Talk:July 2020 Armenian–Azerbaijani clashes

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

International reactions to the July 2020 Armenian–Azerbaijani clashes was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 18 November 2020 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into July 2020 Armenian–Azerbaijani clashes. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

A news item involving July 2020 Armenian–Azerbaijani clashes was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 17 July 2020.

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

Armenia Mid‑importance July 2020 Armenian–Azerbaijani 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Azerbaijan Mid‑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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. 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: Russian & Soviet / Post-Cold War B‑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 B This article has been rated as B-class on the project's quality scale. This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion 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 project page for further information.ArtsakhWikipedia:WikiProject ArtsakhTemplate:WikiProject ArtsakhArtsakh articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

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.

Hello

Wanted to point out that every single source, as it relates to what the events happened are, are "Azerbiajan Ministry of Defense". Not so much of an unbiased source, nor a balanced article. Please, can someone balance it out? I'm sure Armenian news agencies are reporting the incidents as frequently as Azerbaijani ones.

It will be a nice assistance to me if someone worked on a section about misinformation/information war during the clashes. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 16:35, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have sources covering this aspect? Vici Vidi (talk) 07:01, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Vici Vidi:, check out this, and this. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 16:27, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GevHev4 made multiple biased and baseless edits on this article, seen here. Reverted all of them. Reasons:

• There is a separate
  Causalities section
  , no need to spam the info everywhere.
• Also, no need to specify ranks in the template. Yet again, we have
  Causalities section
  .
• Shahbuz-Julfa skirmishes were reported by Azerbaijani MOD, we don't need an a third-party source to confirm that they reported it.

Hope this is well enough. Good luck! --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 10:33, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, for some reason, the user tried to alter a quote, and labeled that edit as "NPOVing". That doesn't make much sense. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 10:35, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Claims of User:217.76.12.159 is false, I ran it on Google Translate, and made that out of it. No deliberate misinformation. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 10:37, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wording like "heroically martyred" is not neutral, and propagandist photoes from pro-Azeri sites are also not appropriate for wikipedia. Please use neutral sources' claims for the article's lead. See

WP:NPOV. GevHev4 (talk) 10:59, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

@GevHev4:, what do you mean "Wording like "heroically martyred" is not neutral"? It is a quote. Someone said it, and the editor must present it like how it was said. Altering a quote leads to misinformation. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 11:03, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See [[1]]. Any side of a war believes its generals were heroes not heedless idiots killed in the border. No place for war propagand at Wikipedia. GevHev4 (talk) 11:09, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I deliberate wrote that this attack was alleged, just like everything else in this article. Most of the information given out here are from state officials, both from Azerbaijan, and Armenia. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 11:04, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Solavirum, we have only one statement from the Azerbaijani side about clashes in Nakhijevan border. No other source confirms this statement. So, please, change the map to its initial version. Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 11:16, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Գարիկ Ավագյան:, I'm going to add an another 'square' with a different color, indicating where the 'alleged' clashes occurred. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 11:31, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Solavirum:, thank you, that's fine. Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 11:33, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I merged all dead military personnel to one in the Infobox, with a note determining their 'important' ranks. Hope that is okay enough. There is no need to specify these things, like seen in

I do think that a dead Major General is an, umm, major casualty worth mentioning in the infobox. This is significant. Vici Vidi (talk) 07:08, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you think it is not necessary to publish all the names of soldiers? What if we delete that section? Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 07:57, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think flag officers, possibly also a colonel, are significant. A flag officer qualifies for his own article per

WP:SOLDIER. Lower rank officers and enlisted men are less important. Vici Vidi (talk) 08:43, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

GevHev4, please stop spamming same info, which is ALREADY in the article. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 18:34, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I:GevHev4 is still edit warring and not addressing the talk page + spamming info already in the article, this time in broken English. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 18:55, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are lot of original research based on tweets, especially in the reactions section. @Solavirum:, please do not remove these tags. Either I have to remove some of these, or you have to fix what you have put on it. Beshogur (talk) 08:11, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Beshogur:, yeah, I agree. I will be happy if you assisted. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 12:22, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The "militant right" vs "peacefull left" stereotype is used both my some on the right and left in Azerbaijan when it serves their purposes. The Azevision.az article is an example of the latter. The website is obviously politically biased and has an agenda that it wants to push with that article. This issue was adressed on social media a few years ago, when Khadija Ismayilova (who is considered a liberal) met with her then friend, Erkin Qadirli (a right winger) and he was surprised, that it came out that she sees the military solution as the only solution to the conflict at this point. There are many other examples of that, but that's not the point. The point is that that source, which is the only source given for that part is biased in the very point it adresses. --Мурад 97 (talk) 09:30, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear editors, how do you identify that these clashes are a part of the Karabakh conflict? Till now no one knows the real purpose of it. Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 16:45, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Any confrontation between these two warring sides is considered part of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. And wdym by "real purpose"? Wikipedia is not for any conspiracy theories. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 18:49, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User El_C deletes an official statement from the RFE/RL Armenian branch (

You don't get it. That particular section only contains official statements with quotes, not comments about the quotes from the media. You have been edit warring and publishing biased edits from days now. STOP IT! --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 04:26, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not in English. The

WP:ONUS is on you to translate select excerpts from the source and wait for confirmation by others that the addition is valid. El_C 04:27, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Here is the full text in English:

"Subversive penetration attempt prevented, Azeris shell Aygepar և Movses: Defense Ministry spokesman

At around 03:40 at night, the positions of the Armenian Armed Forces noticed the movement of the enemy. By switching to a circular defense, the Armenian units prevented the enemy's subversive penetration, Defense Ministry spokeswoman Shushan Stepanyan reported.

"After the hot battle, the enemy, suffering losses, was thrown back.

Then, at 05:20, the Azerbaijani units started shelling the villages of Aygepar, Movses, using a D-30 howitzer. The fire is still going on, "the speaker wrote on Facebook.

"RA Armed Forces units neutralize the provocations of the Azerbaijani armed forces," Stepanyan said, noting that "this is the first gross violation of the fragile ceasefire established yesterday at 00:15." [5] GevHev4 (talk) 04:33, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Solavirum is objecting the addition, though in fairness I'm not sure I understand their complaint. El_C 04:35, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Solavirum, please translate select excerpts from the source attributed to this addition. Thanks in advance. El_C 04:40, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, here it is:

Starting from the morning of July 16, there was an another attempt by the Armenian Armed Forces to attack our positions in the Tovuz District of the Azerbaijani–Armenian border.

At the same time, the villages of Ağdam, Dondar Quşçu and Vahidli were fired upon with large-caliber weapons and mortars. No one was injured among the civilian population.

Currently, there is a battle taking place in this direction. Operational conditions are under the control of our departments.

Additional information will be provided to the public.

Hope this is okay. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 04:50, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks for taking the time. El_C 04:52, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid this [6] is not a reliable source. Just look on it, there is no even publication time there. I suggest to add only the official Azerbaijani statement. GevHev4 (talk) 04:55, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I understand. The addition cites mod.gov.az. El_C 04:57, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This text: "Since about 4:00, residents from

Ağdam and Əlibəyli on social media, with no official confirmation from both sides". It is citing Azevoice, a site, that seems to be unreliable. What is Azevoice? I can't find an About us section or contacts at their site. GevHev4 (talk) 05:03, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Okay, but that query probably belongs in a new section. It's a bit of a non sequitur here. El_C 05:06, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think that we should remove Aze Voice report, but keep Report.az's article. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 05:12, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and we should try to replace Azevoice citations everywhere in this article by more reliable ones. Thanks. GevHev4 (talk) 05:18, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can't say I agree with that though :d but this discussion requires a separate section. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 05:21, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We need transliterations for the Armenian script in the lead note and translations for the multiple Armenian sources used in the article. If someone familiar with the language can do it that would be great. Gotitbro (talk) 05:40, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This text: However, according to an online investigation, it was later reportedly "proved to be a fake video" needs details and reliable sources proving it. Otherwise it looks like an original research. The only neutral source I find is BBC: "the video of the destruction of the drone aroused interest among military experts" [7]. No reliable sources call the video a fake. GevHev4 (talk) 09:34, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Armenian side doesn't bring any proof that the drone actually was Hermes 900. Also, the investigation made by German military journalist is not "original research", Azerbaijani MoD also confirmed his findings and denied losing any Hermes 900. --Verman1 (talk) 10:14, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Röpcke of Bild reported that Armenia's video depicting an Azerbaijani "Elbit Hermes 900" UAV getting shot down is fake. Bild is a very reliable source, do not remove it. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 10:15, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bild has been described as "notorious for its mix of gossip, inflammatory language, and sensationalism"[8]. The journalist's "opinion" should be removed. GevHev4 (talk) 10:32, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times should also be marked as an unreliable source just because some people call it fake news. --Verman1 (talk) 10:36, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have you reliable sources evaluating Röpcke or Bild as war experts or reliable sources? GevHev4 (talk) 10:41, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GevHev4: and @Verman1: please stop edit warring, or I will have to apply to the sysops. I can't even add Commons Category because of this edit war. Also, GevHev4, we have to mention his workplace, "fake news media" or not. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 10:45, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, let's ask for a third opinion. User:El_C, could you please help us to resolve this issue? I think that the opinion of a Bild journalist on Twitter is not a reliable source. GevHev4 (talk) 11:01, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As an uninvolved admin, I can't really provide a formal

WP:RSN. El_C 11:50, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you. I got it. And if other users still have objections, they can apply to RSN. GevHev4 (talk) 12:06, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can add source about clashes in this district? Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 11:52, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Գարիկ Ավագյան: see 14 July section. "14:28, Azerbaijani media reported that the Armenian Armed Forces have "opened fire from artillery in the direction of Xanlıqlar village of Qazakh District". --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 12:13, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Solavirum: Thank you!! Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 13:19, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this report is insignificant, as it an answer to Armenian threats regarding attacking Mingachevir reservoir. Head to this section before deciding on adding that info, please. Cheers! --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 12:22, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Report cites an official threat by Azerbaijani Interior Ministry. It is significant and should by in the article. And if an Armenian official body threats regarding attacking Mingachevir reservoir (where is the source?), it should be added too. GevHev4 (talk) 12:34, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will add the full quote. Cheers! --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 13:10, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Jam-News misinterpretes Ter-Tadevosyan's words. He said onlt that "If we take Mingechevir, they will not have 40% of electricity" [9]. Nothing about using it as a target. GevHev4 (talk) 05:03, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Solavirum, we should add statements by official bodies but not the evaluations of the enemy [10]. It is just a hoax, especially as the Armenian Ministry today announced that "There is no need to volunteer at this time" [11]. GevHev4 (talk) 13:47, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GevHev4: enemy? --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 14:11, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, "hoax" or not, it is an official statement. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 14:11, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Azerbaijani minister evaluates the enemy. We can't add all kinds of statements and official evaluations here, Wiki is not a battleground. GevHev4 (talk) 14:17, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, can't call it an evaluation. It is just a statement, just like the ones from Armenian officials, which I also added. Though, I will add that the claim was denied. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 14:27, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like we don't understand each other. At first Armenia stated that "no need to volunteer". After 1,5 hours Azeri side evaluated/misinterpreted that "Armenian Defense Ministry is arming anyone who can handle a weapon". A good example of state propaganda. GevHev4 (talk) 14:41, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are joking with me. The whole article contains state propaganda from both sides. We call that "covering the events". You can check any war-themed article about that. All are statements from Armenian and Azerbaijani officials, who actively denied opposing side's claims. Why are you always so keen on removing infos anyway? It is already very visible that you don't care about NPOV, as you stated that "we should add statements by official bodies but not the evaluations of the enemy". Who's enemy is Azerbaijan? Wikipedia's? Third-party opinion required. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 14:47, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Facts are ok, propaganda is bad. I don't say Azerbaijan is the enemy of anyone, I say Azerbaijan's ministry is evaluating the Armenian side they call an enemy: for example, Enemy’s military vehicle was destroyed by the accurate fire of our units). Azerbaijan is evaluating the armed forces of enemy which is the Armenia. It is a propagandist evaluation. GevHev4 (talk) 15:00, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Add Dargahli's unrelated statement", but "remove his very related claim". Lol --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 14:48, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that I understand. But I think you want the word "enemy" to changed (like Hovhannisyan stated that the "enemy did not suffer only human losses and depraved Armenian bandits on the line of contact in the direction of Tovuz, and responded to the enemy with dignity, or am I wrong? But like, these are quotes. Editors cannot alter quotes. Or, you want claims of the warring parties to be removed? Both sides made dozens of claims, which were denied by opposing sides. Most of these are not facts, but claims from the warring sides. This is part of the coverage. It is unreasonable to remove them. We will require a third-party involvement in any case. We shall wait until night. I hope someone will express their opinion in this situation. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 15:12, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GevHev4:, I'm pretty sure that this belongs to the Official statements section. What do you think? --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 20:05, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No objections. GevHev4 (talk) 05:10, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@

@

talk) 20:48, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Dear @

Firuze Nesibli:, check out this edit. What do you think? --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 20:53, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

@

talk) 20:59, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

We should use partisan sources only for official statements. For other claims like this neutral sources are needed (for example Russian). Without neutral sources such an propagandist info shouldn't be at Wiki.

