Wikipedia

Talk:Blockade of Nagorno-Karabakh/Archive 1

< Talk:Blockade of Nagorno-Karabakh
Latest comment: 1 year ago by Jargo Nautilus in topic Possible Background sub-sections
Archive 1 Archive 2

Sources

Latest comment: 1 year ago6 comments6 people in discussion

The cited sources are 100 % in Armenian. Are any sources in other languages available? 2A02:AB04:2C2:E300:1D6E:A6DA:421D:D782 (talk) 09:38, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Agree, at least some English-language sources are needed per WP:NOENG. I've tagged the article as unbalanced in that regard. Brandmeistertalk 18:48, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
Reliable English sources have been added, can we remove the banner? - Indefensible (talk) 06:14, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
I removed the template, thanks for adding 3rd party sources. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 12:30, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
Because this is a translation from the Armenian Wikipedia. Sources in other languages are welcome PLATEL (talk) 19:32, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
There's a bunch online, I'm adding a few more sources in english. Afina10K (talk) 04:18, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

WP:BATTLEGROUND

Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments2 people in discussion

@ZaniGiovanni: Reverting my uncontroversial edits in their entirety, accusing me of having bad faith and calling them "not an improvement" is not appreciated. Ecrusized (talk) 08:44, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

I revered only the last edit now as for some reason, my revert undid other edits which I didn't intend to. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 08:45, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
Ok well please stop reverting back to the bold face in lede, see MOS:BOLD. Ecrusized (talk) 08:49, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
Armenia doesn't say they're link to Az government groups, that's what Azerbaijan says. Also the Eurasianet article literally says, "few if any of those demonstrating have any record of eco-activism", that's it. Please don't do drastic changes without consensus. Also please don't remove information about gas being cut off from lead as it's more than noteworthy for the lead given how much it was reported. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 08:50, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Title

Latest comment: 1 year ago38 comments10 people in discussion

Shouldn't this article be titled "Nagorno-Karabakh" rather than "Artsakh"? That's the Armenian name of the region, so I assume there'd be NPOV concerns. However, Nagorno-Karabakh is now split under Azerbaijani and Armenian control, and obviously the Azerbaijani part is not blockaded, so it makes sense to refer to the separatist republic in the title (but also adding "Republic of", so as in 2022 blockade of the Republic of Artsakh). What should we do? Super Ψ Dro 09:57, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

All these terms are all synonyms - Artsakh, the Republic of Artsakh or the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. I agree with 2022 blockade of the Republic of Artsakh per official name. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 12:12, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
that is your own point of view. Reliable third party sources usually prefer "Blockade of Nagorno-Karabakh" https://eurasianet.org/blockade-of-nagorno-karabakh-enters-second-day 5.134.59.72 (talk) 16:34, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Official name is Republic of Artsakh, that's not an opinion. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 16:38, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
The thing that is blocked is the Lachin corridor. The region is called Nagorno-Karabakh as a neutral term. Republic of Artsakh is an unrecognized entity and is supervised by the Russian peacekeepers. 5.134.59.72 (talk) 16:59, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Republic of Artsakh is the republic's official name and the article name. Also consider logging in and creating an account if you're not a sockpuppet. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 17:06, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
As the state/country being blockaded is officially known as the "Republic of Artsakh", not simply "Nagorno-Karabakh", the article title should reflect that unless there's an existing and widely used WP:COMMONNAME to refer to this event. – Olympian loquere 05:45, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
1. https://eurasianet.org[1]; [2] - Illustrates events as blockade of Nagorno-Karabakh
2. https://www.france24.com [3] - Illustrates events as blockade of Nagorno-Karabakh
3. https://www.reuters.com [4] - Illustrates events as blockade of Nagorno-Karabakh
4. https://www.euronews.com [5] - Illustrates events as blockade of Nagorno-Karabakh
5. https://oc-media.org/ [6] - Illustrates events as blockade of Nagorno-Karabakh
6. https://www.bloomberg.com/ [7] - Illustrates events as blockade of Nagorno-Karabakh
7. https://www.armenpress.am/ [8] - Illustrates events as blockade of Nagorno-Karabakh
8. https://hetq.am [9] - Illustrates events as blockade of Nagorno-Karabakh
9. https://artsakhpress.am/ [10] - Illustrates events as blockade of Nagorno-Karabakh
10. https://news.am [11] - Illustrates events as blockade of Nagorno-Karabakh
11. https://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr [12] - Illustrates events as blockade of Nagorno-Karabakh
12. https://www.intellinews.com [13] - Illustrates events as blockade of Nagorno-Karabakh
13. https://www.rferl.org [14] - Illustrates events as blockade of Nagorno-Karabakh
This article was translated from the Armenian Wikipedia, and contains many issues, one of which is title. It is clear as day and night that title of article shall be "2022 Nagorno-Karabakh blockade" as most reliable sources (and not only) describe events as blockade of Nagorno-Karabakh. Title "2022 Nagorno-Karabakh blockade" is also in line with other articles on the topic, such as Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh ceasefire agreement, Second Nagorno-Karabakh War, Allegations of third-party involvement in the Second Nagorno-Karabakh War, and so on. A b r v a g l (PingMe) 19:44, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Super Dromaeosaurus Nagorno-Karabakh Republic is fine as well, and as long it is made clear that it is the area currently inhabited by Armenians that is under blockade it matters very little which synonym to choose. Nagorno-Karabakh is a geographical region, and some parts of it are no longer inhabited by Armenians and not under blockade, as you mentioned, hence we should make clear it is the politico-ethnic entity that is blockaded. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 23:09, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia rules, we must use the commonly accepted name for the event. As Abrvagl demonstrated, "Nagorno-Karabakh blockade" is the most commonly accepted name for the event. Therefore, that is the name that we should use, in accordance with the rules. Grandmaster 17:54, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

"Nagorno-Karabakh republic blockade" is almost the same thing but actually makes it clear that the area currently inhabited by Armenians is under blockade. Just "Nagorno-Karabakh blockade" would be misleading as some parts of it are no longer inhabited by Armenians and not under blockade. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 18:00, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
But the whole region of Nagorno-Karabakh is not blockaded, only that under the Republic of Artsakh is. I am going to do a bold move as the current situation is clearly further from NPOV than my proposed title. If other editors wish to defend the use of Nagorno-Karabakh in the title, I believe a formal RM would be better. Super Ψ Dro 18:19, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
Though another option would be to follow Commons' example [15]: 2022 blockade of the Lachin corridor. But it will be harder for readers to find. I prefer the "republic" option. Super Ψ Dro 18:23, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
The whole region is not called Nagorno-Karabakh, it is called Karabakh, however all other articles use term “Nagorno-Karabakh” because the most reliable sources use term “Nagorno Karabakh” i.e. Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh ceasefire agreement, Second Nagorno-Karabakh War, and so on. Thus, article shall be named 2020 Nagorno Karabakh blockade. A b r v a g l (PingMe) 03:43, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
Pretty unconvincing. The region is called Nagorno-Karabakh in English. Still, it is not appropriate in this context as the whole region is not under a blockade. Super Ψ Dro 15:31, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
"Blockade of Lachin corridor" could work too. It is the most precise description of what is happening, and is used by sources too. If the article is moved to that title, I won't object, as it is the most NPOV and accurate description. But the most commonly used name is "Nagorno-Karabakh blockade", so per Wikipedia rules that is the name that we should use. Putting republic there makes little sense, it is not republic that is blockaded, it is the region, and most reliable sources do not refer to self-proclaimed entity. Grandmaster 10:09, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
it is not republic that is blockaded, it is the region it's the exact opposite. The article itself says so. Why would Azerbaijani-held areas suffer from a blockade disrupting the connection between the region and Armenia? Super Ψ Dro 15:31, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
It's true that not the whole Nagorno-Karabakh is blockaded, only the Republic of Artsakh/Nagorno-Karabakh. Whether "Nagorno-Karabakh republic blockade" or "Republic of Artsakh blockade" makes little to no difference as long as it's clarified that the part where Armenians are living is under blockade, which is the republic. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 13:01, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
The name of the unrecognized state is "Republic of Artsakh", not "Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh", so if we stick to the republic version it should have "Artsakh". Super Ψ Dro 15:31, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
Both names are official, "Republic of Artsakh" and "Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh". But the sources do not talk about republic. For example, BBC Russian talks about Karabakh being blockaded, not even Nagorno-Karabakh. [16] Grandmaster 16:59, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
I think a formal move request could be filed at this stage, as enough evidence has been collected for the move rationale. Brandmeistertalk 16:02, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
This is the case when COMMON name rules should be followed, otherwise, if we will act on the personal opinion of the editors, then article should be named Azerbaijani Protests on the Lachin Corridor or Partial Blockade of Lachin corridor, because number of reports suggest [17], [18], [19], [20], [21] that Lachin corridor is not blocked, and that protesters arranged a pass (and even provided emergency contacts) for humanitarian aid, supplies and others who can freely pass though, thus calling what is happening a blockade of Nagorno-Karabakh and humanitarian crisis is a very strong exaggeration. A b r v a g l (PingMe) 17:23, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
Calling it a humanitarian crisis is not an exaggeration:
Numerous international entities have described it as a "humanitarian crisis", "humanitarian consequences" or with genocidal-intent, including the following:
- The Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention
- Christian Solidarity International
- and numerous United Nations representatives from India, Ireland, France, Norway, Gabon, for various countries: check how many times the word "humanitarian" or "catastrophe" is mentioned in this United Nations (link) Humanatbest (talk) 12:21, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

That self-declared republic claims huge territories, including 7 surrounding districts of Azerbaijan. Not all of those claimed territories are blockaded. And once again, the vast majority of sources mention Nagorno-Karabakh, not republic. And almost none mentions Artsakh. Per rules, we must use the commonly accepted name. Grandmaster 16:53, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Nagorno-Karabakh (autonomous oblast and the geographical region) is greater than the areas under the control of the Republic of Artsakh – all the sources implicitly agree that the Republic of Artsakh is under blockade, not Shahumyan, Hadrut, Shusha, and other such territories, so why adopt a title that could potentially mislead the reader about which areas are under blockade? Regards, – Olympian loquere 04:50, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
We must follow Wikipedia naming guidelines. Titles should be based not on our original research on what is being blockaded, but on what the common name is. And it is obvious that it is Nagorno-Karabakh blockade. Grandmaster 20:39, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
It is not "original research" research to describe what is being blocked.
Nagorno-Karabakh refers to a much larger region than what is being blockaded: i.e., the self-declared Republic of Artsakh
Other sources refer to the blockade as a blockade of Artsakh
The title that refers to the republic of nagorno-karabakh or artsakh should stay because it is A) more accurate and B) consistent with what other independent parties have called the area being blockaded. Humanatbest (talk) 13:08, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
If you check the sources mentioned above, the wast majority of mainstream international media refers to the region of Nagorno-Karabakh. According to Wikipedia naming conventions, we go with the commonly accepted name. HRW also mentions Nagorno-Karabakh: [22] Grandmaster 15:29, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
@Grandmaster stated that "Titles should be based not on our original research on what is being blockaded"
According to Wikipedia, "original research" is in the context of "analysis or synthesis that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources."
In 2016, Aliyev (the President of Azerbaijan) referred to "an autonomous republic” of Nagorno-Karabakh (source)
As such, there is no indication that keeping the name of the article as "Blockade of Artsakh" is original or serves imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. The President of Azerbaijan himself has referred to the area being blockaded as a republic. As previous editors have mentioned, the name Artsakh should stay or Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh (though this is less common) in order to A) not mislead readers about the physical region being blockaded (as pointed out by @Olympian, Nagorno-Karabakh is much larger than the region being blockaded) B) be consistent with a number of published sources and statements; (government officials of both Armenia, Artsakh, and Azerbaijan have referred to the area being blockaded as a "Republic") Humanatbest (talk) 18:54, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
Due to NPOV concerns, it would be better to change the title. Firstly, what is meant by "Artsakh" is internationally recognized part of Azerbaijan, which is mostly inhabited by Armenians. "The Republic of Artsakh" is perplexing in the sense that as if it is an independent state. All international documents adopted by the UN and its agencies throught the conflict refer to the disputed lands as Nagorno-Karabakh and its adjacent regions, not "Artsakh". Secondly, as a matter of course, "the blockade of the place" contains the blockade of that place as a whole. If it is alleged that it is a blockade of the Republic of Artsakh then one should take it as a whole i.e. with its all breakaway provinces (even if they are not under Armenian control). One of the so-called provinces of this internationally unrecognized region is Shusha (as of Armenian sources). However it is not under blockade. One may compare this situation with Nakchivan which is exclave part of Azerbaijan, surrounded mostly with Armenia, additionally Iran and Turkey. In case of the blockade, one can claim that it is a blockade of Nakchivan, but not Azerbaijan (see Nation Shapes: The Story Behind the World's Borders by Fred M. Shelley, on page 475). Consequently, it is not a blockade of Artsakh.--Firuze Nesibli (talk) 20:24, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
No let's not twist things up. The territories under the control of the Republic of Artsakh are blockaded. It doesn't matter what other territories do they claim. It also doesn't matter that Nagorno-Karabakh is internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan. Like, what are we supposed to do with that? Should we also move the article on the unrecognized republic because of that? The current title reflects the de facto situation well; the only way "Nagorno-Karabakh" could fullfill this is if the article was called "2022 blockade of Armenian-occupied Nagorno-Karabakh", but this is unnecessarily long and more controversial. Though in essence, I would not be opposed to it.
To what I am going to be oppose is to editors just not wishing to use the name "Artsakh" because they don't like it when it's the most practical alternative so far. It's not really surprising we are using the Armenian name of the region to describe the Armenian puppet republic on that region. Super Ψ Dro 20:49, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
"Due to NPOV concerns"
As mentioned earlier, officials from every party that is involved in this conflict -- that is, Azerbaijan, Armenia, and Artsakh -- have described the region being blockaded as a "Republic." Therefore, there is no conflict in the naming. It is irrelevant that this self-described republic is not internationally recognized because the name of the article refers precisely to the physical region being blockaded. Naming the region being blockaded does not imply or suggest any positionality on recognition. It is descriptive rather normative.
"One may compare this situation with Nakchivan which is exclave part of Azerbaijan, surrounded mostly with Armenia, additionally Iran and Turkey. In case of the blockade, one can claim that it is a blockade of Nakchivan, but not Azerbaijan"
Describing Nakchivan as "blockaded" by Armenia is a false equivalency. Nakchivan has an open land corridor with Turkey and Iran. It also has aninternational airport.
In contrast, Artsakh's only land corridor with Armenia is blockaded. Humanatbest (talk) 21:29, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
The title should be just "2022 blockade of Nagorno-Karabakh", yes NK is a wider region than what puppet state "controls", but that much reader can get from the text, blockage of NK is what vast majority of reliable sources use. Or "2022 partial blockade of Nagorno-Karabakh" in sense that local armenia "controlled" part of NK is "blocked". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.135.175.8 (talk) 07:12, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

"Partial blockade" is ambiguous because the phrasing suggests that the blockade is partial rather than the particular region being partially blockaded. It needs to be made clear that *the political entity de facto Republic* (with which Azerbaijan shares a conflict and which is much smaller than Karabakh) is being blockaded. Humanatbest (talk) 09:12, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Ok, thats wasn't my first offer anyway. And what is point in blocked region is much smaller than Karabakh. It is in fact most part of NK. "2022 blockade of Nagorno-Karabakh" is in line with most reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.135.175.8 (talk) 10:55, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
Artsakh is much smaller than Nagorno-Karabakh. I think the following are viable options for the title of this article.
- 2022 Blockade of the Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh; OR
- 2022 Blockade of the Republic of Artsakh
Rationale:
A) consistent with published sources and official statements from all national parties (Azerbaijan, Armenia, Artsakh): i.e., NPOV.
B) geographically precise: Nagnorno-Karabakh is much larger than the area being blockaded
C) consistent with the international perception that this event is part of the ongoing Nagorno-Karabakh conflict: i.e., this event is not perceived internationally as being a domestic issue of Azerbaijan but as an issue between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Keeping the word "Republic" in the title accurately describes to the reader the perceived geopolitical dimension involved. Humanatbest (talk) 11:36, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
At least 2 of 3 rationales you wrote are totally wrong, despite using so much bold, and I see no point of me continuing this talk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.135.175.8 (talk) 12:15, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
Each of my rationales have citations (see earlier). I bulleted them so that it would be easier to review and critique. If you have an issue with one or more of these rationales, please specify which and why. It is more conducive to the editing process than simply saying "they're totally wrong" Humanatbest (talk) 12:29, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Background section has very little background

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I think the background section should include historical context of how this is situated within the NagornoKarabakh conflict such as the following: - mentions of the previous blockade that ocurred in the 1990s - quotes and statements from the Azerbaijan government on their demand for a "border control" here - mentions of when and why the corridor is under the russian peacekeeping forces 31.221.161.154 (talk) 09:46, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

the First Blockade of Artsakh occurred between 1988 and May 1992. 31.221.161.154 (talk) 17:27, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

might be good to add that the ceasefire agreement of 2020 specificies that the corridor should be open in both directions and controlled by the Russians Humanatbest (talk) 12:15, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Map of Lachin corridor and blockade precise location

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I'm not sure what the process is for generating images. I've seen a bunch of OpenMaps on wikipedia

Looking at this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHpq0c7HTwo&t the blockade location is here 39.752250925939265, 46.72911839315289

There is a building at 54:36 on the video which you can see from the map as well. Humanatbest (talk) 16:55, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

location provided here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.134.54.105 (talk) 00:29, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 23 December 2022

Latest comment: 1 year ago54 comments22 people in discussion
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.

