Talk:First Nagorno-Karabakh War/Archive 4

Inflate the numbers of Azerbaijan losses

The losses of Azerbaijan according to the Ministry of Defense are 11,000, but you put the word "claim" next to it, and then there are Western estimates as you say"that are correct"no claim word there, as if the Westerns are gods or angels say nothing but the truth, just as we do not find a neutral count of Armenian losses. This is a dirty policy. I know that everyone loves to encourage the team closest to him. Religiously and ideologically, however, Wikipedia has to get rid of hypocrisy Ymdlf888 (talk) 16:27, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

You are Ok on this one. I will revert.Mr.User200 (talk) 20:15, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

1933-1938-1990s connection: quite muddy

What is now footnote 49 reads: "At the time of the dissolution of the USSR, the United States government recognized as legitimate the pre-Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact 1933 borders of the country (the Franklin D. Roosevelt government established diplomatic relations with the Kremlin at the end of that year). Because of this, the George H. W. Bush administration openly supported the secession of the Baltic SSRs, but regarded the questions related to the independence and territorial conflicts of Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan and the rest of the Transcaucasus as internal Soviet affairs."

This is an obvious attempt at keeping the sentence and paragraph as short as possible, which makes it become somewhat confusing, as the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact was signed in 1938, not 1933, in a totally different diplomatic context. I guess the logic and chronology of events is: the Dec. 1932 Stimson Doctrine (linked in the article) is applied in the 1990s by the US, who therefore recognised the borders of Azerbaijan and Armenia - from what year? 1933? - and ignored territories captured in wars of aggression - whose? Soviet Union, Artsakh/Armenia? What does it have to do with the Hitler-Stalin pact of 1938, which relates to another set of annexations during and after WWII? Also, why exactly does the recognition of the USSR By Roosevelt in 1933 have to do with this, as the Stimson Doctrine relates to occupation through wars of aggression? In 1933 Azerbaijan and Armenia were federal components of the USSR; Roosevelt's recognition of the Union does in no way automatically imply that it also recognised Stalin's shifts and moves in internal admin. boundaries in all eternity. Once the Union was dissolved, it disappeared as a legal body and the question of the new boundaries of its numerous heirs had to be asked. The Soviet and especially Stalin's divide et impera policies are well-known, as are his "shifts" of entire ethnic groups and his redrawing of boundaries of the relatively more recently occupied Russian & Soviet territories outside the core Russian lands, such as the S Caucasus, Moldova & Transnistria, Crimea, E Prussia etc. So not just the very latest occupied states and territories, such as the Baltic states, which are a much more clear-cut case (although not in regard to, for instance, Königsberg/Kaliningrad).

Currently many people are probably looking up this topic, w/o knowing much about the long history of the Southern Caucasus. The articles must be user-friendly, i.e. understandable by anyone with a brain between their ears, but w/o much detailed previous knowledge. Arminden (talk) 23:35, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 11 November 2020

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. (closed by non-admin page mover) —Nnadigoodluck███ 15:17, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

---

Nagorno-Karabakh War → First Nagorno-Karabakh War – Due to the 2020 war, the current name has become ambiguous. The simplest choice for a new title is simply to prepend "First", by analogy with existing articles titled First Balkan War, First Boer War, First Chechen War, First Punic War, First Sino-Japanese War. This merely puts a capital "F" on a term that is already in use, for example in news reports discussing the background of the current war. Using the search term """first nagorno-‍karabakh war""" -‍site:wikipedia.org shows examples of use by news media such as npr.org, aljazeera.com, rferl.org and others. Since a name change really is necessary, the question is not whether to rename the article but what to rename it to. Therefore any objections to this proposed new name really ought to suggest an alternative. A year-based name analogous to 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War is not feasible because this war spanned multiple years, and a disambiguation-style renaming like "Nagorno-Karabakh War (1989–1994)" is less satisfactory because the start date is hard to pin down: some conflicts and pogroms began as early as 1988, and on the other hand, conflict didn't erupt into a full-scale war until 1992. P.T. Aufrette (talk) 10:34, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support: I've also opened up discussions on the 2020 war that seems to be named after its year rather than by occurrence in a series. Also hoping that the 2020 war article's name gets consensus to be changed to Second Nagorno-Karabakh War for the sake of continuity when the hype around this being a current event dies down. — Zeex.rice (talk) 13:02, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support: I think that renaming it to "First Nagorno-Karabakh War" would be appropriate due to the recent 2020 War, essentially a continuation of the conflict in the region. AnonymousAlias (talk) 15:29, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support per nom. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 16:46, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support for clarity blindlynx (talk) 18:06, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support per initial reason given to rename this article. Balkanite (talk) 22:21, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support this well reasoned nomination. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:27, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support — [ kentronhayastan ] 01:03, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support per nom. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 01:42, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support per nom. TerraCyprus (talk) 02:27, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support Nafis Fuad Ayon (talk) 06:49, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Super Ψ Dro 15:10, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Flalf^Talk 17:15, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, more reliable sources should be provided to demonstrate this has became WP:COMMONNAME for the first war, just like the aforementioned First Punic War or more familiar First World War and Second World War. Until then, a standard hatnote to guide the reader should be sufficient. Brandmeister^talk 17:46, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

@Brandmeister: You are implicitly arguing that "the Nagorno-Karabakh war" remains the WP:COMMONNAME for the first war. That is emphatically not the case: nearly every single occurrence of that phrase in recent news reports refers to the 2020 war. (We must rely on very recent sources, because the need to disambiguate is itself a very recent development). One way or another, we need a new title. Do you have a suggestion? -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 19:58, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

We should wait to see whether "First Karabakh War" will stick in sources. Most likely it will after some time, but without that it's borderline original research to prepend the word "First". Note that in your sources the word "first" is not capitalized, meaning it's not a proper name yet, like First Punic War or Second World War. Anyway, my suggestion is an appropriate hatnote at Nagorno-Karabakh War which should suffice for now, because the second war is already disambiguated as 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war. Brandmeister^talk 21:59, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

