| Revision as of 20:05, 3 December 2023 editOuroborosCobra (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users3,894 edits →Russian Arm supplies: ReplyTag: Reply← Previous edit |
Revision as of 06:29, 7 December 2023 edit undoClueBot III (talk | contribs)Bots1,375,418 editsm Archiving 2 discussions to Talk:Second Nagorno-Karabakh War/Archives/ 16. (BOT)Next edit → |
| Line 26: |
Line 26: |
|
| format= %%i |
|
| format= %%i |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
== Occupied by Artsakh == |
|
|
|
|
|
@], I partially reverted your . The ] is about the territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh, which were occupied by Armenia, and was returned back to Azerbaijan by Armenia as outcome of the ]. It is not disputable. The Nagorno-Karabakh republic was neither named nor included in the ceasefire agreement. ]<sup> (])</sup> 11:44, 11 March 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:Indeed, it was Armenia who obligated to withdraw its forces from Azerbaijan's territory. The text of the ceasefire agreement is quite straightforward. ]] 15:08, 11 March 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:The ceasefire agreement is completely irrelevant in this context as it doesn't even mention the word 'occupied'. The reason that the surrounding regions were considered occupied is due to the UN resolutions, which referred to the 'local Armenian forces' (aka Nagorno-Karabakh) occupying the surrounding regions, not the ]. It's incorrect to state that Armenia occupied the regions surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh. |
|
|
:In addition, all independent experts who are involved in the study of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, including Thomas de Waal, Laurence Broers, and others claim that the territories were controlled/occupied by the ethnic Karabakh Armenians. The article Armenian-occupied territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh refers to the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh, not the country Armenia. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?oldid=989538087#Requested_move_21_October_2020 |
|
|
:Moreover, according to the resolution adopted by the UN in the 90s, Armenia is not even a party to the conflict. It is mentioned as a country that can have an impact on the people of Nagorno-Karabakh. ] (]) 15:21, 11 March 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::The fact that Armenia exercised effective control over Nagorno-Karabakh and the surrounding territories was legally proven in the court of law, see ]. And it was Armenia who withdrew its troops, per ceasefire agreement. Whether the agreement mentions the word occupied or not does not change the fact that Karabakh was not mentioned as a party, and had no obligation to cede territory. ]] 17:55, 11 March 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::If we're going by the ceasefire agreement wording, then there isn't even 'occupied' mentioned in it and the lead could be reworded to something like "returned/surrendered territories per ceasefire agreement". If we're going by UN resolutions, then the actual resolutions regarding 7 regions surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh mention Nagorno-Karabakh as occupying, including other third party analysts. ] (]) 20:12, 11 March 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::The NKR, as a largely unrecognized entity, has not been a subject of international law and indeed the 2020 ceasefire agreement is between Azerbaijan, Armenia and Russia instead. Plus, NKR has been claimed by ethnic Armenians rather than some other ethnic group. Possibly the more correct wording would be "with Armenians ceding the ] surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh", but it's a nuance. ]<sup>]</sup> 09:00, 12 March 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::UN resolutions actually mentioned "local Armenian forces", which could refer to forces of both Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh. That is why our article is called "Armenian-occupied territories", not territories occupied by Armenia. But in reality, Nagorno-Karabakh did not have substantial forces to occupy so much territory, as was reflected in the ICHR ruling. I think it would be better to reword as: ''with Armenia ceding the ]'', without going into details, since it was Armenia who ceded the territories per the agreement. ]] 09:14, 12 March 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Armenia, as a country has never occupied anyone's territory. The article you mentioned does not refer to Armenia, but to the forces of Karabakh (with military assistance from Armenia). The agreement does not contain the Republic of Artsakh, since until 2023 Azerbaijan refused to negotiate with the Karabakh people but only with Armenia. |
|
|
::::::A more accurate replacement would be "with the cessation of ]" ] (]) 22:13, 12 March 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::The ceasefire agreement says: ''The Republic of Armenia shall return the Kalbajar District to the Republic of Azerbaijan by November 15, 2020, and the Lachin District by December 1, 2020''. Clearly, it was Armenia who returned the territories, and it is stipulated in the official document signed by that country. And ICHR ruling refers to Armenia, not Karabakh, as a party exercising effective control over the occupied territories of Azerbaijan. ]] 08:47, 13 March 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::I’m sure you well know we can’t base Misplaced Pages on our own deductions, per WP:OR. Please read what I’ve already said and what’s actually in the ceasefire agreement: it doesn’t even mention the word “occupied”. The wording I suggest is to remain consistent with the relevant wiki article title. So, if we’re going with ‘occupied’ then it should be consistent with the article title name, and if we’re using the ceasefire agreement rationale, then there is no ‘occupied’ there and should