This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

International relations Low‑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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Asian / European / 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. Associated task forces: /  Asian military history task force European military history task force Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force Post-Cold War task force Armenia High‑importance September 2022 Armenia–Azerbaijan clashes 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Azerbaijan High‑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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Artsakh High‑importance September 2022 Armenia–Azerbaijan clashes 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

I believe, that this should be referred to: Azeri soldiers allegedly execute Armenian POWs: https://twitter.com/NeilPHauer/status/1576360425155092481 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.251.95.126 (talk) 04:30, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not quite sure of the reliability of this particular media but this is the only news report I can find https://en.armradio.am/2022/10/02/video-of-execution-of-armenian-pows-proven-fresh-and-authentic-human-rights-defender-says/

The video however looks convincing enough that azeri soldiers executed those armenian POWs Evo1726 (talk) 12:11, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well Wikipedia is not built on the how video looks to us. Currently it is unknown when and where that was filmed, video footage published less that 24 hours ago. I suggest to wait until it will be analyzed by the experts and published by the reliable sources before adding it to the encyclopedia as per WP:NOTNP. A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 12:28, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dunutubble: The Russian broken ceasefire was broken within minutes and the clashes are continuing.^[1] These two Twitter accounts are giving updates. [1], [2]. Viewsridge (talk) 14:00, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Invasion? No one is calling it an invasion. ([3] [4] [5] [6]) It should be changed back to clashes. All Azerbaijan has done (as of now) is capture some heights on the border, not invading it's neighbor. Nothing in the article as well says anything about an invasion. Yes, Azerbaijan has moved into Armenia's recognized borders but if they were launching an invasion, they would have (or at least tried to) take more Armenian land and villages. As more time passes, if it turns out to develop into an invasion or not, we will have to see, but clashes between Armenians and Azerbaijanis are not rare. (If it does develop into an invasion, remove "September" from the title and change "Invasion" to "invasion" as well.) Mtcat101 (talk) 23:31, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved it myself back to clashes. Mtcat101 (talk) 23:39, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mtcat101: Shouldn’t it be titled September 2022 Armenia-Azerbaijan border clashes? Blaylockjam10 (talk) 00:50, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks, I completely missed that. It's fixed now. Mtcat101 (talk) 01:09, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Blaylockjam10 and Mtcat101: The clashes are not necessarily limited to the border, Armenia has said that the city of Martuni was shelled by Azerbaijan. The towns of Jermuk and Goris were also shelled which are not adjacent to the border. Viewsridge (talk) 06:24, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's well known that the media report on this in a very pro-Azerbaijan way. Looking at this objectively, parts of Syunik, Vayots Dzor and Gegharkunik provinces (UNCONTESTED AREAS OF THE REPUBLIC OF ARMENIA) are being invaded, civilians have been killed. How the hell is that not an invasion??? If for example, the USA randomly invaded Toronto, started shelling canadian military sites etc, by your logic, you would then say that "clashes have taken place in the disputed territory of Ontario"., even though there is no international consensus that these lands are disputed, beyond the most fringe propaganda of the state of Azerbaijan. Mikeo34 (talk) 10:40, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mikeo34: This has not been described as an invasion by any third party or even first party source for that matter, including by Armenians themselves. Even in the case that it had been, such a change would require a renaming discussion first. I am reverting the article back to its old name, please discuss first before making such changes. Viewsridge (talk) 11:06, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Viewsridge: Media uses different descriptions, including “Azerbaijan has attacked Armenia” [7] or "war"[8], while human rights organisations like Lemkin institute call it a “war of aggression” [9] and Freedom House calles it "Attacks on Armenia" [10]. A number of government/parliamentary statements describe it as a "large-scale attack"[11] [12], or “aggression” [13], on the "sovereign territory of Armenia". Most US senators/congressmen refer to “(unrpovocked/unwarranted) attack/aggression/offensive/assault on/in Armenia” by Azerbaijan [14], [15] [16][17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22][23] The US state department also confirmes “significant evidence of Azerbaijani shelling inside Armenia and significant damage to Armenian infrastructure"[24] , while Armenia has reported already 4 civilians wounded and over 2500 displaced[25] and the fact that it’s been brought up in the UN Security Council also suggests more than just “border clashes”... Hence the current title seems misleading as it does not reflect the scale of the attack (if you see the maps[26] it's basically covering 30-40 percent of the entire territory of Armenia) and the fact that Azerbaijan is recognised as the instigator of the attacks and that the fighting is inside internationally recognised borders of Armenia. So I would suggest renaming it to something more appropriate, like a "large-sale military aggression/attack/offensive on Armenia by Azerbaijan" or similar. Vanezi (talk) 16:01, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanezi Astghik: There is no dispute that Azerbaijan is taking offensive actions in the clashes. This has been admitted by their government. However these actions are still not called an invasion by any references. It can be stated in the article that Azerbaijan is accused of launching an unprovoked attack. Viewsridge (talk) 18:47, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Viewsridge:That's why I did not suggest to revert it back to "invasion" but to use another, more appropriate name. I was suggesting the title "Military aggression on Armenia by Azerbaijan" or "Large-scale military attack on Armenia by Azerbaijan" as both "aggression" and "attack" are terms that have been widely used by media, as well as official/government entities. The term "clashes" fails to communicate both the massive scale of the attack and its nature. Can we agree on that? Vanezi (talk) 20:44, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Viewsridge I agree. "clash" connotes a local skirmish that may-or-may not be coordinated or premeditated, whereas these attacks have obviously been coordinated and premeditated as evidenced by the fact that they occurred simultaneously on the east and west borders of Armenia. Humanatbest (talk) 09:04, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These aren't border clashes. It has been confirmed by both sides and by independent media that Azerbaijan has advanced to territories deep within Armenia. --Antondimak (talk) 14:43, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Antondimak: Please see the discussion above. Viewsridge (talk) 16:32, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ZaniGiovanni: Please explain why AzMoD's statement is UNDUE. It is not displayed in Wikivoice and is explicitly stated to be *their* statement. There is nearly identical information in the section below the one you reverted, but from the Armenian MoD. How come you don't think that's UNDUE? — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 12:21, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what "nearly identical" statement you’re talking about, I'm going to comment on my revert.

