Talk:Land mines in Nagorno-Karabakh

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Land mine situation in Nagorno-Karabakh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100420100449/http://www.halotrust.org/nagornokarabakh.html to http://www.halotrust.org/nagornokarabakh.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:11, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://neweasterneurope.eu/2021/04/16/mines-karabakh-and-armenias-ccrisis/. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. -- Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 09:54, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Article name

I propose to change article name from Land mine situation in Nagorno-Karabakh to Land mine situation in and around Nagorno-Karabakh. Mine pollution is more of an issue in the territory surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh than in the Nagorno-KArabakh itself, and the article content covers both in and around. Thus, proposed name will describe content more accurately. Thoughts? Abrvagl (talk) 20:33, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

"in and around NK" would be longer and with blurred lines – where exactly that "around" ends? Current article name is fine as it is. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 20:28, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Current name includes only NK, where is the most of the mine pollution is not in NK, but in the territories around the NK, which were previously occupied by the Armenian forces. Article also clearly speaks mostly about the territories outside of NK. I believe that should be clear in the article name also. Current name is misleading. Btw, it is not blurry, it is known territories and we can mention that in the lead also to make it clear. Abrvagl (talk) 22:03, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Another option would be “Land mine situation in Karabakh”, which even shorter and includes both NK and territories around NK Abrvagl (talk) 22:04, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

I'd propose "Land mines in Nagorno-Karabakh conflict" instead – it is accurate and crystal clear. To avoid ambiguity between Nagorno-Karabakh Republic (with its pre-2020 and post 2020 control areas), Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast and Nagorno-Karabakh / Karabakh as a geographical region. "Land mine situation" sounds like a literary translation from Russian – i.e. very artificial for English audience. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 02:10, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

• "I'd propose "Land mines in Nagorno-Karabakh conflict" instead..."

I think this is a good proposal, just add the grammatical article the to it, i.e. "Land mines in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict". - LouisAragon (talk) 22:11, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

You can’t say “land mines in the Conflict”, because sentence has a semantic error. Land mines are affecting territories, not the conflict and mines will be there even after the conflict is over… conflict is over for the surrounding liberated territories, but they still have tons of mines planted. I still say that “ Land mine situation in and around Nagorno-Karabakh” or “ Land mine situation in Karabakh” are the best options Abrvagl (talk) 22:25, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

We already have a good example of this kind of name, Land mines in the Vietnam War. And for en-wiki, it makes more sense than the artificial "Land mine situation", which sounds a lot better in Russian actually and seems to be a literary translation from Russian. Agree that “Land mines are affecting territories, not the conflict” but they are “used in the conflict”. Also, the conflict is not over, and when it’s over there will be no minefields. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 12:11, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Recent revert

Abrvagl I left a talk comment on your page about some of the concerns I had with your editing recently. Please stop reverting with unclear explanations and discuss on talk if you have any disagreements. The edit where I added sources and restored your removals from July isn't "undue", isn't "SYNTH/OR", it's a valid and sourced content perfectly DUE within the context of the minefield maps exchange. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 19:07, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

My comments are very clear:

First I highlighted that it is OR/SYNTH and UNDUE (too much of details):

Sounds like original research/synth and actually too much of details. Added link to the relevant article.

When you restored information, which I still find as OR and SYNTH (unless you can support it with inline citation, can you?), I thought you did not understand that I meant it is UNDUE. Therefore I clarified for you:

this information does not have weight for the article. It is undue. Link to the article is better way to provide complete information for those who interested

Why it is undue? 1st article is not about POWs, on the second, apart from being SYNTH, the information is absolutely one-sided, not written in the impartial tone and also contentious, it is not considering the Azerbaijan’s version:

According to Baku, the remaining Armenians behind bars in Azerbaijan were “saboteurs”and others who had illegally crossed into Azerbaijani territory following the ceasefire and thus were not prisoners of war but criminals subject to Azerbaijani law. Armenia argues that they are prisoners of war regardless of when they were captured and must be returned.

A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 19:41, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

We write based on third party view like EU, United States, HRW, not what Aliev claims. What you're saying right now is the definition of WP:UNDUE. My edit is according to third party sources.

European Parliament source I added states:[1]

• “whereas there are credible reports of Armenian military and civilians also being taken prisoner since the cessation of hostilities on 10 November 2020; whereas the Azerbaijani authorities claim that these hostages and prisoners are terrorists who do not deserve the status of prisoners of war under the Geneva Convention;”
• “whereas Azerbaijani forces captured these civilians when there was no evidence that they posed any security threat justifying their detention under international humanitarian law;”

Among other sources like HRW, US congress. And the short sentence that you removed in July and today is perfectly DUE for inclusion per my added sources and per the minefield maps exchange that the POWs directly relate to. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 20:08, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Additionally, same Eurasianet agency you cited a source from and from the same author. Per article, it casts a lot of doubt on POWs being labeled 'saboteurs'. It reveals one of the “saboteurs” is actually a civilian. And it also quotes an Armenian human rights activist saying they were taken as hostages. Notably, Maral Najaryan, a recent Lebanese-Armenian emigrant to Shushi in Nagorno-Karabakh who went missing in the last days of the war, was among the detainees. Ani Najaryan, Najaryan's sister, told RFE/Armenian RL's station that she had moved to Karabakh after Beirut's massive explosion. Her Lebanese ancestry has been used by the Azerbaijani media to suggest that she was a "mercenary" fighting for the Armenians.

Even more proof along with EU Parliament of how UNDUE the Az claims are because turns out one of the so-called 'saboteurs' is actually a civilian. So no, we aren't including Aliev's claim, which is the one being WP:UNDUE here. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 20:33, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

I listed a number of whys above, yet you did not consider them. Ok, I will describe my concern in more details:

First, let me quote statement, so to make it clear what we talking about:who were supposed to have been extradited many months ago per the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh ceasefire agreement however they had been illegally kept in Azerbaijan despite being told to release them by many countries and organisations such as the EU and United States.

1. It was original research/SYNTH, and primary sources provided by you ([2], [3] [4]) does not change that, but rather exacerbate it ([5] this one was written before soldiers were detained. Unrelated.). Now I ask you to provide inline citation if you can.
2. "who were supposed to have been extradited many months ago per the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh ceasefire agreement" - Where does it say that 15 released soldiers were expected to be released in accordance with the ceasefire agreement?It is an odd assertion, given that these soldiers were illegally entered to Azerbaijani territory and detained around two months later, after the ceasefire was signed and the exchange of all PoWs was completed. Ceasefire agreement's point for release of detainees was about those who detained during the war, it is not infinite agreement to release anyone at anytime. Show me which source supports that statement?
3. "they had been illegally kept in Azerbaijan" - Vague. illegally according to what? Show me source supporting that statement.
4. Statement in UNDUE (Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, the quantity of text...) because this article is not about POWs, thus we should not go into such a details, because it is impossible to balance aspects then. Providing link to relevant article is the best option.
5. clearly written not in impartial manner.

My suggestion is to remove it entirely and maintain simply a link to the relevant page, however considering your strong desire to keep it, I recommend paraphrasing it as follows: who were detained in Azerbaijan despite calls from a number of countries and organizations for their release. If my proposal is not acceptable to you, we can go for an RFC I guess. A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 19:22, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

The conversation hasn't even begun properly and you're already suggesting an RfC, interesting. I'll address your points one by one with sources all of which were published before 12 June 2021, indicating that call for release happened before the minefield deal and regarding ALL the POWs (stated in RS), including the 15;

• HRW from November 2020 makes it pretty clear that; Azerbaijani authorities should investigate all allegations of ill-treatment and hold those responsible to account. Azerbaijan should also immediately release all remaining POWs and civilian detainees and provide information on the whereabouts of servicemen and civilians whose situation is unknown but were last seen in Azerbaijani custody.
• Vague. illegally according to what? Show me source supporting that statement. - According to Geneva Conventions? According to WP:RS? What? European Parliament, perfectly appropriate; Demands the immediate and unconditional release of all Armenian prisoners, both military and civilian, detained during and after the conflict, and that Azerbaijan refrain from making arbitrary detentions in the future; urges the parties to fully implement the tripartite ceasefire statement of 9 November 2020, which provides for an exchange of prisoners of war, hostages and other detainees, as well as the remains of those killed during hostilities.
• Additionally, Forbes; ...200 POWs detained illegally in Azerbaijan prisons and tortured–there are still hundreds of unaccounted Armenian MIAs..
• DUE because covered in a short sentence relating to the POWs situation and is contextually appropriate as the minefield deal directly revolved around POWs. Reader should be aware of context concisely, and they can always click to read the way broader article.
• "Not impartial" to whom? We write based on third party WP:RS, which clearly support the text.

