Talk:2023 Azerbaijani offensive in Nagorno-Karabakh/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Reports of ceasefire being violated - should we still label the conflict as having ended?

The article mentions several reported ceasefire violations, namely:

The Nagorno-Karabakh Ministry of Internal Affairs stated that the Azerbaijani military, having violated the ceasefire agreement, continued to shell Stepanakert "with different types of small arms". Rheinische Post reported that information was received from residents of Stepanakert that Azerbaijan violated the ceasefire, and there was shooting in the city.

In this light, should the conflict be labeled as still going on, or (as is currently the case) asserted to have ended with the ceasefire on 20 September? Shouldn't the reported ceasefire violations be at least mentioned in the lead? Chaotic Enby (talk) 16:34, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

They should be mentioned as violations happened just day after the ceasefire. And the recent talks in Yevlakh haven't concluded anything and what appears more talk presumably will come, so I think the infobox should be changed/updated too. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 16:47, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

If there are disagreements with violations being added like me and @Chaotic Enby agreed here, first comment here - I don't see how it shouldn't be in lead especially because of its importance given the ceasefire was announced just a day ago.

Also no WP:RS ever reported that "Armenian forces killed 1 peacekeeper and injured 1", Armenian forces aren't even stationed in Nagorno-Karabakh and Armenia isn't a party to the conflict. We don't use partisan sources for such red flag claims. You need independent WP:RS for that, and also see WP:REDFLAG. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 18:03, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Don't you see that it is statement from Azerbaijani Prosecutors General's Office? Azerbaijan confirms killing only 5 soldiers, not 6 killed and 1 injured. Instead of edit-warring, we can add that it is Azerbaijan's claim that it was Armenian forces who killed and injuted another peacekeeper, which I already did but you reverted it. Regarding the sentence in lead, you may be right. Nemoralis (talk) 18:15, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

No, for something this WP:REDFLAG, we can't add what Azerbaijan claims. It had already admitted killing the peacekeepers, and from the looks of it, tried to blame one death on "Armenian forces" - literally 0 WP:RS confirms this to be true, so again, kindly see WP:REDFLAG and stop edit warring with users. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 18:21, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

We should remove all of Azerbaijan's claims with your logic then. No matter how much you deny it, trend.az is a reliable source here, no matter how partisan it is. Anyways, I'm editing the part where you said that Azerbaijan "killed 6 peacekeepers and injured 1" Nemoralis (talk) 18:29, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

@Nemoralis Yes, if "Azerbaijan claims" with 0 WP:RS and no independent confirmation/verification then we should remove it. Even if trend.az is a reliable source, them reporting claims from Azerbaijani officials doesn't make those more than the claims they are. Chaotic Enby (talk) 18:37, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Adding that we can of course report on what Azerbaijan claims, but mentioning it as claims and attributing them - not as factual evidence. Chaotic Enby (talk) 18:38, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Reliable sources: i24news, Al-Arabiya, Nemoralis (talk) 18:44, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Azerbaijan admitted the killings, "Armenian forces" were never blamed by Russia itself or any other WP:RS, nobody confirmed 1 peacekeeper death by "Armenian forces" - the two sources above literally attribute it to the same Azerbaijan’s prosecutor’s office source you added, this doesn't mean it's confirmed to be true. This is the definition of WP:REDFLAG, an accusation like this isn't just some statement to be added, it's a serious accusation that requires WP:RS to confirm directly, see WP:UNDUE and WP:REDFLAG. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 18:48, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

@Kevo327 Agree that given WP:UNDUE, such claims shouldn't really be mentioned without WP:RS (even as claims) given how contentious they are. Chaotic Enby (talk) 19:04, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Why you just don't want to understand that this is claim, not a confirmation of anything. You accept Azerbaijan's statement that they killed 5 peacekeepers, but not claim regarding to Armenian troops' attack? I don't undertstand why you don't want to add second claim which is mentioned by several reliable news organizations such as Novaya Gazeta: [1] and others I added above. I'm pinging another editors here to get more thoughts about this: @Scu ba, @Super Dromaeosaurus, @Borgenland, @Dn9ahx, @Beshogur. Nemoralis (talk) 19:20, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

What I don't understand about the Novaya Gazette article you cited, is that nowhere in the article does anyone claim Armenia preformed the attack:

"Five peacekeepers were killed after Azerbaijani forces shelled a car, the office said. The statement reads that the military mistook the Russian peacekeepers for service members of the “illegal Armenian groups”. One more person was killed and another was injured after Nagorno-Karabakh forces fired at a truck, the authorities claimed."

Not sure what point you were trying to get across there. Scu ba (talk) 19:27, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

The thing is Nemoralis didn't even add it as a "claim", they literally added it with most soft wording for such absurd WP:REDFLAG, they added "according to" and then "in addition" followed by the WP:FRINGE accusation from Az prosecutor's office [2]. Yeah this is the source that blames a peacekeeper death on "Armenian forces" when Armenia isn't even part of the conflict and doesn't have forces stationed in NK. Also peacekeepers are there to ensure the safety of NK and patrol the designated to them territories, yet supposedly "Armenian forces" kill one of them? Yet again, no WP:RS confirms this to be true, some attribute it to the same Az prosecutor's office, which doesn't mean RS confirm it as truth. So this kind of undue and fringe allegation first needs to be established to be true. Even as a "claim", we don't add WP:UNDUE unconfirmed nonsense (and an accusation at that) just because someone/something says it. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 19:37, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

I suggested adding "claim", how quickly did you forget? Sources did not say that they were from Armenia's Armed Forces, on the contrary, they said that they were Armenians. Yet supposedly "Armenian forces" kill one of them: Well, this is just your opinion and we can't use it in article or here. Nemoralis (talk) 20:06, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

In any case, even if it was reported by several sources, they all attribute the claim to Azerbaijan's Prosecutor General's Office, without stating it as a fact. The choice of not including it is not an opinion, it is the default given the lack of independent confirmation by reliable sources. Chaotic Enby (talk) 21:12, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

If this came from an Az news source I’d be wary given the country’s press ranking. Borgenland (talk) 23:03, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

References

Captured towns.

So by looking at the detailed map, I have noticed that most of the captured towns have not been properly portrayed as captured, I feel like we should probably fix this. Death Editor 2 (talk) 22:23, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

In your comment, you talked about how most of the captured towns have not been properly protrayed as captured. In order for us to make changes, which towns specifically should have their status updated and do you have supporting citations from reliable sources to support the change? Jurisdicta (talk) 10:20, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Charektar and Getavan [3]https://azg.am/%D5%AF%D5%A1%D6%80%D6%87%D5%B8%D6%80%D5%A8/%D5%A3%D5%A5%D5%BF%D5%A1%D5%BE%D5%A1%D5%B6-%D5%B8%D6%82-%D5%B9%D5%A1%D6%80%D5%A5%D6%84%D5%A9%D5%A1%D6%80-%D5%A3%D5%B5%D5%B8%D6%82%D5%B2%D5%A5%D6%80%D5%B6-%D5%A1%D5%A4%D6%80%D5%A2%D5%A5%D5%BB%D5%A1/ Drmbon and Harav,[4]https://azg.am/news/%D5%A4%D6%80%D5%B4%D5%A2%D5%B8%D5%B6-%D6%87-%D5%B0%D5%A1%D6%80%D5%A1%D5%BE-%D5%A3%D5%B5%D5%B8%D6%82%D5%B2%D5%A5%D6%80%D5%A8-%D5%A9%D5%B7%D5%B6%D5%A1%D5%B4%D5%AB%D5%B6-%D5%A3%D6%80%D5%A1%D5%BE%D5%A5/ Chankatagh, Chapar, Karmir Shuka, Khachmach, Machkalashen, Sarushen, Shosh and Vaghuhas [5]https://azg.am/%D5%AF%D5%A1%D6%80%D6%87%D5%B8%D6%80%D5%A8/%D5%A1%D6%80%D6%81%D5%A1%D5%AD%D5%AB-%D5%A3%D5%B5%D5%B8%D6%82%D5%B2%D5%A5%D6%80%D5%B6-%D5%A1%D5%B6%D6%81%D5%B6%D5%B8%D6%82%D5%B4-%D5%A5%D5%B6-%D5%A9%D5%B7%D5%B6%D5%A1%D5%B4%D5%B8%D6%82%D5%B6-%D5%A1/ and I was able to figure this all out because I have read the article. Death Editor 2 (talk) 16:31, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Image of remains of the car after landmine explosion

The image in question is related to this article because it belongs to an incident (landmine explosion) mentioned by reliable sources, including Eurasianet. It's also mentioned in the article body. This confirms its relevance to the topic. Eurasianet explicitly mentions the landmine explosion as one of the reasons for the attack. Specifically, it was described as a response to alleged Armenian militarization and mining activities. This connection is significant and adds context. According to MOS:PERTINENCE, any image can be added, even if it's related to an alleged incident, as long as it is significant and relevant. The image meet these criteria. It's worth noting that the image has been published by another reliable and independent source, Voice of America

I recommend adding this to the article. It meets Wikipedia's policies and provides valuable information about offensive and helps paint a more comprehensive picture for readers. Nemoralis (talk) 21:19, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

I'll reitarate what I said already. Azerbaijan MOD made that major claim of "Armenian land mine killings" and used as pretext for offensive - here link to the offensive (which Azerbaijan claims as “local anti-terrorist activities” or “special military operation”) was launched after those alleged Azeri deaths on mines. The alleged land mine deaths Az MOD said was "planted by the reconnaissance-subversion groups of Armenia’s armed forces" has not been confirmed by WP:RS, RS attributes it to the Az/MOD statement or directly use alleged [6]. This is a major allegation.

It's WP:UNDUE and also considered fringe, most RS do not even consider it verifiable and also question the veracity of the incident as both a) occurring at all and b) as the "real" reason for the attack. The image looks to be taken from Hikmet Hajiyev twitter account [7] who isn't a reliable source by any stretch, and still no RS actually states this as fact / confirms to be true, Eurasianet even says it's an allegation by AZ. Therefore, AZ's allegation should be mentioned once at best but that's it, it would be highly WP:UNDUE to add an image to those unconfirmed and non-factual claims. This isn't twitter, this is wikipedia. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 22:01, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Oh it's UNDUE when it comes to Azerbaijani sources, while the whole page is spammed with .am sources, which are stated as if all of them report facts. Voice of America is not even aligned to Azerbaijani government. Picture taken from Hikmet Hajiyev is not an excuse, they just cited the picture. Beshogur (talk) 22:37, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

How can you suggest adding a picture to an undue accusation that hasn’t been confirmed by anyone else? It's mentioned in the body and that's it, a picture for something that isn't supported by reliable sources and only attributed by to attacking party or alleged, is very undue. This article should have pictures relevant to the offensive, not a picture of an unconfirmed alleged claim and a huge accusation by the aggressor party that they used as a pretext to attack Artsakh, even Eurasianet is very skeptical about some Azeris just happening to blow up right before the offensive that Azerbaijan has been preparing long in advance. Vanezi (talk) 00:14, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Nagorno-Karabakh representatives, etc.

@Scu ba: your edit was reverted because these are not proper terms. I don't get where you got these while those sources do not even mention them, but rather tell Karabakh representatives etc. Azerbaijan does not even recognize Artsakh, and there isn't even single clue that these people are actually officials of Artsakh. Beshogur (talk) 22:33, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

If they aren't officials of Artsakh, then how will they dissolve Artsakh's government? The Armenians in Karabakh are called Artsakhi. They do not recognize the name Karabakh, or Nagorno-Karabakh, media reporting that the Artsakhi are "Karabakh-Armenaians" is pure appeasement to the Azeri government. Scu ba (talk) 23:44, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Huh? Even Pashinyan uses Nagorno-Karabakh, also "Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh" is the co official name of the breakaway state. While the sources mentions only Nagorno-Karabakh representatives, you're simply not resprecting it. Beshogur (talk) 23:50, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

If the terms are interchangeable as you argue, then why is it a problem to call it Artsakh? Scu ba (talk) 23:54, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

They're not. The word "Artsakh" isn't even used in English (sure it exists after 1990s due to Armenian influence), how are they interchangeable. Maybe they're civil leaders? Do we even know their names? Even if they were, none of them literally uses "Artsakh officials". Beshogur (talk) 23:58, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

If you're talking about a political entity, we can use Artsakh. But Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians is definitely correct since it is about a region. I'm still talking about English since we're on a English website.

Regarding representatives, my point stands. 1 sources using in that way 2 we don't know those people. Azerbaijan doesn't recognise Artsakh thus they may sit with people with no political background but with influence, rather as a mediator. Beshogur (talk) 00:14, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Artsakh should not be used to refer to the region, but there shouldn't be any issue with using it to refer to the political entity. "Artsakhi representatives" would be valid. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 15:59, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Source on theyre "Artsakhi representatives"? Does Azerbaijan meet with people of their most wanted list? Beshogur (talk) 16:24, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't find anything. Beshogur (talk) 16:25, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Almost every WP:RS mention them as "representatives of Nagorno-Karabakh [Armenians]". Ararat Mirzoyan himself said "representatives of Nagorno-Karabakh" in his speech at UNSC. There is no need to reinvent the wheel. Nemoralis (talk) 21:18, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Trim on reactions

"Urged both sides" reactions should be merged into one sentence. Can anyone help? Beshogur (talk) 12:22, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Azerbaijan claims Armenian sniper killed one of their soldiers

Should this be included somewhere (in the Aftermath section maybe)? I hope it won't devolve into another confrontation between them...

https://www.thestar.com.my/news/world/2023/09/30/azerbaijan-says-serviceman-killed-by-sniper-armenia-denies-incident ChaotıċEnby(talk) 17:02, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Azerbaijani vs Azeri

Just to clarify, is it right to assume the short refers to the ethnic group while the long refers to the people living in the state? Borgenland (talk) 18:11, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

This is correct. Azeri is the ethnic group, Azerbaijani is the nationality. Same goes for Kazakh versus Kazakhstani, etcetera.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 18:26, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Not really, Kazakh-stan is a compound word for the state formed from the Kazakh ethnonym, while Azerbaijan is the original word for the historic region (Iranian Azerbaijan) which was turned into an ethnonym in both long and shortened forms. Chaotic Enby (talk) 18:29, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

While this is mostly true and you're right to point out that "Azerbaijani" can actually be the ethnicity name in some instances, the term Iranian Azerbaijani can also refer to somebody who hails from Iranian Azerbaijan as opposed to only an Azerbaijani/Azeri in Iran. You're right that the name Azerbaijan doesn't have the same etymological roots as names with the -stan suffix, so it's not a perfect analogy. But "Azeri" is a term that can only mean a member of the ethnic group with no ambiguity, while Azerbaijani can mean one who happens to live under the state known as Azerbaijan.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 18:55, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Azeri is the ethnic group, Azerbaijani is the nationality incorrect. Majority of people in Azerbaijan do not call themselves Azeri. It's more like an exonym. Azerbaijani Turk is an ethnic name, Azerbaijani is a nationality. Beshogur (talk) 19:26, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

It is an exonym, but a very useful one. The term "Azerbaijani Turk" isn't used as commonly as either "Azerbaijani" as an ethnic name or "Azeri". We are at least in agreement that "Azerbaijani" is a nationality and should not be used as the name of the ethnicity in this context (even though it is sometimes used as the ethnic name in other contexts), but I am of the view that Azeri avoids the confusion over the nationality while using a more commonly used term. That said, this probably isn't the talk page to hash that out. The article on the ethnicity is named Azerbaijanis, which neither of us seem to prefer.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 00:02, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Not necessarily, for instance Azerbaijanis or Iranian Azerbaijanis use the long form to refer to the ethnic group. Chaotic Enby (talk) 18:27, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

For clarification, I have been making fixes with the identity when it comes to describe Baku’s military. Borgenland (talk) 01:36, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Is the purpose of talk pages to block users?