WP:SOAPBOX. GevHev4 (talk) 05:09, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

You are, unfortunately, yet again mistaken. This is not propaganda, especially when they are written in a third party perspective. I'd prefer using English and Russian sources, but as things change very fast, foreign media is unable to cover it, as they have no journalists in these warring countries. I will continue to add reports from both Armenian and Azerbaijani local media that are considered reliable sources (like Armenian Unified Infocenter, AZƏRTAC, Apa.az, Report.az; and local offices of media outlets like Radio Free Europe, Sputnik, and Voice of America). --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 20:44, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Military Awards section is a common practice for this kind articles. See

And the source (NewsArmenia) says: "By a Presidential decree, the Commander of the 1st Army Corps, Colonel Zhirayr Poghosyan and the Commander of 5th Army Corps, Colonel Andranik Piloyan, who took part in the actions in Tavush, were awarded the rank of Major General." [12]. GevHev4 (talk) 05:26, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GevHev4: yes, but promotion of some soldiers are not considered an "award". Remove that info, please. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 14:53, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:DISRUPT), removing ref archives and templates. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 15:09, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

They were awarded. It's your edits are disrupting. Firstly you just deleted the sourced text, then deleted it as "unrelated", and now you claim awarding a rank is not an award. GevHev4 (talk) 15:18, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GevHev4: re you kidding me? Check out how many archives you've deleted since you started editing here. And YES, promotion is not a military award, medals and orders are military awards, but promotion is simply is not. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 15:26, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, why are you insist on creating a whole separate section for such a minor information? Move to the Casualties section. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 15:27, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Look for example here [13]: "Colonel Mais Barkhudarov was awarded with the rank of general-major". It is the same case. And off course awarding 2 persons with the rank of general is not a minor info nor "Casualties". We shouldn't have double standards in AA2 issues. GevHev4 (talk) 15:41, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GevHev4:, alright. Got it. But please do not remove ref archives from now on. Cheers! --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 15:52, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which ref archives you mean? GevHev4 (talk) 15:55, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GevHev4:, check out this edit. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 16:25, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit rusty on WP:MEMORIAL, but surely the names, burial places, and death dates of named individuals falls far short? These sections should be re-examined, possibly removed, if I've understood the policy correctly. doktorb _words^deeds 08:04, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The deceased info for both sides could be incorporated into the running prose, but in any case their ranks, names, death dates and places of burial are important enough (two were buried at the Alley of Honor). Brandmeister^talk 13:31, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think high ranking or notable individuals (such as the general) should be named, but otherwise mostly not. Vici Vidi (talk) 06:23, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone help fixing the |date issues in the references? Cheers! --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 17:31, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GevHev4:, can you provide links or translation to this so-called song? Because, I really doubt that this song is of any significance, or in any case would improve the reader's experience. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 21:05, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Watch Russian diplomats performing it (partially trans. into Russian). it is an Armenian popular song, covered by Rosi Armen, Sirusho, Serj Tankian. Much more significant than slogans like "Karabakh is ours, it will remain ours" presented in the article. GevHev4 (talk) 22:06, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have translated the statement by the official from Mexico and he doesn't say "military provocations committed by the Armenian Army", but more like "millitary attack on Tovuz region of Azerbaijan" and calls for negotiations in the framework of the Minsk Group. Please, rewrite this section and add a third-party source. Thank you. Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 21:44, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Գարիկ Ավագյան:, where did you translated it from? Please, provide a source. Also, I'd like to note that Liliam Kechichián's and "French parliamentarians" statements also use sources based in Armenia. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 21:51, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That section only contains official statements with quotes, not comments about the quotes from the media. French parliamentarians etc are quoted with official document attached, while in the case of Mexican politician we have a text of an Azerbaijani newspaper without any direct quotation and an attached document in Spanish obviously not mentioning "Armenian Army" (it says "el ataque de los elementos armados en la region de Tovuz" which means "the attack of the armed elements in the Tovuz region"). So please provide the direct quotes before adding it. GevHev4 (talk) 04:13, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GevHev4: why did you removed the source and replaced it with an article that covers Erdoğan's statement? Also, please provide a source to your "armed elements" claim. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 04:41, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GevHev4:, also, please stop using an accusative tone. It isn't a "newspaper", it is an independent news agency per Wikipedia. It isn't unreliable. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 04:47, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The source used by you is about Erdogan, check it [14]. Provide the translation of the stat here please and then add to the article. The statement [15] says nothing about Armenian Army and provocation, Report.az misinterprets it. GevHev4 (talk) 05:14, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have to be kidding me now. You can clearly see in here that you removed the source about Agustín García Rubio's statement. Or, you are having a technical problem. Please, re-check the edits before making suck accusations. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 05:24, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, it seems to be your technical problem. You just archived wrong article [16] about Erdogan. Anyways, we already have the original stat in Spanish. For any citation in ""s should be a direct translation firstly provided at talk. All the Azerbaijani media reports about it in their own words, without citations. See for example [17]. GevHev4 (talk) 05:33, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Anyways, we already have the original stat in Spanish" – uhmm, source? --► Sincerely: SolaVirum

Also, @GevHev4:, if you have the original quote, why not add it to the article, instead of simply removing the whole information? --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 05:45, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Mexico – Member of the Mexican Chamber of Deputies Agustín García Rubio issued a statement, condemning the "the attack of the armed elements in the Tovuz region of Azerbaijan" and urges Armenia and Azerbaijan "to give impetus to the substantive negotiations mediated by the OSCE Minsk Group".^[1]. GevHev4 (talk) 07:18, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

