Talk:Armenian-occupied territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus and stale. - JPG-GR (talk) 19:56, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the present title is not neutral. The international community refers to these territories as occupied. But for the sake of neutrality something like Political status of 7 Armenian controlled districts of Azerbaijan could be acceptable. Grandmaster (talk) 12:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Copied from WP:RM:

The title is not neutral. The 7 districts of Azerbaijan, which are under control of armed Armenian forces, are generally referred to as occupied territories of Azerbaijan. 4 UN Security Council Resolutions [1] and resolutions of PACE [2] and other international organizations, as well as mass media use the term Occupied territories. But some may see the word "occupied" as non-neutral, and therefore something like Political status of 7 Armenian controlled districts of Azerbaijan or Political status of 7 districts of Azerbaijan, which are under Armenian control might be more acceptable. I see that this is what other similar articles are called, see for example Political status of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Any suggestions of other acceptable titles are welcome. —Grandmaster (talk) 12:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

* I second. In most sources it referred as occupied territories.--Dacy69 (talk) 21:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

* Yes, I agree with Grandmaster, he has a point, these territories are known as occupied territories both in media as in official records, the title is POV and should be changed to Political status of 7 Armenian controlled districts of Azerbaijan Baku87 (talk) 11:50, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Support. POV title generated by the separatist administration is not acceptable and should be changed. Parishan (talk) 08:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Support. Ridiculous WP:POV, and think of hundreds of thousands who have been thrown out of their homes in this "security belt". Also, may want to look at the map, did NKR need security belt against Iran too to occupy districts between NK and Iran?? :)) Atabəy (talk) 08:40, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Support. The title is POV, according to several UN resolutions the entire region is labeled as occupied regions even in the media its portrayed as occupied regions, so how on earth the article got to be named "security belt" is beyond me. Baku87 (talk) 12:22, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Baku you should support it one more time, third time is the charm. VartanM (talk) 12:44, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Unless you have actually anything usefull to say stop being so childish. Baku87 (talk) 12:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Support. Wikipedia needs a neutral term. Security Belt reflects only Armenian POV. Chippolino (talk) 20:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

What a surprise? you all want to rename a perfectly neutral name to a POV and all support each other. VartanM (talk) 10:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Support It can be called "security belt" for some circles in Armenia. But for the world, which Wiki is targgeting, it has to be called "7 Armenian controlled districts of Azerbaijan", as the world sees it this way, except the few/minority. So better luck with the Wiki in Armenian. --Aynabend (talk) 10:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Oppose An article's title exists so that it can be easily found by readers, if more clarification about its actual content is needed then that can be given in the article's introduction section. Ambiguous and overly-long titles, like those proposed as alternatives, are not suitable for a Wikipedia article title. Even the current title is too long - something like "Nagorno-Karabakh security belt" would be better. Meowy 17:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

• Our naming policies are crystal-clear - our first priority in article naming is not neutrality, but rather unambiguous recognisability and common usage in English language publications. Arguments based on these grounds may be valid; all others are spurious. So then; what's the common name in English language publications? Knepflerle (talk) 23:46, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

• The common name is Occupied territories of Azerbaijan. Please see UN Security Council Resolutions [3], [4] resolution of PACE [5] and I can cite plenty of other sources. Google search gives the following results. Security belt of Nagorno-Karabakh Republic has only 3 hits, all to Wikipedia and its mirrors, which means that the present title is OR. Occupied territories of Azerbaijan has 17,700 hits, which means that it is the most widely used term. Grandmaster (talk) 05:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

• So we should either use neutral name, that is 7 Armenian controlled districts of Azerbaijan, or follow our naming policies and give preference to unambiguous recognisability and common usage in English language publications - Occupied territories of Azerbaijan. Chippolino (talk) 18:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

  But term "occupied territories of Azerbaijan" usually refers to all territories controlled by Nagorno-Karabakh Defense Army, including territories of former Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast, not to territories, which are object of discussed article. The objects of this article and your term are really different. Dinamik (talk) 22:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

  That's not a problem. We can make corrections to the article to fix that. Grandmaster (talk) 06:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

  But if me make such corrections to the article we will take the second article about Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, which is called by Azerbaijani people "occupied territories". I think, it won't be correct to have 2 articles about one object. Term "occupied terrirories" refers to all territory, controlled by Nagorno-Karabakh Republic and we have such article, and term "7 districts of Azerbaijan..." refers to object of discussed article. Dinamik (talk) 17:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

  I don't think so. The article about "NKR" also covers these 7 districts. So even if the article is only about 7 districts, it still repeats some of the information that is contained in the article about "NKR". There will be some overlap between these 2 articles anyway, no matter what you call it. Plus, the terms like "Security belt" are OR and not generally used to refer to these districts. Grandmaster (talk) 05:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

  Article about NKR gives common information about NKR, this article gives specific information about history and political status (which is rather unique) of this territories. I look at results below and see, that term "buffer zone" is in use. Dinamik (talk) 21:23, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

"security belt" nagorno karabagh gives 368 hits, almost all seem to be specific to this subject, "security belt" nagorno karabakh gives 345 hits, again almost all of them specific to this subject. That would seem to show there are enough English-language examples to justify the current title. Meowy 17:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