Saying Azerbaijan didn't enter Armenian territory is utter nonsense even if it's a MoD statement, WP:UNDUE applies here. Especially when Azerbaijan already occupies Armenian territory around Lake Sev. [27], [28] which makes such a statement even more UNDUE, WikiVoice or otherwise. Unless third party RS confirm such exceptional claims, it shouldn't be used in the article. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 12:45, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You know, the one that was added just before mine. Anyway.

I really don't think you understand what UNDUE means. To omit statement from one of the two sides of the conflict is definitely not something that policy would support. But oh well. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 12:58, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Az MoD version is in the section already; September_2022_Armenia–Azerbaijan_clashes#12–13_September.

What was removed were exceptional and undue claims contradicting RS and current occupation of Armenian land near Lake Sev, making such statements even more UNDUE. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 13:07, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A paragraph I had added regarding Aliyev's irredentist claims over Armenia's sovereign territories which are currently attacked by Azerbaijan was removed by Golden. I need further explanation on why those statements don't belong to the background section as they are concering the currently attacked provinces which he continuously held territorial claims on over the years.

Hi, please read WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. Unless a reliable source has connected Aliyev's past irredentist claims to the modern clashes, your own conclusion that they're connected would be original research and not appropriate for Wikipedia. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 12:39, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Two azeri civilians were killed according to Azerbaijan, "Joint Statement of the Azerbaijan Ministry of Defense and the Prosecutor General's Office". This is given in the article, but not the information box. Please, add this to the information box. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.134.57.203 (talk) 15:58, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not killed, but wounded. KHE'O (talk) 19:06, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KHE'O yes please add it

The background section needs to be improved, however, I'm unable to edit the source of the page. If any of the contributors would be interested in doing that I can provide more sources (User:Vanezi Astghik, User:ZaniGiovanni maybe?).

The first paragraph of that section should include some details about the dispute over the so called Zangezur corridor, with Aliyev's threatening statement from April 2021. Here are some analysis of the current events connecting both Zangezur corridor dispute, and Aliyev's threatening statements/territorial claims to the background of the current attacks.^[1][2][3] This can be restored as well with more details added about the corridor dispute. Yellowheawrt (talk) 18:15, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the background section could be longer, especially if this article is going to grow (I hope it won't). Some sort of excerpt from the main article may be better to avoid content and discussion forks, allthough I don't see an obvious solution. The Zangezur corridor is currrently mentioned in the "Motive section" without a wikilink (which would be a simple and effective improvement) and mentioned and linked in the main article with different names (e.g. Syunik corridor). 109.119.227.84 (talk) 02:12, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eurasianet, Deseret News, Reuters, The Jerusalem Post, and Laurence Broers have acknowledged that the clashes were started by Azerbaijan, so it is WP:UNDUE to "both sides" who started it. Dallavid (talk) 18:22, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, apparently The New York Times didn't bother to fact-check that this isn't in Nagorno-Karabakh.[29] --Dallavid (talk) 18:37, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dallavid: These are not reliable sources since they are second party opinion pieces. As in they didn't collect the data themselves but are adding into the material that was shared from news agencies. Reuters has made no mention of these. Viewsridge (talk) 19:16, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources are clearly third party (not relation to Armenia or Azerbaijan at all) and are not "opinion pieces". Eurasianet is probably the most qualified source in the entire article because it specializes on news, information, and analysis in the Caucasus. Eurasianet has won multiple awards for quality, such as the EPpy Awards. Desert News is also considered completely reliable.

And are you aware that you made five reverts in less than 24 hours? Please do not remove sourced content again without discussing here first. --Dallavid (talk) 19:40, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dallavid: Yes I have been reverting unsourced additions on the article since there are very few editors watching the page. Please do not assume battleground behavior in this discussion. A source being reliable does not mean their publishings represents facts. Quite reliable sources such as NYT and CNN regularly publish opinion pieces to give their editorial perspective on the subjects, which is what the sources you have cited are including. Some of the others sources such has Reuters are apparent failed verifications, which means they don't include the material they are being cited for, that is why I have removed them. Viewsridge (talk) 20:24, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed all of the sources again, and at no point are any of them classified as opinion articles. How can you consider TNYT to be more credible than specialty sources like Eurasianet, when TNYT erroneously reported this is happening in Nagorno-Karabakh? What did Reuters fail to verify? Keeping in mind that it is being cited for the analysis of Laurence Broers, who is an accredited expert. --Dallavid (talk) 17:35, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Viewsridge: If you have a problem with the sources, please address it here. And please do not rollback my entire edits, unless you have an issue with changes such as Pelosi's statement. --Dallavid (talk) 20:14, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which neutrally represents infraction. The information you added was cherry picked from the provided sources and obviously distorts the neutrality.

• Euroasianet states that Azerbaijan carried out a wide-scale attack against targets in Armenia, but then provides both Azerbaijani and Armenian version, it does not state who started clashes.
• Desert source, first time hearing about that newspapper, but it refers to according to the Armenian Weekly, Azerbaijan launched an attack against the Republic of Armenia. and states that Laurence Broers said that Azerbaijan attacked, but Laurence Broers did not said that, he just attributed it to what Yerevan said.
• Reuters source just attributed it to according Yerevan
• Jpost source does not states that Azerbaijan attacked, but says that Azerbaijan and Turkish media have claimed Armenia is at fault for the clashes this week, but evidence and reports point to the opposite.

As I said sourced does not support the material you added, and cherry picking information would be WP:SYNTH and distort neutrality. Almost all sources agree that Azerbaijan started the clashes, but also all of them present it as "Clashes" and not "Attacks on Armenia", and almost non of the sources blame one side, but share versions of both. On the other hand, the previous version of the article was starting with clashes, which is truth, and then sharing both versions of what happened. I think adding up to it would be more appropriate. Thanks. A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 20:44, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make it clear, version of the article, which I restored, already makes it clear that Azerbaijan attacked targets in the Armenia, but it does it while obeying neutrality, where your version is not following WP:NPOV at all. However, as I said, you can add up to what is already written. it would be better to add it to the body of the article and then summarize in the lead, we do not want lead of the article to be bigger that the body, do we? A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 21:02, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@UserXpetVarpet, it is not “my complaints”, I provided policy based reason, please read it above. Also, page was created 3 days ago and no consensus reached yet on the stable version, if you adding material, please ensure that you reach consensus as per WP:BURDEN and WP:ONUS. A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 21:29, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the only thing cherry picking are your bullet points. It very clearly declares who started the clashes in the very first Eurasianet sentence. Neither the Desert News or Retuers sources say Broers is just repeating "what Yerevan said", he clearly states this is his own conclusion: "I think there is a feeling in Azerbaijan that now is the time to deploy its power, its military advantage, and to extract the maximum that it can get". And Jpost was being cited for that exact quote. And neutrality is not put before WP:UNDUE weight. Per reliable sources, it should be stated in the opening sentence that Azerbaijan attacked Armenia, instead of beginning with a "both sides" narrative that will leave the reader confused. --Dallavid (talk) 17:37, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did not cherrypick, I analyzed sources. Im flattened that instead of discussing and reaching consensus you restored your edit despite of the fact that 3 users opposed you. Please revert yourself and start collaborating. A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 20:53, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty clear that this is more than a border clash: due to Ukraine war Russia isn't doing anything to peacekeep, and Azerbaijan senses an opportunity to grab the remaining disputed territory that they didn't get in the last war.

When you play the Game of Thrones, you win or you die 19:01, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Agnimandur: Has to be described as such by reliable references before such a change can be made. Viewsridge (talk) 19:21, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well clashes are not in the Nagorno-Karabakh, and looks like they are stopped...so they were border clashes, not war. Third Nagorno-Karabakh War name not suitable . A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 21:04, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's not even an article titled Second Nagorno-Karabakh War. Super Ψ Dro 13:38, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war was the 2nd Nagorno-Karabakh War. It might be good for the sake of WP:CONSISTENT to rename it. However, these recent clashes weren’t a 3rd Nagorno-Karabakh war. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 21:03, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Change biased information of "Azerbaijani attack on Armenia" to "clashes erupted, whereas both sides blamed each other". 95.65.208.162 (talk) 22:36, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. This looks to be very well sourced, and will definitely be a contentious edit. Please discuss this with other editors. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:39, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The clashes lasted from the 12 th to the 14th of September 2022 as of 16 of September the clashes were not reported why has it not ended 2600:6C50:1B00:119E:30E1:B544:EC1B:B8DA (talk) 21:45, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My edit got reverted. I wanted to remove from the lead the following sentence: "Both sides blamed each other for the escalation", which preceded the Armenian side's statement and reference to its confirmation by NASA data.

The sentence creates false balance by insinuating both sides' claims should be taken equally seriously. If you, however, look into Western sources then you will see (just scroll above, a user has listed several ones - Vanezi (talk) 16:01, 14 September 2022 (UTC)), that they specifically state that Azerbaijani side assaulted Armenian side, or they avoid blaming either party. However, the Azeri version is always mentioned as what it is: just an Azerbaijani official statement that is confirmed by nothing. This, I believe this particular sentence right at the beginning of the article violates WP:UNDUE, false balance is also undue.

As to "consensus" which supposedly is necessary for such a minor fix, that I offered, well, I already know what to expect: it's probably impossible to convince the side that is here to represent Azerbaijani views. Knižnik (talk) 10:10, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Knižnik: Please see the discussion titled "Undue weight" above. The fact that Azerbaijan has shelled Armenian territory, as seen by NASA images, is not necessarily proof that it was responsible for the escalation. Viewsridge (talk) 15:06, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've never opposed mentioning the Azeri POV per se, but the way it is done is clearly biased. This particular sentence has no place in the lead. It violates WP:UNDUE in a sneaky way. The only reason for keeping this sentence is to advance the implausible "equal guilt" version, which Western mainstream media don't take.Knižnik (talk) 15:08, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this. It's also important to note that it's not simply a given for Western countries to always side with Armenia in a given dispute, considering Armenia's long-standing political ties to Russia & Iran, who have not been traditional allies of "the West." Western countries & human rights organizations specifically assigning blame to Azerbaijan for escalating, in itself, seems noteworthy. DJ (talk) 16:07, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. My concern was that the view pushed by Azerbaijan alone gets too much coverage in the lead. We all know it's falsity, but what guides us are Wikipedia policies like WP:UNDUE. This particular sentence is clearly undue in the lead, meant only to fool the readers, and it should go.Knižnik (talk) 18:37, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What are you referring to by "sneaky attempt"? There is neither a pro Armenian nor a pro Azeri point of view in the lede as it takes a neutral stance. Viewsridge (talk) 19:00, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was specifically talking about a "false balance". This sentence seems to give Azeri POV (more like propaganda) and the neutral observers' POV an equal weight.Knižnik (talk) 19:32, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like multiple users here disagree with you. Please review WP:UNDUE: "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." --Dallavid (talk) 20:24, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So both sides in fact blamed each other, what undue in this factual information? A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 20:38, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Azerbaijan was accused of being the aggressor by Eurasianet, the European Parliament, Freedom House, the Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention, Nancy Pelosi, Ned Price, Emmanuel Macron, the Cypriot Foreign Minister, and Laurence Broers. Armenia was blamed for the clashes only by the Turkish Foreign Minister and the Organization of Turkic States. The article needs to reflect this. --Dallavid (talk) 20:46, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And non of these change the fact that both sides blamed each other. Please revert yourself and reach the consensus as per wp:onus. A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 20:55, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The aggressor side's and its close ally's lies that not a single third party reports as plausible should not be put on the same footing as the version of reliable third party sources. According to your logic Germany's and Poland's "blaming each other" should also have been reported as equally valid if Wikipedia had existed in September 1939.Knižnik (talk) 19:29, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your comparison is not getting even close to what we are talking about. Same sources showing that Armenia and Azerbaijan blaming each other, and this sentence does not imply who is attacked, it shows correctly sourced attributed position of the involved parties. Plus, article mades it clear that majority of sources believe that it is Azerbaijan who attacked, so there are no place for confusion. A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 19:44, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It becomes a lot less relevant that both sides blame each other if there is an overwhelming amount of due weight for one particular "side". Saying "both sides" gives Azerbaijan's accusation more credibility than what reliable sources give it and is confusing to the reader. And now even Azeri opposition politicians and activists admit that Azerbaijan was behind the attack,[30] some of which were declared traitors by government social media.[31] --Dallavid (talk) 20:33, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The statement Both sides blamed each other for the escalation is reporting of the factual information of what happened. It does not say who attacked whom and does not give credibility to any side. it just states the fact, which is not UNDUE because it is view point of majority that Azerbaijan and Armenia in fact blamed each other for escalation . Considering that lead already states that Azerbaijan attacked Multiple third-party sources said that Azerbaijan attacked Armenia, which means that there is no place for readers to be confused on who attacked, I really do not see what is your point. A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 14:41, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because "both sides" gives the implication that the truth cannot be verified, when it has in fact been verified by multiple third-parties. --Dallavid (talk) 17:50, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If 2 people are fighting and you take an image at some time=X, this is not evidence that person 1 started the fight. What you need is a video, from start to finish. Or maybe, you need the presence of 3 rd party witnesses that you trust. Therefore Abrvagl is correct on this. Perhaps what needs to be done is to explain why both sides blame each other. To us it is obvious but will it be obvious to readers, say 1000 y into the future? The answer is: They blame each other to play the victim. They want to show the world that the other group is the aggressor.

Such things happen in small claims courts all the time. All that the judge can do is apply some logic. In the case of this conflict, Armenia has lost over 5000 soldiers in Sep 2020. It’s military is weak and its weapons is old. Azerbaijan has a lot of influx of money from selling oil and Azerbaijan invests heavily into its military. It used drones which is essentially what helped it win the war. After the peace deal brokered by Russia, Azerbaijan wanted Armenia to build a road which Armenia has not even started. It has not pulled out its military. So, the president of Azerbaijan threatened to use violence. Those are facts and humans can put facts together and make an educated guess as to what happened in the past even when there isn’t ultra solid evidence. Vmelkon (talk) 05:45, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone truly feel that this statement truly belongs in the article? Of course mainstream sources are going to say such things because they hold the EU in high esteem, but where is the proof that the EU would otherwise have taken an interest in the disagreements between two non-member and non-candidate nations? The EU has never once mentioned the word "peace" regarding the Ukraine-Russia war. It openly encourages the endeavour of Zelenskyy for whom the organisation is certainly in part responsible for the astronomical figure in Zelenskyy's offshore account as exposed in the Pandora Papers. --Coldtrack (talk) 19:36, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The "ability to mediate" wording is supported only by the Politico source. I think the gas (and other) deals are worth mentioning in some way at least for the timing, most sources don't make direct connections and I don't expect any to make them. Not sure about the exact wording, but I would keep it short because this is part of a long conflict and the world doesn't exactly revolve around the EU. 109.119.205.238 (talk) 21:30, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also both the Russia and EU statements could be moved lower (to the Background section?), this can probably wait untill the article gets a more stable structure. 109.119.205.238 (talk) 22:15, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As per the user above has said. I think, Russia's weakened role, and the clashes coinciding with the Kharkiv Offensive should be kept in lede as references cited say this had a very large emphasis on the clashes. EU's weakened mediation, due to dependence on Azeribaijani gas could be placed into aftermath or background sections. Viewsridge (talk) 06:36, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're both missing the point. I never said that it was not reported, and I didn't deny the validity of the source. I am saying that it is a loaded suggestion that has nothing to do with the conflict in that it is nothing more than the projection of an illusion. Yes the EU looks here for alternative gas solutions, and yes if it had intended to mediate then it will have compromised its own neutrality. But where is the evidence of the EU mediating anywhere in this world where at least one nation is not a member state or confirmed candidate. I gave the example of Russia and Ukraine. To date, the EU has never called for the opposing factions to meet whereby the EU played mediator. Yet in the Greece-Macedonia agreement over the name, the EU was more than mediator as it had been the chief power broker: overseeing Macedonia amend its constitution retrospectively after the boycott proved to defeat a doubly loaded question so that the Zoran Zaev regime force the nation into the EU/NATO econimical and power structure. That's my point. The EU has no mandate to play peacemaker wherever two nations are at conflict, so why imply it? --Coldtrack (talk) 18:38, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This argument seems like a bit of an original research, the references does highlight Europe's failed ability to negotiate due the gas shortage. I don't think there is a reference that compares EU mediation capability in this area to Macedonia, with or without in relevance to this conflict. Viewsridge (talk) 14:16, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I (formerly 109.119.205.238 (talk)) also find that the argument made by User:Coldtrack doesn't have much weight policy-wise. I don't believe the EU would have had any meaningful mediation role (and probably there are RS to support this opinion), I just don't think this is the best way to argue for similar changes based on current wikipedia policies (agree with them or not), and pointed to some (possibly questionable) reasons why sources would support similar edits to those intended, so I found the reply puzzling. As for moving only EU to background, I see this problem: it wouldn't make sense to mention only EU and not Russia in the background section, and having both would give the wrong impression that the two entities have the same importance in the region. While I expect some disagreement about how much of a blow Russia took in UKraine, I think that Russia having a more important role in this region is a much more agreable statement. Moving the EU to the effect (aftermath?) section with something on the lines of "the clashes complicated matters for the EU, because of the gas deals" may avoid this problem without distorting the currently used sources. 109.119.253.37 (talk) 01:20, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This statement along with "weakening its force projection in the region." are opinion pieces, they should be attributed properly and they are definitely do not belong to the lead...I think analysis section will fit them better. A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 13:24, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Abrvagl Thank you. That is a step forward no less. --Coldtrack (talk) 21:03, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Viewsridge + IP: You are both missing the point here, especially the anon who has dreamt up the fantasy that my argument has no weight "policy-wise" so if it's policies you want, here they are. You both argue "the source says so", well when a source gets challenged, you then have WP:ONUS to contend with. In short, the fact that a point is sourced does not mean it warrants inclusion. Secondly, not every piece of coverage regarding a subject needs to find its way onto the article, not least paltry non-events that have no lasting consequences. This in turn is backed up by WP:NOTNEWS. There's two policies, while you two are not even out of the gates on what makes mention of the EU special in the first place as a would-be mediator. --Coldtrack (talk) 21:03, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All three images in the article are critical of one side and need to be removed until a balanced placement can be created. Viewsridge (talk) 06:37, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how a removal of these pictures is justified under WP:NPOV. The pictures are presented in a neutral manner and add good value to the article. Is there something about the way the pictures are presented/described that you feel is non-neutral? They seem described in an objective manner to me but you are welcome to disagree and suggest/implement a change. If it is simply the fact that they portray an act by Azerbaijan that does not put Azerbaijan in a positive light, I don't see how that justifies a removal. Achemish (talk) 07:21, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

user:LechitaPL can you explain your removal of my edit? TASS is not Azerbaijani Ministry of Defence and Azerbaijan has not announced 80 KIAs (it is written 80+, but source doesn't even say 80+. The section says per Azerbaijan, so it must be per Azerbaijan, not per Russia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.134.56.78 (talk) 13:59, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"[...] bringing total number of the killed to at least 214." Unless I am reading this wrong, 135 and 80 sum to 215, not 214. So please change the text from "[...] bringing total number of the killed to at least 214." to "[...] bringing total number of the killed to at least 215." 2607:FEA8:A3C0:7280:245D:476D:3676:1B08 (talk) 23:31, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Already done--Pinchme123 (talk) 01:32, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanezi Astghik These are WP:EXTRAORDINARY assertions that are only supported by GW. GW is a minor organization; they appear to lack sufficient research and analysis and are not peer reviewed. According to the GW site, A Genocide Warning is called when the genocidal process has reached the stages of preparation by perpetrators and persecution of a targeted group., issuing such a warning would be absolute nonsense, especially given that it was issued when it was already clear that the escalation would not be continued.

