/nagorno-karabakh-at-least-three-syrian-fighters-killed https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/10/1/macron-says-syrian-fighters-operating-in-karabakh https://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/world/2020/10/01/Evidence-Syrian-fighters-traveled-through-Turkey-to-Karabakh-France-s-Macron — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.251.34.18 (talk) 19:05, 1 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Agreed. It's no longer "alleged" involvement of Syrian mercenaries fighting on the side of the Turks/Azerbaijanis. It seems that there is overwhelming evidence and consensus of the involvement of these mercenaries. Time to make it official on here:


 * The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/sep/30/nagorno-karabakh-at-least-three-syrian-fighters-killed


 * The Foreign Ministry of Russia: https://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/news/-/asset_publisher/cKNonkJE02Bw/content/id/4363834


 * Foreign Ministry of Iran: https://www.khabaronline.ir/news/1438346


 * France: https://in.reuters.com/article/armenia-azerbaijan-putin-macron/france-accuses-turkey-of-sending-syrian-mercenaries-to-nagorno-karabakh-idINKBN26M4VE?il=0


 * BBC Arabic: "Armenia and Azerbaijan: BBC Arabic talks to Syrian fighters on the line of fire between the two countries": https://www.bbc.com/arabic/middleeast-54346711


 * Riam Dalati (BBC Syria journalist): https://twitter.com/Dalatrm/status/1311223993903599618
 * https://twitter.com/dalatrm/status/1311269228738207745


 * Hussein Akoush (Syrian contributor for the Guardian, the Telegraph, TRT): https://twitter.com/HousseinAk/status/1310978787014840324?s=09


 * Reuters: "Turkey deploying Syrian fighters to help ally Azerbaijan, two fighters say" https://www.reuters.com/article/us-armenia-azerbaijan-turkey-syria/turkey-deploying-syrian-fighters-to-help-ally-azerbaijan-two-fighters-say-idUSKBN26J25APreservedmoose (talk) 19:24, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * None of these sources show proof, but just statements from so-called SNA fighters and leaders in Syria. --► Sincerely:  Sola Virum  19:28, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait, so what do you want...you need video of a dead jihadi saying that he died in Karabakh fighting for Azerbaijan? You have NUMEROUS sources, including governments of Iran, Russia, and France all saying that mercenaries from Syria are being utilized by Turkey/Azerbaijan in this war. I'm not sure what level of proof/consensus you need. Are you waiting on Turkey or Azerbaijan to confirm? You're telling me that The Guardian isn't accepted as a legitimate source for this but Daily Sabah is fine?Preservedmoose (talk) 19:39, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , gosh you've been nitpicking Daily Sabah for days now. We require material source for it. Otherwise, just allegations. You are using "proof" and "coverage/source" as the same. Don't. --► Sincerely:  Sola Virum  20:07, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * What "material source" is there in the Daily Sabah articles? You have multiple government bodies confirming the Syrian mercs' involvement. Yes, I rail against Daily Sabah and proudly, they are the mouthpiece of a dictator and have been labeled as spreading hate. Might as well cite Stormfront as an authority.Preservedmoose (talk) 20:32, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Lmao. --► Sincerely:  Sola Virum  21:04, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Based on the fact 3rd party, neutral and reliable media outlets are reporting on Syrian fighter involvement on the side of Azerbaijan I would agree that their involvement is no longer just alleged. Azerbaijan can deny their involvement and we can note this in the infobox, but considering they are one of the belligerents their denial should not be considered more factual (warranting the "alleged" wording) than what the 3rd party sources are reporting. EkoGraf (talk) 01:04, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Status of 'Syrian mercenaries' in infobox
The United States Pentagon has confirmed the existance of Syrian mercenaries from Turkish-backed various rebel factions in use by Azerbaijan through Turkish security companies. This is no longer an 'alleged' claim made alone by Armenia, and has been corroborated by both Syrian sources such as the SOHR and anonymous Syrians, foreign media such as BBC Arabic and CNN, and now foreign intelligence agencies. I recommened we made Syrian mercenaries one of the recognized belligerents in this conflict. The evidence is outstanding and dear Wikipedia editors, you must understand some countries (in this case Turkey) lie. https://edition.cnn.com/2020/10/01/middleeast/azerbaijan-armenia-syrian-rebels-intl/index.html https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/evidence-mounts-that-turkey-recruited-syrians-to-fight-armenia-644078 By contrast, we should give no basis for the "Kurdish PKK/YPG" involvement on Armenian side, because those claims lack any evidence and Turkey is known to justify military action by associating their political enemies with their arch-enemy - the PKK. User178198273998166172 (talk) 20:51, 01 October 2020 (UTC)


 * This is a completely reasonable stance that most academics, third party observers, and people on here agree with. However, a certain user, who like accusing others of violating wikipedia norms, while simultaneously violating them, while refuse this edit. This will be changed in time, however due to the actions of this user, the academic and third party consensus won't be displayed. This user will defer and say Azerbaijan's claims are just as valid as Armenia's claims, but completely neglects the fact we are not talking about Armenia's claims, but rather claims of reputable third parties and the international consensus. We will have to wait a couple week before this user (who by their edit history has a clear bias towards one of the parties in the conflict) can finally be side-stepped. Sorry, this is not up to wikipedia standard, but unfortunately it won't be for a bit.Dvtch (talk) 20:31, 1 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I support this change. Its an open secret at this point. F.Alexsandr (talk) 20:38, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I support it too. Super   Ψ   Dro  20:41, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support the change as well. As I said in an earlier section, based on the fact 3rd party, neutral and reliable media outlets are reporting on Syrian fighter involvement on the side of Azerbaijan I agree that their involvement is no longer just alleged. Azerbaijan can deny their involvement and we can note this in the infobox, but considering they are one of the belligerents their denial should not be considered more factual (warranting the "alleged" wording) than what the 3rd party sources are reporting. EkoGraf (talk) 01:07, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 October 2020
Syrian Army is not on Azerbaijan side. 94.54.232.34 (talk) 20:40, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Per se, as they are not fighting under their flag and banner, but according to the sources listed they are fighting in Azerbaijani military uniforms. They are being used as mercenaries, and mercenaries should be listed as a seperate combatant. That is how it has alwayas been done on Wikipedia with regards to Russian Wagner mercenaries in Syria and Libya. It would be biased to not do the same for Azerbaijan. User178198273998166172 (talk) 21:28, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. GreaterPonce665  (TALK) 19:25, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Vote regarding combatant section
Due to the stalling of one user, who has a right to their own personal biases towards one of the combatants of this war, the combatant section, which many users disagree with has not changed. This is not an attack on this user, but rather a call for consensus.

The user's argument boils down to, despite reputable sources interviewing fighters from Syria, despite the groups themselves saying they are fighting in Azerbaijan, despite pictures obtained from OSINT showing Syrian fighters in Azerbaijan, this does not constitute valid grounds to say they are definitively fighting in Azerbaijan. This does not follow the precedent under any other Wikipedia article. Even if both Turkey and Azerbaijan deny the claim, that is irrelevant to whether they are actually there in an academic sense. Take for example the War in Donbass Article. Russia is listed as a combatant, despite denying it, because the international consensus was that they are a combatant in the war.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Donbass

This users arguments also come down to: We should take Azerbaijan's statements seriously since they are a combatant? What? They are a combatant with interests for the world to believe they do not have Syrian mercenaries fighting for them.

The more credible source here, is not Turkey, Azerbaijan, or Armenia, but rather reputable newspapers and organizations and academics. With the consensus on everywhere else, but here being that groups from the Syrian National Army (Sultan murad, etc) are engaged in combat in this war. The fact that one or two users is able to stonewall this due to their personal biases has made this page much less credible. I have no doubt that the "alleged" section will change eventually, but everyday it stays this way, Wikipedia's credibility is hurt. Therefore, all users should vote here and actually take action on this matter. Dvtch (talk) 20:41, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:WINARS and WP:NODEMOCRACY. (talk) 20:47, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Beshogur Sure. But, I am not calling for a 50%+ vote, I am just calling for the vast majority of users, who support the academic consensus to come here and voice their views. A Wiki article should not prevent displaying the academic consensus, due to the actions of one users. I am trying to change that, just telling me oh well, WP:WINARS won't change my effort. Dvtch (talk) 20:53, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No. Beshogur (talk) 20:56, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep your personal biases out of this please and let the academic consensus take hold.Dvtch (talk) 20:58, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Lol, WP:NODEMOCRACY. --► Sincerely:  Sola Virum  21:03, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Defer to my response to Beshogur. This is not about a 50% vote, it's about you and a couple users making a mockery of wikipedia by blocking the international academic consensus from being displayed on the combatant sections.Dvtch (talk) 21:07, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * and, your attitudes and inflexibility only show that you are indeed biased and not willing to start any consensus. I did not intend to get involved in any dispute in this article but it is more than clear that there are Syrian soldiers in Azerbaijan. Super   Ψ   Dro  21:07, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * and would you be okay with getting a third-party opinion from Wikipedia's process to settle this dispute?Dvtch (talk) 21:10, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , my attitude? Now I'm the one not being civil? When someone uses a sarcastic tone, and saying that a 'certain user' "who like accusing others of violating wikipedia norms, while simultaneously violating them, while refuse this edit", I'm suppose to take it seriously? As I presented it above, this appeal violates some rules. I don't write them, I just show them. Keep these accusations to yourself, they are not constructive. --► Sincerely:  Sola Virum  21:14, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I wasn't talking about civity, in that sense, I think you are the most appropriate from what I have seen on this talk page. I'm just saying that arguments have been presented and instead of discussing the problem to find a consensus, they were just ignored. Super   Ψ   Dro  21:26, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , Azerbaijan's denial should be added at this point. Turkey says that it has confirmed YPG reports, as did a stray 'Pentagon official'. --► Sincerely:  Sola Virum  21:14, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I did not intend to be sarcastic. I am sorry if you got offended. I clearly said you were entitled to your biases, but if biases get in the way of consensus they are problematic. I am not at all opposed to mentioned Azerbaijan and Turkey deny the claim, however, this should be treated the same way it is in the Donbass war article article, where Russia is listed as a combatant (not an alleged combatant) and a note is made of their denial. To lump them in as alleged, the same as the unsubstantiated claimed of PKK involvement is contrarian to any kind of academic spirit on Wikipedia. As I said earlier, I am completely open to having a third party of wikipedia through the dispute process take a look at this for us. Dvtch (talk) 21:19, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , well, I will not interfere with so-called Syrian involvement being included above the Alleged list anymore as my personal decision. But, PKK/YPG involvement is also noteworthy, as it was presented by 'Turkish security sources', like how 'Pentagon official' has 'confirmed' it. As Armenia alleges that Turkey is directly involved, and that Turkey is a regional power, it is still noteworthy enough. That's my opinion. --► Sincerely:  Sola Virum  21:30, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not opposed to mention of that on the combatant page. I am simply opposed to that claim, which is not widely agreed to be true by reputable sources and international media, and the claim that SNA groups (namely Sultan Murad) which is universally outside of Turkey and Azerbaijan accepted as fact, to be clumped in the same category since they are qualitatively different claims. Dvtch (talk) 22:08, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

and despite you ignoring be above I have started a dispute. I would appreciate if everyone here listed their views. So if you two and could write something on there and us agree that decision is binding because it is being stonewalled on here I would appreciate it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#2020_Nagorno-Karabakh_conflict Dvtch (talk) 22:39, 1 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Going to put the comment I already inserted in two other sections, where this discussion has apparently dragged out as well, since I'm not sure which discussion section for the subject is the main one. Based on the fact 3rd party, neutral and reliable media outlets are reporting on Syrian fighter involvement on the side of Azerbaijan I agree that their involvement is no longer just alleged. Azerbaijan can deny their involvement and we can note this in the infobox, but considering they are one of the belligerents their denial should not be considered more factual (warranting the "alleged" wording) than what the 3rd party sources are reporting. EkoGraf (talk) 01:11, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

This Wikipedia article has been corrupted.
Dear all objective unbiased neutral editors,

This is a very contentious sensitive political issue for many, I realize that, and it seems Wikipedia's many Turkish editors are subjectively editing to support the narrative of the Turkish and Azerbaijani governments. This is unacceptable on Wikipedia according to the policy regarding POV-pushing.