be just “returned” or “ceded”, per the agreement itself. ] (]) 16:30, 13 March 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::I think my proposed version addresses your concerns. The original version says: ''with Armenia ceding the ] surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh''. I propose: ''with Armenia ceding the ]'', dropping "it had". In this case, we don't go into detail who occupied what. But these territories are generally considered to be occupied, and our own article calls them occupied territories. ]] 09:34, 14 March 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::These territories are considered to be occupied by the UN, not the Ceasefire Agreement that you are mentioning to justify stating that it was Armenia that ceded the territories. The Ceasefire Agreement doesn't state that the territories are occupied. Therefore, if you wish to state that Armenia ceded the territories, then the word 'occupied' shall not be used. ] (]) 15:11, 14 March 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::it isn’t place for Wiki lawyering. the fact that Armenia occupied territories of Azerbaijan is literally undeniable, Nagorno-Karabakh, with it’s population barely reaching 120,000 couldn’t occupy territories of Azerbaijan with 7-8 million population. the war was between Armenia and Azerbaijan, ceasefire was signed between Armenia and Azerbaijan, it was Armenia who removed it’s army from Azerbaijan’s territory, and it was Armenia who returned occupied territories back to Azerbaijan according to ceasefire agreement. Self-proclaimed Nagorno-Karabakh republic was not part of ceasefire discussions, was not part of ceasefire agreement, and no one even asked their agreement or opinion. |
|
|
:::::::::::Saying that Armenia didn’t occupy Azerbaijan territories is nonsense, just like claiming that Russia didn’t invade Ukraine, but Russian puppet states Luhansk and Donetsk People's republics did. ]<sup> (])</sup> 17:11, 14 March 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::{{tq|The Ceasefire Agreement doesn't state that the territories are occupied.}} - the ceasefire agreement literally urges Armenia to return internationally recognized territories of Azerbaijan (surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh) back to Azerbaijan. What you think Armenia was doing there if not occupying? Playing a basketball? One thing is linked to another, if Armenia had its army on the territories of Azerbaijan, then lost the war and returned those territories back to Azerbaijan as per ceasefire agreement, that means that Armenia was occupying them. It is not OR in any way. ]<sup> (])</sup> 17:23, 14 March 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::: As I already stated, the UN regards these areas as occupied, not the Ceasefire Agreement that you are citing to support your claim that Armenia relinquished the territories. The Agreement does not state that the ceded territories were occupied. Hence, if we declare that Armenia ceded the territories, we should not employ the term 'occupied' and engage in OR since the war ended NOT based on UN resoltuions, but based on the ceasfire agreement of 2020, and nothing in it states 'occupied'. The lead should reflect what the ceasefire agreement states, per which the war ended and which doesn't even contain the word 'occupied'. ] (]) 19:54, 19 March 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::I implemented the changes per my rationale above and also removed the communication part as it's already in the body and the ceasfire agreement has 9 terms, we're not going to highlight each in the lead. ] (]) 14:27, 1 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
@], @], @] We don't need ceasefire agreement to say it's occupied to know it's occupied. As you stated, the UN itself states that it is occupied and our article for the regions is literally ]. There is no OR in this.--] (]) 16:46, 7 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Yes you do need the ceasefire agreement to say it's occupied if you are referring to the ceasefire agreement - attributing a term to ceasefire agreement which the agreement did not use is a bright example of ] and ]. ] (]) 20:16, 8 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::Can you please explain to me how the sentence you relates to the ceasefire agreement? The original sentence was: "The war lasted for more than a month and resulted in Azerbaijani victory, with Armenia ceding the territories it had occupied in 1994 surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh. The defeat ignited anti-government protests in Armenia. Post-war skirmishes continued in the region, including substantial clashes in 2022." ] (]) 20:40, 8 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::It is a ] I’m afraid, but I’ll answer: the function of the lede is to summarise, in general terms, the scope of the article. The lede, before you made changes, summarised the war’s immediate outcome (Azerbaijani victory, Armenian defeat, ceasefire agreement, major shifts in who controls the territories in NK), without unnecessary repetition and detail, leaving the latter to the body. ] (]) 21:45, 9 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Arms Supply == |
|
|
|
|
|
I believe Pakistan should be added into the Arms Supply section for Azerbaijan, there are plenty of sources which show Pakistan sent Azerbaijan weapons and other aid. ] (]) 19:08, 22 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I would also like to add onto this, that there are also news articles which showcase Pakistani military involvement directly in the conflict ] (]) 19:10, 22 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 September 2023 == |
|
== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 September 2023 == |
Referencing and citation: criterion not met
Coverage and accuracy: criterion met
Done 
Not done: Needs sources that meets WP:IS, WP:RS, with WP:SIGCOV. // Timothy :: talk 15:28, 23 September 2023 (UTC)