2022 blockade of the Republic of Artsakh → 2022 blockade of the Lachin corridor – Per discussion above it seems that the current name is not accurate. Per Republic_of_Artsakh#Transportation and Artsakh MFA, there's at least one alternative functioning route to Yerevan since September 2017. Meanwhile, as the Nagorno-Karabakh region is presently split between Azerbaijan and Armenia, it would be unclear which part of it is involved. What is being blocked specifically is the Lachin corridor and various RS support this: French MFA. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Vatican News, including Armenian ones: Armenian Weekly, Asbarez, Mirror-Spectator, etc. Brandmeistertalk 11:10, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Moreover, keeping the word "republic" is important to describe the perceived political dimension of this event: internationally, this is not perceived as a domestic issue of Azerbaijan but as part of the ongoing Nagorno-Karabakh conflict between a self-proclaimed republic (supported by Armenia) and Azerbaijan. Moreover, Nagorno-Karbakh is much larger than Artsakh. Also, officials from Azerbaijan, Armenia, and Azerbaijan have all described the region being blockaded as a "republic". Humanatbest (talk) 12:10, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose the renaming of this article. It's a total blockade of "the republic of artsakh". Not just the land route, but azerbaijan is also refusing an air corridor. The alternative route was closed during the 2020 war and does not exist anymore, as the territory is under azerbaijani control since then. Per the official documents the "Lachin Corridor" is the only connection of "Artsakh" to Armenia. Therefore the title "blockade of the republic of artsakh" is correct. Domane14 (talk) 12:43, 23 December 2022 (UTC) Note to the closer — Domane14 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Disagree with the proposed move: You are right that Artsakh had one alternative route in 2017. Moreover, there were two such roads. But in 2020, there was a war in Artsakh, as a result of which about 70% of the territory came under the control of Azerbaijan, and the only way with the outside world was the Lachin Corridor. There is not even air communication between Artsakh and any other country, which means a complete blockade of the Republic of Artsakh (without the Lachin corridor). As a proof, you can get acquainted with the agreement of November 9. In addition, if there is an alternative way, then why did the UN Security Council hold a meeting regarding the blocking of Artsakh? Were they not aware that there is an alternative way? Or why there is now a humanitarian crisis there, even a civilian in need of medical assistance has died, if there is an alternative route. Support "2022 blockade of the Republic of Artsakh" or "2022 blockade of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic".--Ավետիսյան91 (talk) 12:53, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose as you have the facts completely wrong: There is NO alternative road open to Armenians. There have not been any since Armenia handed over the region of Kelbachar in 2020 after the war, per the agreement. That is under Azeri control now and there are no border crossings between Azerbaijan and Armenia except for the Lachin Corridor under the supervision of Russian Peacekeepers. All of the media citing that it is the "Lachin Corridor" that is closed know that it is the only route in or out for Armenians of Karabakh, and that is why they also say that there is a blockade and a crisis in the same articles you site. Sorry, but the entire basis for changing the name is faulty. All of Artsakh is blockaded by this one "protest" on the Lachin corridor road - close to Shusi incidentally (nowhere near Lachin). RaffiKojian (talk) 13:13, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Support Most reliable source call the blockade either as "Nagorno-Karabakh blockade" or "Lachin Corridor blockade" or "Lachin road closure" and similar. Most reliable sources don't use words "republic" or "artsakh". I believe there are ton of links above to reliable sources for this. Also, the reactions from most countries and supranational organizations yet again clearly prove this. The title should be either "2022 Lachin Corridor blockade" or closure, or "2022 Nagorno-Karabakh blockade". Here are more sources in case they aren't already on this page: HRW source, Eurasianet source, France24, and many more source listed in above talks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dian Nikolow (talk • contribs) 15:32, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
    The blockade of Nagorno-Karabakh is wrong, as Nagorno-Karabakh also includes Hadrut region and Shushi, which are under the control of Azerbaijan since the 2020 war. Hadrut and Shushi didn't under blockade by blocking the corridor of Lachin. Article: Nagorno-Karabakh. We are not saying that the blockade does not concern the Lachin Corridor. Yes, the Lachin corridor is closed, as a result of which the entire Republic of Artsakh is under blockade. Your arguments for "Lachin Corridor blockade" would be correct if, as a result of that operation, Artsakh had another land or even AIR route (there are NONE). Blocking the Lachin corridor is the action itself, and the goal and ultimate result of those actions is the blockade of the Republic of Artsakh, which the article is about. Theoretically, imagine changing the course of the Jordan River, which is the only river supplying the Dead Sea with water. As a result of the operation, the lake will dry up. We will write the article "Draining the Dead Sea", and you will demand to change the name to "Changing the course of the Jordan River". Ավետիսյան91 (talk) 16:29, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
    That is a logic that you put forward, not what most reliable source say, most reliable sources name the event as either something like "Nagorno-Karabakh blockade" or "Lachin Corridor Blockade" or similar. No need to explain me your logic and deducements. Most reliable source don't mention the event with words like "republic" or "artsakh". "Theoretically", you can't know for sure if Dead Sea will dry for sure if river course is changed, again that's your analysis we can't have personal analysis here, unless most reliable sources and scholars would say that the sea will dry. I don't "demand" anything either, I just Support the correctly peoposed title change based on most reliable sources. 151.135.175.8 (talk) 17:24, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
    Describing this as a "blockade of a self-declared Republic" is supported for the following reasons:
    A) Use of "Republic" by all official parties involved, including Azerbaijan: The President of Azerbaijan (who is a motivated party official in any issue related to this region) has referred to the region being blockaded as "an autonomous republic." source As do Armenian, and the self-declared republic of the region.
    B) International perception of a geopolitical conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan: describing this as a blockade of a self-declared Republic accurately reflects the international perception that this event is not a domestic Azerbaijan issue but part of it's conflict with another Armenian political entity. Describing it as a blockade of a self-declared Republic (by ethnic Armenians) corresponds to this international perception.
    C) Geographic precision: as mentioned by previous editors, the region being blockaded (Artsakh or the Nagorno-Karbakh Republic) is much smaller than the geographical region known as Nagorno-Karabakh.
    D) Complete isolation: this is not just a blockade of a single road, it is a blockade of all movement in and out of Artsakh. There are no regular transport routes between Artsakh and either Azerbaijan or Armenia.
    If you have an issue with any of these rationales, please respond to them one by one so progress can be made in this discussion. They were mentioned earlier but they were not responded to [it's productive to debate particular points of contention one by one rather than ignore them]. Humanatbest (talk) 17:38, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
    First of all, Aliyev is a biased source in this, not surprisingly, he says much much more in "favor" of Azerbaijan, I haven't seen you mentioning those words of his, but the only one that you like. Second, he didn't even refer to NK as a "republic", in the source it says that in 2016 he said "Алиев: Нагорный Карабах может стать автономной республикой" which translates as: Nagorno-Karabakh can become an autonomous republic. This was said way in 2016 when political and status quo was much different, maybe he ment that NK can become NKAO, like it was before, inside Azerbaijan, maybe not, it can't be said and it is irrelevant. And he only said that NK can become a auto. republic, not that it is. Azerbaijan currently denies even the region of NK, let alone some illegal republic on it. Officially, Azerbaijan has neither NK nor NKAO, just Karabakh, in which some Armenians also live as a minority. We should name the title based on what most reliable source say. We should not name things based on our deducements. And lastly, please check a map or something. Karabakh armenians currently occupy/live in most of NK, in about of 2/3 of it. 151.135.175.8 (talk) 18:17, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
    Spreading government propaganda from any country in this discussion will not help the solution. Let me just mention that the Republic of Artsakh is not illegal, as you mentioned, but it is a de jure unrecognized, de facto independent state. Excerpted from the Freedom House website: The Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh, which also calls itself the Republic of Artsakh, has enjoyed de facto independence from Azerbaijan since a 1994 cease-fire agreement that ended roughly two years of open warfare, though its independence is not recognized by any UN member states., source. This is the reality. Otherwise, we will have to delete the Republic of Artsakh" article as well. Ավետիսյան91 (talk) 19:06, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
    I'm not going to cast aspersion on you @151.135.175.8. but you have also previously described the Republic of Artsakh as a "puppet state" in the discussion above on this Talk page. This type of editorializing is not conducive to this discussion nor is it consistent with the policy of neutral point of view. Humanatbest (talk) 19:14, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
    It's irrelevant. Some other puppet states have wikipedia pages. And, I don't demand it to be reflected on wikipedia pages, not do I offer it. And I am wasn't the only one to do so if you read the whole talks above you will see. But most importantly, this has nothing to do with the current request of title change, off-topic talk won't make wikipedia better, so I'll stop here. 151.135.175.8 (talk) 19:32, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
    Returning to your points:
    It is not only a road being blockaded but rather a political entity/community/society that is controlled by a government of ethnic Armenians that is different than Azerbaijan. This is why describing this as a blockade of a "Republic" is informative
    a) Use of "Republic by all official parties involved, including the President of Azerbaijan: The President of Aliyev said "Nagorno-Karabakh can become an autonomous republic." The fact that this quote is dated does not change the fact that all officials have described the region and political entity being blockaded as a "Republic."
    b) The physical region of the Republic of Artsakh comprises 2/3 of Nagorno-Karabakh. That is still a difference of more than 30%: i.e., a margin of difference that is not trivial. To balance things, this is why I am OK with the title "Blockade of Nagorno-Karabakh Republic" as it is consistent with other articles on Nagorno-Karbakh even though there are also articles on the Republic of Artsakh
    Keeping the title as "Blockade of Artsakh Republic" or "Blockade of Nagorno-Karabakh Republic" achieves precision and disambiguation as per Wikipedia title policy. Humanatbest (talk) 19:50, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
    Again, words like "republic" or "artsakh" is not how most reliable source state the event, rather "Blockade of Nagorno-Karabakh" or "Lachin Road Closure" or similar. a) He not only said this in 2016, when political situation and status-quo were much different, but he also said that it "can become an auto republic", not that "it is". Perhaps it was during an interview about a possible solution to the conflict, perhaps something else, I don't know, but it is irrelevant. b) You kept saying that the region is "much" smaller than NK, 2/3 is not much smaller, rather most of NK. 151.135.175.8 (talk) 20:06, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose Effectively the whole of Artsakh is being blockaded not just a single road. This is why many sources raise the concern of a pending humanitarian disaster, not just traffic troubles. The basis of this move request is that an open alternative route exists: The existence of the alternative route being currently open is not supported Republic_of_Artsakh#Transportation , and nonetheless Wikipedia itself is not a RS for Wikipedia. A very stale "Information for Tourists" page which hasn't been updated since at least 2019, well before this event and even before the 2020 Nagorno Karabakh war (webarchive link from 2019) is hardly a useful source for current conditions. Hence the basis of the move change request is faulty at the beginning. Stepanakert airport is still also being blocked from use Maidyouneed (talk) 19:38, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Support. According to the rules, we must use the commonly accepted name. The present title is certainly not commonly accepted name. The title "2022 blockade of the Lachin corridor" is neutral, is a lot more popular than the present one, and more accurately reflects the topic of the article. Also, I think we should consider other alternative names. The most prevalent and commonly accepted title is clearly 2022 blockade of the Nagorno-Karabakh. As it was demonstrated by Abrvagl above, it is used by the vast majority of third party and other sources. HRW also refers to Nagorno-Karabakh, not republic. [23] So this is the title that conforms most with Wikipedia rules, and this title should also be considered. For me, both 2022 blockade of the Lachin corridor and 2022 blockade of the Nagorno-Karabakh are acceptable. Grandmaster 21:56, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
    As mentioned by several editors above, describing this as a Blockade of the Lachin Corridor is not accurate because it suggests to the reader that only a single road is blocked. There are no alternative routes (by air or land), so this is a blockade of a political entity/community/society. This is why the UN Security Council held a meeting regarding the blocking of Artsakh. The UN Security Council did not mention alternative routes because there are none. Various UN Security Council members used the phrase "humanitarian crisis" or "humanitarian situation" or "humanitarian catastrophe" because this is not a blockade of a single road. It is an imposed isolation of 120,000 people which has already caused the death of a civilian in need of medical assistance. Describing this as a blockade of a self-declared Republic accurately reflects the international perception that this event is not a domestic Azerbaijan issue about a single road being closed but is part of Azerbaijan's conflict with another Armenian political entity. Keeping the title as "Blockade of Artsakh Republic" or "Blockade of Nagorno-Karabakh Republic" achieves precision and disambiguation. Humanatbest (talk) 23:32, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
    We cannot engage in original research. According to the rules, we must use the most commonly accepted title. I see that Reuters, RFRL, Bloomberg, HRW, Euronews, Eurasianet, france24 and many others refer to the "blockade of Nagorno-Karabakh", and not the republic. Grandmaster 13:18, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose The blockade of Artsakh is where the notability of the subject comes from, as the majority of its content and the consequences of the blockade are happening outside of the Lachin corridor. International sources such as Radio Free Europe, Reuters, and Eurasianet are reporting about the "Nagorno-Karabakh blockade" specifically. --Dallavid (talk) 23:43, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
    Exactly. Blockade of Nagorno-Karabakh, not the republic. So we agree that "Blockade of Nagorno-Karabakh" is the commonly accepted title, and should be used in the article. Grandmaster 13:21, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
    Not at all, the blockade is specifically for the republic, not the geographical Nagorno-Karabakh region (for example, the Shahumyan Province isn't being blockaded). So naming the Republic of Artsakh in the title should be essential. --Dallavid (talk) 19:41, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
    By picking the common name, we do not make our own research on what exactly is being blockaded. That is an OR. We go with what the majority of reliable sources say. Grandmaster 14:29, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Support "2022 blockade of the Nagorno Karabakh" or "2022 blockade of the Lachin corridor". As previously shown, all of the most reliable sources use the term "Nagorno-Karabakh blockade" to describe the situation. The title "2022 Nagorno-Karabakh blockade" is also consistent with other articles, such as the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh ceasefire agreement, Second Nagorno-Karabakh War, Allegations of third-party involvement in the Second Nagorno-Karabakh War, and so on. However, if we're going to deviate from Wikipedia policy, "2022 blockade of the Lachin corridor" is a better choice. Artsakh/Nagorno-Karabakh Republic is a self-proclaimed and unrecognized republic situated on Azerbaijan's internationally recognized territory. POV naming the article "2022 blockade of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic" or "2022 blockade of the Republic of Artsakh" is an indication of bias since most reliable sources don't use that term either.
The logic that the title "2022 Nagorno-Karabakh blockade" would be confusing for readers is fallacious. It's obvious to anyone reading that the part of Nagorno-Karabakh being blockaded is the one that's outside Azerbaijani control. Especially if reliable sources don't consider it to be complicated enough to resort to using the name of an unrecognized republic, neither should we. A b r v a g l (PingMe) 19:31, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Support. If we gonna talk about neutrality of this article, then "Lachin Corridor blockade" is right one. Armenians call this event "Artsakh blockade", Azerbaijanis call this "Protest at Lachin-Khankendi road". Also, there is plenty of evidence that there is no total blockade of region. Russian peacekeeper trucks with logistics can pass through corridor. Also, there are video proofs that humanitarian convoys(ICRC, ambulances and etc.) can pass through corridor too.
Speaking about blockade, currently, Armenian villages located on Shusha district of Azerbaijan/Shushi Province of Artsakh have access to Armenia through newly build section of corridor. We know that there is no thing like "semi-blockade" of region, so this indicates blockade of Lachin corridor. Orxan Hacızadə (talk) 10:39, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
@Orxan Hacızadə Can you provide a source on alternative routes that are open? i don't think that is true. There was one other route open until 2020 but it is closed. This is event is perceived as a blockade of nagoeno karabakh or artsakh not just as a road Humanatbest (talk) 15:09, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
Orxan Hacızadə, With that logic, it could be said that there is also a possibility of telecommunication, which has not been blocked by Azerbaijan, therefore there is no complete blockade). Yes, the Russian peacekeepers have the opportunity to cross the road. Yes, through mediation of ICRC, seriously ill 4-month-old baby was transported to Armenia from Artsakh, but the entire population of the Republic of Artsakh is under siege. This is the whole discussion. Ավետիսյան91 (talk) 10:29, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Support I think 2022 blockade of the Lachin corridor is a more reasonable article name as we must name the articles per WP:OR. — — Toghrul R (t) 13:44, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose: 1. "An alternative functioning route"? There is no currently functioning alternative route between Republic of Armenia and Republic of Artsakh other than Lachin corridor that is currently sabotaged by so-called "eco-activists" . It is obvious from international / supranational reactions and genocide warnings that it is not a local mine-related road issue (as Azerbaijani government tries to make it look like) - the large picture is that Armenians in Artsakh are completely cut-off from the outside word as their only humanitarian corridor is blocked. Lachin corridor blockade is merely the mode of blockading the entire Artsakh - the effect and the elephant in the room, as visible from reactions.
2. "Unclear which part of it is involved"?? - the unclarity the use of "Nagorno-Karabakh" (without "republic") would create is precisely the reason why this article is currently uses "Republic of Artsakh" term. Republic of Artsakh is smaller ethno-political entity controlled/populated by Armenians. Nagorno-Karabakh is larger region, and has areas not controlled/populated by Armenians. It is the Armenians of Artsakh that are blockaded with genocidal intent, not a random region that just happened to have a mine close to a road.
3. We should not use Wikipedia guidelines mechanistically and mislead readers, we have to make it clear that it is the ethnic group / political entity that is specifically blockaded (as derived from the sources), not an undefined region with blurred lines. If the core argument is that "Nagorno-Karabakh" is better known name of the unrecognised republic than "Artsakh", then we can use "Nagorno-Karabakh Republic", it is one of its the names used in Wikipedia and the Constitution of the Republic of Artsakh says the names 'Republic of Artsakh' and 'Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh' are identical. http://www.nkr.am/en/chapter-I-foundations-of-constitutional-order KhndzorUtogh (talk) 18:47, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Support majority of the WP:RS don't agree with the current title. Per WP:COMMONNAME, the proposed title is the most ideal one we got.--Nicat49 (talk) 13:23, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
    A "good" Wikipedia article should exhibit the following characteristics: (link)
    • Recognizability, Naturalness, Precision, Concision, Consistency,
    "Blockade of Nagorno-Karabakh Republic or Artsakh Republic" is needed in order to maintain precision and disambiguation from the following:
    ii) the blockade of the larger territory of Nagorno-Karabakh is 33% larger
    iii) the blockade of only a single road vs an ethno-political entity: Note that although the Vardenis – Martakert highway is also blocked/not operational, this is not noteworthy because this is internationally perceived as a blockade of an entire ethno-political entity rather than just a road.
    If we choose "Nagorno-Karabakh Republic" over "Artsakh Republic" this would also provide Precision as well as Recognizability and Consistency within the larger subject of the Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict. Multiple sources (including Wikipedia and the 2020 ceasefire) specifically mention Nagorno-Karabakh. Republic is still needed though to describe the fact that this is not internationally perceived as just a road closure. Humanatbest (talk) 12:44, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
    openDemocracy.net: "blocking the only road linking Nagorno-Karabakh to Armenia seems to be an attempt to seal off its population from the outside world – and pave the way for taking full control of the region." This is clearly not only a road closure. Humanatbest (talk) 16:28, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
    This source also refers to Nagorno-Karabakh, not Nagorno-Karabakh republic. Grandmaster 14:24, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
    Yes, but based on the facts of the situation, it's implied that it's referring to the Nagorno-Karabakh entity (i.e. the NKR/Artsakh). – Olympian loquere 02:04, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
    It should be based on common name, not the facts as we understand them. Grandmaster 10:09, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
    You are correct, but we also need to keep our articles internally consistent with and distinguishable from other Wikipedia articles. This is why I think the hybrid title "Nagorno-Karabakh Republic" achieves both of these aims. It's consistent (more or less) with how this event is being reported but sufficiently precise to disambiguate it from the larger region of Nagorno-Karabakh and also adds extra precision about the fact that it's a political-entity being blockaded (hence the noteworthiness). Humanatbest (talk) 14:58, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment. Some commenters here seem to base their vote on their own understanding of what exactly is being blockaded. But according to the rules, we must select the common name for the event. I don't see that the present name is the one commonly used by the majority of reliable sources. From what I can see, the most popular name is clearly "2022 Nagorno-Karabakh blockade". This is the name used by the wast majority of mainstream (and non-mainstream too) sources, such as france24, Agence France-Presse (AFP), Euronews, RFE/RL, Eurasianet, Bloomberg, Human Rights Watch, and many many others, the list is very long. All those sources refer either to the blockade of the region of Nagorno-Karabakh, or the Lachin road. Therefore, it is clear what the common name is. Grandmaster 15:05, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Domane14. – Olympian loquere 01:59, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Opppose. Per discussion above it seems that the current name is not accurate. nothing about this was said. Meanwhile, as the Nagorno-Karabakh region is presently split between Azerbaijan and Armenia, it would be unclear which part of it is involved. the current title states very clearly which part of it is the blockaded one.
It appears that the alternative to the Lachin corridor is not functional and that air supplies are also blocked. Therefore, the blockade goes beyond the Lachin corridor. I am also opposed to 2022 blockade of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. If we're to use the name of the unrecognized republic, let's use the official one. This is what all articles and subcategories at Category:Republic of Artsakh do.
And by the way, an event that has been going on for not even a month, that hasn't had any kind of academic discussion yet, does not have a common name. It seems obvious to me that the newspapers are using "Nagorno-Karabakh" because it is the neutral alternative to Artsakh and Karabakh. We already did something similar with 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war, which was supposedly the most common name, and guess what the title of that page is right now. It was moved only after several discussions and successive RMs, it took a lot of effort to achieve what should have been applied from the beginning.
The only title I would support not including Artsakh (which I believe is the only desire of many of the users here) is 2022 blockade of Armenian-occupied Nagorno-Karabakh, but this is longer which is unnecessary. I think the current is the shortest title that is also precise and accurate that we can achieve. Super Ψ Dro 11:55, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
If we are to engage in original research for the title, and not to go with what the common name is in the mainstream media, then 2022 blockade of Armenian-controlled Nagorno-Karabakh is the most accurate description. Protestors never said that they blocked the self-declared republic, they only mention the road. And international media discusses Nagorno-Karabakh or Karabakh, as was demonstrated above. The event may not have an academic name, but it does have a common mass media name. Grandmaster 12:15, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
@Super Dromaeosaurus Do you think "Nagorno-Karabakh Republic" would achieve balance between precision and disambiguity between the region and ethno-political entity that is being controlled? i.e., although it is Artsakh (33% smaller than Nagorno-Karabakh), the Republic of Artsakh and Nagorno-Karabkh Republic are interchangeable Humanatbest (talk) 13:32, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
"Republic of Artsakh" and "Nagorno-Karabakh Republic" achieve the same in precision and disambiguatity. The difference between the two is that the first is the official name of the unrecognized entity. That's my rationale. Super Ψ Dro 14:04, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
They are both official. Grandmaster 15:01, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
@Super Dromaeosaurus and @Grandmaster I also, in essence, do not oppose "2022 blockade of Armenian-controlled Nagorno-Karabakh", as per Super D. and Grandmaster. Dian Nikolow (talk) 15:52, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Support move to the Lachin Corridor title, but I would Preferentially Support a title that used 'Nagorno-Karabakh' over that. The situation is real and serious, but the use of the 'Artsakh' title is clearly not neutral, and we should be moving away from it as a priority. GenevieveDEon (talk) 15:25, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Support it is the Lachin corridor that's being blocked, and majority of the sources don't support the "Republic of Artsakh" branding. The use of the term Artsakh is biased.--Qızılbaş (talk) 14:45, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
    please see the lengthy discussion above. It's not just the Lachin Corridor being blocked. There are not other accessible roads or air-travel corridors. Humanatbest (talk) 14:55, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
    There was no air communication with the region for decades. It is not something new. And the only alternative route from Armenia to Karabakh was via Kelbajar, and that was closed since 2020. The sources discuss closure of Lachin road, the only functioning route, and not any other alternative route. Grandmaster 15:39, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
    Air traffic has been closed for decades but this was a hot topic as recently as 2011 when Artsakh tried to re-open the Stepanakert airport: "The airspace over Karabakh is closed,” said Arif Mammadov, director of Azerbaijan’s Civil Aviation Administration. “According to the law on aviation, airplanes landing in that territory may be destroyed." 
    If this was really just about a road closure, then there would have been an article published when the The Vardenis – Martakert Highway was closed in 2020.
    As quoted from Eurasianet: "Some regional commentators think that Baku’s warning [about shooting down planes flying to Stepanakert] may be little more than a bugaboo meant to disrupt Karabakh's connections with the outside world"
    This is not notworthy because of a regular highway closure or due to an air corridor being closed, this is about the blockade of entry and exit into an ethno-political entity as mentioned in the Eurasianet quotation above. Humanatbest (talk) 15:57, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
    If some official mentioned the absence of air communication back in 2021, it does not mean that it is somehow related to the present event. The same with the other road that was closed long before 2022. The present event is described as closure of Lachin road, or blockade of Nagorno-Karabakh (the region, not the self-declared entity) by the vast majority of sources. The most recent Reuters report is a good example: [24] Per naming conventions, we must pick the common name, not the name that we think is the most fitting. I don't see how the present name can be considered common. Grandmaster 16:17, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
    "[the closure of airspace over the region] does not mean it is somehow related to the present event."
    Really? If it were not relevant, then how come most members that spoke up at the UN Security counsel described this blockade as a current or developing humanitarian crisis/catastrophe? How come air transport wasn't proposed by a single country as a solution? This is not original research or synthesis. If you want a quote from Artsakh representatives, here you go: “We don’t have any helicopters and the Azerbaijani side threatens to shoot down any flying object, so resupplying by air is not an option either." Eurasianet
    The closure of airspace over Nagorno-Karabakh in 1990 and re-iterated again in 2011 by Azeri officials is relevant to this ongoing to the blockade.
    The blockade of the Lachin corridor is merely the final component of the ongoing blockade. The Eurasia quote clearly states the perceived intention of the closure of airspace was to blockade the region. In November 2022, a senior Azerbaijani official reported to Eurasianet "What if we were to install a [border] post at the entrance of Lachin and finish the whole process? How can you breathe with no air?" This official did not mention The closure of the Vardenis – Martakert Highway because it was already blocked.
    I understand your point that we need to title the event as it's popularly described by reliable sources, but we also need to maintain precision and disambiguation. Humanatbest (talk) 17:49, 2 January 2023 (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.

