Jump to content

Talk:Second Nagorno-Karabakh War

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Russian Arm supplies

[edit]

Didnt Russia also supply Azerbaijan with weapons? NikolaosGeorgiosMichael (talk) 19:32, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In general over the last 30 years, or directly related to this conflict/during it? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 20:05, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To this conflict, the Second Karabakh War 2003:EA:4F25:F2BF:68ED:1DB7:D929:7231 (talk) 10:19, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.sipri.org/commentary/topical-backgrounder/2021/arms-transfers-conflict-zones-case-nagorno-karabakh 2003:EA:4F25:F2BF:68ED:1DB7:D929:7231 (talk) 10:21, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://jamestown.org/program/azerbaijan-is-drifting-away-from-russia-and-moscow-has-only-itself-to-blame/ 2003:EA:4F25:F2BF:68ED:1DB7:D929:7231 (talk) 10:25, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 January 2024

[edit]

Having Syrian mercenaries is just ridiculous considering Azerbaijan as one of the most irreligious countries in the world and also having 3 times more population than the opponent country and many more military advances. As a citizen, I am extremely offended by this and I find it wrong to add this kind of info without having reliable source and proof. 151.71.255.147 (talk) 19:39, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. FYI the blue numbers inside the brackets e.g. [4] are sources Cannolis (talk) 21:04, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan support

[edit]

Isn't it true that Pakistan provided diplomatic support to Azerbaijan throughout the conflict?

Even in the Armenia-Pakistan relations article, it mentions this. In 2015, they went as far as to say the recognition of Armenia is contingent on the Armenians leaving the disputed zone. And they openly celebrated and praised the cease-fire when it happened. OperativePhase33 (talk) 04:16, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dot-points under result parameter

[edit]

Vanezi Astghik, per MOS:MIL, which gives voice to the template documentation for the result parameter, additional dot points are not supported. The documentation is quite specific in how it is to be filled. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:34, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused, where does it say that in the documentation? And if it's reliably sourced content, why can't we make an exception even if true? Vanezi (talk) 06:09, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is quite specific as to what is permitted under the result parameter. It does not includes dot-points. WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE tells us not to write the article in the infobox and that less is better. This infobox is excessively bloated and such "detail" contributes to this. The infobox is unsuited to prose or prose like statements. That is what the lead is for. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:51, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Articles like Croatian War of Independence have been promoted to good article with the bullet points. I don't question the GA criteria and if it was good enough for a GA article, it should be here too. Vanezi (talk) 08:12, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was listed as a GA in 2011. Things change. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:01, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Belligerents

[edit]

Vanezi Astghik, the belligerents section is for state players or similar - not just anybody that wants to throw an iron in the fire. Just like the PPK, Syrian mercenaries and Armenian diaspora volunteers are not state players that would be listed as belligerents in the infobox - regardless of sources that say they were present. It is a miscategorisation. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:14, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cinderella157 I am not sure where you are quoting "state players or similar" from, but according to the military conflict infobox template: particular units, formations, or groups may be indicated if doing so improves reader understanding. So you were right to unlist Armenian diaspora volunteers because that refers to unrelated individual cases, not any kind of group. But the Syrian National Army is clearly its own group, and very relevant because its units were in the frontlines. Vanezi (talk) 18:19, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The infobox listed Syrian mercenaries, with sources to support this description even though the link was piped to Syrian National Army. The sourcing does not appear to support this piping. Furthermore, it as alleged that they were recruited by Turkey. What I was quoting was from my edit summary. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:25, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are reliable sources confirming Syrian mercenaries from the Syrian National Army.
  • Although Azerbaijan and its ally Turkey deny the use of mercenaries, researchers have amassed a considerable amount of photographic evidence, drawn from videos and photographs the fighters have posted online, which tells a different story.[1]
  • According to sources within the Syrian National Army (SNA), the umbrella term for a group of opposition militias backed by Turkey, around 1,500 Syrians have so far been deployed to the disputed Nagorno-Karabakh region in the southern Caucasus ... Shortly after conflict erupted between Armenia and Azerbaijan, Turkey sought to mobilize the SNA, sometimes called Turkey’s proxy army ... The first fighters were transferred in late September to southern Turkey and then flown from Gaziantep to Ankara, before being transferred to Azerbaijan on Sept. 25.[2]
The only error was the mercenaries were bullet pointed under Azerbaijan. From what these sources confirm, the mercenaries should instead be under Turkey, and the "alleged" comment should be removed. Vanezi (talk) 16:41, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Turkey can only be listed as "alleged by Armenia" per community consensus at this RFC: [3], and another one later on, which also decided on Syrian mercenaries: [4] If you want to change that, start a new RFC to form a new community consensus. Grandmaster 13:18, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These are mercenaries. Whether they had previous service with the Syrian National Army does not change their status as mercenaries. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:42, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Erdogan: "We entered Karabakh"

[edit]

Leaving this here for the record. "We must be very strong so that Israel can't do these ridiculous things to Palestine. Just like we entered Karabakh, just like we entered Libya, we might do similar to them," Erdogan told a meeting of his ruling AK Party in his hometown of Rize. [5] --Երևանցի talk 07:39, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is an ambiguous political statement. He did not say that Turkish army was in Karabakh. Entering could mean many things. The article also says "he did not spell out what sort of intervention he was suggesting", and that "Turkey has denied any direct role in Azerbaijan's military operations in Nagorno-Karabakh, but said last year it was using "all means", including military training and modernisation, to support its close ally". Grandmaster 08:01, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is reasonable to conclude that Erdogan was referring to a military intervention (entry, incursion, invasion). It is hard to assume that Turkey intends to invade Israel's cultural or spiritual life. Of course, we are talking about a military intervention. Ավետիսյան91 (talk) 14:16, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's one interpretation. There can be others. You can see that the Reuters journalists are not certain "what sort of intervention he was suggesting". Grandmaster 14:51, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There could be other interpretations if the context of Erdogan's speech were different. However, if we are talking about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the possible entry of Turkey into Israel to help the Palestinians, there can be no other interpretation. Turkey will certainly not intervene in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with an educational, scientific, or cultural entry. It is obvious that he means a military entry (invasion). Adding some more links: [6], [7]. Ավետիսյան91 (talk) 16:31, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I should also add that Israel interpreted Erdogan's speech as a threat of military invasion. Here is the link: "Erdogan is following in the footsteps of Saddam Hussein and threatening to attack Israel". Russia also responded to the military comments of the parties. Azerbaijan also commented on Erdogan's speech, naturally denying: "After Erdogan’s ‘just like we entered Karabakh’ speech, Baku claims no Turkish troops were involved". All possible sides interpret Erdogan's speech as a threat of military invasion in both Karabakh and Israel. Ավետիսյան91 (talk) 05:56, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is still a matter of interpretation. He did not explicitly say that Turkey sent troops to Karabakh, and it is still generally accepted that Turkey provided support in 2020. Pretty much all sources reporting on this speech mention that. NYT that you quoted writes:
“Just like we entered Karabakh, just like we entered Libya, we can do similar to them,” he said, referring to Turkish support for Azerbaijan in its conflict with Armenia last year and his country’s military intervention in Libya.
Politico: Turkey supported Azerbaijan during the Second Nagorno-Karabakh War against Armenia in 2020, though has long denied any direct involvement, and has deployed troops in Libya in support of the United Nations-recognized government since 2020.
In any case, this is a primary source, and can only be quoted with attribution. Grandmaster 07:02, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a doubt regarding the interpretation then one option would be to add a direct quote. Alaexis¿question? 17:37, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Second_Nagorno-Karabakh_War&oldid=1237528621"