"7 districts of Azerbaijan" gets 8 hits, all of them on-topic, all of them of also seem to be of Azeri origin. "7 Armenian controlled districts of Azerbaijan" gets none. Meowy 17:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... "buffer zone" nagorno karabagh gets 6,290 hits - a lot more than for "security belt", so maybe the title should change to "Nagorno-Karabagh buffer zone". "Buffer zone" is also probably more neutral: NK says it needs the buffer zone because it acts as a security zone. Meowy 18:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

"buffer zone of nagorno karabakh" gets 0 hits. You don't perform the search correctly. "Security belt of Nagorno-Karabakh" gets 6 hits, all to Wikipedia and its mirrors. So the most popular and appropriate title is Occupied territories of Azerbaijan, it gets the most hits, plus it is the term used by the international community. Grandmaster (talk) 06:44, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

No! It is you who are doing the seach incorrectly. The purpose of the search was to indicate how often the phrase "buffer zone" is used in relation to Nagorno Karabagh (or its varient, Nagorno Karabakh). As the search proves, there are some 6000 examples, most of them being news reports, showing that the phrase has been often used in that context. No such equivalent exists for "Occupied territories of Azerbaijan" because the search is too broad - Azerbaijan uses that term in relation to all territory it claims ownership of, not just the specific lands covered in this article. Meowy 16:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. Most of this regions were part of the Melikdoms of Karabakh (See Armenia: A Historical Atlas, map 144-145), which included the left bank of the Aras River, Kelbajar a.o., while Lachin (Kashatagh) was one of the melikdoms of Syunik. Even the western scholar Robert Hewsen wrote that Kelbajar was liberated.

International organisations indeed recognise them as territory of Azerbaijan, but I think that should be mentioned only in the article itself, together with the political-historical grounds on which they, on the other hand, are regerd as liberated areas of Nagorno-Karabakh. Something like "Nagorno Karabakh buffer zone" I see a neutral title and would agree with. --Vacio (talk) 11:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

You are using an off-topic argument to support a correct decision. It is nothing to do with the use of arguably POV words like "liberation" or "occupation". It is not only Azerbaijan and international organisations that recognise the territories covered in this article as being part of Azerbaijan - Nagorno-Karabakh also recognises them as such, but is currently holding onto them because it states that they are needed as a security belt to protect Nagorno-Karabakh from renewed Azeri aggression. The whole point of having this article is that there is a definable difference between the territory of Nagorno-Karabakh and the land surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh that are held by Nagorno-Karabakh forces. That is why phrases like "Occupied territories of Azerbaijan" cannot be used for the title of this article - such phrases are used by Azerbaijan and as such do not differentiate between the territory of Nagorno-Karabakh and the lands surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh that are held by Nagorno-Karabakh forces. Meowy 16:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

"Occupied territories" is the term, generally used to refer to these territories. All international organizations use the term, and so does mass media and scholarly sources. The terms like "security belt" or "buffer zone" are not used at all, the google search gives 0 hits. Meowy, you do not perform the search correctly. If you use buffer zone without quotation marks, it will find any occurrence of these words, regardless if they have anything to do with NK or not. That's why you need to put the entire line "Buffer zone of Nagorno-Karabakh" in quotation marks. I think it is pretty much obvious that the present title and buffer zone are OR titles. I proposed an alternative, but if it is not acceptable, according to the rules we need to select the most popular title. Grandmaster (talk) 05:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The most popular title suitable for the content of this article would appear to be "Nagorno Karabakh buffer zone". The search "buffer zone" nagorno karabagh seaches for any articles that contain the words "nagorno" and "karabagh" together with the phrase "buffer zone". It is the correct search criteria to use, yours is not. The vast majority of hits are directly on-topic for the content of this article. Some of them do concern buffer zones in other parts of the world, and only mention NK in passing - however, those pages just prove that the phrase "buffer zone" enjoys a wide usage and is not OR or POV. You have not answered my point that the phrase "occupied territories" does not differentiate between the territory of Nagorno-Karabakh and the lands surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh that are currently held by Nagorno-Karabakh forces. It is the latter that is the subject of this article. Meowy 02:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

But who says it has to differentiate? It does not have to. It just should explain what the international community understands under the term "occupied territories of Azerbaijan", which is the most popular name. The term "buffer zone" is not used by any reliable source. So far I have not seen any examples of such usage, and google search gives 0 hits. To search for a specific term, you need to put it in quotation marks. Otherwise the search will provide any hits to the words buffer and zone, or if you put those 2 words in quotation marks, any hits to the words "buffer zone", regardless whether it is used in reference to NK or not. The article should be named after an established term, and Occupied territories of Azerbaijan is such a term. If you search for "Occupied territories of Azerbaijan" in quotation marks, you get thousands hits, which means that it is an established and generally accepted term. Grandmaster (talk) 07:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The actual article differentiates it. You either don't understand the topic of the article, and how to properly undertake and interpretate seach engine results, or have chosen to conciously ignore them. Meowy 17:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Grandmaster claims that the term "buffer zone" is not used by any reliable source. Reliable sources that use the term, from the first few pages of that Google search: BBC [6], The Economist [7], Council of Europe [8], British Parliament: [9], United Nations [10], Los Angeles Times [11]. Meowy 23:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The topic of the article can be adjusted, we are the ones who write it, and it is up to us to make any corrections and amendments. That's not a problem at all. As for the term "buffer zone", it is used, but by a very few sources, and no official ones. The Council of Europe mentions buffer zone in a completely different context:

on 12 March 1994 the Speakers of the Parliaments of Armenia and Azerbaijan reached a provisional agreement on the removal of troops around Nagorno-Karabakh and the creation of a "buffer zone";

