Talk:2023 Azerbaijani offensive in Nagorno-Karabakh: Difference between revisions

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2023 Azerbaijani offensive in Nagorno-Karabakh article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 7 days

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

A news item involving 2023 Azerbaijani offensive in Nagorno-Karabakh was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 20 September 2023.

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Armenia Unassessed High‑importance 2023 Azerbaijani offensive in Nagorno-Karabakh is within the scope of WikiProject Armenia, an attempt to improve and better organize information in articles related or pertaining to Armenia and Armenians. If you would like to contribute or collaborate, you could edit the article attached to this page or visit the project page for further information.ArmeniaWikipedia:WikiProject ArmeniaTemplate:WikiProject ArmeniaArmenian articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Artsakh Unassessed Top‑importance 2023 Azerbaijani offensive in Nagorno-Karabakh is within the scope of WikiProject Artsakh, an attempt to improve and better organize information in articles related or pertaining to Artsakh and Artsakhians. If you would like to contribute or collaborate, you could edit the article attached to this page or visit the project page for further information.ArtsakhWikipedia:WikiProject ArtsakhTemplate:WikiProject ArtsakhArtsakh articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Azerbaijan Unassessed Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Azerbaijan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Azerbaijan-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AzerbaijanWikipedia:WikiProject AzerbaijanTemplate:WikiProject AzerbaijanAzerbaijan articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. International relations Unassessed Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Limited recognition Unassessed Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Limited recognition, a WikiProject dedicated to improving the coverage of entities with limited recognition on Wikipedia by contributing to articles relating to unrecognized states and separatist movements. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join our WikiProject by signing your name at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.Limited recognitionWikipedia:WikiProject Limited recognitionTemplate:WikiProject Limited recognitionLimited recognition articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Military history: Russian & Soviet / Post-Cold War C‑class This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles C This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale. This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force Post-Cold War task force

The image placement in this article is certainly has a point of view and it is unbalanced. Attempts to equalize the image placements have been reverted by Armenian editors Kevo327 and Vanezi Astghik. Ecrusized (talk) 13:33, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ecrusized Mentioning the ethnic backgrounds of editors is not good practice and has gotten editors banned before under the new AA3 guidelines. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view describes balance as summarizing the viewpoints of reliable sources equally, not the viewpoints of governments or nationals. There seems to be a consensus among reliable sources that the civilian Armenian community of Nagorno-Karabakh is the hardest hit by these recent clashes and that has caused a lot to lose their homes, the images are in line with what reliable sources are reporting on. TagaworShah (talk) 15:33, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Both editors have editing history of POV pushing in Armenia related articles. Spamming the entire right half of the page with 10 images of Armenian protesters holding up banners in opposition to Azerbaijan ending a decades of conflict (fueled by Russia) is not contributive and definitely not neutral. Ecrusized (talk) 16:01, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ecrusized Please focus on the contributions themselves and not any personal quarrels you have with the editors. I don’t see any image spam in the article, the images seem relevant and line up with what’s being presented in the reliable sources. The idea that this offensive is ending conflict is not neutral either, and is contradicted by a myriad of reliable sources who point to the immense humanitarian crisis and ethnic cleansing it has started. TagaworShah (talk) 16:07, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The images follow what has happened in this attack and the crisis it caused for local population. The article should reflect that. Removing a bunch or placing tags on them and article just because of relevant images reflecting what reliable sources confirm isn't constructive. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 16:31, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see what benefit having 4 images of Armenian protesters holding banners has over just 1. Same goes for the images of Armenians being displaced. A single image is enough to give the reader an idea. Instead we have 8 images that spam the readers. Ecrusized (talk) 16:56, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article reflects what's reported by reliable sources, in chronological order. It's not a "spam", this was an attack that caused grave humanitarian crisis and various reliable sources warned of ethnic cleansing or genocide. The article reflects that and images are very much relevant. Adding tags to the article because of images reflecting what reliable sources confirm isn't constructive. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 17:03, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While there are only 1-2 sentences giving information about Azerbaijani civilians and soldiers who died as a result of terrorist attacks, too many pictures and texts have been added for "possibility of genocide". Nevertheless, some authorized friends will continue to add contents written by "neutral organizations" like azatutyun.am, to the article as impartial observations. as always. Kyzagan (talk) 18:02, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the extensively sourced section on genocide risk? WP:GS/AA users in this thread, please read the article extensively and examine the content you put quotation marks for before commenting. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 18:09, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The "possibility of genocide" that Genocide Watch is actively warning about?

Azerbaijani President Aliyev’s dictatorial regime's objective is to drive all Armenians out of Artsakh through war and genocide. Aliyev wants full integration of Artsakh into Azerbaijan.

Armenians claim integration will lead to genocide, repeating past Baku and Sumgait pogroms. Aliyev's genocidal intent is often expressed in his dehumanization of Armenians.

The silent genocide has become overt.