As an example, User:Beshogur is using his power as a Wikipedia moderator to take down our agreed stance on Syrian rebel's participation on behalf of Azerbaijan, and has retracted my edits and is threatening to ban me for making further edits. Turkey's participation remains less certain, and I did not put them as a belligerent, but it is certainly clear Syrian rebels are partiticpating and the evidence is outstanding that is is no longer an 'alleged claim'. SOHR, CNN, BBC, US-Pentagon, Russia, anon. Syrian rebels themselves, what more do you need????? This is an extremely biased article as it stands, and corrupted by these mostly Turkish Wikipedia editors.

I encourage you all to contact another senior moderator on Wikipedia who can stop Beshogur, and possibly ban him if he persists, or contact higher-ups at Wikipedia. I do not want to be banned for contributing to this article by someone who is pushing his governments narrative onto here. User178198273998166172 (talk) 21:20, 1 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I say since he is a biased party and understandably so, we ask Wikipedia for a third party resolution, through their dispute-handling process. However that third party decides is how the combatant page will be displayed. Dvtch (talk) 21:23, 1 October 2020 (UTC)


 * WP:CONSPIRACY. Beshogur (talk) 21:26, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Never knew beshogur was a Moderator, but he have bias because he is Turkish, but those bias can be controlled with WP:3O and WP:DRN.Mr.User200 (talk) 22:29, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Mr.User200 I started a dispute. Beshogur I informed you of it but you ignored it. Feel free to respond there. Dvtch (talk) 22:37, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You know personal attacks and racism can be sanctioned? Beshogur (talk) 22:44, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes they are sanctioned, but you have a position and Turkey is a combatant, personal points of view should be kept aside.Mr.User200 (talk) 22:49, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Beshogur he was attacking you of bias due to your articles. Not making derogatory comments due to your race. Please for the sake of civility, may we please all just defer to the dispute and let a third party make the final ruling. We believe you are abusing your role as moderator and would like a third-party to settle this. Dvtch (talk) 23:02, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Really? Who told I am moderator. I never did. Beshogur (talk) 23:14, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I was under the impression you were. If I'm wrong fine. May you please go https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#2020_Nagorno-Karabakh_conflict so we may resolve this dispute via third party. Dvtch (talk) 23:25, 1 October 2020 (UTC)


 * It's a bit difficult to take this hyperbolic accusation seriously, considering that we do not have any sort of position called "Moderator", and that the role you may have been thinking of, "administrator" is not one that Beshogur holds., , unless you have concrete evidence in the form of edit diffs, do not make accusations that other editors are biased. , I would encourage you to participate in the DRN proceedings as they may provide a better way to resolve this dispute. It looks like the specific content at issue here has already been addressed, as the Syrian fighters are currently listed in the "Supported by" section, and I don't see any clear indication that Beshogur or any other editor intends to dispute this further. Further aspersion-casting or tendentious editing by any party may result in blocks. signed,Rosguill talk 21:05, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Here are the edit diffs you requested from past articles.

1234 5 and here from current articles. Errasing content 1 Response by editor 2 another complaint of POV by Beshogur from today.Mr.User200 (talk) 22:42, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , most of those are edit warring notices from years ago. The only recent edit,, appears to have been a self-revert of this edit, so it's not clear what this would prove. There don't appear to be any further attempts to edit tendentiously following the other editor's response. The final complaint isn't evidence of anything in itself. signed,Rosguill talk 22:53, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Suggestion to restrict/take down this article because of massive editing wars
I'm reading all of this nonsense and I'm already seeing edit wars happening on an almost daily basis. This article should be restricted from further editing until next month, or take this article down, and make a new one that is restricted only to the higher-ups that are allowed to edit the article. People have seem to forget about WP:NPOV and I think it needs to be addressed immediately to prevent any more of these unnecessary edit wars as soon as possible.

I have lost all faith in Wikipedia because of these unnecessary arguments over "THIS IS BIASED, AZERBAIJAN IS BACKING THE CORRUPTION OF WIKIPEDIA VIA ONE ARTICLE" or "THIS IS NOT BIASED, OUR ARMENIAN BROTHERS ARE BEING ATTACKED BY MUSLIM HORDES BECAUSE MUSLIMS ARE INFECTING WIKIPEDIA", et cetera. Enough. This is beyond childish. Usage of religious/ethnic justification to edit articles and cite non-NPOV sources is prohibited. Unfortunately, the majority of those who edit this article have deliberately forgot that to further a single, non-neutral perspective to further damage this article's credibility and now it has gone to waste. It is shameful that we have fell to our own rhetoric instead of thinking through a 3rd party perspective over a stupid article about what's currently going on in the region right now. Shameful. Balkanite (talk) 23:14, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * This can be solved with pending changes protection. Still dont know this is not aplied right now.Mr.User200 (talk) 23:19, 1 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree with either suggestion. I do think there also needs to be third party intervention for consensus building if certain users stonewall efforts. It is very frustrating. Dvtch (talk) 23:27, 1 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I disagree with you. This article is great and has a large audience as it documents a current war. The problem is in the infobox where there is great confusion over whether to include Syrian mercenaries and Turkish involvement. There is also this incessant need by some editors to include the "YPG/PKK" on the Armenian side as some sort of balancing act. The facts are YPG/PKK presence has only been reported by Turkish news outlets, without any evidence and one I read was pure speculation, while the Syrians have been confirmed by the SOHR, BBC, CNN, France, Russia, USA, Arab news media, and tons of other sources. Turkey just wants to demonize the other side, as they've done in Syria by promoting outlandish claims of "terror" PKK involvement in order to justify military interventions. And if I might add your rhetoric is part of the problem here. What makes you think, I as an example and likewise many editors, are fueled by religious and ethnic strife against 'Muslims' when I desire for Syrians to be included as combatants in the infobox based on hundreds of sources? What does religion have to do with this? I am guessing you come from a deeply religious country if you think that way. I am Neutral, and I don't favor one side strongly to the point of promoting lazy state propaganda. User178198273998166172 (talk) 24:36, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Specifically about the YPG/PKK involvement, I took the liberty of removing these from the infobox, while still keeping the allegations in the main article as they're presented in an appropriate and balanced manner. Eik Corell (talk) 00:28, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Accurate usage of "Mercenary"
"Armenian mercenaries" is not an accurate term to describe the Syrians of Armenian descent, and broadly Armenian-origin people around the world, who are reported to be voluntarily going to Karabakh/Artsakh to fight for their ancestral country. The definition of a mercenary according to the Oxford Language dictionary is "a professional soldier hired to serve in a foreign army." The Armenians in question from Syria are not serving in a "foreign" army, as they all speak Armenian and the SOHR reported they are 'Armenian-born', and they are not getting payed by the Armenian government to go there voluntarily. By contrast, the Syrians in Azerbaijan are only there for the paycheck. It's not their country, and they otherwise would have no incentive to go there voluntarily were it not for the money. This is according to many sources https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20201001-we-were-deceived-says-syria-mercenary-fighting-in-azerbaijan/. This is the difference between Syrian-Armenian volunteers and Syrian mercenaries. User178198273998166172 (talk) 1:55, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The way this article is being handled is very shameful, in one past edit I remember seeing "Ethnic Armenian mercenaries from the Middle East and Syria" on the battlebox, Come on, how a volunteer could be a mercenary??Mr.User200 (talk) 01:01, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree, the Turkish side just wants to reverse accuse the Armenians of funneling in "mercenaries", when in actuality they are all volunteers, after the Turkish side was exposed of paying Syrian rebels to fight - using them as 'mercenaries'. User178198273998166172 (talk) 07:10, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 October 2020
Please ADD these additional confimations:

