Talk:2020 Ganja missile attacks

Third-party copyediting

Can someone help me out with this? It surely needs some copyediting. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 22:12, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Just one question, who operates Tochka missiles, solely Nagorko Karabakh (Artsakh). I mean the second and thrid attacks are more than likely to be carried out by Armenia. But did Armenia also operate Tochkas?Mr.User200 (talk) 00:50, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Mr.User200, well, Armenia had denied any responsibility, some state-affiliated journalists are even claiming that Azerbaijan had rocketed itself (how ridiculous it sounds). Armenia has about 40 Tochka-Us officially, dunno how much more they received during the conflict (as Aliyev implied that many more arms, including rocket systems, were sold/given to Armenia during the conflict) --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 15:52, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

ADA

How many attacks have the ADA admitted? Johncdraper (talk) 12:38, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

@Johncdraper:, they confirmed the first attack on 4 October, and the Artsakh Defence Ministry published a list of military targets in Ganja (apparently) after today's strike (Armenia denied responsibility though). --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 15:54, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

@Solavirum: I am interested in that list. May we talk about it here? Johncdraper (talk) 16:13, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

@Johncdraper:, I can't access Twitter with my PC (which doesn't open any VPNs), and connection on my phone is unstable. I bet you can find their tweet. I advise checking out Artsrun's account and Armenia/Artsakh MoD's official accounts. In the meanwhile, I'd check some Russian sources. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 16:38, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Nevermind, found it. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 16:39, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

@Solavirum: I trust you will know what to do with it. Johncdraper (talk) 17:47, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

@Johncdraper:, yeah, but personally don't know how to word it. They just made a list without explaining much. Is it taking the responsibility? An excuse? Does that mean that Artsakh accepts killing civilians as a result of military mistakes? Is it really related to the 17 Oct. attack? Questions, questions. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 17:55, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

@Solavirum: That's why Wikipedia has sandboxes and Talk pages. Johncdraper (talk) 17:58, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

@Johncdraper: Here is a map with the military targets shared by the Spokesperson of the Armenian MoD

Armenian neighborhood

Well, I don't think we can find lotsa sources about it. But the 4 October attack struck Aziz Aliyev Street, which was known as the Armenian quarter before Azerbaijan's independence. They even found an ethnic Armenian among the injured civilians 1 2. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 16:00, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

The map

Alright. I was able to use official and third-party sources (Bild, Hikmat Hajiyev etc.) to geolocate where the missiles hit. Here is the list:

• 4th October: Aziz Aliyev Street (ex Armenian quarter); 40.665082, 46.365987.
• 4th October: Təzə Bazar in Ganja; 40.6878621, 46.3701426.
• 8th October: intersection of Parviz Samadov Street and Hasan Aliyev Street, just near M. Mehdizadeh 4th School; 40.680022, 46.350865.
• 11th October: Shah Ismael Khatai Avenue; 40.701093, 46.367114.
• 17th October: Mukhtar Haji[yev] Street; 40.690617, 46.355310.
• 17th October: Suleyman Rahimov Street; couldn't identify.

Can someone help with converting these to the map? --► Sincerely: SolaVirum

@Johncdraper:, any thoughts? The map is misleading atm, and the coordinates don't show the real locations here, but does in Google Maps. Might be something wrong with the module? --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 22:56, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm having the same problem, on two different browsers, the coordinates seem to be displaying wrong. Hemşinli çocuk 00:29, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

This is a one sided Article

I am placing POV tag until issues resolved. Almost all articles refer to allegation by Azerbaijan. Have there been any independent news agencies that have provided proof of these claims? Armenia has denied almost all of these allegations. Expertwikiguy (talk) 21:58, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

What's the "issues"? There are many western sources present if that's the problem. Beshogur (talk) 22:13, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

There are many Western sources provided in the article. And you can't add that tag to the article without providing arguments that have a base. The article clearly states that Armenia had denied responsibility. What else do you want? This is a human tragedy, not a toy. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 22:41, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

As I stated all articles simply say it was alleged that this happened. Can you point out to any articles from independent reporters on the ground that have verified the bombings happened on the stated dates have happened. How do we know it was several bombings and not just one. Can each one be independently verified by any sources other than Azeri sources and sources that say Azerbaijan alleges it happened? As the creator of the page you seem to be pro-Azeri and your edit history also shows that, so in what way is it not biased?? You also should not revert a POV as the creator of the page. This needs to be discussed. Expertwikiguy (talk) 23:30, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

France24, BBC News, RIA Novosti all have confirmed previous attacks. CNN confirmed 17 October attack on one site, while RIA Novosti confirmed the other site. Now, don't take my time and see the sources for yourself. As the creator of the page you seem to be pro-Azeri and your edit history also shows that, if you don't stop with your accusative and mentoring rhetoric, I'm just going to report you to the admins. If you want to discuss, discuss it properly. Not just bash people with accusations. This isn't the YouTube comments. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 00:51, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

If I see you violate WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH one more time, you're getting reported. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 00:52, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion this article's main issue is that a lot of news are not first hand from foreign news reporters, but they state what Azerbaijan stated, for example the BBC article. We all know that each country is likely to provide false and exaggerated reports. Every country is going to report facts to their benefits and not tell the truth. I am sure this happens with Astsakh & Armenia too. It is a war. I propose that either POV or DISPUTE tag should be added until these are resolved. The easiest way to fix it is to add words such as "According to Azerbaijan" or "Allegedly." Even Reference #1 BBC article. and #2 Independent state that it was stated by Azerbaijan. For example the Independent states "Azerbaijani officials said Sunday that Armenian forces attacked Ganja..." and "It wasn’t immediately possible to verify the authenticity of the video." 104.33.81.154 (talk) 06:46, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I fully agree. The problem of this article is not the name, but tendency of this article. The most of this article is maybe supported by outside (of the conflict) sources, but outside sources which almost completely cites the Azerbaijan's view and based on that the whole article is composed. Therefore it can't be objective.RikerCZ (talk) 11:38, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

"Allegedly"

@Mhmk97: We do not have to insert "allegedly" into the statements The Ganja ballistic missile attacks were four separate missile attacks or The first attack took place on 4 October, killing one civilian and wounding more than 30. There is not doubt over whether an attack occurred. The uncertainty comes when it's time to discuss who fired the missiles, and that is properly described in the third paragraph of the lead: Azerbaijan accused Armenia of the attacks, but Armenia denied any responsibility. Introducing "allegedly" into the first two sentences makes it sound like there is some doubt as to whether missiles even struck Ganja, which is not the case. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:39, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS

What is the notability of this, besides the fact that media has written about it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:1085:D560:699A:511E:2924:3992 (talk) 09:54, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

It is a mass casualty event with international responses in a major conflict. Johncdraper (talk) 09:58, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

There are many contributions to its notability.

1. Causalities: over the weeks, 24 civilians were killed and 120 more were injured. I bet if something happened in Armenia, you guys would have jumped over the fact.
2. Ganja is the second-largest city of Azerbaijan, about a hundred km away from where the fighting takes place.
3. Ballistic missile, duh. Hell, Scud missile's usage on civilians is so rare that I think only Saddam Hossein have done such thing (See: October 22 Scud missile attack).
4. A regional power (Turkey), a regional union (the EU), and ambassadors from foreign countries have condemned this. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 10:01, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because this appears to be a drive-by template by an unregistered user. Add: reverted as vandalism and posted appropriate template to user's Talk. Johncdraper (talk) 09:56, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't agree with speedy deletion. But in my opinion this article's main issue is that a lot of news are not first hand from foreign news reporters, but they state what Azerbaijan stated. For example the BBC article. I propose that either POV or DISPUTE tag should be added until these are resolved. 104.33.81.154 (talk) 06:38, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Notes for editors

This article has been on many radars since yesterday, especially in Armenia. People didn't liked an article about a human tragedy, and have been making conspiracy theories, mistakenly citing Wikipedia's server time (which uses UTC+0, four hours behind the current time). And an English-Armenian journalist, Onnik J. Krikorian have commented on the issue. In the meanwhile, I was able to put some light into it. But, nevertheless, be cautious. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 10:06, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Duly noted. Johncdraper (talk) 12:55, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Noted. — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 12:58, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Are you talking about him and can you specify what comment you are referring to? Tks Hemşinli çocuk 05:08, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Citation format

This cite's author metadata is incorrectly populated. Johncdraper (talk) 12:53, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Fixed --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 15:08, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protection

This article may require semi-protection? Johncdraper (talk) 16:05, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I appealed for EC protection, but it was declined. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 17:41, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

BTW, be careful on the way you are handling of the sources, this edit (on the first attack), seems accurate. From the source you're referring to, it appears they are (at least, it seems to me) taking the credit for a supposed bombing of the airport. Hemşinli çocuk 04:29, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Ermenermin, independent sources have confirmed that the airport was not hit. And they took responsibility for striking the city in general, so yeah, nothing wrong there. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 13:13, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Solavirum That's your assumption, they claim to have hit the airport. That can not be considered taking credit for an attack of the city. Turkish sources say that the F16s were removed from Ganja airport after the bombing of Ganja. So a bombing was close enough to warrant a removal of the F16s from the airport. That there was any actual bombing on the airport or not, isn't the point here. Hemşinli çocuk 13:55, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Ermenermin, that ain't an assumption, they failed to strike the airport, which is within the city limits. It is same as striking the city. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 14:00, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Solavirum, exactly, that's what an assumption is, that they failed is a point of view, either sourced or not. For all we know, there could have been an unreported bombing in Ganja. That could be as much an assumption as the one you are making. Hemşinli çocuk 14:06, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Ermenermin, it isn't an assumption if it is well sources, at least in Wikipedia's standards. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 14:13, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Solavirum, For the last time, where did they take credit for that bombing? If you can not provide a source for that, either you have to reword it or remove it. The info as it is, is your assumption, because they denied having bombed a residential area, that that's what actually happened or not, isn't the issue here. Hemşinli çocuk 14:24, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Ermenermin, you're trying to falsely word it out here. The article doesn't specify that Artsakh took responsibility for striking residential areas. The article is about the strikes on the city, which Artsakh responsibility of, whether or not it is residential, industrial or military areas. Here is the source btw. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 14:28, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I have reworded it. Hemşinli çocuk 14:40, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

The airport being non-operational, seems that either there were two airport, or that that one was serving as two airports (one military airbase). From the tweets of the NYT expert who confirmed the presence of F16s there was one answer from someone who appeared to be a Russian journalist (I don't know if he's the same cited here, I will check and come back). He said that he was there (that day that the satellite image was taken) and from the markings on the asphalt, that that was not the Ganja airport. But we see that in google map, that he was probably on the other strip. Also, we have evidence that it was non-operational for civil flights only, not military. Artsakh itself claimed hitting a military airbase on Oct 4. And what we know, the F16s were removed from the airport that day, as a result of bombings. Whether or not a military airbase was hit, that is another issue. Particularly when, either side will be quick to report civilian losses, but when it comes to military loss, they have a tendency to under report theirs. Hemşinli çocuk 15:11, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

There is one airport in the city, Ganja International Airport, just beside the main residential areas, on north-western part of the city. The missiles have all hit the central-to-eastern part of the city. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 17:31, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I am under the impression that you are not reading what I write. You are assuming (again!), that it is the same missiles that Artsakh took credit for that hit the city. Given that each side has the tendency to under report or even deny military losses, there is no indication that Azerbaijan will report hit on infrastructures used for military purposes. All we know is that Artsakh claims to have hit a military airbase (whether or not they succeeded is not the issue here), and that we know that there was hits that prompted to move away the F16s, whether or not, they're the same hits that were reported by other sources to have hit the city, that we can't confirm from the sources we have. Hemşinli çocuk 17:49, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Ermenermin, there are third-party confirmation that the airport was indeed not hit. You're, yet again, on the wrong here... --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 18:33, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Solavirum The link provided for the third party source, send me to a page, with several news, can you provide me that part (in its original language, I'll get it translated with google translate) that stat that the airport wasn't hit? And if it is provided, the name of the reporter. I want to check if it's the same reporter as the one I previously referred to. Hemşinli çocuk 19:26, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Warnings issued to Civilians of Ganja on 4th of October (6 days before 1st major attack)

On 4th of October, before the two major attacks on Ganja of 10th and 17th of October, the president of the de facto Republic of Artsakh Arayik Harutyunyan issued two warnings (here and here) to the civilians of Azerbaijan. This was after what he claimed was the use of "Polonez and Smerch multiple launch rocket systems" against Stepanakert. His words were "From now on, military facilities permanently located in major cities of Azerbaijan became the targets of the Defense Army. I call on the people of Azerbaijan to leave these cities as soon as possible to avoid possible casualties.". In the second warning he mentions calling off an attack on Ganja last minute to avoid civilian casualties, saying that "Azerbaijan can stop before it is too late". I think the fact of the warning has to be mentioned in the background section of this article --Sataralynd (talk) 09:05, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Can we also mention the fact on 5 October, Artsakh "president"'s spokesperson threatened to "level Ganja" by saying "I'm afraid, in a few days even archaeologists won't be able to find Ganja" — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 09:25, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

You could open a new thread for that if you wish, by as usual providing sources. In the meantime, please address the original post, thank you--Sataralynd (talk) 10:32, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Facebook cannot be used as a source. IMO, when its from an official page like that it should be allowed, but its not my decision. If you can find this same thing covered in an independent news story, we can add it. @User:Sataralynd do you have a source for what you mentioned? Expertwikiguy (talk) 04:07, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

@Expertwikiguy: Facebook is a multipurpose tool and we need to look at what is the reference before dismissing it just because it is on facebook. The posts were made on Arayik Harutyunyan's verified facebook page. However, here are 1, 2, and 3 outlets where the warning has been reported, all of them on the 4th of October, 6 days before the first major strike on Ganja. I think it is fairly clear that a warning has been given, and it has been widely reported--Sataralynd (talk) 13:12, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree with you but unfortunately it is against the Wikipedia rules to use Facebook as a source and it is on their blacklist. Check here. But if your other news sources provide the same details then they can be used.. Expertwikiguy (talk) 21:22, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Here is what I suggest to include based on above sources. @Johncdraper: I know you were interested in this, let me know if any comments. Also could you opine on the question of using Facebook? I understand it is very restricted due to WP:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, but the posts were made on his verified facebook page and I believe his main mode of communication during the conflict:

On 4 October 2020, Arayik Harutyunyan's, the de facto Republic of Artsakh's president, issued a warning to the Azerbaijani army and civilians for the latter to leave Ganja, claiming that military facilities permanently located there have been targeting civilians in Stepanakert using Polonez and Smerch missiles (sources 1,2,3,4,5)--Sataralynd (talk) 04:53, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Summary: as no one is opposed to the addition and the article is open to editing, I just added the above bold text. Thanks for your comments.--Sataralynd (talk) 01:24, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

@Sataralynd: Apologies: busy elsewhere; I now have a little free time and ce'd your contribution. Please check and confirm whether it's okay. Johncdraper (talk) 09:48, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

@Johncdraper: checked and it looks good to me, thank you. As my original edit request was for the main article, could I ask you to add the same wording there? I am unsure under which heading, maybe section Official Statements, subsection Artsakh and Armenia what do you think? Also the discussion there has been removed for some reason--Sataralynd (talk) 12:26, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Sataralynd, Araik's "warning" came after the first attack. It has no place in the background section. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 14:52, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Sataralynd and Solavirum, would you please agree on a form of words on this issue and on the main article page? You could use your own Talks. I am still officially busy. Johncdraper (talk) 15:38, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Edits of E badalyan

@E badalyan: Addressing your edits:

1) You're adding an "According to Azerbaijani side" to a sentence stating on what day the attack happened. The date of the attack isn't under question.

2) How is "It was one of the first serious attacks in the conflict outside the Nagorno-Karabakh region" an opinion? What other large cities outside of the disputed/occupied territories do you know that has been bombed severely? — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 20:46, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

1) Okay, I agree with the date. However, the reports about casualties are from the Azerbaijani side, and the number of wounded does not correspond to any sources. One source says that the foreign Ministry of Azerbaijan reported four wounded, but the sentence says more than thirty.