Gas supply cut

Latest comment: 1 year ago14 comments2 people in discussion

1. You changed "On December 13, Artsakh officials reported that Azerbaijan had cut off" to "On December 13, Azerbaijan had cut off the gas supply from Armenia to Artsakh.". The only reports about gas being cut was from Artsakh officials, and so do state all of the reliable sources, which means that information about the gas being cut should be attributed to the Artsakh officials. A b r v a g l (PingMe) 17:08, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

1) At the same time, gas disappeared there - presumably due to the fact that Azerbaijan blocked the gas pipeline. BBC ZaniGiovanni (talk) 17:20, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
1) Heading and sub headings of the articles are not best sources for information, the body of the article states: "The Armenian side also says that Azerbaijan cut off the gas, Azerbaijan denies this.", and that in line with other sources [25], [26], [27] A b r v a g l (PingMe) 19:19, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
1) All of the reports make it clear that gas was cut off, and BBC says Azerbaijan did it. There is no other accused party in other sources as well btw. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 19:52, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
1. Nope. BBC does not say that. I already quoted to you what BBC article says: The Armenian side also says that Azerbaijan cut off the gas, Azerbaijan denies this. The sentence from BBC that you quoted "At the same time, gas disappeared there - presumably due to the fact that Azerbaijan blocked the gas pipeline." is from sub headline. News headlines—including sub headlines—are not a reliable source, especially in our case, where there is consensus among the all sources that gas supplies was cut according to Artsakh authorities. A b r v a g l (PingMe) 20:34, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
1) Struggling to see what can be improved, and organizations like Freedom House directly confronting Azerbaijan and urging it to restore the gas supply [28]. There was nobody else to cut the gas supply, and one thing that all the sources confirm is that gas was clearly cut off. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 11:35, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
1. First, you referenced to BBC subheadlines to make your point. I explained that headlines are not reliable sources, and to be honest, I was surprised that I had to explain it to you, because it is not the first time I telling you about the headlines. Now you're bringing up some tweet that references to a page that doesn't exist, and I have no idea what that Tweet from March 24, 2022 has to do with our discussion, because it is December 20 2022 on my calendar.
Let me put it straight: The gas outage was reported by Artsakh officials and should be attributed to them. We do not build encyclopedia based on personal opinions of editors. We are building Wikipedia based on policies, one of which is that articles must be based on reliable sources, and reliable sources attribute information on gas cuts to Artsakh officials, because they did not conduct their own research, but rather reported what Artsakh authorities stated. Which means that we can not use wiki voice here. So, I'm changing the material to comply to Wikipedia principles; if you're still not convinced, I recommend reaching a consensus before changing an attributed statement to a statement of fact. A b r v a g l (PingMe) 20:13, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
1) Sorry I mixed up the source, here's a source directly blaming Azerbaijan for cutting off the gas [29]: "on December 13, Azerbaijan also cut off the gas supply to Armenian-controlled Nagorno-Karabakh.". ZaniGiovanni (talk) 20:44, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
1. Sorry but this is an opinion piece and can be attributed only to the author: Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees. Please revert yourself. A b r v a g l (PingMe) 21:22, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

1) Kommersant reports without any trace of a doubt that Azerbaijan cut off the gas supply [30]. And another source as well [31]. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 06:00, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

1. Firstly, Kommersant does not report that it was Azerbaijan who cut off the gas. To reveal that, you just needed to open the link "Азербайджан перекрыл поставки", which intended to provide more information on passing by remark. More, if you open up link at the end of the article "Read more about the situation in the material: В Карабахе нашлись протестные ископаемые».", that article also does not support that gas was cut by Azerbaijan. Secondly, Kommersant should not be used without attribution in controversial areas where Russia involved [32]. In the light of the fact that well established sources like Eurasianet, BBC, opendemocracy and others attribute information to Armenian sources, the theatlasnews.co, which makes passing by remark about the gas cut and does not provide any references, is not enough (WP:UNDUE) to state cut of the gas in a WikiVoice. So stating gas cut in WikiVoice is violation of WP:NPOV. A b r v a g l (PingMe) 07:29, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
1) The newer article clearly states that Azerbaijan cut off the gas supply, and I provided second source which is a well established news outlet. Also the RSN thread you're linking concluded that Kommersant is one of the better publications in Russia, and only should be attributed "in relation to events in which the Russian government has a close interest". How does Russian government have close interest in this particular instance about gas being cut of? Does Atlas News also have "close interest"? Your point doesn't even make sense since I provided a second third-party source saying the same thing. Btw the gas being cut off isn't an extensive paragraph or topic about something, it's covered very briefly virtually in every source. Please don't use terms such as "passing by remark" if you don't understand in what context it's appropriate to use that term, it's literally irrelevant here. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 09:08, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
1. The newer article does not state that, rather it gives preformation with the link for the readers to open it up and read the details. ow does Russian government have close interest in this particular instance about gas being cut of? - Russia was involved to NK conflict since day one, Russia sponsored the most recent ceasefire agreement, and Russian peacekeepers are in the NK now. Interests of the Russia in the NK conflict are not arguable. I provided second source - The article, which barely consists of 5 lines, makes passing by remarks about the gas cut and brings no references to support claim, is UNDUE in the light of number of reputable and well established sources saying opposite. A b r v a g l (PingMe) 10:32, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
1) The newer article does not state that - It does say that, and regarding the second source, you seem to repeat "passing remarks" which is irrelevant for something that's briefly reported virtually by every source. Moreover, this isn't a scientific research or some extensive subject for it to exist "passing remarks", again please don't repeat misplaced and irrelevant to here terms. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 11:09, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Jeyhun Bayramov

Latest comment: 1 year ago7 comments5 people in discussion

What is the logic behind adding Azerbaijani Foreign Minister Jeyhun Bayramov as the "leader of the activists"? The article has become a playground for original research and personal interpretations at this point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.134.55.91 (talk) 21:28, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

looking through the edits, that was never the implication. the edit left the comment "no central leadership." The fact that Bayramov -- as a government official -- specified a condition upon which the government would life the blockade, implicates (somewhat) the government in this event, albeit not directly. 94.73.32.155 (talk) 23:08, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Ip user and @Humanabest, there is a reason why this section called "Lead figures", the fact that Bayramov commented on what protestors demand does not make him Lead figure, and if your intention is not to say that Bayramov lead figure, then fine, go ahead and put what Bayramov said to the article itself. Otherwise, it wrongly implies that Bayramov is a lead figure. A b r v a g l (PingMe) 11:08, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
i'm more-or-less content with how the statement is included now. To re-iterate the text "no central leadership" was never removed. It's common editorial practice to state something but then qualify it with "but see...<source>."
Up until Bayramov's statement, the Azeri government has only tacitly approved this protest (from this we cannot say the government's approval was a fact in an encyclopedia) but it's relevant and noteworthy that a Azeri official has gone a step further and articulated that a condition for lifting the blockade. This moves from tacit to explicit approval of the protest. This is not original research. I'm simply repeating what Bayramov said himself -- that the Azeri goverment will only lift the blockade if one of the "protestors" demands is satisfied. Humanatbest (talk) 15:51, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
the Azeri goverment will only lift the blockade if one of the "protestors" demands is satisfied. - It is your own interpretation of what Bayramov said, but, regardless, that does not make him lead figure, so you should project that information to the article rather than to side bar's Lead Figure section. A b r v a g l (PingMe) 16:57, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Humanatbest, is there a reliable source that states that Bayramov is the leader of these activists? No? Then the conclusion is clear as the day. That part needs to be removed. Wikipedia is not a place for random interpretations of Wikipedia users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.134.54.42 (talk) 00:13, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
@5.134.54.42 again, I never stated that the Foreign Minister was the central leader. I left the statement "no centralized leadership." And added a qualifying statement
"but see (source)" is a common editorial practice:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citation_signal
Can we move the hidden reference note mentioning Bayramov to the Azerbaijani party line in the box? This puts more separation between the protestors snd any perceived involvement between them at Bayramov.
That seems more accurate. Humanatbest (talk) 10:16, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Section on Solution\Resolution?

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I think the background section and timelines are getting populated with enough material to start to think about opening a new section on how this attempts, ideas, and conditions for lifting the blockade

- airlift - azeri conditions for lifting the blockade - azeri pressure and official quotes to cede Syunik to Azerbaijan in direct relation to Lachin - ctso "not their problem" - various UN attempts to issue a joint resolution statement - maybe some background on new Armenian laws and and analyst interpretation on how this has been *perceived* by Armenians as Russian pressure on Armenia to join the union Russian federation Humanatbest (talk) 11:31, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Cleanup here and there

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments1 person in discussion

I did some work on Lachin corridor and 2022–2023 blockade of the Republic of Artsakh. I think the articles flow better now and the proper parent-child article structure is reflected better. There is some more ce and reference cleanup/fill in needed, but I wanted to post here (and on the other page) so see if there were any objections to the edits I have made before I continue. Greetings from Los Angeles.  // Timothy :: talk  22:47, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

and if someone wants to do a bold edit job, post and I will wait so there are no edit conflicts.  // Timothy :: talk  22:49, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Infobox

Latest comment: 1 year ago18 comments9 people in discussion

The current state of the infobox makes no sense. Azerbaijan does not claim that these activists are state-sponsored. It is an overkill to call them state-sponsored and then add that Azerbaijan is a party as well. To actually make sense, you either revert to the previous version, or use "Azerbaijani state-sponsored eco-activists" without (according to Azerbaijan) and remove the Azerbaijan below the line. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.134.54.42 (talk) 00:18, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@5.134.54.42
Im fine with either of your suggestions as long as we keep as a note Azerbaijan Foreign Minister's speech act which condones the blockaders'
The issue is there might be genuine protestors who happen to be sponsored by the government. We cannot be sure of this.
Separate from those protestors are the policies of the government which permit this to go on and have backed the protestors' demands Azerbaijan's Foreign Minister said the protestors demands must be met before the government lifts the bloclade).
The protestors and the government are still depicted in most news outlets as separate entities.
Im fine with either of your suggestions as long as we keep the Foreign Minister's speech act as a note. Humanatbest (talk) 10:24, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Neither Bayramov is a leader, nor the conditions to stop the protests is related to the “Lead figure” section. A b r v a g l (PingMe) 13:32, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
User:Humanatbest, I realised this discussion. But one thing. I think they should be a separate section covering these "Eco-activists" and we can add "(See: X)" in the infobox, so the reader won't be confused when reading it. 5.134.55.146 (talk) 17:59, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
User:KhndzorUtogh, adding "Azerbaijani state-sponsored" and then adding Azerbaijan as a state makes utter nonsense and is redundant repetition. Either keep one, or alter the ecoactivist one to not clarify the state support. One can be done like this: "Azerbaijani activists[ref1] [line] Azerbaijan[ref2][ref3]".
All countries called on Azerbaijan (as a state) to lift the blockade. Not a single one bought the "eco activist" narrative. Hence it's Azerbaijan that is part of the conflict on one side, Artsakh on the other side, and Russian peacekeepers in between. --Dallavid (talk) 19:46, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
User:Dallavid, ehmm, those are literally civilians blocking the road. Not soldiers, not state officials or something. You need to achieve consensus on such a controversial edit. I don't think User:Abrvagl or User:Grandmaster would certainly agree on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.134.54.241 (talk) 20:18, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
there are dozens of articles debunking the civilians myth with the social media presence of those "protesters". Officials, soldiers, GONGO leaders... Also take a look at the videos of the last few days now that the weather got worse. People who have been there as soldiers the day before are now pretending to be "protesters" and there are barely even people left. Instead there are more and more soldiers showing up every day. Domane14 (talk) 19:15, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Yet you fail to provide any single one of these "articles". Your theory is not correct, the ones who are taking part are mostly university students and NGO members. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.134.56.128 (talk) 23:56, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
These articles specifically desribe some of the protestors as having connetions to the military:
- ". Among “eco-activists” are well-known Azerbaijani military servicemen." https://moderndiplomacy.eu/2023/01/09/do-human-rights-matter/
- "Several protestors have been shown to have connections to Azerbaijan’s military." https://theatlasnews.co/conflict/2023/01/09/artsakh-blockade-nearing-1-month-shortages-widespread/
- "Another "eco-activist" participating in the blockade of 120,000 Armenians of Artsakh turned out to be a soldier of the Azerbaijani Armed Forces." (translated from russian) https://infoteka24.ru/2023/01/09/100848/ Humanatbest (talk) 13:29, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Not commenting on what you wrote, because it sounds irrelevant. just letting you know that “infoteka24” is pure propaganda website and can not be used in AA2. A b r v a g l (PingMe) 07:45, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Modern-diplomacy article is an opinion-piece ( https://moderndiplomacy.eu/about-md/): “Disclaimer: The views expressed within Modern Diplomacy are solely those of the authors in their private capacity and do not in any way represent or reflect the views of the Modern Diplomacy, its Advisory and Editorial Boards, Sponsors, Partners, or Affiliates.” A b r v a g l (PingMe) 07:53, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
OK thank you for that.
I'm a bit unclear where moderndiplomacy lies because in the about section it also says: "We provide impartial and unbiased qualitative analysis in the form of political commentary, policy inquiry, in-depth interviews, special reports, and commissioned research." I guess we can avoid this to be safe?
That still leaves the military connection claim being backed by Atlas News which says in their About Section: "What started out of passion and interest, has turned into a necessity. Atlas has and always will be a place that readers can trust for quality news that's unbiased and unfiltered." Humanatbest (talk) 13:06, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
That claim is vague, all males in Azerbaijan shall pass mandatory 1.5 years of military and can be called to serve country if needed. From that perspective you can claim that 80-90% of male population is “connected to military”, but that connection means nothing. A b r v a g l (PingMe) 14:44, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
I think you make a good point! If, as you say, 80% of the males in Azerbaijan have connections to the military, then 40% of any sample of the population (excluding minors) should have a connection. So any reported citations to (hidden) military presence among protestors should specify that they are on duty or otherwise notable by the percentage being greater than you would expect by chance (40%). Humanatbest (talk) 18:00, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
40% is 50% of 80% (to account for females) Humanatbest (talk) 18:00, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
This is something that would be hard to prove. First it need to be proved that person is still in army, but then if he/she is not in uniform then he/she considered civilian. So now you need to prove that they are soldiers on special mission but without uniform. For example, I also served in army for a year (mandatory), and I have pics of me in uniform on instagram, but I am not soldier or related to army. If I go to the protest, will be I considered as person who has connections to the army? A b r v a g l (PingMe) 20:56, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Humanatbest, please, people who had served their mandatory military service years prior puts them in the same line as soldiers with AKs? You're pushing the argument too far, not forgetting the original research. Provide us a reliable source that military servicemen have been engaging in these protests, and then you're good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.28.6.244 (talk) 18:33, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
@195.28.6.244 I agree, as i said before, any claims to a covert military presence need to specify that the representation is greater than would be seen by chance or that their is something out of ordinary about this. thank you both for changing my opinion on this. Humanatbest (talk) 12:54, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Genocide Threat