Moreover, article is written by the Nat Hill, and it was his third article posted on the GW for last 3 years. Previous 2 "Genocide Warnings" of him were deleted from the GW site. The only article of him has just 1600 views and 4 likes. Long story short, these WP:EXTRAORDINARY assertions from GW do not have WEIGHT to be included into the article. A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 07:57, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see no conflict with the WP:EXTRAORDINARY as my edits are not an assertion of fact. Your comments would have made sense if I had failed to present clearly the source of info, but instead tried to present it as facts, which is clearly not the case. Furthermore, personal opinions about Genocide Watch and how it should or shouldn't operate, as well as the number of views and likes of an article are irrelevant. I have added relevant info under the Reaction from Organisations section, where it clearly belongs, along with reactions from other organisations whose neutrality could also be called into questions, like the one from the "Organization of Turkic States". Vanezi (talk) 09:51, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Organization of Turkic States is a prominent international organization, whereas Genocide Watch is a fringe organization that published an extraordinary declaration that would be UNDUE to include even with proper attribution. It is not "personal opinions" about Genocide Watch, it is statement of fact. Genocide Watch is not reputable or peer reviewed, it (Nat Hill) published 2 warnings back in 2020, which were deleted after few months, and it is third and the only "article" written by the unknown "Nat Hill".

Calling two days long clashes a "genocide warning" is ludicrous, but after reading the article, you can see that it isn't really an article. The article contains no proof that Nat Hill conducted research or examined data.

It's basically a lot of propaganda-like stuff copied and pasted. For example:

• Clashes were between Armenia and Azerbaijan, but for some reason "genocide warning" named Azerbaijan and Nagorno-Karabakh, and also claims that Azerbaijan attacked unrecognized Armenian Republic of Artsakh. Which is not correct.
• Then is says even more nonsense that Russian peacekeepers were posted along the Armenia-Azerbaijan border as part of the ceasefire agreement. That guy even did not spent a time to read the ceasefire agreement.
• Then it becomes more ridiculous with the claim that Ilham Aliyev banned ethnic Armenians from entering Azerbaijan.
• Then article goes wild with no reason bringing up number of unrelated staff, like Armenian cultural heritage sites in Nakhichevan and Nagorno-Karabakh, without mentioning Azerbaijani cultural heritage wiped out both in Karabakh and Armenia for example.

Also, previously reliability of it was challenged by number of users, where they also highlighted selective approach of the GW, advising it being low quality and potential partisan source.

Long story short, this information about extraordinary claim from the minor organization GW, which posted such a low quality article, is UNDUE. If you still believe that it should be included - you can take it to the dispute resolutions as per WP:VNOT A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 11:20, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would kindly request you to abstain from arguments based on your personal opinions/evaluations, as to the rest of your arguments:

1 Genocide Watch isn’t a scientific journal to be peer-reviewed but a non-governmental organization based in Washington, which includes 70 organizations in 24 countries. It is not only a member of the Alliance Against Genocide (which includes more than 60 International NGOs), but also its Chair! Its reputable enough be quoted in publications like the Guardian, CNN and others. Its board of advisers included former commander of United Nations peacekeeping forces in Rwanda Roméo Dallaire, former Nuremberg Prosecutor Benjamin Ferencz, and former US Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power, so its reputability is hard to question.

2. Unlike the Organization of Turkic States, which can be deemed a non-neutral source in all matters relating Armenia and Azerbaijan, it is a completely neutral source with no close affiliations to neither Armenia nor Turkey/Azerbaijan...

3. Previous discussions you referred to did not result in removal or ban of Genocide Watch, on the contrary it was deemed a credible source of reference (unless Genocide Watch deletes the article itself, which is not the case here), so you seem to be making a point against your own argument here. Vanezi (talk) 19:59, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

However, they are not my own opinions or evaluations; rather, they are factual remarks and errors made in one little article, raising issues about the author's competency and neutrality, as well as the level of quality control over what is published in that organization. If you say that Genocide Watch is not a peer-reviewed scientific magazine, then stating absurd information that labels two-day-long clashes due to border demarcation disputes as "Genocide" is even more UNDUE. If it had been analyzed and published by credible sources, the inclusion of this content would have been guaranteed, but for now this information is insignificant and UNDUE.

Wikipedia should be based on reliable, published sources, and information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. This article already needs significant cleanup, because information is frequently added simply because it is accurate or related; adding additional material in this manner is not an improvement. However, as I said before, if you still believe that this information should be included into the article - I would suggest to take it to the dispute resolution boards, because I do not have anything else to add into this discussion. A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 21:05, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If they are not your personal and highly subjective opinions, then you are welcome to refer to reputable/neutral sources that question the credibility of Genocide Watch or the way the organisation operates. Vanezi (talk) 17:32, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ONUS states While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article. Such information should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. Please do not reinstate without reaching consensus. I requested third opinion to help us in reaching consensus. A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 19:28, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

By far the most extraordinary organization claim, inconsistent with all the other reactions, is the Organization of Turkic States blaming Armenia for the clashes. Genocide Watch is a perfectly reliable source that has no known controversies and isn't listed as unreliable on WP:RSP. Do you have any reliable sources for Genocide Watch being a "fringe organization" or publishing "propaganda-like stuff"? If you believe Genocide Watch is unreliable, please open a discussion on the WP:RSN and achieve a consensus. --Dallavid (talk) 19:54, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for joining the discussion. Did you actually read the discussion from the begging? Because I made it plain that my concern is not whether GW is RS or not, but that this information is undue and should not be included in the article (I will not repeat why's that I already listed above). Jumping into a conversation while seemingly not acknowledging my points and reverting without coming to a consensus (or at least waiting for a reply) is, to say the least, impolite. Anyhow, I am not going to engage into edit wars, at the end of the day if consensus will be with me - it will be removed, if not - it will stay, there is no urgency dictating to remove that piece of information immediately. A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 20:22, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning all of the examples you listed:

• Genocide Watch is referring to the wider 2021–2022 Armenia–Azerbaijan border crisis for the Republic of Artsakh part, not just September 2022.
• Source for the Russian peacekeepers in the ceasefire agreement[32]
• Source for all ethnic Armenians regardless of nationality being banned from Azerbaijan[33]
• That is a false balance. Azerbaijani cultural heritage sites mainly fell to neglect. They were not intentionally wiped out, like Armenian cultural heritage sites.[34][35][36][37]

Nothing written in the Genocide Watch article is undue. --Dallavid (talk) 21:46, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The source was also discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_316#Genocide_Watch:_Unreliable_source?. Rosguill and Buidhe expressed several reliability concerns with it. Brandmeister^talk 19:55, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and that's been already brought up. Please see the discussion above. Vanezi (talk) 20:11, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You did not address my concerns (why I will shortly explain below), however, Nothing written in the Genocide Watch article is undue tells me that you did not understand my point, probably because you do not really understand how UNDUE/WEIGHT works. Views held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views these. WP:EXTRAORDINARY assertions from GW, which is not proven to be scientific or peer-reviewed, do not have WEIGHT to be included into this article.

• Article literally named "Genocide Warning: Azerbaijan and Nagorno-Karabakh"(no mention of Armenia), claims that Genocide Warning issued because of unprovoked attack on Armenia and NK and then talks only about September clashes. It is not even clear Genocide warning, but where? There are definitely nothing "genocidal" in Border clashes between Azerbaijan and Armenia, and for last 1-3 month there are no reports about any clashes between NK and Azerbaijan, opposite, there are reports that NK authorities and Azerbaijan government are started cooperating over water resources. Going though GW's "Genocide Stages" assigned to Azerbaijan, making that genocide warning asserts even more ridiculous. For example, stage 10 Denial states Denial is the final stage that lasts throughout and always follows genocide. It is among the surest indicators of further genocidal massacres. The perpetrators of genocide dig up the mass graves, burn the bodies.... Sorry but, WTF is that? Does GW claim that Azerbaijan already conducted genocide and now digging graves? That is just does not make any sense.
• There is nothing about "Russian peacekeepers were posted along the Armenia-Azerbaijan border" in the ceasefire agreement. I can only guess, that author (who apparently does not know what he talk about) was referring to the Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation who protects Armenia borders with IRAN and Turkey since 1992. However, there is no prove that they also protect borders with Azerbaijan, because technically there are no defined borders yet. In any case, there are no Russian peacekeepers in the Armenia-Azerbaijan borderline. By the way, the link you referring to is irrelevant, did you view it?
• Yet the source you referring to does not support nonsense written in the GW article that it was Ilham Aliyev who banned entrance of Armenians into Azerbaijan.
• False balance is rejecting factual information concerning the destruction of Azerbaijani cultural heritage and claiming that they fell victim to negligence when there is enough evidence to the contrary. I will not go into detail because it is not the topic of this discussion, but imagining that 5 Azerbaijani cities completely destroyed in Karabakh are the result of negligence for you, I will simply ask if cemeteries throughout Aghdam that have been desecrated, looted, or destroyed are also the result of "negligence"? (dont answer, it is rhetorical question)

Long story short, I do not say that there is something UNDUE in the GW article, I say that GW article is absolute trash and that information is UNDUE unless analyzed and published by credible sources. A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 20:10, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.panarmenian.net/eng/news/302947/Azerbaijan_violates_ceasefire_using_grenade_launchers_firearms 134.56.219.213 (talk) 15:43, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1. Panarmenian is not RS, not even close. 2nd read the name of the article, and read what you just wrote: took place in October A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 19:56, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should a list of soldiers and civilians who died or were injured be added ?.

Because somthing like that was done in the 2020 july clashes. 2600:6C50:1B00:119E:9DAE:E832:62FB:3612 (talk) 08:24, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Brandmeister: Discuss further? That's a good idea, although not an original one because it's already happened. Feel free to discuss your concerns here, despite the version you reverted much more accurately reflecting the due WP:WEIGHT of the Reactions section. --Dallavid (talk) 13:03, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My main concern is that describing it merely as an Azerbaijani attack is not accurate. Azerbaijan responded to what it regarded as minelaying of its routes by Armenians in the border area. But the border is not demarcated and in some places Azeri and Armenian positions are separated by less than 100 or even 50 meters, literally. So every potential military response to border provocations by either side may involve trespassing the enemy's territory. This is more than black-and-white description of an attack by bad guys vs good guys, so the language should be neutral, as it currently is. But I'm open for further tweaks. Brandmeister^talk 17:06, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

According to various politicians from other countries and organizations, it is accurate, and the minelaying claims (let alone "large-scale provocations" claims) are not supported by any third-party sources. You seem to misunderstand the WP:NPOV policy. It does not require that every single viewpoint be treated equally, but rather the significant viewpoints based on their proportional due weight. --Dallavid (talk) 19:00, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOV policy is exactly followed in the current version of the lead. It goes Both sides blamed each other for the escalation, which is factual and supported by the sources. Both sides indeed blamed each other. Then appropriate weight provided to the version that it was Azerbaijan who started the clashes though a number of third-party sources commented that Azerbaijan had launched an attack on positions inside the Republic of Armenia. as supported by the sources.