2) The information in the sentence "It was one of the first serious attacks in the conflict outside the Nagorno-Karabakh region" is not present in any sources; that's why I saw an opinion in it. No source says that it's the first or one of the first or says that it's serious. I would also recommend not using the word "serious." --E badalyan (talk) 21:20, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 27 October 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus, discussion already continued in new RM below. (non-admin closure) BegbertBiggs (talk) 22:44, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

---

2020 Ganja ballistic missile attacks → Ganja ballistic missile attacks – It's the first time Ganja was hit by a missile, so the "2020" part is irrelevant and I don't see any reason why the "ballistic" part must be specified in the title, making it unnecessarily longer. — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 14:34, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

EDIT: I have changed the move request name to Ganja ballistic missile attacks per the message below. — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 10:14, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Comment we can remove "2020", but see Grozny ballistic missile attack for clarification. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 16:00, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree with naming it "Ganja ballistic missile attacks" then. — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 16:04, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Support the name change as there is no evidence that the attacks were done by ballistic missiles, only accusations--Sataralynd (talk) 16:40, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Support per WP:CONCISE and MOS:PRECISION. EDIT: I'm supporting the shortest version that makes scence (Missile attacks on Ganja) per WP:CONCISE and MOS:PRECISION. There is no need to add extra words when the short one is understandable to everybody. --ԱշոտՏՆՂ (talk) 16:48, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Oppose now that you added the word ballistic without a single piece of evidence--Sataralynd (talk) 21:15, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Brandmeister^talk 07:28, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:NCEVENTS.  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 21:35, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

NOTE: I guess there are more people who put "Support" or "Oppopse" for the old version hence it doesn't seem correct to change the suggested version after that. --ԱշոտՏՆՂ (talk) 18:39, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

If you're talking about the old suggested request name, I only changed it after a day and there were only 2 voters affected by it which are both informed about the decision. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 19:39, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

I was one of the users and nobody informed me :).--ԱշոտՏՆՂ (talk) 15:14, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Huh, the spaces in Sataralynd's comment made me think he was informing you lol. Sorry. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 17:00, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Solavirum's edits - removing the warning from Republic of Artsakh's president to the residents of Ganja

@Solavirum:, despite the discussion that is ongoing here about the topic of the warning to the civilians of Ganja, you have unilaterally removed again the warning description from the Background section of the article stating 'not "background" if it happened during the attack' when I have challenged that position on your talk page and you didn't answered to that challenge. You have disengaged from that discussion in breach of policy, and just went ahead and made the reversion for the third time now, without discussion--Sataralynd (talk) 21:32, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Sataralynd, you're acting like I'm the one that needs to reach to a consensus. If you can't define "background", that is not my issue. I'm not going to let anyone push a particular point of view on this article. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 02:08, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

@Solavirum: You're the one who is evidently pushing Azerbaijan's view into not only this article, but many others. This whole article is basically about Azerbaijan's view (e.g. part Azerbaijan's response). Azerbaijan's press release or official statements, no matter how retransmitted by western media, can't be perceived as objective description of the events.RikerCZ (talk) 12:10, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Edits by CuriousGolden on Background Section

@CuriousGolden: I see you have just reverted my edit on the background section, changing significantly the intended meaning. Our job is not to reinterpret the content of the source WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH but to present them as they are. Removing the reference to the targeting of civilians in Stepanakert, which according to the source was the reason for the warning is not justified. You have done this substantial change despite there being two talks here on the topic, and you were engaged in one of them. Could you please 1) revert the change 2) outline your reasoning behind the intended change (if you still want to make it)? Thanks --Sataralynd (talk) 04:35, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

@Sataralynd: Hey, I removed part of the sentence that implies that the Polonez and Smerch missiles that Azerbaijan allegedly used to hit Stepanakert is located in Ganja. None of the links you provided said this and I believe you took it from this Facebook post of Arayik. But what he says in the post is:

"Despite numerous warnings, the Azerbaijani terrorist army continues targeting the civilian population in Stepanakert, using "Polonez" and "Smerch" multiple launch rocket systems. From now on, military facilities permanently located in major cities of Azerbaijan became the targets of the Defense Army."

As I understood it, no clear indication that the missiles that hit Stepanakert were in Ganja, or were fired from Ganja. Respectfully. — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 06:40, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

@CuriousGolden: you actually made 3 changes

1) changed de facto to self proclaimed 2) removed the mention that Stepanakert has been targetted by deleting been targeting civilians in Stepanakert, which was the reason for the warning 3) removed the type of weapons, using Polonez and Smerch missiles as you claim there is no proof they were in Ganja I have reverted all the three changes because you didn't explain the first two, and the word "claimed" about the weapons and them being in ganja is there to highlight that it is a claim. Further here is a source about the claim of this weapon use and no one expects the other side to know from where each weapon is coming. If you have a denial from the Azerbaijan government on this topic, bring in the source and add the words which Azerbaijan denied at the end--Sataralynd (talk) 22:22, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

@Sataralynd:

1) Is it not self-proclaimed? "self-proclaimed republic" is gramatically correct rather than "de facto republic"

2-3) As I said above, you're writing openly that things that hit Stepanakert came from Ganja, when not even Arayik has claimed that. He has only said that there were military facilities in the city that had become target. You're adding things that have no source. — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 07:16, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

@CuriousGolden: regarding 1) suggest to remove both terms as they are both mentioned in the previous paragraph and the intention of the paragraph is to talk about the warning and not the legal status of RoA. 2) and 3) please see here where he is clearly stating that civilians in Artsakh have been targeted by military facilities in Ganja using cluster bombs, and for self defence purposes he is attacking Ganja and calling the civilian population to leave it, again on the 4th of October. I agree there is no explicit mention about Smerch and Polonez missiles coming from Ganja itself so we don't have to call these weapons in the article. But, there is mention of cluster munitions from Ganja targeting civilians in Artsakh and as their use were proven by Azerbaijan in Stepanakert so need to mention it (here - so we have claim + third party evidence)

If you are ok, I'll make these changes--Sataralynd (talk) 21:57, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

@Sataralynd:

1) The "self-proclaimed" or "unrecognised" is added near "Artsakh" in almost all articles it's mentioned in, so I think adding either one of the 2 words is good.

2-3) Again, he is not saying directly that Stepanakert was shelled directly from Ganja. This is your interpretation. For all we know, that could interpreted as "Azerbaijan bombed Stepanakert, so we bombed Ganja which also has military facilities". If you have tweet or statement of his that directly says "Because Azerbaijan bombed Stepanakert from Ganja, I ordered the army to bomb Ganja", you can add it. But at this point, I see no evidence of him directly saying that. Instead you can add "President of the unrecognised Republic of Artsakh announced that he would bomb Ganja because of Azerbaijan's shelling of Stepanakert."

Also, I'm kind of confused as to how this is related to Background section, as he said these after the attack. Perhaps you can add it to Second Attack tab. — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 07:54, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

@CuriousGolden: sorry for taking some time it is busy times these days

1) I suggest we use "self-proclaimed de facto" and put this matter to bed. It presents both what Artsakh sees itself, as well as its international status 2) Fine about Stepanakert being left out. But, it is very clear that the sources present a warning to the civilians of Ganja to leave the city. This is not a matter of interpretation as you claim though I'm sure Azerbaijan would say so. I'm happy to take it to dispute resolution if you disagree because it is going around in circles. This is to be mentioned in the background section because the warning, albeit (arguably) coincided with the first attack, happened before the three others, but more importantly before the two most deadly attacks on 10th and 17th of October In light of the above, I suggest we rephrase as follows: On 4th of October, Arayik Harutyunyan, the self-proclaimed de facto Republic of Artsakh's president, issued a warning to the Azerbaijani army and civilians for the latter to leave Ganja, claiming that military facilities permanently located there have been targeting civilians in Artsakh. Plase note that the language used is much stronger, but I am choosing to redact it in order to present the content of the message, as well as maintain the NPOV --Sataralynd (talk) 23:44, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

@Sataralynd: Hi, it's alright, no worries.

1) That's fine.

2) Your suggestion of the sentence is good, but again it makes it seem like he said that the military facilities in Ganja hit Stepanakert. But he doesn't directly say that as I pointed out in my previous comments. I think we also need to point out that he said this after the first attack as it's an important detail. I think it's better if we just say: On 4th of October, after the first attack, Arayik Harutyunyan, the self-proclaimed de facto Republic of Artsakh's president, issued a warning to the Azerbaijani army and civilians for the latter to leave Ganja, claiming that military facilities were permanently located in the city.

— CuriousGolden (T·C) 07:25, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

@CuriousGolden: changes made. Thanks--Sataralynd (talk) 05:38, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

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

• People carry the coffins of Anar Aliyev and his wife Nurcin Aliyeva, killed in Ganja attack during the fighting over the breakaway region of Nagorno-Karabakh, in the city of Shamkir, Azerbaijan, Oct. 12, 2020.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:15, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 7 November 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved
Five support !votes (including the nom) versus one oppose !vote shows a clear consensus to move in terms of raw numbers. Looking at the arguments a clear invocation of WP:CRITERIA is made for support (particularly that the new title is more precise and shorter) but not much in the way of policy is cited against that.(non-admin closure) FOARP (talk) 20:30, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

---

2020 Ganja ballistic missile attacks → 2020 Ganja missile attacks – The use of ballistic missiles in Ganja has not been confirmed by international media or reliable third party source. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 18:39, 7 November 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. BegbertBiggs (talk) 22:45, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Do not edit without reaching to a consensus. Here's Amnesty International confirming use of ballistic missiles. [https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2020/10/armenia-azerbaijan-use-of-artillery-salvos-and-ballistic-missiles-in-populated-areas-must-stop-immediately/] --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 17:20, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Support. No new confirming source are available for this. Sincerely, --Alex662607004 (talk) 15:32, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Oppose. It has been confirmed by Amnesty International. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 15:35, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Support. AI is not a weapons expert organization. The article mentions their (direct quote) "Crisis Response team", not a weapons expert. Additionally, the same article talks about AI experts finding evidence for the likely use of cluster munition by Azerbaijan, something the Azerbaijani side claims the Armenian side has used it. AI could not confirm the claim of the latter. As you can see, the article talks about BOTH sides/claims while the title is imposing a perspective from one side only; a clear selective bias. Sincerely, --Alex662607004 (talk) 16:01, 12 November 2020 (UTC) (Note: This is same user's second support comment)

