Talk:Lachin

Common name / page rename

Should this page not be called Berdzor, as this is the common name now used to refer to the town? I would suggest the same for Khojavend/Martuni and Kalbajar/Karvachar but rather than make a post on every talk page I thought I would post here. The road connecting the town to Karabakh is still known as the Lachin corridor in Armenia (I believe) but the town is called Berdzor. Nathan868 (talk) 13:18, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Handed to Azerbaijan

Despite being part of the corridor, it is going to be handed to Azerbaijan.[1] FYI. Beshogur (talk) 16:35, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

The source mentions the Lachin District, not the corridor specifically. Is there any part in the article indicating this that I missed? — CuriousGolden (T·C) 16:39, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

https://news.am/rus/news/615744.html According to Armenian sources it will be handed over to Azerbaijan, one thing is certain Armenian administration will not remain in the town 80.76.168.114 (talk) 07:39, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

While the Lachin district has been scheduled for transfer to Azerbaijan on December 1st as part of the ceasefire agreement, the Lachin corridor (Lachin, Sus, Zabux) is to be secured by Russian peacekeepers and its status remains a bit more unclear. The town of Lachin has not been handed over to Azerbaijan, residents and the mayor remain in Lachin/Berdzor, however, authorities have changed their announcements to residents recently regarding the possibility of staying in the town: [2] [3] [4] AntonSamuel (talk) 07:59, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

@AntonSamuel:, WP:RS. Beshogur (talk) 11:03, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

@Beshogur: The WP:ONUS is on the editor that wishes to make controversial additions to the article - to provide reliable sources supporting them. However, the sources that were provided did not substantiate the claim regarding the town's handover - only the surrounding Lachin district. I simply provided sources here which disputes the claim of the town being handed over. AntonSamuel (talk) 11:08, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

No city will be in Azerbaijan. Today president Aliyev read the signed agreement of 10 November. And he mentioned that new road will be constructed to bypass the city to be the corridor. So Lachin city is completely in Azerbaijjan. Aydan B-va (talk) 12:02, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

@Aydan B-va: As I can see from Liveuamap - this was a new proposal by Aliyev - not a part of the ceasefire deal. [5] You need to provide sources that substantiate that the town has been handed over to Azerbaijan. AntonSamuel (talk) 12:05, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I cannot even access to the link of liveumap, oh what a credible source! You should provide a credible source indicating the city is in Artsakh, can you even provide a source for Fictitious Artsakh?! Aliyev read the agreeement, so the source is the agreement. If it was a lie, other leaders would comment on that. Aydan B-va (talk) 12:09, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

@Aydan B-va: Remember to stay civil, as I mentioned above, those that wish to make controversial changes have the responsibility for providing reliable sources that substantiate the additions on Wikipedia. Here is a direct source for the Aliyev statement: [6], here is another report from an Armenian news service regarding the town most likely staying under Artsakh civil administration, protected by Russian peacekeepers - at least for the next couple of years: [7] AntonSamuel (talk) 12:14, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

You see he says ‘the deadline is indicated here’. I have watched the video, he was indicating the agreement. Armenian news services can say many things. ‘Most likely’ is not credible either. Aydan B-va (talk) 12:19, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

There is no Armenian left there, which kind of civils they will administrate. Aydan B-va (talk) 12:20, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

@Aydan B-va: I can't really understand what you meant with your statement. However I don't believe that this matter is too complicated - in order for us to change the article to indicate that Lachin/Berdzor is under Azerbaijani control (civil or military or both), this needs to be confirmed by reliable, neutral third-party sources per WP:NPOV and WP:RS. AntonSamuel (talk) 12:27, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

@AntonSamuel: AFP journalists saw soldiers raising the Azerbaijani flag over an administrative building in the town of Lachin in the early hours. Beshogur (talk) 12:22, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

@Beshogur: Yes, this was reported on Liveuamap as well: [8] They apparently passed through Lachin/Berdzor and Zabux/Aghavno, hoisted flags and then they left. AntonSamuel (talk) 12:27, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

@AntonSamuel: They apparently passed through Lachin/Berdzor and Zabux/Aghavno, hoisted flags and then they left. come on man, really? Beshogur (talk) 12:28, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I mean @Beshogur provides a link here. You say it is just a flag. I think you should think about what you are even writing. The flag means a lot, it means that there cannot be Fictitious Artsakh there. So change the article, or bring here normal 3d party that can solve the issue. You’re not objective. Aydan B-va (talk) 12:30, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

@Aydan B-va: apparently the journalists taking those picture is saying that. Beshogur (talk) 12:31, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

@Beshogur: Yeah, that's what the Liveuamap report said. However, if there is cause to think that there has been some unexpected turn of events that conflict with the reports I've linked to so far, this can be discussed. However, until the situation clears up a bit more and we get confirmation from third-party sources that the town indeed has been handed over and the Armenian population and administration has been fully evacuated, it's prudent to refrain from altering the article to indicate that it has been handed over to Azerbaijan. AntonSamuel (talk) 12:33, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

But it is not prudent to write that it is de facto under control of ‘artsakh’. No source can prove that. It is handed over Azerbaijan. Since there’re russian peace keepers, we don’t touch that information in the article. So this article misinforms others. Aydan B-va (talk) 13:01, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

That the town of Lachin/Berdzor was under the de facto control of Armenian forces/the Republic of Artsakh before the ceasefire is not controversial - what needs to be proven is that the town and the Lachin corridor would have been turned over to Azeri control - and as far as I have seen with regard to all the sources that have been provided - it hasn't been. AntonSamuel (talk) 13:36, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Then look at the video provided by Ministry of Defence of Azerbaijan. The soldiers say that the flag of Azerbaijan is in the town of Lachin. It seems really funny. The journalists also say that. There is no dispute here. But you cannot cite single source for it being under ‘artsakh’ control. Aydan B-va (talk) 13:58, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

@Aydan B-va: Again, reliable and neutral third-party sources are needed. So far they have not been provided. I believe that I've explained enough at this point. AntonSamuel (talk) 14:02, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Put Disputed tag there then. You don’t have a right to misinform others. Aydan B-va (talk) 14:09, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

@AntonSamuel: It seems that Azerbaijani Ministry of Defence video announcement of the return of Azerbaijan was recorded in the city of Lachin (they also raised a flag over the building in the video). Krummapper has already marked the corridor as Azerbaijani control (1). I imagine the corridor will function like the Meghri corridor in Armenia. Towns/villages will probably be administrated by Azerbaijan, without the Azerbaijani military. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 18:42, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Lachin is neither de facto nor legally controlled by Armenians. Currently, Russian peacekeepers control the city and the territory of the Lachin corridor.--Qolcomaq (talk) 19:25, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Anton Samuel What we need to discuss is that everything is known, whether de facto or juridical.Qolcomaq (talk) 19:30, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

[9] This link also shows that the Azerbaijani flag is raised over administrative building in Lachin town. AFP journalists confirm that which make them 3rd party already. Aydan B-va (talk) 14:56, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

The Al Jazeera article you've linked [10] repeats the same reported uncertainty regarding the status of the corridor that other reports I've linked before also convey:

"Under the agreement, some 2,000 Russian peacekeepers deployed between the two sides and along the Lachin corridor, a 60km (37-mile) route through the district that connects Karabakh’s main city Stepanakert to Armenia."

"Russian military vehicles accompanied Azerbaijani trucks driving along the corridor overnight and were deployed at the main crossroads in Lachin."

"Olesya Vartanyan of the International Crisis Group told AFP that while the handover of the last district signalled that the peace deal was “working”, the new status quo remains “unclear”."

"The Moscow-brokered agreement is very precise when it comes to the territories’ handover, but is ambiguous on a number of aspects such as the mandate of Russian peacekeepers and how the life of the local population, both Armenian and Azerbaijani, will be organised"

AntonSamuel (talk) 15:31, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

The city is certainly not controlled by Armenians. Armenian flags are removed, and Azerbaijani flag was raised over the city administration building. That certainly proves that the city is not controlled by Armenians, and moreover, that it is under at least nominal Azerbaijani control. [11] Grandmaster 22:02, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I've seen the reports from AFP about Azerbaijani troops passing through Lachin and doing a photo-op with flags, featured on Liveuamap as well: [12], about the Artsakh mayor and hundreds of Armenian residents staying in the village as well as the Russians ordering all flags (Armenian and Azerbaijani) to be lowered [13] which casts the claim into doubt about joint Azerbaijani-Russian control of the Lachin corridor. Aliyev made a speech stating that Lachin city is not currently under Azerbaijani control, that his position was that another corridor should be built around the city in the upcoming years [14]. If we can find neutral and reliable third-party sources clearly stating that the Azerbaijanis have control of the Lachin corridor - that is another matter. However, unless there is clear confirmation that Azerbaijan has assumed control over the Lachin corridor and Lachin town in some manner - the status quo should remain. The burden of proof is on those that want to make controversial additions/changes to the article, not the other way around. AntonSamuel (talk) 22:23, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Do you have a source that Lachin is under de-facto Armenian control? On what basis do you make such an assumption? What is your source for that info? I wrote that Lachin is under control of Russian peacekeepers (supported even by sources that you quote), and you changed it to Armenian control. Please explain your edit. Grandmaster 22:32, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

This is not a reliable source: [15] If the Armenian flag is removed, as your own source confirms, how the place could be under Armenian control? That defies logic. Grandmaster 22:34, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Again, the burden of proof is on those that want to make controversial additions/changes to the article, not the other way around. That the town of Lachin was under the de facto control of Armenian forces/the Republic of Artsakh before the ceasefire is not controversial - what needs to be proven is that the town and the Lachin corridor would have been turned over to Azeri control - and as far as I have seen with regard to all the sources that have been provided - it hasn't been. What I reverted was the edits on the Lachin corridor articles that removed the mention of Artsakh de facto control and a indicated a handover to Azerbaijan without proper neutral and reliable sources. AFP is certainly a reliable source, and is listed as such here: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources AntonSamuel (talk) 22:40, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