Latest comment: 1 year ago12 comments5 people in discussion

Potentially add to either section of “Reactions” or to the beginning about how numerous scholars and genocide organization shave identified Azerbaijan’s actions as either ongoing genocide of genocide threats? Sources:

https://anglican.ink/2022/12/19/genocide-warning-for-nagorno-karabakh-issued-by-human-rights-organizations/

https://www.genocidewarning-nk.com/

https://www.newsweek.com/do-armenians-face-second-genocide-opinion-1767132

https://www.genocidewatch.com/single-post/alert-azerbaijan-blocks-the-only-road-into-nagorno-karabakh 134.56.219.213 (talk) 01:35, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Done. --Dallavid (talk) 20:15, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
I don't think any of these opinions are notable enough. Equating a civil protest to a genocide is clearly an enormous exaggeration, and no serious international organization made such a claim. Grandmaster 20:35, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
The blockade is not called a "civil protest" by any reliable sources. --Dallavid (talk) 22:08, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
Neither it is called a genocide. Grandmaster 22:22, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
The above sources prove otherwise. --Dallavid (talk) 00:36, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
The Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention has specifically issued an update of their Red Alert for Genocide on Azerbaijan following the blockade: source Humanatbest (talk) 10:12, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
"isolating Artsakh Armenians is a breach of international humanitarian law, international human rights law and, possibly, international criminal law. The genocidal intent of Baku has never been clearer and the actions carried out up to the moment highly predict this outcome." source Humanatbest (talk) 10:16, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
How notable is this organization? It is a very little known entity. Grandmaster 15:22, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
According to their leadership team page, the organization is led by and affiliated with at least 11 people many of which have PhDs and specialize in genocide studies.
Rather than focusing on the notability of a single organization (which is both independent from the conflict and reputable since these are trained specialists in the domain of genocide), it's also notable that the discussions of genocide around this blockade come independently from different organizations. Humanatbest (talk) 12:43, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
It is more than obvious you are pro-Azerbaijan indicated from your replies. Do not try and skirt along the lines, being critical of this organization just because they side with someone you are not ethnically connected with/affiliated with. Take this advice, would help you better with correcting your bias and being a mature editor. 92kavkaz92 (talk) 01:37, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Genocide Watch Org has also issued a warning to Azerbaijan following "due to Azerbaijan’s unprovoked military attacks on Armenia and on the unrecognized Armenian Republic of Artsakh."
https://www.genocidewatch.com/single-post/genocide-warning-azerbaijan-and-nagorno-karabakh-september-2022 Humanatbest (talk) 10:19, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Reversion of text

Latest comment: 1 year ago11 comments3 people in discussion

@Humanatbest - In this edit, you basically reverted everything that I had changed over the past several hours, including changes that I made to multiple different sections: (1) the lead, (2) the background, (3) the humanitarian crisis, (4) the scrutiny of claims, and (5) the new section that I created, "Environmental claims and demands of the Azerbaijani activists". What was your reason for reverting all of the changes that I had made across five largely unrelated sections? Based on the diff of your edit, you actually reverted two distinctive batches of edits made by me in a single go. So, you included both my series of edits starting from 15:13 on January 15, 2023‎ and my singular edit at 05:08, January 15, 2023, which was completely unrelated to the subsequent edits. In my opinion, this behaviour of yours is inappropriate. If you had any specific section that you wanted to change, then you should have done a precise source-edit, and you should not have reverted all of my disparately related edits. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 10:03, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Upon closer inspection, it seems that @Humanatbest was attempting to edit a specific edit made by another user immediately before my extensive series of edits. Unfortunately, Humanatbest seems to have made the mistake of directly editing the source code of the specific edit left by the previous user, which means that all of the subsequent edits were automatically reverted. In other instances, however, Vardanyan has downplayed the severity of the situation by emphasizing the exceptions to the blockade where some some Russian-supplied humanitarian aid and ICRC-escorted patients were allowed through.. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 10:10, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
hey, i'm sorry there was an edit conflict. I'm new to editing. I didn't realize what happened. Please revert my mistake if you haven't already. Humanatbest (talk) 10:18, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
I've reverted your mistaken edit and restored the info that you were trying to add. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 11:07, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Jargo Nautilus Thanks for your improvements. One thing I can comment is I'm really not convinced we need a separate section of alleged activist claims which are already covered in the article so I removed the section, hope you don't mind. Let me know if you have any questions. Regards, ZaniGiovanni (talk) 10:26, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Jargo Nautilus I don't want to revert you, if you'd be kind enough, please restore the stable version without WP:UNDUE section of alleged activists claims that are already covered in the article. If you think they're covered but not well organized, please organize instead of adding an entire separate section. These aren't even eco-activits let alone their alleged claims having a separate section is extremely undue. I'm hoping you can see this and self revert. Regards, ZaniGiovanni (talk) 10:37, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
The timeline in this article is particularly clunky, and it's one of the sections that I have not touched yet. Indeed, the clunkiness of the timeline has actually been criticized by other users, which can be seen when this article was nominated for "In the news". Someone mentioned that the timeline was practically a list of dot points.
I believe that we need a section detailing exactly what the Azerbaijanis are protesting about because it is (allegedly) the entire root of the problem. Azerbaijanis started an environmental protest, which quickly developed into a full-scale blockade of the Republic of Artsakh, leading to new developments in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. But the majority of the article so far has been discussing the blockade and the conflict, whilst largely ignoring the "environmental" nature of the protests that started this all. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 10:38, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Please note that in one of the sections of this talk page above, I have discussed some of my own observations of the alleged "environmental" motives behind the protests. As far as I can tell, the Azerbaijanis are simply protesting that the Artsakh government is exploiting some gold mines that "belong" to Azerbaijan. So, they are not really protesting anything environmental but are rather accusing the Artsakh government of stealing their money. Hence, the entire nature of the protest, down to the roots, is political. But anyway, if there is a section in this article that details exactly what the motives and reasoning of the Azerbaijanis are, then their poorly-thought-out logic is basically exposing itself. The logic in the section doesn't make sense, because it reflects the logic of the Azerbaijani activists in real life. In real life, they are basically saying some nonsensical things and trying to force their way into Artsakh on the basis of the nonsense claims that they are making which don't even make sense in a vacuum. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 10:41, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Jargo Nautilus Thanks for the thorough replies. But we have to take into account policy here: I'll have to note that these aren't legitimate activists per multiple RS and their alleged reasons shouldn't have a separate section per WP:UNDUE (please read). As you also already noted, it's covered in the article and can be organised better if you wish so. But undue alleged claims certainly shouldn't have a separate section, please also read Eurasianet passage for how undue it is:
  • The protests on the Lachin Corridor ostensibly began over claims that the Karabakh Armenians were “illegally” extracting gold from mines in the area and refusing requests for an inspection of the environmental impact. However, an investigation by RFE/RL found that few if any of those demonstrating have any record of eco-activism. Environmental slogans have given way to nationalist ones, and several of the protesters have been photographed giving the Turkish nationalist Gray Wolves hand gesture. [33]
If you wouldn't mind, please self-revert and let's leave it covered in the article without separate section as we should comply with WP:UNDUE. Thanks for your efforts again. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 10:46, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
I will have to reconsider a way to organize the information. Indeed, I agree that it's absolute nonsense. At the same time, most of the non-Armenian/non-Azerbaijani editors on Wikipedia have practically no idea of what is happening in this conflict, which can be seen from the various discussion threads that have been created in relation to it (such as "In the news" and the deletion proposal). So, there is currently the impression in the article that it is slanted towards the Armenian POV (which, I don't really agree with, since the information is accurate, even though it is largely pro-Armenian, largely because the Armenians have the moral high ground here). Meanwhile, several Azerbaijani or pro-Azerbaijani editors on this talk page have accused the article of pushing an Armenian POV whilst suppressing the Azerbaijani POV (which, again, I disagree with). By the way, I myself am non-Armenian, nor am I even from Europe nor the United States/Canada. But anyway, I will revert my edit, and I will see if we can find a better way to arrange the information. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 10:58, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
The Azerbaijani government itself has a history of mining gold. One of Azerbaijan's gold mines along the border with Armenia was shut down in recent years due to the conflict with Armenia/Artsakh. Subsequently, Azerbaijan managed to capture large swathes of territory that were previously controlled by Artsakh. As such, this gave Azerbaijan access to ample natural resources that are located in the Nagorno-Karabakh region. Azerbaijan licensed a gold mining operation in Nagorno-Karabakh to "British company Anglo-Asian Mining Plc" in 1997, but the mine was not accessible until 2020. So, as of 2020, Azerbaijan and the British mining company have plans to extract the gold. In 2020, Azerbaijan exported US$205.6 million worth of gold, so Azerbaijan's own gold mining industry (which, by 2020, would have included the newly-acquired Nagorno-Karabakh mines) is certainly not small at all. In conclusion, I am stating the obvious: this entire "environmental protest" is really a cover for a resource war. Azerbaijan wants that gold for itself. That gold is being mined by Artsakhis, and the money is flowing out of Azerbaijan into Armenia, when it should instead be flowing into the Azerbaijani government's coffers. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 10:50, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Environmental concerns or Demands of the eco-activists

Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments1 person in discussion

@Abrvagl - It's all yours. Write this section. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 03:50, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

We need a new section in this article that details precisely what environmental concerns the eco-activists are protesting about, and what their exact demands are. This information does not seem to be documented clearly in the article, although bits and pieces of it are mentioned in the various other sections of the article. I would think that this information is important enough to possess its own distinctive section. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 03:51, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

For reference, the article about the 2019–2020 Hong Kong protests has a section titled "Objectives". Up until just a moment ago, this article (blockade of Artsakh) did not have any such section. Just a moment ago, I added such a section. So, you can all thank me now. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 07:07, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Never mind. The section has been removed as per a discussion in the talk page section immediately below. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:04, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Annex?

