Talk:Second Nagorno-Karabakh War

Suyrian mercenaries claim – verification and neutrality concern

Hi everyone, I’d like to raise a concern about the current wording in the “Units involved” section regarding the alleged deployment of Syrian mercenaries by Turkey to support Azerbaijan.

The existing text presents these claims without proper attribution or adequate balance. As per WP:NPOV and WP:VER, all contentious material must be backed by reliable sources, and counter-statements should be presented. Azerbaijani and Turkish officials have publicly denied these claims, and there is no independent verification by neutral international observers.

I propose updating the section as follows:

" Armenian officials and some biased media outlets claimed that Turkey deployed Syrian mercenaries to support Azerbaijani forces during the conflict. These allegations remain unverified. Turkish and Azerbaijani authorities have strongly denied the claims, calling them disinformation. International observers, including French President Emmanuel Macron, expressed concern, but no conclusive evidence has been produced."

Would appreciate community input before making the change.

Thanks! Aze81 (talk) 10:59, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

See RfC above. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:45, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

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

• War trophies from Armenian Army at 2020 Victory Parade in Baku 11.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:36, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

As source 76 of this page is unavailable, add updated source links (I found 2 separate pages from UN Web TV that would replace the outdated link). Snoopymerda (talk) 20:12, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. NotJamestack (✉️|📝) 20:43, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

In all the reliable resources , there is no verified claim of Turkey being an active belligerent or Turkish troops , other language wiki articles on this also exclude Turkey for this . Dadimaa (talk) 02:05, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps we need a close to this RfC. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:02, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

Summarize Timeline Top Qs Fact Check

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or{{subst:csp|sock username|sockmaster username}}.

Should Turkey be listed as a full belligerent (not just support)? In light of 11 Turkish soldiers, including 3 pilots, recently being awarded combat medals for the war, for showing "great success in the victory in the Nagorno-Karabakh War between Azerbaijan and Armenia". --Steverci (talk) 17:53, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support as nominator There have been past discussions concerning whether to list Turkey as a main belligerent or only as supporting. The last consensus was to only include Turkey being a belligerent as alleged, while closer Mikehawk10 noted "future reporting and investigations may change this, and a new RfC may be appropriate at that time". The main argument against Turkey being a full belligerent was that there wasn't enough sources of Turkish armed forces participating.

Notably, the 3 pilots align with the 3 Turkish F-16 fighter jets that were spotted in Azerbaijan, as already mentioned in the article.

There have already been many strong sources provided confirming that Turkey played a massive role in the war, such as by arming and deploying thousands of Syrian terrorists, and many sources used terms like "decisive", "vital", and "critical" to describe Turkey's role. The only argument against Turkey being a belligerent was that Turkey and Azerbaijan both denied the involvement of Turkish forces. Now they have admitted to it. It's time for Turkey to finally be listed as a full belligerent, and for the article to be rewritten where needed to reflect that.

Update I would also like to point out that Turkey being responsible for training, arming, and deploying Syrian mercenaries has been unanimously confirmed by a wide variety of sources: US, UK, EU, Israel and Iran. Yet the infobox still falsely lists the Syrians under Azerbaijan, not Turkey. This is yet another reason why Turkey should be listed as a full belligerent. The loophole for Turkish national forces no longer exists, so the article no longer needs to listed information proven incorrect by the sources being cited. --Steverci (talk) 18:03, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

You need to demonstrate that the majority of reliable sources consider Turkey to be a belligerent. You cannot start another RFC every time you find 1 or 2 sources which you believe confirm the claim. I do not see that there is a consensus among reliable sources to consider Turkey a belligerent. On the contrary, I can cite hundreds of top sources that state Turkey supported Azerbaijan. Until it becomes generally accepted that Turkey was directly involved, we cannot list Turkey as a belligerent. And we have already discussed this a number of times before. Grandmaster 20:28, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

I can say I could cite thousands of sources confirming Turkey is a belligerent, but it also wouldn't mean anything without proof.