Support per nom. --E badalyan (talk) 17:44, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Support there has been no evidence presented on the use of ballistic missiles by Armenia or NK forces. The AI piece that @CuriousGolden: mentions doesn't make a specific claim about who used it--Sataralynd (talk) 19:26, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

We're not trying to clarify who used in the title anyway. It still confirms that it was used in the attack, by whomever it was. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 19:27, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

You people have to bring better sources for your claims. WP:NOTADEMOCRACY. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 21:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

@Solavirum: which claim is that? you need to provide sources as the title you are advocating has an extra piece of information (i.e. the use of ballistic missiles) without any evidence--Sataralynd (talk) 02:48, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Ermm, I already have? --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 06:48, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

No you didn't. The only one you provided was from Amnesty and there's no mention in that Ganja has been attacked by ballistic missiles. Just becuase the words "Ganja" and "ballistic" are used in the same article doesn't warrant inclusion. WP:ORIGINAL--Sataralynd (talk) 19:26, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

That's actually what it means. And how's citing an internationally recognized source is an original research? --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 06:05, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Support: ballistic missiles are still missiles. The suggested title is more. WP:PRECISE.  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 04:32, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 5 December 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. (non-admin closure) Vpab15 (talk) 23:42, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

---

2020 Ganja missile attacks → Ganja missile attacks – There have been no attacks on this city before, therefore there's no need to specify the year by adding "2020". In addition, none of the WP:RS specify "2020" in their titles to describe the event (BBC, France24, Al Jazeera). — CuriousGolden (T·C) 19:20, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose we generally have year for less than mega mega mega or unique events - these year identifiers help readers. Even without that, Ganjia is Azerbaijan's second largest city where fighters were found near the former Soviet 104th Guards Airborne base, are we confident a missile has never been fired in the area before? In ictu oculi (talk) 22:44, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

That's your WP:OR. This event is, as you put it, a mega mega mega unique event. Lots of articles about city bombardments don't use year in their title, e.g. Grozny ballistic missile attack, Zagreb rocket attacks, Elistanzhi cluster bomb attack, Niš cluster bombing and so on.. About your second point, that logic is flawed. Take a look at First Nagorno-Karabakh war. It wasn't the first war to be fought over Nagorno-Karabakh, but it's the most notable one, hence its name. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 07:04, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. No weight should be given to the fact that sources for this recent event don’t specify the year of the event, as these sources are discussing a recent event. 2020 helps tremendously with recognizability, including making it unambiguous that this article covers all of the multiple missile attacks. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:12, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:NCEVENTS. This event isn't historically identifiable enough to satisfy WP:NOYEAR.  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 23:04, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

• How can you tell that event isn't historically identifiable enough? It's a widely recorded/sourced event with almost every single reliable source covering it. When does an event become historically identifiable if this is not the case? — CuriousGolden (T·C) 06:30, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2020 bombardment of Stepanakert

Zohrab Mnatsakanyan confirmed this was retaliation for Azerbaijan shelling civilian areas in Stepanakert. --Steverci (talk) 17:57, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

References

Added it to the article. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 18:04, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Why the scare quotes? He doesn't even use the word retaliation, that was my wording. --Steverci (talk) 18:24, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Word by word quotation is unnecessary, especially in lead. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 18:27, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately I can't access that source since Google automatically marks it as not safe and I doubt an unsafe source can be used in Wikipedia. Do you have a better, non-primary source for this that won't cause privacy issue for viewers? — CuriousGolden (T·C) 18:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm using Google and it's working fine for me. It's the official Ministry of Foreign Affairs website, and is a transcript from this BBC interview. What better source to link the events? If a news source did, that would just be their interpretation. --Steverci (talk) 19:01, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Are you using Chrome? Because it forbids me from joining for the reason You cannot visit www.mfa.am right now because the website uses HSTS. Network errors and attacks are usually temporary, so this page will probably work later. This is preventing me from accessing the website and knowing the actual quote. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 19:05, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Maybe an IP ban on Azerbaijan? --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 19:26, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, and I'm not getting that message. I'll post what the site says. Also, would you be opposed to mentioning Stepanakert on just the Tartar background but not the header? It's very important background information.

BBC: Why is Armenia targeting civilians in Ganja- Azerbaijan second city.

Zohrab Mnatsakanyan: When it comes to the civilians we have been very vocal about it. For three weeks Stepanakert, the capital of Nagorno-Karabakh, Sushi, Martakert, Martuni, Hadrut and hundreds of villages have been under consistent fire, consistent shelling, consistent bombing by UAVs, Turkish made Bayraktars, air controlled by the Turkish air force. Rocket launchers, Grad, Smerch, tanks, the aviation everything has been falling on those civilian settlements and civilian infrastructure. The situation for our compatriots is absolutely dire. There are many, many displaced people. People are living in shelters. Electricity, water have been destroyed. This much suffering day after day everyday this is happening to our compatriots in Nagorno-Karabakh. Azerbaijan doesn’t understand the language of civility.

BBC: Ok Minister, that was not quite my question. Why are civilians being killed in Ganja?

Zohrab Mnatsakanyan: Hang on. The military are entering our civilian settlements. They are mutilating bodies. They are beheading our compatriots there. This is all recorded. They have recruited terrorists from Syria and from Libya via Turkey and those terrorists are fighting our people. This is all recorded. This is all available to the international community. And those equation marks are absolutely unacceptable. We are again facing alone three enemies- Turkey, Azerbaijan and the foreign terrorist fighters.

BBC: It is being denied, particularly the presence of Syrian fighters. What you said all that justifies firing rockets at civilian areas in Ganja.

Zohrab Mnatsakanyan: I am again saying I am looking after this big damage that is done to our compatriots: the suffering, the enormous suffering to the Armenian people in Nagorno-Karabakh. Again we are facing this alone against those three enemies.

--Steverci (talk) 19:33, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

If what you copy-pasted is correct, then this source doesn't say anything about retaliation for the shelling of Stepanakert. In fact, it doesn't even mention shelling of any area. We need a source that draws a connection between the Ganja attack and Stepanakert attack. Until, it's provided, I'll remove my edit. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 19:40, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

You can't be serious...

"For three weeks Stepanakert, the capital of Nagorno-Karabakh, Sushi, Martakert, Martuni, Hadrut and hundreds of villages have been under consistent fire, consistent shelling"

"this source doesn't say anything about retaliation for the shelling of Stepanakert. In fact, it doesn't even mention shelling of any area" --Steverci (talk) 19:47, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry, I missed that. Regardless, it does not say that attacks on Ganja were in retaliation to attacks on Stepanakert. Instead, it seems like he's just doing whataboutism, which is pointed out by the BBC interviewer when he/she repeats the question, emphasising that he didn't give any proper response. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 19:51, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Again, "retaliation" was my choice of wording. You asked for a connection between the two attacks, and I gave you one. --Steverci (talk) 20:53, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Then no relation at all. He's just trying to justify war crimes with other war crimes. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 13:56, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

It's not the connection we were looking for. If you have a source/quote by Armenian officials or WP:RS that make connections between the two attacks, showing one as a reason for the other, then it can be added without a problem. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 05:21, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

You're moving the goalposts now because you just don't like it. This is more than enough to include the Stepanakert shelling. --Steverci (talk) 20:15, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Nope, this was my edit summary when I first reverted your edit: Find a WP:RS source that links these two events as you implied and I'm still asking for the same thing. Please WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH, I'm not a fan of unconstructive discussions. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 20:25, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Ermm, no? WP:JDL is unrelated, here. Mnatsakanyan was just doing whataboutism, he wasn't saying it was some kind of a "revenge attack" for Stepanakert. Aliyev also did whataboutism, that doesn't mean that the Azerbaijanis did any retaliation for attacks on civilian-populated areas. Also, isn't it weird to retaliate to the bombardment of a city with launching ballistic missiles at homes? --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 20:21, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Because the fact that Azerbaijan shelled civilian settlements first is important information, which you are trying to hide because it hurts the victim narrative the article tries to sell. --Steverci (talk) 20:26, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

What rhetoric is this? Let me remind you that you're still a problemic editor who was blocked for three years, and was unblocked just a month ago. With this comment, you've violated WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH and WP:RGW. It seems that you've not learned from your past mistakes and don't care about our community guidelines. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 20:36, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Be honest, are you pushing this issue because of this? --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 20:22, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