1) BBC Arabic Confirms Syrian Mercenaries in Azerbaijan. Says they were tricked and want to go home, but are being threatened with prison. https://www.bbc.com/arabic/middleeast-54346711

2) “We now have information which indicates that Syrian fighters from jihadist groups have (transited) through Gaziantep (southeastern Turkey) to reach the Nagorno-Karabakh theatre of operations,” Macron told reporters on arrival at an EU summit in Brussels. “It is a very serious new fact, which changes the situation”. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-armenia-azerbaijan-putin-macron/france-accuses-turkey-of-sending-syrian-mercenaries-to-nagorno-karabakh-idUSKBN26L3SB

3) The Pentagon spokesman confirmed the transfer of Turkish mercenaries to Azerbaijan. https://gagrule.net/the-pentagon-spokesman-confirmed-the-transfer-of-turkish-mercenaries-to-azerbaijan/

4) The militants from illegal armed units are being moved to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict zone from Syria and Libya to take a direct part in the hostilities. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federationhttps://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/news/-/asset_publisher/cKNonkJE02Bw/content/id/4363834 Strategos9 (talk) 06:14, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I will add the sources. Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 07:36, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

NPOV
The sources are neutral. What you consider as violation? Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 07:52, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The problem is this: There's no enough evidence (a confirmed photo, or confirmed by all sides) to put it to "Belligerents" section directly rather than put it to "Alleged" subsection. That's the violation. Ahmetlii (talk) 08:09, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I added France to "alleged by" list. Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 09:38, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Who put Russia as Arms supplier of Azerbaijan?
Those sources only talk about the fact that Russia has been selling weapons to both sides in the past, but so far in this conflict Russia has only been helping Armenia. F.Alexsandr (talk) 08:08, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed. --► Sincerely:  Sola Virum  11:32, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Releases of photos and videos
Is really necessary to write wikipedia article about releasing of photos and videos by Armenian, or Azerbaijani MoD? What about writing about conflict, rather than spreading propaganda of both sides?--78.102.53.207 (talk) 09:09, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree, and I will restore the introduction to the timeline pointing this out. Johncdraper (talk) 11:54, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Hungary declares support for Azerbaijan
I can't edit page, can someone add this. Sources for proof --PanNostraticism (talk) 10:11, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * https://hungarytoday.hu/hungary-nagorno-karabakh-conflict-eu-summit-azerbaijan/
 * https://www.euractiv.com/section/politics/short_news/budapest-support-for-azerbaijan/
 * I also can't edit it, but thanks for information. I'll add it to map reaction and in Catalan version article. --KajenCAT (talk) 11:10, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Background
Can anyone explain what this has to do with Background?

"According to the 2018 war report prepared by the Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights, "Armenia exercises its authority over Nagorno-Karabakh by equipping, financing or training and providing operational support to the self-proclaimed Nagorno-Karabakh Republic and its forces, but also in coordinating and helping the general planning of their military and paramilitary activities"

Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 17:04, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, mentioning the support of the Nagorno-Karabakh by Armenia is obviously relevant. What exactly should be said can be debatable. I removed this, but it can be restored if there are RS saying there is a direct connection between this Russian-Armenian exercise and the subject of this page. My very best wishes (talk) 17:14, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * How it relevant to the clashes? Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 17:24, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * This page say: "The clashes stem from the dispute over the Armenian-majority Nagorno-Karabakh...". This seems to be obvious and sourced, but indeed, this should be explicitly stated in RS. More important, the actual reason for the conflict is not at all clear. Why all the sudden and right now? Who started this and why? That must be clarified on the page. But I am not sufficiently familiar with this subject. Sources (like this) say that the attack was launched by Azeri/Turkish forces to take over the entire territory of Artsakh, and they have enormous technical advantage (Turkey is obviously a part of NATO, shame on NATO). My very best wishes (talk) 17:51, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Based on that, I tend to agree with you that "Armenia exercises its authority..." phrase is probably excessive and could be removed. My very best wishes (talk) 18:26, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree. I will remove it. Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 11:58, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTFORUM. Beshogur (talk) 18:20, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Til tok
Who says it's censored? I don't even have a VPN. 212.42.198.243 (talk) 17:49, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You are about shutdown of Tik Tok in Armenia? Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 18:13, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Murovdag
According to the Artsakh Defense Army, the Armenian forces repelled an Azerbaijani attempt to capture Mt. Mrav (Murovdag). We can remove it from infobox. Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 18:08, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

recent edits
Here, you undid me twice. About Madrid principles, check the second source please. About Murovdag, check the first source about that. I request reverting your edits back please.Beshogur (talk) 18:23, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I did. Nothing from the officials about rejection. About Murovdag, could you look at the link above? Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 18:26, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * About Madrid principles. this about Murovdag. Plus, your source is from 27, there are recent sources saying Azerbaijan claims its control over. Beshogur (talk) 18:30, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I read twice the same article. Nothing, except for the title and the personal opinion of the journalist, says that Armenia or Artsakh rejected the Madrid principles. Moreover, it says that “Prime Minister Pashinyan said that he would like to receive some clarifications from the co-chairs on the Madrid Principles, because the sides in Yerevan, Stepanakert and Azerbaijan had different perceptions and interpreted differently the same document, and a clear assessment was required for everyone to equally perceive these proposals. But over time, it turned out that these proposals are no longer discussed, and now it is more important to ensure stability in our region, reduce risks, use international armistice mechanisms, etc." If there are links where Armenia or Artsakh rejects the Madrid principles, let me know, although I'm not sure you will find them. Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 18:49, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

edits
I honestly, don't understand your edits 1. Why you remove everything which is in favour of Armenia/Artsakh? Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 19:14, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You say Artsakh rejected, the infobox says Azerbaijan have reported. So it does not matter if it was rejected. Plus there is recent source which i will put. Beshogur (talk) 19:17, 2 October 2020 (UTC)