Third party sources can be a deciding factor for things disagreed on by both the first and second parties. In this case, however, both parties confirm the same thing. The third parties could still be noteworthy if they had a different stance but, as I've already pointed out, most took a 'neither confirm nor deny' stance while also confirming vital Turkish involvement. --Steverci (talk) 01:29, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. While I would not be surprised if you are correct, I don't believe your argument is sufficient for us to make this change. First, I should note that the medal was awarded by Azerbaijan, not Turkey, making the connection a little weaker. Second, even if it was awarded by Turkey, it would not be appropriate for us to infer conclusions from it; to do so would be WP:OR. If or when reliable sources start to explicitly state that Turkey acted as a belligerent in the war, then we can make this proposed change - but not until then. BilledMammal (talk) 10:14, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

BilledMammal The source states: "The medals were given to the soldiers in a ceremony organized by Amasya Governor Mustafa Masatlı." So it was clearly acknowledged by the Turkish government. The source also says: "11 soldiers from the Amasya Merzifon 5th Main Jet Base Command, which showed great success in the victory in the Nagorno-Karabakh War with Armenia." This is not original research, it's explicitly confirming the involvement of Turkish forces. --Steverci (talk) 20:00, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support. There are plenty of reliable sources concerning Turkey's direct involvement in the war and they are not only Armenian. Thus, "alleged by Armenia" looks not appropriate. Euroasianet, RIA Novosti, Kommersant. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 14:59, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

In addition to already mentioned sources, there is a new one

"The Azerbaijani army is commanded by Turkish generals. During the war in Karabakh, the drones were also commanded by a Turkish general." — Researcher and turkologist Viktor Nadein-Raevsky.

Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 14:00, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose Impartial RS in third-party countries (i.e. not Azerbaijan, Turkey, Armenia or Russia) unanimously describe Turkey as supporting Azerbaijan, but not directly fighting Armenia. I can gather sources if others would like me to, although any cursory search of standard international RS news media will show this. The recent RfC (closed in March) also explored this question, and in that discussion there was a consensus that Turkey didn't qualify as a belligerent. Jr8825 • Talk 16:01, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Jr8825 That's a very faulty and inaccurate interpretation of what most third-party sources report. I would be surprised if you could find a single one that explicitly states Turkey did not directly fight against Armenia. The New York Times takes a "neither confirm nor deny" position ("Armenia has said that Turkey was directly involved in the fighting in and around Nagorno-Karabakh, and that a Turkish F-16 fighter shot down an Armenian jet. Turkey denied those accusations"). Reuters takes a similar position while implying Turkey is lying ("Ankara denies its troops are involved in fighting but Aliyev has acknowledged some Turkish F-16 fighter jets remained in Azerbaijan after a military drill this summer"). And yet, these sources and many other third-party ones use words like "vital" and "decisive" to describe Turkey's role. The last consensus was Turkey deployed thousands of combatants, but the argument against listing Turkey as a full belligerent hung on a weak thread of Turkey denying its involvement. That thread no longer exists. --Steverci (talk) 20:00, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

I went through every article covering the NK conflict in The Guardian and Independent (including newswires) since last December. Most didn't mention Turkey, the minority which did are exemplified by the following: . None of these articles support the statement that Turkey was a belligerent/directly involved in the conflict, but they do support the statement that Turkey "actively supported" Azerbaijan, its close ally. We're not looking for sources "that explicitly state Turkey did not directly fight against Armenia" – interpreting the absence of such statements as proof Turkey was a belligerent is confirmation bias – what we need for such a change is multiple strong sources which explicitly state Turkey did fight directly against Armenia. High quality RS, independent of the influence of states involved in the conflict, do not seem to say this (please point me to ones that do, I'm quite prepared re-evaluate my position if I've overlooked/not seen sources). I don't know whether the weight of sources will change in the future once the dust has settled; speculating on this is WP:CRYSTAL. I don't see how the RS evidence has notably changed since the last time we discussed this. Jr8825 • Talk 00:02, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Assuming that these sources would endorse Turkey not being a belligerent just because they use the term "support" is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. It would be no less credible to say these sources are confirming Turkey is a belligerent. For example, you can find many sources saying the US "supported" South Vietnam, yet the US is still listed as a belligerent on the Vietnam War article. I think you're putting too much importance on the words of a journalist in London who probably couldn't point to Armenia or Azerbaijan on a map. We now have acknowledgment from both the Turkish and Azeri governments that Turkish forces participated in the war. This is a very immense change since the topic was last discussed. --Steverci (talk) 01:29, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