You just accused me of this being some kind of revenge for the Maraga massacre article. And the first thing you ever said to me was a JDLI accusation for an obvious POVFORK article. You clearly learned nothing from what this user told you. --Steverci (talk) 20:54, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

That was a question, not an accusation. If you can't find the difference between those two, maybe you can practice little more. Also, why should I learn something from his comment though? Mate what is this, a joke or something? Because it ain't a funny one. You're a user who's been recently unblocked from a years long sanction and found the first to continue disruptive editing. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 10:08, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

RfC on Stepanakart bombardment

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus is that this RfC did not conform to WP:RFCNEUTRAL. JBchrch talk 23:33, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

---

I propose adding that the 2020 bombardment of Stepanakert occurred first to both the header and background. Currently, the Stepanakert bombardment is not directly mentioned at all, and is only alluded to in one line ("...claimed that military facilities permanently located there had been targeting civilians in Stepanakert") which makes it appear as if the bombardment of Stepanakert had not actually happened. In the above discussion, I provided numerous sources (including third party ones) of Artsakh politicians confirming that the Ganja missile attacks were the result of this. Here is an attempted DRN. RfC restarted by --Steverci (talk) 03:56, 7 February 2021 (UTC), originally opened by --Steverci (talk) 20:49, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• "The Azerbaijani terrorist army is targeting civilians in Stepanakert, using Polonez and Smerch MLRS. From now on military objects in large cities of Azerbaijan are the target of the Defense Army of Artsakh" - Harutyunyan[1]
• Meanwhile, Nagorno-Karabakh's authorities said that they had destroyed Ganja's military airport. They said they had acted after Stepanakert was hit by missiles and alleged the Ganja facility had been used by Azerbaijani forces to launch attacks on civilian areas - BBC.[2]
• Harutyunyan has underlined that Azerbaijan was the first to violate the international law by targeting civilian population. - Mediamax[3]
• Interview where BBC journalist asks why Ganja was targeted, and Foreign Minister Mnatsakanyan replies with the shelling and bombing of Stepanakert as well as other civilian locations[4]

There are the sources. --Steverci (talk) 20:50, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

As the volunteer in DRN pointed out several times (1, 2), you're making connections between 2 unrelated events without a proper WP:RS connecting them. Unless that can be provided, your addition is WP:OR. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 20:50, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

The volunteer was only referring to calling the Ganja attacks "retaliation" for the Stepanakert bombardment, which was your revision, not mine. As of right now, the Stepanakert bombardment is completely censored from the article, with no mention that Azerbaijan was the first to attack civilian settlements. --Steverci (talk) 21:29, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Are you sure? Because in the second statement, they're clearly asking you to provide a WP:RS that connects these two events (and not as "retaliation") by asking Now, Steverci do you have a source that says- specifically "These attacks are related"? If not, I'm afraid there is nothing to discuss. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 21:34, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

We've talked about this like a million time. Stop engaging in original research, please. We literally can connect anything with each other if it comes to us, but you've constantly failed to provide sources. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 23:47, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

• This discussion is clearly evoking strong feelings right out the gate, which I respect. Treading lightly then, I feel the proposal would have more clarity if a specific wording were proposed. Spudlace (talk) 16:20, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

@Spudlace: The proposal is what my reverted edit is:

• The missile attacks happened one week after Azerbaijan began firing cluster bombs and missiles by Azerbaijan against civilian areas in Stepanakert. (in the header)
• On 27 September 2020, Azerbaijan began firing cluster bombs and missiles against civilian areas in the bombardment of Stepanakert. (in the body) --Steverci (talk) 16:32, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

We can also write that the bombardment happened because of the Khojaly massacre, which happened because of the Sumgait pogrom, which happened because of the expulsion of Azerbaijanis from Armenia, which happened because of a century-old genocide, which happened because of the Armenian revolts, which happened because of the rising Armenian nationalism, and so on. You're, here, clearly wrong. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 20:08, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

@Spudlace: Since you are the only third-party that has participated so far, just sending an FYI that the RfC isn't closed yet. --Steverci (talk) 03:56, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, similarly to the way BBC speaks about it: "The self-proclaimed authorities there said they hit Ganja's military airport after Azerbaijani forces shelled the region's capital, Stepanakert." [5] Alaexis_¿question? 06:55, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

• Agreed, it's quite clear what the sources state. --Steverci (talk) 00:06, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

To clarify for future reference: since this discussion began, Solavirum has been topic banned from Armenia and Azerbaijan articles and CuriousGolden has been blocked for sockpuppeting and also revealed to have been running a Discord server canvassing group, even though he accused me of bad faith for accusing him of canvassing.

Aside from trying to remove any connection to the Stepanakert shelling, this article is full of WP:OR and WP:NPOV violations. For example, the header parts of "Armenia denied any responsibility" and "the Artsakh Defence Army admitted responsibility" when there is nothing in either source about anything to do with "responsibility". The HRW source doesn't bring up "responsibility" either. The RFERL source also does not make any mention of a missile strike in Kalbajar being a "retaliated" attack for Ganja, which is quite ironic given how hard certain users were brigading to remove any mention of Stepanakert. Another issue with the header: "The attack was one of the first major violations of the humanitarian ceasefire"; a ceasefire can only be broken once, retaliatory attacks against the side that first violated a ceasefire is not also a violation. I will try to clean up this article and remove the original research and POV pushing. --Steverci (talk) 00:06, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

This RFC needs to be reworded per WP:RFCNEUTRAL.  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 15:10, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

It may be time to close this and a new RfC can be proposed per WP:RFCNEUTRAL or if the recent blocks have ended the dispute then there may not be need for RfC since this one has not received much attention. Spudlace (talk) 03:19, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

War crimes category

@Steverci: citing sources for additions of categories is not a policy. Especially when the war crime is obvious. There are several times when HRW calls the attack a war crime. HRW's report says:

The laws of war require attackers to issue effective warnings of attacks affecting civilians unless circumstances do not permit. Witnesses to attacks said they were not aware of warnings from Armenian or local Nagorno-Karabakh forces. On October 4, Arayik Harutyunyan, the Nagorno-Karabakh president, issued tweets in English calling on civilians “to avoid inevitable loss” by leaving “large cities,” including Ganja, where military forces would be attacked. Threats of attacks on unspecified targets over an unspecified period, in a language few Azerbaijani civilians can read, were not effective warnings.

This explicitly means that Armenia/NKR didn't follow the laws of war. Another quote from the conclusion section:

International humanitarian law, or the laws of war, applicable to the international armed conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia, prohibits deliberate attacks on civilians or attacks that are indiscriminate or cause disproportionate harm to civilians and civilian objects. Warring parties must take all feasible precautions to avoid or minimize civilian harm, including by refraining from deploying in densely populated areas.

Since I hope you don't deny that this was a deliberate attack on civilians; it's a war crime according to HRW.

Do you think we can't call such deliberate attacks/killings a war crime if some WP:RS hasn't explicitly stated "X is war crime"? If so, then we should probably delete the Azerbaijani war crimes category from Shusha massacre, Siege of Stepanakert and 2020 bombardment of Stepanakert. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 10:02, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

The article also says:

Azerbaijani forces created military sites in Ganja without moving the population to safer areas, putting civilians at unnecessary risk. Satellite imagery revealed long-term military sites in the city and forces in populated areas in at least two cases close to the time of attacks. Satellite imagery also showed a large area abutting populated areas in southeastern Ganja with increased military vehicular activity in October.

Combined with the facts that Azerbijan had military targets, this was retaliation for the bombing of Stepanakert, and and that a warning was issued, there isn't enough due weight to add a war crimes category. --Steverci (talk) 02:55, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Steverci, whataboutism. The claim that there were military sites in Ganja doesn't make the fact that HRW said this was a war crime any less valuable. Bombing a civilian city as a response to another bombing isn't "fair" and it has pretty good weight, especially in an article which is about that bombing.

But again if you don't agree, we can use same logic for other articles. In this report about 2020 bombardment of Stepanakert, HRW states:

The use by Armenian and local Nargono-Karabakh forces of military bases and dual-use infrastructure in Stepanakert placed the civilian population unnecessarily at risk.

So, if you want we can remove war crime category from both of them or include it both of them, it doesn't work one way. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 06:29, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

"doesn't make the fact that HRW said this was a war crime any less valuable"... except, they didn't. That's your own WP:OR conclusion. "Effectiveness" is subjective.

The Stepanakert report, on the other hand, is explicitly declared a war crime after an official investigation:

On September 27, Azerbaijan began air and ground attacks across Nagorno-Karabakh, an escalation in the conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia and the local authorities in Nagorno-Karabakh. Fighting continued until November 10, when Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Russia concluded an agreement to end the hostilities.