{:Cheers! --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 10:37, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mahluklar Haber (per Sham FM) reported that militants of the Free Syrian Army were allegedly enlisting to fight on behalf of Azerbaijan. I say, before adding such a controversial information, we must wait for official statement from Turkey or Azerbaijan. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 21:46, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Denied by both Baku, and Ankara, as reported here. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 19:55, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Azerbaijani demonstrations during the 2020 Armenian–Azerbaijani skirmishes.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:14, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have new confirmed information about clashes in Nakhichevan-Syunik border? If not, I suggest to delete the blue square part. Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 09:33, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Գարիկ Ավագյան: we can't remove that per [18]. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 10:22, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All the Iranian source show the foriegn minister of Iran asking for de-escalation. On the other hand Azerbaijani news-media carry the additional message of affirming territorial integrity. If we can't find an Iranian or otherwise trustworty third party source, we should update this section. Maidyouneed (talk) 10:32, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not all, maybe this has to do something with it. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 10:40, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Very accurate article. Respecting the territorial integrity of other countries has been Iran’s regional strategy means respecting both sides. More articles here and here. Could you change it? Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 13:14, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@

Re}} and tag me when responding? It is hard to respond to you when I don't get any notifications. Cheers! --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 14:24, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Is it right to include his name as a commander? We do not have any information. Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 13:52, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm done with Azerbaijani sources changing the statements of the officials. Please, change all the sources of Azerbaijani and Armenian origin in Reaction section. Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 17:27, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Գարիկ Ավագյան:, can you give an example of "Azerbaijani sources changing the statements of the officials"? I thought we solved these issues. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 21:19, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Solavirum: Sure: Mexico, Iran and now I cannot find Hungary's statement. Only Trend is writing about it, which is definitely not a third-party source. I even can't find the origianl one. Even nothing from Hungarian press. If you can help to find it, I would be very glad. Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 08:14, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Գարիկ Ավագյան:, if you didn't realise, Péter Szijjártó visited Baku, and gave an interview to Trend (and couple more agencies. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 13:13, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. I will E-mail to Mr. Szijjártó in order to confirm his statements. Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 13:32, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did you get a response? None of the Hungarian media appear to be reporting the same statements which is unusual http://www.atv.hu/belfold/20200717-szijjarto-megallapodast-irt-ala-azerbajdzsannal, https://hungarytoday.hu/szijjarto-azerbaijan-key-hungary-secure-energy-supply/. Maidyouneed (talk) 10:38, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not yet, I will let you know as soon as I get their response. Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 08:47, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since, I didn't receive any response from the Hungarian Ministery, I'm removing that part as the source is not reliable till we find another confirmation. Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 08:37, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is it right to include single parliament members' reactions in the REACTIONS section, right in front of the flags? Feel like it gives off the wrong idea that the country listed holds that view, when in reality it's just one senator/parliament member. (referring mostly to the single Belgian and single Spanish parliament member's reactions) —

@

CuriousGolden:, yeah, you are right. We should add info if the government has reacted to it first, like how in Turkey country's MFA issued a statement, with was followed by a barrage of statements from political leaders. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 17:43, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

We should remove opinions from Belgium, Italy, Spain, Uruguay, and Mexico until their gov says something. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 17:48, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed —

(talk·contrib) 17:56, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

@Mr.User200:, and @Interfase:, please solve your dispute in the talk page. No need for an edit war. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 19:01, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, I´m still waiting for the reasons not to include him.Mr.User200 (talk) 19:03, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no any source claiming that Hashimov was a commander or leader during the skirmishes. Maybe he was just a visitor in that place. If you have any source claiming that Hashimov was a commander or leader during the skirmishes, please provide source with quotation. --Interfase (talk) 20:31, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

According to Moskovsky Komsomolets, Hashimov was the head of staff of the 3rd Army Corps and Ilgar Mirzayev was the head of artillery of the same corps. Do we want this info? Brandmeister^talk 20:58, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any official source claiming that 3rd Army Corps were participated at this clashes? Interfase (talk) 21:43, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A official Armenian source. Here Not Azeri, but with the source given by @Brandmeister is enought.Mr.User200 (talk) 00:25, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr.User200: Armenian source is not reliable in that case. Do you have an official Azerbaijani source claiming that 3rd Army Corps were participated at the clashes and Polad Hashimov was a leader or commander during the clashes? --Interfase (talk) 16:23, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Armenian source (Official BTW) indicates the Azerbaijani 3rd Army Corps was present. Still to many sources indicating he was a leader. 1 Azeri page indicates he died, 1 Russian Source (Thrid Party) corroborates he was from the 3rd Army Corps and present at the clashes, 1 Armenian Source (Official Arm. Spokesperson) says the 3rd Army Corps was present at the clashes and used all its ammo. Debating this is waste of time for me. You simply dont want my edit in the article and revert all the time you want. Thats not the way a encyclopedia works. Try to read the