@Steverci: no, that's completely upside down. It's not OR/SYNTH to use wording which follows precisely what the sources say. It's OR/SYNTH to adopt wording which doesn't match what the sources say. And I contend that there are very few RS that currently say words to the effect of "Turkey was a belligerent". Reports of medals given to Turkish soldiers is not a clear acknowledgment/declaration that the Turkish military fought in combat, as you're claiming it to be. It could, for example, have been for sharing expertise and military tactics, i.e. "support". We need evidence of a weight of sources for such a change in the infobox. Absent a clear weight in favour of the statement (not the case), it's appropriate to label it "alleged", as we currently do. Re: "the words of a journalist in London who probably couldn't point to Armenia or Azerbaijan on a map", these are high quality broadsheet newspapers (actually the highest quality broadsheets, based on their reputations) which have networks of global correspondents, and newswires which employ journalists globally. They are more trustworthy sources than Russian newspapers, because of the influence/pressure the Russian government exerts on media. The only sources stronger than independent, RS broadsheets/newswires are academic papers in peer-reviewed journals, or reliably published books by established experts. Jr8825 • Talk 14:05, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Jr8825 The word "support" is correct in the context of both a full belligerent and a partial one. We need a clear definition of what a full belligerent is, or it's just OR. The last consensus decided proof of Turkish forces was needed, and now we have that. The medals were not just awarded for "tactics", the medals were literally awarded "For excellence in battle". You're moving the goal posts half way across the world for no reason. If both parties of the crisis in Venezuela report the same thing, we don't also need a hundred sources from China giving their take on the crisis. --Steverci (talk) 04:13, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose (summoned by bot) in the absence of independent RS, it would be WP:SYNTH to conclude Turkey was an active belligerent. The relatively small number of personnel and planes also tends to confirm this. As BilledMammal says, even if it were unsurprising if this were partly true, we still need RS stating this explicitly. Pincrete (talk) 17:52, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Pincrete Both Armenian and Russian sources reported thousands of Turkish forces, so the true number is likely much bigger. As I told BilledMammal, "which showed great success in the victory in the Nagorno-Karabakh War with Armenia" doesn't get much more explicit. --Steverci (talk) 20:00, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

You state explicitly above that Western sources are extremely equivocal (at best) about the involvement. You propose ignoring those sources in favour of partisan ones which say something different, and SYNTHing a conclusion. The infobox is not the place for disputed/nuanced information, but it is even less the place for conclusions arrived at by OR or SYNTH. As Jr8825 and others say, you need more, better, more explicit sources. Pincrete (talk) 08:01, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Official government statements are neither partisan nor synthesis. Nor do they contradict anything the Western sources stated, which also confirmed the presence of Turkish fighter jets in Azerbaijan that Azerbaijan denied the existence of. --Steverci (talk) 01:29, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose This is the third or fourth time we are voting on the same thing this year. How many times we can vote on the same thing in 1 year? I think this has to stop. No new sources have been provided. The fact that Turkish pilots were awarded medals in Azerbaijan does not mean that Turkish army participated in the war. These were pilots of Turkish F-16 that were stationed in Ganja airport, but took no part in fighting. So no new sources, and no new information. Also, 1 or 2 sources alleging Turkish direct involvement are not sufficient to support the claim anyway. To list Turkey as a belligerent, the overwhelming majority of reliable sources must support this claim, i.e. there should be a consensus among reliable sources, which presently does not exist. Grandmaster 18:38, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

  Btw, the most recent PACE report and draft resolution do not mention self-proclaimed Nagorno-Karabakh republic as a party to conflict. According to PACE, the war was between Armenia and Azerbaijan, which is true, because "NKR army" is made up mostly of conscripts from Armenia. Turkey is not mentioned as a party to the conflict either, only as a supporter to Azerbaijan. That is in line with what most reliable sources say. Note that PACE actually conducted its own investigation, and its mission traveled to both sides of the conflict. Quote: The Parliamentary Assembly regrets the tragic humanitarian consequences of the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Grandmaster 19:04, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support Turkish governor of Amasya Mustafa Masatlı awarding medals to Turkish Air Force members, which quote: "showed great success in the victory in the Nagorno-Karabakh War with Armenia" is a pretty clear statement to me. And I don't see the bias of Turkish sources in this context (if someone could enlighten me, please do so). So far, I'm leaning towards support. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 21:47, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