This is about the buffer zone that should be created after the withdrawal of occupying troops. Btw, should we create another article about this buffer zone, that is being discussed? Again, the rules require that we select the most popular and generally accepted title. Occupied territories of Azerbaijan is such a title. Nothing beats it by the number of hits. Grandmaster (talk) 05:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The subject matter of the article is quite clear and precise: issues connected to the territories in Azerbaijan situated outside the former Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Region but controlled since 1993 by the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. It is an article dealing with what is a widely recognised and important subject, one which has been extensively discussed in world media as well as within Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Nagorno Karabagh. Meowy 15:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and that subject is occupied territories of Azerbaijan. There are 4 UN Security Council resolutions about them. Grandmaster (talk) 17:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

If you say, that theese 7 districts are "occupied territories", you should agree with sentence, that ouher territories, controlled by NKR, are not "occupied territories". If you don't agree, we should find another term for discussed object. Dinamik (talk) 17:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Again, the topic of the article can be adjusted by adding the relevant info. Very easy. If you have better suggestions than "security belt" or "buffer zone", please let us know, and we will consider them. I made a proposal during the nomination, "Political status of 7 Armenian controlled districts of Azerbaijan". It may not be perfect, but at least it is neutral and is in line with the practice of naming similar articles here. If anyone has better suggestions, please make them. But the fact remains that the districts of Azerbaijan presently occupied by the Armenian forces are generally called "Occupied territories of Azerbaijan". That is the most popular and generally accepted title. Grandmaster (talk) 11:37, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Why do you think your version is the only neutral one? According to HRW and USIP reports this areas are gained and controlled by Nagorno-Karabakh, not Armenia! "Armenian controlled districts of Azerbaijan" is neither neutral nor correct. You also keep ignoring that, though many sources call them "occupied territories", there are also others calling them "liberated territories", and that "buffer zone", as Meowy showed, is used by a lot of weighty international organizations and press agencies. I suggest to vote on the last version ("Nagorno-Karabakh buffer zone") in a new subsection below. --Vacio (talk) 12:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

According to the rules, we should use the most prevalent name, which is Occupied territories. Other names are used rarely. Grandmaster (talk) 07:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

I would like to notice, that term "occupied territories of Azerbaijan" usually refers to all territories controlled by Nagorno-Karabakh Defense Army, including territories of former Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast, not to territories, which are object of discussed article. I think, we should talk about moving article to something about Political status of 7 districts of Azerbaijan, controlled by Nagorno-Karabakh Defense Army, if this moving is such necessary. Dinamik (talk) 18:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

It is not just military forces from Karabakh, but also from Armenia. So it would be better to call it Political status of 7 districts of Azerbaijan, controlled by Armenian armed forces. That's what international community calls them anyway. Grandmaster (talk) 17:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

In this case we can consider variants Political status of 7 districts of Azerbaijan, controlled by armed forces, mainly armenian nationality or Political status of 7 districts of Azerbaijan, controlled by armed forces, most of which has armenian nationality, because they can thought that "armenian armed forces" means "armed forces of Armenia". Dinamik (talk) 21:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Armenian forces is the term, used by UN and other international organizations. Armenian forces does not necessarily mean forces from Armenia, just any ethnically Armenian forces. We can add the word ethnic, if needed, though I believe it is not necessary: Political status of 7 districts of Azerbaijan, controlled by ethnic Armenian forces. Grandmaster (talk) 07:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

An article's title exists so that it can be easily found by readers, if more clarification is needed beyond the article title then that can be given in the introduction section of the article. The non-specific and overly-long "Political status of 7 districts of Azerbaijan, controlled by ethnic Armenian forces" is not suitable for a Wikipedia article title. "Political status of 7 districts of Azerbaijan, controlled by armed forces, most of which has armenian nationality" is even worse. What on earth would make anyone think a mouthful like that would be suitable for a title? Even the current title is far too long - I suggest changing it to the "Nagorno-Karabakh security belt". Meowy 19:42, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the last proposal of Meowy: Nagorno-Karabakh security belt is clear and probably the only neutral version. --Vacio (talk) 06:33, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Security belt is not neutral and reflects Armenian POV, if anything, "occupied territories" is a generally accepted term and this is what the international community calls those 7 districts. Grandmaster (talk) 08:08, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Security belt is very neutral and simple term. And if you really feel that its POV, I will have no choice, but ask for "liberated territories", so we can have another useless endless discussion. VartanM (talk) 10:00, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Did anyone recognize "Nagorno-Karabakh Republic" for the security belt (read 7 districts of Azerbaijan occupied by the Armed forces of Republic of Armenia) to carry any legitimacy in title? I think some Wiki editors are still in the illusion world, as the negotiation on release of those territories are conducted between Azerbaijan and Armenia directly, no such party as NKR is known or involved. Atabəy (talk) 08:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Armenian, Azerbaijani and Russian presidents signed the Moscow declaration in which these countries will focus on the solution of the conflict, as we all know "Nagorno-Karabakh Republic" has been excluded in the talks. This means its a intergovernmential conflict something Armenia has been trying to deny for a decade but now our governments have all agreed upon it. See here. This conflict is about Armenia vs Azerbaijan and nothing else thus the title show be reflected on the reality and not being so misleading.Baku87 (talk) 12:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