Latest comment: 1 year ago35 comments6 people in discussion

Karabakh is internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan. A country cannot annex its own de-jure territory. I think we should choose a different wording here: [34] Grandmaster 00:12, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Since there are two of us here, I've rv the edit.  // Timothy :: talk  00:19, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
You're a bit silly for additionally reverting the edit wherein I clearly, and indisputably, removed redundant text from the lead. What was your reason for reverting that part aside from "collar the lot!"? Jargo Nautilus (talk) 01:52, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
I also wouldn't say that two versus one is some sort of a consensus, especially since all three of us have affiliations with either one of the sides and hence can't be regarded as neutral parties to the dispute. I would appreciate further input from non-biased parties. This is not a done deal as it stands. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 01:58, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
@Grandmaster - There is an obvious problem with your phrasing "internationally recognized", "its own de jure territory", etc. These are merely the opinions of the Azerbaijani government. Even if Azerbaijan is internationally recognized as the sovereign state of Artsakh's territory, the Azerbaijani government has not controlled the territory for the past thirty years (indeed, Azerbaijan has only been an independent country for the past thirty years, so Artsakh pretty much became independent at the same time that Azerbaijan itself did). If Azerbaijan "takes control" of Artsakh, that is effectively the same as annexing it. "Take control" in this context serves as a euphemism for "annex". It doesn't serve any kind of functional purpose to explain to us what is really going on here, but it instead serves to push a POV propaganda narrative in favour of the Azerbaijani government's official stance. Indeed, an annexation can be justified by international recognition, so if Azerbaijan annexes Artsakh, it could be recognized internationally. Nonetheless, it is important on Wikipedia to call a spade a spade, to tell it how it is. Wikipedia is not censored. We cannot present opinions as facts. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 02:05, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
Yea, there are an obvious problems, problems are:
1. “Internationally recognized” is not opinion of Azerbaijan, it is a fact every single country in the world recognizes Nagorno-Karabakh as per of Azerbaijan, and none of them recognize Nagorno-Karabakh republic as a country, but rather as a self-declared separatist movement. So Azerbaijan cannot annex it is own territory.
2. It is widely suspected that the blockade has been orchestrated by the Azerbaijani government as a form of hybrid warfare in its quest to subdue and eventually annex Artsakh is original research and synthesis of several sources, in fact non of the cited sources support that. @TimothyBlue @Grandmaster A b r v a g l (PingMe) 03:06, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
1. Internationally recognized is literally an opinion of Azerbaijan, even if everyone agrees with them. The fact that everyone agrees with them doesn't render it not also an opinion at the same time.
2. One of the sources mentions hybrid warfare. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 03:19, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
According to expert Agshin Kerimov, with these "hybrid operations, Azerbaijan is gradually moving towards Khankendi." [35] <-- This is the first of four sources cited immediately after the sentence. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 03:22, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
Given a major Azerbaijani offensive in August saw hundreds of servicemen killed and Armenian society gear up for what could be an existential war, collecting supplies for soldiers and laying on paramilitary training for civilians, everyone is on edge. [36] <-- In the second source, it describes how Armenians are scared that Azerbaijan is going to launch a war against Armenia in the near future. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 03:28, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
Note: I didn't add these sources myself; someone else did. Nonetheless, the third source says With the humanitarian situation deteriorating rapidly, a group of more than a dozen nongovernmental organizations, including Genocide Watch, have issued a warning that all conditions for ethnic cleansing are now in place. [37] Jargo Nautilus (talk) 03:32, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
Here's what the fourth source says (again, not added by me). If the eco-activists, Azerbaijani officials and ordinary citizens are allowed into Karabakh and to inspect the mines, it would mean everyone, including the Russian peacekeepers and ‘Nagorno-Karabakh Republic’ leadership acknowledges and further legitimizes Azerbaijan`s sovereignty over the territory. [38] Jargo Nautilus (talk) 03:36, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
I will also point out that the reason that I added that sentence (i.e. "...orchestrated by the Azerbaijani government...") in the first place was to make it clear what was actually happening in this conflict. I was also the person who clarified the dispute between Azerbaijan and Artsakh\Armenia in the first paragraph (i.e. "...is an ongoing event in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict..."). This paragraph originally didn't exist before my edits (although, the information was already in the article). It is obvious to anyone knowledgeable about the conflict that Azerbaijan intends to annex (or "take control") of Artsakh by any means necessary. Azerbaijan already launched a brutal war against Artsakh in 2020, capturing large swathes of territory. The conflict is obviously not over, as Azerbaijan did not manage to capture 100% of Artsakh at the time. So, now, for the past two years and counting, they have been attempting to capture the remainder. Nonetheless, this information might not be obvious to the average reader, which is why I added it to the first paragraph (and also to what is currently the second paragraph). | Note: I wasn't the first person to add either of these sentences to the article. I simply clarified/organized them. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 03:40, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
I will also point out something else, @Abrvagl. When you say that "Azerbaijan cannot annex its own territory"... Do you not realise that, in the process of attempting to take control of Artsakh, thousands of people will inevitably die? Thousands have already died in the 2020 War. War is war. People die. And even if you truly believe in the legitimacy of your cause, that doesn't stop people from dying. You are either indifferent to death or actively support it. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 03:53, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
Jargo Nautilus You can add this Eurasianet source - "A number of foreign states have moved to condemn the blockade, implying that Azerbaijan is deliberately orchestrating the crisis." ZaniGiovanni (talk) 05:37, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
Let's not engage in original research. Karabakh is internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan, and that is explicitly mentioned in 4 UNSC resolutions about the conflict. It is not "opinion of Azerbaijan", it is the position of the international community. French parliament speaker yesterday reiterated that in accordance with international law, France will not recognize NK independence. Therefore we cannot write that Azerbaijan wants to annex NK, because from legal point of view a country cannot annex its own internationally recognized territory. I think we can consider this issue resolved at this point. Grandmaster 10:28, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
@Grandmaster Can you please provide a source on this statement you made?
"from legal point of view a country cannot annex its own internationally recognized territory."
If you read the Wikipedia article on Annexation, annexation is generally considered illegal but can be legitimized by other states, which happened in Tibet among many other examples.
If we're pointing to legal frameworks, then the right to self-determination is also enshrined in international law.
My intuition is that annexation is not the correct word for what the Azeri gov is doing but the fact that numerous political analysts have interpreted this as an aggression against sovereignty makes me think twice.
As pointed out by previous editors, Nagorno-Karabakh self-declared itself as a sovereign power at the same time Azerbaijan did (30 years ago), so it's clear that Azerbaijan is trying to change the status quo. Humanatbest (talk) 13:11, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
Which reliable source says that Azerbaijan wants to annex Karabakh? We are not allowed to engage in original research, we only report what reliable sources say. 4 UNSC resolutions mention "Nagorny-Karabakh region of the Azerbaijani Republic". [39] French parliament speaker said France will not recognize independence of NK, and no state, including Armenia, recognized NK as an independent state. Grandmaster 16:18, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
@Grandmaster
It is not original research to paraphrase. This is normal and actually part of writing a wikiarticle.
Its inappropriate to use the word annex if it has a different meaning than "take control of"
This is why i asked if you had a source that supports the statement "from legal point of view a country cannot annex its own internationally recognized territory." If you read the Wikipedia article on Annexation, annexation is generally considered illegal but can be legitimized by other states, which happened in Tibet among many other examples. we're pointing to legal frameworks, then the right to self-determination is also enshrined in international law.
Anyway im fine with leaving take control of, but i think previous editors raised a very important point that annex involves changing the status quo. Azerbaijan has never had state control over the currently contested area Humanatbest (talk) 16:49, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
It is better not to use words that are not used by majority of reliable sources. There is no point in arguing about what is and what is not annexation, we will be engaging in original research if we do that. Since we agree to leave the word "annex" out, it is better to move on. Thanks. Grandmaster 16:57, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
Why this discussion still lasting? The statement “It is widely suspected that the blockade has been orchestrated by the Azerbaijani government as a form of hybrid warfare in its quest to subdue and eventually take control of Artsakh.” is original research and synthesis of several sources.
First of all, widely believed by whom?
Secondly, two sources (reaction.life and politico.eu) are irrelevant, and the other two sources contain information remotely related to the quoted statement, but attribute them to Aqshin Kerimov and to Rusif Huseynov. It is not for the editors to decide if opinions of Rusif and Aqshin are “widely believed”, or not. That should be done by the independent and reliable sources. Best what we can do is to quote Rusif and Aqshin as stated and without POV interpretation. As such that statement is completely unsourced and should be removed. A b r v a g l (PingMe) 17:12, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
Indeed, "widely believed" is a weasel wording. We should indicate precisely who exactly believes so, and attribute the views to people who express them. Grandmaster 17:19, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
@Grandmaster if "widely believed" is weasel wording, then we can switch it to "numerous political analysts and politicians believe", the citations that follow in the reactions section support that Humanatbest (talk) 18:40, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
That would still be weasel wording. Normally, we write that "In the opinion of (or according to) such and such person..." Grandmaster 20:22, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
@Grandmaster how would that still be weasel wording? a statement of belief is always qualified by the fact that it is a statement of belief. its not weasel wording to stats "many believe" or "numerous parties believe or state this" IF they do. Statements of belief are distinct from statements of fact. No one ever said that this blocade is about sovereignty. Every editoe has qualified the statement as "it id widely believed that..." That is relevant in this article by the fact that this article is labeled as part of the nagorno-karabakh conflict within wikipedia instead of as an Azerbaijan-specific label. Humanatbest (talk) 23:04, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
Widely believed by everyone who isn't employed by the Azerbaijani government. I've seen little evidence to suggest that anyone genuinely believes that the Azerbaijani "eco-activists" are actually who they say they are. I'm barely even aware of what exact environmental issue they are concerned about. I do know that they murdered a pigeon. | Note: I myself had a pet pigeon who was murdered last year. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 17:52, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
In what universe do so-called "eco-activists" launch a blockade? How is that a normal behaviour of eco-activists? That alone is enough reason to believe that these people aren't genuinely protesting about the environment. Launching a blockade of a piece of territory, which could put peoples' lives in danger through starvation and the inability to access medical care, is hardly a peaceful action. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 17:54, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
I also ask... If you guys actually believe that these "eco-activists" are protesting the environment, then what exactly are they protesting about, and why are you guys so vehemently supporting them on Wikipedia currently? I haven't seen any mention of environmental concerns from any of you guys. Everything that you guys have mentioned so far is political. Which all the more leads me to suspect that this entire situation is political, and that it has very little to actually do with environmental concerns. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 18:12, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
I also state the obvious -- Azerbaijan is literally a petro-state. So, maybe the environmentalism could start at home. Just saying. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 18:14, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
I can see that Azerbaijanis seem to be protesting against "illegal exploitation of resources in Karabakh". Again, this is coming from a country whose entire economy is built upon fossil fuel extraction. From what I can tell, the Azerbaijanis really mean to say "it's illegal because they're doing it... let us do instead". Presumably, once Azerbaijan "takes control" of Artsakh, Azerbaijan will also take control of the gold mining operations there... And it will be business as usual. Gold mining is only bad when ethnic-Armenians do it. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 20:15, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
Jargo, you might benefit from reading WP:NOTAFORUM. A b r v a g l (PingMe) 21:53, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
@Abrvagl - It seems I touched a nerve there, as you have not yet provided a coherent response to my valid points. If you wish to prove your mettle, then I suggest creating a new section in the article titled Environmental concerns or Demands of the eco-activists. I would think such a section would be obvious to include, but so far I can barely see any information in the article about what the activists are actually protesting about and what their demands are. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 03:27, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Honestly, just lol. Azerbaijan has been increasing gold mining activities in 2022, it seems. In an October 27 press release it announced that it was looking forward to tapping its 300-square-kilometer Vejnali contract area, which had just been retaken by Azerbaijani troops: "Once secure, the company plans to immediately start work." [40] ... Such prospects promise a steady growth in export revenues for Azerbaijan, as the country expands exploration and development of new deposits, Caliber.Az reports. [41] ... British company Anglo-Asian Mining Plc, involved in gold, silver, and copper mining in Azerbaijan, has discovered a new gold deposit. [42] ... Last year the country exported gold on the total sum of US$205.6 million and, as part of the plans of the Azerbaijani government, is a further increasing these figures this year. [43] ... Upon closer inspection, the so-called Azerbaijani eco-activists who have closed the Stepanakert-Goris highway, the only land link connecting Artsakh and Armenia, since December 12 are mere cogs in a larger game masterminded by Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev to achieve his political and economic ambitions. The activists say they want access to the Kashen mine in Artsakh, alleging Armenians are illegally engaged in mining operations there. [44] ... Baku claims that its minerals mined on the internationally recognized territory of Azerbaijan are transported to Armenia on trucks along this road. After this publication, several Azerbaijani government agencies at once expressed their desire to monitor the fields located in the part of Karabakh controlled by the RMK. [45] ... It seems I'm a bit of a sleuth... It seems that I'm onto something. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 03:43, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
You did not touch nerve, rather you sharing so much of your thoughts and personal research, which most of the time I find irrelevant to the discussion (like how gold mining irrelevant to the discussions that Azerbaijan is going to annex its own territories), that conversations become unreadable. A b r v a g l (PingMe) 09:12, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
What exactly does it mean to "illegally" mine gold? As opposed to legally mining gold? I don't think the "illegal" nature of the gold mining even exactly has anything to do with environmentalism. It's more about the law. Because, even legal gold mining causes environmental issues. So, the Azerbaijani activists are not really protesting about the environmental damage that is being caused by the gold mining. Instead, they are protesting the fact that the Artsakh government is mining gold that "belongs" to Azerbaijan and stealing the money that it provides. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 07:00, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
This is an excellent point that the "illegal mining" claim points more to a conflict of ownership (business) rather than the environment.
At least certain Azeri economists seem to think that the mines are an extremely important part of business to Artsakh and Armenia (source) though I'm unsure about it's reliability or neutrality even though it seems to be in a published journal. Humanatbest (talk) 10:48, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

BBC expansion

Latest comment: 1 year ago17 comments2 people in discussion

What's the exact disagreement here? BBC is pretty clear and casts alot of doubt on the so-called environmental activists [46]. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 13:56, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

  1. This part of conversation is moved to Talk:2022–2023 blockade of the Republic of Artsakh#Gas supply cut to eliminate wall of text
  2. who consider themselves environmentalists blocked is not neutral and UNDUE considering that sources such as eurasianet provided better description "group of Azerbaijanis from government-linked environmental organizations"
  3. On the evening of 13 December, Azerbaijan moved internal troops and police forces to the closed section of the road. - is UNDUE. Source states "The Azerbaijani media reported that soldiers of the internal troops of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Azerbaijan and police forces arrived in the territory of Lachin Corridor to "ensure the safety of the participants of the protest action"", however material paraphrased such as completely distorts what source says and wrongly implies that police and soldiers are there to block the road. I replaced it with information from Azerbaijani media, to which initial source was referring, and portrayed information according to the source. So there is no need to keep infocom-am.
  4. "Whether these are real eco-activists or not is still an open question. Judging by the video from the scene, among the protestors there are employees of state-owned companies and even, as the BBC Azerbaijan Service reports, workers from Turkish companies. Outwardly, the action looks more political than environmental. For example, the participants carried a large flag of Azerbaijan, many of them wrapped in the national flag. Several women wear fur coats at the protests, which gives additional reason to doubt that the participants are related to the eco-movement." - This should be shortened, you are giving to much weight to it. Should be shortened to something like "Whether these are real eco-activists or not is still an open question. Judging by the video the scene the action looks more political than environmental. For example, the participants carried a large flag of Azerbaijan, many of them wrapped in the national flag. " The fact that they are employees of state owned companies was mentioned in the first paragraph, which you reverted, but I will put it back "group of Azerbaijanis from government-linked environmental organizations", so there no need to repeat that second time. Including bullshit claims that eco-activists should not wear fur coat would be very big UNDUE.
  5. Not sure why you removed "denied the blockade", it was sourced.
A b r v a g l (PingMe) 17:08, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
2) who consider themselves environmentalists blocked is not neutral and UNDUE considering that sources such as eurasianet provided better description - Not undue as the entire BBC source casts alot of doubt on these "activists" and basically suggests them being illegitimate and not "eco-activists" (see source), even stating that this whole thing is just a negotiation tactic by Azerbaijan:
  • Experts have previously told the BBC that a new round of confrontation may be associated with the desire of Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev to push Armenia to resolve disputes as soon as possible and achieve the signing of a peace treaty on favorable terms for Azerbaijan.
  • After the end of the war in Karabakh, there were regular escalations and armed clashes. Azerbaijan was mainly blamed for the escalation, whose military over the past year even managed to take control of one settlement and a height in the conflict zone.
  • As for the environment, there are other equally serious problems in Azerbaijan than the state of the Karabakh deposits. They are mainly associated with oil production. In addition, well-known eco-activists regularly draw the attention of the Ministry of Ecology to deforestation and the destruction of rare animals. And last year, safari tourism made a splash : it turned out that residents of rich Arab countries, with the inaction of the authorities, come to Azerbaijan to hunt birds from the Red Book.''
  • Shahin Rzayev, a well-known Azerbaijani journalist and a regular participant in non-state projects in which Azerbaijanis and Armenians maintain dialogue, said: "I would show these environmentalists what is happening in my home village of Surakhani, where oil is extracted. There is enough material for five years."
3) Quite literally what the source says [47] and the Azerbaijani media reported reason which you highlighted is explained in the next sentence.
4) This isn't "too much weight" especially coming from WP:RS like BBC. Actually, there was alot more which I didn't add like the above highlighted bullet points.
5) This is what actual WP:UNDUE looks like. A partisan source's claim of "denied the blockade" when we have multiple WP:RS stating the opposite is quite literally WP:UNDUE. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 17:20, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
2) BBC.RU does provides vague definition of activists: "On Monday, people calling themselves ecologists began to gather on the road.", where euroasianet, provides precise definition "group of Azerbaijanis from government-affiliated environmental organizations" [48],[49]. You still can cast doubt about the aim of protest being not ecology or environment, rather political, which you actually did with point "4)". So I would agree on that: "group of Azerbaijanis from government-affiliated environmental organizations presenting themselves as environmental activists."
3) Not quite at all, but I see your point and I will fix that by merging those two sentences. Otherwise, as I said, it creates impression that police and soldiers mover in order to block the road. which is not true.
4) As I said article already casts doubt on the activists, so from BBC we should summarize information about the potential aims of the protests: "Whether these are real eco-activists or not is still an open question. Judging by the video from the scene, among the protestors there are employees of state-owned companies and even, as the BBC Azerbaijan Service reports, workers from Turkish companies. Outwardly, the action looks more political than environmental. For example, the participants carried a large flag of Azerbaijan, many of them wrapped in the national flag." Ludicrous claims that eco activists can not wear fur coats are undue.
5). "Partisan source" is reliable as hell to pass the words of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Azerbaijan, who in fact denied the blockage. Especially considering that information is attributed. I updating that information with additional source. [50] A b r v a g l (PingMe) 19:19, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
P.S. Just noted that you added """ to the According to Azerbaijan media,"the security of the activists conducting the protest is ensured by the military and police officers of the Internal Troops of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Azerbaijan". Why on the earth you would do that? It is absolutely unnecessary as it was already attributed. A b r v a g l (PingMe) 19:43, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
2) No, because BBC does go in detail even more than any other sources why these aren't "eco activists" so current version is what the activists call themselves which is what's acceptable.
3) Why do you keep changing what's said? Both sentences should stay as both are sourced. One mentioning that forces arrived, the other as their claimed reason. Quotes are added to the stated claims that are not supported by independent RS as true.
4) Ludicrous claims that eco activists can not wear fur coats are undue. - You're misunderstanding what the source says; The source doesn't say what they can or cannot wear but that wearing fur clothing isn't something your usual environmental activists do. Sourced content hence should stay. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 19:52, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
2. So what you did not like in ""group of Azerbaijanis from government-affiliated environmental organizations presenting themselves as environmental activists."? which delivers the same information but in better and more detailed way? Current version is not encyclopedic, rather nonsense existing as result of translation of the article from the Armenian Wikipedia.
3. What "as per source" are you talking about? Here is the what exactly source says: The Azerbaijani media reported that soldiers of the internal troops of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Azerbaijan and police forces arrived in the territory of Lachin Corridor to "ensure the safety of the participants of the protest action". Both sources state the same thing, and I am not sure about your rationale to partially cite first source making unfinished claim, especially after I explained that it result is the wrong imply that forces were moved to block the corridor.
4. Still do not agree, but yeah, keep it if you so into it. Not worth discussing it long. A b r v a g l (PingMe) 20:34, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
2) These are neither activists nor environmental groups - linked or non-linked to government, the mere fact of these people having anything to do with civil activism or environmentalism is heavily contested by reliable sources such as BBC. We can’t say activists or environmentalists in wiki voice, but we can say they self identify as such and are portrayed by Azerbaijani media as such.
3) I don't mind this wording per source: The Azerbaijani media reported that soldiers of the internal troops of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Azerbaijan and police forces arrived in the territory of Lachin Corridor to "ensure the safety of the participants of the protest action". ZaniGiovanni (talk) 11:35, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
Let me put it straight: The gas outage was reported by Artsakh officials and should be attributed to them. We do not build encyclopedia based on personal opinions of editors. We are building Wikipedia based on policies, one of which is that articles must be based on reliable sources, and reliable sources attribute information on gas cuts to Artsakh officials, because they did not conduct their own research, but rather reported what Artsakh authorities stated. Which means that we can not use wiki voice here. So, I'm changing the material to comply to Wikipedia principles; if you're still not convinced, I recommend reaching a consensus before changing an attributed statement to a statement of fact.
2. "Heavily contested" is your opinion. If fact, BBC source does not contest that protesters are Azerbaijanis from government-affiliated environmental organizations, opposite to that BBC affirms what stated by euroasianet. For example BBC states: "People claiming to be ecologists began gathering on the road on Monday"; "Judging by the video from the scene, there are employees of state-owned companies among the protesters"; "Mahsati Huseynova, a member of the public council under the Ministry of Ecology, wrote on her social media page that she was participating in the action and published a video from there". Also, we do not say that activists or environmentalists, we say "group of Azerbaijanis from government-affiliated environmental organizations presenting themselves as environmental activists", which is supported by Euroasianet as well as by BBC, which also does not say in wikivoice that protesters are Eco activists. I am not sure if you know Russian, but I do, and what BBC cast doubt on is that protest is political driven rather that environment (not on whether protester are from government-affiliated environmental organizations or not), thus I am going to restore sourced content.
3. Quotations are unnecessary as statement already attributed to the Azerbaijani media. Quotations are intended for quoting sources, not adding sarcastic doubts. A b r v a g l (PingMe) 20:13, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
2) Both BBC and the more recent Eurasianet articles heavily contest the mere fact of these people having anything to do with civil activism or environmentalism, that's not opinion, that's a fact. BBC goes as far as to list reasons why there is doubt that these are eco activists and literally openly says: "Whether these are real eco-activists or not is still an open question", "Outwardly, the action looks more political than environmental.", "among the protesters there are employees of state -owned companies and even, as the BBC Azerbaijan Service reports, workers from Turkish companies.", etc, do you want me to list more? And the newer Eurasianet article says that "few if any of those demonstrating have any record of eco-activism.". So we can’t say activists or environmentalists "from government-affiliated environmental organizations" in wiki voice, but we can say they self identify as activists and are portrayed by Azerbaijani media as such.
3) Already attributed doesn't mean it's unnecessary to have quotes as the source also puts in quotes and quotes mean they are direct, without any modification, which is important given that what Az government said regarding blockade for example contradicts with what the world says like denying blockade while the world calls on Azerbaijan to end the blockade [51]. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 20:44, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
2. You clearly mixing up two different things. What I am talking about that protestors are from government-affiliated environmental organizations (and we can say that in wiki voice, because that is what sources say), what you talking about is whether protest are politically driven or environmentally driven. These are two different things and does not contradict each other. but we can say they self identify as activists and are portrayed by Azerbaijani media as such. - that is what this statement does "group of Azerbaijanis from government-affiliated environmental organizations presenting themselves as environmental activists". You can write it like that if you want "group of Azerbaijanis from government-affiliated environmental organizations presented by Azerbajani media as environmental activists". It will be the same thing.
3. The fact that some partisan source intended for read inside the Armenia put quotations marks does not mean that we should put quotes in the statement which is already attributed. Neither you brought any argument to keep them. A b r v a g l (PingMe) 21:22, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

2) BBC article doesn't say whether protestors are politically driven or environmentally driven, it says the action looks more political rather than environmental, quote, "Outwardly, the action looks more political than environmental." The article also keeps heavily contesting on the nature of protestors, saying there are even state workers from Turkish companies, the questionable fur clothing choices that are far away from environmentalists, "Whether these are real eco-activists or not is still an open question" and so on, all in the article. Later it concludes with casting doubt on them being environmentalists, "...gives additional reason to doubt that the participants are related to the eco-movement." Moreover, the newer Eurasianet article literally says, "few if any of those demonstrating have any record of eco-activism". So no, "government-affiliated environmental organizations" isn't going to be said in wiki voice as the protestors are highly contested to be related to environmentalism or any eco-movements.