showed great success in the victory great success in doing what? It simply doesn't say and could involve any 'support' role as much as any 'combat' role. Even if true, - three pilots? Pincrete (talk) 08:09, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Turkish military members playing any roles makes Turkey a belligerent. And if number 3 bothers you, it's unanimously confirmed by reliable sources that Turkey deployed thousands of mercenaries , , , . ZaniGiovanni (talk) 19:45, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose This has been rejected in the past. There are no grounds to label Turkey as a full belligerent considering their minor support and minute number of troops deployed. Awards or rewards given internally between armies do not carry any factual relevance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DriedGrape (talk • contribs)

Note for arbiter – DriedGrape (talk · contribs · count) WP:SPA account, recently banned from AA area. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 21:40, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose per BilledMammal. Adding such information leads to WP:OR. It's not a guesswork, there are no references to solidify Turkey's direct involvement in the war as a belligerent. — Toghrul R (t) 07:57, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support I understand where the opinions above that "big international media has not cited direct participation of Turkey, etc" come from and I embrace the healthy dose of scepticism from several co-editors above, but who says it has always be big international media to rely on for a regional conflict like NK war? Turkish media (generally reliable for reporting Turkish government statements) reporting on a Turkish governor (part of government of Turkey) thanking Republic of Azerbaijan for war services medal given to Turkish military pilots for their being Azerbaijani army's "guide" in Nagorno Karabakh war proves their participation of Turkish Army in NK war. Being a belligerent does not mean only walking on the ground in military boots and shooting from rifles, Turkish pilots did indeed provide war services to Azerbaijan in NK war, I see no reason to suspect that Governor Masatl is lying. War services means war services - they did not get medals for repairing Azeri plane motors or cleaning Azeri soldiers' boots or simply patting on Azeri soldiers' shoulders for encouragement, they got it for providing war services. Compare to Soviet or British medals for war services in World War II and there will be no questions left. I don't think we in Wikipedia are entitled to deny what a government official directly confirms. To make things crystal clear, the infobox, apart from saying "belligerent", should specify what is specifically known - "Turkish Air Force guided Azerbaijani military operations in NK war", not more but not less. --Armatura (talk) 11:29, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

  War services of Turkish pilots consisted of stationing F-16 airplanes in Azerbaijani airports, as a sign of support to Azerbaijan. They did not take part in fighting. The sources that you quote say nothing about "guidance". Quite the contrary, the governor clearly talks about support: Masatlı stated that with the understanding of "One Nation, Two States", Turkey provided the necessary support to brotherly Azerbaijan to save the Karabakh lands from the occupation. In general, airplanes were used very little in this war, drones replaced them. Also, the governor of a Turkish province is not in a position to know what was happening in Azerbaijan. And most importantly, 1 or 2 sources (especially of dubious quality) are not sufficient to claim that a country was a belligerent. You need to demonstrate that it is generally accepted to consider Turkey a belligerent in this war. These 2 sources certainly do not prove global acceptance of this claim. Grandmaster 14:43, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

  Governor does not say medals "for stationing F-16 airplanes in Azerbaijani airports, as just a sign of support, but not fighting", though, he explicitly says "for war services", I hope every editor here understands the difference between "war services" and "support". It cannot be clearer than that - Turkish pilots provided war services to Azerbaijan. If the governor wanted to say "Y" he would say "Y" but he said "X", hence we stick to what he literally said (X), without WP:OR. --Armatura (talk) 17:40, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

  Exactly. What were those "war services", if Turkish airplanes were not involved in hostilities, and were just stationed in Ganja airport? War service could be anything, training of personnel, for instance. That does not make a country a belligerent. Grandmaster 21:19, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Except that you don’t train personnel ‘during’ the war leading to victory. And he says war services, not training. You might want to look into a dictionary to have better understanding what war services are. In UK, for example, it’s the synonym of conscription. --Armatura (talk) 06:37, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