The burden of proof is on anyone supporting certain information in the article. If you claim Armenian control, please provide your source. If you don't have a source for that claim, it should go. Grandmaster 22:42, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I've never disputed that the situation remains unclear at the moment - if you wish to add further clarification of the ambiguity that exists right now regarding what the exact state of affairs is with regard to the de facto civil/military administration, go ahead. Regarding sources for the mayor and residents staying behind, I've given one Armenian news source [16], here is another [17], this French news source [18] also discusses the matter of the lack of clarity regarding borders in NK/Artsakh in general at the moment. I will continue to look for information as the situation develops further. AntonSamuel (talk) 22:57, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

If it is unclear, how can you claim that it is under Armenian control? Where's logic? And where's you source for Armenian control? If Armenian mayor stayed there, it does not mean that he has powers, he is just a private person now. The only thing that is certain is that the town is under the control of Russian peacekeepers, and that is the only info that should be in the article. Grandmaster 23:00, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

The logic: I have not seen any reports of a Russian or Azerbaijani takeover of the civilian administration of Lachin, Sus and Zabux. Therefore, even if flags have been lowered at the municipality building in Lachin - if any civilian governmental services are provided within the Lachin corridor region for the population that remains - they are most likely provided by Artsakh/Armenia, since at least some of their administration remains. AntonSamuel (talk) 23:06, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

That certainly does not mean control, because it is not even known if that mayor provides any services. And since you have no source for Armenian control, that info cannot remain. The only thing that we can confirm with reliable sources is that Russian peacekeepers patrol the road in the town. And that is the only thing that we can include with the reference to reliable sources. Any personal assumptions as to who has de-facto control cannot be included. Grandmaster 23:16, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I think this is one of the clearest summaries of situation and the lack of clarity that exists right now: [19] “The [ceasefire] agreement makes clear that they can live here indefinitely,” Alaverdian told RFE/RL’s Armenaian Service. “There are no questions about the civilian population. There is a little uncertainty about local government bodies but I think that will be cleared up in the coming days.” "Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev said, meanwhile, that Baku intends to regain control of the town as well and will therefore seek the construction of a new Armenia-Karabakh road section bypassing it."AntonSamuel (talk) 23:37, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Here is the article in Armenian [20] with a clip with the head of the Kashatagh Province, Mushegh Alaverdian in Lachin: [21] with Azeri military vehicles being escorted through the town, as well as scenes of the civilian population. AntonSamuel (talk) 23:49, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Those sources do not say anything about Armenian control. Quite the contrary, that person has no idea what's gonna happen. How could that be used to support a claim for Armenian de-facto control? Grandmaster 23:52, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

It shows continued operation and presence of the Artsakh civilian government in the Lachin corridor to some extent. AntonSamuel (talk) 23:55, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

It does not. It just shows one confused guy hanging around and having no idea who he is now. Grandmaster 00:09, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Well I certainly do not agree with that assessment, from what I've seen so far it seems that the probable state of affairs currently is that the Artsakh administration continues to operate to at least to some degree. AntonSamuel (talk) 00:24, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Btw, Putin's spokesman Peskov has just said that there's "no one in charge" in Karabakh, and Russia coordinates its actions with Azerbaijan and Armenia. That pretty much means that so called "NKR" is gone. Moreover, he said that the status of NK is determined by UN SC resolutions, and as you know they say that NK is part of Azerbaijan.

Говоря о том, с кем свои действия согласовывают российские миротворцы в Карабахе, Песков сказал, что там «нет главного», а есть две конфликтующие стороны — Армения и Азербайджан. «Это стороны, которые вместе с российской стороной подписали известное заявление — Путина–Алиева–Пашиняна, и во исполнение положения этого заявления российские военные, а также российская гуманитарная миссия, которая состоит не только из военных, координируют свои действия и с азербайджанцами, и с армянами», — заключил пресс-секретарь. 22 ноября Путин заявил, что Армения не признала независимость непризнанной Нагорно-Карабахской Республики (НКР) и с точки зрения международного права земли принадлежат Азербайджану. [22]

Grandmaster 15:56, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

No, that's definitely a stretch - the Artsakh administration continues to function, both its civilian and its military branches. Artsakh authorities are also conducting regular meetings with Russian representatives. Some examples here: [23] [24] Russia's and the international community's official position stays the same with regard to the territorial integrity of states, that NK is de jure part of Azerbaijan. However, politicians like Putin might take the diplomatic "high road" with regard to official statements, but in reality, the policies they pursue and the actions they take may be quite different. For example, Russia and the US also both cooperate intensely with the Kurdish-led Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria, while neither recognizes it as a de jure autonomous region or state officially. AntonSamuel (talk) 16:10, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I have added new link from MoD of Azerbaijan which they released yesterday. It is the video from Lachin city or town. So we are still disputing it. It is highly controversial to keep it like de facto Artsakh. For this reason, I put disputed inline there which directs here. And a user delete it. What is the purpose of dispute tag then? I see there is too much pro-armenian propaganda here rather than informing readers. Aydan B-va (talk) 21:12, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen that video showing Azerbaijani soldiers doing a photo-op on their way through Lachin with a Russian escort [25] before, it's also been mentioned in this thread. An AFP journalist present at the time stated that "Azerbaijani soldiers make a quick stop in Lachin to take a few pics, then leave." [26] You can see that it's the same location, with the same billboards. That the Azerbaijani soliders passed through with a Russian escort was also reported by France24: [27] AntonSamuel (talk) 21:27, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

This is not a reliable source. It was not a photo op, Azerbaijani soldiers do not leave after they raised the flag, even though Armenian government claimed that. Wherever Azerbaijani flag was raised it still flies. France24 does not say that Azerbaijani troops left Lachin. Have you noticed that you are the only one claiming de-facto Armenian control, while there are at least 5 other editors who disagree with you? At this point what you do is a violation of WP:DIS and WP:CON. Grandmaster 23:26, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I'll also welcome input from administrators and other editors regarding the issue through the RFC. AFP which Liveuamap referenced, is a reliable source. I've stated that I consider it likely that more information will come to light in the coming days, which will clear things up much more about the situation on the ground in the Lachin corridor.

I believe that the articles regarding the Lachin corridor should be based on certain facts. To use a relevant example: In the Kurdish-led Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria, some parts along the border with Turkey have been under full Russian/SAA military control since the 2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria and there have also been regular Turkish-Russian patrols in this area. However, the Kurdish civilian administration remains and continues to operate, including their own armed police force. It is therefore incorrect to remove any mention of it when discussing issues such as de facto and de jure, if there isn't clear evidence that it has been dismantled and replaced, and when there is proof, or at least strong indication in the strictest sense, of its continued activity. If there is a persistent lack of clarity or ambiguity with regard to control - then that should be described in the article to provide the readers with the full picture of the situation.

I've reverted edits to the Lachin corridor articles which I considered to be problematic in that regard and have discussed it with the editors on their talk pages and here. The role of Wikipedia is to convey the situation on the ground, I've argued why I consider it to be likely from the information that is available that the town is to some degree still under civil Artsakh control/administration.

If there is clear confirmation available which states that the town is under Russian/joint Russian-Azeri/Azeri civil and/or military control or that the Artsakh administration has been dismantled, I'm more than willing to review it. Regarding WP:CONSENSUS, I'm sure you're also familiar with its basic description: "Decisions on Wikipedia are primarily made by consensus, which is accepted as the best method to achieve Wikipedia's goals, i.e., the five pillars. Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which is ideal but not always achievable), nor is it the result of a vote. Decision making and reaching consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines."

AntonSamuel (talk) 00:16, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Here is a recent article from an Armenian news outlet, with an interview of the Artsakh mayor of Lachin/Berdzor: [28], with him stating that the administration of the town is Armenian, he (the mayor) and the head of the regional administration are present in the town, hundreds of residents remain, Russian peacekeepers are guarding the corridor, Azerbaijani soldiers pass through the corridor, escorted by the Russians. I'm sure third-party sources will turn up as well before long, either confirming or denying this description of the situation on the ground. AntonSamuel (talk) 00:36, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Here's another source: According to the terms of the trilateral agreement, the Lachin Corridor is an area 5 kilometers wide, the Azerbaijani army is not allowed to enter the area and it should remain under the control of the Russian peacekeeping forces. [29] The same source says that despite that Azerbaijani army entered the town, and Armenian flag was removed. Here it says that the corridor is controlled by Russian peacekeepers: But the question of the settlements located along the Lachin corridor controlled by Russian peacekeepers remains open. [30] Grandmaster 01:09, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

And this is an official statement from Russian MOD spokesman Igor Konashenkov: Российскими миротворцами контролируется Лачинский коридор шириной пять километров. The 5-kilometer-wide Lachin corridor is under the control of Russian peacekeepers. [31] It is quite obvious that the corridor and the town are under the control of the Russian peacekeepers. Grandmaster 01:20, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

RFC

I would appreciate third party input into discussion about who actually controls the town of Lachin at the moment. There's a discussion about that right above this section. Grandmaster 20:59, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

It might help if the most relevant sources presented at various points above are collected here for ease of reference in this RfC. Given there was just a war, one would expect it's a bit in flux at the moment. CMD (talk) 03:20, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree that situation is fluid, but one thing that is not going to change is that Lachin corridor (which includes the town of Lachin, thus the name) will remain under the control of Russian peacekeepers, since that was a part of the ceasefire agreement. There's a vast amount of sources to support this information, please see below just a few:

According to the terms of the trilateral agreement, the Lachin Corridor is an area 5 kilometers wide, the Azerbaijani army is not allowed to enter the area and it should remain under the control of the Russian peacekeeping forces. [32] The same source says that despite that Azerbaijani army entered the town, and Armenian flag was removed. Here it says that the corridor is controlled by Russian peacekeepers: But the question of the settlements located along the Lachin corridor controlled by Russian peacekeepers remains open. [33]

And this is an official statement from the Russian MOD spokesman general Igor Konashenkov: Российскими миротворцами контролируется Лачинский коридор шириной пять километров. The 5-kilometer-wide Lachin corridor is under the control of Russian peacekeepers. [34]

Another source, AFP: Under the agreement, some 2,000 Russian peacekeepers deployed between the two sides and along the Lachin corridor, a 60-kilometre (35-mile) route through the district that connects Karabakh's main city Stepanakert to Armenia. [35]

This is an easily verifiable info from multiple sources, and yet AntonSamuel (talk · contribs) reverts my edit about the corridor being under the control of Russian peacekeepers while failing to provide a single reliable source attesting to the contrary. [36] He claims that Lachin corridor and the town of Lachin are under de-facto control of separatist regime, even though not a single reliable third party source confirms that. In the discussion above 5 different editors told him that he was wrong, and another one said so here: [37], yet we are still having this discussion. Thank you for your help. Grandmaster 09:57, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I can summarize what I've argued so far regarding the situation and I welcome input from administrators and other editors regarding this issue. I've stated that I consider it likely that more information will come to light in the coming days, which will clear things up much more about the situation on the ground in the Lachin corridor, if there is need for further clarification of the ambiguity that exists right now regarding what the exact state of affairs is with regard to the de facto civil/military administration, that's fine with me.

Generally about the issue, a relevant comparison: I believe that the articles regarding the Lachin corridor should be based on certain facts. I've used a relevant example for comparison: In the Kurdish-led Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria, some parts along the border with Turkey have been under full Russian/SAA military control since the 2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria and there have also been regular Turkish-Russian patrols in this area. However, the Kurdish civilian administration remains and continues to operate, including their own armed police force. It is therefore incorrect to remove any mention of it when describing the de facto situation in the area, if there isn't clear evidence that it has been dismantled and replaced, and when there is proof, or at least strong indication, of its continued activity. If there is ambiguity with regard to control - then that should be described in the article to provide the readers with the full picture of the situation.

I've reverted edits to the Lachin corridor articles which I considered to be problematic in that regard, that they've removed the mention of the de facto control by the breakaway Republic of Artsakh without sufficient justification, and I've discussed it with the editors on their talk pages and here. I've argued why I consider it to be likely from the information that is available that the town is to some degree still under civil Artsakh control/administration.

Azerbaijani soldiers passing through Lachin: There was a report from AFP about Azerbaijani troops passing through Lachin with a Russian escort and doing a photo-op with flags that was featured on Liveuamap, with an AFP journalist present at the time stated that "Azerbaijani soldiers make a quick stop in Lachin to take a few pics, then leave.": [38] The video released by the Azerbaijani military [39] is at the the same location, with the same billboards. That the Azerbaijani soldiers passed through Lachin with a Russian escort was also reported by France24: [40] The Russians have ordered all flags to be lowered in the corridor, while some Russian flags are present [41] which casts the claim about joint Azerbaijani-Russian control of the Lachin corridor into doubt. Grandmaster argued that Azerbaijani soldiers raised their flag in Lachin and did not leave: "Azerbaijani soldiers do not leave after they raised the flag, even though Armenian government claimed that. Wherever Azerbaijani flag was raised it still flies.". Ilham Aliyev, the Azerbaijani president made a speech stating that Lachin city is not currently under Azerbaijani control, that his position is that another corridor should be built around the city in the upcoming years [42].

The status of the Lachin corridor: The Lachin corridor (Lachin, Sus, Zabux) has been secured by Russian peacekeepers, however its status remains a bit unclear. The town of Lachin has not been handed over to Azerbaijan, residents remain in Lachin/Berdzor, however, authorities changed their announcements to residents, first urging them to evacuate, then giving the go ahead to stay: [43] [44] Armenian and other news sources have reported about the town most likely staying under Artsakh civil administration, protected by Russian peacekeepers - at least for the next couple of years, and that they mayor and the head of the Artsakh Kashatagh Province remaining in the city: [45] [46] [47] [48]

The Armenian branch of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty provided a good summary of the lack of clarity that exists right now: [49] “The [ceasefire] agreement makes clear that they can live here indefinitely,” Alaverdian told RFE/RL’s Armenaian Service. “There are no questions about the civilian population. There is a little uncertainty about local government bodies but I think that will be cleared up in the coming days.” "Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev said, meanwhile, that Baku intends to regain control of the town as well and will therefore seek the construction of a new Armenia-Karabakh road section bypassing it."

Grandmaster also argued that the Republic of Artsakh/Nagorno-Karabakh Republic has ceased to be: "Putin's spokesman Peskov has just said that there's "no one in charge" in Karabakh, and Russia coordinates its actions with Azerbaijan and Armenia. That pretty much means that so called "NKR" is gone" - I argued that this is quite unfounded in that the Artsakh administration continues to function, both its civilian and its military branches. Artsakh authorities are also conducting regular meetings with Russian representatives. Some examples here: [50] [51]

In a recent article with an Armenian news outlet, the Artsakh mayor of Lachin/Berdzor, Narek Alexanyan, was inteviewed: [52], with him stating that the administration of the town is Armenian, he (the mayor) and the head of the regional administration (Kashatagh Province), Mushegh Alaverdyan, are present in the town, hundreds of residents remain, Russian peacekeepers are guarding the corridor and that Azerbaijani soldiers pass through the corridor, escorted by the Russians.

I'm sure more reports from third-party sources will turn up in the coming days which will further clarify the situation on the ground.

AntonSamuel (talk) 11:17, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Perhaps people are talking past each other due to different meanings of the word control. In general peacekeepers do not take on administrative functions, so there are distinctions to be made. On those sources, the JAM news article seems to provide a reasonable overview of the situation as it stands, suggesting the issue is not that clear but that most if not all of the civilian population of the corridor has been evacuated. Leads can be tricky to write in the best of times, and we're literally within a week of the Lachin handover, so I think it might help in the mean time if relevant information is added to the article body as information comes in from reliable sources. Is the discussion entirely about that one revert? CMD (talk) 11:21, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

  It pretty much is about that revert. We can say that Armenian or Azerbaijani presence in Lachin could be a subject for discussion, but the presence of the Russian peacekeepers in Lachin is an undeniable fact, confirmed by multiple sources and even video evidence. All news channels show Russian troops patrolling Lachin. However there's no evidence to suggest that Lachin is "de facto under the occupation of the self-proclaimed Republic of Artsakh since 1992 as part of its Kashatagh Province". First of, there was no legally recognized Kashatagh, but leaving that aside, even if we assume that it was, it is no more, because all parts of it are taken over by Azerbaijani army, except for Lachin corridor, taken over by the Russians. I believe an encyclopedia should provide an accurate information, and the way that it is presented now is very misleading. And as you suggested, all that info is already in the main body of the article, it just remains to summarize it in the lead. Again, there's not a single source to support that there's a de-facto Armenian control in the town, no matter how we interpret the meaning of "control". But Russian control is supported by almost every source reporting on the conflict. Grandmaster 13:52, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

• While the district itself is under Azerbaijani control now, the news footage I've seen recently shows the town under peacekeeprs' control only, with no Azerbaijani troops. Also, had Azerbaijani troops actually entered the town, it would have been in the news. My understanding of the agreement in that regard is that the town forms the part of the Lachin corridor and as such remains under peacekeepers' exclusive control (but this may change in the near future). Brandmeister^talk 16:45, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
• This is all very premature There is a rush to judgement. There is insufficient information. The situation is too fluid. The eagerness of Azeri/Turkish editors to indulge in prurient triumphalism is quite unseemly. There is no need to make definitive pronouncements at this point in time. Wait another month until things settle down. Until then, let @AntonSamuel: and his neutral edits stay. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:20, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

  Highly agree with this. Why all this trouble when we we'll get a more clear answer in a month or two. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:28, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

  If Russian peacekeepers control is reported in every source, then how it could be premature? You can say that Azerbaijani or Armenian control is unclear, but Russian control is an undisputed fact. Therefore it should be mentioned in the lead, and everything else should be removed. Unless of course you can provide a source to question Russian control. Grandmaster 19:52, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

  Why wait a month or two to state an undisputed fact? Quite the contrary, we must keep the article up to date. Grandmaster 19:55, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

• A useful interim measure may be to put the contested sentence into the past tense. If it turns out to still be true, it can be changed back, but there's no doubt that at the very least the war will have reshaped the Artsakh provincial structure. At the same time I'd switch the first and second sentences, per current significance. CMD (talk) 11:07, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

  I agree, that would make sense. But I did not understand what you mean by first and second sentences. Could you please post here your proposed version of the text? Grandmaster 16:00, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

  The simplest switch keeping the most existing text: "Lachin...is a town within the strategic Lachin corridor, which connects Nagorno-Karabakh with Armenia, and is under the supervision of the Russian peacekeeping force following the ceasefire agreement, ending the Second Nagorno-Karabakh war. The de jure centre of the Lachin District of Azerbaijan, is was de facto under the occupation of the self-proclaimed Republic of Artsakh from 1992 to 2020 as part of its Kashatagh Province." I'd reword to remove latin terms, replace Nagorno-Karabakh with Artsakh, and replace "centre" too, but those are separate points. CMD (talk) 16:17, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