Dear users, this page is a discussion page where people express their opinions without insulting each other. If users will be restricted by users with opposing views because they express their opinions on the talk page, then the talk page has no purpose, let's close the talk page. Unfortunately, the user named User:Kevo327 prevented me from changing the article due to his nationalist feelings. If it pleases him, I will not contribute anything to the page and will not participate in the discussion page. This user can change the page as he wishes with his nationalist feelings. Emreculha (talk) 07:31, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

The reason for restriction is WP:GS/AA. I suggest you not make personal attacks. You are not irreplaceable. If you have valid reasons, you can report them at WP:ANI. Nemoralis (talk) 07:39, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

My aim is definitely not a personal attack. However, I have no contribution to the article. --Emreculha (talk) 07:43, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

As I said above, if you think Kevo327 is WP:POVPUSHing, you can report them at WP:ANI, of course with valid reasons. Example. — Nemoralis (talk) 07:45, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

I can't prevent you from changing the article, you can't edit it because it's protected per WP:GS/AA - the notice on your talk was a standard alert for non-extended confirmed users in this topic area. I'm not going to reply to your personal attacks. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 07:44, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

The purpose of my message was not a personal attack, but simply about freedom of discussion. I apologize if the protection applies to all users and I misunderstood your message.--Emreculha (talk) 07:46, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Impartiality?

I disagree that the chapter is neutral and encyclopedic. The whole page is filled with "genocide risk" sections. I invite the officials to edit the page as "neutral". As a Wikipedian who took part in the 2020 Karabakh War article and participated in the discussions, my comment was edited only from the "Armenian Perspective".When I edited the first Karabakh war map, I respected the opinions of dozens of users who "did not like the sources and said they were not neutral.I think the whole article was created "from the Armenian point of view" - "Anti-Azerbaijani". I think that the "genocide" expressions that constantly appear in the article should be supported by strong sources. I would like to remind you that otherwise, Wikipedia's principles are violated. Emreculha (talk) 16:55, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

There is a clear risk of genocide presented by numerous well-respected human rights organizations that are not the Armenian government, claiming the article is “anti-Azerbaijani” is just far from reality. This is different from the 2020 war, it is a one-sided offensive as supported by numerous reliable sources, the purpose of wikipedia is not to provide a “both sides” perspective on how different nations see the issue, but to summarize how reliable sources are presenting the issue, I don’t see reliable sources refuting what is present in the article. TagaworShah (talk) 17:33, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Is Genocide Watch strong enough? Chaotic Enby (talk) 18:30, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Multiple WP:RS and human rights organizations have outlined an obvious genocide risk concerning recent developments in this conflict. To claim these sources, who are independent and not at all affiliated with Armenia or the Armenian government are "Anti-Azerbaijani" is entirely unfounded. Our job here is to report what sources state. While WP:NPOV is always a concern, the article in question is simply reporting the sources accurately, and is not grounds for a neutrality debate. Arakui (talk) 18:39, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

While there was no "genocide" risk in the First Karabakh War, where the opposite of today's situation took place and 16,000 civilians died and 724,000 civilians fled, the fact that the word genocide appears "64 times" in the article on this conflict shows us the "real focus" of the editors. I realize you used the word "risk", but I ask those making the claim, how many of the 10 stages in this article are available? Emreculha (talk) 06:14, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Genocide Watch considers Azerbaijan to be at Stage 4: Dehumanization, Stage 5: Organization, Stage 7: Preparation, Stage 8: Persecution, and Stage 9: Extermination.

And, concerning the First Karabakh War, Genocide Watch also made a report about the murder of Azerbaijani civilians (especially the Khojaly massacre), which should definitely be included in the relevant articles. Chaotic Enby (talk) 13:19, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

I'll add that it is an actual problem that "genocide" isn't used once on the First Karabakh War article to refer to the Armenian actions against Azerbaijani civilians, even though some (especially in the Armenian-occupied territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh) did arguably have genocidal intent. Although it should also be contextualized how this same event has been politicized to some extent. Chaotic Enby (talk) 13:28, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Moreno Ocampo

Moreno Ocampo's relation to this page has mostly been about the Genocide risk. Don't put him again in the Analysis section because he's just repeating what has been paraphrased in the Genocide risk section. Borgenland (talk) 14:50, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Four images dedicated to Armenian protests and four others to displaced

The image placement in this article is certainly has a point of view and it is unbalanced. Attempts to equalize the image placements have been reverted by Armenian editors Kevo327 and Vanezi Astghik. Ecrusized (talk) 13:33, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

@Ecrusized Mentioning the ethnic backgrounds of editors is not good practice and has gotten editors banned before under the new AA3 guidelines. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view describes balance as summarizing the viewpoints of reliable sources equally, not the viewpoints of governments or nationals. There seems to be a consensus among reliable sources that the civilian Armenian community of Nagorno-Karabakh is the hardest hit by these recent clashes and that has caused a lot to lose their homes, the images are in line with what reliable sources are reporting on. TagaworShah (talk) 15:33, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Both editors have editing history of POV pushing in Armenia related articles. Spamming the entire right half of the page with 10 images of Armenian protesters holding up banners in opposition to Azerbaijan ending a decades of conflict (fueled by Russia) is not contributive and definitely not neutral. Ecrusized (talk) 16:01, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

@Ecrusized Please focus on the contributions themselves and not any personal quarrels you have with the editors. I don’t see any image spam in the article, the images seem relevant and line up with what’s being presented in the reliable sources. The idea that this offensive is ending conflict is not neutral either, and is contradicted by a myriad of reliable sources who point to the immense humanitarian crisis and ethnic cleansing it has started. TagaworShah (talk) 16:07, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree. The images follow what has happened in this attack and the crisis it caused for local population. The article should reflect that. Removing a bunch or placing tags on them and article just because of relevant images reflecting what reliable sources confirm isn't constructive. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 16:31, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