From September 27 through October 28, Azerbaijani forces conducted strikes on Stepanakert, at times using cluster munitions and Smerch and Grad rockets, which are not capable of precision targeting. Azerbaijani forces attacked Armenian and Nagorno-Karabakh forces based in or around Stepanakert, including at two military bases, one of which is believed to be the headquarters for the local defense forces. Several structures were also military objectives, subject to attack. However, Human Rights Watch found that in the attacks investigated, Armenian and local forces were not deployed nor had set up any significant defensive systems or other weaponry in the city.

Human Rights Watch visited Nagorno-Karabakh in October and November and spoke to 19 civilian residents of Stepanakert, two officials from the local authorities, a nongovernmental organization worker, and four other residents who had fled to Armenia but who were present during the fighting. Human Rights Watch also acquired and analyzed satellite images taken between September 27 and late October that corroborate accounts, photographs, and videos of repeated Azerbaijani air and ground attacks in Stepanakert, including scores of damaged structures and impact sites. Human Rights Watch was able to examine a small number of the attack sites in Stepanakert.

Human Rights Watch found that, in addition to the attacks on military targets, Azerbaijani forces attacked residential areas with inherently indiscriminate weapons and dropped aerial munitions and fired heavy artillery into populated areas that contained no apparent military objectives. Such attacks are indiscriminate, violating the laws of war, because they do not distinguish between civilians and civilian objects and military targets. Warring parties should also refrain from using explosive munitions with wide-area effects in populated areas because they cause both immediate and long-term harm to the civilian population.

The closest military target that Human Rights Watch could identify was a military base over 500 meters way. In the absence of a valid military objective, this attack appeared to be indiscriminate.

--Steverci (talk) 03:01, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Steverci, I don't think we're going to go anywhere here with you calling basic common sense an WP:OR, while going on to do the exact same assumption (which is common sense) from another HRW report. Perhaps Jr8825 can give us a third opinion? — CuriousGolden (T·C) 04:48, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

@Steverci: unlawfully indiscriminate rocket and missile strikes – I don't think Human Rights Watch could be much clearer about this, it's calling it an illegal attack that violates the laws of war (that's the definition of a war crime). I recommend you re-read WP:DUE WEIGHT before citing it: it's not about weighing up the 'facts' as we see them, it's about weighing up the significant viewpoints expressed in reliable sources. Human Rights Watch is a reliable source; I don't think you're going to find reliable sources saying that the Ganja attacks weren't a war crime. The cluster munition attack(s?) on Stepanakert was also war crime, but it's irrelevant to this article. @CuriousGolden: while there's certainly a technical argument that this was a massacre, I don't think it's the correct term. Massacre = deliberate mass killing, whereas indiscriminate artillery of civilian areas is illegal because it disregards life and makes deaths likely, rather than certain. Category:Massacres of the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war is probably better off being renamed crimes/warcrimes (along the lines of Category:Syrian civil war crimes). Jr8825 • Talk 09:30, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Jr8825, thanks for the help. I'll try to rename the category. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 09:37, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Jr8825 While you're here, would you mind giving a third-party opinion on the above 2020 bombardment of Stepanakert discussion? A bit hypocritical that certain users are brigading against any mention of the Stepanakert bombings on this article, yet the Agdaban massacre article (which probably won't exist much longer) being over 90% unrelated background and aftermath overview for the entire war is perfectly fine. --Steverci (talk) 04:59, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Can you link the discussion please? Jr8825 • Talk 06:13, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Steverci, it's not "brigading" and it's not nice that you accuse other users of that. You're making unrelated connections in an attempt to show that the bombing of Ganja was a "retailation" for bombing Stepanakert (even if it was, it has no place in the lead). This was taken to Dispute Resolution where even the volunteer concluded that the connection you're trying to make is WP:OR (1, 2). And, @Jr8825: I believe they're referring to the RfC above. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 06:31, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I provided both Artsakh and third-party sources connecting the events, you and your off-Wikipedia contacts were WP:GAMING the system by abusing consensus, turning it into a vote against something you don't like. The dispute resolution went nowhere because you were stonewalling there as well, when the volunteer was asking for a reply from me only. Perhaps Jr8825 can finally be the outside perspective needed. --Steverci (talk) 02:57, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Jr8825 here Talk:2020 Ganja missile attacks#RfC on Stepanakart bombardment --Steverci (talk) 02:57, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

The missile attacks happened one week after Azerbaijan began

ZaniGiovanni,

1 This statement was added by user Steverci on [this edit]. As I can see from not addressed RfC,DnR and discussions, Steverci added the statement without reaching a consensus.

Here is how he tried to justify his proposed edit, and tbh that justification does not make any sense to me:

Currently, the Stepanakert bombardment is not directly mentioned at all, and is only alluded to in one line ("...claimed that military facilities permanently located there had been targeting civilians in Stepanakert") which makes it appear as if the bombardment of Stepanakert had not actually happened. In the above discussion, I provided numerous sources (including third party ones) of Artsakh politicians confirming that the Ganja missile attacks were the result of this..

2 Also, please be kind to explain your revert. My advice for you, in future, try to explain your reverts to make discussions easier. I am sure that it is not, but your revert with current comments sounds like WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT revert.

The missile attacks happened one week after Azerbaijan began firing cluster bombs and missiles against Armenian civilian areas in Stepanakert."

3 This statement is WP:OR. Collecting together a bunch of sources does not make a point here. Stating "The missile attacks happened one week after Azerbaijan began firing" does not bring any value or meaning." Should we also add something like "The missile attacks happened 30 years after first Karabakh war"? Do you see my point?

4 You reverted with the comment that "Those are not just Armenian sources". I read all provided sources yesterday and did it again - it is a purely Armenian explanation/justification of why Ganja was bombed. Do you have another third party source that makes such a conclusion on its own?

Conclusion: This is the Armenian side explanation/justification for the Ganja bombardments. It can be reflected in the article accordingly, but properly. Not the meaningless and WP:OR way it is reflected currently.--Abrvagl (talk) 20:28, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

The current version became the consensus when the only users opposing it were banned for sockpuppetry/etc and when nobody made any objections to it for a year. Both the BBC News and The Daily Telegraph are non-Armenian sources confirming the strikes were retaliatory, and there's nothing debatable about the bombing of Stepanakert happening first. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 09:51, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Both BBC news and The daily Telegraph not making statements on their own, they are just citing Armenian sources, so it is Armenia sources, even highlighting that this info is “as per Armenian sources”. . More, banning the user doesn’t mean automatic reaching consensus. Current way of how it is represented is original research, doesn’t bring any value and non of the provided sources actually stresses that. later today I will provide reasoned and detailed justification, and update the article. Abrvagl (talk) 13:26, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

ZaniGiovanni,

1. The BBC news states the following related material:

-The self-proclaimed authorities there said they hit Ganja's military airport after Azerbaijani forces shelled the region's capital, Stepanakert.

-Azerbaijan says no Ganja military sites were hit. More than 220 people have died since clashes began a week ago.

-Nagorno-Karabakh's authorities said that they had destroyed Ganja's military airport...They said they had acted after Stepanakert was hit by missiles and alleged the Ganja facility had been used by Azerbaijani forces to launch attacks on civilian areas.

-Armenpress quoted the separatist region's leader, Arayik Harutyunyan, as warning that "from now on the military facilities permanently deployed in Azerbaijan's major cities are legitimate targets of the defence army".

2. The mediamax.az states the following related material:

-“Come to your senses. We will continue striking other cities and if we have to, we will strike facilities in larger cities. The strike on Ganja was a warning one. I have ordered to stop the strikes for some time, giving time to Azerbaijan. Keep civilians away,” he said.

3. The telegraph does not state any material to support the statement that "Ganja was shelled due to Azerbaijan shelled Stepanakert".

4. The mfa.am does not state any related material. Zohrab Mnatsakanyan here was two times asked "Why is Armenia targeting civilians in Ganja- Azerbaijan second city?", but Zohrab dodged the questions and did not give a direct answer to them, instead he went to Whataboutism.

Analysis:

Obviously non of the provided sources support the statement "The missile attacks happened one week after Azerbaijan began firing cluster bombs and missiles against Armenian civilian areas in Stepanakert.". Statement if-self does not bring any finished meaning and value to the article. With the same success we can state something line "The missile attacks happened 30 years after 1st Karabakh War". This statement has a WP:UNDUE weight.

Moreover, the information provided in the sources already covered in the article's background and First attack section.

Moreover, this edit was added by user Steverci although no consensus was reached on it. I am not sure which user was banned you talking about, but the number of editors ( Golden and Solavirum ) , had unsolved concerns about this edit.

Moreover, all of the provided applicable sources are either primary or quoting primary sources. There is no secondary source available. The statement "The missile attacks happened one week after Azerbaijan began firing cluster bombs and missiles against Armenian civilian areas in Stepanakert." is a WP:OR.

Moreover, even volunteer in the DRN also supported that this statement is WP:OR and has no place in the article.