They may have trained personnel before the war. Your sources do not explain what exactly those services were. War service could be anything that helps a country to win a war. Anything at all. In any case, 1 or 2 sources are not sufficient to claim direct involvement. We cannot include fringe theories and minority views into infobox. We can only include what is generally accepted by majority of reliable sources. Grandmaster 08:33, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

"They may have trained personnel before the war" - we surely do not use editor-generated theories but instead refer to WP:RS in Wikipedia, do we not? Another reliable source mentioned above - Kommersant (a liberal newspaper with good standing in Russia and abroad) wrote that Turkish Armed Forces Commander and Turkish Minister of Defense Hulusi Akar arrived to the war zone and took over the general control of the operation on Karabakh Front and now the Turks' war services are officially acknowledged by Azerbaijan - how is this "fringe theory" and "minority view"? Specific names, numbers, medals referred to by WP:RS - are these to be ignored? With all respect, I have to remind the participants of this discussion of the staunch resistance of some editors to inclusion of Turkey-backed Syrian mercenaries as belligerent and including Israel as Azerbaijan arms supplier (including during the war) with apologetic arguments, despite WP:RS pointing to those facts, and hope for we don't see a repetition here. --Armatura (talk) 09:21, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Kommersant refers to an anonymous source, so pretty much a gossip. And by Wikipedia standards it is not a top reliable source, as per discussion at WP:RSN. I never objected to those things you mention. And according to WP:weight, minority view cannot be given the same weight as majority view. 99.99% of reliable sources state that Turkey supported Azerbaijan. Grandmaster 21:13, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Where is the rule that says the sources have to be named for an article / newspaper to be reliable? It is perfectly conceivable that the newspaper may not identify its military-diplomatic information sources if doing so would pose danger to the information source. I could not find a reliable source that says that this particular article is "pretty much a gossip" or that Kommersant (a newspaper with good reputation) spreads gossip. As for WP:RSN, it actually lists Kommersant as a generally reliable (a.k.a. as "top") source with green checkmark, specifically - "Editors generally believe that Kommersant is one of the better publications in Russia and believe its reporting is generally reliable on most matters. However, editors have expressed concerns regarding how limited media freedom in Russia may affect the source's reporting, and as such caution should be applied when the source is used in relation to events in which the Russian government has a close interest. In such contexts, use of the source should generally be accompanied with intext attribution.. And we will use it with such attribution, I don't see a problem here either. By the way, for the comrades above asking "3 pilots?", Kommersant actually mentions 600 servicemen. --Armatura (talk) 13:53, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

@Armatura: the key bit there is that "caution should be applied when the source is used in relation to events in which the Russian government has a close interest". Aside from the fact that Armenia is Russia's strategic ally, and Russia has a close interest in the region (especially now it has peacekeepers on the ground), we have RIA Novosti, a formerly-state owned agency with an unclear relationship to the state, sharing a similar story. None of this means these sources aren't usable – they should be included, with attribution, in the section on Turkey – but it does mean these sources are insufficient on their own to demonstrate a weight of sourcing for the claim that Turkey was a direct belligerent, and are certainly not enough to state this in WP:WIKIVOICE or as fact in the infobox. We need a broader range of sources for that, which there currently doesn't appear to be. Jr8825 • Talk 14:28, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose Turkey has been controversially listed as a belligerent for several months already. Per above, there's sufficient rationale to remove it. Mentioning in "Supported by" should suffice. Brandmeister^talk 17:01, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support per Գարիկ Ավագյան. Some of the most reputable sources of information regarding this conflict have confirmed that Turkey fought alongside Azerbaijan in the war. We already have Turkish backed up mercenaries listed and confirmed by multiple sources. Now Turkish sources confirm the role played by Turkish military forces directly, and them receiving awards by Turkish government officials is further proof of their participation. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 19:54, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Neither Turkey officially declared war to Armenia and/or Artsakh or Artsakh and/or Armenia declared war on Turkey. Turkey might be one of the supporting sides, but you are totally ignoring legitimacy by saying that Turkey is one of the sides directly. BerkBerk68 (talk) 21:05, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

What does official declaration of war have to do with the fact of warring, though? Azerbaijan didn’t declare war, either, it’s just suddenly attacked, initially not saying anything, then saying it was a defence to Armenia’s attack, then that it was a antiterrorist action, and so on. War very frequently is not declared, but it doesn’t stop the sides from being warring sides. Turkey waged a proxy war against Armenians, using predominantly Azerbaijanis and Syrians, but proof is provided that Turkish servicemen did conduct war services in NK war as well. --Armatura (talk) 23:21, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

If Turkey is a side, then why it didn't participate in peace conference? So Armenia and Turkey is still on a war? BerkBerk68 (talk) 06:36, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Read what Proxy war and Circular reasoning are and many things will become clear. --Armatura (talk) 09:08, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

• Are there sources which said that Turkey was a side to the conflict following the story with the awards? If not it would be OR to claim that it is one. Note that this information (about the awards) should be incorporated in the section on Turkish involvement. Alaexis_¿question? 12:01, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Alaexis PanARMENIAN.Net reported that and also made the connection between the 3 Turkish fighter jets and the 3 Turkish pilots. And Haqqin.az confirms the 11 were combatants because the medals are "For excellence in battle". --Steverci (talk) 04:13, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

This article says "Turkey supported Azerbaijan militarily" which is already written in the infobox. Alaexis_¿question? 05:21, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, supported military, as in being a side to the conflict. What are you trying to say? --Steverci (talk) 18:56, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

• support: per points made by nom. Adding my two cents into this, the Syrian mercenaries who we're brought there fight under Turkey, as they do in Libya and northern Syria, fighting through mercenaries directly paid and "shipped" by them is enough for me to earn the full belligerent listing. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 16:54, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose I think this news is fake. I couldn't find anything in (Azerbaijani) reliable sources. I could only find this which is talking about "For Distinction in Battle Medal" (Azerbaijani: Döyüşdə fərqlənməyə görə medalı). Turkish sources say the medal is "For War Services". There is "For military services medal" which is "Hərbi xidmətlərə görə medalı" in Azerbaijani. It is not even clear exactly which medal was given. These sources contradict each other. This or that? Also, these medals are official government awards. Only the government has permission to award these medals. I couldn't find any decree/order about this in president.az & e-qanun.az NMW03 (talk) 23:57, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

It was reported by Haqqin.az, the official site of the Ministry of Justice of Azerbaijan. --Steverci (talk) 18:56, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

It is the same text but in russian. Also it is not official website of Justice Ministry (justice.gov.az). Read their about page. NMW03 (talk) 20:45, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

It's a government watchdog website that is used to discredit reports of human rights violations. --Steverci (talk) 21:13, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

So why are you using it as a source? You said yourself it is not reliable. It is still not "official website" of ministry. It was reported by modern.az too but you can see that it is exactly the same text and mentioning "Turkish media" as a source. There is no important information in any of these websites. They copy+paste the same text. NMW03 (talk) 14:31, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Where did I say that? In this context, it is certainly reliable, as it proves confirmation from a Azeri government source. The haqqin source doesn't cite Turkish media, and it seems that haqqin is cited by other sources reporting it. --Steverci (talk) 03:22, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Your arguments doesn't make sense. Azerbaijan denies Turkey's involvement, right? So why would a "government website" share such news? Also haqqin.az reported this on August 27. The websites I mentioned (azerforum.com and modern.az) and Turkish media reported this on 22 August. So how did these websites cite it? As I said above, haqqin.az's text is same as other websites but in russian. NMW03 (talk) 09:05, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

• OpposeHere, the medals were awarded to some of the F-16 pilots who visited Azerbaijan, and as it is known from the news, not for participation in the battles, but only for being in Azerbaijan and insuring it from foreign interference. There are not any source that Turkish pilots took part in the battles. Ilham Aliyev also spoke about this it during the war.

Based on this news alone, Turkey cannot be considered as a full belligerent. You need to find reliable sources.

On the other hand, if Turkey was an active party in the war, did it sign a peace agreement with Armenia or Artsakh?)--Qızılbaş (talk) 23:09, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

1. There is no mention of pilots anywhere in that link.

2. The medals were awarded "For excellence in battle".

3. Aliyev is also denying the presence of Syrian terrorists, which shows how untrustworthy his word is. --Steverci (talk) 23:46, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

It is not clear whether this medal was awarded. There are no reliable source. Information about the awarding of this medal was provided on the president's website, and there is no information about it. You can enter and check it yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qızılbaş (talk • contribs)