Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
: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)
: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)
::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)
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
Template:Vital article
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Second Nagorno-Karabakh War is within the scope of WikiProject Armenia, an attempt to improve and better organize information in articles related or pertaining to Armenia and Armenians. 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.ArmeniaWikipedia:WikiProject ArmeniaTemplate:WikiProject ArmeniaArmenian
Second Nagorno-Karabakh War 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 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 is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations 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.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Limited recognition, a WikiProject dedicated to improving the coverage of entities with limited recognition on Misplaced Pages by contributing to articles relating to unrecognized states and separatist movements. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join our WikiProject by signing your name at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.Limited recognitionWikipedia:WikiProject Limited recognitionTemplate:WikiProject Limited recognitionLimited recognition
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:
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: Moved. Not much participation, after almost a month of listing, but the sourcing does exist for this name and no serious objections have been raised. — Amakuru (talk) 11:14, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Sources on this very page (as well as articles on Google Scholar) call the 2020 war the Second Nagorno-Karabakh War – not the 2016 war (which is more often called the April War/April clashes or the Four-Day War). WP:COMMONNAME is far more in favour of the 2020 war. DJ (talk) 19:22, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Google Scholar results since 2021 for "Second Nagorno-Karabakh War" and "2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War" are 197 to 115; since 2022, 96 to 65, with a significant but not easily enumerated subset of the "second" examples using non-proper-noun lower case. There's also a fair amount of results for "Nagorno-Karabakh War of 2020" (about half as many as "2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War"). Interestingly, the trend reverses if we look at "Second Artsakh War" vs. "2020 Artsakh War", with the latter formulation being the more common of the two. A nontrivial portion of recent
articles alternatively just refer to it as "Nagorno-Karabakh war" IMO, the long-term stable title and subsequent historiography of this conflict is still to be determined, and will largely hinge on whether the current status quo of the conflict holds. signed, Rosguill19:52, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Main parties in the lead
@KhndzorUtogh, I understand your point and took the same approach with the rest. The sentence refers to the conflict and its main players parties (Armenia, Artsakh and Azerbaijan). As a result, I removed mercenaries because they were neither a main party nor a separate entity. I also removed Turkey because it was not the main party and only provided political support. Turkey's participation is only alleged by Armenia. So I took Turkey out of the lead because keeping it there gives the incorrect impression that Turkey participated in the actual war. A b r v a g l11:16, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Do you think it should be moved back? @Rosguill crunched some Google Scholar numbers above and (provided the numbers are right) the new title seems to have acceptable traction in scholarly writing? Bearing in mind there doesn't seem a decisive weight of sourcing behind any particular title. Jr8825 • Talk19:12, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, I think that there's no real correct title right now and am ok with the move for consistency's sake. If it were all up to me, I would move First Nagorno-Karabakh War back to its old name, but I'm not really interested in belaboring the debate when the evidence suggests to me that it's a wash. signed, Rosguill19:24, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Indeed, it was Armenia who obligated to withdraw its forces from Azerbaijan's territory. The text of the ceasefire agreement is quite straightforward. Grandmaster15:08, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
The ceasefire agreement is completely irrelevant in this context as it doesn't even mention the word 'occupied'. The reason that the surrounding regions were considered occupied is due to the UN resolutions, which referred to the 'local Armenian forces' (aka Nagorno-Karabakh) occupying the surrounding regions, not the Republic of Armenia. It's incorrect to state that Armenia occupied the regions surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh.
In addition, all independent experts who are involved in the study of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, including Thomas de Waal, Laurence Broers, and others claim that the territories were controlled/occupied by the ethnic Karabakh Armenians. The article Armenian-occupied territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh refers to the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh, not the country Armenia. https://en.wikipedia.org/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. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 15:21, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
The fact that Armenia exercised effective control over Nagorno-Karabakh and the surrounding territories was legally proven in the court of law, see Chiragov and Others v. Armenia. And it was Armenia who withdrew its troops, per ceasefire agreement. Whether the agreement mentions the word occupied or not does not change the fact that Karabakh was not mentioned as a party, and had no obligation to cede territory. Grandmaster17:55, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
If we're going by the ceasefire agreement wording, then there isn't even 'occupied' mentioned in it and the lead could be reworded to something like "returned/surrendered territories per ceasefire agreement". If we're going by UN resolutions, then the actual resolutions regarding 7 regions surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh mention Nagorno-Karabakh as occupying, including other third party analysts. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 20:12, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
The NKR, as a largely unrecognized entity, has not been a subject of international law and indeed the 2020 ceasefire agreement is between Azerbaijan, Armenia and Russia instead. Plus, NKR has been claimed by ethnic Armenians rather than some other ethnic group. Possibly the more correct wording would be "with Armenians ceding the territories they had occupied in 1994 surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh", but it's a nuance. Brandmeister09:00, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
UN resolutions actually mentioned "local Armenian forces", which could refer to forces of both Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh. That is why our article is called "Armenian-occupied territories", not territories occupied by Armenia. But in reality, Nagorno-Karabakh did not have substantial forces to occupy so much territory, as was reflected in the ICHR ruling. I think it would be better to reword as: with Armenia ceding the territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh occupied in 1994, without going into details, since it was Armenia who ceded the territories per the agreement. Grandmaster09:14, 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.
