Talk:Second Nagorno-Karabakh War/Archives/ 16

Newly published sources

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/19448953.2022.2037862 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13567888.2022.2045079 (t · c) buidhe 03:18, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. Vici Vidi (talk) 05:22, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Collage

This collage could be a good addition. Curiously it was already made two years ago yet I haven't seen it added here

Rousillon (talk) 20:28, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

An image collage at the top of the article seems like a good idea, particularly in helping readers gain a quick visual idea of the scale/nature of the war. Perhaps more of the infobox information can be condensed (e.g. military leaders etc. ) to make space for it? Jr8825 • Talk 01:34, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 October 2022

I want to Write the truth about that war 83.56.10.96 (talk) 20:31, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:26, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 18 October 2022

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. Not much participation, after almost a month of listing, but the sourcing does exist for this name and no serious objections have been raised.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:14, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

---

2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war → Second Nagorno-Karabakh War – Per WP:TITLECON. The page for First Nagorno-Karabakh War has been named that way since November 2020, and a number of sources have already call the 2020 war the "Second Nagorno-Karabakh War," "Second Karabakh War," "Second Artsakh War," etc.

It seems more than fair to change the title at this point DJ (talk) 10:17, 18 October 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. Natg 19 (talk) 21:50, 26 October 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. ‡ The Night Watch ω (talk) 02:27, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

This is the third one listed at Nagorno-Karabakh war.  —Michael Z. 18:00, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Sources on this very page (as well as articles on Google Scholar) call the 2020 war the Second Nagorno-Karabakh War – not the 2016 war (which is more often called the April War/April clashes or the Four-Day War). WP:COMMONNAME is far more in favour of the 2020 war. DJ (talk) 19:22, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Would genuinely appreciate any feedback on this move request, either for, against, or otherwise. DJ (talk) 19:16, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Sorry to see this hasn't garnered much feedback. Will see if I can look into this over the weekend. Best, Jr8825 • Talk 01:32, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Google Scholar results since 2021 for "Second Nagorno-Karabakh War" and "2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War" are 197 to 115; since 2022, 96 to 65, with a significant but not easily enumerated subset of the "second" examples using non-proper-noun lower case. There's also a fair amount of results for "Nagorno-Karabakh War of 2020" (about half as many as "2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War"). Interestingly, the trend reverses if we look at "Second Artsakh War" vs. "2020 Artsakh War", with the latter formulation being the more common of the two. A nontrivial portion of recent

articles alternatively just refer to it as "Nagorno-Karabakh war" IMO, the long-term stable title and subsequent historiography of this conflict is still to be determined, and will largely hinge on whether the current status quo of the conflict holds. signed, Rosguill talk 19:52, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

If a third happens, maybe. I don't think that's a properly established name, compared to the first one. Beshogur (talk) 18:37, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Well, i agree about changing the name, i wonder why they didn't to that before Lucasoliveira653 (talk) 18:54, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

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

Main parties in the lead

@KhndzorUtogh, I understand your point and took the same approach with the rest. The sentence refers to the conflict and its main players parties (Armenia, Artsakh and Azerbaijan). As a result, I removed mercenaries because they were neither a main party nor a separate entity. I also removed Turkey because it was not the main party and only provided political support. Turkey's participation is only alleged by Armenia. So I took Turkey out of the lead because keeping it there gives the incorrect impression that Turkey participated in the actual war. A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 11:16, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Why was this moved?

I can't see any consensus. There is barely a support vote. Beshogur (talk) 17:13, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Do you think it should be moved back? @Rosguill crunched some Google Scholar numbers above and (provided the numbers are right) the new title seems to have acceptable traction in scholarly writing? Bearing in mind there doesn't seem a decisive weight of sourcing behind any particular title. Jr8825 • Talk 19:12, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that there's no real correct title right now and am ok with the move for consistency's sake. If it were all up to me, I would move First Nagorno-Karabakh War back to its old name, but I'm not really interested in belaboring the debate when the evidence suggests to me that it's a wash. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:24, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Occupied by Artsakh