3) The source you've added isn't any better. As I said I agree with the following wording; The Azerbaijani media reported that soldiers of the internal troops of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Azerbaijan and police forces arrived in the territory of Lachin Corridor to "ensure the safety of the participants of the protest action" – To "ensure the safety of the participants of the protest action" is what the Az gov claims the troops are there for, and claims by Az government that aren't confirmed by anyone to be true should be put in quotes, meaning they are direct, without any modification, and especially as we've already seen preposterous denial of blockade by Azerbaijan while the whole world condemns it. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 06:00, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

2. Well, I head you, and you heard me. Now let's wait for any other reply, and if not, then we can take it to RfC.
3. The statement already attributed, which means that Wikipedia does not claim it to be true or false, rather just reports it as it is. Putting additional Scare quotes is unnecessary and are discouraged MOS:BADEMPHASIS. I would agree with you on adding quotations if there was a well-established and credible source supporting additional quotes, however infocom.am is a partisan site. A b r v a g l (PingMe) 07:29, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
2) The fact doesn't change that "eco-activists" are highly contested to be true by WP:RS [52], [53], a source even outright calling them false ecologists [54]. Also how are you suggesting an RfC when you didn't even address my points? Please explain how it's appropriate/due to say "government-affiliated environmental organizations" when protestors even being "eco-activists" is a highly contested claim or outright called false?
3) Firstly, that's the Az gov/media stated aim that no WP:RS confirms is true (unless you can provide) that's why it has to be in quotes so it's direct, especially when the Az gov already did the preposterous denial of blockade while the whole world condemns it. And contrary to the stated aim, here's a third-party source which actually says opposite and that the soldiers did block the road along with protestors. So more of a reason that the Az gov/media claim as to why the troops are there should be in quotes, otherwise it can be reworded entirely per third-party stating that the soldiers blocked the road as well. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 09:08, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
3. the Az gov/media stated aim that no WP:RS confirms is true, yes, and that is why we avoid stating that as facts and attribute it as per WP:VOICE. In this case the scary quotes are unnecessary and are discouraged, whether you like it or not.
With regards to "here's a third-party source" - a third-party source you referring is poorly built and unknown WordPress site, which apparently belongs some unknown non-profit organization Anglicantv Ministries Inc. Moreover, the soldiers statement which you are referring from "third party" source, is just a quote attributed to the unknow web page Genocide Warning: Nagorno Karabakh, which was created 20 days ago. Will you stop throwing out anything you google, and at least do some basic evaluation of the sources? Reputable sources BBC, Eurasianet, JamNew, Human Rights Watch, and all others report that road is blocked by protestors, and here you are want to claim that road is blocked by soldiers based on some low quality unknown online publication? A b r v a g l (PingMe) 10:32, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
3) What are you even talking about? Quotes can be added whether attributed or not, there are hundreds of thousands of articles written this way. Certainly it should be added here for stated aim by Az gov/media as Az gov already made preposterous and false claims of denying the blockade entirely. And please stop discussing your evaluation of sources on talk, take it to RSN if you think this source isn't WP:RS. Other outlets "report that road is blocked by protestors" doesn't mean they deny additional info of soldiers being involved, do you have a source implicitly denying this? In any case, this is what I agreed to if you don't remember: The Azerbaijani media reported that soldiers of the internal troops of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Azerbaijan and police forces arrived in the territory of Lachin Corridor to "ensure the safety of the participants of the protest action". ZaniGiovanni (talk) 11:09, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Just to inform you, that I found original source (report.az) to which infocom was referring to, and I am going to replace infocom with original source. In addition, allegations that Azerbaijani soldiers or police blocked the road are baseless and are not confirmed by any reputable source. (Yes, if that was a case, then such a red flag allegation would have been reported by at least some reputable outlets.) Furthermore, it is evident from the report.az that police and military personnel are standing behind the fence so they are not part of the demonstration and do not block the road in any way. A b r v a g l (PingMe) 10:30, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Aliev, Zakharova

Latest comment: 1 year ago24 comments4 people in discussion

Wikipedia is not a mouthpiece of Aliyev or Zakharova, and their extraordinary claims should be duly presented as claims and not benign statements especially when they contradict most WP:RS such as HRW (reffering to some media reports) only "alleging" goods being allowed to pass [55]. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 16:53, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Neither Wikipedia is a place POV views of the editors. Casting POV doubt to the already attributed statement is not impartial at all. The statement of Aliyev was presented with in text attribution (in line with WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV), which means that Wikipedia does not claim this to be true, rather delivers information as it stated.
Moreover, there is no point in denying the obvious - road is open for humanitarian purpouses. There tons of factual video and photo evidences of vehicles passing thought the protestors available online. I will not list all of them , but here are the recent ones:
  1. 13 January 2023 - RPC supply vehicles passed through Lachin-Khankendi road
  2. 13 January 2023 - ICRC vehicles passed through Lachin road
  3. 12 January 2023 - ICRC vehicles made unhindered passage from Khankendi to Lachin
  4. 12 January 2023 - Russian peacekeepers walked through Lachin-Khankandi road
  5. 11 January 2023 - 42 vehicles unimpededly passed through Lachin road over the day
  6. 10 January 2023 - 2 ICRC vehicles passed through Lachin road
  7. 7 January 2023 - 4 ICRC vehicles, 1 RPC car passed through Lachin road
I shared few of many, and each link above contains factual photo and video evidences, so they are reliable as hell to prove the that mentioned cars did in fact pass though the protestors. A b r v a g l (PingMe) 20:38, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Propagandistic partisan website such as apa.az isn't suitable for Wikipedia, you should know better before citing 7 of its articles. We write based on WP:RS not what you think is true. Also most sources, countries, organizations clearly state that Artsakh/Nagorno-Karabakh is blockaded with absence of basic supplies and the instance of RS third-party mentioning anything close to humanitarian aid was HRW which literally stated "allegedly" (like my edit) meaning it doesn't confirm anything, and the Red cross helped transport a patient / delivered medicine and baby food once (from article's sources), that's it. Hence Aliev's WP:FRINGE claims of "four hundred trucks with humanitarian aid passed", "Red cross allowed to pass whenever they asked" is WP:UNDUE fringe propaganda and should be stated as alleged, that's the only way it can stay. Zakharova's claim isn't confirmed by any WP:RS either. Not going to explain this simple concept again. Either it's alleged (which it is per RS), or it doesn't stay in the article for being undue fringe propaganda straight out of Aliev's mouth and his website. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 21:26, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Saying that someone alleged something is not in line with NPOV. It is not up to us to decide what is true, and what is not. We must simply attribute the statements to those persons who made them. See WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Grandmaster 22:11, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
This isn't "WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV" issue, it's WP:FRINGE WP:UNDUE propaganda to begin with, don't confuse the two here please. And you're right, not us but WP:RS such as HRW that decided and said allegedly for humanitarian aid, along with dozens of countries, most reliable sources and organizations that state blockade with absence of basic supplies. Hence Aliev's undue fringe claims stays with only appropriate alleged or doesn't stay at all for breaching WP:UNDUE, WP:FRINGE, WP:EXTRAORDINARY and in contradiction to most WP:RS, countries, and organizations. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 22:21, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Expressions of MOS:DOUBT are appropriate when the majority of reliable and neutral sources confirm them to be extremely undue. --Dallavid (talk) 22:40, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Undue does not apply to official statements by country officials. They must be attributed in neutral fashion. In addition, there are many video reports of large Russian convoys passing Lachin road. Also, delivery of humanitarian aid and evacuation of patients is claimed not just by Azerbaijan and Russia. Leader of Karabakh Armenians Ruben Vardanyan himself admitted that Russian troops deliver humanitarian aid and Red Cross moves patients. Quote: While many Armenians have sought to present the blockade as a total strangulation of the territory, Vardanyan has instead repeatedly emphasized the exceptions: some humanitarian aid provided by the Russian peacekeepers or transport of seriously ill patients out of the territory with Red Cross escort. [56] ICRC also confirms that it delivers aid and evacuates the ill. Grandmaster 01:11, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
Vardanyan is an exception rather than the rule (even stated per article), and he isn't majority WP:RS or HRW. ICRC escorting patients we already know, doesn't mean humanitarian aid. The only thing confirmed in this article by Red cross was baby food and medicine a while ago, far cry from Aliev's claims. Also even Vardanyan says "some aid" which is vague and some is nowhere near what Aliev's extraordinary and fringe claims imply ("it is unfair to call it a blockade" / "about four hundred trucks of peacekeepers have passed through the corridor" / "Red Cross was granted permission to pass as many times as they asked"), in which he makes it seem like the road is open 24/7 and everything is all fine and dandy while the blockade isn't even happening if someone listens to him. Given the severity of his claims and lack of WP:RS to back it up (in fact WP:RS contradict him), it's only fair to keep it as his own alleged statement, which it is. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 01:30, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
Vardanyan is also a top official. So we have Azerbaijan, Russia and Karabakh officials saying that supplies are delivered. It is not undue or extraordinary, because in addition to reports in Azerbaijani media, there is plenty of video evidence of Russian supply convoys passing into Karabakh daily. Some examples: [57] [58] [59] Every day dozens of Russian supply trucks move via Lachin road in both directions. Some days the number of trucks reaches 45. Today, Azerbaijani media reports passage of another 19 Russian supply trucks, with photo and video evidence: [60] [61] Regarding ICRC, they confirm delivery of 10 tons of humanitarian supplies (mentioned in this article), and evacuation of 21 patient [62]. Also, it is not up to us to evaluate veracity of statements of officials. It is a WP:OR. Statements must be presented with attribution, as per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, without any POV language such as "alleged". Grandmaster 10:48, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
You keep repeating yourself and I have to explain again that neither is Vardanyan majority RS or HRW, nor does he confirm anything close to Aliev's fringe claims ("about four hundred trucks of peacekeepers have passed through the corridor" / "Red Cross was granted permission to pass as many times as they asked"). I'm asking for the final time: do you have reliable third party sources confirming anything close to Aliev's statements I just quoted for the 2nd time now? I have RS like HRW literally stating "alleged" aid passing, just like majority reliable sources saying the blockade resulted in loss of basic supplies, none mentioning anything close to Aliev. Az YouTube videos aren't sources, you're joking right? ZaniGiovanni (talk) 22:11, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
Opinion of a state leader or MFA spokesperson cannot be undue or fringe, it is very important information that needs to be presented with proper and neutral attribution, as per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Biased statements of opinion can be presented only with in-text attribution. See MOS:QUOTEPOV. We must attribute POV, but without implying any doubt to the statement. In fact, use of words such as "alleged" is not recommended. See MOS:ALLEGED. Grandmaster 10:20, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
If it's in contradiction to majority of reliable sources than expressions of MOS:DOUBT are allowed if not encouraged. You still haven't backed up a single claim of Aliev by reliable third party so it's more than logical then it's his alleged statement. Comment again when you have sources disputing majority reliable sources such as HRW, Eurasianet, BBC, OpenDemocracy, all of which state blockade with lack of supplies, running low or HRW's "alleged aid passing unclear for whom". ZaniGiovanni (talk) 10:30, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
We don't need to back up Aliyev and Zakharova and Vardanyan's claims. They are officials, therefore their opinions are notable. They can say things that are totally opposite to what everybody else says. We must simply accurately report what they said. You cannot add expression of doubt to the words of officials because you personally doubt them. MoS discourages that. You can only report expressions of doubt by other reliable sources or notable persons. Grandmaster 10:52, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
We don't need to back up Aliyev and Zakharova and Vardanyan's claims. - First of all, Vardanyan's claim is distinctively different from Aliev's (he just says "some" while Aliev mentions wild claims of "400 trucks" and "allowed to pass when asked", also fringe "not really a blockade" one), so for the 10th time, don't lump them together. Secondly, you do need to back up Aliev's wild claims with reliable third party if you want to remove alleged, as it's an extraordinary fringe and undue claim that he alleges. And lastly, expressions of MOS:DOUBT are appropriate when the majority of reliable and neutral sources confirm them to be extremely undue. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 10:59, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
expressions of MOS:DOUBT are appropriate when the majority of reliable and neutral sources confirm them to be extremely undue. Could you please show me a rule that says that? Also, ICRC reported yesterday that they transported another 5 patients, and the total number of ill people they evacuated reached 24. [63] How does this contradict the statement of Aliyev that ICRC was granted permission to pass as many times as they asked? ICRC itself never complained of any impediment to their mission on part of the protestors, and ICRC statement is also in line with Azerbaijani media reporting passage of ICRC convoys through the Lachin road. Grandmaster 11:49, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
You still haven't shown reliable sources backing up any of the Aliev's claims especially the most fringe ones like "about four hundred trucks of peacekeepers had passed through the corridor, and had also taken food and other necessary goods to the Armenians living in Nagorno-Karabakh." (which contradict HRW and doezen others directly). Red cross transporting patients doesn't prove "Red Cross was granted permission to pass as many times as they asked". Could you please show me a rule that says that? - That's called keeping fringe and extraordinary statements in compliance to WP:DUE weight, any other way they'd be inappropriate for the article. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 07:59, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
No sources are needed to back up statements of top officials for proper attribution of their words. We are talking here about the fair presentation of statements by them, in line with the rules. The use of the words such as "alleged" is not recommended, per MOS:ALLEGED. It violates WP:NPOV. If Red Cross says that it delivered goods and evacuates patients, how could it be fringe? It is an international organization, and they now what they do. Also, Кавказский Узел writes that "At the same time, the activists who blocked the Lachin corridor let the cars of the peacekeepers and the ICRC pass." [64] And Armenian media confirms that patinents are evacuated, and supplies are delivered by ICRC. What is fringe about that? [65] [66] Grandmaster 10:36, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
So you haven't provided any reliable third parties to support Aliev's statemtns such as "about four hundred trucks of peacekeepers had passed through the corridor, and had also taken food and other necessary goods to the Armenians living in Nagorno-Karabakh." / "Red Cross was granted permission to pass as many times as they asked". Кавказский Узел doesn't say any of this btw and is literally talking about the same Red cross medical facility supply transfer you mention later. Whereas most (and better) sources such as HRW, Eurasianet, OpenDemocracy, BBC etc, either tell us supplies (including basic supplies of everyday population such as food, groceries, etc which Red cross hasn't transferred) are lost or "alleged passing of aid unclear for whom". ICRC helping to transfer patients isn't something new, neither is their medicine supply transfer to medical facilities of Artsakh. This however doesn't confirm "Red Cross was granted permission to pass as many times as they asked".
And for the last time, alleged extraordinary statements of Aliev which aren't supported by any WP:RS (in fact ones like HRW and the rest contradicting them, HRW only alleging aid transfer) will stay alleged per WP:WEIGHT. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 13:31, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
President of Armenia Vahagn Khachaturyan provided exactly the same number as Aliyev. He said: 300-400 vehicles used to pass this road daily, transporting everything necessary for the livelihood of the population of Nagorno-Karabakh - food, construction materials, etc. Only 400 vehicles passed in 40 days, mostly for humanitarian purposes. [67] So I believe this issue is solved. If presidents of both countries provide exactly the same number, there is no reason to doubt its authenticity.
Russian officials also say that humanitarian cargoes move by Lachin road, and Ruben Vardanyan confirms that. In addition to other quotes, here's what he said: When [Azerbaijani representatives] say that Russian and Red Cross vehicles are passing through, if we count, this is less than the number of cars passing before the blockade in one day. The peacekeepers transport goods for their soldiers as well. The amount of help is very small. So he admits that peacekeepers deliver goods, but the amounts are smaller than what was delivered before. [68]
Regarding ICRC, this is what eurasianet writes: Since the blockade began on December 12, the only vehicles that have managed to pass through the corridor have belonged to the ICRC and the Russian peacekeepers. The ICRC acts as a neutral intermediary and has the mandate to ensure the transportation of people with urgent medical needs out of Karabakh. As of January 11, sixteen patients have officially been taken to Armenia since the start of the blockade. [69]
Russia's news.ru agency reported from the protestors' camp. They also confirm that: Vehicles are allowed to pass via this route, including vehicles of Russian peacekeepers and the Red Cross. They also provide video evidence of that. [70]
So there cannot be any reasonable doubt that Russian peacekeepers and ICRC vehicles use the corridor and deliver supplies, and this is confirmed officially by both sides, and by eurasianet. Please rv your edit, in the light of the above. Grandmaster 18:34, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Apa.az is very suitable for statement of the fact from the Azerbaijan which supported by factual evidences. A b r v a g l (PingMe) 02:55, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
Last time saying simple things but no, that partisan propagandistic website isn't reliable for AA2 especially for the case here of Aliev's WP:extraordinary, WP:fringe claims not being verified by any RS third-party and actually in objection by RS third-party like HRW. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 05:43, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
In general, you may be correct, but not in this instance. In this instance, APA.az presents video and photo evidences of automobiles passing via the Lachin corridor; hence, it is indisputable and APA.az can be used to assert instances where cars did in fact pass through the corridor. A b r v a g l (PingMe) 16:17, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
If you have a misunderstanding of how Wikipedia work, I suggest do some research before commenting the same thing repeatedly. What that propaganda website says (even if hypothetically having some truth in it), we don't use sources like apa.az on Wikipedia especially for AA2 topic area and especially to "prove" wild Aliev claims, that's how Wikipedia works. If you want to show backing up of Aliev's fringe claims (which no respectable and reliable source does for obvious reasons), do it with reliable third party RS, see WP:EXTRAORDINARY, WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE. HRW is a good example of it and it literally alleges aid passing through. Until then, I'm done explaining how Wikipedia works to you. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 22:11, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I asked for third opinions at WP:NPOVN. Grandmaster 00:09, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Azerbaijani forces VS Russian peacekeepers

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Azerbaijani forces have confronted Russian peacekeeping forces at the blockade and attempted to get the latter to allow media to pass: however, Russian peacekeeping forces have prohibited entry of foreign journalists (including Azerbaijani and Armenian journalists) into Nagorno-Karabakh; this is consistent with Azerbaijani government policy which prohibits Azeri citizens from entering Nagorno-Karabakh without prior state permission.

The above statement is analysis or synthesis of published material, and violates WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Non of the provided sources makes conclusion illustrated in above statement, rather it is a case where editors combined number of reliable and not so reliable sources.

  1. Azerbaijani forces have confronted Russian peacekeeping forces at the blockade and attempted to get the latter to allow media to pass - This sentence cherry-picked from the eurasianet.org's paragraph, which describes one single scene where Azerbaijani forces intervened after Russian soldier knocked away the microphone of an Azerbaijani journalist and hit their car. No only it is cherry-picked, but it altered in a way that it implies conclusion that it was not one of case, which is not stated in the article.
  2. however, Russian peacekeeping forces have prohibited entry of foreign journalists (including Azerbaijani and Armenian journalists) into Nagorno-Karabakh; - This cited to unrelated euroasianet article from 9th of December, then to another euroasianet article, which does not support that statement, and then to not well established partisan newspaper, which also does not support the statement.
  3. this is consistent with Azerbaijani government policy which prohibits Azeri citizens from entering Nagorno-Karabakh without prior state permission. - This statement, which comes the last is also a clear cut case of analysis or synthesis of published material.