  Nagorno-Karabakh can't be replaced with Artsakh since they're 2 different things. The corridor was a thing before the 2020 war when Artsakh controlled Kalbajar road to Armenia too, so it wasn't the only connection of Armenia and Artsakh. While Lachin corridor's whole point is the fact that it connects the enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh geographic region to Armenia. Though, I do agree with the rest of your points. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 16:24, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

  I personally have similar feelings regarding the term Nagorno-Karabakh, but Wikipedia has a Nagorno-Karabakh article which covers it as a region with multiple meanings. CMD (talk) 16:37, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

  It is Ok the way you proposed, but I would keep Nagorno-Karabakh. It is internationally accepted name for the region, used by all international organizations. Grandmaster 20:43, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

  Shall we go ahead and implement the changes as discusses? Grandmaster 23:30, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

  I amended the intro as discussed above. Grandmaster 20:50, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Looting

Note: the following diffs are disputed: [08:45, Nov 5][02:47, Oct 31][10:06, Oct 30][05:32, Oct 30][08:34, Oct 29][02:24, Oct 29] --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 17:58, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Steverci and ZaniGiovanni, please explain removal of the following texts:

Those texts are supported by reliable sources, which you removed. In particular, you deleted reference to this article, claiming that you cannot find information about this journalist. Could show me a rule that requires availability of information about every journalist whose work is used as a reference? I don't want to waste community time by taking this to WP:DRN as well. So please explain your removals here. Grandmaster 09:28, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

This is a very obvious case of WP:SOAPBOX not relevant to the overall subject of the article. The looting is already mentioned and does not need to go into explicit detail, especially from journalists speaking in a sensationalist tone. Brock's article is quite poorly written; he briefly summarizes the war starting when "Nagorno-Karabakh’s Armenians finally rose up" and makes no mention of the Askeran clash and Sumgait pogrom. --Steverci (talk) 02:49, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't see why looting and burning cannot be described in more detail. It is not sensationalist details, the journalists described what they saw, and you remove multiple reliable sources. And I don't see how Brock's article is poorly written. It is a report from a war zone, he does not have to report every event that happened in the past. Not a reason for removal of a third party source. Grandmaster 09:06, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Because it's undue and not encyclopedic to include every single known WP:PRIMARY source. Brock writes for Maclean's, a Canadian pop culture magazine meant to "entertain but also inspire its readers". And the fact there is no other information about him, not even another Maclean's webpage, is further indication he is not very credible. --Steverci (talk) 02:32, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

You removed large chunks of text taken from 3 different sources. The Guardian is a very reputable source, and Steele is an award winning journalist. Maclean's is not a pop-culture magazine, it extensively covers international affairs: [53] And there is no requirement in wiki rules that biography of every news reporter should be available on the Internet. Grandmaster 09:07, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Because the History section spans about 3000 years and descriptions of furniture and refrigerators are not relevant to the wider subject of the article. There could be thousands of eye witnesses, and we simply don't have to room to include all of their personal recollections, nor is that what Wikipedia is for. Maclean's has an enormous Controversy section and has literally been called sensationalist by Jean Charest. --Steverci (talk) 02:22, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Grandmaster you restored your recent additions, but the questions raised by Stevereci previously remain valid: How are furniture and refrigerator descriptions valid to be included in a section that has over 3000 years old history? As pointed out above, there could be thousands of eyewitnesses, are we ought to include every personal recollections? How do these serve encyclopedic purposes? And again, Maclean has an enormous controversy section. I'm going to ask for a third opinion, judging from this conversation, it should've been done earlier. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 09:34, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

It is included in the section about first Karabakh war. What does it have to do with 3000 years of history, I don't understand. Eyewiteness testimonies from 3 different foreign journalists have a direct relation to the occupation of the town in 1992. And Macleans is a reliable source, even the closing admin at AE said that: [54] Every news source has a controversy section. I don't mind if this is taken to dispute resolution. Grandmaster 09:44, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Just because no one noticed in another article's section or opened a discussion about it, doesn't mean it's a valid inclusion or serves encyclopedic purposes here. Again fridges/refrigerator descriptions are unnecessary details in a history section, in a section with over 3000 years of history, how in the hell it adds importance or relevancy to the article? Closing admin's opinion isn't some final nail btw, Maclean still has a significant controversy section, and if needed I'll take it to RSN. If we ought to include every eyewitness personal account, how in any scenario it adds encyclopedic improvement or purpose to the article? ZaniGiovanni (talk) 10:09, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I took this to WP:THIRD. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 10:22, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

That is OK, an outside opinion might be useful. And 3000 years of history is not a valid argument. Every period has its own section, and first war has nothing to do with the ancient history, which btw deserves a separate consideration, because there are quite a few questionable sources there. And New York Times also has a big controversy section, it does not make it unreliable. In fact, every major news outlet has been involved in some controversy, that in itself is not a reason to dismiss them. Grandmaster 10:36, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

How is it looting if you own the goods? If you move your chicken from your house to another house in a safer country, is that looting? Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:31, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

If you take someone else's chicken, it is looting. But most importantly, the sources call it looting. Many of the looters came from Armenia, and looted goods were shipped there. The titles of news reports speak for themselves: "Armenia's looters follow its troops into Azerbaijan", or "Armenian looters burn down village". Grandmaster 13:41, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Also, destruction of the entire town is one of the most significant events, if not the most significant event in the history of the town. It cannot be reduced to a short mention that it was looted in burned in 1992. We need to provide a detailed information on how exactly it happened. Grandmaster 15:10, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

The reporter asked the man with the chicken under his arm if he was the owner of that chicken? O r did the reporter assume that all stuff in a war zone is war / crime? If a man wants to burn his own house and it presents non danger to his neighbour's house, isn't he entitled to do it? Do reporters ask people setting fire to houses if they happen to own those houses? Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:03, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Do you think Armenians came to Lachin with their own chicken? Lachin had no Armenian population before 1992. And we should not engage in original research. We can only write what the sources say. Grandmaster 16:25, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

WP:OR is bad. But blind belief in sources that fail to look into basic questions is also bad. Skepticism about sources is good, especially when it concerns sources with improbable conclusions about men with chickens under their arms. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:48, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that is not how Wikipedia works. Especially when we have multiple sources that say the same thing. Grandmaster 18:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

This discussion is becoming fruitless; whether to include details on looting or not is a subject to consensus; regards AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 19:18, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Sources

The sources attributed to the following two statements below (as of [10:40, November 5, 2021] version) don't ​support them. I propose to either remove both or bring relevant sources. Your opinion on that? --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 19:04, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Following the city's capture by Armenian forces, it was looted and burned down …

This one above refers to a Russian source; I'm native in Russian and it says that a whole Nagorno-Karabakh was looted, not just Lachin. It says that in a background context. --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 19:04, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

… and all of its original 7,800 Azerbaijani and Kurdish populations became internally displaced people as a result of forceful deportations. …

This one talks about region, not a city; it also refers to some unnamed official, that hardly makes it a WP:RS (I don't dispute that the looting took place tho):

… 28 il əvvəl işğal zamanı 13745 yaşayış evi qarət edilərək yandırılıb, ümumilikdə, Laçın rayonuna 7.1 milyard ABŞ dollarından çox ziyan dəyib, Laçın rəsmiləri bildirib. …

AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 19:04, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for your comment, much appreciated. Regarding BBC Russian, it actually does say that Lachin was burned by Armenians: Азербайджанское население тогда, в 1992-м, бежало из Лачина, а армяне сожгли город. Back then, in 1992, the Azerbaijani population fled Lachin, and Armenians burned the town. And we have many more third party sources on looting and burning. Regarding BBC Azerbaijani, I agree, it does indeed discuss the population of the entire district that was expelled, but not the town in particular. Better source is needed, on the other hand it is quite obvious from other sources that the Azerbaijani-Kurdish population was expelled before looting and burning took place. BBC Russian further says: Затем они (армяне) частично отстроили и заселили (до первой войны в городке жили семь-восемь тысяч азербайджанцев, перед второй - около двух тысяч армян) и переименовали его в Бердзор. Then they (the Armenians) partially rebuilt and resettled it (before the first war, seven to eight thousand Azerbaijanis lived in the town, before the second - about two thousand Armenians) and renamed it to Berdzor. So this I believe actually supports the claim that about 7-8000 Azerbaijani population was expelled or fled, and was replaced by 2000 Armenians. Grandmaster 19:42, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't say it was looted, just drop this. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 23:37, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I replaced it with another source. I hope that solves it. Grandmaster 01:11, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I would propose to summarize on looting in few words, without going into much details... AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 01:46, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Alexander Davronov Agreed. Unnecessary about fridges, household items and whatnot, that doesn't serve encyclopedic purposes. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 08:06, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I shortened that part. Left just a general description, without details of what kind of items the looters stole. Grandmaster 08:33, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Why did you entirely remove what the Armenian sergeant (which you erroneously referred to as a policeman) had told the British journalist? You also added the original research of all the supplies being moved to Armenia, when the British journalists reported citizens of Stepanakert seeking supplies after being victims of shelling.

Unfortunately, it seems James J. Coyle is not a third-party source. Coyle is a "pen prostitute"[55] for Azerbaijan, as Armenian academic Simon Maghakyan put it, and he also provided evidence for Coyle's clear bias. Coyle isn't even well known and he already has critics, thus he is no where near "third-party".

On page 3 of "Russia's interventions in ethnic conflicts", Coyle writes, "In Nagorno-Karabakh, however, Armenians are relatively recent arrivals. They trace their origins in the area to the 1828 Treaty of Turkmenchay." And he cites a book called "Azerbaijan: A Political History" to claim this. Apparently he never heard of the historical province of Artsakh or the Kingdom of Artsakh. Someone this incredibly ignorant could never be considered reliable or third-party. He also makes frequent citations for Svante Cornell, a more well-known 'pen prostitute' who has been widely criticized by real third-parties for being Azerbaijan's mouthpiece.

About the Askeran clash that Azerbaijanis instigated which led to two of them dying, Coyle claims the Azerbaijanis were "furious but restrained themselves from retaliating", a very different description from the "wreaking destruction en route" provided by Fuller and Kaufman. Apparently Coyle denies a connection with the clashes and the Sumgait pogrom, about which he provides very little description of the actual pogrom and instead talks about individual stories of Azeris apparently helping Armenians, and devotes more than half of his coverage of the Sumgait pogrom to Azerbaijani conspiracy theories blaming the pogroms on either Armenians or Russians. I could go on longer for every page of the book, but it's already very obvious it's not reliable. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 07:11, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Opinion of a policeman or sergeant cannot be taken at a face value. He might have lied. And journalists actually say that most looters came from Armenia, and not from Karabakh. British reporters say that there were two kind of looters, one was what was described as "mafia bounty-seekers", and the other was a poor elderly couple from Stepanakert. But most of the loot was taken to Armenia by trucks. Regarding Coyle, we may replace him with any other source, but the fact that Azerbaijani and Kurdish population was expelled is a general knowledge, and cannot be questioned, so Coyle does not write anything extraordinary. You actually did not shorten the description, but added unnecessary detail about statement of a policeman who is not an important witness, and whose claim cannot be trusted. Now half of the description looks like an apology for the looting. Btw, I found more sources on what happened in Lachin after it fell to Armenian forces. Maybe we need a separate article on the capture of Lachin. Grandmaster 08:32, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

The same possibility of lying could be true for any of the journalists, but they felt the need to include it in their reports and did not write anything to cast doubt on the sergeant. That seems to be entirely your own personal bias. If we’re going to include all these detailed descriptions of furniture or scarred cars, it’s only fair not to be selective about what is included. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 19:29, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

This is from the Washington Post. The reporter visited Lachin in 1996. It lied in ruins back then.

The Iranian trucks drive through Armenia, then cross into the barren lands that the Karabakh Armenians occupy. Soon they are grinding uphill toward Lachin, a largely deserted town once populated by Azerbaijanis and Kurds. The abandoned stone houses of Lachin, roofless and overgrown with weeds, bear witness to a festering legacy of the war, the tide of refugees. Hundreds of thousands of Azerbaijanis fled the advancing Karabakh forces, while hundreds of thousands of Armenians fled Azerbaijan.

Hoffman, David. Karabakh Smooths Its Lifeline; With War Suspended, Enclave in Azerbaijan Widens Link to Armenia. The Washington Post. 19 Sep 1996

This could replace Coyle. Grandmaster 17:22, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

You can add the Kurds back if you want, but this source proves the Azeris fled ahead of time, not that they were “forcibly deported”. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 19:29, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

They fled not because they wanted to, but to avoid physical extermination. But I think the present version is more or less Ok. Grandmaster 20:03, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

@Grandmaster: […] This could replace Coyle. Please, provide a direct link next time, don't omit the context of the quote. This time l do it for you: KARABAKH SMOOTHS ITS LIFELINE By David HoffmanSeptember 19, 1996
All these first-hand reports are WP:PRIMARY. Even though some of them are fine with attributing words in the right WP:RSCONTEXT, from a more wide point of view given the highly contentious and long-standing Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict topic (that you are fully aware of: WP:ARBAA2#Statement by User:Grandmaster) I would strongly encourage to stick to WP:SECONDARY sources in laying out the reliable picture. Otherwise it's purely speculative compilation of claims. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 15:40, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I was not aware WP text was available online. I found it in a library. As for other sources, according to the WP:NEWSORG, News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact. In our case, we have multiple well-established sources reporting the same thing. So in this particular situation, no secondary source is required. Grandmaster 17:14, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

The WP:SECONDARY are preferred per reasons above and I will request them, agree or disagree; otherwise you risk to breach WP:POVPUSH or WP:OR. Regarding news: this is decided on case-by-case basis. Application of this provision depends on the text you are trying to support by the source. You haven't clarified any yet. The [56] doesn't support looting in Lachin for sure. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 17:33, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

More sources on looting:

Bloodshed in the Caucasus. Escalation of the Armed Conflict in Nagorno Karabakh. September 1992. Human Rights Watch/Helsinki:

Western press reports from the region described the burning and looting of Azerbaijani houses in Lachin by Armenian self defense forces.

Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Report Submitted to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, U.S. House of Representatives and Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate by the Department of State in Accordance with Sections 116(d) and 502B(b) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as Amended, Volumes 8-15:

By June 1992, ethnic Armenians had expelled all ethnic Azerbaijanis from the Nagorno-Karabakh region and had opened a corridor to Armenia through the Azer­baijani region of Lachin, which had a substantial Kurdish population. In 1993 they captured the province of Kelbacar, which lies between Nagorno-Karabakh and Armenian, as well as large areas surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh. They drove out the inhabitants and looted and burned the provincial capitals and most of the villages of these regions.

Francesco Buffa. A journey trough countries and history: A century of historical events as seen by the European court of human rights:

On 17 May 1992, realising that troops were advancing rapidly towards Lachin, villagers fled. The following day the town of Lachin was captured by forces of Armenian ethnicity. It appears that the town was looted and burned in the days following the takeover.

Grandmaster 18:02, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I propose to use the following source as basis as I think it's more balanced in terms of parties involvement into violence in both Shusha and Lachin: Humans Rights Watch: Escalation of the Armed Conflict in Nagorno Karabakh (the same); I stand by my point of providing short summary instead of verbatim listing all details. Regards. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 19:20, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree that this source should be used. HRW is perfectly neutral and known to document all human rights abuses, regardless of who committed it. Regarding details, destruction of Lachin is arguably the most important event in its history. We need to dedicate some space to explain what exactly happened. The present description is actually very short, only 3 lines, except for these 2 lines: An Armenian sergeant said to the British journalists the looting was done because the Azerbaijanis had previously pillaged 23 villages. Among the Armenian looters there also were civilians from Stepanakert, which had been shelled by the Azerbaijanis for eight months and had been without light and water for several weeks. These apologist lines take half the space dedicated to this issue. I think the opinion of the policeman is not notable and not verifiable, so it should go. And the second line describes one elderly couple, it can also be removed or shortened. But I think it is an important detail that most looters came from Armenia, and that is where the stolen goods were taken. And it is also important to note what condition the town was left in after its occupation. If you have a better wording in mind, let's discuss. Grandmaster 08:46, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

… important detail that most looters came from Armenia … Assuming that Lachin was severely damaged and given that it was left by Azerbaijanis in advance, how there was anything to loot on? You can bring WP:SECONDARY source to resolve this contradiction?
An Armenian sergeant said … the looting was done because the Azerbaijanis had previously pillaged 23 villages
I propose to remove hearsay from "Sergeant"' on looting and burning until WP:SECONDARY source is provided.

… destruction of Lachin is arguably the most important event … The most important event here is takeover of the corridor as Shusha and Lachin are a strategic pathway linking two polities. This explains heavy fighting and its consequences (in both, 1992 and 2020 offensives). AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 15:02, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

People left the very last moment. They could not take anything with them, that is why all their property was left behind. And the town was not severely damaged in fighting, it was almost intact, there was no major battle there. Also, all primary and secondary sources mention looting and burning, so there cannot be any reasonable doubt that the looting took place, since this is corroborated by multiple sources. So there is no contradiction here. Regarding significance, I'm talking about the significance in the history of this particular town. Obviously, the town is important because of its location on the road between Armenia and Karabakh, but this article is about the town, not the region in general. Also, the Canadian journalist visited the town in August 1993, i.e. about one year after it was taken by Armenian forces. By that time, it was completely ruined. Grandmaster 16:53, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Here is another report, the journalist saw looters coming from Armenia, and no fighting in the town at the time of the looting.

Grandmaster 17:23, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Let's go date by date.

May 17, 1992 - Armenian forces are in control of the Lachin. A day later "heavy combat" is reported.[57] (questionable)

May 31, 1992 - «Looters» «from across border in Armenia streamed». [58].

Aug 31, 1992 - Canadian jorno publish his account (he probably seen events much earlier, as it took time to deliver report).[59]

The words from the Sun Sentinel [Chicago Tribune] on "looting" aren't credible: it's WP:PRIMARY report and nobody knows for sure whether those were looters or refugee fleeing the lifted Siege of Stepanakert toward Armenian mainland via Lachin corridor in late May of 1992 . Jornos' words are free for interpretation.

Once again, If you can't produce independent assessment of reported incidents, then stick to a short description. I oppose any speculative reports per WP:SBST and WP:WEIGHT.

Regarding contradiction mentioned above on destruction: the Washington Post contradicts the source from Sun Sentinel [Chicago Tribune] on combat/battle at/near Lachin. We don't know for sure when and why destruction happened and who is responsible for it. I oppose WP:SENSATIONAL description of the events but totally agree to mention that many buildings were destroyed destruction took place. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 18:24, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I cannot follow you. I see no contradiction there. From what I understand, heavy fighting was reported in Nakhchivan, not Lachin. Washington Post report is from 1996, 4 years after Lachin was captured. Canadian journalist is from 1993, not 1992, i.e. one year later. Sources make it pretty clear that the destruction was the result of looting and burning. I see no problem with using newspaper reports, it is in line with the rules. However, we might as well ask WP:RSN if those sources are reliable or not, and get the wider community to decide on this. Grandmaster 18:39, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

The Washington Post report is dated by May 19, 1992:

… Heavy combat was also reported today around the key town of Lachin [60] …

There is no source on destruction right now. I've removed tag on contradiction. However, we might as well ask No need for WP:RSN polling given WP:SBST and established consensus here. Wikipedia isn't a collection of uncritical news reports.AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 18:45, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Around does not mean inside the town. Grandmaster 21:59, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

---

Grandmaster, Alexander Davronov, Laurel Lodged I shortened looting details, summarizing in few words just like it was proposed. I also removed unreliable BBC Azeri (not your regular BBC), there are many discussions about it in RS noticeboard. I also removed WP:PRIMARY accounts of some Canadian journalist, it is WP:UNDUE. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 09:07, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that was a good summary. Why opinion of a policeman should remain? It is an unreliable statement from an insignificant person. How do we know that what he said was true? There is no way to verify that statement. And Canadian journalist is a reliable source too, as you were told by an admin at WP:AE. The rules allow the use of news reports from well-established news outlets, and this report perfectly falls into that category. Please propose your version at talk, and let's reach a consensus instead of making unilateral changes. Grandmaster 09:49, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I propose to remove these 2 statements, they do not contain any useful information related to this particular location :

while there were also civilians from Stepanakert, which had been shelled by the Azerbaijanis for eight months and had been without light and water for several weeks. An Armenian sergeant said to the British journalists the looting was done because the Azerbaijanis had previously pillaged 23 villages.

What shelling of Stepanakert or lack of gas and water there have to do with Lachin? Nothing at all. And I wrote about policeman above. Grandmaster 09:55, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I propose the following summary:

Following the city's capture by Armenian forces, it was looted and burnt,[29] and its Azerbaijani population became internally displaced people. British reporters witnessed looting and burning in Lachin, with trucks and cars piled high with looted furniture and household utensils moving to Armenia. Looters, some of whom came from Stepanakert, took everything of value, including livestock, before setting houses on fire.[29][30] A Canadian journalist who visited the town a few months later noted absolute destruction of the town, with no structure remaining intact.

HRW should be used as a first reference to the line Following the city's capture by Armenian forces, it was looted and burnt, I think. Grandmaster 10:01, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Disagree with new proposal. This was already discussed above, not sure why you're repeating same talking points and stonewalling. It’s only fair to include the Sargent if we’re going to include any of the British journalist report at all. They felt the need to include it in their reports and did not write anything to cast doubt on the sergeant. Again, that seems to be entirely your own personal bias. Regarding the Canadian journalist, you're changing the topic. It’s not a matter of source’s reliability so much as mentioning there was damage in a battle zone is completely redundant. Now if there are no objections and repeating of same discussions, I'll shorten unnecessary and non-encyclopedic looting details that you restored again contrary to suggestion from an uninvolved user Alexander Davronov. You also seemed to mention it in AN yesterday and how it was in your own words “agreed to trim down some particular details”, but you're yet again “partially” reverting me when I act upon said agreement. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 12:44, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Trim does not mean to completely remove any details of what happened. I shortened the description of what kind of items were looted, now the description of the looting itself is very short. Most of space is taken by an unverified statement of some policeman, and details of what happened in Stepanakert, which have no relevance to this article. What you did is you removed the details on looting and burning, and left the apologist claims by some random policeman. I don't think that is how trimming works. And the journalists did not find his claims to be convincing, they also said that he showed no sings of embarrassment at seeing all the looting, and that other soldiers took part in the process. Regarding the Canadian journalist, he is describing the aftermath of what the British journalists witnessed. It has a direct relevance to the topic of this article, and I see no reason why it should be removed. And to put an end to the disputes about the Canadian journalist, I can take it to WP:RSN and ask the community to decide on the reliability of this source. Grandmaster 14:24, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

This is what "summarize in few words" looks like, and FYI, details are still there. It just happens to be actual trimming which was suggested by an uninvolved user and which I acted upon. And which you reverted without a valid reason. The following is a portion of my edit that was completely in line with a few words summary suggestion and which you contrary to agreement, expanded again with unnecessary and non-encyclopedic details:

My version: •"British journalists reported witnessing trucks and cars piled with looted furniture and household utensils moving to Armenia, while there were also civilians from Stepanakert, which had been shelled by the Azerbaijanis for eight months and had been without light and water for several weeks. An Armenian sergeant said to the British journalists the looting was done because the Azerbaijanis had previously pillaged 23 villages."

Your version: •"British reporters witnessed looting and burning in Lachin, with trucks and cars piled high with looted furniture and household utensils moving to Armenia, and big convoys blocking the road. Looters took everything of value, including livestock, before setting houses on fire. An Armenian sergeant said to the British journalists the looting was done because the Azerbaijanis had previously pillaged 23 villages. Among the Armenian looters there also were civilians from Stepanakert, which had been shelled by the Azerbaijanis for eight months and had been without light and water for several weeks."

Not only it repeats same "looting and burning" which was already in the previous sentence of that paragraph, it expands redundant details such as "livestrock" and whatnot, which is not "summarizing in few words" as the agreement in talk suggests. Clearly whatever you did wasn't in accordance to talk discussion as the uninvolved editor themselves mentioned again the same point yesterday: •I stand by my point of providing short summary instead of verbatim listing all details.

And the journalists did not find his claims to be convincing, they also said that he showed no sings of embarrassment at seeing all the looting, and that other soldiers took part in the process. – Where exactly the journalist says that they "did not find his claims to be convincing"? And journalist's personal evaluation whether the Sergeant showed embarrassment or not in the scene of looting has nothing to do here, what?

Regarding the Canadian journalist, he is describing the aftermath of what the British journalists witnessed. – He's mentioning something redundant, such as damage being done in a battle zone, which btw is mentioned in the first sentence of the paragraph already. As I'm repeating myself again, the question isn't so much about reliability but so much as mentioning there was damage in a battle zone, which is obvious and already noted in the paragraph. It's mentioned that the town was looted and burnt in the first sentence of the paragraph, how additional primary accounts of a journalist are improving the section? ZaniGiovanni (talk) 14:58, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@Grandmaster and ZaniGiovanni: Please, use {{divbox}} and {{block indent}} to nicely format proposals. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 15:14, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@ZaniGiovanni: The disputed source [61] per given statement [62] is totally fine per WP:RSCONTEXT. I propose to keep it but I would strongly discourage WP:CHERRYPICKING; I tagged Canadian account as {{contradictory-inline}} on [15:50, November 17, 2021]. See my question above.- AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 15:37, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

RFC: Looting, destruction, and violence in Lachin 1992-1993

The following discussion 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.

---

I propose to replace the third paragraph of the First Nagorno-Karabakh War subsection by the following (all details related to looting, burning, violence). Any objections?

--AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 19:48, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy pinging: @ZaniGiovanni, Grandmaster, Laurel Lodged, and Steverci:

See also: this article is subject to WP:ARBAA2

Survey

• Support (as nominator) given an extensive discussion and reasons above (#Looting and #Sources ).AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 19:48, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

  I believe we should also mention in your proposal about Armenian civilians being killed, the current wording gives the wrong impression that civilians were killed by Armenian forces, stated just after "In the months following city's capture by Armenian forces, ...", whereas HRW sources states the following:

  • On May 28, 1993, the mutilated remains of Armenian civilians killed during 1992 by Azerbaijani forces were found near Lachin. The civilians had attempted to flee Nagorno Karabakh to Armenia and were reportedly massacred by the Gray Wolves. [63] ZaniGiovanni (talk) 20:37, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

  Alexander Davronov what do you think of my suggestion to your text above? It would be in line with HRW source. Regards, ZaniGiovanni (talk) 19:17, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

  I stand by my proposal. Unless sane sources scrutinizing the reports are given I stand by brief description. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 19:25, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

  Alexander Davronov your proposal is fine for the most part, don't get me wrong, and thank you for mediating the discussion so far. It just gives the wrong impression that "death of civilians" happened just after "following city's capture by Armenian forces", when HRW source (RS for civilian deaths) says it was done by Gray Wolves in Lachin against Armenian citizens, see the quote above. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 19:29, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

  Current proposal doesn't assume that Armenian forces are responsible for civilians casualties. I just strongly disagree with putting blame on anyone even if such accusations are delivered by HRW. I want to forge a consensus on more-less neutral statement compiling reports. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 19:44, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

  Alexander Davronov here's my suggestion, in line with HRW. Please tell me what you think:

  ZaniGiovanni (talk) 07:58, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support per arguments and thorough discussion above. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 20:14, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support per arguments and thorough discussion above. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:17, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose I think this needs more detail, as it is not even clear from the above description who did the looting. And "multiple reports" is also vague. There are many witnesses to looting and burning, including the reporters from top news outlets such as The Guardian or Chicago Tribune. HRW also confirms the fact. Grandmaster 21:15, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

  Alternative proposal, with no weasel wording:

  Grandmaster 21:42, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose as written. The two sentences are contradictory: If predominantly Azerbaijani population reportedly left the city in advance, where did multiple reports of civilian deaths come from? Apparently this is because the source for the latter sentence presents Armenian version: "Armenian officials insist that there were no civilian casualties, because the Azeris had evacuated all civilians from Lachin before the battle began". So suggest dropping the latter sentence, as it contradicts third-party sources. The current wording does not have that problem, it seems. Brandmeister^talk 22:50, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

  @Brandmeister: Clarified that the report is only one. The www.hrw.org has reported that Armenian civilians were killed in 1992. Their remains were found near Lachin on May 28, 1993. See the source. --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 13:54, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

  Journalists reported death of Azerbaijani civilians. Their bodies lied in the streets of Lachin. Grandmaster 20:20, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

  If so, then I will omit "at least one" phrase... Can we have a source on that? AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 21:35, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

These two sources report bodies in the streets of Lachin:

On the main street a large wheel, apparently from a lorry, bloodstained clothes and a mattress lay beside a gruesome bundle from which protruded an arm. It looked as though an escaping vehicle had suffered a direct hit in the assault.

"Eyewitness: Armenia's looters follow its troops into Azerbaijan - Tit-for-tat pillage of deserted Lachin succeeds a war that may not yet be over." The Guardian, 25 May 1992, p. 22.

Around one ghastly cliffside turn on this so-called humanitarian corridor, two charred corpses rot in the dust of Armenian trucks hauling the pathetic spoils of the nasty war over Nagorno-Karabakh.

O'Neill, Juliet. CanWest News; Don Mills, Ont. 28 May 1992

Grandmaster 19:42, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

But what about Azerbaijani civilians? AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 19:27, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Those sources are about Azerbaijani civilians. Armenians would not let bodies of their own people lie in the streets. Grandmaster 05:57, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

That's your own guess entirely. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 07:56, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

There are no Armenian civilians in a city that is exclusively Azeri and Kurdish — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.219.167.135 (talk) 13:24, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

It is an obvious fact. Who could these civilians be in a town that had only Azerbaijani and Kurdish population, as was noted above? Getting killed as tried to escape the Armenian forces? Grandmaster 06:23, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

You started your sentence with: These two sources report bodies in the streets of Lachin. Body ≠ "Azerbaijani civilians" please stop this WP:OR. For all we know, these could've been soldiers bodies. You've been asked to provide the exact source saying "Azerbaijnai civilians were killed by Armenian forces", and so far, you've been doing original research.

The only source we actually have for civilians states that specifically Azerbaijani civilians left the city in advance of its takeover, and reported Armenian civilians being mutilated and killed by Grey Wolves near Lachin. Should we add this part, since you care so much about civilians being mentioned, and the HRW source we have actually does mention Armenian civilians?

What do you think regarding this whole WP:OR guesses Alexander Davronov? I think it's becoming counterproductive and someone should learn to stop if they have no sources to add besides their own thoughts and guesses. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 09:09, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support I agree with Zanni's version per sources and arguments above. Seems clear cut to me. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 18:52, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose I've read Grandmaster's arguments which sounded the most reasonable to me. The clearer, the better. Therefore I support his opinions. — leilahuseynova (talk) 11:26, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

  Based on what you found them “the most reasonable”, could you please elaborate? We write what sources say on wikipedia, and HRW information is missing from that particular suggestion. Not to mention this RfC is about trimming the unnecessary and non encyclopedic details, which it still keeps. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 12:11, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

• Support ZaniGiovanni's version. Grammatically correct and according to Human Rights Watch source. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 23:21, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. Looting and destruction of a populated place as large as Lachin, especially given that its deliberate nature is not contested, is notable enough to be mentioned in a little more than an evasive and blandly formulated sentence; all the more so as the process was covered by periodicals such as Chicago Tribune and the Guardian, all of which clearly identify the perpetrator party. I also see no reason in wording it in a way as to suggest that the pillage and the killings of civilians were somehow mutual in this particular case. It skews the whole point of why and how the town ended up the way it did. Parishan (talk) 17:53, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Legobot messed up

I've tried twice, to add the RFC template. But legobot keeps deleting it. GoodDay (talk) 21:21, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

GoodDay Hi and thanks for helping. What would you suggest doing then? ZaniGiovanni (talk) 09:06, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Everything's alright now. I was getting the dates mixed up, mis-reading 4 December 2020 as 4 December 2021. GoodDay (talk) 09:07, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for heads up. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 16:21, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Closing (end note)

Responding per request at WP:RFCL. As a statement of transparency: I've not edited this article before and as far as memory serves I have never edited any article related to the conflict. Please do not add further comments. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 02:37, 23 January 2022 (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.

Demographics

The following discussion 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.

---

I propose to move this section into Lachin District as its sources basically point out to the "district" instead of the city: [64] It's not directly WP:RELEVANT to article's subject. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 16:04, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree, sources on the district should be kept separately from the sources on the article. However, I checked, and the sources are actually on the town, not the district. Grandmaster 16:39, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Agreed with proposal. Sources seem to be about район (district) of Lachin and its demographics. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 20:14, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Agree with proposal. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:19, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Could you please clarify which particular source is about the district, and not the town? Grandmaster 21:18, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@Grandmaster: My apologies.| I've checked the sources. The data is given relative to the city. I withdraw this proposal and close discussion. The [65] should be kept. --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 13:41, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

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

HRW

In 1992, the Human Rights Watch reported that Armenian civilians had been massacred near Lachin by the Grey Wolves. [66] This should be added in the Lachin#First_Nagorno-Karabakh_War section, per HRW. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 11:28, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, this can be reflected. However, the way you reflected it is not correct. We can not reword the information from the source such that it or draw personal conclusions . I suggest you to add statement from the [67] as it is. I also suggest you to add it between the "Following the town's capture by Armenian forces" and "Following the town's capture by Armenian forces" paragraphs as separate statement, to keep the flow of the article right. --Abrvagl (talk) 13:52, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

What personal conclusion? What are you talking about? This is the full text:

• On May 28, 1993, the mutilated remains of Armenian civilians killed during 1992 by Azerbaijani forces were found near Lachin. The civilians had attempted to flee Nagorno Karabakh to Armenia and were reportedly massacred by the Gray Wolves.

And it's already noted "Following town's capture" are you not reading the same thing [68]? I'm literary stating what the source says. You're nearing into another ANI report if I'm being honest, this WP:SPA journey of yours is becoming very disruptive. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 14:21, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

If you're gonna state WP:ONUS, you have to actually present valid arguments. This isn't one neither is your talk comment above, you're just disrupting now. You shouldn't abuse guidelines without presenting a valid reason for your removal which you failed to do so. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 14:50, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Your continuous threatening with ANI anything you dont like is disruptive. please stop that behavior. Source states "On May 28, 1993, the mutilated remains of Armenian civilians killed during 1992 by Azerbaijani forces were found near Lachin. The civilians had attempted to flee Nagorno Karabakh to Armenia and were reportedly massacred by the Gray Wolves.". You are statement is "The Human Rights Watch reported that Armenian civilians had been massacred near Lachin by the Grey Wolves". You statement re-worded and does not exactly reflect what source states. I suggest following wording "As per the Human rights Watch report on May 28, 1993, the mutilated remains of Armenian civilians killed during 1992 by Azerbaijani forces were found near Lachin. The civilians had attempted to flee Nagorno Karabakh to Armenia and were reportedly massacred by the Gray Wolves. I suggest to include separately, because I do not see how it can be liked to "Following town's capture". There no evidence that this happened following to town capture or before that. --Abrvagl (talk) 14:58, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I also suggest you to add it between the "Following the town's capture by Armenian forces"

You just says this above, and now you're saying to remove it? I didn't add the "Following the town's capture by Armenian forces" it was already there. My added text correctly reflects the HRW source, and you're making 0 sense now. You're just edit-warring at this point for the sake of pushing your POV without providing valid arguments for your removals of sourced content. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 15:03, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I also suggest you to add it between the "Following the town's capture by Armenian forces" and "Following the town's capture by Armenian forces" paragraphs. That what I said, dont know why you TG half of the sentence. Lets do like that, I will now edit the article and reflect it as I propose and you have a look. It will be easier for you to understand what is proposal. If you will not like it, then rewert it and we will ask third party admin to provide opinion. Do you agree? --Abrvagl (talk) 15:10, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

You don't just remove stuff because you don't like it. You've yet to provide an actual valid reasoning for all of these shenanigans. You keep changing your reasoning trying to find something that sticks, but the HRW source supports my text entirely and it was appropriately placed. The DRN mediator should take a look at this and if not, you'll be reported for edit-warring and POV push. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 15:14, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I did not remove anything because I dont like it. And I never changed my reasoning, what Im doing trying keep civil discussion to reach the consensus. I even offered you the way, but looks like you deny that. I suggest you to be WP:IMPARTIAL. I do not understand why you are so aggressive. --Abrvagl (talk) 15:26, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

The removal was a classic example of WP:idontlikeit. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:29, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand why you keep pushing a certain POV and removing stuff without valid explanation. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 15:29, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I provided Valid explanation and providing it to you, and to all others Laurel Lodged.

Original statement from the source is "On May 28, 1993, the mutilated remains of Armenian civilians killed during 1992 by Azerbaijani forces were found near Lachin. The civilians had attempted to flee Nagorno Karabakh to Armenia and were reportedly massacred by the Gray Wolves."

Statement made by ZaniGiovanni is "The Human Rights Watch reported that Armenian civilians had been massacred near Lachin by the Grey Wolves"

HRW does not say that civilians had been massacred by the Grey Wolves. HWR clearly states that "remains of Armenian civilians killed during 1992 by Azerbaijani forces were found near Lachin" and that they are "were reportedly massacred by the Gray Wolves". This is my first point.