But by your reasoning, what about the title "2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war"? This exact phrase isn't found in reliable sources, so was it original research to prepend "2020"? No, it was just a normal application of WP:DESCRIPDIS to form a descriptive and unique title. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 19:21, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:NCEVENTS that's a standard handling of new events which naturally do not have an established, common name yet. But just because a second war has happened, we should not invent a new name for the first war and imply it's a proper name. Note that it was decided to move the second war not to the Second Karabakh War, but to the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war (where I supported the latter name), so if we move this to the First Karabakh War, the titles would be inconsistent. Brandmeister^talk 20:30, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Because a second war has happened, we must adopt a new name for the first war. The first war is no longer the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the title. Per WP:ATDAB, "If the article is not about the primary topic for the ambiguous name, the title must be disambiguated." There is no provision for delaying this disambiguation indefinitely until some perfect consensus emerges, and hatnotes are a helpful supplement to disambiguation, not a substitute for it. The first war is an old topic, it is only the need to disambiguate that is brand new. This old war is rarely talked about nowadays in its own right, it's only mentioned in passing as background for the much more recent conflict. In these mentions it is almost always simply termed "the first" war. New articles and books specifically focusing on this old war, which might consciously coin some formal new name for it, will only come out in dribs and drabs over the coming years. In the meantime, we must disambiguate. If no other alternative will be proposed by you or someone else, then let it be "First". If and when some more perfect consensus term should emerge months or years from now, we can always revisit the naming issue then. To address your other points: as mentioned above in my original proposal, prepending a year is not feasible when a multi-year timespan is involved and the exact starting year is in any case a matter of interpretation. I also don't see any insurmountable naming inconsistency with using "first" war and "2020" war, respectively. Some call the brief 2016 conflict a "war", although Wikipedia's title doesn't use that term, so there could be disagreement on which conflict was the "second" war, but no possible disagreement on which was the first. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 03:09, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Although my wording didn't explicitly say so, the current title should arguably point to a disambiguation page, since the 2020 war is not the primary topic either. The 2016 conflict ("also known as the Four-Day War, or April War") could also appear on that disambiguation page. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 03:09, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support Seems pretty cut-and-dry to me. Thereppy (talk) 14:08, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, this move request is based on the premise that Wikipedia an not have ambiguous titles, which is not reflective of the WP:TITLE policy. Names can be ambiguous, and that is why Wikipedia uses hatnotes and disambiguation pages. Regarding a supposed name change, the dust has not even settled on the recent war. It is far too soon to ascertain that the common name of the Nagorno-Karabakh War has changed, and a few news articles that are focused entirely on a separate war (this year's) are not remotely sufficient to determine the common name of the war covered by this article has changed. Asserting this year's war is the primary topic for this title is unfounded, and afoul of the spirit of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENT. It is entirely possible that the name of this war may change in the future, but it is also entirely possible that it won't, or that it may shift to another name. Cherry-picking specific wars that have "First" and linking them to this war is WP:OR/WP:CRYSTAL. There's no inherent logic to historical names. The First Balkan War was not the first war in the Balkans. The common name for the War of 1812 is not the "Second War of Independence". CMD (talk) 15:32, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

An undisambiguated title should only point directly to a specific topic if that is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. If there is no primary topic, it should go to a disambiguation page. I am not actually arguing that the very recent war is now the primary topic, my points in that regard were merely in support of the fact that the first war has definitively ceased to be the primary topic. The longstanding title of this page must now be disambiguated. I am open to suggestions for some alternative other than "First", but so far nobody has proposed one. The title "Nagorno-Karabakh War" should now point to a disambiguation page. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 17:31, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

The first Nagorno-Karabakh War is actually already disambiguated with a capital "W" in its name, meaning it's a proper name. The 2020 war, on the other hand, doesn't have a proper name yet, but the year is prepended. So in written English, at least, the disambiguation between the two is not a "must". Brandmeister^talk 12:25, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation guidelines apply to all titles in Wikipedia, regardless of whether they are proper names or not. In fact the great majority of disambiguations do involve proper names. Let's imagine that Wikipedia had existed in the 1990s: we would have had an article at George Bush about the 41st president, as the primary topic among all other persons named "George Bush" (biblical scholar, footballer, racing driver, etc.). When his son became 43rd president the longstanding article about the 41st president would cease to be the primary topic. It would then be quite incongruous to claim per your reasoning that "George Bush" is "already disambiguated" because it's a proper name, and therefore the title need not change. On the contrary, the article would need to be renamed without undue delay to make room for the disambiguation page to be at George Bush. The same principle applies here. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 01:26, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

The primacy of a topic is not determined by how recent an event is. One factor in WP:PTOPIC is long term significance, which this page has. As I've said the 2020 war may end up with similar or even more primacy, but it is far too soon to evaluate that right now. CMD (talk) 01:52, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

You correctly say that primacy is not determined by recency, but that is a strawman argument. I do not claim that the very recent war is the primary topic because of its recency, in fact I don't claim that it is the primary topic at all. But neither is the old war the primary topic anymore, on grounds of significance. Your other argument regarding recency is that it makes evaluating long-term significance impossible, but this is incorrect. For example, the fact that the September 11 attacks or Pearl Harbor would have long-term significance was crystal clear on the day of the attacks themselves. And it is already entirely clear that the 2020 war was at least of comparable significance to the old war, by any number of measures: dead soldiers, displaced civilians, and especially by its major alteration of territorial control. The duration of the 2020 war was considerably shorter, but that means little in itself: for example, the Six-Day War in the Middle East was hugely significant despite being very short. The 2020 war even had major implications for aerial drone warfare tactics, which will be studied closely at military colleges around the world; by contrast, the old war was far more conventional. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 03:30, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support per nom. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 23:31, 16 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.