Wp:IDONTLIKEIT and make yourself a favour.Mr.User200 (talk) 19:22, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Your edits in the article are against of Wikipedia principles. There is no any source claiming that Hashimov was a leader during the clashes. Azeri source indicates he died, but does not indicate that he was a leader, Russian Source says that he was from the 3rd Army Corps but does not says that 3rd Army Corps participated in clashes and Hashimov was a leader at the time of clashes. Armenian Source is not reliable and neutral source and it is not enough. Even if 3rd Army Corps participated in the clashes it does not mean that its Chief was a leader during the clashes (e.g. there is possibility that he was killed before he gave an order to his army to do certain actions during the clashes). You combinated differernt sources and made original research providing false information to the article readers. This is typical forgery. Try to read the Wikipedia:No original research. --Interfase (talk) 20:14, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. By the way, 3rd Army Corps is based in Shamkir District, not in Tovuz[19]. According to this fact, the claims of Armenian side about participation of Shamkir Corps in the clashes are disputable.Interfase (talk) 20:41, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It doesnt matter where the 3rd Corps HQ is located. Thats a very weak argument by the way. Those officers were Commanding and leading their forces, Poland was the Chieff of Staff of the N unit. According to Azeri source. And both were present at the Theater of Operations, the Colonel that was killed with Gen Polad was in charge of the Artillery in the 3rd Corps. According to all sides media they died in the conflict and were Commanders, it doesnt matter if they were not at the higher level of command. You simply dont want that edit and you cant back your disruptive edits, thats why you placed the citation needed tag before and now the OR tag.Mr.User200 (talk) 20:59, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I can revert your edit but I do not want to participate in edit warring that was started by you. The claim that Hashimov was a leader or commander during the clashes is still original research. You still did not provide any source claiming that. That is why this article needs to be indicated as OR because this fact is disputable and need to be solved. --Interfase (talk) 21:04, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have raised that issue in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard --Interfase (talk) 00:25, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: Mr.User200, and Interfase, please stop edit warring, yet again. The thing is, Interfase is right, imo. It is best to add an Azerbaijani (official would be preferable) source about it. Although, there is an Azerbaijani source claiming that Hashimov was the chief of staff (COS) of the military unit "N" headquartered in Tovuz District, not the 3rd Army Corps. In reality, the COS of the 3rd Army Corps is Lieutenant General Rovshan Akbarov, per this source. He's been in that post since 2011, according to the Azerbaijani and Russian Wikipedias. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 23:43, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then, the correct thing is to replace the 3rd Corps to N military Unit instead??Mr.User200 (talk) 13:00, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but I found a better translation here and here, as I think every district has one. So, "Chief of Staff of the "N" military unit in Tovuz District" it is. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 04:56, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, literally from source.Mr.User200 (talk) 13:00, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And we still do not have any source claiming that Chief of Staff of the "N" military unit Hashimov was a commander or leader during the clashes. I still think that that his name in this section of infobox is false. --Interfase (talk) 15:46, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Achemish:, as of now, Turkey has not sent any armed support to Azerbaijan. The source you've given, states that "The Turkish defense industry will always back Azerbaijan with its unmanned combat aerial vehicles (UCAV), ammunition, missiles and electronic warfare (EW) systems, Defense Industries Presidency (SSB) Chairman Ismail Demir said, noting the two countries are also set to work together on modernizing the existing systems of the Caspian country". It is simply a support in word. No physical support was confirmed by any sides. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 19:19, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can add Turkey to the infobox if Turkey sends arms to Azerbaijan during the conflict. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 19:20, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

According to Haqqin, Serbia sent arms to Armenia before the conflict. GevHev4 (talk) 20:35, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GevHev4:, no, do not misquote it. It says that Serbia sent those arms "several days before the attack and during the height of hostilities". Original quote states: "Как стало известно haqqin.az из военных источников, за несколько дней до атаки и в период разгара боевых действий из Сербии через Грузию в Армению была доставлена крупная партия минометных боеприпасов разных калибров". (Translation per Google Translate: As it became known to haqqin.az from military sources, several days before the attack and during the height of hostilities, a large batch of mortar ammunition of various calibers was delivered from Serbia through Georgia to Armenia.). --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 20:40, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Haqqin is not a reliable nor a neutral source. GevHev4 (talk) 20:45, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cited by Eurasianet, and was called a reliable source by the first deputy of the Azerbaijani Foreign Minister, while having a meeting with the Serbian Chargé d'Affaires. It must be added as a source. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 20:50, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can't remove the allegations Georgian and Serbian involvement when the government of Azerbaijan has alleged it. Also, you removed a ref that was reused in the other parts of the article, which is disruptive editing. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 19:43, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can also check

this article for an example of alleged support (in the means of arms' support). --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 19:44, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

More examples of disruptive editing seen here. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 19:46, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Solavirum, adding a large amount of propagandist info from the Azerbaijani media [20] as a separate section is useless. All the official sides call it a gossip, even the Azerbaijani side (which is biased) just asked about it without any offical statements. Do you remember this [21]? It seems you're using double standards. GevHev4 (talk) 19:49, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Holy cow. A lot of

bad faith. Carry on. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 19:52, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

P.S. combining these two sections. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 19:53, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"According to the Ministry, K. Khalafov said that according to reliable and confirmed information, a large amount of ammunition was sent from Serbia to Armenia, including mortars and ammunition of various calibers", reported here, noting that Khalafov is the Deputy Foreign Minister of Azerbaijan. GevHev4, you should do more research before assuming bad faith. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 19:58, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is a section for Azerbaijani statements. But discuss them here for the first please. GevHev4 (talk) 20:01, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, because if attracted a lot of attention from the Georgian government, and the opposition (seen here, here, and here), it should stay as a separate section. This is not the first time you've assumed bad faith, and accused me of publishing propaganda, which is against Wikipedia's discussion rules, let alone any discussion ethics. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 20:06, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It should go to the section for the Azerbaijani statements, but in 1-2 sentences. As well as this statement on Free Sirian Army [22]. GevHev4 (talk) 20:12, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No? If we added every single allegation, this article would no longer have any encyclopedic value. FSA claim came from a Damascus-based radio station, and was soon denied by Baku and Ankara, and holds no significance whatsoever. This one is different. It was confirmed by the Azerbaijani gov, then created political drama within Georgia. I don't believe that developtmens in such regional scale should be reduced to "1-2 sentences". --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 20:17, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting opinion from @El C:, @TonyBallioni:, and @Turkmen:. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 20:09, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Use a