It's not a "non-neutral" or "partial" organization making these points, except if WP:FALSEBALANCE is your idea of neutrality. Chaotic Enby (talk) 18:25, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you answer the first sentence I wrote? Why is there so little information about Azerbaijanis who died as a result of terrorist attacks? You don't have the chance to say "go and add it", as you know, it is not possible to add information to pages about Armenia due to WP:GS/AA. The entire article is mostly written by Armenian users. Then I would be glad if you answer, why is the article full of information and pictures about "possibility genocide" instead of adding information about Azerbaijanis who died as a result of attacks? Kyzagan (talk) 18:33, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because, sorry to be bold, I don't know as much about that situation and I can't add everything by myself. If you're wondering, I'm not Armenian at all (I'm French), but that shouldn't matter. If you want to add information about Azerbaijani victims, given WP:GS/AA, you can post it here so someone with extended-confirmed rights can add it. Chaotic Enby (talk) 18:44, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How many Azerbaijanis have actually died in this round? Borgenland (talk) 08:54, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Borgenland, It was announced that 2 civilians died as a result of a mine explosion just before the Azerbaijani attack. Apart from this, as of the ceasefire in 2020, dozens of civilians died as a result of mine explosions. Most of them were settled by Armenian soldiers in the villages and towns evacuated by the Armenians. Kyzagan (talk) 18:56, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t mind the imagery but maybe one pic showing a poster with the genocide word on it can suffice in the protest section instead of two separate photos showing the same word. Borgenland (talk) 18:09, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely I agree. I also expressed my opinions in a separate topic. ---Emreculha (talk) 17:00, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. One or two images might be enough. Wikipedia is WP:NOTGALLERY. [[User:Nemoralis (talk) 18:25, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed two images that already had similar ones, but otherwise the images present a balanced and neutral point of view. References support that this was an Azerbaijani attack, and there are no Azerbaijanis that have been displaced by it. --KhndzorUtogh (talk) 01:35, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@KhndzorUtogh: Multiple users have protested to the usage of 4 images for protests, 2 for displaced and 2 for civilian suffering and are in support of just one image. You have closed such a highly contested discussion by practically not changing anything at all despite users objections. One image is enough for all these topics. WP:GALLERY. Ecrusized (talk) 08:27, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple users agreed that images are all right and commented here, two WP:GS/AA opposing aren't even allowed to edit this topic area. I agree with Khndzorutogh's trim, it's more than good enough. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 08:35, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see 3 editors agree with your opinion and 3 others who disagree. That is not enough to close such a highly contested topic without even 24 hours of discussion in favor of your side. Ecrusized (talk) 08:38, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These are images that have already been trimmed - you're just trimming even more and you don't have consensus to do so. Multiple users told you that images show what WP:RS confirm, and one of the users KhdnzorUtogh even trimmed some of the images - as it standed prior to your removals, the article had no issues and was not a "gallery", it represented what WP:RS report until you removed even more pictures. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 08:47, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are 3 editors who support the change I made. You want to have 2 images for protesters, 2 for displaced civilians and 2 for injured civilians. Meanwhile there are editors in this discussion including myself who have said one for each topic is enough. I'm being fair here. I agree that they are RS, meanwhile you want to push it into everybody's face by adding 2 images for each. Ecrusized (talk) 08:51, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I agreed to retain the photos with the exception of one photo because its genocide theme was also seen in another photo, making it in my opinion redundant. Borgenland (talk) 08:53, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. And it was trimmed already. There are no issues of "gallery" either, currently it's fine and represents what WP:RS confirmed. OP tried to remove even more images without taking into account what people who can actually edit this article commented here. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 08:55, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any reason why the two editors who voiced support User:Emreculha and User:Nemoralis shouldn't be able to edit this article or their opinions should be discarded. Ecrusized (talk) 08:58, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking about WP:GS/AA editors such as Emrechulha and Kyzagan.

Also 4 editors disagree with you or either reverted you already such as Vanezi Astghik, TagaworShah, KhndzorUtogh and Borgenland - Borgenland also clarified above that they agreed to retain photos with one exception, and the article images were already trimmed. So stop adding "POV" tag to the article and stop edit-warring. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 09:04, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can add a dispute tag whenever I want. User:Vanezi Astghik and User:TagaworShah have not even participated in this discussion. It's still a 4 in favor and 3 in opposition discussion here. Ecrusized (talk) 09:08, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If someone reverts you, they're opposing to you. You have been reverted yesterday by Vanezi Astghik. TagaworShah had already commented and agreed that images follow what RS confirm. WP:GS/AA users aren't even allowed to edit this article. So it's 4 users againt 2, and since then, the images were even trimmed, you just had to trim more completely unreasonable. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 09:15, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are they banned from editing this article? Because I don't see something like your link. Ecrusized (talk) 09:22, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Politics, ethnic relations, and conflicts involving Armenia, Azerbaijan, or both—broadly construed and explicitly including the Armenian genocide—are placed under an extended confirmed restriction.

