Wikipedia

Talk:Armenian-occupied territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh/Archive 2

< Talk:Armenian-occupied territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh
Latest comment: 3 years ago by Vice regent in topic Requested move 21 October 2020
Archive 1Archive 2

Requested move 21 October 2020

Latest comment: 3 years ago81 comments22 people in discussion
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: moved. There is rough consensus for the move. The main contention was whether the territories can be considered "occupied" or whether that is a POV term. While it is true that some sources call the territories "Armenian-controlled", most sources (especially diplomatic and academic ones) call them "occupied". A strong argument was made that the term "occupied" is objectionable to some, but "controlled" should not be objectionable to anyone and therefore more neutral. While I sympathize with that, ultimately it is outweighed by more sources calling the territory "occupied". It is also consistent with how we describe other occupied territories, e.g. Israeli-occupied territories, despite the fact that there is resistance to the term "occupied" in that case too. A smaller issue was why should the title contain the name "Armenian" when one could argue that they are occupied/controlled by Artsakh. Yet Armenia itself doesn't recognize Artsakh and it was convincingly argued that "Armenian" is ambiguous enough to satisfy both sides as both Armenia and the unrecognized Republic of Artsakh are ethnically Armenian.(non-admin closure) VR talk 15:44, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Armenian-controlled territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh → Armenian-occupied territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh – There are many examples on Wikipedia where occupation is called occupation: Occupied territories of Georgia, Turkish occupation of northern Syria, Israeli-occupied territories, and so on. Even the UN is calling this an occupation. Beshogur (talk) 11:27, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Support. It's called occupation in all official documents. — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 13:23, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Support. Yes, it is an occupation, since Armenia is guarantor of security in Karabakh according to Nikol Pashinyan. Otherwise, it would be territory controlled by Artsakh. Artsakh unlike Donetsk People's Republic is openly a satellite state of Armenia. With Donetsk People's Republic, the issue is more complicated, since its ties to Russia are not openly declared.--Geysirhead (talk) 17:26, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Question. Would you call South Osetia, Donetsk People's Republic, Transnistria and Luhansk_People's_Republic as "separatist-controlled" or as "occupied by Russia"?--Geysirhead (talk) 17:36, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
It doesn't matter whether it's occupied by Russia or not, if it is occupied even if it's controlled by separatists. Beshogur (talk) 17:52, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Agree, "separatist occupation" seems to be replaced by "separatist controll" for propaganda purposes in such cases. Geysirhead (talk) 18:12, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Suggestion: A more precise name would be 'Armenian-occupied raions surrounding former Nagorno-Karabakh Oblast', since we are not talking about the whole Nagorno-Karabagh and the Kalbajar District ist bigger than the Kalbajar Rayon (or Raion).Geysirhead (talk) 18:24, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
But NKAO doesn't exist anymore. Perhaps former-NKAO?
Writing Nagorno-Karabakh is enough. Borders of Nagorno-Karabakh is same as former Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast. The title would be abnormally large like that. Also it's mentioned as districts in the UN resolutions, so it should be "Armenian-occupied districts surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh" — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 19:03, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Suggestion.Armenian-occupied raions surrounding former NKAO Geysirhead (talk) 15:12, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Support. It's occupation in any definition. Armenian forces are within internationally recognized Azerbaijani teritory. In all official documents this has been called occupation. Zaman (talk) 04:11, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Support. per nom--RicardoNixon97 (talk) 13:49, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Support. per nom. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 15:03, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Support. According to international law, these territories are occupied. They are called occupied by the resolutions of UN and other international organizations. Grandmaster 17:56, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
I don't see any consensus on that discussion. Occupation is not a POV term, but liberation is, I agree. Beshogur (talk) 18:35, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
I agree that no consensus has been achived yet, which is why we have to wait until the end of the discussion before renaming. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 19:07, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Better, we change the name now, and after the end of the discussion, we will have to change the name anyway to something like Former Armenian-....., since some discussions take longer than wars. If the discussion ends up with "occupation to replace control", every separatist protectorate and satellite state of a foreign power will have to be reworded with "occupation" on wikipedia. For instance, Russia might have 5 of them, Albania might have 1 and so on. In case of Artsakh, it might be even a protectorate according to Pashinian. There are also examples, where separatists were not called as occupants - Finnland during Russian Revolution, Chinese entities during Chinese civil war .... Anyway, in case of Artsakh, it is a clear occupation.Geysirhead (talk) 19:47, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Actually, Artsakh is Armenian Manchukuo. Geysirhead (talk) 19:56, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
@Գարիկ Ավագյան:, occupation is a term used for other countries as well, check List of military occupations. Beshogur (talk) 20:01, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Are there any use cases for Armenian-occupied territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh in articles? Is it common it Wikipedia? Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 20:34, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
@Գարիկ Ավագյան: See German-occupied Europe. We also have used in other articles as well. Ahmetlii (talk) 20:07, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
@Գարիկ Ավագյան: occupation is a military term, we're not here for propaganda or anything. If "country A" invades the internationally recognized boundaries of "country B" and takes control of it, that's called occupation. And these territories are not in Nagorno-Karabakh, which is a breakaway region, while the Republic of Artsakh is a separatist regime/government. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 20:10, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Comment: as per per this discussion, given the displacement of citizens of both origins, I vote to keep the neutrality of the word as "controlled". MarioLemieux999 (talk) 20:37, 22 October 2020 (UTC)MarioLemieux999 20:35 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Occupation is a military term. If it is occupation, then it should be called. The opposite to liberation is invasion imo, not occupation. Occupation means seizing, controlling. Beshogur (talk) 20:44, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
From the territories in question, only Azerbaijani people were expelled. Armenian population did not live there. Occupation is a legal term, and it is used in all official international documents concerning this conflict. Grandmaster 22:10, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Oppose WP:SOAPBOX. The request is a breach of policy: The first article states

Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, scientific, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise. An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view. You might wish to start a blog or visit a forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your opinions


I ran a search on google with the term "armenian-occupied territories" and most results are Azeri and Turkish outlets, confirming the propaganda flavour of the term. I ran a search with "armenian-controlled territories" and sources like Voice of America, BLE Intellinews, Eurasianet, etc, with the sources tilting towards different sides, confirming the neutral flavour of the term "Armenian-controlled territories"

If any of you wants to start a blog about Armenian occupation of Azerbaijan please do so, but on Wikipedia we need to maintain the NPOV. This is not a matter of consensus. It is a matter of policy.--Sataralynd (talk) 00:58, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

There is a difference between the meaning of a word and the usage of a word. The point expressed here is that if media outlets would write Finnish-occupied territory of Russian Empire and Manchukou-controlled territory of China, then the word occupied would be neutral and controlled would be a negative one, even if the meanings of these words are the opposite. If the media does not call the Philippine–American War and the Algerian war genocides, then calling them genocides would be not neutral. Let us use a new and a more precise term: Armenian protectorate surrounding former NKAO. Let us us be smarter than the media, which only knows the words "occupied" and "controlled" Geysirhead (talk) 06:00, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
It is not just about media. Check what the international community calls it. UN, OSCE, EU, etc. They all call those territories occupied. Grandmaster 20:59, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
@Geysirhead: Asking us to "check what the international community calls it" is not how this works. It is your responsibility to provide sources from UN, OSCE, EU that call it as such. Please provide sources from these three organizations you cite mentioning "Armenian-occupied territories" --Sataralynd (talk) 01:03, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
I don't see why we're discussing this even when international organizations call it an occupation. Someone should go ahead and make the change. — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 06:06, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
It says occupied forces. It refers to the forces of Artsakh. Armenian-occupied territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh sounds like territories occupied by Armenia, which is incorrect. Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 11:22, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Isn't Artsakh Armenian? Nobody sees Artsakh as an independent state. This is occupation by foreing power under local administration. Beshogur (talk) 11:23, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Well, Armenia is also Armenian. Occupied territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh may be a consensus. However, some media outlets prefer Armenian-controlled territories. Voice of America, BLE Intellinews, Eurasianet etc. Also, these territories are part of Artsakh's administrative division. Anyway, I would like to ask Rosguill to summarize this discussion. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 14:42, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
huh, some. There are 100x more that call it an occupation. your same source, same person calls it an occupation. Beshogur (talk) 14:45, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Գարիկ Ավագյան, this discussion has only been open 4 days, it's too early to close it. signed, Rosguill talk 18:15, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

"In addition to these problems with their stance regarding their co-ethnics inIran, by holding onto this irredentist claim, Azerbaijani nationalists ironically alsoinadvertently harm Azerbaijan’s chances of reclaiming the Armenian-conquered terri-tories, and especially Karabakh." https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/mei/mei/2004/00000058/00000004/art00005 --Geysirhead (talk) 18:55, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
"A second point of entry appears to be the border between Iran and the Armenian-occupied territories of ..."https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/resrep07037.5.pdf --Geysirhead (talk) 18:57, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
"For Armenians, Nagorno-Karabakh represents one of the last Armenian-occupied territories outside Soviet-de- fined Armenia to which they have historic ties."https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/forwa16&div=24&id=&page=--Geysirhead (talk) 18:59, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
"Over a million people were forced to flee; from Nagorno-Karabakh to Armenia, from Armenia to Azerbaijan, and from Armenian-occupied sectors of Azerbaijan to other Azeri villages (CIS Report, 1996)." by Yulia Ghazaryan http://www.nispa.org/news/ghazaryan.rtf --Geysirhead (talk) 19:02, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
"While the U.S. and NATo are focused on russian activity in Central and eastern europe, there are three developments in the South Caucasus that merit closer attention: (1) recent political instabil-ity in Georgia; (2) possible russian annexation of Georgian breakaway territories; and (3) increasing tensions between Armenia and Azerbaijan over the Armenian-occupied Azerbaijani territory of Nago-rno–Karabakh." http://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/2014/pdf/IB4307.pdf --Geysirhead (talk) 19:05, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
"According to Joshua Kucera, gaining international recognition of the Khojaly massacre is a crucial element in Azerbaijan's campaign to regain control of the Armenian-occupied Nagorno-Karabakh." https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13602004.2016.1257684?journalCode=cjmm20 --Geysirhead (talk) 19:09, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
"Prior to any return of territory, military personnel and hardware on both sides will need to be withdrawn in accordance with a defined timetable. Any former Armenian-occupied territory is likely to be demilitarized." https://www.nomos-elibrary.de/10.5771/9783845222240-201/nagorno-karabakh-ever-closer-to-a-settlement-step-by-step --Geysirhead (talk) 19:12, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
"In 1993 some 250000 Georgians (ie almost half the population) were expelled from Abkhazia or had to flee, some 800000 Azeris (from Armenia, Karabakh and other Armenian occupied territories of Azerbaijan) are refugees in Azerbaijan" https://books.google.de/books?hl=en&lr=&id=6gAGDAAAQBAJ --Geysirhead (talk) 19:14, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
"After his return, Zaur is abducted by Arif Yunusov and the Karabakh Liberation Army, a radical underground orga- nization that seeks to take back the Armenian-occupied territories in the west of Azerbaijan." https://books.google.de/books?hl=en&lr=&id=5NolDwAAQBAJ --Geysirhead (talk) 19:17, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
"Over the last several weeks, Armenia and Azerbaijan have been engaged in an escalating conflict centered around a decades-long dispute over the Nagorno-Karabakh region, which is internationally recognized as Azerbaijani territory but has illegally occupied by Armenia since their first war ended in 1994."https://ejpress.org/how-the-armenian-azerbaijani-conflict-could-impact-israels-regional-strategic-landscape/ --Geysirhead (talk) 12:02, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I doubt there is any other source needed, even UN describes it as an occupation: "Demands the immediate, complete and unconditional withdrawal of all Armenian forces from all the occupied territories of the Republic of Azerbaijan;"[1] Beshogur (talk) 12:35, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. Not sure why this discussion is still going on. — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 13:25, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
@Astral Leap: "Armenian" doesn't refer to Republic of Armenia, but rather the ethnicity. And since Artsakh is Armenian, it's the correct wording. — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 13:59, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
User:CuriousGolden I agree Armenian here refers to ethnic Armenians of Azerbaijan, but that precisely illustrates why occupation is incorrect as this is not a Military occupation by one state of a portion of another state but rather a Separatist territory. If we were to refer to it as occupied, then we would be conferring upon Artsakh/NKR a recognition of statehood (something that even Armenia does not recognize) in viewing areas they control (or controlled?) as occupied.--Astral Leap (talk) 14:08, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
@Astral Leap: You are right, but since UN resolutions refer to the areas as "occupied", I think its okay to use. — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 14:24, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
@Astral Leap: and @CuriousGolden: check here all the UN resolutions. They NEVER call on Armenia to withdraw its occupying forces. They call on Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh to withdraw from the occupied regions. They even ask Armenia to help make this happen. Here is the passage in 853: "[UN] Urges the Government of the Republic of Armenia to continue to exert its influence to achieve compliance by the Armenians of the Nagorny-Karabakh region of the Azerbaijani Republic with its resolution 822 (1993) and the present resolution, and the acceptance by this party of the proposals of the Minsk Group of the CSCE" and here again in 884 "[UN] Calls upon the Government of Armenia to use its influence to achieve compliance by the Armenians of the Nagorny Karabakh region of the Azerbaijani Republic with resolutions 822"
This distinction is key and it must be reflected in the name. If you insist on using occupied, then we should name this Occupied Territories by Republic of Artsakh as that is what Armenians of NK who are referred to in the UN resolutions want to call themselves. They include all those areas in the Administrative divisions of Republic of Artsakh. Another alternative is to call it Occupied Territories by Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh
@Rosguill: please keep this open until this is resolved --Sataralynd (talk) 12:23, 28 October 2020 (UTC) — Sataralynd (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
No one is saying it's Armenia the country, who is occupying anyway. The "Armenian-occupied" stands for the ethnicity, which Artsakh is part of. Just like how this article was and still is called "Armenian-controlled territories..". Also, please don't forget to sign your comments as we have no idea who you are. — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 07:37, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Comment there are strong arguments for the change. But most opposing arguments fall under WP:IDONTLIKEIT. When will the move happen? --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 17:29, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Exactly. Not sure why the discussion is still going on when official documents are also calling it an occupation. Could you please conclude the discussion, @Rosguill:? — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 17:51, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
CuriousGolden, RM stay open for 7 days at a minimum. This discussion is then put in a backlog that will be addressed in due time. signed, Rosguill talk 17:56, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Alright, we can close it tomorrow, then. — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 18:03, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
It is a matter of Exonym and endonym. "For Armenians, they're not occupied territories – they're the homeland" https://eurasianet.org/for-armenians-theyre-not-occupied-territories-theyre-the-homeland The exonym is "occupied" and the endonym is "homeland".--Geysirhead (talk) 20:08, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
For Israel, Golan Heights is homeland as well. Irrelevant. Beshogur (talk) 20:20, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Can you say that for other occupied areas? Beshogur (talk) 15:54, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps, but we're not discussing other occupied areas, are we. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. This discussion is about one area, which has a perfectly valid name already and is currently subject to an international dispute. Taking sides in that dispute is not what Wikipedia does, per WP:NPOV, and the proposed rename would not be an improvement at all.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:58, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
This is not a border dispute. Dispute happens between two countries. Armenia does not recognise Artsakh. Beshogur (talk) 16:02, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
The territories are legally(UN) "occupied", everything else is irredentism.--Geysirhead (talk) 18:23, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Forgot to write: irredentism is not WP:NPOV --Geysirhead (talk) 18:27, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Support. The term "Occupied" is more descriptive of what has happened in this case, whereas the term "controlled" is ambigious as one controlle a land directly or indirectly or even control just some aspects of a political of geografical entity. As such a state can be controlled by increased debt burden. Plus the term occupied indicates the, military or other force applied whereas control can be done by the accptance of the subject of being controlled. There has been no consences for this occupation so the term controlled logically can not be used for KArabakh. In addition and the term "occupation" has been used in UN and other official documents.[1][2] Zaman (talk) 15:13, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
@VZkN9:, this is similar, but not the same discussion, because it's about the 7 districts surrounding former NKAO. Beshogur (talk) 20:40, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Armenian intention does not matter. "occupied" is a legal term used by UN. Occupation is a neutral term: Occupation of the Baltic states#Second soviet occupation (1944–1991) e.g. --Geysirhead (talk) 14:50, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
Sorry but what a bad comparison. Beshogur (talk) 18:39, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
Support. It's an occupation in any definition. Veselov350 💬 09:26, 9 November 2020 (UTC) — Veselov350 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Weak Oppose I think that controlled is more NPOV, despite neither term being super strong I think controlled is just the most neutral term FlalfTalk 14:48, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Comment: I haven't seen any of the opposers make any reasonable argument about how "occupied" is POV. UN, PACE, OSCE, ICO are all surely not spreading POV, are they? — CuriousGolden (T·C) 14:52, 10 November 2020 (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.
  1. ^ "A/RES/62/243". undocs.org. 14 March 2008. Retrieved 2020-09-28.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Armenian-occupied_territories_surrounding_Nagorno-Karabakh/Archive_2&oldid=1069406732"