The version you proposed not only does not follow the WP:NPOV and MOS:LEAD. It completely disregards both of them, and turns lead into the low quality nonsense by adding stuff like falsely claimed and was disproven, by stating which were later confirmed by satellite images from NASA after the claim about occupation, while in reality provided source does not talk about occupation Analysts shared satellite mapping by NASA’s Fire Information for Resource Management Systems that showed heavy fire in multiple locations inside Armenia.

The current version of the article already makes it clear that majority of sources believe that it was Azerbaijan who attacked Armenia, so there is no place for confusion. The version of the lead proposed by you does not bring any new information, apart from the number of issues highlighted by me and other users. A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 05:38, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abrvagl, in the previous discussion, multiple users explained to you how "both sides" violates WP:UNDUE by presenting both claims as equally credible, when as the Reactions section shows, is clearly not the case. Just because it's "factual" does not automatically mean it belongs on Wikipedia, as WP:ONUS explains. --Dallavid (talk) 17:05, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Which previous discussion are you referring to? What kind of consensus are you referring to? What does ONUS explain, and how does it relate to your intention to delete content from the article? You have confused me. A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 19:10, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This one. --Dallavid (talk) 16:47, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How on the earth discussion of 4 editors, where two of them oppose to the proposed edit is a very clear consensus??? Is it how WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS explains achievement of the consensus? Please consider self-reverting. If consensus can not be achieved though the discussions, then dispute resolution boards are the way to go please, not self-proclaiming a very clear consensus. A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 04:38, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was a discussion of five editors with 3 supporting the removal, and the 2 users opposing didn't address the arguments, seemingly abandoned the discussion, and also misunderstood the neutrality policy. WP:CONS isn't a vote. Why would a dispute resolution volunteer get involved when there had been no opposition to the consensus for over a month? --Dallavid (talk) 18:26, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for proving my point that there was not consensus. The fact that users do not want to repeat same thing to you over and over again does not mean that they abandoned discussion or that you reached the consensus. Your claim that they misunderstood neutrality polity is your POV and you can not disregard other users opinion or self-proclaim consensus based on that. As I advised previously, dispute resolution boards are the way to go. A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 07:30, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV does not mean we should represent, say, Darwinism and Creationism in relevant biology articles as equally valid. There's a thing called WP:DUE: it's false balance when fringe/partisan views are presented as equally valid to mainstream views. There's no doubt in Western sources at all that it's Azeri side who's generally the aggressor in these clashes. Even some Azeri opposition figures seem to be fed up with the regime's BS about "Armenian provocations". Knižnik (talk) 09:16, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, what did you mean by some basic honesty is called for, i think ? Are you imply that other editors are dishonest, or what? Anyhow…

Since you are repeating yourself, while completely ignoring points which were made to your reply, I will basically copy paste my reply: “ The statement Both sides blamed each other for the escalation is reporting of the factual information of what happened. Both sides in fact blamed each other. It does not say who attacked whom and does not give credibility to any side. it just states the fact, which is not UNDUE because it is also view point of majority that Azerbaijan and Armenia in fact blamed each other for escalation, but it was Azerbaijan who attacked first. Considering that lead already states that Azerbaijan attacked I really do not see what is your point.”

but not only that, Im restoring sourced content which was removed without consensus and rephrasing it a little bit to address your worries that someone for some unknown reason may believe that it wasn't Azerbaijan who according to sources attacked Armenia. (Although it is clearly states who attacked). A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 10:00, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abrvagl, please WP:DROPTHESTICK already. If you still don't understand what undue weight is, that's not our problem. --Dallavid (talk) 22:52, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You proclaimed a consensus when there wasn't any and then removed sourced material from the article. I asked you to self-revert, but you did not do that either. I several times asked you to use dispute resolution boards, but again you did not do that, even though the WP:ONUS is on you to get a consensus for your proposed change. I really cannot understand your rationale, you removing the sourced content without consensus, refusing to self-revert and refusing to use dispute resolutions... and why did you alter your reply from 2 November 2022 and add "Why would a dispute resolution volunteer get involved when there had been no opposition to the consensus for over a month?" to it?A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 09:28, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"You proclaimed a consensus when there wasn't any" Please read the previous 'False balance' section discussion again, because there very clearly was a consensus that went undisputed for over a month. You're welcomes to make an WP:RFC if you want another user to review the due weight, but accusing me of "removing the sourced content without consensus" when there clearly was one that you chose not to participate in is a false accusation. And I meant to include that part in my original reply but for some reason it wasn't saved. --Dallavid (talk) 22:15, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Yerevantsi: I have reverted your changes which added Turkey to the infobox because the source you have cited does not make any mention of military involvement. An Azerbaijan official has told the Turkish "backing" of Azerbaijan during the conflict which could be political or diplomatic backing. Ecrusized (talk) 20:44, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can the name be changed ? 2600:6C50:1B00:3B6B:F0A7:BC85:FFF2:FA60 (talk) 07:37, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For us to even consider giving this question a real answer, you would kinda have to suggest something more specific. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 18:00, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]