Decapitalization of "war"

@Chipmunkdavis: Please immediately move the article back to "First Nagorno-Karabakh War". The name you altered was the result of a week-long move discussion. Your admin rights do not entitle you to simply drop by, ignore the consensus reached among editors, enforce your views, and then add insult to injury by move protecting the article. If you want to decapitalize "war", you can open a new move discussion like everyone else does. I'll try to assume this was just a thoughtless slip. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 12:02, 25 November 2020 (UTC) EDIT: Jesus christ, did I make a fool of myself by jumping to (wrong) conclusions. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 15:32, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. There has been a long discussion about this. The user should've at least left a note in the talk page before moving it. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 12:25, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

I made the move to reinforce the previous consensus, not ignore it, following the three sources presented in the opening RM statement [1][2][3]. I'm not sure how it is enforcing my views, as my view, which can be seen in the RM, is not for the current title. I also don't have any admin or protection rights. CMD (talk) 13:26, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: The consensus was in support of a capital "W". Capitalization has been a point of contention elsewhere as well, which is why I found it provocative that you moved the article just like that. However, here's where I went wrong: When editing the classical way, there's a message that states that you "moved protection settings". I misread this as move protection, put two and two together way too fast, and jumped to the conclusion that an admin (which I assumed you were, since you had, to my understanding, "move protected" the article) had both acted unilaterally and misused their power. If I hadn't made there erronous assumptions, not only would I not have written such a confrontational post in such a public place (as opposed to your talk page), I also wouldn't have made assumptions about your rationale. For this, I offer my sincerest apology. I jumped to conclusions and ended up looking like a fool. That being said, the article should still be moved back. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 15:30, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

I understand the misunderstanding, that is not a problem. To better lay out my thoughts at the time, there was no specific consensus around the capitalisation of the w either way in the RM here, as it was not discussed. However, the proposed move was on disambiguation, asking to "merely puts a capital "F" on a term that is already in use, for example in news reports discussing the background of the current war", for which the three news sources I linked above were cited as examples. These three all used "first Nagorno-Karabakh war", from which "put[ting] a capital "F"" would result in "First Nagorno-Karabakh war". Also on my mind was the 2020 war move request (which I did not participate in), which explicitly discussed the capitalisation, and had a rough consensus that it should be lower case as a descriptive name. Given the sources and explanation in the RM here and the 2020 discussion, I made my move as a tweak to better match both discussions. I did not expect it to be provocative, and reiterate that this title is not 'my view'. CMD (talk) 16:04, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

You participated in the requested move discussion for this article, but you did not propose using a lowercase "w" at the time. Had you done so, we could have discussed it there. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 19:39, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

"Nagorno-Karabakh War" was a proper name, I don't understand why that's ceased to be the case because there's now a second one. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 23:38, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree, but this article was moved from the proper name, per the move request. CMD (talk) 03:24, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Number of aircraft

Voskanapat.info is not a reliable source, it is an Armenian propaganda website. It claims that more Azerbaijani aircraft was shot down than what Azerbaijan had back then. Better source needed. Also, Markar Melkonian is not a good source on statistics on the number of Azerbaijani military equipment destroyed. He could be a good source on the things that he saw, but he certainly was not capable of having reliable statistics on this topic. Grandmaster 18:33, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

This has also crossed my mind. A soldier/commander can not simply know the exact statistics of every single destroyed equipment, it's against WP:COMMONSENSE. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 18:37, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Exactly. Also, the number of 156 captured Azerbaijani tanks is fantastic. I checked de Waal, who was used as a source for this claim. But De Waal says in the book that this was the claim by Serzh Sargsyan, and the claims of one of the warring sides cannot be presented as facts. We all know that warring sides always exaggerate their gains, and it is very unlikely that Azerbaijan had that many tanks back in 1990s. In general, the numbers of Azerbaijani equipment losses lack reliable sources, and should not be included, same as Armenian losses are left out. Grandmaster 18:43, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. I also wonder why Melkonian's brother is considered a reliable source here. He is literally just showing Monte's perspective. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 00:01, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Do you have any third-party evidence for Voskanapat being unreliable, besides "it's X propaganda"? Because the same could also be said about most Azeri news websites. --Steverci (talk) 19:10, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

It is enough to check the content of that website to see what it is. And in any case, it is not a third party source, it represents the Armenian side. Sources for such claims should be non-partisan. The same applies to Azerbaijani sites too. Partisan Armenian or Azerbaijani sources can only be used to quote official statements, or interviews with notable persons, where the information can be directly attributed as an opinion of a particular person. Grandmaster 21:06, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 30 November 2020

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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.

No consensus to move, after extended time for discussion. BD2412 T 05:34, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

First Nagorno-Karabakh War → First Nagorno-Karabakh war – Capitalizing "War" suggests that the current title of this article is an established proper noun common name, whereas at this time the title appears to be purely descriptive. The sources cited in the previous discussion to support moving to the current title do not capitalize "war" [4], [5] [6] (n.b. they do not capitalize "first" either, although we would have to in order to respect sentence case per MOS). Arguments related to this distinction were also made at a related move discussion about the 2020 war. I have my misgivings about using "first/second" at all, but am not seeking to relitigate that at this time. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:29, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

While we’re at it, can we also change the name to “First Karabakh war”? Nagorno-Karabakh compromises less than half of the area that ultimately fell under Armenian control. A more accurate description of the field of battle would be to refer to the greater Karabakh area, which I would note already has its own Wiki page. If the conflict was just about Nagorno-Karabakh, which had a pre-war Armenian majority, it would very different for Azeris in terms of significance. The greater Karabakh area that was emptied of Azeris as a result of the war had a pre-war Azeri majority of approximately 75% even after factoring in the predominantly Armenian population of Nagorno-Karabakh. The hundreds of thousands of Azeri IDPs is what made this conflict hold such special significance. Nzanjani (talk) 04:49, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

The war is over Nagorno-Karabakh, while the Armenian Armed Forces had occupied the surrounding regions too. It is generally labelled the "Nagorno-Karabakh" war; per WP:COMMONNAME, we have to abide that. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 08:27, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Support per nom. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 08:27, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Comment, part 1: I proposed the original move to "First Nagorno-Karabakh War", on the day after the peace agreement was announced. You can see that discussion in an earlier section of this talk page. The original title Nagorno-Karabakh War had become ambiguous and the first war could not be considered the primary topic for this term, given the comparable significance of the 2020 war in terms of casualties and changes of territorial control. I was disambiguating, not merely seeking a "better" title or trying to coin a proper name; the capital "W" was simply retained by default from the original title. No one in the original discussion proposed lowercasing it, and frankly it didn't occur to me either at the time. As for the term "first", this was the only viable form of disambiguation I could think of, and although alternative proposals were invited, none were offered. A year-based disambiguation like "2020" doesn't work for the reasons mentioned in the original proposal: firstly, the war spanned multiple years, and secondly, there is no unambiguous determination for the starting year, because it very gradually escalated from pogroms and ethnic cleansing to full-blown conventional warfare. In the final years of the Soviet Union, the central government wielded enough authority to limit the scale of the conflict but not enough authority to halt it, and then the Soviet Union collapsed at the end of 1991, removing all brakes on escalation. Various years have been deemed to be the start, in Wikipedia and elsewhere: 1988 (in the articles Nagorno-Karabakh Line of Contact, 2016 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, Foreign relations of Armenia, Grey Wolves (organization)), 1989 (the Wikimedia Commons category uses this), 1991 (in the articles Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, Martakert, Republic of Artsakh), 1992 (the large-scale conventional warfare phase began). -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 14:01, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Comment, part 2: Having said that, I don't really see any problem with the capital W. For instance, it's used in First Chechen War, which I cited as an example in the original proposal, and which is a very similar situation of a conflict in former-Soviet territory where a second war occurred. Wikipedia has always used that name and capitalization since that article's creation. When User CMD reopened the current debate on my talk page after the requested move completed, I looked up some reliable sources and it turns out that to this very day there is no consensus on capitalization style in reliable sources. To quote from that discussion: '... in the case of the First Chechen War, as late as 2014 both Al Jazeera and The Guardian used a lowercase "f" and lowercase "w" in their stories marking the 20th anniversary of the conflict. On the other hand, The Atlantic in 2013 and The New York Times in 2019 used "F" and "W". Restricting the search to books.google.com shows some using one form, some using the other.' If reliable sources don't reach any consensus in such cases even after two decades, as mentioned above, then we might as well opt for uniform capitalization in the title First Nagorno-Karabakh War, as per the usual title conventions of the English language. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 14:01, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Comment, part 3 and Oppose: At least one reliable source has used the fully-capitalized form First Nagorno-Karabakh War: Deutsche Welle. That article dates from two days after the Wikipedia title change, and User CMD argued to me that Wikipedia perhaps influenced their capitalization style; but it's hard to argue that our title could have that effect after only two days, given that our "First Chechen War" title didn't influence capitalization style in some other reliable sources even after a couple of decades. In any case, capitalization style is determined by each publication's internal manual of style guidelines, which are revised infrequently and do not fluctuate with the whims of fashion. And are we really going to revisit and fastidiously investigate each and every one of: First Sudanese Civil War, Second Sudanese Civil War, First Congo War, Second Congo War, and various others, and arguably even the uppercase Somali Civil War and Lebanese Civil War and Sri Lankan Civil War (and Algerian, and Angolan, and Burundian, and Guatemalan, and ...) vs. the apparently solitary case of lowercase Syrian civil war. That way lies madness. An encyclopedia needs titles for its entries, and coins titles if necessary. Titles of wars normally use capital-W War by the usual conventions of the English language, so the lowercase "w" frankly looks a bit silly in that context. Why on Earth should we be so terrified that someone might take a conventionally-capitalized title for a proper noun, to such an extent that we would defy normal English title conventions and spend endless time debating such issues. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 14:01, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

The Anadolu Agency (Turkish government news agency) has also used the all-capitalized style: (article here reproduced in Daily Sabah), as has the Azeri Press Agency: (article here). Meanwhile, the relatively small Armenian newspaper 168 Zham also used the all-capitalized style, using both "First Artsakh War" and "First Nagorno Karabakh War": (article here). Unlike Deutsche Welle, these could not be deemed reliable sources for us in this context by their lack of impartiality, but they do demonstrate usage of the all-capitalized style in a non-partisan way. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 16:39, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

• Support, creating a new proper name is a clear case of wp:original research, and all sources cited in the previous move request used "first Nagorno-Karabakh war" in the lowercase. The use of lowercase (sentence case) is in line with the article title policy for a descriptive title. In the same vein, it should also be clear that "first" should be lowercase when not used at the start of a sentence. CMD (talk) 15:54, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

  The point made in the last sentence of the above comment is important to note, as it would mean that the lead would read The first Nagorno-Karabakh war was... _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:22, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

  WP:OR applies to "facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist". However, from our discussion eleven days ago on my talk page you are aware that at least one reliable published source does exist: Deutsche Welle (see citation linked above), so the original research argument, by definition, is no longer applicable. Nor is it clear if it was ever applicable, since capitalization is a style issue rather than a matter of "facts, allegations, and ideas". You did not bring up capitalization when you participated in the discussion of the original (disambiguation) move, nor did it occur to me at the time I created the move proposal that it would become an issue. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 17:24, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

  Proper nouns are facts that need to be sourced, and for style we have explicit guidelines for sentence case. One potentially citogenetic DW article is not convincing. CMD (talk) 01:07, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

  (1/3) If you insist on invoking WP:OR then you must follow what it says in the very first sentence of that page: original research can only be applicable if "no reliable, published sources exist" (emphasis mine). The existence of even one reliable source nullifies this original research claim, uncontroversially and indisputably, and so you must abandon that argument. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 04:21, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

  (2/3) It is easy to understand why this is so when WP:OR is applied, as it was meant to be, to actual "facts, allegations and ideas". One reliable source can indeed suffice: for instance, if NASA's website a year from now were to state matter-of-factly that there is life on Mars, as a matter of settled science, then we would hardly expect the equally reliable European Space Agency to contradict them; nor would we wonder if some blogger somewhere had somehow "citogenetically" influenced NASA's views on the matter. On the other hand, when we correctly understand that this current debate pertains to style issues and not factual issues, then it is perfectly normal for different publications to have differing standards on Oxford commas or capitalization or any other "manual of style" guidelines, and such style differences may persist for decades, as we see in the case of "First Chechen War". -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 04:21, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

  (3/3) As an encyclopedia, however, we are in the business of slapping titles on our entries rather than merely inserting terms within sentences of an article, and so when we see different capitalizations used by reliable sources, we ought to favor the form that looks least silly as an article title. The lowercase "w" would look silly in the title for a war because the usual English-language convention is to capitalize the "W" of "War" in the title of a war. Britannica, for instance, always capitalizes the "W" in the name of a specific war (including for Syrian Civil War). If it's an article that groups together multiple wars, then they may use lowercase "w" (e.g., Arab-Israeli wars) but even then they usually capitalize (e.g., Greco-Persian Wars). -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 04:21, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Do we write First World War of First World war? The American Civil War of the American Civil war? The W should stay capitalized. This discussion is missing the forest from the trees, honestly. 2601:85:C102:1220:35C0:CE22:29BC:55B4 (talk) 19:20, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

  All of those examples have a wealth of high quality secondary sources near unanimously referring to them as such. There is no equivalent corpus of coverage for this conflict, and none will exist for at least a few years as academics commence work on this subject. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:06, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Then since there is no consensus about whether such a (exceedingly minor and irrelevant) change to capitalization is necessary, as there are sources that give both W and w, then the article is fine the way it is. Any change could be argued against, so the best course is to keep the capital W. Referring to sources here, then, is pointless, at least since you say that there aren't that many sources. As for the proper noun issue, the fighting in the 90s was no small c conflict, it was a War. The scale and atrocities on both sides justify the capitalization, methinks. 2601:85:C102:1220:35C0:CE22:29BC:55B4 (talk) 20:19, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose I do not consider the Four Day War of 2016 to be significant. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 23:11, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support per nom, as being more correct than the current title. Capitalizing the "W" constitutes the coining of a proper noun by Wikipedia editors, as "a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources" (quoting from WP:COMMONNAME; and this is with a particular attention to the ones written after this 2020 conflict) absolutely do not justify the proper noun form. I have seen very little examination of the sources required by Wikipedia policy for finding a common name in this discussion so far, and in recent related move discussions regarding these conflicts.

That said, the WP:COMMONNAME of this article is still the "Nagorno-Karabakh War", as it was before the 2020 conflict, and I ultimately support a move back to that name (or a variation, like "Nagorno-Karabakh War (1989–1994)"), though I recognize that this is not the discussion for that. — Goszei (talk) 06:00, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Addendum: let's carefully examine some of the sources that were brought up as evidence in the previous RM: [7] ("first Nagorno-Karabakh war"), [8] ("first Nagorno-Karabakh war"), [9] ("first Nagorno-Karabakh war"). These are descriptive names, NOT proper names. A similar confusion is the source of the multiple RM's that have transpired at Talk:Syrian civil war. — Goszei (talk) 22:24, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

"This is not the discussion for that", but since you bring it up, it should be addressed:

• Regarding "(1989–1994)", the exact starting year of the war cannot be objectively determined to be 1989 or some other specific year, see my "Comment, part 1" above. Also, for consistency you'd need to propose changing "2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war" to "Nagorno-Karabakh War (2020)", and I don't believe that would get any support.
• The WP:COMMONNAME is not "still the 'Nagorno-Karabakh War', as it was before the 2020 conflict" if you give "particular attention to [sources] written after this 2020 conflict". In fact, you would be hard pressed to find a single such recent source that does not qualify the term in some way, for example by prepending "first" or "First", or by other verbiage.
• It's problematic to claim that "Nagorno-Karabakh War" is an unambiguous proper noun merely because "W" is uppercased, because speech is case-insensitive. The common name of this war that ultimately prevails will necessarily be a term that does not cause confusion when spoken aloud in newscasts or university lectures or verbal debates. In Wikipedia we must occasionally distinguish terms solely on the basis of capitalization, for instance when an artist like Ice Cube chooses a generic term for a stage name. This is not such a case. "Nagorno-Karabakh War" is exactly as ambiguous as "Nagorno-Karabakh war", and since the two wars have comparable significance in terms of casualties and changes of territorial control, the earlier war is not the primary topic and it must be disambiguated. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 01:28, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. The subject event of this article is historic and definite. It is not about the general concept of any "first war" but about "That War". It is notable enough to have its own article and since we describe it as a war (in the bloody serious sense of an armed conflict), it should be named as well. I'd support a policy for article titles containing the word "war", recommending to consistently capitalize each significant word. Wakari07 (talk) 22:15, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per others Ridax2020 (talk) 12:51, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: bne IntelliNews has used the all-capitalized style: (article here); this same article refers to the 2020 war as the "six-week Nagorno-Karabakh war". -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 20:20, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per P.T. Aufrette. Super Ψ Dro 20:49, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per P.T. Aufrette. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 20:31, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per others. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 12:12, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.

UNA-UNSO and Turkey

The source for UNA-UNSO supporting Azerbaijan comes from an interview Mykola Karpyuk had with Vesti.az, an Azeri news website. The Armenian and Russian sources are simply reporting it, and other Azeri news websites reported the interview as well, one of which I added. My Brother's Road was written by a university professor and has been cited in other works, such as Thomas De Waal's Great Catastrophe: Armenians and Turks in the Shadow of Genocide and The Caucasus: An Introduction. --Steverci (talk) 22:29, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

My Brother's Road was written by Monte Melkonian's brother about his brother's experience. A similar thing was discussed here which reached a consensus that the book is too primary to use for specific things such as military vehicle numbers and country participations. Regardless, the source doesn't even mention any page or quote supporting this. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 22:39, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Since you said nothing about the UNA-UNSO sources I'm assuming you no longer object to them. I hoped to find an original vesti.az source but it was likely a live interview. As for My Brother's Road, I cited a different source instead, from the historical overviews bibliography. --Steverci (talk) 03:46, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Article issues

This is listed as "A featured article". Please review concerns that could affect the classification according to the criteria from a quick first read. Some are minor but some not so minor. The article is subject to discretionary sanctions so I will likely not make any edits. I can, however, call into question the need for a review as a member of one of the relevant WikiProjects.

The lead

The first paragraph is extremely large. Trying to write the whole article in the lead is not necessary. A change of subject is usually indicated by a change of paragraph and since there are currently only 3 in the lead a trimming and separation of the paragraph is needed that would result in a more concise opening paragraph.

Body

Some sections have grown to a point that may not be necessary. The "Early Armenian offensives" section has subsections with related "Main" articles such as "Khojaly" and "Capture of Shusha" yet are very large. When covering content already covered in another article some condensing helps keep unnecessary bloat in check. This can be reviewed in other sections also.

Appendices

The "Bibliography" can be reviewed for article inclusion or trimming. Some of the entries may wander off-point. I am not sure about the subsections "Specific issues and time periods" and "Biographies" subsections as being necessary to the article. I don't think I have run across a "Bibliography" section with a "Biographies" subsection before.

External links

This is of particular concern. With 10 entries there is no doubt it needs trimming. While zero entries will not affect the article classification three or maybe four by consensus, has become the standard practice. Promoted articles seem to exclude this section sometimes or they grow after a successful review. I didn't look but this section is certainly in need of trimming. See: WP:External links to include WP:ELPOINTS #3. Thank you, -- Otr500 (talk) 15:49, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Civilian Deaths

Regarding the civilian deaths listed, the article that was used as a source states that the 20,000 deaths (16,000 for Azerbaijan and 4,000 for Armenians) are battle deaths and not civilian deaths. I also checked the Lacina and Gleditsch 2005 paper for clarification but I did not find any estimate of the deaths. I assume this was a misunderstanding from whoever edited the page.

Soviet Law on Secession

The Article clearly states: "The people of autonomous republics and autonomous formations retain the right to decide independently the question of remaining within the USSR or within the seceding Union republic, and also to raise the question of their own state-legal status." Golden, could you please explain why you removed this source and claimed it said "nothing about about seceding from their respective republics"? Dallavid (talk) 18:45, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

There is a whole book written about this issue, which I advise you to read: "The Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict: A Legal Analysis", Heiko Krüger. 2010.

To save you the time, here is the preliminary conclusion from page 40:

In summary it should be noted that Nagorno-Karabakh did not have the option to secede effectively from the Azerbaijan SSR under the law of the USSR. The decisions of July 1988 and December 1989 to accede to the Armenian SSR and the decision of September 1991 to establish an independent union republic contravened Soviet law and therefore had no legal effect. Art. 3 para. 1 sentence 2 of the Law on Secession, referred to by the Armenian side in the discussion, is extremely problematic with respect to Arts. 72, 78 and 86 of the Constitution of the USSR but was nonetheless valid. Irrespective of this, the actions taken by Nagorno-Karabakh, and in particular the referendum of 1991, did not satisfy the procedure of the Law on Secession. Several mandatory requirements of the Law on Secession were not fulfilled.

On pages 30–35 of the book, it is explained in great detail how and why the "Law of Secession" was problematic and unconstitutional. So, putting a sentence saying Soviet Law gave regions right to secede, without any further explanation, as the third sentence of the whole article is misleading at best. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 19:51, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

I took a read of the book. In just the first 5 pages, Krüger portrays Caucasian Albania revisionist theories and everything else in Azerbaijani historiography as completely factual, and only mentions Armenian scholars or sources in a condescending tone. It's not a reliable source. From what I could find out about Krüger, he's an attorney in Germany and has no credentials to be considered an expert of Nagorno-Karabakh of any kind. --Dallavid (talk) 19:13, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Trying to refute a reliable book published by a reliable publisher is not an argument. You can bring it to RSN rather than here if you have any concerns about its reliability. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 05:47, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Recent edits

Knižnik,

• I removed this source (Mujahedin in Nagorno-Karabakh: A Case Study in the Evolution of Global After repeated efforts, I discovered that this material was published on the Elcano Royal Institute's website and labeled as "Working Paper." Working Articles are not considered RS until they are cited in peer-reviewed papers (Because they are not peer reviewed publication).
• I returned Belligerents back to the Units part of the infobox as per Template:Infobox military conflict, because mercenaries from other countries does not automatically warrant part in the conflict.

Other edits, I believe, have sufficient explanation in their commentary; nonetheless, please let me know if anything is unclear or you disagree with something. Thanks! A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 14:56, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

As to Michael Taarnby's paper, well I thought it was RS, as the author is a scholar. Anyway, I think I can find other sources on the Mujahiden participation question, as these are well-known facts. E.g. Hekmatyar complaining that the war seemed to be a nationalist rather than a religious issue, him obviously being a religious zealot.

As to the belligerents part, if Armenian volunteers are listed as belligerents in the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war as are Syrian mercenaries under Azerbaijan, I think we should do the same here. Or at least add country flags to the place they are listed: when I consulted this article infobox a week ago, I didn't even spot Afghans/Chechens listed. This surprised me. Only later did I find out that indeed, they actually have been listed, but in an unnoticeable way. Knižnik (talk) 15:29, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

With regards to flags, I removed flags as per MOS:INFOBOXFLAG, adding country flags can wrongly imply that those countries are part of the conflict (because human beings tend to visualize rather than reading).

With regards to belligerents, it is quite different in 2020 article, it is like one group of volunteers/fighters on each side. Not the same in the first war where there are at least 3 different organisations/groups, and adding them would create confusion/mess. Also in first war article sources don't necessarily note that foreign fighters had any decisive role in the progress of the war. A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 16:29, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Shorten intro?

I think the introduction should be shortened. While it is good to be informative, the details should be left to the history section. The intro should be 5-10 lines long, with just the key info like what it was, what the war was over, a brief summary of the major events, and the ending and finally a sentence-or-two about the impact. Thats it. 2600:1014:B067:25CD:7427:443D:F10:8A30 (talk) 03:22, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't mind. Actually, one of the concerns at the featured article review was that "the lead is difficult to read". But it shouldn't be too short. Brandmeister^talk 07:56, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

There are bigger issues with the body of the article and the lead should reflect the body. So playing around with the lead is putting the horse before the cart. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:16, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Source regarding number of displaced people

The article references the 'Wiener Zeitung', an Austrian newspaper, which does not seem like a reliable source to me. It claims that 724 thousand Azerbaijanis were deported from Armenia, Nagorno-Karabakh and its surrounding territories. Accounting for all Azerbaijanis living in those territories before the First Nagorno Karabakh War, specifically only counting in the census numbers with the highest number of Azerbaijanis (in the case of Armenia, it would be the census of 1979 instead of the one of 1989 for example) and ignoring the fact that the Fuzuli and Agdam districts of the Azerbaijan Republic were only partly occupied, we arrive at a maximum of 623,255 Azerbaijanis in total. That means that, if all Azerbaijanis were displaced from those territories and none of them emigrated themselves, there would have been a total number of approximately 620 thousand displaced Azerbaijani people. Of course, I could've made an error in my calculation or may have forgotten something, but even if we account for population growth (which was between 0.9% and 2.4% p.a. for Azerbaijanis living in the Armenian SSR and the NKAO between 1970 and 1980), we're far away from the 724 thousand figure. If I remember correctly, Azerbaijani sources tend to count in children of displaced people born after the war in their statistics, whereas Armenian sources do not. All in all, a better source would be nice.

PS: I don't wanna be petty, but 100 thousand displaced people more or less does make a huge difference when looking at the bigger picture of this conflict.

AlenAcemyan (talk) 15:50, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Dating

The current first sentence seems to imply that the war began in February 1988. This does not seem well supported by the body of the article. Srnec (talk) 03:16, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 August 2023

Israel supported Azerbaijan https://blog.prif.org/2023/03/29/why-israel-backs-azerbaijan-in-nagorno-karabakh-conflict-its-not-about-armenia/ and Russia supported Armenia https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2022/12/15/explainer-what-is-russias-role-in-the-current-nagorno-karabakh-stand-off-a79710 Napalm Guy (talk) 16:33, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Please make your request in the format change X to Y. If you mean to add these to the infobox, Support is deprecated per documentation for Template:Infobox military conflict. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:48, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Turkey being on the warring side

Turkey did not participate in the First Nagorno-Karabakh War. Presenting the claim that Turkey took part in the war based solely on a reference from an Armenian author is utterly nonsensical. During that time, the leaders of Turkey were continuously criticized for not sending assistance to this war, as they were not supported by public opinion. Asserting that "Turkey was involved in this war" by referencing an Armenian author is a complete absurdity. It is entirely baseless for Armenians, who couldn't even stand against a single Turkish cannon, to claim that they defeated the Turks in this war. 31.223.61.172 (talk) 00:39, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 August 2023

Turkey

Turkey did not participate in the First Nagorno-Karabakh War. Presenting the claim that Turkey took part in the war based solely on a reference from an Armenian author is utterly nonsensical. During that time, the leaders of Turkey were continuously criticized for not sending assistance to this war, as they were not supported by public opinion. Asserting that "Turkey was involved in this war" by referencing an Armenian author is a complete absurdity. It is entirely baseless for Armenians, who couldn't even stand against a single Turkish cannon, to claim that they defeated the Turks in this war.This nonsense is written in no other language except English. 31.223.61.172 (talk) 00:46, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Turkey's role in the war is.. complicated. casualdejekyll 02:50, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

According to this logic, all the countries that provide weapons to Ukraine in the Ukraine War are currently at war. In any way, war has been declared between the two states. This bullshit exists only in the English language section. You're getting very funny now. Remove Turkey from the warring side.The information source you mentioned even states that Turkey avoided direct involvement in the war by refraining from providing weapons and financial resources. Based on which arguments are you claiming that Turkey participated in the war? The person who made the absurd change in this article has been banned indefinitely due to tampering with another article. I think you are defending a troll attack.

31.223.61.219 (talk) 16:23, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Hezbe Wahdat was not involved in this war

There has been a mistranslations in many American articles which have accidentally stated that Hezbe Wahdat was involved in this war when it was meant Hezb-e-Islami.

"Hekmatyar’s involvement in supplying fighters appears to be well established; however, the source of the Mujahedin has in at least one case been misidentified as the Hezb-e-Wahdat"

https://www.realinstitutoelcano.org/en/work-document/the-mujahedin-in-nagorno-karabakh-a-case-study-in-the-evolution-of-global-jihad-wp/ or https://www.files.ethz.ch/isn/57530/WP%2020,%202008.pdf RamHez (talk) 12:35, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Edit the Strength box

This must be edited to not just be Hezbe Wahdat but rather "Afghan volunteers" or "Afghan mercenaries." Also it is linked to Abdul Ali Mazari when it should be linked to Hezb-e Islami Gulbuddin since they formed the main bulk of Afghan fighters in the first Karabakh war RamHez (talk) 12:50, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 September 2023

Review the number of Armenians displaced during first NK war. Other sources cite numbers less than 300k. The population of Armenians in Baku itself didn't exceed 200k 46.193.68.36 (talk) 15:30, 22 September 2023 (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. M.Bitton (talk) 11:20, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Dot points and Turkey as belligerent

{{Infobox military conflict}}'s documentation says this about result parameter: this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive". As per @Cinderella157, this violates MOS. About the revert of Cinderella's edit by restoring Turkey as a belligerent: the source from The New York Times does not say that Turkey was a belligerent in the conflict. And the Demoyan source, published by Yerevan State University, a university owned by the Armenian government, contains a lot of POV wording. So it can't be considered a reliable source for this statement. Nemoralis (talk) 07:00, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

MOS:MIL is for result parameter, I restored like it was for years, in territory parameter - this is important because it was literally the objective of Artsakh to gain independence or reunite with Armenia with autonomous status. This should be stated in the infobox like it was for many years, I haven't seen a valid argument for its omission, especially since it doesn't violate MOS:MIL in territory parameter, like it was previously.

Regarding Turkey, Template:Infobox military conflict states that combatants are "the countries whose forces took part in the conflict". The Croissant source confirms on pages 96-97 that at least 150 Turkish military experts participated in the conflict ("Turkey agreed to return the 150 military experts...Turkeys experts were credited with training elements of the Azerbaijani army in the months leading up to the winter assault"). These are not to be confused with the 500 Turkish nationalist mercenaries; Croissant confirms the military experts were sent by the government of Turkey. By Wikipedia's guidelines, Turkey is a belligerent in this conflict. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 08:27, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

"Training elements of the Azerbaijani army" does not equal to being a belligerent. The same source also say that Russia sent advisors. Full quote:

Additionally, in late 1993 Turkey agreed to return the 150 military experts it had withdrawn from Azerbaijan following Elchibey's ouster, claiming its differences with the Aliyev regime had been resolved. Together with the two hundred advisors dispatched reportedly by Russia in the fall of 1993, Turkey's experts were credited with training elements of the Azerbaijani army in the months leading up to the winter assault

This implies that those experts didn't participate in war, they just simply helped train the army. EU and US does similar thing for Ukrainian army. By that logic, all of EU and USA is belligerent in the Russia-Ukraine war. Sources in Wind Unit article clearly says experts were ex military officers who came with order of Türkeş. Several reliable sources say that Turkey supported Azerbaijan, not intervening in it:

In examining Azerbaijan's relations with Turkey, it should first be mentioned that Azerbaijan never officially asked for a Turkish intervention in the conflict. According to Azerbaijan's ambassador in Ankara, Mehmet Novruzoğlu Aliyev, the main support Azerbaijan wanted from Turkey was to try use its Western allience contacts to show Azerbaijan's side of the story to the world.

Al Jazeraa's article:

While Turkey has always supported Azerbaijan’s claims over disputed territory in the region, it did not play a significant rhetorical or military role in support of Baku in its previous conflicts with Armenia.

Another JSTOR paper:

Türkiye's military support for Azerbaijan during war came in the form of sending traditional armaments and training the Azerbaijani military. [...] While Türkiye opted out of militarily engaging in the conflict, it showed an ardent interest in mediatorship.

Nemoralis (talk) 21:21, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

• Comment In respect to listing Turkey as a belligerent, the evidence of this discussion indicates Turkey as a supporter. It is not telling us that its involvement rises to the level of being a belligerent. To say this in a wiki voice (ie in the infobox), there would need to be a clear consensus in good quality sources to support this POV. To the matter of dot points that were under the result parameter but would now be added to the territory parameter: WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE tells us that the infobox is for an at a glance summary of key points of the article. What would be added is a degree of detail inconsistent with WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE particularly compared with what has populated this parameter for a significant period and which is and has been quite adequate. The material added approaches prose, for which the infobox is unsuited. Furthermore, where the most recent reinstatement of that material would state: restore stable version, it is a misrepresentation, since this change to the territory parameter is not a stable version. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:23, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

  since this change to the territory parameter is not a stable version – well this is just wrong since it was in territory parameter for years and was stable edit. It was recently moved in this edit to result parameter and then it was removed entirely by you, I believe. If the surrounding regions are going to be in territory changes like it was added recently, then the DeFacto independence should stay there as well – this was the main objective of Artsakh, to gain independence or autonomous status, the recently added surrounding regions were not even the objective and were seized by Armenians under the justification of a "security belt" which was to be traded for recognition of autonomous status from Azerbaijan.

  Regarding Turkey, I'll comment later. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 07:36, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

  On closer inspection I see that you are correct - that the text referring to de facto independence and de facto unification is of long standing. However, there are issues with this since there is an inherent contradiction in describing it as both independence and unification. It is not independent if it has been united with another state - de facto or otherwise. Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, we should be making entries as clearly and as simply as possible. The text that would be reinstated is not only ambiguous but would try to capture nuance for which an infobox is most unsuitable. Armenian occupation of territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh succinctly and clearly describes the territorial changes and, is quite adequate. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:24, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

  But it tells nothing about the Nagorno-Karabakh itself. Oloddin (talk) 02:38, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

The problem I am seeing with this article is that it uses Armenian as the demonym of the country and as the ethnicity without distinction when a distinction needs to be made. It involved the country and ethnic Armenians who were not Armenian nationals. Consequently, the result should (as I understand it) read Ethnic Armenian victory. The territorial change would be unrecognized Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh established. This included most of the previous Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast and Azerbaijanian territory west to Armenia and south to Iran. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:51, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

References

Azerbaijani or Azeri

Shouldn't "Azerbaijani villages" be called "Azeri villages"? Technically the Armenian villages were Azerbaijani, too EnTerbury (talk) 00:22, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Azerbaijani and Azeri are synonymous and may refer to either the ethnicity or the nationality. However, Azerbaijani would be the more common name - see Azerbaijanis and Azeri people is a redirect to that page. We would use the term that is more recognisable across the full domain of English speakers. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:11, 3 April 2024 (UTC)