What will users say about Buffer zone of Nagorno-Karabakh Republic? Dinamik (talk) 21:53, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Same as the present title. It is not neutral, as it reflects the opinion of NK separatists and ignore the opinion of the international community. Plus, it is not the common name for these areas. Grandmaster (talk) 05:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Security zone and Buffer zone are synonyms they are the same thing and it only reflects one perspective. The international community has agreed this is a intergovernmental conflict and sees these regions clearly as occupied regions. Baku87 (talk) 12:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

HRW and USIP reports mention this areas as regions of Azerbaijan ruled or occupied by NK forces, and the-NK War as one between Azerbaijan and NK itself ([12][13][14][15]), so occupation by the Republic of Armenia don't needs to discussed here. However even the first one only reflects one of the two conceptions. The second is, as VartanM highlighted, that these areas are liberated Armenian lands. Here a quote from the western historian Robert H. Hewsen, in reference to one of this districts, Kelbajar, which according to him was liberated during the Nagorno-Karabakh War.

Karvatjar
The Soviet raion of Kelbajar (Arm. Karvatjar) corresponds to the ancient district of Vaykunik’ (medieval Upper Khach’ēn, later Tsar). A land of high mountains, deep gorges, and rich pastureland, Vaykunik’ was the territory of the Khaghbakid branch of the Siunid princes of Khach’ēn, ancestors of the later meliks of Tsar, the latter holding the area until the coming of the Russian. Though remote, Tsar nevertheless suffered from the deportations of Shah ’Abbās in the early seventeenth century and was almost denuded of its Armenian inhabitants. Eventually, Kurds settled the area, as they did in the district of Kashat’agh across the Karabagh (Arts’akh) Mountains to the south. Only the monasteries, churches, and extensive funeral monuments bore witness to the essential Armenian nature of the original population. Liberated from the Azeris during the Karabagh War, Karvatjar was for the first time surveyed for its Armenological monuments (…) numbering close to 750, include monasteries, churches, chapels, fortresses, forts, bridges, cemeteries, burial mounds, inscriptions, dwelling places, khachk’ars, and petroglyphs.
Robert H. Hewsen, Armenia: A Historical Atlas. The University of Chicago Press, 2001, pp. 264-265. ISBN: 978-0-226-33228-4

I recall that this prominent historian is many times quoted by Azeri users, especially Grandmaster, who considers R. Hewsen a top expert. Thus I expect that Azeri users will agree at least that there are two contradict conceptions (with respectively political and historical bases) and therefro any title of this article, which would refelct only one of this conceptions would not be neutral. --Vacio (talk) 09:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

He is an expert on ancient history, but not the modern days. Plus, he is known to be an Armenian nationalist. You need to show that liberated territories is a generally accepted name. The fact that 1 source uses it does not make it such. Grandmaster (talk) 06:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

File:Tsutsiev.jpg

You desregard sources when they don't fit with your stand. Vaykunik / Kelbajar was a canton Artsakh in ancien times, it was ruled by the House of Khachen in modern times. Kelbajar was part of Karabakh even in 1921 (see the map). One has enough grounds to regard it liberated. You have to accept that, besides occupated territory, there is another conception of this issue. The boundaries of NKAO were drawn by Azeris:

A commission composed entirely of Azeris then drew up the frontiers of the province, omitting Giulistan, the northernmost of its five traditional districts, and otherwise creating a minimal, though ethnically Armenian, Karabagh.

Robert H. Hewsen, Armenia: A Historical Atlas. The University of Chicago Press, 2001, p. 264. ISBN: 978-0-226-33228-4


[The NKAO] has an area of 1,945 square miles, which is considerably less than the approximately 3,175 square miles which made up the area of Karabagh of old and which would have made Karabagh almost as large as Lebanon (3929 square miles) if the entire area of the plateau were included within the present frontiers.

Robert H. Hewsen. The Meliks of Eastern Armenia: A Preliminary Study. Revue des etudes Arméniennes. NS: IX, 1972, pp. 288.

--Vacio (talk) 11:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

What does it have to do with this? Grandmaster (talk) 05:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to have anything directly to do with it (the article's title). That the phrase "occupied territories" is POV and biased and historically inaccurate is true. However, even if it were NPOV and unbiased and historically accurate it still would not be suitable for this article's title because it does not accurately define the subject of the article. Meowy 02:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Robert Hewsen, the Armenian nationalist. Right, Grandmaster. It's Robert Hewsenian. Hakob (talk) 04:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

"A commission composed entirely of Azeris then drew up the frontiers of the province" - I didn't know Sergo Orjonikidze, member and leader of Kavbureau was Azeri :))) A neutral title to this article would be occupied Azerbaijani regions, as they are 1) internationally recognized as rayons of Azerbaijan; 2) they're under occupation of Armenian forces; 3) Armenia does not deny that the territories will have to be liberated under the peace agreement. So I am not sure why all this POV pushing about "buffer zones" is needed. Armenian forces have occupied those regions, ethnically cleansed their population to the last Azeri soul, now try to resettle the region with Armenians (albeit with failed attempts) and now it's called a "buffer zone"? Brilliant, then perhaps, Iraq should be renamed to buffer zone too, between Iran and the United States, what a nonsense. Atabəy (talk) 05:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Term "occupied Azerbaijani regions" refers to all territories controlled by Nagorno-Karabakh Defense Army, including territories of former Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast, not to territories, which are object of discussed article. If Azerbaijan, for example, recognize Nagorno-Karabakh Republic in borders of former Nagorno-Karabakh autonomous oblast, we can start discussion about other regions of Azerbaijan, controlled by Nagorno-Karabakh Defense Army, not before the recognition and giving term "occupied regions of Azerbaijan" more precise. Dinamik (talk) 06:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Another 2 suggestions: "Security belt near Nagorno-Karabakh (not Nagorno-Karabakh Republic!)" or "Buffer zone near Nagorno-Karabakh". Nagorno-Karabakh is more neutral word, because it refers to geographical region, not political. Dinamik (talk) 06:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