Request for Comment if you otherwise reach an impasse here on the article talk page. El_C 20:16, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Per El_C. Regards,--Turkmen ^talk 20:44, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Solavirum: choose a way suggested by El_C and apply, if you still believe we should have a section dedicated to this "info". GevHev4 (talk) 22:35, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GevHev4:, DRN nomination rejected as there was "not enough discussion on talk page". You have to answer to my arguments for this discussion to end. Also, this revert of yours is against the rules. You published this edit without any consensus on the topic. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 22:48, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You added these countries as alleged supporters without any consensus and any reliable sources claiming that. Please find reliable neutral sources for your additions so we have what to discuss. Once again, we need reliable neutral sources claiming that Serbia and Georgia supported Armenia during the skirmishes (not just biased opinions from Azerbaijani side). GevHev4 (talk) 23:00, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Please let your block expire, have a discussion on the talk page BEFORE you edit, then try the 3rd opinion noticeboard." [23] I agree. GevHev4 (talk) 23:03, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GevHev4:, I think that this discussion arose from a misunderstanding. Look, if Azerbaijan claims that Serbia and Georgia supported Armenia (per Eurasianet), we must add that. "not just biased opinions from Azerbaijani side", wut? You just stated that it was claimed. And I added that, It was alleged. I didn't wrote anything that accused these two countries of arming Armenia, I just wrote the claims by the Az. gov and statements from the Georgian politics. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 23:07, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Even Azerbaijan is not claiming anything openly. See your source of Eurasianet: "Baku didn’t make the accusation openly, instead communicating its vexation with Georgia via government-controlled media" and "There are several media outlets – both in Azerbaijan and Georgia – that unfortunately picked up this rumor, Volski said". Wikipedia is not a place for rumors and gossips. And 1-2 publications don't make these rumors important enough. GevHev4 (talk) 06:09, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GevHev4: how many times I have to say this, First Deputy of the Azerbaijani Foreign Minister confirmed those claims, as seen here. You are diverting the topic, and making us go to the starting point over and over again. Calling these claims 'gossips' and 'rumours' is disrespectful. You can just say that a state official's claims are just 'gossips'. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 09:04, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The link you shared is not a statement nor a confirmation. It's just a 'press release' saying "K. Khalafov said that according to reliable and confirmed information, a large amount of ammunition was sent from Serbia to Armenia, including mortars and ammunition of various calibers." Nothing about "support" claimed by you (it is rather about ammunition sellings), nothing about the period of ammunition sending, nothing about Georgia. This material says nothing important, different countries like Russia, Israel etc are sending ammunition to the sides including the UAVs used by Azerbaijan. It is even not a statement to be included in 1-2 sentences in Statements section. The materials you provided do not meet

WP:Fringe_theory. If you still disagree, please apply for a 3rd opinion. GevHev4 (talk) 10:16, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

@GevHev4:, check this BBC report, which confirms that "Earlier, Azerbaijani officials said that "there is reliable and confirmed information on the supply of mortars and large quantities of ammunition from Serbia to Armenia" (Azərbaycanın rəsmiləri bundan əvvəl bildirib ki, "Serbiyadan Ermənistana minomyotlar və böyük həcmdə silah-sursat göndərməsinə dair etibarlı və təsdiqlənmiş məlumat" mövcuddur.), and "Deputy Foreign Minister Khalaf Khalafov told Danitsa Veinovich that "according to reliable and confirmed information, a large amount of weapons, including mortars and ammunition of various calibers, were sent from Serbia to Armenia" (Azərbaycan Xarici İşlər Nazirliyi bazar ertəsi günü Serbiyanın Azərbaycandakı müvəqqəti işlər vəkili Danitsa Veinoviçi XİN-ə çağıraraq ona "Ermənistana silahların göndərilməsi" ilə bağlı məlumatı təqdim edib.). Also, you are again diverting the point and repeating the same things said by me. According to Haqqın.az report (which has ties to the Azerbaijani state security services per Eurasinet, and been called a reliable source by Khalafov per BBC), Serbia sent these ammunition during the "height of hostilities" through Georgia. Yet again, calling a claim stated by a state official is very disrespectful, just like how you accused me of spreading state propaganda was. I have extreme doubts of your NPOV. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 18:27, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Most of these comments came after I closed the drn. Once then locks have expired if you still can’t find a compromise please try drn again. Nightenbelle (talk) 04:39, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @
  Wikipedia:Neutrality of sources. Azerbaijani and Armenian sources have different claims, nobody cannot judge sources because of that.Ahmetlii (talk) 16:38, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Dear @
  talk) 18:49, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Confirmed by Serbia. There is no reason to not add this crucial information anymore. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 21:04, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GevHev4: Ilham Aliyev critized Serbia in a speech. I wonder if you can call this is a 'gossip' from now on. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 23:40, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think none of the sides calls the ongoing clashes this way. What if we remove it? Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 17:46, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind. Googling that name doesn't indicate it's widespread. Brandmeister^talk 08:02, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I added that name during the early phases of the clashes, due to some tweets from Armenians and Azerbaijanis. Thought it will add up. Turkish sources call it July clashes though. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 21:19, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This 2020 Armenian–Azerbaijani skirmishes has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Two Azerbaijani soldiers were reportedly killed and five others wounded after Azerbaijan made two failed attempts to attack, capture and Armenian border position near the Armenian-Azerbaijani border near Tavush on Sunday. Aaaaa2300 (talk) 22:11, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide

Talk) 02:18, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

GevHev4 I don't want to join your edit warring yet again. Join the discussion here, instead of editing without any consensus, and abandoning the discussion like how you did on the Georgia/Serbia issue. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 04:59, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have, as you can see, added many sources from different publications, all in English. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 04:59, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What does "even the Azerbaijani authors don't write it is along the route" mean? What are you talking about? I don't care about the quote on quote "Azerbaijani authors" not writing something. The sources I've given, which also includes Voice of America, clearly states the strategic infrastructure within the Ganja Gap, which I added accordingly. "Tovuz is located in a strategically significant area along the routes of the Baku-Tbilisi-Kars railway", "The Baku–Tbilisi–Supsa Western Export (1998) and Baku–Tbilisi–Ceyhan (2005) oil pipelines and Baku–Tbilisi–Erzurum (2006) gas pipeline have enhanced Azerbaijan’s role as an energy producing and exporting country, and the Southern Gas Corridor (SGC) is already becoming a reality", "The attack took place in the Tovuz province, right beside the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline", "The Tovuz region is close to Azerbaijan's crucial South Caucasia pipeline". What else can you even want? --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 05:10, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let's differ reliable neutral sources and the partisan ones. Caspiannews and Yenisafak are biased, other two sources do not write that Tovuz District lies along the routes of the Baku–Tbilisi–Akhalkalaki–Kars railway ....etc. And the so-called Ganja Gap is not situated in Tovuz [24]. GevHev4 (talk) 05:46, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let me remind you that Reuters, Washington Times, Financial Times have also covered this issue. It is an important geo-political attribute to the skirmishes, there is no POV-pushing. You can't call these sources biased, per

WP:IDONTLIKEIT all over again. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 05:57, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

For example Reuters writes about a warning from an Azerbaijani official, there are no claims from Reuters that the pipelines are in Tovuz. and this map shows that pipelines are far from the border, even in nearly similar distance as the Metsamor station which Azerbaijani side wants to attack.