 * You can't just pick one side to believe and another side to ignore, Beshogur. That violates WP:NPOV. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 19:23, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I mean, both are written as "reported" does not mean one of them are true, that's what I mean. Beshogur (talk) 19:28, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * But you are removing one of them, not simply listing both as "reported." --OuroborosCobra (talk) 19:57, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Both were listed as reported, just changed them to claimed, if that is what you wanted. I removed a text basically saying the same thing. Beshogur (talk) 19:58, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 October 2020
Emreculha (talk) 19:29, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Done. Can you add it a scale? Thanks. Ahmetlii (talk) 19:38, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I tried to add. I hope I added it right.-Emreculha (talk) 19:50, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Ahmetlii (talk) 19:52, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Belligerents section
Greetings! I suggest you write only the names of the main countries (Azerbaijan, Armenia and Artsakh) in the "Belligerents" section. Information about other parties should be directed to the relevant titles from the template.--Turkmen talk 20:43, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Map
Let's have a discussion regarding the map - benefits of keeping the original more zoomed out map versus the newer zoomed in map. Both show about the same claims regarding captured territory however the zoomed in map is of significantly lower quality I would argue. AntonSamuel (talk) 22:39, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

, Hello .. I prepared this map. My goal was to make a map like the Syrian Civil War map. Frankly, I've been dealing with it for 4 days. Since the file is large, its quality decreases when you add it to the page. If converted to SVG format, I'll add it directly. However, the map can be read when you zoom in. I respect your opinions, suggestions, criticisms and requests regarding the two maps.But I am most in favor of adding information below the box.---Emreculha (talk) 22:58, 2 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I would welcome any work on an improved map, however the current state of the mentioned map is unfortunately substandard regarding quality and detail. While the recent nature and complexity of this conflict limits truly neutral and accurate depiction of the situation on the ground, pages like liveumap which rely on both pro-Azeri and pro-Armenian as well as more neutral sources is among the best sources for verification currently. I recently updated the other map myself for it to be closer to liveuamap and I would argue that any maps on this page should be based on liveuamap or a superior neutral source regarding control of land for this conflict. AntonSamuel (talk) 23:37, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

, I just added it because of more detailed map; for example the cities, railroads, etc. If someone will do a better map, not a problem for me. Ahmetlii (talk) 07:57, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Immediate Edit Request
Ahmetlii Գարիկ Ավագյան Virum   may one of you please delete the inclusion of IS as a combatant. This makes this article look silly and vandalized. We may argue about the inclusion of the PKK/YPG later, but in the meantime let us get rid of this. Dvtch (talk) 08:09, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Done.Ahmetlii (talk) 08:10, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Belligerents in infobox misleading
Now most of the belligerents have footnotes indicating who alleges they take part in the conflict. This is actually misleading because there are two types of claims: They are qualitatively different. We should not treat all claims equally, this is not what WP:NPOV says. My proposal is to clarify that the support of Syrian opposition militants is not alleged but actually supported by multiple independent sources. Alaexis¿question? 19:19, 30 September 2020 (UTC) I see that there is a related discussion above, however the discussion has veered aside a bit there, so I hope a fresh start would help. Alaexis¿question? 19:23, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) By belligerents themselves (e.g. Armenia alleging Turkish support or Azerbaijan claiming there are YPG and other mercenaries)
 * 2) By independent sources not directly related to the belligerents (e.g. The Guardian and the SOHR claiming that there are Syrians fighting for Azerbaijan)
 * Unrelated but I asked above without avail, can you add Israel under Arms Suppliers for Azerbaijan? There are plenty of reliable refs: 19:26, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I also agree that Syrian National Army should be removed from alleged section. Resapp (talk) 19:28, 30 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I actually just made a talk page just above yours on this issue. Here is the most clear piece of evidence and the one that I believe pushes it past the treshold of "alleged". https://www.bbc.com/arabic/middleeast-54346711 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dvtch (talk • contribs) 19:33, 30 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree. We know about Syrian National Army from a plethora of sources, Its an Open secret at this point. They should be moved out of Alleged. I also support putting Israel as arms supplier to Azerbaijan. F.Alexsandr (talk) 20:45, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I've made an edit. I think most of the sources talk about Syrian opposition militants, rather than about the SNA as an organisation taking part in the conflict, so I changed the wording slightly. Alaexis¿question? 21:15, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Alaexis Sultan Murad and the other groups present are members of the SNA. The SNA is not an organized structure as groups have complete independence within the structure and being part of the SNA is more of a brand than being a member of a group. These groups often fight each other. However, the academic standard used to be to refer to these groups as the TFSA(Turkish-backed Free Syrian Army), however the Turkish helped set-up this new way to refer to these groups. So when more of one of these groups go and fight for Turkey, such as in Libya, they are just referred to the SNA for sake of convenience. However, it is fine to name the individual groups as well. Dvtch (talk) 21:32, 30 September 2020 (UTC)