The two users aren't extended confirmed. This article falls under GS/AA pretty much. Hope this helped. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 09:24, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kevo327, WP:GS/AA prevents users from making changes to relevant articles, but not from expressing opinions. The people you mentioned, including me, are not bots, they are part of this community. You can't separate people to make it seem like a consensus has achieved to get the outcome you want. The authorized users should not act emotionally due to their ideological view. Kyzagan (talk) 18:42, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As many of you know, most editors despise list-formatted "Reactions" sections, especially the flag icons. These sections should be converted into prose—not a bulleted (flagged) list. Sourcing should not be primary, such as tweets. Abductive (reasoning) 15:18, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest limiting reactions from countries with clear influence and clout and/or leverage over the events, with particular emphasis on regional neighbors and regional/superpowers. Almost every country would most likely be concerned at another war. Borgenland (talk) 16:47, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I added a thread above. Maybe first we should start with merging countries into one sentence that urging both sides, etc. Beshogur (talk) 16:59, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What is clear from the list so far is that only Uzbekistan is openly backing Azerbaijan.

Argentina, Brazil, France, Canada, Cyprus, Germany, Ecuador, Ireland, Poland and the UK are officially condemning Azerbaijan or at least placing the burden of ending the conflict on Baku. Borgenland (talk) 17:07, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also Kazakstan reaction is just an Az ambassador's quote, they're not the same level as the other reactions so should be removed imo. And not sure who added Kazakstan in the map as supporting Azerbaijan, it should be removed, pinging map creator @BlackShadowG: maybe they could help. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 17:14, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

they're not the same level as the other reactions so should be removed imo. As I told before, ambassadors are very high ranking foreign officials. Their statements represents their official position. Pretty sure more relevant than "representatives to the United Nations". Beshogur (talk) 17:20, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, do backbench legislators reactions really count? Borgenland (talk) 18:02, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Depends, if they're part of the government yeah. But deputy-chair of the parliament, idk. Beshogur (talk) 19:25, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’m fine with parliamentary leadership and committees. Just unsure about two legislators that many readers would most likely just have learned of their names from this article. See Canada and USA. Borgenland (talk) 01:38, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Its Ministry of Foreign Affairs also expressed support for Azerbaijan [1]. BlackShadowG (talk) 15:32, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is about the so called elections prior the conflict. Beshogur (talk) 15:34, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it looks like the Kazakh government itself has not taken a stance on the situation. I'm willing to modify the map if there's a consensus on how to color Kazakhstan on the map. (After a few edits, I no longer feel confident in my English writing skills, so I will edit this article less often in the future.) BlackShadowG (talk) 15:54, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BlackShadowG it's an ambassador of Azerbaijan, they do not represent the entire country and very often are pro whatever country they're working from. I think you should modify until a higher rank official says they support Az. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 17:02, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's untrue. You're keep repeating same things. Ambassadors do represent their country. They do not say "pro x country". Beshogur (talk) 17:20, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also Kazakhstan, a member of OTS, showed its support during the so called presidential election some weeks ago. Do you think they changed their stance? Ambassador's reaction isn't much different. Beshogur (talk) 17:22, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I must say, a horrible misunderstanding of diplomatic functions. Ambassadors are the highest representative of the state in other countries and ARE GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES and their primary job is to REPRESENT THEIR COUNTRY’S INTERESTS. Otherwise, why would foreign ministries and world leaders bother to call them for celebrations or ask them to send messages to their leaders or reprimand them? As such, their statements are their home country’s policy unless otherwise clarified or repudiated. If the Kazakh ambassador’s remarks were not representative of the country then we should have seen an immediate clarification from Astana or even the removal of the ambassador from his post, which given succeeding events has not happened, hereby confirming his statements as the same as Kazakh policy. I am sorry but I think some of you are beginning to confuse ambassadors with lobbyists in the style of American politics. Borgenland (talk) 17:32, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary is able to represent his country according to the 1961 Vienna Convention.

The Ambassador's article says: The ambassador extraordinary and plenipotentiary being historically regarded as the personal representative of the sovereign, the custom of dispatching ambassadors to the head of state rather than the government has persisted. يوسف قناوة (talk) 20:40, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just checked [2] he's indeed ambassador extraordinary and plenipotentiary. Beshogur (talk) 20:05, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I am going to remove the flag icons. Prose are better and the standard practice for these sections is not to use these icons. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:24, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, Holy See isn't a country. Also not using colons look weird. Beshogur (talk) 20:53, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that the chapter is neutral and encyclopedic. The whole page is filled with "genocide risk" sections. I invite the officials to edit the page as "neutral". As a Wikipedian who took part in the 2020 Karabakh War article and participated in the discussions, my comment was edited only from the "Armenian Perspective".When I edited the first Karabakh war map, I respected the opinions of dozens of users who "did not like the sources and said they were not neutral.I think the whole article was created "from the Armenian point of view" - "Anti-Azerbaijani". I think that the "genocide" expressions that constantly appear in the article should be supported by strong sources. I would like to remind you that otherwise, Wikipedia's principles are violated. Emreculha (talk) 16:55, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is a clear risk of genocide presented by numerous well-respected human rights organizations that are not the Armenian government, claiming the article is “anti-Azerbaijani” is just far from reality. This is different from the 2020 war, it is a one-sided offensive as supported by numerous reliable sources, the purpose of wikipedia is not to provide a “both sides” perspective on how different nations see the issue, but to summarize how reliable sources are presenting the issue, I don’t see reliable sources refuting what is present in the article. TagaworShah (talk) 17:33, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is Genocide Watch strong enough? Chaotic Enby (talk) 18:30, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple WP:RS and human rights organizations have outlined an obvious genocide risk concerning recent developments in this conflict. To claim these sources, who are independent and not at all affiliated with Armenia or the Armenian government are "Anti-Azerbaijani" is entirely unfounded. Our job here is to report what sources state. While WP:NPOV is always a concern, the article in question is simply reporting the sources accurately, and is not grounds for a neutrality debate. Arakui (talk) 18:39, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While there was no "genocide" risk in the First Karabakh War, where the opposite of today's situation took place and 16,000 civilians died and 724,000 civilians fled, the fact that the word genocide appears "64 times" in the article on this conflict shows us the "real focus" of the editors. I realize you used the word "risk", but I ask those making the claim, how many of the 10 stages in this article are available? Emreculha (talk) 06:14, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Genocide Watch considers Azerbaijan to be at Stage 4: Dehumanization, Stage 5: Organization, Stage 7: Preparation, Stage 8: Persecution, and Stage 9: Extermination.

And, concerning the First Karabakh War, Genocide Watch also made a report about the murder of Azerbaijani civilians (especially the Khojaly massacre), which should definitely be included in the relevant articles. Chaotic Enby (talk) 13:19, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add that it is an actual problem that "genocide" isn't used once on the First Karabakh War article to refer to the Armenian actions against Azerbaijani civilians, even though some (especially in the Armenian-occupied territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh) did arguably have genocidal intent. Although it should also be contextualized how this same event has been politicized to some extent. Chaotic Enby (talk) 13:28, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, is it right to assume the short refers to the ethnic group while the long refers to the people living in the state? Borgenland (talk) 18:11, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is correct. Azeri is the ethnic group, Azerbaijani is the nationality. Same goes for Kazakh versus Kazakhstani, etcetera.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 18:26, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, Kazakh-stan is a compound word for the state formed from the Kazakh ethnonym, while Azerbaijan is the original word for the historic region (Iranian Azerbaijan) which was turned into an ethnonym in both long and shortened forms. Chaotic Enby (talk) 18:29, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While this is mostly true and you're right to point out that "Azerbaijani" can actually be the ethnicity name in some instances, the term Iranian Azerbaijani can also refer to somebody who hails from Iranian Azerbaijan as opposed to only an Azerbaijani/Azeri in Iran. You're right that the name Azerbaijan doesn't have the same etymological roots as names with the -stan suffix, so it's not a perfect analogy. But "Azeri" is a term that can only mean a member of the ethnic group with no ambiguity, while Azerbaijani can mean one who happens to live under the state known as Azerbaijan.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 18:55, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Azeri is the ethnic group, Azerbaijani is the nationality incorrect. Majority of people in Azerbaijan do not call themselves Azeri. It's more like an exonym. Azerbaijani Turk is an ethnic name, Azerbaijani is a nationality. Beshogur (talk) 19:26, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is an exonym, but a very useful one. The term "Azerbaijani Turk" isn't used as commonly as either "Azerbaijani" as an ethnic name or "Azeri". We are at least in agreement that "Azerbaijani" is a nationality and should not be used as the name of the ethnicity in this context (even though it is sometimes used as the ethnic name in other contexts), but I am of the view that Azeri avoids the confusion over the nationality while using a more commonly used term. That said, this probably isn't the talk page to hash that out. The article on the ethnicity is named Azerbaijanis, which neither of us seem to prefer.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 00:02, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily, for instance Azerbaijanis or Iranian Azerbaijanis use the long form to refer to the ethnic group. Chaotic Enby (talk) 18:27, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For clarification, I have been making fixes with the identity when it comes to describe Baku’s military. Borgenland (talk) 01:36, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear users, this page is a discussion page where people express their opinions without insulting each other. If users will be restricted by users with opposing views because they express their opinions on the talk page, then the talk page has no purpose, let's close the talk page. Unfortunately, the user named User:Kevo327 prevented me from changing the article due to his nationalist feelings. If it pleases him, I will not contribute anything to the page and will not participate in the discussion page. This user can change the page as he wishes with his nationalist feelings. Emreculha (talk) 07:31, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for restriction is WP:GS/AA. I suggest you not make personal attacks. You are not irreplaceable. If you have valid reasons, you can report them at WP:ANI. Nemoralis (talk) 07:39, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My aim is definitely not a personal attack. However, I have no contribution to the article. --Emreculha (talk) 07:43, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, if you think Kevo327 is WP:POVPUSHing, you can report them at WP:ANI, of course with valid reasons. Example. — Nemoralis (talk) 07:45, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can't prevent you from changing the article, you can't edit it because it's protected per WP:GS/AA - the notice on your talk was a standard alert for non-extended confirmed users in this topic area. I'm not going to reply to your personal attacks. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 07:44, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of my message was not a personal attack, but simply about freedom of discussion. I apologize if the protection applies to all users and I misunderstood your message.--Emreculha (talk) 07:46, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Moreno Ocampo's relation to this page has mostly been about the Genocide risk. Don't put him again in the Analysis section because he's just repeating what has been paraphrased in the Genocide risk section. Borgenland (talk) 14:50, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As titled above DitorWiki (talk) 14:51, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be already done! Also, I created an article Flight of Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians to focus on this topic. Much support to all Armenians in this. Chaotic Enby (talk) 14:03, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox says 30 civilians were killed and 300+ were injured, but most of this number is from the gas station explosion that happened in Stepanakert on 25 September, 5 days after the conflict, and had no military interference. The infobox implies that Azerbaijani Army is responsible for it. Change it please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.154.5.139 (talk) 09:39, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Y Done Nemoralis (talk) 09:44, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article covers everything that has happened in the region since 19 September (nine days) but the offensive lasted for under 24 hours. We will need a change of scope (which has already happened, but it needs to be reflected on the lead, categories, links to this article...) and most likely another title different from the ones currently being discussed. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 09:15, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be best if the Aftermath was condensed into prose form rather than timeline. Borgenland (talk) 10:13, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should even consider a title called Azerbaijan's seizure of Nagorno-Karabakh since this event occured one time. Lot of news agencies calling it this way. Beshogur (talk) 10:22, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's already a discussion above for changing the title, let's wait until it concludes... Chaotic Enby (talk) 10:42, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The RM has ended. Once the move is performed by an administrator I will request another move in this style (article can't get a rest). I have Azerbaijani takeover of Nagorno-Karabakh in mind. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 14:59, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Azerbaijan's" is more appropriate. Beshogur (talk) 15:16, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No article of this kind uses this format. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 15:39, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How so? There is no such rule. Beshogur (talk) 19:21, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not a rule, just that demonyms are more common than possessive 's and that I haven't seen an article about invasion, conquest, takeover, etc. using possesive 's. Which would then mean WP:CONSISTENT applies as well. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 19:47, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would support the creation of a separate timeline/aftermath article for those events. Chaotic Enby (talk) 10:42, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Replying again as my previous reply was a bit short and not too clear. We could have the key points of the timeline summarized in prose in this article, while having a separate timeline article focused on both the military operation itself and its aftermath - and, of course, a prose article for the flight of Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians. Chaotic Enby (talk) 10:45, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree, it would make this article way more focused. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 11:16, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Surprised to see we have Armenians in Nakhchivan and Armenians in Baku but not Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh. I think we should have an article on them since following the incoming dissolution of the Republic of Artsakh we will have no main article covering information about them. I am imagining Karabakh Armenians will become a recognizable group in Armenian society like the Pontic Greeks in Greece. We will also have several sources researching the situation of those that left for Armenia and those that stayed in the region. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 14:56, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Armenians_in_Azerbaijan#Armenians_in_Nagorno-Karabakh Beshogur (talk) 15:17, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Like to hear your thoughts. Talk:2016_Nagorno-Karabakh_conflict#Requested_move_27_September_2023. Beshogur (talk) 20:57, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be okay to move relevant content to that page, given that this one is becoming pretty bloated with stuff not directly about the clashes while the other one is still a stub? Chaotic Enby (talk) 22:17, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This was more of the third war everyone was talking about plus this what Azeris needed the last fast war and they got what they wanted the third Nagorno-Karabakh war which lasted just a day 2600:6C50:1B00:32BE:7082:B49C:C983:128B (talk) 02:26, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We do not decide the name. No WP:RS calls this a "third war". Wikipedia doesn't lead; we follow. Nemoralis (talk) 06:22, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

but if you look at as a separate conflict it shows its self to be a war as the last war of karabakh 204.102.220.123 (talk) 17:15, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a blog and information for such items comes from properly cited references and not whims, assumptions or original research by random editors. Borgenland (talk) 17:29, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A large part of the article currently focuses on the aftermath of the offensive - humanitarian, political, etc. While this is absolutely relevant information, the current article intends to focus on the offensive itself, and much of it would make more sense in a separate article.

Furthermore, given the amount of recent events, there have been several suggestions for this to be made into a WP:ITN Ongoing event, which only makes sense for an article that explicitly focuses on the aftermath.

As the proposed title, while consistent, might be too long for an article, it can alternatively be shortened to Aftermath of the 2023 Nagorno-Karabakh offensive. Chaotic Enby (talk) 17:07, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’m thinking more along the lines of an Impending “Fall/Dissolution of Nagorno-Karabakh” or something like that. Borgenland (talk) 17:32, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nagorno-Karabakh will continue to exist after Azerbaijan reintegrates it. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 17:50, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Super Dromaeosaurus: source? Azerbaijan is an unitary state, Nakhchivan is an exception due to its location. Beshogur (talk) 18:03, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nagorno-Karabakh is different to the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast, as their articles reflect. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 18:47, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't read the comment above, I see. Beshogur (talk) 20:16, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I meant with respect to the region being an autonomous area. Or maybe dissolution if Artsakh/NKR? Borgenland (talk) 18:13, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Republic of Artsakh" would then require to be in the title, per the parent article Republic of Artsakh. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 18:47, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest Azerbaijani takeover of Nagorno-Karabakh (like for example United Arab Emirates takeover of Socotra) or Reintegration of Nagorno-Karabakh into Azerbaijan (like Reintegration of Transnistria into Moldova). This way the point in time of splitting between the two articles will be clearly defined. "Aftermath of the 2023 Nagorno-Karabakh offensive" sounds like a general title with an undefined scope, even if it does have one. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 17:50, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with these proposed titles to some extent. Both better-defined and more concise than my initial proposal, although "takeover" still focuses (in your example) on the military event itself, while "reintegration" could be construed as propaganda-like (although not sure). Chaotic Enby (talk) 18:13, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'd rather not use the second option. although "takeover" still focuses (in your example) on the military event itself well, military events have continued to occur after 20 September, it has been reported that Azerbaijan has restored control over several towns like Martuni/Khojavend and Martakert/Aghdara and that was only once the Azerbaijani army entered the towns. Azerbaijan restoring control over Nagorno-Karabakh will implicitly include an unavoidable military factor for the whole duration of the process, unless the area is demilitarized or something. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 18:47, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense, agree with the first title in this case. Chaotic Enby (talk) 19:33, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My first thought of a title was something along the lines of Reintegration of Nagorno-Karabakh into Azerbaijan; to the best of my knowledge it's the truth so I don't think it has NPOV issues but if I mistaken then I would retract. The only problem I could think of with this title is that parts of the region has already been reintegrated in the aftermath of the second war back in 2020/21. But I would like to see what sources come to call this process over the coming weeks. Yeoutie (talk) 19:25, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can agree with this title Chaotic Enby (talk) 12:18, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a good idea to split the reactions section as well. Too many unrelated countries reactions are filling a major part of the article. Ecrusized (talk) 19:10, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, we should just take care of not leaving too little behind in the article but that should work. Chaotic Enby (talk) 19:35, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that much content in this article should moved (in part or full depending on relevance) to a new article with a more focused subject. I do not think creating an "aftermath" article is needed however, because the Ethnic cleansing of Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh article already serves this purpose. --KhndzorUtogh (talk) 03:32, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If it's agreed to split, I think it makes sense to split into that relevant article instead of making a new one. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 11:58, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Although the aforementioned article only mentions the flight of Armenians from the region, not the political events in the region itself (e.g., the negotiations, the dissolution of Artsakh, later military incidents, etc.) Chaotic Enby (talk) 12:17, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chaotic Enby I guess that makes sense. Aftermath of the 2023 Azerbaijani offensive in Nagorno-Karabakh or Azerbaijani takeover of Nagorno-Karabakh if it's going to be split. “reintegration” is a false premise because Azerbaijan has never had de facto control of the region before. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 04:36, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, although they technically had control in Soviet times and pre-Soviet (1918-21?) times. Not sure how much this is relevant for the title, and going back more than 30 years to justify calling it reintegration might sound like nationalistic propaganda. Chaotic Enby (talk) 11:02, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I support the split of the aftermath content of the page into Reintegration of Nagorno-Karabakh into Azerbaijan, or, barring that, Azerbaijani takeover of Nagorno-Karabakh. It seems the best way to address the scope of the article. DeemDeem52 (talk) 18:39, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we pretty much have a consensus for that then. Who wants to take care of the split? Chaotic Enby (talk) 23:31, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I think waiting for things to clear and nominating the article for another Move is a better option, I don't think we need to have essentially multiple articles about the same thing when it could be in one just with name change. Thoughts? - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 07:01, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should Turkey be added as a diplomatic supporter? The Minister of Foreign Affairs already announced that "our diplomatic supports always with Azerbaijan". There are a lot of source about this case.--Emreculha (talk) 20:10, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is already been mentioned in the reactions section. Kyzagan (talk) 20:24, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No. Infobox is not a place for diplomatic or other forms of support. It is purely for military involvement. See MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Ecrusized (talk) 20:34, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your replies and informaions. Emreculha (talk) 09:33, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to archive any discussion that is either closed or hasn't seen activity in at least a week to keep the talk page at a manageable size, please tell me if anyone objects. Chaotic Enby (talk) 21:45, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I added a special template here for the bot to archive automatically Nemoralis (talk) 11:11, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks! ChaotıċEnby(talk) 17:03, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I added this section to trim the timeline. Thoughts? Can be expanded. Beshogur (talk) 20:49, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Great idea, they'll probably both be sections of the new article with the split coming and in any case it's great to have more structure than just a timeline! Thanks! Chaotic Enby (talk) 23:33, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the move. I've also taken your lead and rearranged the aftermath by topic. I did remove some visits since it was not stated what their purpose was in the article. Borgenland (talk) 02:41, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Brandmeister: I see you have also added the claim that In 1993, the United Nations Security Council adopted four resolutions that called for the cessation of hostilities and the withdrawal of all occupying Armenian forces in and around Nagorno-Karabakh here. The same issues apply; first, unless reliable sources consider these resolutions relevant to this offensive then including the content here is a WP:DUE violation.

Second, the source you have provided is a primary source, and thus we can only use it for straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source. In the source, there are four calls for withdrawal:

• Demands the immediate cessation of all hostilities and hostile acts with a view to establishing a durable cease-fire, as well as immediate withdrawal of all occupying forces from the Kelbadjar district and other recently occupied areas of Azerbaijan;
• Demands the immediate cessation of all hostilities and the immediate complete and unconditional withdrawal of the occupying forces involved from the district of Agdam and all other recently occupied areas of the Azerbaijan Republic;
• Calls for the immediate implementation of the reciprocal and urgent steps provided for in the CSCE Minsk Group's Adjusted timetable, including the withdrawal of forces from recently occupied territories and the removal of all obstacles to communications and transportation;
• Demands from the parties concerned the immediate cessation of armed hostilities and hostile acts, the unilateral withdrawal of occupying forces from the Zangelan district and the city of Goradiz, and the withdrawal of occupying forces from other recently occupied areas of the Azerbaijani Republic in accordance with the Adjusted timetable of urgent steps to implement Security Council resolutions 822 (1993) and 853 (1993) (S/26522, appendix), as amended by the CSCE Minsk Group meeting in Vienna of 2 to 8 November 1993;

To make the claim that the United Nations Security Council adopted four resolutions that called for the ... withdrawal of all occupying Armenian forces in and around Nagorno-Karabakh we need to interpret recently occupied areas of the Azerbaijani Republic as including Nagorno-Karabakh; this goes beyond what we are permitted to do with primary sources. I am also concerned that you are interpreting occupying forces as meaning Armenian forces, when my interpretation of the source would suggest that it is referring to Artsakh forces - which I feel neatly demonstrates the issue with relying on our interpretation of controversial primary sources.

As such, I am hoping that you will be able to provide sources that both support the claims you make about the resolutions, and that demonstrate that the resolutions are considered relevant to the offensive by reliable sources and thus mentioning them here is WP:DUE. BilledMammal (talk) 10:01, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BilledMammal: I have reverted their edit on this page, but can't do anything on the other page without breaking 1RR. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 11:12, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Beshogur: I see you reinstated this; however, the WP:OR and WP:NPOV issues remain unaddressed. I note that I tried to find secondary sources, and the first I opened, Post-Soviet Conflicts: The Thirty Years’ Crisis, directly contradicted this interpetation, saying The UNSC adopted four resolutions on April 30, July 29, October 14, and November 12, 1993, condemning the Armenian invasion of Azerbaijani lands and demanding the withdrawal of Armenian troops from the Azerbaijani regions of Kelbadjar, Agdam, Fuzuli, Jabrayil, Qubadli, and Zangilan, all of which are beyond the Nagorno Karabakh region.

I note it does support the interpretation that occupying forces means Armenian forces not Artsakh forces, but addressing that one concern isn't enough when we have other WP:NPOV and WP:OR violations - and our article is contradicted by reliable sources.

In your revert you mention that it is on the Second Nagorno-Karabakh War article, but the format it is in there doesn't have WP:OR issues and although the WP:NPOV issues remain due to the lack of secondary sources establishing that its discussion is WP:DUE I am less concerned about them there as it seems more likely that reliable sources will discuss them in a context of a war where the discussed territories are still occupied than in the context of a war where they are not. BilledMammal (talk) 17:56, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First, our statement says Armenian forces, not Armenian Armed Forces, or anything else. You can interpret whatever you want. It definiely doesn't say anything like "Artsakh forces". There is no such WP:OR and NPOV issue. This had been discussed several times. UN resolutions talks clear. Armenian-occupied territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh is called for a reason, this was discussed there again. You claim these territories were not occupied? Beshogur (talk) 19:09, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Our statement is In 1993, the United Nations Security Council adopted four resolutions that called for the cessation of hostilities and the withdrawal of all occupying Armenian forces in and around Nagorno-Karabakh. The resolutions have not been complied with. There are several WP:OR issues with this, but I will just focus on one; we say that the UN resolution called for the withdrawal of forces from inside Nagorno-Karabakh, but it is not possible to get this statement from a straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source. The fact that this is WP:OR should be clear from the fact that our interpretation is contradicted by a reliable source which says that the resolution did not apply to Nagorno-Karabakh.

The WP:NPOV issue is that we are not in compliance with WP:BALASP, which tells us to treat each aspect of a subject with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. Since reliable sources covering the 2023 Azerbaijani offensive in Nagorno-Karabakh do not appear to have given any treatment to the 1993 UN Resolutions the weight we are required to treat this aspect with is 0 - we are required to exclude it. BilledMammal (talk) 19:30, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's on the background section, it's talking about 1988. Also it's the UN, what kind of POV are you talking about? OSCE says the same, Council of Europe says the same. Beshogur (talk) 19:50, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and removed it; it's WP:OR that contradicts reliable sources, and whose inclusion is against WP:BALASP as reliable sources covering the 2023 Azerbaijani offensive in Nagorno-Karabakh do not appear to have given any treatment to it.

If you want to include it, please find reliable sources on the 2023 Azerbaijani offensive in Nagorno-Karabakh that give it treatment. BilledMammal (talk) 20:22, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of reliable source tells the otherwise, I'm curious. There is no undue weight since it's a fact, not a view. Beshogur (talk) 22:03, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I provided it, and the relevant quote, above. WP:BALASP doesn't mentions views, it mentions aspects - in other words, facts.

To address this from a different angle, your arguments would support including details about the 1991 Nagorno-Karabakh independence referendum, but I hope you will agree that we shouldn't even mention the referendum? 22:11, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Please avoid repeated arguments. It's not an isolated event but a key fact. I don't see how the independence referendum would give us extra information, since it's one of those events that led to the UN resolutions. Beshogur (talk) 22:33, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If it is a key fact for the subject of this offensive then you will be able to find sources about the offensive discussing the resolutions. If you cannot, then it isn't a key fact - from first principles, why would we consider it a key fact if reliable sources do not? BilledMammal (talk) 22:48, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Brandmeister: Your new version, while a faithful reproduction of the claims of the source, is still in violation of WP:BALASP.

It does address the WP:OR issue, but introduces additional issues as it is a primary source (specifically, it is a quote from the Azerbaijani representative) that is in disagreement with secondary sources. For example, the secondary source above states that the resolutions did not require a withdrawal from Nagorno-Karabakh, while both Undeclared War: The Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict Reconsidered and Turkey and the conflict in Nagorno Karabakh: a delicate balance state that the United Nations Security Council avoided accusing Armenia of involvement in the war. Note that WP:REDFLAG speaks to this situation; Challenged claims that are supported purely by primary ... sources.

I've removed the content again; please do not reinstate it without sourcing that explains the resolutions and that establishes the relevance to this offensive. BilledMammal (talk) 22:48, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Beshogur: I see you've reverted my edit; I don't know how many ways I can say this, but this is a primary source - specifically a a quote from the Azerbaijani representative to the United Nations - that is disputed by reliable secondary sources. This isn't the sort of content that we are allowed to have in the article.

Setting aside the NPOV issues for a moment, why do you believe that we should dismiss the secondary sources and instead rely on this primary source - and what policy basis do you have for this belief? BilledMammal (talk) 22:57, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So reliable sources dispute that UN resolutions saying Armenian forces should withdraw from ocuppied territories? Two problems with your arguments. Do reliable sources dispute the fact it is occupied or it disputed the fact that UN resolutions told this? Or is UN simply irrelevant here? You're also repeating same thing over and over.

Primary sources are also appropriate additions for such statements. It straightforwardly says the statement. Especially reactions section has such links. Why aren't you against those? Since UN is neutral, I don't see any issue here.

Again, this is a key fact and not a point of view. And Azerbaijani representative has nothing to do with this. Do we even quote him? No. Does his statement anything in this key fact? No. From my understanding you're simply thinking it's not an occupation? Am I wrong? Beshogur (talk) 23:12, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do reliable sources dispute the fact it is occupied or it disputed the fact that UN resolutions told this? They dispute that the UN resolutions said to withdraw from Nagorno-Karabakh (according to the sources, the resolutions said to withdraw from all Azerbaijani territories except Nagorno-Karabakh), and they dispute that the UN resolutions said Armenia was occupying the territories (according to the sources the resolutions present Armenia as a neutral third party.)

Again, this is a key fact and not a point of view It's an interpretation - and regardless WP:BALASP is about facts, not points of view.

Since UN is neutral, I don't see any issue here. The UN is as neutral as the US Senate, but the neutrality of the source isn't relevant here.

Does his statement anything in this key fact? No. Yes, we do; we say In 1993, the United Nations Security Council adopted four resolutions that supported the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan and demanded the immediate withdrawal of the occupying Armenian forces from Azerbaijan. In the source, there are only two statements about the four security council resolutions, Four Security Council resolutions adopted in 1993 demanded the immediate withdrawal of the occupying forces from Azerbaijan and He recalled that, in response to the occupation of the Azerbaijani territories and alarmed by the severe humanitarian catastrophe, the Security Council had adopted four resolutions in 1993 demanding the immediate, complete and unconditional withdrawal of the occupying forces. Both statements are attributed to the Azerbaijani representative (and technically, they are the same statement - the first is in the summary section, the second is in complete record of the plenary.)

Note that no aspect of the source supports the claim that the four resolutions supported the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan. BilledMammal (talk) 23:37, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The question is: how do reliable sources understand this statement? Because as we've seen, the formulation isn't as straightforward as "Armenia should retreat from Nagorno-Karabakh".. ChaotıċEnby(talk) 23:43, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've given up on this debate as it appears to be going nowhere; instead I have opened a discussion at RSN. BilledMammal (talk) 00:11, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The added wording "supported the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan and demanded the immediate withdrawal of the occupying Armenian forces from Azerbaijan" is verbatim wording of the resolutions without their interpretation which is explicitly allowed under WP:PRIMARY. And another secondary source confirms their relation to NK, Customary International Humanitarian Law, Cambridge University Press, 2005, p. 2933: "In several resolutions adopted in 1993 concerning the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan over Nagorno-Karabakh..." I think we're done here by now, enough has been said. Brandmeister^talk 07:47, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should this be included somewhere (in the Aftermath section maybe)? I hope it won't devolve into another confrontation between them...

https://www.thestar.com.my/news/world/2023/09/30/azerbaijan-says-serviceman-killed-by-sniper-armenia-denies-incident ChaotıċEnby(talk) 17:02, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]