It's a "buffer zone" in a military conflict between nations of Armenia and Azerbaijan over the region of Nagorno-Karabakh. The terms "buffer zone", "Nagorno-Karabakh Defense Army" as well as "Nagorno-Karabakh Republic" and others are POV invented by one of the sides in conflict, and never recognized internationally. Not sure why Wikipedia shall made to serve as a source for disseminating non-neutral propaganda. But for all intents and purposes, and as worded in UN Security Council and General Assembly resolutions those are Armenian forces occupying Azerbaijani territories. Any other redefinition of UN wording is essentially a POV of one of the conflicting sides. Atabəy (talk) 06:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

We can consider names "Buffer zone near Nagorno-Karabakh region" or "Buffer zone between forces, most of which are ethnic Azerbaijani, and forces, most of which are ethnic Armenians", or "Buffer zone between Azerbaijani forces and forces, most of which are ethnic Armenians". Dinamik (talk) 14:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The title has to match the subject of the article. The subject is the territories in Azerbaijan currently held by the forces of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic but situated outside the former Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Region and outside what the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic claims to be part of its own territory. The title also has to match the requirements of a Wikipedia article title. It has to be concise and to the point. Long-winded vagueness, or a desire to try and fit the entire subject of the article seen from every point of view into its title, won't work for titles! "Buffer zone between Azerbaijani forces and forces, most of which are ethnic Armenians" can't work as an article title. Neither can any of the titles proposed earlier by Grandmaster. BTW, there is no need to use words like "near" or "between" with the phrase "buffer zone": by definition a buffer zone has to be between or near something. I think "Nagorno-Karabakh buffer zone" fits the requirements for the title: it is short, unambiguous, to the point, agrees with the content of the article, and matches the wording that is used in many sources for the article's content. Nothing more is needed for the title - any additional explanations (such as making clear that "Nagorno-Karabakh" means the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic) can be given in the article's introduction section. Meowy 15:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Any title involving "Nagorno-Karabakh" as a standalone entity and "buffer zone" are part of one of the conflicting side's (in this case, Armenian) POV. UN recognizes the territories as "occupied" and not as "buffer zone", not a single state recognizes "Nagorno-Karabakh" as either republic or its "defense army". So anything implying those terms are simply non-neutral POV pushing. Not sure why internationally recognized and ethnically cleansed territory of Azerbaijan, outside of Nagorno-Karabakh, should even be called a "buffer zone" in Wikipedia. I thought this is supposed to be an impartial encyclopedia not an Armenian news agency. Atabəy (talk) 18:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Atabəy, "occupied territories" refers to all the territory controled by NKR, therefor this denomination can't be a proper title for an article concerning only some of these territories. You call a POV anything which should not meet your POV. If we fallow your attitude, we should delete the entire article about NKR and pretend that it does not exist just because, so far, no one has officialy recognized it. We should also delete the article Nagorno-Karabakh, since on 23rd November 1991 the government of Azerbaijan abolished the autonomous oblast of Nagorno-Karabakh, and legally there is no such a region in Azerbaijan. Also, Nagorno-Karabakh was given to the Az.SSR by the Kavburo, which existed of the Bolshevik leaders of the Caucasus (including Orjonikidze), but the Azeri commision which draw up the boundaries of the NKAO had no connection with it. Then, you forget that in Karabakh the first victim of ethnic cleansing were the inhabitans of Shahumian. I would ask you to stop using this talkpage for sloganizing. If you don't agree with "Nagorno Karabakh buffer zone", propose one which should be acceptable for all users. --Vacio (talk) 10:50, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

This article should be deleted, as there is no such thing as a "security belt of Nagorno-Karabakh Republic". This lands are defined as provinces of Nagorno-Karabakh Republic (Artsakh) in the constitution of NKR. All the talk of "occupation" comes from Azeri-turk wet dreams of trying to take over historic Armenian lands, which they were not capable of doing. The only time they were successful was when it was hand it over to them. --Neophyteinc (talk) 01:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

It should not. The whole point of having the article is that there is a difference between territory under the control of NK forces and claimed by NK to be part of the NK republic, and lands controlled by NK forces but not subject to that same claim. All that is fairly clearly explained in the actual article. BTW, it's amusing that you and Grandmaster/Atabəy, while opposing each other, are expressing exactly the same POV views! Meowy 16:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

How about "Occupied Azerbaijani territories outside of Nagorno-Karabakh"? That is the term used by international organizations, and addresses your concerns. I think it is a very good solution. Grandmaster (talk) 08:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