 * You wrote that no consensus has been reached but you haven't responded to my proposal at the talk. If you do not agree with the proposed approach please explain here why. Alaexis¿question? 06:18, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * For Pete's sake, they are still allegations. The Guardian and Reuter articles you people have been mentioning dozens of times say that their source is "a Syrian rebel", which still proves that there is no material evidence for it. Because how these 'sources' are very vague, it still should go to the alleged box. --► Sincerely:  Sola Virum  06:23, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The sources differ in their reliability and per WP:RS we should trust generally reliable sources more. When the Guardian or Reuters (both in the WP:RSP)say they 'learned' there are Syrian fighters in Karabakh it's not equivalent to some unnamed Turkish media quoted by the Middle East Monitor which claim there are PKK/YPG militants on the Armenian side. Alaexis¿question? 21:53, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you change the name to Syrian National Army at least? that had been discussed maybe 100 times on Turkish Operation articles. WP:COMMONNAME. Beshogur (talk) 18:52, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Madrid Principles
I can't find any source confirming that Armenian MFA rejects the Madrid Principles. Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 11:20, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The page presently uses this. Johncdraper (talk) 11:40, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Didn't found. Removed for now. Beshogur (talk) 11:46, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Used source (eurasiareview) is an opinion-based analysis by Azerbaijani scholar Esmira Jafarova who works in Azerbaijani Government (linkedin). The article is fully one-sided and ain't based on any reliable source. The second source (aravot) says: "То есть, мы можем констатировать, что на данный момент, и об этом было заявлено нашими армянскими партнерами, сегодня на столе переговоров нет какого-либо документа, какого-либо предложения. Это означает, что на столе нет даже этих «Мадридских предложений»." – "We can state that at this moment (as it was previously stated by our Armenian colleagues) there is no document nor proposal on the negotiating table. That means there are no even "Madrid principles"." User:Vmakenas (talk) 18:38, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Fine on my internet. Would you like to restore it or should I? Johncdraper (talk) 11:51, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Doesn't matter. Do it. Beshogur (talk) 11:53, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I see, again some source in Russian. And again, no statement about rejection from Armenia. Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 17:25, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Allegations of Pakistan's involvement has no base to its
Zee News is not a good source. Unlike YPG/PKK allegations, which was covered by Middle East Monitor, now Radio Free Europe reports involvement of Wagner Group. --► Sincerely:  Sola Virum  11:42, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * As I said, RFE/RL may or may not be a major publication. But Wagner Group's supposed presence is at best speculation at this point. Plus, it has a strong anti-Putin bias. Ե րևանցի talk 11:48, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I have said it before and I will explain it here again, the sources spreading this rumor of Pakistan involvement have been on occasion held responsible for spreading fake news. So these sources should not be used for making controversial claims. This rumor which came to surface on 28-29 September, has not been covered by any international media and none of the government representatives of Azerbaijan or Armenia are backing this rumor. Other then a section of Indian media, nobody is really talking about this. So it is best to ignore it. A2kb2r (talk) 12:57, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Pakistan's involvement can't be denied. Armenian officials have already made this point clear. It should and must be discussed. Pakistan is infamous for its Terror-harbouring and Islamofacist agendas. Moraxellamniobastila (talk) 16:16, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Infobox again
Editing this article is becoming very ridiculous indeed. What does mean the alleged involvement of YPG and Syrian Armenians based on sources of SOHR, Sabah and likewise. While almost every international media is reporting about the involvement of Syrian rebels and direct Turkish army presence in the Azerbaijani side, and still keeping those under the alleged and disputed section. The article is apparently under the attack of Turk-Azeri editors.--Preacher lad (talk) 08:25, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I fully agree. They are removing everything which I write in favour of Armenia. They should be banned from further editing. Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 08:37, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * All of these infobox inclusions seem to have the same problem, whether it's claims of Russian, Iranian, Kurdish, or even Pakistani involvement, almost all of them cite military officials associated with the two main parties involved or anonymous sources, without any independent verification, often just parroting rumors pushed by other unreliable media, an example being the Pakistani article. All of these allegations should not be taken at face value until they're been corroborated and independently verified. We really should make an effort to require multiple high-quality sources for exceptional claims. Eik Corell (talk) 08:42, 3 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Eik Corell Please undo your edit move SNA back out of alleged. That edit was made by a moderator arbitrating the dispute. It was meant to be put there and not touched until the dispute is finished, where its final position will be solidified. Best. Dvtch (talk) 08:44, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I think you got the wrong guy or edit, my edit here only removed mention of the PKK or YPG from the infobox, and checking it again I don't seem to have somehow managed to remove the SNA. If I somehow removed that earlier, that had not been my intent as it always seemed much more sourced than other claims. Eik Corell (talk) 08:52, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * My bad. Eik Corell May you please undo Ahmetlii's edit and place it back where it was (out of alleged)? A wiki moderator in charge of the dispute took it out of alleged. Ahmetlii please do not undo this edit again. This was placed here by a wiki moderator who is handling the dispute. Please go comment there if you are unhappy with the edit. Dvtch (talk) 09:04, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * There we go, moved the Syrian National Army out of alleged in my edit here. Eik Corell (talk) 09:22, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, I undid removing of PKK/YPG before because of I didn't see a conversation in the talk page. Anyway, I think that they should still stay in alleged section because of the general usage (like in Libyan Civil War) and NPOV violation (because there's not a tangible proof like confirmation from both sides). For example, Turkey or Armenian-Syrians are still staying in alleged section because of insufficient sources. Because of this is a ongoing event; even the sources comes from reliable publishers, nearly everything about the armed conflict is suspicious. Because of these, I opposed to removing of PKK/YPG or Free Syrian Army from alleged section - they have a lot main sources, but not qualified to verify. Ahmetlii (talk) 09:42, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Insufficient sources like "the Guardian"?   The Guardian sources report the recruitment in FSA-Syria for Azerbaijan began a month ago... If there was any doubt whats going on. Alexpl (talk) 15:25, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes. Even it's from a generally reliable publisher, this does not mean that it's correct or false. For example, nearly all of the sources are only give reference to only one person, but not give another references. Also, some of the sources from FSA itself are refusing these reports. And there's still lack of the verifiability because of this. Ahmetlii (talk) 17:51, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * "Some sources" ??? You should give those sources when making the claim - otherwise ist just a Twitter-post. I hope its not the "dailysabah". Alexpl (talk) 11:11, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * here (it's in the page already), here, here. Ahmetlii (talk) 11:30, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Mention of Turkey in the Background Info
I believe Turkey is given a more prominent role than Russia in the background info. The paragraph solely dedicated to Turkey can be removed without any loss of information. I know that it is very hard to remove one full paragraph in an ongoing conflict, so if you decide to keep it there are several ways to improve. 131.111.5.153 (talk) 09:30, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Neo-Ottomanism is more related to Turkey trying to fill the security vacuum in Syria, Iraq and Libya than Azerbaijan and Iran. Turkey's pan-Turkic ideals are more relevant here and Pan-Turkism is definitely not neo-ottomanism.
 * Turkey has literally no involvement in Greece. Turkey and Greece has a dispute, which is not the same thing as involvement. If you feel that you must include an aggressive stance by Turkey against a western country, change Greece to Cyprus. Turkey is involved in Cyprus, yet Turkish involvement in Cyprus has nothing to do with the current conflict.
 * WP:NOTFORUM. Beshogur (talk) 09:36, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