To be more constructive: please suggest the sourced text you want to add. GevHev4 (talk) 06:16, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should write articles from a neutral point of view and would not make independent conclusions. Such information itself implies an attack by the Armenian Armed Forces on the territory of Azerbaijan in order to control these infrastructures. And as long as there is no third-party analysis of the war, such information is provocative. Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 08:25, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Russia started military drills in Armenia few days ago, while Turkey will conduct military drills in Azerbaijan in a few days. Is it this significant enough to add? --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 21:17, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds relevant. Maybe just posturing, but more relevant than most of the reactions section. Vici Vidi (talk) 08:23, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GevHev4, without even replying to any discussions, have published many disruptive edits as seen here, here, and here. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 05:13, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It seems after your block for editwarring you are continuing to add a large amount of POV-info without discussing them at the talk. Please before doing dubious edits, discuss them here. GevHev4 (talk) 05:30, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The vandalism at KZV Armenian School was already added, see

Pelosi's and SF mayor's statements are notable enough. Please go ahead and add them to the specific section. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 05:28, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is is called a hate crime by neutral US sources and officials [25], not by Armenian media. And it is notable enough to be in a separate section as highest-level US officials reacted.GevHev4 (talk) 05:34, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GevHev4, "vandalized overnight with threatening and racist graffiti" and "the attack claimed to support a violent, anti-Armenian movement led by Azerbaijan" are extreme POV-pushing and require quotation marks. I agree, we can make it a separate section, with the removal of the addition in the incidents section. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 05:39, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I'm just going to go ahead and do that. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 05:40, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is a good thing. GevHev4 (talk) 05:53, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the article we have 2 photos from the Armenian side (or POV) and 3 from the Azerbaijani side (or POV), including the one with problematic naming [26]. I think we should keep some balance (there are two sides in a conflict) and to not add more photos from the Azerbaijani media. GevHev4 (talk) 06:02, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I have never ever seen such practice. Also, this naming is Commons' "problem", which I don't know what has to do with Wikipedia, discuss it there. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 06:13, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Find more pictures. This is a long article. There is plenty of room for more relevant pictures. Vici Vidi (talk) 08:25, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article heavily cites "sputnikarmenia.com". Sputnik is listed here as deprecated, with the reasoning being "There is consensus that Sputnik is an unreliable source that publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated as in the 2017 RfC of the Daily Mail. Sputnik is considered a Russian propaganda outlet that engages in bias and disinformation,". It really should removed. Eik Corell (talk) 10:14, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sputnik Azerbaijan is used as well. I agree that Sputnik is unreliable in many situations (I avoid using it), but here it was used as a consensus (to use materials in Russian - easier to check, translate, etc). In some cases users who don't know Armenian prefer Sputnik to local media [27]. It is mostly used to cite officials, not for the analysis. I don't think they fabricated any statements by officials, anyways I think in the most problematic cases (if there are any) it is better to replace Sputnik with other sources. Otherwise, per WP:Reliable sources/Perennial sources: "Context matters tremendously, and some sources may or may not be suitable for certain uses depending on the situation". GevHev4 (talk) 13:15, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear editors, what if we remove these days? Don't you think that violation of ceasefire is not so necessary to be involved? We see violation everyday and every side blaming another side. Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 18:47, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose that whole section is about the violations from 12 to 28 July. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 00:23, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This 2020 Armenian–Azerbaijani clashes has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

It is stated that as per Armenian sources 6 soldiers were killed during clashes, and 2 sources are brought, however both of them point to the same day different information, basically pointing to the same deaths, 6 number of killed is false, it should be 4 (all the names are available). Also days later one of injured during clashes soldiers passed away, so the correct number should be 5 soldiers killed instead of 6 from Armenian side. (also sending the link about 5th soldier death https://news.am/arm/news/593043.html ) 37.252.95.26 (talk) 12:21, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What about Ashot Mikaelyan's death that was reported by Shushan Stepanyan? Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 20:39, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: My opinion is that clashes ended on 16 (the last claimed artillery shots) or 22 July (the last claimed attack on a post) - the Armenian and Azerbaijani Wiki's also support this assumption, and Ashot Mikaelyan's death is a result of ceasefire violation. GevHev4 (talk) 04:39, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Also the sources doesn't say anything about the death as a result of clashes in Tavush. Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 08:12, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The clashes ended on 16 July [28]. Heavily wounded Arthur Muradyan died on 23 July. Mikaelyan was killed on 27 July, after the clashes, "as a result of ceasefire violation by the Azerbaijani Armed Forces" [29]. GevHev4 (talk) 11:42, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The clashes have no ended yet and still border fighting occurring. Ashot was killed as a result of this and the skirmishes are ongoing. He should be included as a death — Preceding unsigned comment added by El Greekos (talk • contribs) 17:25, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At least 2 reliable sources (RFE/RL and Washington Post [30]) are saying the clashes were ended on 16 July. Have you any reliable neutral sources saying clashes are still ongoing? The article is about 2020 clashes/fightings, not ceasefire violations ongoing since 1994. And Ashot was killed by a sniper shot, not in a fighting. GevHev4 (talk) 18:24, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done - The current revision of the article puts the number of Armenian soldiers killed at 5, per Armenian sources, so no change seems necessary at the moment. Jr8825 • Talk 03:58, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is it worth posting just an organized demonstration with no incidents in the section? Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 11:07, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This 2020 Armenian–Azerbaijani clashes has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change: "The skirmishes resumed on 13 July and are ongoing with varying intensity, having resulted in at least 16 military and one civilian casualties" to "The skirmishes resumed on 13 July and are ongoing with varying intensity, having resulted in at least 16 military casualties. The Azerbaijani 73-year-old disabled civilian, Aziz Azizov, was also killed as a result of shelling of Armenian military forces." Associated links to the sources are below:

https://en.trend.az/azerbaijan/karabakh/3269378.html https://report.az/en/nagorno-karabakh-conflict/commissioner-for-human-rights-ombudsman-of-the-republic-of-azerbaijan-sabina-aliyeva-visited-the-scene-and/ Nigar najaf (talk) 19:05, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done - Thanks for your suggestion. I've decided not to make this change as it would result in

casulties. Jr8825 • Talk 03:38, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

• Canadian Armenians protesting in front of the Peace Tower of the Canadian Parliament.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:53, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This 2020 Armenian–Azerbaijani clashes has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Remove

• "According to the local officials, the attack claimed to support 'a violent, anti-Armenian movement led by Azerbaijan'.[248]"

Explanation: The source cited in endnote 248 does not support the statement. The SF Chronicle article cited in endnote 248, ^[1] uses the quotation "a violent, anti-Armenian movement led by Azerbaijan" as part of the caption of a photograph submitted by an individual named "Grace Andonian." The article does not suggest the quotation is attributable to an official. It is unclear whether the caption is to be attributed to the SF Chronicle itself or Grace Andonian, the photographer. Grace Anonian herself is not identified as an official, and is identified by name only. In any event, a google search reveals Grace Andonian is the principal of the KZV school in question ^[2], and not a "local official" as the statement I suggest be removed would suggest. The photograph caption itself reads in full "Vandals targeted the Krouzian-Zekarian-Vasbouragan Armenian School in San Francisco with threatening and racist graffiti in an attack that claims to support a violent, anti-Armenian movement led by Azerbaijan.".