That would be an incomplete and somewhat ambiguous description of the article's subject rather than a title for the article. For example, the Wikipedia article about Canada is titled "Canada", it isn't titled "territories to the north of the United States of America that are bordered by the Pacific, Atlantic, and Arctic oceans". We should all remember the advice given by Knepflerle at the start of the name-change proposal - "our naming policies are crystal-clear - our first priority in article naming is not neutrality, but rather unambiguous recognisability and common usage in English language publications". Meowy 16:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Look here - http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=5157&l=1 - the "Madrid Principles" which appear to be being used as a basis for current negotioations. It uses the phrase "occupied territories adjacent to Nagorno-Karabakh". Meowy 18:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Meowy, but that's not Madrid Principles. Its a report written by Bruce Tasker and he's a paid nobody and what he writes has zero value. Just out of curiosity, what made you think they were? Neophyteinc (talk) 00:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I got it from an English-language news report on an Armenian news website. ArmInfo 17-11-2008, 'Madrid Principles' Of Karabakh Conflict Settlement Published For The First Time. Quote: Madrid Principles' of Karabakh conflict settlement that were concealed from the Armenian and Azerbaijani public are no longer a secret. The presidents of the two states agreed to development peace process on the basis of these principles. The text is available at: http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=5157&l=3. Meowy 20:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The whole thing started as an internet hoax, spread probably by Tasker himself. The first newspaper to publish it wasAravot daily, it was then picked up by Azeri newspapers and now reached wikipedia. If you pay close attention, its just a regular article, full of speculations and personal opinions. --01:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neophyteinc (talk • contribs)

Term "occupied" is not neutral, such as "liberated". Why should we use non-neutral term instead of neutral, for example, "buffer zone"? Dinamik (talk) 10:33, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

How about "Liberated Armenian territories of Artsakh"? I think it's a very good solution. VartanM (talk) 10:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Grandmaster, how you can be certain they lay outside of Nagorno-Karabakh? The former AO of Nagorno-Karabakh was abolished by the Azerbaijani government, so formally there is no such a entity in Azerbaijan. And the former NKAO can't be identified with Nagorno-Karabakh, as it included only a part of the latter. --Vacio (talk) 12:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

NKAO was abolished, Nagorno-Karabakh was not. I'm not suggesting to use the word NKAO, I suggest using NK. Occupied Azerbaijani territories adjacent to Nagorno-Karabakh is also good and an accurate description. Grandmaster (talk) 07:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Noticed a recent source that makes clear the current importance of the issue the article deals with, so let's hear no more about deleting the article.
RFE/RL Armenia Report - 11/17/2008
Negotiators Say Parties in Karabakh Talks 'Not There Yet'
By Ruzanna Stepanian

Nagorno-Karabakh, a mostly Armenian-populated autonomous region in Soviet Azerbaijan, has been de-facto independent from Baku's rule since the 1994 ceasefire that put an end to nearly three years of fighting between the area's ethnic Armenians seeking an independent status and Azerbaijani armed forces sent in to stifle local secessionism.

In the war that claimed tens of thousands of lives and displaced hundreds of thousands more on both sides, Nagorno-Karabakh's Armenians managed to establish control over the most part of the region and expand into surrounding areas to form a security zone.

A withdrawal of Karabakh forces from most of the surrounding seven districts now fully or partly controlled by Armenian forces, demilitarization of the territories and deployment of international peacekeeping forces there appear to be a key element of the current peace proposal.

And at the end of the article:

And the Russian representative, Merzlyakov, said: "The (Armenian-controlled) territories now play a significant role in ensuring the Karabakh population's security. If an adequate replacement can be found, including international guarantees of security, they can be returned".
Meowy 17:59, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Title

Per discussion with the closing admin, I added a tag to indicate that the title of this article is disputed and does not represent a consensus. While there was no consensus to move, there was no consensus to keep the present title too, so we need to continue searching for the title, acceptable for everyone or at least for the majority of people, involved in this discussion. Grandmaster (talk) 08:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

"added a tag to indicate that the title of this article is disputed and does not represent a consensus" - I think, that it is good decision. "need to continue searching for the title, acceptable for everyone or at least for the majority of people, involved in this discussion". As I know, discussion about moving page is not a voting. So we should't find the title, acceptable for everyone or at least for the majority of people. We should find the title from the analysing of the arguments. Continuing of disscussion - right idea. Dinamik (talk) 15:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Title (redux)

Hi,

The old title wasn't appropriate for the article. The name I have moved it to has the following benefits:

• It uses "controlled" in place of "occupied", we aren't making value judgements
• It avoids the use of "security belt" or "buffer zone", as above
• It avoids the use of "Nagorno-Karabakh Republic" which does not necessarily have a commonly agreed delimited area.
• The former name did not quite ring right in English, missing as it did a definite article.

I'm open to further suggestions, but they should take into account the above four points. - Francis Tyers · 10:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• "controlled" - good word
• I don't understand, why "buffer zone" isn't neutral term. Buffer zone is zone between something. It is fact, that this areas are located between territories, controlled by NKR and Azerbaijan
• The object of the article refers to some unrecognised but existing administrative unit. Why can't we use the term NKR, when we talk about something, that refers to NKR?
• we can add a definite article without changing other word of the title Dinamik (talk) 15:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad we agree. I've moved it back to the original title. I have no problem in using "Nagorno-Karabakh Republic" in principle, in other articles -- but in an article dealing with area (administrative regions), and with such a long title already, I don't think we lose anything in avoiding its use. - Francis Tyers · 06:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

This title change goes against Wikipedia procedures, the procedures that are required for changing the titles of contentious articles. According to WP:RM "If there has been any past debate about the best title for the page, or if anyone could honestly disagree with the move, then treat it as controversial". Given that we have just had a long and inconclusive discussion on the title, it is obvious that it should be treated as controversial. To change a title in those circumstances requires the change to be formally proposed using a template and then having discussion about the proposal using this talk page. Meowy 20:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Above I argued against the current version of the title with two arguments:

• According to the most reliable sources (HRW, USIP) this areas are gained and controlled by NK, not Armenia.
• They lay outside of the former Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast, not Nagorno-Karabakh, which is considerably greater the latter.