I fail to see what benefit having 4 images of Armenian protesters holding banners has over just 1. Same goes for the images of Armenians being displaced. A single image is enough to give the reader an idea. Instead we have 8 images that spam the readers. Ecrusized (talk) 16:56, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

The article reflects what's reported by reliable sources, in chronological order. It's not a "spam", this was an attack that caused grave humanitarian crisis and various reliable sources warned of ethnic cleansing or genocide. The article reflects that and images are very much relevant. Adding tags to the article because of images reflecting what reliable sources confirm isn't constructive. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 17:03, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

While there are only 1-2 sentences giving information about Azerbaijani civilians and soldiers who died as a result of terrorist attacks, too many pictures and texts have been added for "possibility of genocide". Nevertheless, some authorized friends will continue to add contents written by "neutral organizations" like azatutyun.am, to the article as impartial observations. as always. Kyzagan (talk) 18:02, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

You mean the extensively sourced section on genocide risk? WP:GS/AA users in this thread, please read the article extensively and examine the content you put quotation marks for before commenting. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 18:09, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

The "possibility of genocide" that Genocide Watch is actively warning about?

Azerbaijani President Aliyev’s dictatorial regime's objective is to drive all Armenians out of Artsakh through war and genocide. Aliyev wants full integration of Artsakh into Azerbaijan.

Armenians claim integration will lead to genocide, repeating past Baku and Sumgait pogroms. Aliyev's genocidal intent is often expressed in his dehumanization of Armenians.

The silent genocide has become overt.

It's not a "non-neutral" or "partial" organization making these points, except if WP:FALSEBALANCE is your idea of neutrality. Chaotic Enby (talk) 18:25, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Why don't you answer the first sentence I wrote? Why is there so little information about Azerbaijanis who died as a result of terrorist attacks? You don't have the chance to say "go and add it", as you know, it is not possible to add information to pages about Armenia due to WP:GS/AA. The entire article is mostly written by Armenian users. Then I would be glad if you answer, why is the article full of information and pictures about "possibility genocide" instead of adding information about Azerbaijanis who died as a result of attacks? Kyzagan (talk) 18:33, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Because, sorry to be bold, I don't know as much about that situation and I can't add everything by myself. If you're wondering, I'm not Armenian at all (I'm French), but that shouldn't matter. If you want to add information about Azerbaijani victims, given WP:GS/AA, you can post it here so someone with extended-confirmed rights can add it. Chaotic Enby (talk) 18:44, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

How many Azerbaijanis have actually died in this round? Borgenland (talk) 08:54, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

@Borgenland, It was announced that 2 civilians died as a result of a mine explosion just before the Azerbaijani attack. Apart from this, as of the ceasefire in 2020, dozens of civilians died as a result of mine explosions. Most of them were settled by Armenian soldiers in the villages and towns evacuated by the Armenians. Kyzagan (talk) 18:56, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

I don’t mind the imagery but maybe one pic showing a poster with the genocide word on it can suffice in the protest section instead of two separate photos showing the same word. Borgenland (talk) 18:09, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely I agree. I also expressed my opinions in a separate topic. ---Emreculha (talk) 17:00, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree. One or two images might be enough. Wikipedia is WP:NOTGALLERY. [[User:Nemoralis (talk) 18:25, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

I have removed two images that already had similar ones, but otherwise the images present a balanced and neutral point of view. References support that this was an Azerbaijani attack, and there are no Azerbaijanis that have been displaced by it. --KhndzorUtogh (talk) 01:35, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

@KhndzorUtogh: Multiple users have protested to the usage of 4 images for protests, 2 for displaced and 2 for civilian suffering and are in support of just one image. You have closed such a highly contested discussion by practically not changing anything at all despite users objections. One image is enough for all these topics. WP:GALLERY. Ecrusized (talk) 08:27, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Multiple users agreed that images are all right and commented here, two WP:GS/AA opposing aren't even allowed to edit this topic area. I agree with Khndzorutogh's trim, it's more than good enough. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 08:35, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

I see 3 editors agree with your opinion and 3 others who disagree. That is not enough to close such a highly contested topic without even 24 hours of discussion in favor of your side. Ecrusized (talk) 08:38, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

These are images that have already been trimmed - you're just trimming even more and you don't have consensus to do so. Multiple users told you that images show what WP:RS confirm, and one of the users KhdnzorUtogh even trimmed some of the images - as it standed prior to your removals, the article had no issues and was not a "gallery", it represented what WP:RS report until you removed even more pictures. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 08:47, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

There are 3 editors who support the change I made. You want to have 2 images for protesters, 2 for displaced civilians and 2 for injured civilians. Meanwhile there are editors in this discussion including myself who have said one for each topic is enough. I'm being fair here. I agree that they are RS, meanwhile you want to push it into everybody's face by adding 2 images for each. Ecrusized (talk) 08:51, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

For the record, I agreed to retain the photos with the exception of one photo because its genocide theme was also seen in another photo, making it in my opinion redundant. Borgenland (talk) 08:53, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Exactly. And it was trimmed already. There are no issues of "gallery" either, currently it's fine and represents what WP:RS confirmed. OP tried to remove even more images without taking into account what people who can actually edit this article commented here. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 08:55, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why the two editors who voiced support User:Emreculha and User:Nemoralis shouldn't be able to edit this article or their opinions should be discarded. Ecrusized (talk) 08:58, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm talking about WP:GS/AA editors such as Emrechulha and Kyzagan.

Also 4 editors disagree with you or either reverted you already such as Vanezi Astghik, TagaworShah, KhndzorUtogh and Borgenland - Borgenland also clarified above that they agreed to retain photos with one exception, and the article images were already trimmed. So stop adding "POV" tag to the article and stop edit-warring. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 09:04, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

I can add a dispute tag whenever I want. User:Vanezi Astghik and User:TagaworShah have not even participated in this discussion. It's still a 4 in favor and 3 in opposition discussion here. Ecrusized (talk) 09:08, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

If someone reverts you, they're opposing to you. You have been reverted yesterday by Vanezi Astghik. TagaworShah had already commented and agreed that images follow what RS confirm. WP:GS/AA users aren't even allowed to edit this article. So it's 4 users againt 2, and since then, the images were even trimmed, you just had to trim more completely unreasonable. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 09:15, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Are they banned from editing this article? Because I don't see something like your link. Ecrusized (talk) 09:22, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

• Politics, ethnic relations, and conflicts involving Armenia, Azerbaijan, or both—broadly construed and explicitly including the Armenian genocide—are placed under an extended confirmed restriction.

The two users aren't extended confirmed. This article falls under GS/AA pretty much. Hope this helped. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 09:24, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

@Kevo327, WP:GS/AA prevents users from making changes to relevant articles, but not from expressing opinions. The people you mentioned, including me, are not bots, they are part of this community. You can't separate people to make it seem like a consensus has achieved to get the outcome you want. The authorized users should not act emotionally due to their ideological view. Kyzagan (talk) 18:42, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Gas station explosion as casualties of the conflict?

The infobox says 30 civilians were killed and 300+ were injured, but most of this number is from the gas station explosion that happened in Stepanakert on 25 September, 5 days after the conflict, and had no military interference. The infobox implies that Azerbaijani Army is responsible for it. Change it please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.154.5.139 (talk) 09:39, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Y Done Nemoralis (talk) 09:44, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

please add that Armenian people are leaving Artsakh in mass

As titled above DitorWiki (talk) 14:51, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Seems to be already done! Also, I created an article Flight of Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians to focus on this topic. Much support to all Armenians in this. Chaotic Enby (talk) 14:03, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Article request

Surprised to see we have Armenians in Nakhchivan and Armenians in Baku but not Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh. I think we should have an article on them since following the incoming dissolution of the Republic of Artsakh we will have no main article covering information about them. I am imagining Karabakh Armenians will become a recognizable group in Armenian society like the Pontic Greeks in Greece. We will also have several sources researching the situation of those that left for Armenia and those that stayed in the region. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 14:56, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Armenians_in_Azerbaijan#Armenians_in_Nagorno-Karabakh Beshogur (talk) 15:17, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Article increasingly covering events outside of the offensive

The article covers everything that has happened in the region since 19 September (nine days) but the offensive lasted for under 24 hours. We will need a change of scope (which has already happened, but it needs to be reflected on the lead, categories, links to this article...) and most likely another title different from the ones currently being discussed. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 09:15, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I think it would be best if the Aftermath was condensed into prose form rather than timeline. Borgenland (talk) 10:13, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I think we should even consider a title called Azerbaijan's seizure of Nagorno-Karabakh since this event occured one time. Lot of news agencies calling it this way. Beshogur (talk) 10:22, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

There's already a discussion above for changing the title, let's wait until it concludes... Chaotic Enby (talk) 10:42, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

The RM has ended. Once the move is performed by an administrator I will request another move in this style (article can't get a rest). I have Azerbaijani takeover of Nagorno-Karabakh in mind. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 14:59, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

"Azerbaijan's" is more appropriate. Beshogur (talk) 15:16, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

No article of this kind uses this format. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 15:39, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

How so? There is no such rule. Beshogur (talk) 19:21, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Not a rule, just that demonyms are more common than possessive 's and that I haven't seen an article about invasion, conquest, takeover, etc. using possesive 's. Which would then mean WP:CONSISTENT applies as well. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 19:47, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I would support the creation of a separate timeline/aftermath article for those events. Chaotic Enby (talk) 10:42, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Replying again as my previous reply was a bit short and not too clear. We could have the key points of the timeline summarized in prose in this article, while having a separate timeline article focused on both the military operation itself and its aftermath - and, of course, a prose article for the flight of Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians. Chaotic Enby (talk) 10:45, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I fully agree, it would make this article way more focused. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 11:16, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Requested move for 2016 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict

Like to hear your thoughts. Talk:2016_Nagorno-Karabakh_conflict#Requested_move_27_September_2023. Beshogur (talk) 20:57, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Moving content to Exodus of Armenians from Nagorno-Karabakh?

Would it be okay to move relevant content to that page, given that this one is becoming pretty bloated with stuff not directly about the clashes while the other one is still a stub? Chaotic Enby (talk) 22:17, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

can this be considered as a short war

This was more of the third war everyone was talking about plus this what Azeris needed the last fast war and they got what they wanted the third Nagorno-Karabakh war which lasted just a day 2600:6C50:1B00:32BE:7082:B49C:C983:128B (talk) 02:26, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

We do not decide the name. No WP:RS calls this a "third war". Wikipedia doesn't lead; we follow. Nemoralis (talk) 06:22, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

but if you look at as a separate conflict it shows its self to be a war as the last war of karabakh 204.102.220.123 (talk) 17:15, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a blog and information for such items comes from properly cited references and not whims, assumptions or original research by random editors. Borgenland (talk) 17:29, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Diplomatic Supports of Turkey

Should Turkey be added as a diplomatic supporter? The Minister of Foreign Affairs already announced that "our diplomatic supports always with Azerbaijan". There are a lot of source about this case.--Emreculha (talk) 20:10, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

This is already been mentioned in the reactions section. Kyzagan (talk) 20:24, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

No. Infobox is not a place for diplomatic or other forms of support. It is purely for military involvement. See MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Ecrusized (talk) 20:34, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your replies and informaions. Emreculha (talk) 09:33, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Flag salad "Reactions" section

As many of you know, most editors despise list-formatted "Reactions" sections, especially the flag icons. These sections should be converted into prose—not a bulleted (flagged) list. Sourcing should not be primary, such as tweets. Abductive (reasoning) 15:18, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Suggest limiting reactions from countries with clear influence and clout and/or leverage over the events, with particular emphasis on regional neighbors and regional/superpowers. Almost every country would most likely be concerned at another war. Borgenland (talk) 16:47, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

I added a thread above. Maybe first we should start with merging countries into one sentence that urging both sides, etc. Beshogur (talk) 16:59, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

What is clear from the list so far is that only Uzbekistan is openly backing Azerbaijan.

Argentina, Brazil, France, Canada, Cyprus, Germany, Ecuador, Ireland, Poland and the UK are officially condemning Azerbaijan or at least placing the burden of ending the conflict on Baku. Borgenland (talk) 17:07, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Also Kazakstan reaction is just an Az ambassador's quote, they're not the same level as the other reactions so should be removed imo. And not sure who added Kazakstan in the map as supporting Azerbaijan, it should be removed, pinging map creator @BlackShadowG: maybe they could help. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 17:14, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

they're not the same level as the other reactions so should be removed imo. As I told before, ambassadors are very high ranking foreign officials. Their statements represents their official position. Pretty sure more relevant than "representatives to the United Nations". Beshogur (talk) 17:20, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Also, do backbench legislators reactions really count? Borgenland (talk) 18:02, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Depends, if they're part of the government yeah. But deputy-chair of the parliament, idk. Beshogur (talk) 19:25, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

I’m fine with parliamentary leadership and committees. Just unsure about two legislators that many readers would most likely just have learned of their names from this article. See Canada and USA. Borgenland (talk) 01:38, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Its Ministry of Foreign Affairs also expressed support for Azerbaijan [8]. BlackShadowG (talk) 15:32, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

This is about the so called elections prior the conflict. Beshogur (talk) 15:34, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Well, it looks like the Kazakh government itself has not taken a stance on the situation. I'm willing to modify the map if there's a consensus on how to color Kazakhstan on the map. (After a few edits, I no longer feel confident in my English writing skills, so I will edit this article less often in the future.) BlackShadowG (talk) 15:54, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

@BlackShadowG it's an ambassador of Azerbaijan, they do not represent the entire country and very often are pro whatever country they're working from. I think you should modify until a higher rank official says they support Az. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 17:02, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

That's untrue. You're keep repeating same things. Ambassadors do represent their country. They do not say "pro x country". Beshogur (talk) 17:20, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Also Kazakhstan, a member of OTS, showed its support during the so called presidential election some weeks ago. Do you think they changed their stance? Ambassador's reaction isn't much different. Beshogur (talk) 17:22, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

This is what I must say, a horrible misunderstanding of diplomatic functions. Ambassadors are the highest representative of the state in other countries and ARE GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES and their primary job is to REPRESENT THEIR COUNTRY’S INTERESTS. Otherwise, why would foreign ministries and world leaders bother to call them for celebrations or ask them to send messages to their leaders or reprimand them? As such, their statements are their home country’s policy unless otherwise clarified or repudiated. If the Kazakh ambassador’s remarks were not representative of the country then we should have seen an immediate clarification from Astana or even the removal of the ambassador from his post, which given succeeding events has not happened, hereby confirming his statements as the same as Kazakh policy. I am sorry but I think some of you are beginning to confuse ambassadors with lobbyists in the style of American politics. Borgenland (talk) 17:32, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

An Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary is able to represent his country according to the 1961 Vienna Convention.

The Ambassador's article says: The ambassador extraordinary and plenipotentiary being historically regarded as the personal representative of the sovereign, the custom of dispatching ambassadors to the head of state rather than the government has persisted. يوسف قناوة (talk) 20:40, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Just checked [9] he's indeed ambassador extraordinary and plenipotentiary. Beshogur (talk) 20:05, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

• I am going to remove the flag icons. Prose are better and the standard practice for these sections is not to use these icons. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:24, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

By the way, Holy See isn't a country. Also not using colons look weird. Beshogur (talk) 20:53, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 28 September 2023

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

The result of the move request was: Not moved. WP:SNOW due to unanimous opposition and multiple suggestions for a speedy close.(closed by non-admin page mover) estar8806 (talk) ★ 01:39, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

---

2023 Azerbaijani offensive in Nagorno-Karabakh → Azerbaijan's seizure of Nagorno-Karabakh – I know there was a recent move request but this resulted with Azerbaijan's takeover the area, and this article covers all events, not the offensive alone. Beshogur (talk) 15:00, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

• BBC: Azerbaijan's seizure of the disputed region
• The Independent: Azerbaijan's seizure of the disputed region
• Financial Times: Azerbaijan seized control of the region
• The New York Times: Azerbaijan seized Nagorno-Karabakh

Beshogur (talk) 15:00, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

• A reoccupation would be better, since the area was administratively under Soviet Azerbaijan. Borgenland (talk) 15:55, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose and speedy close. The previous Move was just closed with consensus for current title. Not only is this premature, but also uncommon name. :- Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 16:09, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