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. Grandmaster08:47, 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. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 16:30, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
These territories are considered to be occupied by the UN, not the Ceasefire Agreement that you are mentioning to justify stating that it was Armenia that ceded the territories. The Ceasefire Agreement doesn't state that the territories are occupied. Therefore, if you wish to state that Armenia ceded the territories, then the word 'occupied' shall not be used. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 15:11, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
it isn’t place for Wiki lawyering. the fact that Armenia occupied territories of Azerbaijan is literally undeniable, Nagorno-Karabakh, with it’s population barely reaching 120,000 couldn’t occupy territories of Azerbaijan with 7-8 million population. the war was between Armenia and Azerbaijan, ceasefire was signed between Armenia and Azerbaijan, it was Armenia who removed it’s army from Azerbaijan’s territory, and it was Armenia who returned occupied territories back to Azerbaijan according to ceasefire agreement. Self-proclaimed Nagorno-Karabakh republic was not part of ceasefire discussions, was not part of ceasefire agreement, and no one even asked their agreement or opinion.
Saying that Armenia didn’t occupy Azerbaijan territories is nonsense, just like claiming that Russia didn’t invade Ukraine, but Russian puppet states Luhansk and Donetsk People's republics did. A b r v a g l17:11, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
The Ceasefire Agreement doesn't state that the territories are occupied. - the ceasefire agreement literally urges Armenia to return internationally recognized territories of Azerbaijan (surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh) back to Azerbaijan. What you think Armenia was doing there if not occupying? Playing a basketball? One thing is linked to another, if Armenia had its army on the territories of Azerbaijan, then lost the war and returned those territories back to Azerbaijan as per ceasefire agreement, that means that Armenia was occupying them. It is not OR in any way. A b r v a g l17:23, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
As I already stated, the UN regards these areas as occupied, not the Ceasefire Agreement that you are citing to support your claim that Armenia relinquished the territories. The Agreement does not state that the ceded territories were occupied. Hence, if we declare that Armenia ceded the territories, we should not employ the term 'occupied' and engage in OR since the war ended NOT based on UN resoltuions, but based on the ceasfire agreement of 2020, and nothing in it states 'occupied'. The lead should reflect what the ceasefire agreement states, per which the war ended and which doesn't even contain the word 'occupied'. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 19:54, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
I implemented the changes per my rationale above and also removed the communication part as it's already in the body and the ceasfire agreement has 9 terms, we're not going to highlight each in the lead. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 14:27, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
Yes you do need the ceasefire agreement to say it's occupied if you are referring to the ceasefire agreement - attributing a term to ceasefire agreement which the agreement did not use is a bright example of WP:SYNTH and WP:NOR. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 20:16, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
Can you please explain to me how the sentence you edited significantly relates to the ceasefire agreement? The original sentence was: "The war lasted for more than a month and resulted in Azerbaijani victory, with Armenia ceding the territories it had occupied in 1994 surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh. The defeat ignited anti-government protests in Armenia. Post-war skirmishes continued in the region, including substantial clashes in 2022." NMW03 (talk) 20:40, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
It is a whataboutism I’m afraid, but I’ll answer: the function of the lede is to summarise, in general terms, the scope of the article. The lede, before you made changes, summarised the war’s immediate outcome (Azerbaijani victory, Armenian defeat, ceasefire agreement, major shifts in who controls the territories in NK), without unnecessary repetition and detail, leaving the latter to the body. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 21:45, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
Referencing and citation: criterion not met
Coverage and accuracy: criterion met
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:26, 14 October 2022 (UTC)