--Vacio (talk) 11:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

If we call in the article, that these territories are armenian-controlled, someone can think, that they are controlled by Armenia, but we can't say such phrases in the title, because areas are controlled by Army of Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, most of which are really ethnic armenians, but we can't be sure, that they are ethnic armenians all.

We can't be sure, that areas, describing in the article, laying outside of the Nagorno-Karabakh, because Nagorno-Karabakh is a geographical region without precise boundaries. Some people think, that borders of Nagorno-Karabakh and of former Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast are identiсal, some people also include the territories of former Shaumyanovsky district of SSR of Azerbaijan, some people also include the territories between former Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast and Armenia and close territories.

Current title was made against rules: f-m-t moved the article without consensus, made artificial history of edits of old title to save his title and started the edit war.

• Title Armenian-controlled territories surrounding Nagorno Karabakh isn't neutral, isn't precise and was made against Wikipedia rules. Dinamik (talk) 17:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I think I need to clarify that I didn't object to this new title because I disagree with it, but because the rename went against renaming procedures. We have just had a long discussion about alternative names, the result being no consensus. Then Francis Tyers comes along and changes the title without any discussion or any title-change proposal. What was the point of us having that discussion if an editor can then change the title without any discussion. It makes the earlier discussion seem pointless and, I think, it shows contempt for every editor who took part in that discussion. Meowy 20:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

My concern about the current title is that it is too much of a descriptive title. Descriptions do not make good article titles and are always open to POV arguments. One of the possible alternative title, "Nagorno-Karabakh buffer zone", is not a descriptive title - it is what the subject of the article is actually called in many sources. Are concerns over saying Nagorno Karabakh rather than Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast or Nagorno-Karabakh Republic that important? It is only the title - a detailed description of exactly what the article is about can be placed in its introduction. Meowy 20:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that the previous title - security belt - had no consensus either. So the present title is as good as any other, but it is more or less neutral. Buffer zone is the same as security belt, it reflects the Armenian POV and is not used by the majority of sources. The most popular and widely accepted title - Occupied territories - is rejected by you, since you contest its neutrality, while it is the one used by the international community. I kind of don't see any consensus happening here, so I understand why Francis did what he did. Grandmaster (talk) 14:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Merge

These two articles seem to treat the same content and should probably be merged. - Francis Tyers · 06:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks like this new article is a fork of the existing one. I don't think it was done on purpose, the creator was probably not aware of the existence of the article on administrative divisions of Azerbaijan in and around NK. Needs merging. Grandmaster (talk) 07:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Azerbaijani administrative divisions of Nagorno-Karabakh says about districs of Azerbaijan, located on the territories of former Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast. 1) Territory of former Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast and territory of Nagorno-Karabakh Republic are different. Nagorno-Karabakh, Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast and Nagorno-Karabakh Republic are different. Security belt of Nagorno-Karabakh Republic doesn't refer to any territories of Nagorno-Karabakh or former Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast, it says about some territories, controlled by Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. 2) Security belt of Nagorno-Karabakh Republic doesn't say about administrative units of Azerbaijan. It says about about some territories, its specific political status, history and proposed future. Administrative units are only the method to show the location of this territories on map of Azerbaijan. 3) We can't merge this articles because of coincidence of articles' objects, because theese objects are different. 4) We can't merge this articles into some another, which will include existing two articles, because one of the articles de-facto says about contours of Azerbaijan districts on the territories of former Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast and another says not about contours of Azerbaijan districts, but about territories, its specific political status, history and proposed future. The objects of articles are heterogeneous and badly compatible. Dinamik (talk) 07:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

There's an article Azerbaijani administrative divisions of Nagorno-Karabakh, covering almost the same topic. Grandmaster (talk) 06:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

References

"these areas are also considered as occupied by "Armenian forces"[21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36]"

Approximately 13 of these references are unnecessary. Three with suffice, and as there are so many to choose from you get to pick three of the best and most appropriate! - Francis Tyers · 06:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind. The most appropriate ones I think are the resolutions of UNSC and PACE. Grandmaster (talk) 07:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Move question

Is there a reason "Nagorno Karabakh" is not hyphenated here when it is hyphenated seemingly everywhere else on wikipedia? If not, I suggest in a very minor move the hyphen is added. CMD (talk) 20:07, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Move war

Please do not start or take part in a move war over the name of this article. Use this talk page to discuss. Aecis·(away) ^talk 09:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

"The Armenian-controlled territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh are areas formally part of Azerbaijan and situated outside the former Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast..."