edits
May I know why you removed


 * 3 October section
 * New stats Per Armenia
 * About neo-Ottomanism
 * Russian military expert's analysis
 * Added the controversial image. Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 09:34, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I was having trouble restoring the infobox to a version that was made by a moderator of the discussion going on at WP:DRN, and in trying to fix my edit, it seems I somehow managed to revert the article in my last edit. I would revert it back, but now there have been quite a few edits since then. Gonna get to work on restoring what immediately jumps out at me that was lost now. Eik Corell (talk) 09:47, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Neo-ottomanism has nothing to do with Nagorno-Karabakh. If something will be mentioned, it has to be pan-turkism. 131.111.5.153 (talk) 10:12, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

SNA in infobox again
Even if the involvement of Syrian troops/mercenaries is confirmed, should it really be in the Infobox? The sources we're getting - stuff like this - suggests that the SNA never actually sent anyone, these are fighters recruited by Turkey who signed on on their own initiative after Turkish recruiters approached them, and were then taken to Azerbaijan on Turkish planes. Soldiers from the SNA have taken part but that doesn't mean the SNA itself is a belligerent. To me, this is the equivalent of going to the Infobox of every battle the French Foreign Legion was involved in and changing the belligerents from the French side to include every single country that Foreign Legion troops came from.--RM (Be my friend) 09:45, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I kind of agree, but apparently it was an edit at least temporarily instated by a moderator of the dispute resolution noticeboard discussion here, so I just reverted to let the discussion go from there. Eik Corell (talk) 09:56, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit unsure as to the etiquette of that dispute resolution place, since I'm not one of the original disputers where would it be appropriate for me to jump in and give my point of view?--RM (Be my friend) 10:31, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You are right, I mentioned this above--Turkmen talk 10:01, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * ,, , I think it would be appropriate for you to leave comments in the dispute resolution discussion. signed,Rosguill talk 15:10, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Afaik by media reports, Syrian mercenaries had been recruited with the knownledge and consent of their armed groups, all members of the SNA. By the way, I found this video that seems to show some Syrians in Horadiz, few km. from the frontlines: .-- HC PUNX  KID 21:58, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * See this paragraph. Beshogur (talk) 22:01, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Why are you removing the map without a consensus? Talking about international reactions Beshogur (talk) 10:12, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * . Beshogur (talk) 10:37, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It has been discussed. Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 11:59, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Where exactly? Beshogur (talk) 12:16, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Look up - Second attempt: International reaction map in Talk page. F.Alexsandr (talk) 15:05, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I do not see any conclusion. Plus I am also favour for another shade of colour for countries supporting Azerbaijan's territorial integrity. The source of Turkic Council, clearly mentions that Turkic council itself demands Armenia's withradawal from occupied territories, isn't that supporting? Beshogur (talk) 15:11, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The topic has been discussed thoroghly in previous posts and It has been decided that map information was not accurate. All arguments have already been stated, and I am not going to repeat myself over and over again. If you think you are being treated unjustly you should probably go to Dispute Resolution noticeboard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard and make your case. F.Alexsandr (talk) 16:31, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Note on Casualties section
Note that by definition casualties are almost always human, not materiel, not to mention the fact that grouping dead people with items of equipment is insulting. Equipment losses are normally separated out. See, for example, this Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equipment_losses_in_World_War_II. As such, I am restoring the separate sections. Johncdraper (talk) 10:53, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

edits
About SNA to alleged. It has been discussed to put it in Belligerents. May I ask you to return it to its place? Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 12:02, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I realized that I changed its place accidentally when trying to fix paragraph. Anyway, looks like has fixed it. Ahmetlii (talk) 12:14, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 12:23, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 October 2020 about the official announcement of the Foreign Ministry of Russia
Please add this OFFICIAL announcement of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs on September 30, 2020 about the foreign mercenaries in Karabakh from Lybia and Syria. I am not sure if you added this after my October 2, 2020 request since I could not find it.

1) The militants from illegal armed units are being moved to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict zone from Syria and Libya to take a direct part in the hostilities. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation Here is the link to the source: https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/news/-/asset_publisher/cKNonkJE02Bw/content/id/4363834 Strategos9 (talk) 06:49, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Done. Johncdraper (talk) 11:34, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Analysis
Please add the following to the analysis by Laurence Broers who is the PREEMINENT expert in this conflict.

Laurence Broers of London-based Chatham House agreed. “What we’re seeing is a growing explicitness to Turkish support,” Broers told the Debate show. “We’re seeing, basically, a new kind of relationship: exchanges and meetings between senior defense officials of the two countries and I think, perhaps, Turkey is seeing this conflict as another regional theatre where it can probe for influence, for foreign policy influence – where it can showcase its military hardware, since developing the Turkish arms industry is a major domestic imperative.”

Here is the link to the source: https://www.france24.com/en/20200929-is-turkey-a-brother-in-arms-or-just-extending-its-footprint-into-nagorno-karabakh and the youtube video of the expert discussion.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strategos9 (talk • contribs) 07:05, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Done. Johncdraper (talk) 11:05, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

POV in International reactions section
Statement: "....and partially recognised Northern Cyprus expressed support for Azerbaijan" is POV, because "Turkey is the only country which recognises Northern Cyprus" (quote) from article Foreign relations of Northern Cyprus

Second reason because this statement is POV is statement about Abkhazia "Another self-proclaimed republic, Abkhazia, urged to the international community". Abkhazia is recognised by Naura, Nicaragua, Russia, Syria & Venezuela so it is not possible to have statements "partially recognised Northern Cyprus" & "self-proclaimed republic, Abkhazia" together in article and be NPOV.