Conslusion: I removing the statement. You can revert it back, and we can take it to DNR or RfC or wherever you want, but I strongly recommend not to, as this once gone through all of that and majority of editors reached the consensus that this statement has no place in the article.

Regards, --Abrvagl (talk) 19:19, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Kevo327, Regardging your revert,

Please acknowledge yourself with above discussion. It is not a case of WP:BRD. BOLD, revert, discuss cycle states "Discuss the changes you would like to make with this VIP, perhaps using other forms of Wikipedia dispute resolution as needed, and reach an agreement". Steverci added a statement to the article without reaching a consensus. Material added to the article without consensus, while knowing that number of editors opposed to that, and left unnoticed for a while, does not make the finished cycle of BRD, neither it means that consensus is reached.

Not sure what consensus you mean to reach on removal of the obviously WP:OR statement, but here I am ready to listen to your point of view or/and proposals. Regards, --Abrvagl (talk) 08:16, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Abrvagl if you’re honestly ready to listen, please listen carefully. I’m not gonna repeat this again. I know you think you’re probably right in your mind, but it’s not the case. Please don’t state your own opinions about policies as facts. The stable version was here almost for a year, and went unopposed afterwards. Per WP:SILENCE, it does become the stable version since it was unchallenged. The “opposing” editors you talk about got banned, but I already told you this. So it is irrelevant what they had or had not to say. Please don’t repeat the same things. Bottom line is, this is the consensus version now whether you like it or not, because it was unopposed for a long time. Also please don’t make baseless accusations of “hounding” like you did in the sentiment page, I’ve been editing AA for alot longer then you, and I have this and the sentiment page(s) watchlisted for a while now along with many other articles, I think I also edited here. I have very little hope you would listen to this or won’t repeat your own observations about policies based on past interactions, in any case, I had to leave a comment even tho I’m very busy right now. I’ll reply to your edit arguments later when I’m free. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 10:55, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

My dear colleague Zani,

1. I know you think you’re probably right in your mind, but it’s not the case. Please don’t state your own opinions about policies as facts.. Not sure what you mean, but I do not state my own opinion about policies. What I stated above are in line with Wikipedia policies. I will not repeat it again, as explained everything in detail already. The statement that we are talking about is not only WP:OR, but original research based on the WP:PRIMARY sources, which is directly against Wikipedia policies.

2. Don't accept anything I said as an accusation. I never thought to accuse you or else. I with all my heart believe in your good-faith behaviour. I think that if we knew each other in real life, we could be good friends in editing Wikipedia, and would be very successful at it. I just stated what I observe, and what I observe is that you appear to pop anywhere I go and challenge me almost anything I do. Anyways, Zani, I will patiently wait for your explanation on why this statement shall be kept in the article. --Abrvagl (talk) 13:13, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

I looked at your reasoning, I'm not sure what's primary about BBC or Daily Telegraph. And as I said, there's nothing debatable about the bombing of Stepanakert happening first, it's just a known fact. Btw Abrvagl, you're doing again what I asked you to stop which are your so called "observations". I explained myself very clearly, if you're going to bring up any unfounded "hounding" 'observations' again, it'll be a WP:NPA breach. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 20:36, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

I explained myself very clearly either Zani, so skip NPA staff or else, and lets talk about the topic finally:

1. Telegraph is not applicable source here. Not even going to discuss it. Did u read what I stared in details above? BBC one is primary, because it is just quoting the primary source without any comments. Quoting primary source on the newspaper doesn’t make it secondary.

2. what is known fact? That bombardment of the Stepanakert started a week ago? Yes it is known fact. But how it related to the article? Shall there be reason to reflect known facts in the article, or we can list all other known facts here? Lets write in the article, known fact that 2+2=4?

3. You did not answer why this WP:OR statement shall be in the article? Abrvagl (talk) 22:21, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

The Armenian sources said it was a response to the Stepanakert shelling, and third party sources covered what the Armenian sources said. That’s all there is to it. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 18:37, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

yes, all provided related sources for the statement are primary sources as it is newspapers which just word to word quoted the primary ones.

“The Armenian sources said it was a response to the Stepanakert shelling” this statement, which was said by Armenian sources regarding the 1st strike on the Gabja, is already reflected in the article.

We talking about this statement "The missile attacks happened one week after Azerbaijan began firing". Show me source supporting this statement and answer my questions above please.

P.S. Zani, we will not have efficient conversation if you continue ignoring my questions. It is your thrid response, and you said little to nothing to support progression of the discussion. Abrvagl (talk) 20:00, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

I rechecked it again. This statement "he missile attacks happened one week after Azerbaijan began firing cluster bombs and missiles against Armenian civilian areas in Stepanakert." is original research and WP:SYNTH, and none of the provided sources support that statement. The proper information from the sources in the sources already covered in the article's background and First attack section.

as I said, there's nothing debatable about the bombing of Stepanakert happening first, it's just a known fact. - Yes it is a known fact, also it is a known fact that first Karabakh War happened before the bombardment of Stepanakert, and we wont include neither of these statements unless there reliable source attributing them to the bombardment of the Ganja. That is it. Abrvagl (talk) 07:11, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes it is a known fact, also it is a known fact that first Karabakh War happened before the bombardment of Stepanakert...

That's some stretch if I've ever seen one. The most recent and relevant to this is the Stepanakert bombing as both happened during the same war a week apart and as a response, comparing it to the first conflict from 30+yrs is redundant and doesn't change anything. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 14:45, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Already explained there are Armenian sources attributing to Stepanakert and third party sources covering these sources,

Here I in details explained and justified why it is OR/SYNTH, and WHY all sources are primary, but you still reverting my edits without proper justification. So please show me exact reasons on why you reinstating statement which is OR/SYNTH based on the primary sources, which also violates the Wikipedia policies. Show me what exact sources you speaking about, none of the currently referenced sources support that statement. Abrvagl (talk) 15:57, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

you have no consensus. By the way. Firstly statement was added to the article without consensus. Secondly, no consensus required to remove something that openly violates Wikipedia policies. I am giving you chance to explain yourself. More than 2 weeks passed now, and you still neither answered to concerns I raised, nor provided any solid justification for your revert. Please Zani, take your time to justify your position. Abrvagl (talk) 20:27, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

I've added another source, this one by Eurasianet, that confirms the Ganja missile strike was a response to the Stepanakert shelling. There is nothing synthesized about this. Please stop WP:SEALIONING the issue. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 10:48, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Zani, if anyone WP:SEALIONING here, then it is you. The source you provided states The conflict zone in the fighting between Armenia and Azerbaijan continued to expand, as Azerbaijani forces have hit the de facto capital of Nagorno-Karabakh, Stepanakert, and Armenian forces responded by hitting Azerbaijan’s second-largest city, Ganja. and refers to the already provided sources, content of which properly illustrated in the article and to the Harutyunyan's words: Harutyunyan said that the attack on Ganja was a “warning shot” and said that the attacks on Azerbaijani cities would cease “for some time”.

The new source you provided, and other sources do not support the statement The missile attacks happened one week after Azerbaijan began firing cluster bombs and missiles against Armenian civilian areas in Stepanakert.. The statement is still WP:OR/SYNTH. Abrvagl (talk) 19:44, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

The missile attacks happened one week after Azerbaijan began firing cluster bombs and missiles against Armenian civilian areas in Stepanakert. this sentence brings no value to the article and have no due weight. What is the difference how many days after it happened?

However, I see your point. Your point is to show the version that Ganja bombardment was in response the Stepanakert bombardment. However, bombardments of Ganja is a gray area, especially considering that not a single military object was hit as result and that these hits mostly occurred straight after the ceasefires. The only source directly mentioning this is the last one you provided. Others are primary and irrelevant.

Considering above, it can be rephrased to something more sensible and less WP:OR like: According the president of the de facto Republic of Artsakhs, Ganja was hit in response to bombardment of Stepanakert and put it in the end of the end of the lead.. Second mention of this should be developed under First Attack section. Abrvagl (talk) 20:14, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

As you continue ignoring me here, I going to implement my last suggestion. I removing all the sources, which are unrelated and keeping the only Euroasianet. I also rephrase statement to make it according to the source: According the Armenian sources, Ganja was hit in response to bombardment of Stepanakert. It is "According to Armenian sources", because all of the sources, even Euroasianet, refer to the separatist's statements, there are no independent RS stating that on its own. I also placed the statement to the place where it belong in the body and lead.