My second point that we do not have reliable information to prove that whether this happened before of after the Lachin city capture, therefore we should include it as separate statement. --Abrvagl (talk) 15:41, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand your distinction between "Reportedly massacred" and "reported that...". Please explain. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:00, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Laurel Lodged with pleasure. When you say something reportedly happened, this means that something is reportedly true. It means that someone has said that it is true, but you have no direct evidence of it. However, if you say that something happened, it means that you have direct evidence of it. So in our case HWR states that they were told that these people were massacred by the Gray Wolves, however, they do not have direct evidence of that. --Abrvagl (talk) 16:16, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Laurel Lodged, if you agree, I can edit article and include HWR report information the way I propose. If you like it - we can keep it, if don't you can rephrase or revert it and we will continue discussions to reach the consensus. I thin this will be better that writing tons of text on the Talk page. What do you think? --Abrvagl (talk) 16:51, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Post your proposal in talk and how exactly it is better than the current one, because as far as I can see, the current wording follows the HRW source. Your behavior in this article is inexcusable btw, you didn't include any "proposals" when I opened this talk discussion, you just came and entirely removed sourced content then started to edit-war over it when I asked for a valid argument, which I still haven't seen. Hope the DRN mediator Robert McClenon takes a note of this and the user's continual disruptive behavior and addition of every talk discussion in DRN. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 16:59, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I did not sign any of these posts. It seems that a ping of me has been mistaken for my signature. I am recusing from any mediation of any related disputes since I am being thought to be involved. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:46, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Laurel Lodged, ZaniGiovanni, my proposal is to keep wording as it is stated in the source "On May 28, 1993, the mutilated remains of Armenian civilians killed during 1992 by Azerbaijani forces were found near Lachin. The civilians had attempted to flee Nagorno Karabakh to Armenia and were reportedly massacred by the Gray Wolves", and add this information as separate paragraph between 3 and 4 paragraph of Nagorno-Karabakh conflict section of the article.

Justification for that I already provided (here). --Abrvagl (talk) 18:53, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

The answer to your question is in your provided quote. Lachin was captured in 1992, the remains were found in 1993, so we do actually know when this happened which is after the town's capture. And once again, the placement was correct all this time. I can add 'reportedly' too if you want, here's my slighly paraphrased proposal (we don't copy-paste info because of WP:COPYVIO)

• The disfigured bodies of Armenian civilians killed by Azerbaijani soldiers in 1992 were discovered near Lachin on May 28, 1993. The civilians had attempted to flee Nagorno-Karabakh to Armenia and were reportedly massacred by the Gray Wolves. [69] ZaniGiovanni (talk) 19:27, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, this wording is good. Great. Yes, remains were found in 1993, but killed during the 1992. We do not know were they killed before, during or after capture. Most probably it was either before or during. My point is that it really does not fits to the paragraph.

Would it be better to reflect it in the same section, but right after “During May 1992, an Armenian offensive captured the town; as a result, Lachin became a strategic link between Armenia and the Nagorno-Karabakh region -the Lachin corridor.[3]: 8, 10, 31 ”? It would be more logical and flawless. City captured and then bodies were found. --Abrvagl (talk) 20:12, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

ZaniGiovanni, are you happy with below proposed?

First Nagorno-Karabakh War

The town and hinterland of Lachin was the location of severe fighting during the First Nagorno-Karabakh War (1990–1994).[citation needed].

During May 1992, an Armenian offensive captured the town; as a result, Lachin became a strategic link between Armenia and the Nagorno-Karabakh region -the Lachin corridor. The disfigured bodies of Armenian civilians killed by Azerbaijani soldiers in 1992 were discovered near Lachin on May 28, 1993. The civilians had attempted to flee Nagorno-Karabakh to Armenia and were reportedly massacred by the Gray Wolves.

Following the town's capture by Armenian forces, it was looted and burned. The mainly Azerbaijani population fled........

--Abrvagl (talk) 17:36, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I'll check the HRW again just in case and tell you for sure most likely tomorrow. I'm busy right now irl. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 18:25, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Checked again the HRW source. Looks good. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 09:51, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

ZaniGiovanni (talk), Thanks for cooperation. Consensus reached. Dispute closed. --Abrvagl (talk) 12:15, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

An Armenian sergeant

Hi ZaniGiovanni, please explain why you reverted my good faith and well justified edit, which I did according to the source?

Thanks. Abrvagl (talk) 14:12, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

I restored the previous edit because I have the source, and the previous edit is the closest to what the sergeant says: "They stole from us. Twenty three Armenian villages were pillaged. Now we're taking from them" [70]. We either attribute all of it to the source or none of it. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 14:17, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

1. none of it. - I would be happy to remove mention of Armenian sergeant. It is not encyclopedic material. Who cares what some unknown sergeant said? However, as some editors insists to keep this non-encyclopedic information - I did not remove it.

2. I rephrased the sentence to remove wartime ethnic retribution logic from the article. There is no "because" work in the article. What I rephrased is perfectly fine and reflects exactly what is written in the source An Armenian policeman on Azerbaijan's border told the British journalist that Azerbaijani forces had previously pillaged 23 adjacent villages.. There is no place for wartime ethnic retribution logic in the Wikipedia, especially when we talking about words of unknown sergeant. His tit-talk to journalist not even an encyclopedic material. So please reinstate my edit that you reverted or, if you wish, remove the sentence as whole. Abrvagl (talk) 14:50, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

• 1. none of it. - I would be happy to remove mention of Armenian sergeant. It is not encyclopedic material. Who cares what some unknown sergeant said? However, as some editors insists to keep this non-encyclopedic information - I did not remove it.

You really need to stop quoting me out of context (literally a single phrase out of the whole sentence), and I never suggested removing the sergeant. By "we either attribute all of it to the source or none of it", I mean by adding ‘according to one person that said something to one journalist’ you're casting doubt on what they said, essentially MOS:ALLEGED, yet the rest of the information that comes from this one source like the looting is stated as an indisputable fact by not attributing it to someone.

• 2. I rephrased the sentence to remove wartime ethnic retribution logic from the article. There is no "because" work in the article.

Your "rephrasing" omits as to why in sergeant's words the looting was done. There doesn't need to be literal "because", it's called paraphrasing. "They stole from us. Twenty three Armenian villages were pillaged. Now we're taking from them" - this means, per sergeant, that the looting was done because Azeris pillaged those 23 villages previously, if you don't understand basic English paraphrasing, that's not a me problem. And the Guardian, a reliable source, thought it was alright to include this information in their report, so I see no problem to its inclusion in the article. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 10:35, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

1. Not sure why you highlight that Guardian is reliable. I never said that Guardian not reliable.

2. "They stole from us. Twenty three Armenian villages were pillaged. Now we're taking from them" - It is not about understanding. It is about how you paraphrasing. Quote itself can be understood in many ways, but by adding "because" you making it wartime ethnic retribution logic. Moreover, for your attention, that was also commented by the moderators[71]: saying that one village was destroyed "because" the other side had previously pillaged others, is injecting the logic of wartime ethnic retribution and nationalist tit-for-tat right into Wikipedia's own voice. This one word alone, "because", would warrant a topic ban as far as I'm concerned, if nothing else did.. The way I paraphrased is perfectly reflects words of the Serjeant while removing retribution logic, but I am ready to hear your suggestions. Abrvagl (talk) 10:58, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

I say that if we’re going to use a source of one journalist, we have to include the key details and not be selective about what we cite. Language like “everything of value” is not neutral or encyclopedic, so it’s not fair to cite only the journalist’s viewpoint for Azeris but not Armenians. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 21:42, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

There is nothing fair-unfair to talk about. In one case, journalist witnessed something, while in another, a serjant told him something. Lets not mix staff and not make it WP:ALLORNOTHING. I never intended to remove one or another. My point was that wartime retribution logic is not for Wikipedia and I paraphrased[72] it accordingly. Now, my question to you is: Do you have any suggestions how to paraphrase it differently, or not? Because if not, then I will paraphrase it the way I proposed. Abrvagl (talk) 03:51, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

ZaniGiovanni Please be informed that I am about to construe your silence as agreement.WP:NOTSILENCE. Abrvagl (talk) 19:38, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

In one case, journalist witnessed something, while in another, a serjant told him something.

It’s what the journalist witnessed a sergeant tell him, both are things he witnessed. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 22:48, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I already said, WP:ALLORNOTHING is out of the discussion. And you did not answer to my question. Should I repeat it again? Abrvagl (talk) 03:51, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Pretty sure you don't understand what you're citing, an essay about deletion discussions is irrelevant here and to my argument. And I already replied to the point you made. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 09:11, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

First, I' am not here to explain you simple staff like what is the difference between journalist reporting what he saw personally and journalist reporting was told while not witnessing that personally.

Second, what it your argument? We are not being selective here, neither we keeping the journalist’s viewpoint for Azeris but not Armenians. I already told you I paraphrased it while keeping the main points, and I explained why I did that(wartime ethnic retribution logic) and even showed you how that was commented by the moderators.

I asked you simple question: Do you have any suggestions how to paraphrase it differently, or not? Now please answer that one simple question. Abrvagl (talk) 09:56, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

WP:NOTSILENCE. There hasn't been a response in over a month. While waiting for your response, I considered and researched this. There is a significant distinction between what the journalist witnessed firsthand and what some unknown serjant told him. There number of sources reported that Lachin was looted, and there are even factual video evidences of it. According to the 1979 census, only 34 (0.1%) Armenians lived in Lachin. 34 persons are insufficient to form even one village, what 23 villages are we talking about? When were they pillaged? Statement of sergeant is hearsay and vague, he was questioned while looting and burning of Lachin was ongoing...he would say that, wouldn't he?. Thus it is WP:UNDUE. Abrvagl (talk) 04:42, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

I will wait one more day, and if there is no reply from anyone, then I will implement the edit. A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 06:43, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Are you still talking about this? I suggest taking it to DRN or asking WP:THIRD, I already said what I had to say regarding this dispute. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 10:59, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Co-name of Berdzor should be deleted

This town is under sovereignty of Azerbaijan, de facto and de jure both. The so called "Berdzor" naming should be deleted or transfer. 78.190.238.171 (talk) 21:18, 16 November 2023 (UTC)