please change this statement so that article can become NPOV Analitikos (talk) 08:15, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Done. Johncdraper (talk) 11:18, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Immediate Request To Revert
GreyShark I saw you took out the alleged section of the infobox. That decision must be reverted. There was no consensus on that matter and there is currently a discussion on that matter In the meantime it has been set as a compromise to keep in alleged. Please restore alleged in the infobox for both combatants. Any other editor may feel free to undo this edit as well. Dvtch (talk) 08:44, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Alleged are not included in the campaignbox in any case. If they are not alleged per discussion then add them.GreyShark (dibra) 09:38, 4 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment - how do you feel about "alleged" section in regard to violation of WP:EXCEPTIONAL? Of course if there are sufficient sources we add combatants / supporters, but the "alleged" solution to add and then discuss is a violation of Wikipedia rules.GreyShark (dibra) 09:45, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree "alleged" isn't wording that should be used in this manner in a campaignbox. That's why I voiced my opinion at the dispute resolution discussion, which is still ongoing, to remove the wording "alleged" since 3rd party neutral and reliable sources have confirmed the presence of the Syrian fighters. A note can be left that Azerbaijan and Turkey are denying this. Until the dispute resolution process has ended the status quo should be preserved and no changes made. EkoGraf (talk) 09:50, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Please Remove Serbia
Please Remove Serbia from Arms suppliers section. People fail to understand that we are talking about arms supplied during conflict, not sellings of arms in the years prior. F.Alexsandr (talk) 08:56, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You are correct. Inappropriate.GreyShark (dibra) 09:38, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree, this is not arms support during a conflict. EkoGraf (talk) 09:48, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Ganja
BTW, even Artsakh prez confirmed the order to attack mil facilities there. Media are slow out west to say so. He also called for it to stop on news that civilians were hurt. 37.186.97.171 (talk) 11:19, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Please specify this as a request; a Wikipedia Talk is not a forum. If you do not specify this as a request, it may be removed. Johncdraper (talk) 11:36, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Employee of the Azerbaijani prosecutor’s office sustained injury
As Prosecutor General's Office of the Republic of Azerbaijan have stated. its employee has been injured. But does he/she count as a civilian? --► Sincerely:  Sola Virum  13:51, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Unless the Azerbaijanis are arming their clerks then yes. Juxlos (talk) 14:34, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Answered:  to archive. Johncdraper (talk) 09:01, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

NK and the Pandemic
What about coronavirus? Are soldiers observing social distancing? People fleeing from the shelling clearly are not and this should be referenced in the article as they risk spreading the virus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.17.134.104 (talk) 15:14, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No publication has actually reported such a thing. --► Sincerely:  Sola Virum  16:58, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Art thou jesting? --Governor Sheng (talk) 18:33, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No original research - as long as you dont have sources, you cant conclude that claim from personal observation. Alexpl (talk) 20:59, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * To archive. WP not a forum.Johncdraper (talk) 22:34, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Statement by President of Azerbaijan
This perhaps is relevant for the "Official statements" section: https://edition.cnn.com/2020/10/03/asia/azerbaijan-armenia-president-intl/index.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by IveGonePostal (talk • contribs) 20:11, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Done and can be archived. Thank you. Next time, please WP:BOLD it or make a formal edit request. Johncdraper (talk) 22:31, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Note on the October 4 Azerbaijan Official statement
I'm going to give whoever turned this Wikipedia page into a forum for the Azerbaijani President five minutes to clean up this mess, please. If not, I will take a hatchet to it, and while it may not be pretty, it will be fair. Time starts as of timestamp on my sig. Johncdraper (talk) 21:29, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Done  and can be archived. Johncdraper (talk) 21:44, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Russia and Iran
Iran shoots down suspected Azerbaijani drone.

For the third straight day, either a drone or artillery shell has entered Iran because of the ongoing conflict between neighboring Armenia and Azerbaijan in the Karabakh region.

A video captured from Iran’s Ardebil Province, which is located south of the Azerbaijani border, showed the Islamic Republic’s air defense forces shooting a foreign drone over their airspace.

The video was reportedly taken from the Aslan Heights, which is located near Azerbaijan’s southern border with Iran.

Prior to downing this unmanned aerial vehicle, the Iranian air defense forces shot down a drone over the city of Malekan in the East Azerbaijan Province.

Iran has not blamed any country for these overflights; however, as evident from the videos released from the northern part of the country, the Islamic Republic has not tolerated these violations of their airspace.

Source: https://geopolitics.news/euroasia/iran-shoots-down-suspected-azerbaijani-drone/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strategos9 (talk • contribs) 07:43, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Done. Next time please formulate an edit request or WP:BOLD it yourself.Johncdraper (talk) 08:57, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Russia and Iran
Iran confirms its air defenses shot down foreign drone in East Azerbaijan

On Tuesday, the Iranian air defenses shot down a drone near the city of Malakan in the East Azerbaijan province, amid the ongoing tension between Azerbaijan and Armenia in the Nagorno Karabakh region.

Military sources said on Iranian state television, “The Iranian defenses shot down the enemy drone while it penetrated the country’s airspace in the northwest part of the country in East Azerbaijan province.”

1st Source: https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/iran-confirms-its-air-defenses-shot-down-foreign-drone-in-east-azerbaijan/

2st Source: https://avia.pro/news/my-preduprezhdali-alieva-iran-sbil-azerbaydzhanskiy-voennyy-samolyot (In Russian - Iran shot down an Azerbaijani military plane that violated the country's border.

Iranian air defense means, without warning of opening fire, attacked an Azerbaijani military aircraft, which violated the border of the Islamic republic's airspace. The plane, and we are talking, according to preliminary data, about a fighter, fell on the territory of Iran, however, the fate of the crew still remains unknown.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strategos9 (talk • contribs) 07:55, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Done. Next time please formulate an edit request or WP:BOLD it yourself. Johncdraper (talk) 08:55, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 October 2020
134.19.221.98 (talk) 08:32, 5 October 2020 (UTC) nhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. Not done (no request specified).

Iran's support to Azerbaijan
Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokesman stated that Iran respects the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan as well as withdraval of troops from the occupied cities.

reference: https://iranpress.com/content/28215

Helius Olympian (talk) 10:33, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Done. Johncdraper (talk) 10:51, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Madaghis
Why is there no information about the Armenian recovery of Madaghis on October 4? (Source) LechitaPL (talk) 15:20, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * LechitaPL Please try re-phrasing this as a request with a reliable secondary source. Johncdraper (talk) 15:46, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Armenian claims of retaking control of Suqovuşan was already added. --► Sincerely:  Sola Virum  16:26, 5 October 2020 (UTC)