Above my change ensures that your point is reflected on the article, but it is no more WP:SYTH and WP:OR, and not violates WP:NPOV. Regards, Abrvagl (talk) 08:50, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

• I agree with ZaniGiovanni, I don't see why the preceeding missile strikes should be removed. Missiles flew one way and then flew back the other way. --StellarNerd (talk) 21:09, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

  Hi StellarNerd, thanks for your reply. However, "I agree with" and "Missiles flew one way and then flew back the other way" is not an argument. Please read the thread from the beginning and provide your own view. You can read detailed reasoning here. Do not hesitate to contact me if you need any support or explanation. Regards, Abrvagl (talk) 06:23, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

  Seems like an argument to me and literally what the third party source says [6], the one that you cast a doubt on and attributed to Armenian sources. Seems like you just WP:JDLI this fact and ask a random third party user who also disagrees with you to "read the thread" and link one of your comments to them. Good luck persuading others with this kind of attitude. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 08:54, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

To summarize my point: ZaniGiovanni,

"The missile attacks happened one week after Azerbaijan began firing cluster bombs and missiles against Armenian civilian areas in Stepanakert." - Initially provided sources do not support the statement at all. This statement is WP:OR/WP:SYNTH and not WP:NEUTRAL.

The Eurasianet article, which was provided later, just partially supports the statement. It only considers the first hit to the Ganja (there were 4 of them). How can we state that all attacks were in response to the Stepanakert bombardment based on that?

Moreover, the Eurasianet article was published on the 04 October 2020, on day when Ganja was hit for the first time. I doubt that journalist has enough time and information to make accurate claims. Many reports from experts and other sources do not share the eurasianet article's view. HRW, amnesty, amnesty2, oc-media and France24 share view that both Armenia and Azerbaijan carried out disproportionate and indiscriminate attacks.

Furthermore, the Eurasia article is not accurate. The article states, "strikes on Stepanakert began on October 2" - False. The attacks on Stepanakert started on 27 Sep 2020[7]. Since 27 Sep 2022 (before Ganja was hit) Horadiz, Terter cities, and number of villages in Dashkesan and Goranboy regions of Azerbaijan were hit. Also, many Azerbaijan cities were hit during and after Ganja bombardment. What makes only a hit to Ganja in response to Stepanakert?? Ignoring the majority of sources and cherry-picking information one source is not an improvement and not accurate.

I was about to propose consensus to include information about targeting the Ganja airport to the article, but found that it is already in the article: "Artsakh denied targeting residential areas, but rather military targets, especially Ganja International Airport,[27] and Arayik Harutyunyan, the president of the de facto Republic of Artsakh, claimed that military facilities permanently located there had been targeting civilians in Stepanakert using Polonez and Smerch missiles;[16]"

Conclusion: Saying that bombardments of civilian areas of Ganja, which resulted in the death of civilians, was in response to Stepanakert civilian areas bombardment, which also resulted in the death of civilians, is an unsourced attempt to justify war crimes and insert of the wartime ethnic retribution logic into article. It is gross violation of WP:WEIGHT/WP:Neutral and there no place for that in Wikipedia. --Abrvagl (talk) 09:22, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

ZaniGiovanni, after reading my last reply, do you still have any objections? And if you have any, then please explain? Thanks Abrvagl (talk) 15:10, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

There’s nothing undue or not neutral about writing exactly what third party sources reported, you were told the same in AE. You need to stop WP:SEALIONING this.

Also, you should provide a source for this being justifying war crimes. Because that would be an accusation against sources like Eurasianet too. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 10:39, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

I asking you one more time to please stop making personal statements(like sealioning and else) and stick to the conversation instead. You should consider good faith, no-one here sealioning or else. This becomes really unpleasant and annoying.

What “number if third party sources” we talking about? It is only Eurasianet. Other referenced sources doesn’t support the statement.

Moreover, from your reply I can say that you not considered anything what I bold stated. Above I illustrated that the Eurasianet you referenced is not accurate, talks only about first strike and not supported by majority of RS… never-mind, I am taking it to dispute resolution board, I think only involvement of other editors may help us. Abrvagl (talk) 11:10, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

In my opinion the missile attacks happening in proximity of time and space elsewhere in theater of war is relevant, I can't see any good reason to keep them out. --StellarNerd (talk) 18:20, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

RfC: Ganja missile attacks

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is clear consensus against inclusion. No policy arguments put forward by supporters of inclusion were strong enough to overcome the opposition's policy arguments and numerical advantage. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:17, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

---

Should the following statement be introduced in the article?

"The missile attacks happened one week after Azerbaijan began firing cluster bombs and missiles against Armenian civilian areas in Stepanakert."

1. Option 1: Yes, statement should be included.
2. Option 2: No, statement should not be included.

Note: Enter Option 1 or Option 2, followed by a brief statement, in the Survey. Do not reply to other users in the Survey. Back-and-forth discussion may be conducted in the Discussion section. Detailed discussion on the topic can be found here Talk:2020 Ganja missile attacks#The missile attacks happened one week after Azerbaijan began. --Abrvagl (talk) 17:54, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Survey (descriptor)

• 2. No, statement should not be included. Foremost, this statement, synthesized from several sources, is intended to justify war crimes and to integrate the wartime ethnic revenge logic into the article. The statement was added by the user who was banned for inserting similar logic to the other articles. Second, Ganja City was struck four times, and all of the referenced sources were written shortly after the first strike; yet, the statement imply that all of the strikes were carried out in response, which is WP:OR. Furthermore, we should not depend on news articles written shortly after the initial strike to Ganja, because they lacked information and time to analyze it. That is way they mostly quote primary sources. On opposite, the reports from experts and other sources (HRW, amnesty, amnesty2, oc-media, France24, etc.) do not support that statement. In addition, the information from the referenced sources already properly reflected in the First Attack section of the article, and I do not see any reason to include this WP:OR wartime ethnic revenge logic statement. P.S. I tried to keep short as much as I can. I gave more detailed explanation here, and may be will give few more explanations in RfC's Discussion section. --Abrvagl (talk) 18:21, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
• 1. Yes, statement should be included. OP's point that information was added by "banned user" needs to be ignored. The edit in question was done 6 months prior to the user's block, and was already stable version by the time OP was trying to remove it. Arguing with this would be WP:GRAVEDANCING. OP was also told this in the recent AE, but they mention it again with no context. Secondly, the Eurasianet article is clear that this was retaliation for bombing Stepanakert, missiles flew one way then the other; "The conflict zone in the fighting between Armenia and Azerbaijan continued to expand, as Azerbaijani forces have hit the de facto capital of Nagorno-Karabakh, Stepanakert, and Armenian forces responded by hitting Azerbaijan’s second-largest city, Ganja." [8]. Third, other sources like BBC also confirm this, with attribution to Artsakh authorities; "The self-proclaimed authorities there said they hit Ganja's military airport after Azerbaijani forces shelled the region's capital, Stepanakert." [9]. I don't see why sourced content shouldn't stay in the article. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 18:40, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
• 2. No, the statement should not be included. The addition seems like a POV-push and it seems to undermine the attack itself, WP:WEIGHT. It is sufficient enough to have it on the article's body, but putting it literally in the first paragraph is a huge push. The article is not about what happened before the incident, but about what happened during the incident.--Nicat49 (talk) 12:20, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1, include. This is important context, as this bombing, as were bombings from the other side, took place in the context of a conflict in which both sides attacked civilians in retaliatory attacks. It does not stand alone, but is part of a tapestry of events. --StellarNerd (talk) 05:16, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
• 1. Yes, statement should be included. It is relevant in terms of context. No valid reason why it should be omitted. Archives908 (talk) 19:21, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
• Option 2 per WP:IMPARTIAL and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, unless clear attribution is used in the sentence in the form of "According to the NKR authorities" or the like. In that case the sentence would be more in line with existing policies and guidelines. Brandmeister^talk 14:00, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
• 2. No, statement should not be included. per the statements above. The inclusion serves the purpose of the long-time retribution logic, and intends to justify the bombardment of the civilian population.--Qızılbaş (talk) 22:48, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
• 2. The Ganja missile attacks consisted of several separate attacks. Sources don't say that each attack was retaliatory, assuming so would be WP:OR. Regardless, using this kind of sentence as the article's second sentence is very UNDUE and, as others have noted above, serves to justify a war crime that claimed the lives of over 30 people. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 10:43, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
• 2. No, statement should not be included. It does not need to be in the preamble. The same sentence already exists in the article. Dancewithdevil (talk) 23:53, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
• 2. No, statement should not be included. WP:RS doesn't present the attacks as a response to the ones prior, this violates WP:OR accordingly. Furthermore, WP:WEIGHT should be observed in this manner.--Rəcəb Yaxşı (talk) 11:08, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
• 1- Statement should be included WP:RS clearly link the two together, Provided the context of the first attack in relation to the conflict, no POV is being pushed nor OR made if reliable sources (BBC, Eurasianet) are clearly linking the events to each other. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 13:05, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
• 2. No, statement should not be included. As the relation has not been covered in reliable sources, it can be left out per WP:WEIGHT — Toghrul R (t) 06:36, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Discussion (descriptor)

.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.