  "2023 Azerbaijani offensive in Nagorno-Karabakh" isn't a common name either. Your requested move was based on the same thing. Also "2023" is simply a misnomer. When was the other offensive? You can claim it was Operation Ring, but that's entirely different. Beshogur (talk) 16:16, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

  Azerbaijani 'offensive' or 'attack' are most common, and there is clearly consensus for current title given the recent Move. If 'seizure' becomes more common, I don't mind it. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 16:26, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

  Three years ago. Chaotic Enby (talk) 16:31, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

  Also seven years ago. Chaotic Enby (talk) 16:34, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

  Nagorno-Karabakh isn't the Armenian-occupied territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh. 2016 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict wasn't in Nagorno-Karabakh either, but happened in Fuzuli district. Beshogur (talk) 16:43, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

  But Armenia wouldn’t have been there had it not been propping up Nagorno-Karabakh. It is still highly intertwined. Borgenland (talk) 17:31, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Clearly for titles in other articles, including ongoing RMs, we haven't really cared about the actual definition of Nagorno-Karabakh. But the 2020 war captured a third of Nagorno-Karabakh proper anyway. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 17:44, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

It's Karabakh proper, not Nagorno-Karabakh. There is a difference. Beshogur (talk) 18:04, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

No, it absolutely did capture parts of Nagorno-Karabakh, including Shahumyan Province, Shushi Province, Kashatagh Province and Hadrut Province. Chaotic Enby (talk) 20:48, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

These are self declared provinces, not "Nagorno Karabakh". Beshogur (talk) 07:35, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose and suggest speedy close. There isn't that much of a difference between the current name and the suggested name. The article just went through a week long debate on name change. Suggest moratorium on requested moves for 1 month. Ecrusized (talk) 16:11, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

I oppose the idea of a moratorium. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 17:44, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Oppose and WP:SNOW close. We already just decided a name, this one is just the current one with less consistency and clarity. Chaotic Enby (talk) 16:29, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Oppose due to recent move request and similar title but I agree that eventually there will probably have to be either a title change or split between the military offensive and the administrative annexation of the region eventually, once that becomes clearer. Yeoutie (talk) 16:39, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Agree with this, we'll need (and arguably already do need) an article split. Chaotic Enby (talk) 16:41, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure what are you going to cover in a one day conflict? There is no such need for a split. Beshogur (talk) 16:44, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

The article is more than 180 kilobytes right now, which is massively huge (and arguably too big for a single article). Even if you split the aftermath, there will be more than enough material left. Chaotic Enby (talk) 16:47, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

It's over 180 kilobytes due to excessive citations. Not my fault. Beshogur (talk) 18:05, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

• This is ridiculous. Having recently had a RM does not necessarily nullify any new proposals. Particularly ones that weren't discussed yet. The RM that led to the current title was first opened on 19 September, the offensive was still ongoing. Now it's 28 September and the article covers more events that happened outside the 24-hour long offensive than during it. We didn't know how would things turn out. This was an exceptional case and exceptional treatment was perfectly valid.

In any case I would have opposed this particular version because the proposed title should've carried a demonym. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 17:44, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Agree that the RM doesn't nullify new proposals, it's just that this specific proposal doesn't correspond to the consistent format we use to designate these events, and makes the scope much less clear. I know the intent is to cover more than the military offensive itself, but 1/ it isn't necessarily clear, 2/ "seizure" isn't really a formal word to designate this kind of stuff and 3/ a renaming might not be the best way to solve this. Chaotic Enby (talk) 20:46, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

How it isn't. Azerbaijan seized control / or will take whole NK region in which they never did before. Beshogur (talk) 07:36, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose title. It was just moved. Stop trying to change things for no good reason. Paul Vaurie (talk) 18:07, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

  Moved by premature assumption that this is a normal offensive, in fact it resulted with Azerbaijan's control over the region. Beshogur (talk) 07:37, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. I understand the intent behind this change but "X's seizure of Y" isn't really the way titles are supposed to be written. Maybe someday down the line the article could be retitled to "Reintegration of Nagorno-Karabakh into Azerbaijan" or something similar, depending how events play out, but let's leave the title be for now, since the current title is a vast improvement over "2023 Nagorno-Karabakh clashes". ErrorDestroyer (talk) 20:08, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

  Honestly, the "Reintegration" article should be a separate thing from the military operation. Chaotic Enby (talk) 20:56, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose: Too tendentious. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 21:08, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
• Comment: Fall of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic or similar would reflect the swift and consequential nature of what's happened here. PrimaPrime (talk) 10:53, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

  This article is about a military offensive. Consequences can be mentioned somewhere else. Mellk (talk) 10:56, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

  The state isn't even called "Nagorno-Karabakh" but "Artsakh"... Chaotic Enby (talk) 15:25, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

  @Chaotic Enby It's also referred to as the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic > Asheiouy (they/them • talk) 15:26, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

  My bad, just checked and you're right. But the commonly used name, and the one used in all Wikipedia articles, is still "Republic of Artsakh". Chaotic Enby (talk) 15:28, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

  @Chaotic Enby you are correct in that, yes > Asheiouy (they/them • talk) 15:54, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per above. Mellk (talk) 14:41, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Oppose. The current name has consensus. "Seizure" is potentially a politically divisive term. Keep as-is. > Asheiouy (they/them • talk) 13:58, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

• Strong oppose and speedy close. We only just discussed this at length, and the present title is fine. Consensus will not form for the proposed.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:59, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

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