A b r v a g l (PingMe) 10:13, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Why did you have to write an entire talk page section about this? Just edit the article and explain your reasoning in the edit summaries. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 17:48, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, you are right. Just did that. I wrote entire section, so that if anyone who has different opinion can sound their voice, but then why should they object? At the end of the day, original research is not allowed as per Wikipedia policies. A b r v a g l (PingMe) 19:03, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

NPOV & Party to Conflict

Latest comment: 1 year ago17 comments3 people in discussion

@Grandmaster - How is the term "alleged" not a neutral POV? The term is frequently used during police reports, for example; "the alleged attacker", "the alleged thief". It is used whenever a piece of information has been said by someone (i.e. stated) but cannot be independently confirmed. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 22:50, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

We discussed "alleged" above. Please see above discussion. Generally, the use of the words such as "alleged" is not recommended, per MOS:ALLEGED. Grandmaster 10:02, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Grandmaster, there's a major discrepancy here. The word "alleged" actually has two meanings. Firstly, "alleged" can function as an adjective, such as "the alleged thief" (as I highlighted above). But, secondly, "alleged" can function as a verb, such as "Aliyev alleged that such and such happened". In the verbal sense, "alleged" is replacing the word "stated/said". The MOS:ALLEGED that you linked seems to mainly discourage the word "alleged" in the adjectival sense (except in the specific example of "alleged" crimes, which I highlighted above). But the MOS:ALLEGED does not seem to make a specific comment on the usage of "alleged" in the verbal sense. | Take note: There is a section beneath the MOS:ALLEGED, titled "MOS:SAID", which discusses synonyms for the word "said", which is essentially what "alleged" is functioning as in this context. The MOS:SAID doesn't specifically mention "alleged", but it does mention the words "asserted" and "claimed", which more or less mean the exact same thing as "alleged" in this context. The MOS:SAID doesn't actually say that you can never use the words "asserted" and "claimed", but it just says that you should pay attention to not use these words without specifically intending to. In conclusion, it is actually acceptable according to MOS:SAID to use the word "alleged" as a synonym for "said". @ZaniGiovanni - This is relevant to you, I believe. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 10:27, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
At the end of the day, Grandmaster, if you are so opposed to the usage of the word "alleged" in the verbal sense, we could always switch over to using either the word "asserted" or "claimed", which are both mentioned in MOS:SAID and are both allowed to be used in specific situations. So, ZaniGiovanni, you are allowed to go and replace the words "stated" (which Grandmaster replaced "alleged" with) with the words "asserted" or "claimed". Here is your free pass. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 10:32, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
I don't think that alleged is appropriate here, so no free pass. Alleged means that deliveries of humanitarian aid, passage of ICRC vehicles or general number of 400 vehicles that traveled through the corridor are in doubt. Since both Armenian and Azerbaijani presidents, and the ICRC and Russia confirm these facts, there can be no doubt. So the use of the words "alleged" is not appropriate, plus it is not recommended either for such situations. Grandmaster 11:11, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
I've stated below that the "delivery of humanitarian/medical aid" does not seem to be in dispute. What is in dispute is any number greater than 400. From what ZaniGiovanni has said throughout the talk page, this user seems to agree that 400 trucks passed through the corridor throughout the entire month in total. However, ZaniGiovanni has also said that Azerbaijani media outlets are continuously providing updates on numbers of trucks above 400 (in total). As such, any numbers in excess of 400 (in total), which seem to only be reported by Azerbaijani media outlets, should be regarded as "alleged", "claimed", or "asserted". Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:39, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Okay, I've also noticed that the claim "Russian peacekeepers have delivered humanitarian cargos" is also in dispute. Currently, the sources that Grandmaster has added to the lead only say that the ICRC has delivered medical supplies. No comments are made about the Russian peacekeepers directly delivering humanitarian aid of any sort. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 13:15, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Bear in mind that English is my first language. So, that is why I am able to spot these grammatical/syntactical nuances so easily (which seems to have gone over everyone's heads over the past couple of days that you guys have been debating the usage of the word "alleged"). Jargo Nautilus (talk) 10:41, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Asserted, claimed, etc are the words to watch. You can only use those when there are contradictory claims. But deliveries of humanitarian aid via Lachin road are not disputed by any party. The Armenian side only says that those deliveries are insufficient, but they also confirm that Russian peacekeepers and the ICRC actually deliver aid. Grandmaster 11:21, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Grandmaster, you can use those terms whenever you want. It is up to the discretion of the editors involved to come to an agreement over whether to use the words "claimed" or "asserted" in the place of "stated/said". There is no hard and fast rule about whether the words should be used or not. It is completely arbitrary, based on the agreements made between the editors. As such, it's a bit of a moot point to bring up "MOS:ALLEGED", as it has no legal bearing on this matter. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:30, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Grandmaster, as you can tell from the edit history, I have kept the sentence that you added to the lead section of the article, because the source seems to be reliable (i.e. "Eurasianet"), and because the information doesn't specify the exact number of vehicles, but just refers to "vehicles" in general. With that being said, I have not yet inspected the information and sources that you might have added to the body paragraphs of the article. The way I see it, if some people are disputing the exact number of vehicles travelling through the corridor, then the information immediately becomes "contradictory", as you've suggested above. So, if you refrain from mentioning numbers, then the information is acceptable, as far as I'm concerned. But any specific numbers can correctly be regarded as "alleged" or "claimed" or "asserted". The numbers provided by Azerbaijani media outlets should not be taken at face value. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:34, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Meanwhile, if Russian peacekeepers are not a party to the conflict, then why are they literally included in the info-box of the article as a party to the conflict? If you're going to change the wording in the introductory paragraph, then you should also change the wording in the info-box. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 22:50, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

A party to conflict means that Russia is one of the conflicting sides. But peacekeepers are supposed to be neutral. Therefore we cannot say that they are a party. Also, not just ICRC, but also Russian peacekeepers deliver humanitarian aid. More than 400 vehicles passed via the Lachin corridor since 12 December, according to the presidents of Azerbaijan and Armenia. Grandmaster 10:02, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
ICRC delivered supplies to medical facilities in Artsakh (the cargo does not belong to the ICRC, it was provided by the government of Armenia) and helped to transport patients, this is consistent in all sources and shouldn't be called "humanitarian aid", healthcare aid or something is more accurate. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 10:16, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
That is correct, but Russian peacekeepers also deliver humanitarian cargoes, fuel, etc. It is confirmed by officials, Vardanyan, for example, but also the media. For example: Prior to the blockade, Nagorno-Karabakh imported 400 tonnes of goods from Armenia daily, according to the government. While Red Cross and Russian peacekeeper vehicles have been permitted to pass through the blockade, the region’s government maintains that supplies of humanitarian aid have been insufficient. [71] Grandmaster 11:11, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Grandmaster, the two sources that you've added to the lead don't actually say that the Russian peacekeepers have delivered humanitarian cargoes, as I've explained in the section immediately below. Currently, I have no idea whether the Russian peacekeepers have delivered humanitarian cargos, and I can't say for certain whether they have or haven't. But, as it stands, I am presuming that they haven't, because I haven't seen any statements from reliable sources that they have. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 13:03, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Sure, but you need to remove the Russian peacekeepers from the info-box, where they are listed as a "party to the conflict", if that's your stance (which, I am not exactly opposing). Consistency throughout the article is required. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 10:17, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Reports of Azerbaijani media

Latest comment: 1 year ago49 comments5 people in discussion

Since there is no international media presence on Azerbaijani side, only Azerbaijani media report what actually happens on Lachin road. And Azerbaijani media report daily passage of Russian peacekeeper truck convoys, and ICRC vehicles. For example, today it is reported that 19 Russian peacekeeper trucks and 5 ICRC vehicles, including a supply truck, passed the corridor. All these reports are supported by photo and video evidence, and corroborated by Russian and Karabakh authorities, who confirm delivery of humanitarian aid by Russian peacekeepers, as well as by ICRC. I think these reports should also be reflected in the article, in accordance with WP:Balance. [72] [73] [74] [75] Grandmaster 16:47, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