@KhndzorUtogh, I partially reverted your recent edit. The Armenian-occupied territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh is about the territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh, which were occupied by Armenia, and was returned back to Azerbaijan by Armenia as outcome of the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh ceasefire agreement. It is not disputable. The Nagorno-Karabakh republic was neither named nor included in the ceasefire agreement. A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 11:44, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, it was Armenia who obligated to withdraw its forces from Azerbaijan's territory. The text of the ceasefire agreement is quite straightforward. Grandmaster 15:08, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

The ceasefire agreement is completely irrelevant in this context as it doesn't even mention the word 'occupied'. The reason that the surrounding regions were considered occupied is due to the UN resolutions, which referred to the 'local Armenian forces' (aka Nagorno-Karabakh) occupying the surrounding regions, not the Republic of Armenia. It's incorrect to state that Armenia occupied the regions surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh.

In addition, all independent experts who are involved in the study of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, including Thomas de Waal, Laurence Broers, and others claim that the territories were controlled/occupied by the ethnic Karabakh Armenians. The article Armenian-occupied territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh refers to the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh, not the country Armenia. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=989538087#Requested_move_21_October_2020

Moreover, according to the resolution adopted by the UN in the 90s, Armenia is not even a party to the conflict. It is mentioned as a country that can have an impact on the people of Nagorno-Karabakh. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 15:21, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

The fact that Armenia exercised effective control over Nagorno-Karabakh and the surrounding territories was legally proven in the court of law, see Chiragov and Others v. Armenia. And it was Armenia who withdrew its troops, per ceasefire agreement. Whether the agreement mentions the word occupied or not does not change the fact that Karabakh was not mentioned as a party, and had no obligation to cede territory. Grandmaster 17:55, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

If we're going by the ceasefire agreement wording, then there isn't even 'occupied' mentioned in it and the lead could be reworded to something like "returned/surrendered territories per ceasefire agreement". If we're going by UN resolutions, then the actual resolutions regarding 7 regions surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh mention Nagorno-Karabakh as occupying, including other third party analysts. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 20:12, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

The NKR, as a largely unrecognized entity, has not been a subject of international law and indeed the 2020 ceasefire agreement is between Azerbaijan, Armenia and Russia instead. Plus, NKR has been claimed by ethnic Armenians rather than some other ethnic group. Possibly the more correct wording would be "with Armenians ceding the territories they had occupied in 1994 surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh", but it's a nuance. Brandmeister^talk 09:00, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

UN resolutions actually mentioned "local Armenian forces", which could refer to forces of both Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh. That is why our article is called "Armenian-occupied territories", not territories occupied by Armenia. But in reality, Nagorno-Karabakh did not have substantial forces to occupy so much territory, as was reflected in the ICHR ruling. I think it would be better to reword as: with Armenia ceding the territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh occupied in 1994, without going into details, since it was Armenia who ceded the territories per the agreement. Grandmaster 09:14, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Armenia, as a country has never occupied anyone's territory. The article you mentioned does not refer to Armenia, but to the forces of Karabakh (with military assistance from Armenia). The agreement does not contain the Republic of Artsakh, since until 2023 Azerbaijan refused to negotiate with the Karabakh people but only with Armenia.

A more accurate replacement would be "with the cessation of Armenian-occupied territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh" KhndzorUtogh (talk) 22:13, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

The ceasefire agreement says: The Republic of Armenia shall return the Kalbajar District to the Republic of Azerbaijan by November 15, 2020, and the Lachin District by December 1, 2020. Clearly, it was Armenia who returned the territories, and it is stipulated in the official document signed by that country. And ICHR ruling refers to Armenia, not Karabakh, as a party exercising effective control over the occupied territories of Azerbaijan. Grandmaster 08:47, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I’m sure you well know we can’t base Wikipedia on our own deductions, per WP:OR. Please read what I’ve already said and what’s actually in the ceasefire agreement: it doesn’t even mention the word “occupied”. The wording I suggest is to remain consistent with the relevant wiki article title. So, if we’re going with ‘occupied’ then it should be consistent with the article title name, and if we’re using the ceasefire agreement rationale, then there is no ‘occupied’ there and should be just “returned” or “ceded”, per the agreement itself. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 16:30, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I think my proposed version addresses your concerns. The original version says: with Armenia ceding the territories it had occupied in 1994 surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh. I propose: with Armenia ceding the territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh occupied in 1994, dropping "it had". In this case, we don't go into detail who occupied what. But these territories are generally considered to be occupied, and our own article calls them occupied territories. Grandmaster 09:34, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

These territories are considered to be occupied by the UN, not the Ceasefire Agreement that you are mentioning to justify stating that it was Armenia that ceded the territories. The Ceasefire Agreement doesn't state that the territories are occupied. Therefore, if you wish to state that Armenia ceded the territories, then the word 'occupied' shall not be used. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 15:11, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

it isn’t place for Wiki lawyering. the fact that Armenia occupied territories of Azerbaijan is literally undeniable, Nagorno-Karabakh, with it’s population barely reaching 120,000 couldn’t occupy territories of Azerbaijan with 7-8 million population. the war was between Armenia and Azerbaijan, ceasefire was signed between Armenia and Azerbaijan, it was Armenia who removed it’s army from Azerbaijan’s territory, and it was Armenia who returned occupied territories back to Azerbaijan according to ceasefire agreement. Self-proclaimed Nagorno-Karabakh republic was not part of ceasefire discussions, was not part of ceasefire agreement, and no one even asked their agreement or opinion.

Saying that Armenia didn’t occupy Azerbaijan territories is nonsense, just like claiming that Russia didn’t invade Ukraine, but Russian puppet states Luhansk and Donetsk People's republics did. A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 17:11, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

The Ceasefire Agreement doesn't state that the territories are occupied. - the ceasefire agreement literally urges Armenia to return internationally recognized territories of Azerbaijan (surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh) back to Azerbaijan. What you think Armenia was doing there if not occupying? Playing a basketball? One thing is linked to another, if Armenia had its army on the territories of Azerbaijan, then lost the war and returned those territories back to Azerbaijan as per ceasefire agreement, that means that Armenia was occupying them. It is not OR in any way. A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 17:23, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

As I already stated, the UN regards these areas as occupied, not the Ceasefire Agreement that you are citing to support your claim that Armenia relinquished the territories. The Agreement does not state that the ceded territories were occupied. Hence, if we declare that Armenia ceded the territories, we should not employ the term 'occupied' and engage in OR since the war ended NOT based on UN resoltuions, but based on the ceasfire agreement of 2020, and nothing in it states 'occupied'. The lead should reflect what the ceasefire agreement states, per which the war ended and which doesn't even contain the word 'occupied'. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 19:54, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

I implemented the changes per my rationale above and also removed the communication part as it's already in the body and the ceasfire agreement has 9 terms, we're not going to highlight each in the lead. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 14:27, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

@Grandmaster, @Brandmeister, @KhndzorUtogh We don't need ceasefire agreement to say it's occupied to know it's occupied. As you stated, the UN itself states that it is occupied and our article for the regions is literally Armenian-occupied territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh. There is no OR in this.--NMW03 (talk) 16:46, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes you do need the ceasefire agreement to say it's occupied if you are referring to the ceasefire agreement - attributing a term to ceasefire agreement which the agreement did not use is a bright example of WP:SYNTH and WP:NOR. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 20:16, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Can you please explain to me how the sentence you edited significantly relates to the ceasefire agreement? The original sentence was: "The war lasted for more than a month and resulted in Azerbaijani victory, with Armenia ceding the territories it had occupied in 1994 surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh. The defeat ignited anti-government protests in Armenia. Post-war skirmishes continued in the region, including substantial clashes in 2022." NMW03 (talk) 20:40, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

It is a whataboutism I’m afraid, but I’ll answer: the function of the lede is to summarise, in general terms, the scope of the article. The lede, before you made changes, summarised the war’s immediate outcome (Azerbaijani victory, Armenian defeat, ceasefire agreement, major shifts in who controls the territories in NK), without unnecessary repetition and detail, leaving the latter to the body. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 21:45, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Arms Supply

I believe Pakistan should be added into the Arms Supply section for Azerbaijan, there are plenty of sources which show Pakistan sent Azerbaijan weapons and other aid. AmanAmanAmaTurq (talk) 19:08, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

I would also like to add onto this, that there are also news articles which showcase Pakistani military involvement directly in the conflict AmanAmanAmaTurq (talk) 19:10, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 September 2023

The text "At the end of Soviet period" in note F is missing a definite article and should be "At the end of the Soviet period". 2600:100F:B1A4:5889:D8A6:8071:D4E7:527B (talk) 22:17, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done M.Bitton (talk) 22:39, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 September 2023

TRAVERA1 (talk) 15:25, 23 September 2023 (UTC)I want to add in that Armenia has been using kurdish mercenaries, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hc0Dw9oH8_g&ab_channel=GZT

•  Not done: Needs sources that meets WP:IS, WP:RS, with WP:SIGCOV.  // Timothy :: talk  15:28, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

The conflict was accompanied by coordinated attempts to spread misleading content and disinformation via social media and the internet.[166]

What is the point of the disputed remark? Why are you aiming your attack at freedom of information? 151.229.110.67 (talk) 23:35, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Iran

it is obvious that Iran supported Azerbaijan. Please include this. 2A00:23C7:5882:8201:60D4:D3A1:F3A9:22AB (talk) 09:10, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm sure if it is so obvious that you will be able to give us a reliable source for the claim. Such a source is needed for inclusion of content in this article. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 13:37, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Russian Arm supplies

Didnt Russia also supply Azerbaijan with weapons? NikolaosGeorgiosMichael (talk) 19:32, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

In general over the last 30 years, or directly related to this conflict/during it? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 20:05, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

To this conflict, the Second Karabakh War 2003:EA:4F25:F2BF:68ED:1DB7:D929:7231 (talk) 10:19, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

https://www.sipri.org/commentary/topical-backgrounder/2021/arms-transfers-conflict-zones-case-nagorno-karabakh 2003:EA:4F25:F2BF:68ED:1DB7:D929:7231 (talk) 10:21, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

https://jamestown.org/program/azerbaijan-is-drifting-away-from-russia-and-moscow-has-only-itself-to-blame/ 2003:EA:4F25:F2BF:68ED:1DB7:D929:7231 (talk) 10:25, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 January 2024

Having Syrian mercenaries is just ridiculous considering Azerbaijan as one of the most irreligious countries in the world and also having 3 times more population than the opponent country and many more military advances. As a citizen, I am extremely offended by this and I find it wrong to add this kind of info without having reliable source and proof. 151.71.255.147 (talk) 19:39, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. FYI the blue numbers inside the brackets e.g. [4] are sources Cannolis (talk) 21:04, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Pakistan support

Isn't it true that Pakistan provided diplomatic support to Azerbaijan throughout the conflict?

Even in the Armenia-Pakistan relations article, it mentions this. In 2015, they went as far as to say the recognition of Armenia is contingent on the Armenians leaving the disputed zone. And they openly celebrated and praised the cease-fire when it happened. OperativePhase33 (talk) 04:16, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Dot-points under result parameter

Vanezi Astghik, per MOS:MIL, which gives voice to the template documentation for the result parameter, additional dot points are not supported. The documentation is quite specific in how it is to be filled. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:34, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm confused, where does it say that in the documentation? And if it's reliably sourced content, why can't we make an exception even if true? Vanezi (talk) 06:09, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

It is quite specific as to what is permitted under the result parameter. It does not includes dot-points. WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE tells us not to write the article in the infobox and that less is better. This infobox is excessively bloated and such "detail" contributes to this. The infobox is unsuited to prose or prose like statements. That is what the lead is for. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:51, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Articles like Croatian War of Independence have been promoted to good article with the bullet points. I don't question the GA criteria and if it was good enough for a GA article, it should be here too. Vanezi (talk) 08:12, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

It was listed as a GA in 2011. Things change. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:01, 19 March 2024 (UTC)