Formulation is wrong from the international law perspective. Territory of former NKAO along with surrounding regions are de jure recognised territories of Azerbaijan Republic by UN and the international community.St albany (talk) 00:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The words "of Azerbaijan" should be added after the word "territories". --E4024 (talk) 12:48, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Природа

На этой территории ведется сельскохозяйственная деятельность, строительство объектов? плотность 1 чел. на кв. км. Там наверно много диких животных как в Чернобыльском зоне отчуждении?--Kaiyr (talk) 14:13, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130928014330/http://armenianstudies.csufresno.edu/iaa_architecture/tsitsernavank.htm to http://armenianstudies.csufresno.edu/iaa_architecture/tsitsernavank.htm

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:38, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

October 2020 Is an edit war afoot?

On 20 October many references to Artsakh were changed to Nagorno-Karabakh by an anonymous user. Just a heads-up.--Quisqualis (talk) 07:08, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis:

Hey, I'm having a hard time understanding why you've added "primary sources" tag next to UN resolution sources. Especially because the sentences themselves are about the UN resolutions and are explaining them. — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 14:32, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

I tagged them as such because they are primary sources, used as you note to support sentences explaining them. CMD (talk) 14:38, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: Here's text taken from Wikipedia Policy page:

Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.[d] Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source.

As we are not making any interpretations about the resolutions, it's OK to use the UN sources to state the fact. Therefore, if you don't have any objections, I ask you to remove the "Primary Soure Inline" tags. — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 15:06, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Given during my copyediting I changed some uneven interpretation, for example the specification of Security Council in one instance but the omission of General assembly in another, and the lack of any mention of the weakness of the 2008 vote, there is clearly interpretation in the translating of long documents to single sentences. They are primary sources and so the primary source tag is appropriate. CMD (talk) 15:25, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: Talking about "weakness" of the 2008 vote, would've been an interpretation and would require non-primary source, but currently all it says is that "In X year, UN passed Y resolution, demanding Z". How is there any interpretation in this other than basic facts which require the primary sources? The other sentence that just says "During X war, the UN passed 4 resolutions demanding Y", which also has no interpretation at all. We don't need to need copy-paste every point in a resolution for it to not be "interpreted". It can be short if it just mentions the main point and adds nothing else. — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 15:32, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

For a start, UNGA resolutions are not equivalent to UNSC resolutions, and I note this was again left out of your summary. Determining the "main point" is interpretation. As you said in your initial post, the sentences are "explaining" the resolution, which requires interpretation. What is the issue here anyway, why is it a problem if a cluster of primary sources is indicated to be as such? CMD (talk) 16:04, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Armenians withdrawing from all districts?

In this article, it says "In the wake of the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war, Armenian forces agreed to withdraw from these districts". However, in the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh ceasefire agreement#Terms of the agreement article, it only mentions Armenian forces withdrawing from the Kelbajar and Lachin districts. Is there any source for Armemian forces withdrawing from the remaining occupied districts, for example, the parts of the Qubadli district that they still control? --67.160.159.188 (talk) 03:31, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

going by this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2020_Artsakh_ceasefire_map.svg map, it looks to me like Qubadli is going to go to Azerbaijan. --178.6.88.44 (talk) 10:07, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

De facto situation first, then the de jure situation

The facts on the ground ought to be stated first (the de facto situation). The claimed (de jure situation) should be stated second. An editor disagrees with this. See this [diff]. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:51, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

You are removing the term occupied, which was here for years, and R of Artsakh is not limited, but unrecognised state. This is a POV pushing. Beshogur (talk) 10:25, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

How is "de jure" = "claimed"? In all articles about cities/villages in the disputed region, de jure is first. And you're not only changing de facto/de jure but also removing an established term. Please don't POV-push. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 12:06, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Where is the WP policy that says that the de jure situation must be stated before the de facto situation in the lead? Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:12, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Where is the WP policy that says de facto should be first? It's common sense that international law matters more than a separatist regime's control. Control can change anytime; international law can't. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 17:18, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

So your rule is no better than my rule is what you're saying. OK then. Let's find a third party to mediate n the matter. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:54, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with CuriousGolden here that de jure should be mentioned first as it's more important than de facto control, but it's important to mention the city/town's de facto in the sentence as well. NotAldariasky (talk) 08:37, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Please indicate why de jure is more important. Many claims are made de jure that have no reality de facto. Take the example of King Henry VIII. He was styled "Henry the Eighth, by the Grace of God, King of England, France and Lord of Ireland". By the laws of England, he was, de jure, the King of France. In reality, Henry only controlled the town of Calais. The de facto King of France during that period was Francis I. By the laws of France (read Artsakh), he was of course also the king de jure. Nonetheless, from the English (read Azerbaijani) perspective, Henry was the de jure king of France. Does that appear in the lead of Henry's article? No. The first thing stated is that he was King of England. His other titles in pretence are stated well down the body of the article. This is true for every other English king article: de facto first, de jure second. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:07, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

This might've been the weirdest comparison I've seen in my life and it amounts to WP:OTHERSTUFF. De jure/de facto ownership of land is an entirely different matter than de jure/de facto king/queen matters and is a very weird 2 things to compare. How is de jure more important? De jure ownership of land doesn't change that often; unlike de facto. Which we have already witnessed through the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war. Even if we agreed to what you said, all the surrounding districts will be under de facto control of Azerbaijan until 1 December anyway, so this discussion is somewhat useless. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 13:27, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

"De jure/de facto ownership of land is an entirely different matter than de jure/de facto king/queen matters". Actually no, they amount to the same thing. One is King of a particular piece of land. And it's not other stuff, it's a WP precedent. Until Dec 1, it's still de facto. Don't be too keen to dance on the grave. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:42, 13 November 2020 (UTC)