"Humanitarian aid" and "Russian" should not be in the same sentence, my friend. Did you see what they did in Ukraine? Every time a humanitarian passage was agreed upon, they broke their word and attacked the passage as people were passing through. Russians (i.e. soldiers employed by the Russian Federation) can't be trusted, least not with regard to humanitarian aid. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 18:26, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
I certainly strongly disapprove Russia's aggression against Ukraine. However, every situation has its own peculiarities. I think you are well aware that here we do not discuss which country could be trusted, and which could not. What we are discussing here is how to use the information provided by the sources in the article in accordance with WP:NPOV. Our task here is to accurately and neutrally convey what all the involved parties and third parties report. Grandmaster 20:18, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
If I were a Russian soldier right now, I would be praying to be sent to the Nagorno-Karabakh peacekeeping mission. This operation is basically a paradise in comparison to the war in Ukraine (indeed, some unlucky Russian soldiers originally stationed in Nagorno-Karabakh seem to have been transferred to Ukraine... poor guys). Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:09, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Unless there are third party RS confirming anything report.az writes, it's WP:UNDUE for the article what partisan sources claim or show. Most reliable sources in fact state blockade with lack of supplies or supplies being completely lost, HRW alleging aid passing through. We write Wikipedia based on most reliable sources. Also please be aware of WP:CRUSH and stop with these YouTube links as sources. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 22:14, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
That does not mean that we ignore POV sources. We do not present their claims as facts, we simply attribute POV, as per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. i.e. According to Azerbaijani media reports ... Grandmaster 10:08, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Yeah I feel like I'm done explaining simple concepts like WP:UNDUE here "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true, or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article." Majority RS including HRW say blockade with lack/absence of supplies, alleged passing aid – this is what the article is written based on. No other propagandistic reports (attributed or not doesn't matter) aren't added per WP:UNDUE, you need to understand this and I'm warning of WP:CRUSH again, please read, you should be familiar with this. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 10:15, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
According to the rules, "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents". Media of an entire country is a significant minority. Therefore it is not undue. Grandmaster 10:25, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
You have to be joking. Azerbaijani media reports against most countries, organizations and WP:RS is absolutely an extremely small minority, this isn't even debatable. We write Wikipedia based on WP:RS, somehow I'm reminding this to you. Feel like this conversion is done as your line of argumentation keeps getting more absurd. I'll remind you to keep in mind WP:CRUSH and that if it'll continue, we'll have to speak on a different venue. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 13:26, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
I believe a third party opinion might be useful here. Grandmaster 19:12, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
This isn't even close to thoroughly discussed for WP:THIRD to step in, has more than 2 editors in the discussion, and is pretty straight forward to begin with. We write Wikipedia based on reliable secondary sources, you suggest adding propagandistic website as a source which is WP:UNDUE on top. This isn't going to happen for obvious reasons. If you wish to add information and undue information at that, make sure to cite reliable sources reporting it otherwise it's irrelevant for Wikipedia. But if there were reliable sources reporting it and not just Youtube links and "report.az" partisan website, it wouldn't be undue now would it? Also there aren't reliable sources reporting anything close to "report.az" cause most respectable and reliable sources/countries/organizations acknowledge blockade with a capital B, and that's what Wikipedia is written based on.
I suggest you drop the stick on this. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 23:14, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Lets make it clear, no one is talking about everything posted on APA.az or Report.az. The discussion is that specific Azerbaijani media reports (for example) about vehicles passing thought the Lachin road, which supported by the video/photo evidences, are reliable enough to be used in the article. The fact that vehicles are passing thought the Lachin road is confirmed by President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev, President of Armenia Vahagn Khachaturyan, Maria Zakharova, Ruben Vardanyan, and by number of the sources [76], [77], [78]. As such there is nothing "WP:EXTRAORDINARY, WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE", and as you were already explained above such reports from Azerbaijani media can be used at least with WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. A b r v a g l (PingMe) 17:05, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Vahagn Khachaturyan, Maria Zakharova, Ruben Vardanyan are only 3 officials (just like the rest of the world in Reactions section) whose statements are already in the article, what are you even on about? Unreliable and propagandistic websites can't be used as sources on Wikipedia per WP:RS, and per WP:UNDUE since the majority of sources/countries/organizations clearly say blockade with a capital B and lack of supplies or alleged passing of aid per HRW. And again when it comes to Vahagn Khachaturyan, Maria Zakharova, Ruben Vardanyan (3 of the dozens of officials from Reactions) their primary statements are in the article already. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 19:58, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
And why are you always snipping just one sentence from what I wrote an building your whole response around that, while completely ignoring the rest? I highlighted Maria, Ruben, Vahagn and Ilham, and number of sources proving that vehicles are passing though the corridor, and as such there is nothing WP:UNDUE and the specific news about the vehicles passing though the road are reliable to state cases when vehicles passed though the road. With regards to WP:RS, yes report.az and apa.az are biased sources, however WP:BIASED states: Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context., as such the news about the vehicles passing though the road, supported by evidences, are that specific context. A b r v a g l (PingMe) 20:22, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
I agree with Abrvagl. I'm not saying that everything that Azerbaijani media reports is reliable. However the only media present at the site of the protest is the Azerbaijani media. There is no alternative. And they report passage of large Russian and ICRC convoys, supported by photo and video evidence. They provide precise numbers of vehicles that pass each day. These reports are totally in line with the sources that Abrvagl mentioned above. There cannot be any reasonable doubts that those convoys actually pass the Lachin road. If Azerbaijani, Russian, Armenian and Karabakh authorities all officially say that Russian and ICRC convoys pass via Lachin road, then we have no reason to doubt them. Why then cannot we post updates about the situation on the Lachin road, with proper attribution to the Azerbaijani news reports? For example, that 39 vehicles passed the Lachin road today? Grandmaster 20:24, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Grandmaster - Again, video evidence is not good enough for Wikipedia's standards. Wikipedia only accepts reliable sources. If you are relying solely on video evidence, then you are partaking in original research. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 23:38, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Abrvagl - Is there any specific consensus/agreement stating that those pro-Azerbaijani sources are actually reliable? You've removed several pro-Armenian sources due to being unreliable, which I haven't challenged since I don't have any evidence that they are reliable (I also wasn't the person who added them in the first place). But the Azerbaijani sources don't look particularly reliable either; as far as I'm aware, the reliability of the pro-Armenian sources that you removed is the same as the reliability of the pro-Azerbaijani sources that you are adding/supporting. Indeed, you've made reference to "video evidence", which you claim "supports the news in that specific context". But can't the same be said about the pro-Armenian sources, which also made reference to video evidence? Wikipedia is built upon reliable sources, not video evidence. As such, if you are relying solely upon video evidence without taking much care to cite reliable sources, then you are partaking in original research. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 23:26, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
@Abrvagl - You have removed two sources with regards to Azerbaijani and Turkish government involvement, which had mentioned "video evidence" (Judging by videos from the scene...), on the charge of being unreliable sources. I've not challenged these removals. Meanwhile, at the same time, you allege that the pro-Azerbaijani sources about vehicles passing thought the Lachin road should be included in the article, on the basis that they are supported by the video/photo evidences. To me, this is a case of hypocrisy. Jargo Nautilus (talk) Jargo Nautilus (talk) 23:06, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
You must be joking. This source was removed because it was an opinion article that could not be used to make a statement of fact; I made no mention of its reliability. Can not you read the edit summary? This source was removed because analysis from propaganda source like that is not reliable. It is not the same for the apa.az or report.az particular reports, which do not give any analysis instead simply report the number of cars that pass through the protest area everyday and back up their claims with video/photo proof. The reliability of these reports is also supported by a number of sources which affirm that about 400 cars have passed via the Lahin corridor since the blockade began.
As such, if you are relying solely upon video evidence without taking much care to cite reliable sources, then you are partaking in original research. - No one considers the use of video files as a source, nor does anybody suggest that apa.az or report.az are generally reliable, nor does anybody suggest to analyze those reports. Read the thread thoroughly before responding, particularly before wrongly accusing people of "hypocrisy," because it is not nice at all. A b r v a g l (PingMe) 06:52, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Who's to say that the Azerbaijani sources are factual? For all we know, they could be lying. And looking at this source that you provided above, they are quoted as saying "The peaceful protests of Azerbaijani ecologists and NGO representatives on the Lachin-Khankandi road held against the illegal exploitation of mineral deposits... ...have been going on for a month.", which is nothing more than an opinion piece in and of itself. The adjective "peaceful" behind protests, and the adjective "illegal" behind exploitation, are both subjective (and, arguably, outright false, based on my own knowledge of the situation). Meanwhile, the term "NGO" (meaning "non-government organisation") is also potentially false, considering that there is evidence of Azerbaijani government involvement in the blockade and behind some of the organisations that are involved. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 07:56, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
@Abrvagl @Jargo Nautilus It is doubful that these are genuine NGOs given Azerbaijan's history of co-opting NGOs (not to mention crackdowns on civil protests) for its own purposes. See this Eurasia 2014 article: many "civil-society organizations listed as taking part in the discussions are not genuine non-governmental organizations (NGOs), but are, more accurately, GONGOs, or government-organized non-governmental organizations." Humanatbest (talk) 14:42, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
All the more reason to regard the aforementioned source as unreliable. As I said, there's a fine line between bias and mis/disinformation. That source asserted very confidently that the participants in the blockade were (all) NGOs... Jargo Nautilus (talk) 14:45, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Not sure what led to NGO discussions, but this thread wasn’t about NGOs and I had no point about them. A b r v a g l (PingMe) 16:50, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
The article that you cited as a reliable pro-Azerbaijani source made reference to "NGOs" involved in the blockade. I.e. the source that you described as "generally unreliable, but reliable for some info" was caught red-handed publishing a blatant lie. Which reduces its credibility, since lying outright is significantly worse than merely holding "biased" opinions, in your words. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:54, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Firstly, There no blatant lie or lie behind “peaceful”, “illegal” and “NGOs”, nor your personal thoughts or article written in 2014 make them a “blatant lie”.
Secondly, the discussion is about the vehicles which did in fact pass through the protesters. A b r v a g l (PingMe) 18:04, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
The propagandistic source is still unreliable, WP:BIASEDSOURCES is in regards to reliable sources only (which it is not), no "updates" from this source are confirmed by any third-party WP:RS, hence it's not suitable for Wikipedia per WP:RS, WP:UNDUE. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 19:51, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
@Abrvagl - This is getting tiring. Please refrain from adding unreliable sources to articles, or I may have to report you. The Azerbaijani source *is* lying, because the status of an organisation as an NGO is more than an opinion/bias. If an organisation is substantially funded and controlled by the government, then it isn't an NGO, period. An organisation cannot simultaneously be an NGO and government-controlled at the same time. Such a detail is not down to opinion, but instead down to fact. If the Azerbaijani source confidently asserts that the organisations are indeed NGOs, then it is attempting to state some information as factual that might not actually be true, according to analysis that @Humanatbest has linked above. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 23:54, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Please refrain from adding unreliable sources to articles, or I may have to report you. - Please show when/where did I add any unreliable sources to the article. For the third time, please refrain from making baseless accusations. Enough is enough.
The Azerbaijani source *is* lying, because the status of an organisation as an NGO is more than an opinion/bias. - There are number of NGOs in Azerbaijan, and stating that there are NGO representatives among the demonstrators is not a lie.
NGOs are not even the main focus of the article; neither article does any research to determine if NGO organizations engaging in demonstrations are NGOs or GONGOs; rather, the article simply states that there are NGO representatives.
Moreover, gasligtning the conversation by snipping a line from the euroasianet article "Debating GONGO vs. NGO" does not make the source a liar. Here's the full quote by the way:
Many independent rights activists believe the Joint Working Group to be a sham, contending that some of the purportedly non-governmental organization representatives on the panel are actually dependent on the government for funding. They also assert that many civil-society organizations listed as taking part in the discussions are not genuine non-governmental organizations (NGOs), but are, more accurately, GONGOs, or government-organized non-governmental organizations. Euroasianet just reflects the assertions of independent rights activists that many (but not all) NGOs in Azerbaijan are GONGOs. It does not claim that all NGOs in Azerbaijan are GONGOs, neither APA specify exact NGOs. As such, the claim that the APA.az article is lying when it state that there are NGO representatives among the demonstrators is pure original research. A b r v a g l (PingMe) 08:14, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
@Abrvagl - The article stated that there are exclusively/only NGOs participating in the Lachin blockade. Well, precisely, what they actually did was discuss "NGOs" exclusively, whilst completely avoiding any mention of government agents. So, this can be regarded as a "white lie", since it is better described as an "omission of the truth". \\\ "The peaceful protests of Azerbaijani ecologists and NGO representatives... ...have been going on for a month." --> This is what the article precisely said, but if it were from an honest perspective, it would instead say "The protests have been going on for a month." The fact that the article says that the protests are "of ecologists and NGOs" implies that these are the only people participating in the protest. Again, this is a white lie.
Regarding the "main focus of the article", the article is very short, only consisting of the following parts: (1) title, (2) lead paragraph, (3) secondary paragraph, and (4) links to other articles. Indeed, the article as a whole is so short that I'm actually hesitant to describe it as an "article", per se. What's more interesting is that the secondary paragraph (49 words) is actually longer than the lead paragraph (21 words). So, the paragraph which discusses the so-called "NGOs" is actually more than twice as long as the paragraph that discusses the vehicles (which, you have described as the main focus of the article). Jargo Nautilus (talk) 09:00, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
regarding the "main focus of the article", the article is very short - yeah, that is called news published on the newspaper.
The article stated that there are exclusively/only NGOs participating in the Lachin blockade. - No, it does not. As you've already noted, the article stated "ecologists and non-governmental organization officials." I believe that, as a native English speaker, you are aware of the distinction between ecologists and NGO representatives, as well as the fact that ecologists may work for both government and non-government groups.
Well, precisely, what they actually did was discuss "NGOs" exclusively, whilst completely avoiding any mention of government agents...."The peaceful protests of Azerbaijani ecologists and NGO representatives... ...have been going on for a month." --> This is what the article precisely said, but if it were from an honest perspective, it would instead say "The protests have been going on for a month." - The official version and the way demonstrators identify themselves is that they are ecologists and representatives of non-governmental organizations. The news story does not include any investigation on the nature of the protestors; it only publishes the facts without interpretation. Also, the fact that the origin of the demonstrators was questioned does not imply that they cannot be referred to as "ecologists and representatives of non-governmental organizations." by any source. The idea that apa.az should use the term "government agents" is absurd; it is like to expecting news.am to recognize that Armenia occupied Azerbaijani territory for over three decades. Moreover, we talking about the factual information about the vehicles passed though the protests area. A b r v a g l (PingMe) 19:46, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
I think you should just stop pushing a propagandistic non WP:RS to be added in the article, especially when no WP:RS confirms its "updates" (doesn't matter if true or not, this is called violation of WP:RS and WP:UNDUE and not suitable for Wikipedia). The fact that apa.az parrots the Az government "ecologist" nonsense was expected from a propagandistic source of that calibre, which makes it even worse when WP:RS dispute the whole eco-narrative [79], [80], [81] ZaniGiovanni (talk) 20:17, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
If we are to assume that "ecologists" is supposed to refer specifically to government-employed ecologists (which, I highly doubt), the phrase "ecologists and NGOs" still dismisses the possibility of far-right groups and random people participating in the protests/blockade. Indeed, from photographs that I've seen, there are way too many Azerbaijani protesters for them to simply all be ecologists and NGOs. It's not easy to become an ecologist; you need to have some kind of qualification, like a PhD (so, any actual ecologists participating would only constitute a very small percentage of the total). Meanwhile, in order to be an NGO, you typically have to be registered as one, and, again, I don't think that every single participant in the protests is an NGO; I'm pretty sure there are also random people like construction workers and street vendors participating as well. Indeed, there could still be "government agents" among the NGOs and random people as well, so it's not like only the ecologists are government agents. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 05:52, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Abrvagl, this claim of yours, "it only publishes the facts without interpretation", is obviously false. You yourself have admitted that the source was making biased/opinionated statements, which means that they were definitely interpreting the facts. Furthermore, what they said might not even be factual anyway, since, as I've pointed out, they claimed that the protests are "only comprised of ecologists and NGOs", but it is likely that there are also various other participants involved, and potentially some of the "NGOs" aren't actually NGOs but are secretly government-controlled. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 05:57, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Bear in mind that, what is essentially this tabloid rubbish, is what you have been bringing to this discussion as so-called "reliable sources". This is a tabloid. The web-design is subpar, and there are advertisements everywhere. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 09:03, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
By the way, Abrvagl, you have to remember that Competence is required. I've already stated on this talk page that I'm a native speaker of English. For me, English comprehension obviously is completely effortless. On the other hand, I'm presuming that you are not a native speaker of English. Even though your English grasp is overall very good, there are certain nuances that you frequently miss. This is irritating at times, especially when these nuances are strongly connected to key details. For example, you said that the article merely "mentioned NGOs", whereas I have pointed out that the article specifically implies that the NGOs are the only participants, whilst omitting any mention of potential other participants. This discrepancy seems to be caused by your lack of native-level English abilities. As such, you should take more time to actually precisely read and process the statements that I've been making, because you are frequently missing the point. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 09:11, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
You have twice falsely accused me of hypocrisy, then falsely accused me of adding unreliable sources to the article, and now you are accusing me of incompetence and language issues. Will you ever stop doing so and instead concentrate on the topic of discussion?
I have pointed out that the article specifically implies that the NGOs are the only participants - and you disproved yourself by quoting the article, where it said Azerbaijani ecologists and NGO representatives.
Notifying you that I will no longer respond to your original research or irrelevant comments. We should be mindful of other users and refrain from creating a wall of text here. However, I am open to discussion, and if you like, we can discuss anything on my talk page. A b r v a g l (PingMe) 20:10, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Abrvagl, I haven't checked whether you've added this specific source to the article, but you did specifically cite this source as an "example of a reliable pro-Azerbaijani source" in a comment higher up in this thread. I'm going to give the benefit of a doubt that you haven't added this specific source to the article; nonetheless, it's certainly not a good example of a reliable source, and I recommend that you don't add this source nor any sources similar to it to the article. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 05:35, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Abvragl, now you are simply being obtuse. The source said "ecologists and NGOs", which means that it is listing two types of people as the total sum of all the people participating in the blockade; obviously, I didn't mention "ecologists" for brevity. The source effectively says that only ecologists and NGOs are participating in the event, but that's still an omission of the truth since it dismisses the possibility of nefarious agents participating, such as, for example, (1) government agents, (2) far-right groups (such as the Turkish Grey Wolves), and (3) other random people who are neither ecologists nor NGOs and can simply be described as an "everyday Joe" who've decided to participate for the heck of it. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 05:38, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Abrvagl, you should also bear in mind that your English abilities are not up to scratch, and I am allowed to inform you of this. This is the English Wikipedia, and you are supposed to be competent in the language whilst contributing at this website. I don't care whether you have a good knowledge of Azerbaijani or Armenian affairs. If you can't speak English properly, then you shouldn't be here. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 05:42, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Abrvagl, do you not see the hypocrisy/contradictions in your own statements above? (This is a rhetorical question; of course you don't.) Indeed, you've stated that the main reason you are relying on the Azerbaijani sources is because they "do not give any analysis [and] instead simply report... ...and back up their claims with video/photo proof". So, you are saying that they simply tell the truth without providing their opinion (which is arguably false, as I pointed out in my previous comment), and you believe that they are telling the truth (which, I cannot verify) because they are relying on video/photo evidence. Which means that, ultimately, you yourself are relying primarily on video/photo evidence, via these sources, because that's what they're relying on. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 08:03, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Okay, so you admit that neither apa.az nor report.az is a reliable source? -- "nor does anybody suggest that apa.az or report.az are generally reliable" -- If so, then why are you using them? I think we should remove all citations in the article that reference these sources because they are unreliable, as you yourself have admitted. Shot yourself in the foot there, I think. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 08:07, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
You raise pretty good points. Overall, Abrvagl seems to have hard time understanding WP:RS (Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered). apa.az is nowhere near reliable, doesn't matter what kind of "proof" they provide. If it isn't reliable it isn't for Wikipedia. The reliability of these reports is also supported by a number of sources which affirm that about 400 cars have passed via the Lahin corridor since the blockade began. - 400 cars was said by Aliev and Khachaturyan for the past month and is already in the article to begin with (we aren't going to add the same info twice). Whereas Abrvagl and Grandmaster seem to be suggesting adding undue "updates" from Az unreliable sources, not confirmed by anybody. Unless reliable sources confirm any new "updates" given by these propagandistic websites, it has no place on Wikipedia per WP:RS and WP:UNDUE.
[This] source was removed because it was an opinion article that could not be used to make a statement of fact; I made no mention of its reliability. Can not you read the edit summary? [This] source was removed because analysis from propaganda source like that is not reliable. - In this case, both were actually backed up by a reliable third-party source Atlas News [82] yet as Jargo Nautilus points out, you removed both, but now you're are arguing to add undue "updates" from propagandistic source that isn't backed by any credible WP:RS. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 08:13, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Apparently the one who having hard times to understand WP:RS is you, even after I cited you Wikipedia:Bias for you.
actually backed up by a reliable third-party source Atlas News - Looking thoughtfully the Atlas-news it appears that is actually doesn’t back up them.
@Jargo Nautilus, Who's to say that the Azerbaijani sources are factual? - I never said that, what I said is that “I am not saying they those are generally reliable, but as per Wikipedia policy source can be reliable for one thing, and unreliable for another. With tegard to rhetorical question, where you again accuse me in “hypocrisy”, I already addressed that baseless claim. This case needs some dispute resolution assistance. A b r v a g l (PingMe) 09:49, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Apparently the one who having hard times to understand WP:RS is you, even after I cited you Wikipedia:Bias for you. - WP:BIAS you're citing is an essay, WP:RS and WP:UNDUE on the other hand are guideline and policy that need to be followed. The only thing confirmed outside Az sources are 400 trucks in the past 40 days (by Khachaturyan, and it's still a minuscule amount compared before the blockade, when it was 300-400 cars daily) that's already in the article. Any new "updates" from non WP:RS propagandistic source(s) need backing from reliable third-party to be added in the article, otherwise it won't comply with WP:RS, WP:UNDUE, you need to finally understand this. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 09:56, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
WP:BIASED is not a essay, and I cited it to you. First, you claimed that information that vehicles passing though the Lachin corridor is "WP:EXTRAORDINARY, WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE" because that is not confirmed any sources. Your claim was addressed, I showed you that not only number of sources confirm movement of vehicles used for humanitarian purposes, but that also number of officials confirmed that. Then, you starting claiming that those sources are biased, and I showed you that as per Wiki policies, although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. Reliable third party sources already confirmed that humanitarian vehicles are allowed to pass thought the protests area. Are you expecting that third party sources will write an article every time vehicles pass?
Now you just continuing repeating yourself without any arguments. May be you will explain how the attributed information, reported by the number of Azerbaijani newsletters, about the number of vehicles passed thought the protests area is UNDUE? A b r v a g l (PingMe) 12:06, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Read what you cite, I'm not going to correct you again. WP:BIASEDSOURCES (you cited Wikipedia:Bias in 09:49 comment) is regarding reliable sources, and apa.az isn't reliable. Khachaturyan said 400 trucks for the past month, which is already in the article. Any new updates/reports/claims by non WP:RS propagandistic website that don't have WP:RS third-party backing them up are WP:UNDUE for this article and violate WP:RS (unless confirmed by actual WP:RS, then we can talk). Read again before commenting. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 12:20, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Abrvagl, do you have any comments with regards to the two sources that Grandmaster has added to the lead of the article, in which he alleges that "Russian peacekeepers have delivered humanitarian cargos"? I've analysed those two sources, and neither one of them precisely says that. They say that (1) Russian peacekeepers' vehicles have passed through the corridor and (2) Russian peacekeepers have acted as mediators in the delivery/passage of cargos. Neither of these statements actually asserts that the Russian peacekeepers are performing the deliveries themselves, directly. Instead, the statements suggest that Russian peacekeepers have simply given passage for other people to deliver the cargos. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 13:20, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Abrvagl, there is a fine line between bias and mis/disinformation. You've stated that the Azerbaijani sources are simply biased. With regards to the comments about "peaceful protests" and "illegal exploitation", sure, that can be described as mere bias. But the comment about "NGOs" is actually more than bias; it is potentially completely false information. That is because the organisations involved in the blockade are either 100% NGOs or only partially NGOs (if not none at all). Obviously, there could actually be some NGOs involved. But the Azerbaijani source that you linked above asserts that there is zero government involvement in the blockade. So, again, false information is worse than bias. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 10:00, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Abrvagl, there is no reason for me or ZaniGiovanni to believe that the Azerbaijani sources are "reliable for one thing, and unreliable for another". The fact that they are already unreliable for at least some information, as you yourself have admitted, provides reason to suspect that they are unreliable for other information. Indeed, the rule about "propagandistic sources" on Wikipedia, with regards to "sometimes reliable, generally unreliable", is that they can usually only be reliable to report on statements made by leaders of the organisations/governments that they are associated with, regardless of whether these statements are true or false. For example, TASS is frequently cited on Wikipedia to provide statements that Vladimir Putin has made, and this is generally acceptable. But in the present situation, that is not what you are using the Azerbaijani propagandistic sources for. You are using them to declare information that you believe is 100% factual; i.e., going further than a mere statement by Aliyev. As such, I don't believe that these sources can actually be used for the purpose that you intend. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 10:09, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Lead edits

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I've noticed that someone recently changed the hyperlink of "environmentalism" behind the term "eco-activists" to the hyperlink "eco-action". I ask a genuine question; what is the point of changing the hyperlink? The original hyperlink is a much better option that details in-depth what environmentalism (the main topic) actually is. Another article exists, called "environmental movement", which is already something of a spinoff from the main article, and it is even currently being discussed for being merged into the main article. Meanwhile, the third article, "eco-action", is a stub and is basically a spinoff of the "environmental movement" article, which is itself a spinoff of "environmentalism". Indeed, I don't even think the "eco-action" article should really exist, as it is functionally useless and doesn't tell us anything that either the "environmentalism" or "environmental movement" articles don't already tell us. I suspect that whoever changed the hyperlink in this article (which, I haven't figured out who yet) did so for POV-pushing reasons, as the precise name of the article "eco-action" sounds quite similar to the alleged status of the "eco-activists" (which is highly unlikely to be genuine). | Note: ZaniGiovanni reverted the hyperlink back to "environmentalism". Jargo Nautilus (talk) 13:23, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Possible Background sub-sections

Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Russian Peacekeeping Forces

- how they even got there, how they are perceived by Azeris, Armenians, the international community

- the fact that previous Armenians have unsuccessfully petitioned them to reopen the alternative highway in 2021

- their mandate, (up to 2025), the fact that the mandate is vague (no definition provided in the ceasefire agreement)[83]

- Russian peacekeeping forces bunk together with Turkish peacekeeping forces at a monitoring station with the Russian, (I don't think they do anything really but I could be wrong)


Zangezur Corridor

- that Azerbaijan consistently draws parallels between it and the Lachin corridor as part of its negotiations

- literally 2-3 weeks before the blockade, a senior azeri official said that diplomatic options for pushing for it were expended

- the fact that this is tied to certain irredentist claims (see the text already in the article) and also the fact that Azerbaijan has also built two new airports in Nagorno-Karabakh as part of the Zangezur corridor post the second NKR war


thoughts?? Humanatbest (talk) 14:22, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

The background section does not need to be excessively long. We are not detailing the historiography of Armenian-Azerbaijani relations. We are documenting a current event. Info about the Russian peacekeepers should primarily be detailed at the article about the Russian peacekeepers, and likewise for Zangezur (as well as for Ruben Vardanyan, if any of the text that I deleted about him is to be salvaged). Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:30, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
You're right -- we don't need more background right now. But maybe a re-ordering/parsing up of what is already there.
A) lead Background: what NKR is (a breakway ethno-political state distinct from AZ) and it's current status since the second NKR war. The fact that it's isolated politically, culturally, and infrastructure-wise
B) Russian Peacekeeping Forces
C) Zangezur Corridor
just an idea. Humanatbest (talk) 17:13, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
What we should mention IMO is the following:
A) Background info about the origin and political status of Artsakh/NKR, and info about the overall Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, which is a part of the Post-Soviet Conflicts.
B) Background info about the recent changes to the status quo, including the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War, the involvement of the Russian government and Russian peacekeepers, the 2020 peace treaty, and the creation of the Lachin corridor. The mildly-relevant 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine should also be mentioned.
C) The recent border clashes between Armenia and Azerbaijan (along the internationally-recognized border) that occurred throughout 2021 and 2022. The disputes over the "West Zangezur" (irredentism) and the "Zangezur corridor" can also be mentioned in light/moderate detail.
D) Any information (if it exists and is relevant + reliably sourced) that details events that occurred in the days or weeks leading up immediately to the crisis and might have directly contributed to its outbreak.
Note: The commentary about Ruben Vandanyan would fall into the (D) category, except that it is problematic for the reasons that I've explained in other comments on this talk page. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 17:32, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Blockade_of_Nagorno-Karabakh/Archive_1&oldid=1178527975"