I suggest you examine reliable sources and I suggest we close this discussion; it sickens me that I have to debate something this evident and vastly reported by third parties/organizations. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 20:53, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

• The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with you, but you still did not provide inline citation I asked. You also did not provide inline citation for "who were supposed to have been extradited many months ago per the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh ceasefire agreement" and "they had been illegally kept in Azerbaijan".
• I still can not see source which verifies that 15 soldiers, which we talking about, should have been released as per ceasefire agreement.
• HRW from November 2020 makes it pretty clear - what exactly HRW makes clear? To what concern if mine this comment is related to?
• According to Geneva Conventions? According to WP:RS? What? European Parliament, perfectly appropriate; - thanks for proving that material is indeed an original research. Wikipedia is not based on the editors personal interpretation of the primary sources. I am looking for source which supports that. As far as Im concerned, and as I described earlier, there is no such source.
• Additionally, Forbes; ...200 POWs detained illegally... - this article is an opinion piece and is not reliable.
• "Not impartial" to whom? We write based on third party WP:RS, which clearly support the text. - To whom?...not impartial in the way I described above, and what third party sources you talking about? So far I can see only bunch of primary sources which does not support the parts of the statement, which I highlighted. That proves that it is an original research (and you did not proved the opposite).

I suggest closing this dispute with "who were detained in Azerbaijan despite calls from a number of countries and organizations for their release. which considers your desire to keep material, while ensuring that original research parts removed and neutral tone maintained. A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 05:32, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

I waiting for your reply. Please provide source and support with inline citation the 1 - 2 - 3 points from this reply. A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 06:46, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Text: "...who were supposed to have been extradited many months ago per the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh ceasefire agreement however they had been illegally kept in Azerbaijan despite being told to release them by many countries and organisations such as the EU and United States"

Sources:

• European Parliament; Demands the immediate and unconditional release of all Armenian prisoners, both military and civilian, detained during and after the conflict, and that Azerbaijan refrain from making arbitrary detentions in the future; urges the parties to fully implement the tripartite ceasefire statement of 9 November 2020, which provides for an exchange of prisoners of war, hostages and other detainees, as well as the remains of those killed during hostilities.
• US Congress; SEC. 13ll. REPORT ON AZERBAIJAN. (a) SENSE OF CONGRESS ON AZERBAIJAN’S ILLEGAL DETENTION OF ARMENIAN PRISONERS OF WAR.—
• Additionally House of Representatives quote; (E) Despite Azerbaijan’s obligations under the Geneva Conventions and their commitments in signing the November statement, long after the end of the conflict, the Government of Azerbaijan continues to detain an estimated 200 Armenian prisoners of war, hostages, and detained 15 persons, misrepresenting their status in an attempt to justify their continued captivity.

WP:PRIMARY doesn’t apply here. Primary doesn't automatically mean unreliable. Per WP:PRIMARY, it is reputably published, by US Congress and EU. It is also a straightforward statement, not an interpretation or analysis. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 02:38, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

1. European Parliament, you cited, even if we do not consider that it is primary source, does not verify that 15 soldiers, which we talking about, should have been released as per ceasefire agreement.

2. US Congress; SEC. 13ll. REPORT ON AZERBAIJAN is an amendment which was introduced, but never passed, and it is a primary source. You cant make a claim based on that.

In order to achieve consensus, I am considering your will to keep the statement (although I believe that link to the relevant article is more than enough). After removing not sourced and original research parts, while also keeping neutrality, this is the best what you can get: who were detained in Azerbaijan despite calls from a number of countries and organizations for their release.. I hope that you will accept as consensus, but if you do not then you can take it to relevant dispute boards as burden and onus lies on you. A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 19:07, 14 September 2022 (UTC)