Jump to content

Talk:2023 Azerbaijani offensive in Nagorno-Karabakh

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Interfase (talk | contribs) at 20:12, 24 September 2023 (→‎Requested move 19 September 2023). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Article created

Created this article in the midst of reports by Azerbaijan’s Ministry of Defense starting a "anti-terrorist military operation"

This has just been launched a few minutes ago, and there is no credible and substantial information as of now aside from the Ministry of Defense. U2You Too (talk) 09:52, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Third" Nagorno-Karabakh War? Nemoralis (talk) 09:55, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to move the article if there is enough evidence that this will be another clash instead of an all-out war like 2020. Although from the statement published by the Azerbaijan MOD, this doesn't look like just another series of clashes, thus the name of the article U2You Too (talk) 09:57, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Azerbaijan MOD said it is "local anti-terrorist activities". I think we can move it for now: 2023 Nagorno-Karabakh clashes Nemoralis (talk) 10:14, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Its officially a war now
https://www.politico.eu/article/azerbaijan-launch-anti-terror-operation-nagorno-karabakh-armenia/ Gorgonopsi (talk) 10:33, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
With your logic, we should call all the clashes listed in {{Campaignbox Nagorno-Karabakh conflict}} war Nemoralis (talk) 10:43, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A literal offensive is more than a war, use your brains Nemoralis, no offence 92.40.218.187 (talk) 11:48, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's a war. there is no way that you could argue its a tensy tiny little clash. Scu ba (talk) 17:08, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It may have just ended a day after it started. Not a full-scale war - presidentofyes, the super aussa man 10:21, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 19 September 2023

2023 Nagorno-Karabakh clashes → ?

Current title is misleading, it should be changed per sources:

- Kevo327 (talk) 14:45, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support as nominator, Option 3 - Per majority WP:RS and commonality, see sources above. A number of reliable sources describe Azerbaijan's military intervention as a premeditated "launched" "offensive" or "attack.". - Kevo327 (talk) 18:22, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Governor Sheng, Jebiguess, Sardon1, Nemoralis, Super Dromaeosaurus, Yeoutie, and XTheBedrockX: please update your votes - I numbered the options and added one from move that was collapsed due to single move being allowed at a time. I numbered with options so it's clear. Sorry if I missed pinging any other voters. - Kevo327 (talk) 18:22, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Option 1. Jebiguess (talk) 00:56, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support, Option 1. Sardon1 (talk) 20:16, 20 September 2023 (UTC) WP:GS/AA—Tamzin[reply]
Third Qarabağ conflict is the best option because this war has an important effect on situation Abolfazlyashar (talk) 10:27, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree strongly, the Azeris have declared an operation. This ain't just some misunderstanding or accident. 111.92.27.66 (talk) 14:49, 19 September 2023 (UTC) WP:GS/AA—Tamzin[reply]
Where does the "offensive" part come from? Beshogur (talk) 15:15, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Probably since they fired first. Borgenland (talk) 17:30, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, at the very least it should be called offensive. As they have taken territory already. I also support moving this to use the "War" terminology as Azerbaijan has demanded total surrender. Craig VG (talk) 17:28, 19 September 2023 (UTC) WP:GS/AA—Tamzin[reply]
Agreed. Several areas, all at once, all perpetrated by one side? Offensive is the proper term. Jebiguess (talk) 17:43, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. 'Clashes', in my opinion, signifies an accidental attack. This was not an accident. Sardon1 (talk) 18:36, 19 September 2023 (UTC) WP:GS/AA—Tamzin[reply]
@Kevo327: please make an official request following Wikipedia's procedures, so the proposal can be enacted, as all the users support it. --Governor Sheng (talk) 19:39, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Governor Sheng, @Borgenland, @Jebiguess @Sardon1 @Craig VG ping for those who commented here - I already made a Move request, see discussion. A bot keeps changing the move link though to the one that is already the article name, if someone could fix this permanently it'll be appreciated. - Kevo327 (talk) 19:45, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you'll need to wait for a bot to automatically list your request at the bottom of today's requests. The one you're trying to change was already carried out. Governor Sheng (talk) 19:56, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, clashes would be appropriate if this was a sudden and unplanned burst of violence between the two sides. That's what other Nagorno-Karabakh articles titled with the word "clash" are like. This was premeditated (army build-up weeks before) and carried out by one of the two sides only. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 23:31, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like some of these are a bit biased - attack seems a bit in violation of WP:NPOV especially considereing that you seem to be an armenian nationalist based on your profile. 76.218.104.224 (talk) 06:23, 21 September 2023 (UTC) WP:GS/AA—Tamzin[reply]
information Administrator note All are reminded that requested moves are not exempt from extended confirmed restrictions, and thus per the Armenia–Azerbaijan restriction users who lack the extendedconfirmed user right may not participate in this discussion. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 06:59, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose all. The term "offense" or "attack" is unrelated and biased in this case. Also, fully agree with the user "Scu ba" on his take --— Toghrul R (t) 07:54, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support option 1 This was a brief military offensive rather than a series of clashes. Ecrusized (talk) 08:09, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support option 3 as it's the most accurate, succinct and clear description of the incident as it occurred. – anlztrk (talk) 08:32, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Option 3, for now. Both the prelude and the main conflict seem to have been driven by Azerbaijani decision-making, and they were ultimately victorious; "offensive" captures this dynamic quite well, whereas "clashes" implies that the impetus towards conflict existed on both sides. "Attack" is too vague; as previously mentioned, this term is often used for individual, localized incidents (bombs, missiles, terrorism, storming a building). And for now, let's err on the side of clarity by describing it as an Azerbaijani offensive. ErrorDestroyer (talk) 08:44, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 3 Virtually all news sources have reported that 'Azerbaijan launches attack/operation/offensive/whatever', not that 'there are clashes in Nagorno-Karabakh', so to follow the sources, the title should definitely contain the name of Azerbaijan, narrowing the choice down to option 3 or 4 (or alternatively '2023 Azerbaijani operation in Nagorno-Karabakh'). Sources seem to be using terms like attack/offensive/operation in a free mixture, even in the same report, so we will just have to pick the term that best covers the facts in an encyclopedic article. In my opinion, that would be 'offensive'. --T*U (talk) 09:13, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Option 3 or Option 1, as per TU-nor's argument above, + "clashes" sounds very much like it was just a bit of skirmishing here and there. Please note that this account does not have EC but my main account does. I am currently travelling and using a VPN, so I am on this account. Thank you. > Asheiouy (they/them • talk) 14:53, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Options 1 and 3. Too one-sided and preplanned to be called "clashes", and the scale (an actual invasion leading to surrender) is best described as an offensive. Chaotic Enby (talk) 16:27, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3 preferable to 1 given that it identifies who was responsible for the clashes. Chaotic Enby (talk) 15:45, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean it's "the most concise"? Option 3 is self-evidently less concise than option 1, given that it says the same thing in more words. Option 1 also complies with the standard format given at WP:NCE and is unambiguous so there's really no need to make it longer than it is already.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:08, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3 is what majority WP:RS are reporting and doesn't leave it vague. - Kevo327 (talk) 17:05, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't say exactly "the same thing", Option 1 doesn't mention who actually launched the offensive, just the region where it happened. Chaotic Enby (talk) 17:05, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support option 1, as per the discussions above. U2You Too (talk) 06:59, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

War?

If this escalates, should we change the title to "Third Nagorno Karabakh war"? Lucasoliveira653 (talk) 16:27, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If it does, and it is repeatedly and frequently referred to as the Third Nagorno-Karabakh War, I would say yes. Currently, I would leave it like this, though. 𝕎.𝔾.𝕁. (chat | contribs) 21:13, 19 September 2023 (UTC) 𝕎.𝔾.𝕁. (chat | contribs) 21:13, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the previous comment. The title of the article should change should the situtation escalate to a full war. Time will tell. Jurisdicta (talk) 10:18, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 19 September 2023 (2)

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: WP:SNOW close. With four supports and fifteen wait/oppose !votes, it is clear this request will not be successful. I am doing an exceptional close despite being a participant in the move because I believe there's other proposals we should invest our time on than this original research proposal barely backed by reliable sources. The proposals by Kevo327 at Talk:2023 Nagorno-Karabakh clashes#Article title have achieved seven supports and no opposes. So let's not waste further time and discuss actually viable proposals. This bureaucreatic 7-day long process was not designed and is not appropriate for current events. (non-admin closure) Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 15:04, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to show my support for this closure as I am uninvolved. Since there was a little support for the rename proposal, I would not have said "snow" close; however, editors definitely need to move on to a higher and better title for this article. Thanks and kudos to editors for your input; everyone stay healthy! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 17:25, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Nagorno-Karabakh clashes → Third Nagorno-Karabakh War – This is no longer a small string of clashes, nor was it ever a small string of clashes. I have no idea why this article is titled "clashes." It is blatantly obvious this is a full scale invasion of Nagorno-Karabakh, and as such we should have a name that reflects reality. Scu ba (talk) 17:06, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Depends. It's too early to call it. Beshogur (talk) 17:10, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing that Azerbaijan has announced this will continue until "surrender" and they will fight to "the end", this is clearly more than clashes.
BBC Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-66851975 Craig VG (talk) 17:23, 19 September 2023 (UTC) WP:GS/AA—Tamzin[reply]
Indeed:
"it was clear from the Azerbaijani ultimatum that Baku's aim was to complete its conquest of the mountainous enclave."
Unfortunately, this is a war. Craig VG (talk) 17:25, 19 September 2023 (UTC) WP:GS/AA—Tamzin[reply]
Support: At this point the clashes are intense to te point that we can call it a war, it will be a matter of time until sources call this a war Lucasoliveira653 (talk) 17:32, 19 September 2023 (UTC) WP:GS/AA—Tamzin[reply]
WP:CRYSTALBALLing here. At the moment, it's an offensive per sources in the discussion above, but if Artsakh or Armenia launches counter-operations and sources call it a war, then it can be called one. Jebiguess (talk) 17:44, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: It is still too early to refer to it as a war. However, I would support renaming the article if the circumstances would justify such a move (example: 1,000+ deaths etc.). --Governor Sheng (talk) 17:46, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support: It's obvious this is a invasion of nagorno-karabakh, although its in its infancy right now, its only been a few hours, its 100% gonna evolve into a full scale war --ManU9827 (talk) 18:35, 19 September 2023 (UTC) WP:GS/AA—Tamzin[reply]
Support: Unfortunately it seems we're getting there... Chaotic Enby (talk) 19:46, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait until further developments lead sources to settle on a name. Chaotic Enby (talk) 20:27, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This entire situation is tragic. Too short maybe to be called a war, but how else do we call something that ends in the full capitulation of one side? I don't even have words for what happened. Chaotic Enby (talk) 10:16, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To be more on-point for the current debate, there is precedent for very short wars ending in immediate capitulation and still being called "wars" (e.g. the Anglo-Zanzibar War), so changing my vote back to Support given recent developments. Chaotic Enby (talk) 10:18, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Azerbaijan's presidential advisor claimed that their forces moved to "smaller, surgical operations" implying that this isn't a full-scale invasion yet. Later he said they were conducting "local but limited counter-terrorism measures". Of course, Azerbaijan is known for lying but I'd argue that until Azerbaijan's full intentions are known (not just what comes out of mouths), we should hold back. Azerbaijan's intentions so far seem to be to intimidate Artsakh to surrender. However, if they do actively resists, then Azerbaijan may up the ante. 134.41.97.116 (talk) 20:15, 19 September 2023 (UTC) WP:GS/AA—Tamzin[reply]
Support it's gone beyond mere border clashes at this point. Death Editor 2 (talk) 20:34, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Scale of military operations is great to be referred as clash. I will recommend to change it when official verification of land operations come. To this momment, there are only unofficial statements about capture of areas by Azerbaijani forces. Orxan Hacızadə (talk) 20:45, 19 September 2023 (UTC) WP:GS/AA—Tamzin[reply]
Partial Support:bolded portion struck by user Pretty much all of us admit this is pretty close to becoming a war, but it still isn't clear yet whether or not a full-scale invasion has occurred. Likewise, many of us remain unconvinced that the current title, describing the series of events as "clashes" is inaccurate, as these are nowhere near minor border skirmishes anymore, and, in my opinion, pretty much any other descriptor like "offensive", "war", "invasion", and "attacks", would likely suit better. However, given the current sphere of information we have, with sources not yet describing it as a "Third Nagorno-Karabakh War", I remain more inclined to go with the alternative "2023 Nagorno-Karabakh offensive" for now or we wait and see how events transpire in the subsequent hours or day(s) before coming to a consensus of describing it as another war, although that seems almost inevitable at this point. RedMethyst (talk) 20:59, 19 September 2023 (UTC) WP:GS/AA—Tamzin[reply]
Wait, until it is frequently referred to as such. It is way too early now to speak of a Third War. 𝕎.𝔾.𝕁. (chat | contribs) 21:14, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait', Strongly agree we should wait, but I support the change once we get better sources. In the grand scheme of things, we are probably seeing the Third Nagorno-Karabakh War starting, but until something more reliable comes up we shouldn't jump the gun. Citogenesis is a very real thing to consider. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 21:47, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Unless there are sources calling it "Third Nagorno-Karabakh War", then obviously we can't use that title. We don't make stuff up at Wikipedia.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:21, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right, even if it is unfortunately likely to end up that way, it's better to wait for the sources first. Chaotic Enby (talk) 20:26, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I agree that, in theory, we ought to wait until some source calls it the Third Karabakh War. However, we don't have sources on "Nagorno-Karabakh clashes" either; and clashes no longer properly describes what is going on. Thus, this proposal has us going from one bad name to another potentially bad name. As such, I support the move, with the understanding that we can quickly change it to whatever the name ends up being once the sources agree on what to call it--a process that may take some time. However, if this proposal is unacceptable, then I'd also suggest "2023 invasion of Nagorno-Karabakh". NorthernFalcon (talk) 20:38, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose wait for sources to call it such; I see no(!) sources calling this a war, just attack/offensive/escalation. Yeoutie (talk) 21:17, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose not what's being reported by WP:RS, not common in RS. See the discussion above for what majority RS state [1], which is either an attack or offensive on Nagorno Karabakh. Also how is this a "Third Karabakh war" when Armenia isn't even a belligerent as they don't have forces stationed in Nagorno-Karabakh? No RS reports this as third karabakh war, it's a made up title - this is a one sided attack/offensive per majority RS and should be described as such, my proposal was and is 2023 Azerbaijani offensive in Nagorno-Karabakh or 2023 Azerbaijani attack against Nagorno-Karabakh per majority available WP:RS. - Kevo327 (talk) 21:37, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Seconded: You know what, you're right about that. Us as Wikipedians shouldn't be manifesting this as what it presently isn't (a third war between Armenia and Azerbaijan over Nagorno-Karabakh), while we also have a responsibility to avert citogenesis as Etrius previously mentioned. I'm most partial to labelling this as an "offensive", but I also see a plethora of news articles referring to it either as an "attack" or a "military operation", so those options remain fairly open for consideration. RedMethyst (talk) 03:09, 20 September 2023 (UTC) WP:GS/AA—Tamzin[reply]
    Support alternative proposal: While no one has called this the Third Nagorno-Karabakh War, most news sources I’ve seen aren’t calling this a "clash" either. They either call it an "offensive" or an "operation" (with offensive being the less vague of the two). Per WP:COMMONNAME I think the title should reflect that. XTheBedrockX (talk) 12:19, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @XTheBedrockX I already tried opening a different Move but it was collapsed because there can be a single Move at one time. I showed sources for attack/offensive above [2] and some users commented there agreeing. When this closes, I'll nominate for a Move again with what's being reported majority WP:RS. - Kevo327 (talk) 12:58, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait we don't even know what's going on yet, to put it simply. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 22:09, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait. If the death toll is not big enough by the time it ends, then no. But it would be interesting to see this article name. DementiaGaming (talk) 22:15, 19 September 2023 (UTC) WP:GS/AA—Tamzin[reply]
Wait. It could end soon, unlikely but possible. We should wait at least a week or more before deciding on any name change.--Garmin21 (talk) 22:24, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, I haven't slept since this article was created and there have been no changes to my sleep schedule. The conflict is very new and a lot could happen over the next week or so that prevents it from escalating into a third war. It may not even be a day old atp. A move here is too quick - presidentofyes, the super aussa man 23:43, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The current title with "clashes" isn't great for the reasons mentioned above. The proposed title "Third Nagorno-Karabakh War" seems premature because it has not yet been used in news media. At least as a temporary measure, I support either of Kevo's proposed titles, with a preference for "offensive" instead of "attack" because of the broader scope. To put this in quantitative perspective, searching on Google for "Third Nagorno-Karabakh War" and restricting to the past 24 hours yields merely 8 results. Meanwhile, "offensive in Nagorno-Karabakh" yields over 2000, "Azerbaijan offensive" yields over 1000, etc. Wikipedia shouldn't be in the business of inventing catchy names for events. Once the name "Third Nagorno-Karabakh War" becomes the common name, then I would support a move to that title. 98.170.164.88 (talk) 00:44, 20 September 2023 (UTC) WP:GS/AA—Tamzin[reply]
Support: this is very clearly a war and changing it won’t add any fuel to the fire from the what Azerbaijan has already said and done. Affiliating (talk) 03:38, 20 September 2023 (UTC) WP:GS/AA—Tamzin[reply]
I don't deny that the prospects of diplomacy seem grim and that Armenia and Azerbaijan seem to be headed toward war, but do you have a reliable source saying that it already is a war at this moment? Currently, searching for "Artsakh" and "war" online brings up a lot of news articles saying this may herald the start of a war -- but it's not Wikipedia's job to be a crystal ball and we need to wait for the war to actually start before declaring it one. 98.170.164.88 (talk) 04:25, 20 September 2023 (UTC) WP:GS/AA—Tamzin[reply]
Oppose. It is too early to call this a war. There was no declaration, only an offensive. 🔥Jalapeño🔥 09:46, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So undeclared wars don't count as wars? Also not sure how "too early" it can be as one side already surrendered. Chaotic Enby (talk) 13:17, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait – This conflict began less than 24 hours ago, it is too soon to call it a war. – Treetoes023 (talk) 10:55, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support If an offensive results in surrender, its a war. Lukt64 (talk) 12:35, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait per Super Dro FlalfTalk 14:19, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It already ended after 1 day, and Artsakh barely defended itself, so I guess we should not change the title.
UkraineFella (talk) 14:46, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support There was an invasion, there was a war, and Artsakh surrendered. The length of the war being short (assuming the ceasefire holds) does not make it not a war. See Anglo-Zanzibar War. Furthermore the war was a clear continuation of the issues at stake in the previous two wars, and the title should reflect that continuity. --TocMan (talk) 15:00, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. With the exception of some Armenian-language news outlets dubbing it "Third Artsakh War", at present no large and/or well-established news outlets are calling this conflict a war. Perhaps this will change in the future, in which case the article's title may be reconsidered, but at present, to change the article title would be to severely editorialize WIkipedia's coverage of events.
Thereppy (talk) 15:12, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Requested move, 19 September 2023 - declined (3)

Only one move request at a time on any given talk page

2023 Nagorno-Karabakh clashes → 2023 Azerbaijani offensive of Nagorno-Karabakh – Per majority WP:RS and commonality, see comment for multiple sources + more. A number of reliable sources describe Azerbaijan's military operations as a premeditated "launched" "operation", and/or use the words "offensive" or "attack." To be consistent with this, I propose we rename the article to "2023 Azerbaijani offensive of Nagorno-Karabakh" - Kevo327 (talk) 18:12, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is already mentioned that it's an offensive. However I don't think those titles are proper names. I think it's best to wait the outcome. Beshogur (talk) 18:17, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The current title isn't even close to common. What I'm suggesting is what's being reported by majority sources currently, Azerbaijani offensive or attack. We can change the title later if it changes in WP:RS, but now, we should use what is being reported by majority sources. - Kevo327 (talk) 18:35, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about comonname. 2023 x clashes is what we generally use in wikipedia. It shouldn't have comonname for now. We don't even know if this will end tomorrow or will continue as full scale war. Beshogur (talk) 19:14, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Id say "of" should be "in" because proper grammar. Lukt64 (talk) 19:02, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Against" could also be a possibility, but yes. Chaotic Enby (talk) 19:45, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak agree: I like the above proposal "2023 Nagorno Karabakh offensive" more. --Governor Sheng (talk) 19:41, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, pedantic, should be classified as "Third Nagorno-Karabakh War" Scu ba (talk) 19:47, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Someone please do something with RMCD bot

It's repeatedly reverting the move hatnote on top of the page, replacing it by the old move discussion even though it has been closed and archived already. So now there's the nonsensical message "A request that this article title be changed to 2023 Nagorno-Karabakh clashes is under discussion." even though that's already the title of the article and the discussion it links to is about renaming it to Third Nagorno-Karabakh War. Chaotic Enby (talk) 20:13, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Update: turns out I'm the silly goose, I just realized even a move discussion that ended up with the article being moved still had to be closed to state the obvious. Which kinda makes sense once you think about it, actually. Chaotic Enby (talk) 20:20, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Add alleged military gains in text

Armenian sources claim Amaras Monastery has been captured by Azerbaijan

Various sources claim Azerbaijan seized 60 positions (mentioned in infobox but not article)

Armenians evacuated from 6 villages (I don't know if this includes military withdrawal)

-PanNostraticism2 (talk) 23:00, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Added by User:Borgerland Nemoralis (talk) 06:50, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Missing references

You made this edit with the following edit summary: used vetted ledes and sections from older and more edited relevant wiki articles. I haven't checked for each ref, but you seem to have added some self-closing ref tags while the references are missing. Can you or anyone else help me rescue these refs: Special:Diff/1176170336 ("Oltramonti", "Bulut", ":94", etc.)—Alalch E. 23:17, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Alalch E. thanks for the ref improvements. References were mostly from here and here. - Kevo327 (talk) 23:32, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I will see if any of them actually need to be (re)introduced or if they may be superfluous. —Alalch E. 23:38, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Surrender

@Daikido, @Borgenland there are new information about Artsakh's surrender. Nemoralis (talk) 09:02, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

yep, i saw it on my tg feed e.g.: https://t.me/stranaua/123398
Apparently the Artsakhi army is dissolving, allegedly a ceasefire is to begin at 13:00 local time under the russian peacekeepers "watch". What an awful, tragic day. Daikido (talk) 09:04, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, remaining armenian-alligned regiments to withdraw, discussion about assimilating integrating the remaining armenian population into azerbaijan proper to begin on sept 21 - source Daikido (talk) 09:06, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Artsakh authorities agree to Russia-brokered ceasefire - armradio Nemoralis (talk) 09:19, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn’t edit extensively right now but the details must be found and uploaded ASAP. Borgenland (talk) 09:24, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Aljazeera live update Johnny Conquest (talk) 09:24, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can I?

Hello everyone, I have several countries' reactions in reach, can I add them or only the "important" countries are to be included? Thank you. CoryGlee (talk) 11:15, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can include them, as long as the sources are reputable. U2You Too (talk) 11:46, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I love including reactions from countries. If allowed, I will slowly begin to recollect sources. --CoryGlee (talk) 12:03, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Crisis

I feel that, instead of calling the current attack "clashes", it would be better to call this article "2023 Nagorno-Karabakh Crisis". IdioticAnarchist (talk) 14:30, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@IdioticAnarchist: read #Requested move 20 September 2023 Nemoralis (talk) 18:28, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"U.N. spokeswoman Stephane Dujarric" is not a woman

But i cant edit that :( Yoshikid64 (talk) 14:39, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Someone fixed that. Thanks Nemoralis (talk) 18:27, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Artsakh or Nagorno-Karabakh

Please note in the lead that Artsakh is similar to Nagorno-Karabakh. Using both names without clarification is confusing to readers unfamiliar with the region. 108.173.152.123 (talk) 15:36, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Russian peacekeepers KIA

According to the Russian MOD, A vehicle containing Russian peacekeepers was shelled, and all inside were KIA. This should probably be added to the infobox. 134.173.108.227 (talk) 17:45, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Green tickY Added to body. There is no information about how many peacekeepers were killed. I will add it to infobox once it's announced Nemoralis (talk) 18:06, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Added Nemoralis (talk) 17:45, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the event 19 september it says bombing while it is a incident might adding the wikipedia link so they can read the full page? If it isn't available Then don't add DutchHistoryNerdWW2 (talk) 20:45, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This page has ridiculous POV issues

Armenian sources aka .am websites (in which Armenians are part of the conflict) are stated as a fact like

He also reported that the village of Yeghtsahogh was razed by Azeri forces before its entire population could be evacuated.

So stated = factually correct? Where is the independent verification, pictures?

While killing of two civilians and four policeman is alleged:

and alleged Armenian land mines caused the death of two Azerbaijani civilians and four policeman

and while the word alleged doesn't even appear in the two sources which aren't even Azerbaijani news agencies.

For .am and .az websites must be used for their official standpoints, it shouldn't be used as if they're factually correct. Beshogur (talk) 22:16, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While killing of two civilians and four policeman is alleged
Azerbaijan MOD made that major claim of "Armenian land mine killings" and used as pretext for offensive - here link to the offensive (which Azerbaijan claims as “local anti-terrorist activities” or “special military operation”) was launched after those alleged Azeri deaths on mines. The alleged land mine deaths Az MOD said was "planted by the reconnaissance-subversion groups of Armenia’s armed forces" has not been confirmed by WP:RS, RS attributes it to the Az/MOD statement or directly use alleged [3]. This is a major allegation. - Kevo327 (talk) 22:47, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New Artsakh Causalities

Since the page has been locked, here are more current figures reported by Artsakh: https://apnews.com/article/azerbaijan-armenia-explosions-nagornokarabakh-73df9b8b03c3748868e2e358b67bd018

"Nagorno-Karabakh human rights ombudsman Gegham Stepanyan said at least 200 people, including 10 civilians, were killed and more than 400 others were wounded in the fighting." Some Hecking Nerd (talk) 23:55, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Already added by me Nemoralis (talk) 17:48, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. 82.36.70.45 (talk) 12:26, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Governor Sheng (talk) 13:51, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article mentions several reported ceasefire violations, namely:

The Nagorno-Karabakh Ministry of Internal Affairs stated that the Azerbaijani military, having violated the ceasefire agreement, continued to shell Stepanakert "with different types of small arms".[1] Rheinische Post reported that information was received from residents of Stepanakert that Azerbaijan violated the ceasefire, and there was shooting in the city.[2]

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

They should be mentioned as violations happened just day after the ceasefire. And the recent talks in Yevlakh haven't concluded anything and what appears more talk presumably will come, so I think the infobox should be changed/updated too. - Kevo327 (talk) 16:47, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If there are disagreements with violations being added like me and @Chaotic Enby agreed here, first comment here - I don't see how it shouldn't be in lead especially because of its importance given the ceasefire was announced just a day ago.
Also no WP:RS ever reported that "Armenian forces killed 1 peacekeeper and injured 1", Armenian forces aren't even stationed in Nagorno-Karabakh and Armenia isn't a party to the conflict. We don't use partisan sources for such red flag claims. You need independent WP:RS for that, and also see WP:REDFLAG. - Kevo327 (talk) 18:03, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you see that it is statement from Azerbaijani Prosecutors General's Office? Azerbaijan confirms killing only 5 soldiers, not 6 killed and 1 injured. Instead of edit-warring, we can add that it is Azerbaijan's claim that it was Armenian forces who killed and injuted another peacekeeper, which I already did but you reverted it. Regarding the sentence in lead, you may be right. Nemoralis (talk) 18:15, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, for something this WP:REDFLAG, we can't add what Azerbaijan claims. It had already admitted killing the peacekeepers, and from the looks of it, tried to blame one death on "Armenian forces" - literally 0 WP:RS confirms this to be true, so again, kindly see WP:REDFLAG and stop edit warring with users. - Kevo327 (talk) 18:21, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We should remove all of Azerbaijan's claims with your logic then. No matter how much you deny it, trend.az is a reliable source here, no matter how partisan it is. Anyways, I'm editing the part where you said that Azerbaijan "killed 6 peacekeepers and injured 1" Nemoralis (talk) 18:29, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nemoralis Yes, if "Azerbaijan claims" with 0 WP:RS and no independent confirmation/verification then we should remove it. Even if trend.az is a reliable source, them reporting claims from Azerbaijani officials doesn't make those more than the claims they are. Chaotic Enby (talk) 18:37, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Adding that we can of course report on what Azerbaijan claims, but mentioning it as claims and attributing them - not as factual evidence. Chaotic Enby (talk) 18:38, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources: i24news, Al-Arabiya, Nemoralis (talk) 18:44, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Azerbaijan admitted the killings, "Armenian forces" were never blamed by Russia itself or any other WP:RS, nobody confirmed 1 peacekeeper death by "Armenian forces" - the two sources above literally attribute it to the same Azerbaijan’s prosecutor’s office source you added, this doesn't mean it's confirmed to be true. This is the definition of WP:REDFLAG, an accusation like this isn't just some statement to be added, it's a serious accusation that requires WP:RS to confirm directly, see WP:UNDUE and WP:REDFLAG. - Kevo327 (talk) 18:48, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Kevo327 Agree that given WP:UNDUE, such claims shouldn't really be mentioned without WP:RS (even as claims) given how contentious they are. Chaotic Enby (talk) 19:04, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why you just don't want to understand that this is claim, not a confirmation of anything. You accept Azerbaijan's statement that they killed 5 peacekeepers, but not claim regarding to Armenian troops' attack? I don't undertstand why you don't want to add second claim which is mentioned by several reliable news organizations such as Novaya Gazeta: [4] and others I added above. I'm pinging another editors here to get more thoughts about this: @Scu ba, @Super Dromaeosaurus, @Borgenland, @Dn9ahx, @Beshogur. Nemoralis (talk) 19:20, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What I don't understand about the Novaya Gazette article you cited, is that nowhere in the article does anyone claim Armenia preformed the attack:
"Five peacekeepers were killed after Azerbaijani forces shelled a car, the office said. The statement reads that the military mistook the Russian peacekeepers for service members of the “illegal Armenian groups”. One more person was killed and another was injured after Nagorno-Karabakh forces fired at a truck, the authorities claimed."
Not sure what point you were trying to get across there. Scu ba (talk) 19:27, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is Nemoralis didn't even add it as a "claim", they literally added it with most soft wording for such absurd WP:REDFLAG, they added "according to" and then "in addition" followed by the WP:FRINGE accusation from Az prosecutor's office [5]. Yeah this is the source that blames a peacekeeper death on "Armenian forces" when Armenia isn't even part of the conflict and doesn't have forces stationed in NK. Also peacekeepers are there to ensure the safety of NK and patrol the designated to them territories, yet supposedly "Armenian forces" kill one of them? Yet again, no WP:RS confirms this to be true, some attribute it to the same Az prosecutor's office, which doesn't mean RS confirm it as truth. So this kind of undue and fringe allegation first needs to be established to be true. Even as a "claim", we don't add WP:UNDUE unconfirmed nonsense (and an accusation at that) just because someone/something says it. - Kevo327 (talk) 19:37, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suggested adding "claim", how quickly did you forget? Sources did not say that they were from Armenia's Armed Forces, on the contrary, they said that they were Armenians. Yet supposedly "Armenian forces" kill one of them: Well, this is just your opinion and we can't use it in article or here. Nemoralis (talk) 20:06, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, even if it was reported by several sources, they all attribute the claim to Azerbaijan's Prosecutor General's Office, without stating it as a fact. The choice of not including it is not an opinion, it is the default given the lack of independent confirmation by reliable sources. Chaotic Enby (talk) 21:12, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If this came from an Az news source I’d be wary given the country’s press ranking. Borgenland (talk) 23:03, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "МВД Нагорного Карабаха обвинило Азербайджан в нарушении договора о прекращении огня". Meduza. Archived from the original on 21 September 2023. Retrieved 21 September 2023.
  2. ^ "Aserbaidschan soll Waffenruhe gebrochen haben". Rheinische Post. 21 September 2023. Archived from the original on 21 September 2023. Retrieved 21 September 2023.

Captured towns.

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

In your comment, you talked about how most of the captured towns have not been properly protrayed as captured. In order for us to make changes, which towns specifically should have their status updated and do you have supporting citations from reliable sources to support the change? Jurisdicta (talk) 10:20, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Charektar and Getavan [6]https://azg.am/%D5%AF%D5%A1%D6%80%D6%87%D5%B8%D6%80%D5%A8/%D5%A3%D5%A5%D5%BF%D5%A1%D5%BE%D5%A1%D5%B6-%D5%B8%D6%82-%D5%B9%D5%A1%D6%80%D5%A5%D6%84%D5%A9%D5%A1%D6%80-%D5%A3%D5%B5%D5%B8%D6%82%D5%B2%D5%A5%D6%80%D5%B6-%D5%A1%D5%A4%D6%80%D5%A2%D5%A5%D5%BB%D5%A1/ Drmbon and Harav,[7]https://azg.am/news/%D5%A4%D6%80%D5%B4%D5%A2%D5%B8%D5%B6-%D6%87-%D5%B0%D5%A1%D6%80%D5%A1%D5%BE-%D5%A3%D5%B5%D5%B8%D6%82%D5%B2%D5%A5%D6%80%D5%A8-%D5%A9%D5%B7%D5%B6%D5%A1%D5%B4%D5%AB%D5%B6-%D5%A3%D6%80%D5%A1%D5%BE%D5%A5/ Chankatagh, Chapar, Karmir Shuka, Khachmach, Machkalashen, Sarushen, Shosh and Vaghuhas [8]https://azg.am/%D5%AF%D5%A1%D6%80%D6%87%D5%B8%D6%80%D5%A8/%D5%A1%D6%80%D6%81%D5%A1%D5%AD%D5%AB-%D5%A3%D5%B5%D5%B8%D6%82%D5%B2%D5%A5%D6%80%D5%B6-%D5%A1%D5%B6%D6%81%D5%B6%D5%B8%D6%82%D5%B4-%D5%A5%D5%B6-%D5%A9%D5%B7%D5%B6%D5%A1%D5%B4%D5%B8%D6%82%D5%B6-%D5%A1/ and I was able to figure this all out because I have read the article. Death Editor 2 (talk) 16:31, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article opening is biased

The current article opening is biased in that it presents the events are solely caused by Azeri violations of the ceasefire agreement and ignores the violations of the ceasefire agreement on the part of Artsakh. The current opening lines are:

"Between 19 and 20 September 2023, in violation of the 2020 ceasefire conditions, Azerbaijan launched a large-scale military offensive against the self-declared breakaway state of Artsakh."

It would be just as accurate to instead state:

"Between 19 and 20 September 2023, in response to violation of the 2020 ceasefire conditions by Artsakh, Azerbaijan launched a large-scale military offensive against the self-declared breakaway state of Artsakh."

Both of the above openings are biased. A balanced presentation of the facts would avoid a one-sided opening.

Drak2934 (talk) 12:08, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OR made up suggestion, this doesn't make sense. See sources in lead. Artsakh didn't start anything and didn't violate the agreement, this offensive was started by Azerbaijan and it's an indisputable fact. - Kevo327 (talk) 12:12, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, it says Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc, therefore removing. Please move it below, not lead. Beshogur (talk) 15:07, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sources overwhelmingly state that Azerbaijan broke the ceasefire, and equating both as equally biased would be a WP:FALSEBALANCE. The passage you cite refers to subjective opinions, which is not what is being discussed here. More to the point, WP:NPOV also mentions in the following paragraphs:
Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view. Chaotic Enby (talk) 15:55, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't say opposing side broke the ceasefire, of course it's obvious Azerbaijan started an operation/offensive, but we don't use On 24 February 2022, in violation of international law,[sources, sources] Russia invaded Ukraine in an escalation of the Russo-Ukrainian War which began in 2014 for example. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources Beshogur (talk) 16:34, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Beshogur, the difference is there was a specific ceasefire in 2020 after the second karabakh war. This should be added in lead as it's most relevant and reputable sources directly mention this such as EU - this should restored to the lead, Artsakh didn't start this attack and it has to be mentioned that this attack/offensive was indeed in violation of the previous ceasefire which ended the last war. I feel like you're arguing over WP:OBV. - Kevo327 (talk) 16:44, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Read my comment above again. We don't use the text "in violation of international law" for example on Russian invasion of Ukraine page. You can mention it somewhere below, not direct in begin. Beshogur (talk) 16:59, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Or maybe add something like This was seen as a violation of the 2020 ceasefire agreement. Somewhere after the first sentence. Beshogur (talk) 17:10, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind this in lead. But I'll add the original version in body, as discussed. - Kevo327 (talk) 18:52, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adding India into the reactions' section

Please add India's remarks over the concerned situation; it has also the creditable statement on Hindustan Times. please, have it considered. 110.235.217.51 (talk) 15:59, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is the news from 2022, a year ago. Governor Sheng (talk) 18:59, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image of remains of the car after landmine explosion

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

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

I'll reitarate what I said already. Azerbaijan MOD made that major claim of "Armenian land mine killings" and used as pretext for offensive - here link to the offensive (which Azerbaijan claims as “local anti-terrorist activities” or “special military operation”) was launched after those alleged Azeri deaths on mines. The alleged land mine deaths Az MOD said was "planted by the reconnaissance-subversion groups of Armenia’s armed forces" has not been confirmed by WP:RS, RS attributes it to the Az/MOD statement or directly use alleged [9]. This is a major allegation.
It's WP:UNDUE and also considered fringe, most RS do not even consider it verifiable and also question the veracity of the incident as both a) occurring at all and b) as the "real" reason for the attack. The image looks to be taken from Hikmet Hajiyev twitter account [10] who isn't a reliable source by any stretch, and still no RS actually states this as fact / confirms to be true, Eurasianet even says it's an allegation by AZ. Therefore, AZ's allegation should be mentioned once at best but that's it, it would be highly WP:UNDUE to add an image to those unconfirmed and non-factual claims. This isn't twitter, this is wikipedia. - Kevo327 (talk) 22:01, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh it's UNDUE when it comes to Azerbaijani sources, while the whole page is spammed with .am sources, which are stated as if all of them report facts. Voice of America is not even aligned to Azerbaijani government. Picture taken from Hikmet Hajiyev is not an excuse, they just cited the picture. Beshogur (talk) 22:37, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How can you suggest adding a picture to an undue accusation that hasn’t been confirmed by anyone else? It's mentioned in the body and that's it, a picture for something that isn't supported by reliable sources and only attributed by to attacking party or alleged, is very undue. This article should have pictures relevant to the offensive, not a picture of an unconfirmed alleged claim and a huge accusation by the aggressor party that they used as a pretext to attack Artsakh, even Eurasianet is very skeptical about some Azeris just happening to blow up right before the offensive that Azerbaijan has been preparing long in advance. Vanezi (talk) 00:14, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nagorno-Karabakh representatives, etc.

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

If they aren't officials of Artsakh, then how will they dissolve Artsakh's government? The Armenians in Karabakh are called Artsakhi. They do not recognize the name Karabakh, or Nagorno-Karabakh, media reporting that the Artsakhi are "Karabakh-Armenaians" is pure appeasement to the Azeri government. Scu ba (talk) 23:44, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? Even Pashinyan uses Nagorno-Karabakh, also "Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh" is the co official name of the breakaway state. While the sources mentions only Nagorno-Karabakh representatives, you're simply not resprecting it. Beshogur (talk) 23:50, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the terms are interchangeable as you argue, then why is it a problem to call it Artsakh? Scu ba (talk) 23:54, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They're not. The word "Artsakh" isn't even used in English (sure it exists after 1990s due to Armenian influence), how are they interchangeable. Maybe they're civil leaders? Do we even know their names? Even if they were, none of them literally uses "Artsakh officials". Beshogur (talk) 23:58, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you're talking about a political entity, we can use Artsakh. But Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians is definitely correct since it is about a region. I'm still talking about English since we're on a English website.
Regarding representatives, my point stands. 1 sources using in that way 2 we don't know those people. Azerbaijan doesn't recognise Artsakh thus they may sit with people with no political background but with influence, rather as a mediator. Beshogur (talk) 00:14, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Artsakh should not be used to refer to the region, but there shouldn't be any issue with using it to refer to the political entity. "Artsakhi representatives" would be valid. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 15:59, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Source on theyre "Artsakhi representatives"? Does Azerbaijan meet with people of their most wanted list? Beshogur (talk) 16:24, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't find anything. Beshogur (talk) 16:25, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Almost every WP:RS mention them as "representatives of Nagorno-Karabakh [Armenians]". Ararat Mirzoyan himself said "representatives of Nagorno-Karabakh" in his speech at UNSC. There is no need to reinvent the wheel. Nemoralis (talk) 21:18, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can we use this map for the infobox image?

File:2023 Nagorno-Karabakh War.svg looks like a better map that represents the article more to me, what do you guys think? U2You Too (talk) 09:58, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Mild support (see reason below) generally I am against twitter on wikipedia, but twitter was used for Syrian civil war maps as well.
Beshogur (talk) 10:20, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also this map is way Armenia centered. Must focus on NK. Beshogur (talk) 16:26, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, the topographical map is extremely distracting and impedes readability. Chaotic Enby (talk) 12:53, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rr016, Karkijahan is not under Azerbaijani control, Russian peacekeeping forces established a post in the suburb, check the paragraph and the sources about it I added to the article. Also, since our article about the village is titled Charektar, we should use that name instead of Charakdar.
I would also advice against including dates for the Azerbaijani advance, that information is extremely speculative and not present in reliable sources that we would use in Wikipedia. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 17:23, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have sources for Azerbaijani presence in Giziloba and Verin Sznek either. We have for Amaras Monastery but not for a village called Amaras, it doesn't even appear in Google Maps and I can't find any sources reporting on a village called like that being captured either. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 17:35, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Trim on reactions

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

Vatican City should be changed to the Holy See

The Popes reaction is listed as a reaction of the Vatican City, which is incorrect. It should be listed as a reaction of the Holy See. In diplomacy and other relations with foreign states and international organizations, the Pope speaks on behalf of the Holy See and not the Vatican City State. For further clarification, please consult: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_See — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.149.130.128 (talk) 12:38, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is fixed. Governor Sheng (talk) 21:02, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Typo

Please replace “was have taken place” with “took place”. 82.36.70.45 (talk) 23:15, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Green tickY Done Nemoralis (talk) 23:18, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Four images dedicated to Armenian protests and four others to displaced

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

@Ecrusized Mentioning the ethnic backgrounds of editors is not good practice and has gotten editors banned before under the new AA3 guidelines. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view describes balance as summarizing the viewpoints of reliable sources equally, not the viewpoints of governments or nationals. There seems to be a consensus among reliable sources that the civilian Armenian community of Nagorno-Karabakh is the hardest hit by these recent clashes and that has caused a lot to lose their homes, the images are in line with what reliable sources are reporting on. TagaworShah (talk) 15:33, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Both editors have editing history of POV pushing in Armenia related articles. Spamming the entire right half of the page with 10 images of Armenian protesters holding up banners in opposition to Azerbaijan ending a decades of conflict (fueled by Russia) is not contributive and definitely not neutral. Ecrusized (talk) 16:01, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ecrusized Please focus on the contributions themselves and not any personal quarrels you have with the editors. I don’t see any image spam in the article, the images seem relevant and line up with what’s being presented in the reliable sources. The idea that this offensive is ending conflict is not neutral either, and is contradicted by a myriad of reliable sources who point to the immense humanitarian crisis and ethnic cleansing it has started. TagaworShah (talk) 16:07, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The images follow what has happened in this attack and the crisis it caused for local population. The article should reflect that. Removing a bunch or placing tags on them and article just because of relevant images reflecting what reliable sources confirm isn't constructive. - Kevo327 (talk) 16:31, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see what benefit having 4 images of Armenian protesters holding banners has over just 1. Same goes for the images of Armenians being displaced. A single image is enough to give the reader an idea. Instead we have 8 images that spam the readers. Ecrusized (talk) 16:56, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article reflects what's reported by reliable sources, in chronological order. It's not a "spam", this was an attack that caused grave humanitarian crisis and various reliable sources warned of ethnic cleansing or genocide. The article reflects that and images are very much relevant. Adding tags to the article because of images reflecting what reliable sources confirm isn't constructive. - Kevo327 (talk) 17:03, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While there are only 1-2 sentences giving information about Azerbaijani civilians and soldiers who died as a result of terrorist attacks, too many pictures and texts have been added for "possibility of genocide". Nevertheless, some authorized friends will continue to add contents written by "neutral organizations" like azatutyun.am, to the article as impartial observations. as always. Kyzagan (talk) 18:02, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You mean the extensively sourced section on genocide risk? WP:GS/AA users in this thread, please read the article extensively and examine the content you put quotation marks for before commenting. - Kevo327 (talk) 18:09, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The "possibility of genocide" that Genocide Watch is actively warning about?
Azerbaijani President Aliyev’s dictatorial regime's objective is to drive all Armenians out of Artsakh through war and genocide. Aliyev wants full integration of Artsakh into Azerbaijan.
Armenians claim integration will lead to genocide, repeating past Baku and Sumgait pogroms. Aliyev's genocidal intent is often expressed in his dehumanization of Armenians.
The silent genocide has become overt.
It's not a "non-neutral" or "partial" organization making these points, except if WP:FALSEBALANCE is your idea of neutrality. Chaotic Enby (talk) 18:25, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you answer the first sentence I wrote? Why is there so little information about Azerbaijanis who died as a result of terrorist attacks? You don't have the chance to say "go and add it", as you know, it is not possible to add information to pages about Armenia due to WP:GS/AA. The entire article is mostly written by Armenian users. Then I would be glad if you answer, why is the article full of information and pictures about "possibility genocide" instead of adding information about Azerbaijanis who died as a result of attacks? Kyzagan (talk) 18:33, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because, sorry to be bold, I don't know as much about that situation and I can't add everything by myself. If you're wondering, I'm not Armenian at all (I'm French), but that shouldn't matter. If you want to add information about Azerbaijani victims, given WP:GS/AA, you can post it here so someone with extended-confirmed rights can add it. Chaotic Enby (talk) 18:44, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t mind the imagery but maybe one pic showing a poster with the genocide word on it can suffice in the protest section instead of two separate photos showing the same word. Borgenland (talk) 18:09, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely I agree. I also expressed my opinions in a separate topic. ---Emreculha (talk) 17:00, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. One or two images might be enough. Wikipedia is WP:NOTGALLERY. Nemoralis (talk) 18:25, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Flag salad "Reactions" section

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

Suggest limiting reactions from countries with clear influence and clout and/or leverage over the events, with particular emphasis on regional neighbors and regional/superpowers. Almost every country would most likely be concerned at another war. Borgenland (talk) 16:47, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I added a thread above. Maybe first we should start with merging countries into one sentence that urging both sides, etc. Beshogur (talk) 16:59, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What is clear from the list so far is that only Uzbekistan is openly backing Azerbaijan.
Argentina, Brazil, France, Canada, Cyprus, Germany, Ecuador, Ireland, Poland and the UK are officially condemning Azerbaijan or at least placing the burden of ending the conflict on Baku. Borgenland (talk) 17:07, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also Kazakstan reaction is just an Az ambassador's quote, they're not the same level as the other reactions so should be removed imo. And not sure who added Kazakstan in the map as supporting Azerbaijan, it should be removed, pinging map creator @BlackShadowG: maybe they could help. - Kevo327 (talk) 17:14, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
they're not the same level as the other reactions so should be removed imo. As I told before, ambassadors are very high ranking foreign officials. Their statements represents their official position. Pretty sure more relevant than "representatives to the United Nations". Beshogur (talk) 17:20, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, do backbench legislators reactions really count? Borgenland (talk) 18:02, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Depends, if they're part of the government yeah. But deputy-chair of the parliament, idk. Beshogur (talk) 19:25, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Impartiality?

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

There is a clear risk of genocide presented by numerous well-respected human rights organizations that are not the Armenian government, claiming the article is “anti-Azerbaijani” is just far from reality. This is different from the 2020 war, it is a one-sided offensive as supported by numerous reliable sources, the purpose of wikipedia is not to provide a “both sides” perspective on how different nations see the issue, but to summarize how reliable sources are presenting the issue, I don’t see reliable sources refuting what is present in the article. TagaworShah (talk) 17:33, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is Genocide Watch strong enough? Chaotic Enby (talk) 18:30, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple WP:RS and human rights organizations have outlined an obvious genocide risk concerning recent developments in this conflict. To claim these sources, who are independent and not at all affiliated with Armenia or the Armenian government are "Anti-Azerbaijani" is entirely unfounded. Our job here is to report what sources state. While WP:NPOV is always a concern, the article in question is simply reporting the sources accurately, and is not grounds for a neutrality debate. Arakui (talk) 18:39, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Azerbaijani vs Azeri

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

This is correct. Azeri is the ethnic group, Azerbaijani is the nationality. Same goes for Kazakh versus Kazakhstani, etcetera.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 18:26, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, Kazakh-stan is a compound word for the state formed from the Kazakh ethnonym, while Azerbaijan is the original word for the historic region (Iranian Azerbaijan) which was turned into an ethnonym in both long and shortened forms. Chaotic Enby (talk) 18:29, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While this is mostly true and you're right to point out that "Azerbaijani" can actually be the ethnicity name in some instances, the term Iranian Azerbaijani can also refer to somebody who hails from Iranian Azerbaijan as opposed to only an Azerbaijani/Azeri in Iran. You're right that the name Azerbaijan doesn't have the same etymological roots as names with the -stan suffix, so it's not a perfect analogy. But "Azeri" is a term that can only mean a member of the ethnic group with no ambiguity, while Azerbaijani can mean one who happens to live under the state known as Azerbaijan.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 18:55, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Azeri is the ethnic group, Azerbaijani is the nationality incorrect. Majority of people in Azerbaijan do not call themselves Azeri. It's more like an exonym. Azerbaijani Turk is an ethnic name, Azerbaijani is a nationality. Beshogur (talk) 19:26, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily, for instance Azerbaijanis or Iranian Azerbaijanis use the long form to refer to the ethnic group. Chaotic Enby (talk) 18:27, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2023_Azerbaijani_offensive_in_Nagorno-Karabakh&oldid=1176916069"