In short, the article cited in endnote 248 does not support the statement that "According to the local officials, the attack claimed to support 'a violent, anti-Armenian movement led by Azerbaijan.'"

Add to the same paragraph under the subheading "Vandalism in KZV Armenian School":

• Sympathy and support also was expressed by the Azerbaijani community in the Bay Area. "We strongly believe this act is ugly, it is heinous, it is appalling," said Bakhtiyar Neyman, a board member with the Azerbaijan Cultural Society of Northern California, "Our tight-knit group of Azerbaijanis here in California have been sharing the news of it and everyone was very disheartened." Neyman says the graffiti itself looks suspicious and should be investigated and condemned. "The name Azerbaijan itself was misspelled. The other cities' names were misspelled," said Neyman. "I call everyone, not just Armenian and Azerbaijani communities to be united in condemning this kind of act," said Neyman. ^[3]

• The San Francisco Police Department’s Special Investigations Unit is leading the probe and is “looking into the hate-crime aspect,” said Officer Robert Rueca, a department spokesman. ^[4]

Explanation: Further developments in this story as reported by the SF Chronicle and FOX KTVU 2. Trattata (talk) 02:38, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Officials call it a "threatening and racist graffiti in an anti-Armenian attack". SF Chronicle calls it "a violent, anti-Armenian movement led by Azerbaijan" (it is not a quote by Andonian). Both are neutral sources. Neyman is not an official nor a significant person, just a student residing in San Diego [31]. GevHev4 (talk) 05:53, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ROC useful. Jr8825 • Talk 02:52, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

20 were reported killed during the outbreak of clashes, followed by ~100 killed during clashes on another day. 20 + 100 makes 120. Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 09:19, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't notice the dates. I'll change it back. —

(talk·contrib) 09:30, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm open to discussion, but this edit removed much more than the "the events in august", as GevHev4 claimed that they were "unrelated". The only source given as a proof that the clashes officially ended on 16 July is from Armenia. Isn't that POV-pushing? The article's title is 2020 Armenian–Azerbaijani clashes, not July 2020 Armenian–Azerbaijani clashes --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 12:05, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree that the main phase of the clashes ended on 16 July, but this doesn't mean that nothing happened after it. The fighting still continues, a UAV was shot down in 21 September, in Shamkir District, about 40 KM deep into the Azerbaijani territories. For example, see how this article covers the insurgency that happened after the initial operations. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 12:53, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let's to not be disruptive. Per article and per sources the events started on 12 July 2020 and ended on 16 July. Events after that period are not clashes. GevHev4 (talk) 13:52, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hate crimes against KZV school were an important part of events, condemned by Pelosi and others. It is not just an incident. GevHev4 (talk) 13:54, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

About the correction of deaths on Armenian side see the discussion:

Talk:2020_Armenian–Azerbaijani_clashes#Correction_for_the_deaths_on_Armenian_side. GevHev4 (talk) 13:56, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm trying to split the article into two, new article about international reactions. Also, I will remove the twitter sources about protests (not leader reactions, will try to replace it). Any opinions? User:Beshogur/International reactions to the July 2020 Armenian–Azerbaijani clashes, I'll work here tomorrow. Beshogur (talk) 19:40, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean official statements in Twitter, they shouldn't be removed if they are from officially confirmed Twitter pages. GevHev4 (talk) 21:26, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, that's what I said. Plus apparently there was a page called

International reactions to the July 2020 Armenian–Azerbaijani clashes. Beshogur (talk) 10:13, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

By the way moved the article. Also removed the incidents which are already

here present. Beshogur (talk) 10:33, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

@GevHev4:, can you elaborate? Why did you revert? Beshogur (talk) 10:45, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Please, move the whole text and then edit, for other users to be easier to check, why for example FCP statement disappeared. GevHev4 (talk) 10:58, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well I removed 3 sections from the Turkish parties consituting majority of the parliament as well, I do not think these are too important. Beshogur (talk) 11:03, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Kocharyan blamed Armenian side for escalation in July clashes i think it should be mentioned in the begingin of the article as both of them are high profile figures in the conflict. https://ru.armeniasputnik.am/politics/20201204/25624716/Vlasti-Armenii-sdelali-vse-chtoby-priblizit-voynu-v-Karabakhe---Kocharyan.html, also Sergey Lavrov mentioned Armenian sides attempt to reinstate old border post reignited the conflict his direct quote in Russian "Плюс исключительная перегретость публичного пространства по обе стороны границы. Своего рода спусковым крючком послужил и географический фактор: решение армянской стороны" https://www.trud.ru/article/20-08-2020/1393051_sergej_lavrov_pandemija_uskorila_myslitelnye_protsessy_v_evrosojuze.html 80.76.168.114 (talk) 09:19, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We need to be careful given internal Armenian politics and Armenian/Russian relations around Pashinyan's government here. Armenian PM Pashinyan is opposed by these two, and placing the blame for the results of the war on Pashinyan is a major political narrative here. Vici Vidi (talk) 07:39, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, first of all there is no proof that Russia or Sergey Lavrov are against Pashinian or his government, second of all Robert Kocharyan is and will be Armenians Second president and he is words carry weight. The other side of the coin is that they might reveal truth which Pashinian is trying to hide so just because it might damage Pashinian it does not mean that it should not be in Wikipedia, also if Biden or Dem reveal something about Trump should we just ignore it just because its opposite side?! seriously i'm missing the point.... Agulani (talk) 08:44, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey