Talk:Aghoghlan Gate: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 16:02, 30 June 2022 edit.huepow (talk \| contribs)271 edits →Wording: 3O responseTag: Reply ← Previous edit		Revision as of 16:09, 30 June 2022 edit undoZaniGiovanni (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users7,786 edits →Wording: ReplyTag: Reply Next edit →
Line 21:		Line 21:
	:::::::if the Aghoghlan Gate (originally under control by Azerbaijan ) was captured by the Republic of Artsakh (y), that means that chronologically the control shifted from Azerbaijan (x) to the Republic of Artsakh (y). then, if Azerbaijan (x) captured the same gate they previously had under control, it would be considered a "recapture". (in order, the control is as follows: , , )		:::::::if the Aghoghlan Gate (originally under control by Azerbaijan ) was captured by the Republic of Artsakh (y), that means that chronologically the control shifted from Azerbaijan (x) to the Republic of Artsakh (y). then, if Azerbaijan (x) captured the same gate they previously had under control, it would be considered a "recapture". (in order, the control is as follows: , , )
	:::::::the only plausible explanation for the term capture to be used is if a third party, who had no previous control over the gate, interfered. however, from my understanding, only two parties had involvement in capturing the gate. the first party (x; Azerbaijan) previously had control of the gate, and as such it would be considered a recapture if they lost and regained control. <br /><span style="border-radius:9em;padding:0 7px;background:#000000"><b>]</b></span><sup>]</sup> 16:02, 30 June 2022 (UTC)		:::::::the only plausible explanation for the term capture to be used is if a third party, who had no previous control over the gate, interfered. however, from my understanding, only two parties had involvement in capturing the gate. the first party (x; Azerbaijan) previously had control of the gate, and as such it would be considered a recapture if they lost and regained control. <br /><span style="border-radius:9em;padding:0 7px;background:#000000"><b>]</b></span><sup>]</sup> 16:02, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
			::::::::Hi ]. "Captured" does not imply anything other than the fact that one party has taken an objective by force from another party (without commenting on legality or anything else). It is the correct, precise, and neutral term to use. We also use "capture" instead of "recapture" in other articles like ]. Being part of foremr ], the city ] (where this gate is) wasn't considered occupied like ]. That was my rationale for keeping simple "captured" for both parties as to avoid any neutrality issues. Grammatically speaking, we can separate the sentences to have better order. Thoughts? ] (]) 16:09, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:09, 30 June 2022

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: Fortifications / Asian / European

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Fortifications task force
	Asian military history task force
	European military history task force

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Azerbaijan

	Azerbaijan portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Azerbaijan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Azerbaijan-related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AzerbaijanWikipedia:WikiProject AzerbaijanTemplate:WikiProject AzerbaijanAzerbaijan
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Architecture

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Artsakh

	Aghoghlan Gate is within the scope of WikiProject Artsakh, an attempt to improve and better organize information in articles related or pertaining to Artsakh and Artsakhians. If you would like to contribute or collaborate, you could edit the article attached to this page or visit the project page for further information.ArtsakhWikipedia:WikiProject ArtsakhTemplate:WikiProject ArtsakhArtsakh
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Iran

	Iran portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iran, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Iran on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please join the project where you can contribute to the discussions and help with our open tasks.IranWikipedia:WikiProject IranTemplate:WikiProject IranIran
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Wording

Golden I believe capture is a better term for anything former NKAO. Your reason for reverting me concerned grammar, but this is a different case; It’s a separate war happening decades later. It’s not like we can say the Artsakh Republic recaptured it from the Soviet Union or something. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 13:31, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

What you're saying is correct when referring to settlements primarily inhabited by Armenians (e.g. saying "Armenians captured Stepanakert" during the First Nagorno-Karabakh war would be wrong). But this is not the case for Shusha, which was captured first by Armenians in 1992 from Azerbaijanis who had controlled it since the beginning of the war, and then recaptured by the same party. Saying that a city was "captured in 1992 and then captured in 2020" makes no grammatical or contextual sense. — Golden 13:44, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

By the same logic, the Republic of Artsakh recaptured what was part of the Kingdom of Artsakh. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 10:41, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Azerbaijan and Artsakh were the last parties in the conflict to capture and recapture settlements. I'm sure you're smart enough to understand that; don't drag this out any longer than necessary. — Golden 13:39, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

I’m not here to entertain condescending comments or edit summaries, so keep it to yourself whatever your unfounded opinion is regarding my reply. I opened this discussion after you reverted me, I didn’t revert you, I didn’t even breach WP:0RR, and all I receive in response to my good faith comment trying to understand the logic behind your edit is “waste of time”? I stated a simple thing based on your rationale, and what do you mean by “last parties”, what does this have to do with capture? This doesn’t change the fact that capture by Azerbaijan happened decades later of something that wasn’t even considered occupied, so it should be stated as capture. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 18:19, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Since I see that you haven't understood anything I've said in my previous two comments, I've now requested a third opinion. — Golden 20:12, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Good thing you've requested a 3rd opinion, I'm sure it'll help to understand you finally. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 20:57, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

3O Response: hi there Golden and ZaniGiovanni! after reviewing this dispute, i believe it would be appropriate to use the term "recapture" following "capture". here is some context for my stance regarding this issue:

if the Aghoghlan Gate (originally under control by Azerbaijan ) was captured by the Republic of Artsakh (y), that means that chronologically the control shifted from Azerbaijan (x) to the Republic of Artsakh (y). then, if Azerbaijan (x) captured the same gate they previously had under control, it would be considered a "recapture". (in order, the control is as follows: , , )

the only plausible explanation for the term capture to be used is if a third party, who had no previous control over the gate, interfered. however, from my understanding, only two parties had involvement in capturing the gate. the first party (x; Azerbaijan) previously had control of the gate, and as such it would be considered a recapture if they lost and regained control.
.huepow 16:02, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi .huepow. "Captured" does not imply anything other than the fact that one party has taken an objective by force from another party (without commenting on legality or anything else). It is the correct, precise, and neutral term to use. We also use "capture" instead of "recapture" in other articles like Operation Overlord. Being part of foremr NKAO, the city Shushi (where this gate is) wasn't considered occupied like outside areas of NKAO. That was my rationale for keeping simple "captured" for both parties as to avoid any neutrality issues. Grammatically speaking, we can separate the sentences to have better order. Thoughts? ZaniGiovanni (talk) 16:09, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Categories: