Misplaced Pages

Talk:Armenian-occupied territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh

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.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Vice regent (talk | contribs) at 15:44, 19 November 2020 (→Requested move 21 October 2020: Closing requested move survey; page moved). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 15:44, 19 November 2020 by Vice regent (talk | contribs) (→Requested move 21 October 2020: Closing requested move survey; page moved)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Armenian-occupied territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 2 months 
WikiProject iconArmenia C‑class
WikiProject iconArmenian-occupied territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh 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
CThis article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconArtsakh C‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconArmenian-occupied territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh 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
CThis article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconAzerbaijan C‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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 AzerbaijanAzerbaijanWikiProject icon
CThis article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Move war

Please do not start or take part in a move war over the name of this article. Use this talk page to discuss. Aecis·(away) 09:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

"The Armenian-controlled territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh are areas formally part of Azerbaijan and situated outside the former Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast..."

Formulation is wrong from the international law perspective. Territory of former NKAO along with surrounding regions are de jure recognised territories of Azerbaijan Republic by UN and the international community.St albany (talk) 00:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The words "of Azerbaijan" should be added after the word "territories". --E4024 (talk) 12:48, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Move question

Is there a reason "Nagorno Karabakh" is not hyphenated here when it is hyphenated seemingly everywhere else on wikipedia? If not, I suggest in a very minor move the hyphen is added. CMD (talk) 20:07, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Природа

На этой территории ведется сельскохозяйственная деятельность, строительство объектов? плотность 1 чел. на кв. км. Там наверно много диких животных как в Чернобыльском зоне отчуждении?--Kaiyr (talk) 14:13, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Armenian-controlled territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:38, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 21 October 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. There is rough consensus for the move. The main contention was whether the territories can be considered "occupied" or whether that is a POV term. While it is true that some sources call the territories "Armenian-controlled", most sources (especially diplomatic and academic ones) call them "occupied". A strong argument was made that the term "occupied" is objectionable to some, but "controlled" should not be objectionable to anyone and therefore more neutral. While I sympathize with that, ultimately it is outweighed by more sources calling the territory "occupied". It is also consistent with how we describe other occupied territories, e.g. Israeli-occupied territories, despite the fact that there is resistance to the term "occupied" in that case too. A smaller issue was why should the title contain the name "Armenian" when one could argue that they are occupied/controlled by Artsakh. Yet Armenia itself doesn't recognize Artsakh and it was convincingly argued that "Armenian" is ambiguous enough to satisfy both sides as both Armenia and the unrecognized Republic of Artsakh are ethnically Armenian.(non-admin closure) VR talk 15:44, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Not a voteIf you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Misplaced Pages contributors. Misplaced Pages has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Armenian-controlled territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh → Armenian-occupied territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh – There are many examples on Misplaced Pages where occupation is called occupation: Occupied territories of Georgia, Turkish occupation of northern Syria, Israeli-occupied territories, and so on. Even the UN is calling this an occupation. Beshogur (talk) 11:27, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Support. It's called occupation in all official documents. — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 13:23, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Support. Yes, it is an occupation, since Armenia is guarantor of security in Karabakh according to Nikol Pashinyan. Otherwise, it would be territory controlled by Artsakh. Artsakh unlike Donetsk People's Republic is openly a satellite state of Armenia. With Donetsk People's Republic, the issue is more complicated, since its ties to Russia are not openly declared.--Geysirhead (talk) 17:26, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Question. Would you call South Osetia, Donetsk People's Republic, Transnistria and Luhansk_People's_Republic as "separatist-controlled" or as "occupied by Russia"?--Geysirhead (talk) 17:36, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
It doesn't matter whether it's occupied by Russia or not, if it is occupied even if it's controlled by separatists. Beshogur (talk) 17:52, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Agree, "separatist occupation" seems to be replaced by "separatist controll" for propaganda purposes in such cases. Geysirhead (talk) 18:12, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Suggestion: A more precise name would be 'Armenian-occupied raions surrounding former Nagorno-Karabakh Oblast', since we are not talking about the whole Nagorno-Karabagh and the Kalbajar District ist bigger than the Kalbajar Rayon (or Raion).Geysirhead (talk) 18:24, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
But NKAO doesn't exist anymore. Perhaps former-NKAO?
Writing Nagorno-Karabakh is enough. Borders of Nagorno-Karabakh is same as former Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast. The title would be abnormally large like that. Also it's mentioned as districts in the UN resolutions, so it should be "Armenian-occupied districts surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh" — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 19:03, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Suggestion.Armenian-occupied raions surrounding former NKAO Geysirhead (talk) 15:12, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Support. It's occupation in any definition. Armenian forces are within internationally recognized Azerbaijani teritory. In all official documents this has been called occupation. Zaman (talk) 04:11, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Support. per nom--RicardoNixon97 (talk) 13:49, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Support. per nom. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 15:03, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Support. According to international law, these territories are occupied. They are called occupied by the resolutions of UN and other international organizations. Grandmaster 17:56, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
I don't see any consensus on that discussion. Occupation is not a POV term, but liberation is, I agree. Beshogur (talk) 18:35, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
I agree that no consensus has been achived yet, which is why we have to wait until the end of the discussion before renaming. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 19:07, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Better, we change the name now, and after the end of the discussion, we will have to change the name anyway to something like Former Armenian-....., since some discussions take longer than wars. If the discussion ends up with "occupation to replace control", every separatist protectorate and satellite state of a foreign power will have to be reworded with "occupation" on wikipedia. For instance, Russia might have 5 of them, Albania might have 1 and so on. In case of Artsakh, it might be even a protectorate according to Pashinian. There are also examples, where separatists were not called as occupants - Finnland during Russian Revolution, Chinese entities during Chinese civil war .... Anyway, in case of Artsakh, it is a clear occupation.Geysirhead (talk) 19:47, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Actually, Artsakh is Armenian Manchukuo. Geysirhead (talk) 19:56, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
@Գարիկ Ավագյան:, occupation is a term used for other countries as well, check List of military occupations. Beshogur (talk) 20:01, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Are there any use cases for Armenian-occupied territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh in articles? Is it common it Misplaced Pages? Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 20:34, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
@Գարիկ Ավագյան: See German-occupied Europe. We also have used in other articles as well. Ahmetlii (talk) 20:07, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
@Գարիկ Ավագյան: occupation is a military term, we're not here for propaganda or anything. If "country A" invades the internationally recognized boundaries of "country B" and takes control of it, that's called occupation. And these territories are not in Nagorno-Karabakh, which is a breakaway region, while the Republic of Artsakh is a separatist regime/government. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 20:10, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Comment: as per per this discussion, given the displacement of citizens of both origins, I vote to keep the neutrality of the word as "controlled". MarioLemieux999 (talk) 20:37, 22 October 2020 (UTC)MarioLemieux999 20:35 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Occupation is a military term. If it is occupation, then it should be called. The opposite to liberation is invasion imo, not occupation. Occupation means seizing, controlling. Beshogur (talk) 20:44, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
From the territories in question, only Azerbaijani people were expelled. Armenian population did not live there. Occupation is a legal term, and it is used in all official international documents concerning this conflict. Grandmaster 22:10, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Oppose WP:SOAPBOX. The request is a breach of policy: The first article states

Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, scientific, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise. An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view. You might wish to start a blog or visit a forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your opinions


I ran a search on google with the term "armenian-occupied territories" and most results are Azeri and Turkish outlets, confirming the propaganda flavour of the term. I ran a search with "armenian-controlled territories" and sources like Voice of America, BLE Intellinews, Eurasianet, etc, with the sources tilting towards different sides, confirming the neutral flavour of the term "Armenian-controlled territories"

If any of you wants to start a blog about Armenian occupation of Azerbaijan please do so, but on Misplaced Pages we need to maintain the NPOV. This is not a matter of consensus. It is a matter of policy.--Sataralynd (talk) 00:58, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

There is a difference between the meaning of a word and the usage of a word. The point expressed here is that if media outlets would write Finnish-occupied territory of Russian Empire and Manchukou-controlled territory of China, then the word occupied would be neutral and controlled would be a negative one, even if the meanings of these words are the opposite. If the media does not call the Philippine–American War and the Algerian war genocides, then calling them genocides would be not neutral. Let us use a new and a more precise term: Armenian protectorate surrounding former NKAO. Let us us be smarter than the media, which only knows the words "occupied" and "controlled" Geysirhead (talk) 06:00, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
It is not just about media. Check what the international community calls it. UN, OSCE, EU, etc. They all call those territories occupied. Grandmaster 20:59, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
@Geysirhead: Asking us to "check what the international community calls it" is not how this works. It is your responsibility to provide sources from UN, OSCE, EU that call it as such. Please provide sources from these three organizations you cite mentioning "Armenian-occupied territories" --Sataralynd (talk) 01:03, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
I don't see why we're discussing this even when international organizations call it an occupation. Someone should go ahead and make the change. — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 06:06, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
It says occupied forces. It refers to the forces of Artsakh. Armenian-occupied territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh sounds like territories occupied by Armenia, which is incorrect. Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 11:22, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Isn't Artsakh Armenian? Nobody sees Artsakh as an independent state. This is occupation by foreing power under local administration. Beshogur (talk) 11:23, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Well, Armenia is also Armenian. Occupied territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh may be a consensus. However, some media outlets prefer Armenian-controlled territories. Voice of America, BLE Intellinews, Eurasianet etc. Also, these territories are part of Artsakh's administrative division. Anyway, I would like to ask Rosguill to summarize this discussion. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 14:42, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
huh, some. There are 100x more that call it an occupation. your same source, same person calls it an occupation. Beshogur (talk) 14:45, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Գարիկ Ավագյան, this discussion has only been open 4 days, it's too early to close it. signed, Rosguill 18:15, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

"In addition to these problems with their stance regarding their co-ethnics inIran, by holding onto this irredentist claim, Azerbaijani nationalists ironically alsoinadvertently harm Azerbaijan’s chances of reclaiming the Armenian-conquered terri-tories, and especially Karabakh." https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/mei/mei/2004/00000058/00000004/art00005 --Geysirhead (talk) 18:55, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
"A second point of entry appears to be the border between Iran and the Armenian-occupied territories of ..."https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/resrep07037.5.pdf --Geysirhead (talk) 18:57, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
"For Armenians, Nagorno-Karabakh represents one of the last Armenian-occupied territories outside Soviet-de- fined Armenia to which they have historic ties."https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/forwa16&div=24&id=&page=--Geysirhead (talk) 18:59, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
"Over a million people were forced to flee; from Nagorno-Karabakh to Armenia, from Armenia to Azerbaijan, and from Armenian-occupied sectors of Azerbaijan to other Azeri villages (CIS Report, 1996)." by Yulia Ghazaryan http://www.nispa.org/news/ghazaryan.rtf --Geysirhead (talk) 19:02, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
"While the U.S. and NATo are focused on russian activity in Central and eastern europe, there are three developments in the South Caucasus that merit closer attention: (1) recent political instabil-ity in Georgia; (2) possible russian annexation of Georgian breakaway territories; and (3) increasing tensions between Armenia and Azerbaijan over the Armenian-occupied Azerbaijani territory of Nago-rno–Karabakh." http://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/2014/pdf/IB4307.pdf --Geysirhead (talk) 19:05, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
"According to Joshua Kucera, gaining international recognition of the Khojaly massacre is a crucial element in Azerbaijan's campaign to regain control of the Armenian-occupied Nagorno-Karabakh." https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13602004.2016.1257684?journalCode=cjmm20 --Geysirhead (talk) 19:09, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
"Prior to any return of territory, military personnel and hardware on both sides will need to be withdrawn in accordance with a defined timetable. Any former Armenian-occupied territory is likely to be demilitarized." https://www.nomos-elibrary.de/10.5771/9783845222240-201/nagorno-karabakh-ever-closer-to-a-settlement-step-by-step --Geysirhead (talk) 19:12, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
"In 1993 some 250000 Georgians (ie almost half the population) were expelled from Abkhazia or had to flee, some 800000 Azeris (from Armenia, Karabakh and other Armenian occupied territories of Azerbaijan) are refugees in Azerbaijan" https://books.google.de/books?hl=en&lr=&id=6gAGDAAAQBAJ --Geysirhead (talk) 19:14, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
"After his return, Zaur is abducted by Arif Yunusov and the Karabakh Liberation Army, a radical underground orga- nization that seeks to take back the Armenian-occupied territories in the west of Azerbaijan." https://books.google.de/books?hl=en&lr=&id=5NolDwAAQBAJ --Geysirhead (talk) 19:17, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
"Over the last several weeks, Armenia and Azerbaijan have been engaged in an escalating conflict centered around a decades-long dispute over the Nagorno-Karabakh region, which is internationally recognized as Azerbaijani territory but has illegally occupied by Armenia since their first war ended in 1994."https://ejpress.org/how-the-armenian-azerbaijani-conflict-could-impact-israels-regional-strategic-landscape/ --Geysirhead (talk) 12:02, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I doubt there is any other source needed, even UN describes it as an occupation: "Demands the immediate, complete and unconditional withdrawal of all Armenian forces from all the occupied territories of the Republic of Azerbaijan;" Beshogur (talk) 12:35, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. Not sure why this discussion is still going on. — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 13:25, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
@Astral Leap: "Armenian" doesn't refer to Republic of Armenia, but rather the ethnicity. And since Artsakh is Armenian, it's the correct wording. — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 13:59, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
User:CuriousGolden I agree Armenian here refers to ethnic Armenians of Azerbaijan, but that precisely illustrates why occupation is incorrect as this is not a Military occupation by one state of a portion of another state but rather a Separatist territory. If we were to refer to it as occupied, then we would be conferring upon Artsakh/NKR a recognition of statehood (something that even Armenia does not recognize) in viewing areas they control (or controlled?) as occupied.--Astral Leap (talk) 14:08, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
@Astral Leap: You are right, but since UN resolutions refer to the areas as "occupied", I think its okay to use. — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 14:24, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
@Astral Leap: and @CuriousGolden: check here all the UN resolutions. They NEVER call on Armenia to withdraw its occupying forces. They call on Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh to withdraw from the occupied regions. They even ask Armenia to help make this happen. Here is the passage in 853: " Urges the Government of the Republic of Armenia to continue to exert its influence to achieve compliance by the Armenians of the Nagorny-Karabakh region of the Azerbaijani Republic with its resolution 822 (1993) and the present resolution, and the acceptance by this party of the proposals of the Minsk Group of the CSCE" and here again in 884 " Calls upon the Government of Armenia to use its influence to achieve compliance by the Armenians of the Nagorny Karabakh region of the Azerbaijani Republic with resolutions 822"
This distinction is key and it must be reflected in the name. If you insist on using occupied, then we should name this Occupied Territories by Republic of Artsakh as that is what Armenians of NK who are referred to in the UN resolutions want to call themselves. They include all those areas in the Administrative divisions of Republic of Artsakh. Another alternative is to call it Occupied Territories by Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh
@Rosguill: please keep this open until this is resolved --Sataralynd (talk) 12:23, 28 October 2020 (UTC) — Sataralynd (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
No one is saying it's Armenia the country, who is occupying anyway. The "Armenian-occupied" stands for the ethnicity, which Artsakh is part of. Just like how this article was and still is called "Armenian-controlled territories..". Also, please don't forget to sign your comments as we have no idea who you are. — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 07:37, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Comment there are strong arguments for the change. But most opposing arguments fall under WP:IDONTLIKEIT. When will the move happen? --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 17:29, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Exactly. Not sure why the discussion is still going on when official documents are also calling it an occupation. Could you please conclude the discussion, @Rosguill:? — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 17:51, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
CuriousGolden, RM stay open for 7 days at a minimum. This discussion is then put in a backlog that will be addressed in due time. signed, Rosguill 17:56, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Alright, we can close it tomorrow, then. — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 18:03, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
It is a matter of Exonym and endonym. "For Armenians, they're not occupied territories – they're the homeland" https://eurasianet.org/for-armenians-theyre-not-occupied-territories-theyre-the-homeland The exonym is "occupied" and the endonym is "homeland".--Geysirhead (talk) 20:08, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
For Israel, Golan Heights is homeland as well. Irrelevant. Beshogur (talk) 20:20, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Can you say that for other occupied areas? Beshogur (talk) 15:54, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps, but we're not discussing other occupied areas, are we. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. This discussion is about one area, which has a perfectly valid name already and is currently subject to an international dispute. Taking sides in that dispute is not what Misplaced Pages does, per WP:NPOV, and the proposed rename would not be an improvement at all.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:58, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
This is not a border dispute. Dispute happens between two countries. Armenia does not recognise Artsakh. Beshogur (talk) 16:02, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
The territories are legally(UN) "occupied", everything else is irredentism.--Geysirhead (talk) 18:23, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Forgot to write: irredentism is not WP:NPOV --Geysirhead (talk) 18:27, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Support. The term "Occupied" is more descriptive of what has happened in this case, whereas the term "controlled" is ambigious as one controlle a land directly or indirectly or even control just some aspects of a political of geografical entity. As such a state can be controlled by increased debt burden. Plus the term occupied indicates the, military or other force applied whereas control can be done by the accptance of the subject of being controlled. There has been no consences for this occupation so the term controlled logically can not be used for KArabakh. In addition and the term "occupation" has been used in UN and other official documents. Zaman (talk) 15:13, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
@VZkN9:, this is similar, but not the same discussion, because it's about the 7 districts surrounding former NKAO. Beshogur (talk) 20:40, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Armenian intention does not matter. "occupied" is a legal term used by UN. Occupation is a neutral term: Occupation of the Baltic states#Second soviet occupation (1944–1991) e.g. --Geysirhead (talk) 14:50, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
Sorry but what a bad comparison. Beshogur (talk) 18:39, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
Support. It's an occupation in any definition. Veselov350  09:26, 9 November 2020 (UTC) — Veselov350 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Weak Oppose I think that controlled is more NPOV, despite neither term being super strong I think controlled is just the most neutral term Flalf 14:48, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Comment: I haven't seen any of the opposers make any reasonable argument about how "occupied" is POV. UN, PACE, OSCE, ICO are all surely not spreading POV, are they? — CuriousGolden (T·C) 14:52, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

October 2020 Is an edit war afoot?

On 20 October many references to Artsakh were changed to Nagorno-Karabakh by an anonymous user. Just a heads-up.--Quisqualis (talk) 07:08, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis:

Hey, I'm having a hard time understanding why you've added "primary sources" tag next to UN resolution sources. Especially because the sentences themselves are about the UN resolutions and are explaining them. — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 14:32, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

I tagged them as such because they are primary sources, used as you note to support sentences explaining them. CMD (talk) 14:38, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
@Chipmunkdavis: Here's text taken from Misplaced Pages Policy page:
Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Misplaced Pages, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may be used on Misplaced Pages only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source.
As we are not making any interpretations about the resolutions, it's OK to use the UN sources to state the fact. Therefore, if you don't have any objections, I ask you to remove the "Primary Soure Inline" tags. — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 15:06, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
Given during my copyediting I changed some uneven interpretation, for example the specification of Security Council in one instance but the omission of General assembly in another, and the lack of any mention of the weakness of the 2008 vote, there is clearly interpretation in the translating of long documents to single sentences. They are primary sources and so the primary source tag is appropriate. CMD (talk) 15:25, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
@Chipmunkdavis: Talking about "weakness" of the 2008 vote, would've been an interpretation and would require non-primary source, but currently all it says is that "In X year, UN passed Y resolution, demanding Z". How is there any interpretation in this other than basic facts which require the primary sources? The other sentence that just says "During X war, the UN passed 4 resolutions demanding Y", which also has no interpretation at all. We don't need to need copy-paste every point in a resolution for it to not be "interpreted". It can be short if it just mentions the main point and adds nothing else. — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 15:32, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
For a start, UNGA resolutions are not equivalent to UNSC resolutions, and I note this was again left out of your summary. Determining the "main point" is interpretation. As you said in your initial post, the sentences are "explaining" the resolution, which requires interpretation. What is the issue here anyway, why is it a problem if a cluster of primary sources is indicated to be as such? CMD (talk) 16:04, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

De facto situation first, then the de jure situation

The facts on the ground ought to be stated first (the de facto situation). The claimed (de jure situation) should be stated second. An editor disagrees with this. See this . Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:51, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

You are removing the term occupied, which was here for years, and R of Artsakh is not limited, but unrecognised state. This is a POV pushing. Beshogur (talk) 10:25, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
How is "de jure" = "claimed"? In all articles about cities/villages in the disputed region, de jure is first. And you're not only changing de facto/de jure but also removing an established term. Please don't POV-push. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 12:06, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Where is the WP policy that says that the de jure situation must be stated before the de facto situation in the lead? Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:12, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
Where is the WP policy that says de facto should be first? It's common sense that international law matters more than a separatist regime's control. Control can change anytime; international law can't. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 17:18, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
So your rule is no better than my rule is what you're saying. OK then. Let's find a third party to mediate n the matter. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:54, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
I agree with CuriousGolden here that de jure should be mentioned first as it's more important than de facto control, but it's important to mention the city/town's de facto in the sentence as well. NotAldariasky (talk) 08:37, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Please indicate why de jure is more important. Many claims are made de jure that have no reality de facto. Take the example of King Henry VIII. He was styled "Henry the Eighth, by the Grace of God, King of England, France and Lord of Ireland". By the laws of England, he was, de jure, the King of France. In reality, Henry only controlled the town of Calais. The de facto King of France during that period was Francis I. By the laws of France (read Artsakh), he was of course also the king de jure. Nonetheless, from the English (read Azerbaijani) perspective, Henry was the de jure king of France. Does that appear in the lead of Henry's article? No. The first thing stated is that he was King of England. His other titles in pretence are stated well down the body of the article. This is true for every other English king article: de facto first, de jure second. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:07, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
This might've been the weirdest comparison I've seen in my life and it amounts to WP:OTHERSTUFF. De jure/de facto ownership of land is an entirely different matter than de jure/de facto king/queen matters and is a very weird 2 things to compare. How is de jure more important? De jure ownership of land doesn't change that often; unlike de facto. Which we have already witnessed through the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war. Even if we agreed to what you said, all the surrounding districts will be under de facto control of Azerbaijan until 1 December anyway, so this discussion is somewhat useless. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 13:27, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
"De jure/de facto ownership of land is an entirely different matter than de jure/de facto king/queen matters". Actually no, they amount to the same thing. One is King of a particular piece of land. And it's not other stuff, it's a WP precedent. Until Dec 1, it's still de facto. Don't be too keen to dance on the grave. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:42, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Armenians withdrawing from all districts?

In this article, it says "In the wake of the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war, Armenian forces agreed to withdraw from these districts". However, in the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh ceasefire agreement#Terms of the agreement article, it only mentions Armenian forces withdrawing from the Kelbajar and Lachin districts. Is there any source for Armemian forces withdrawing from the remaining occupied districts, for example, the parts of the Qubadli district that they still control? --67.160.159.188 (talk) 03:31, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

going by this https://en.wikipedia.org/File:2020_Artsakh_ceasefire_map.svg map, it looks to me like Qubadli is going to go to Azerbaijan. --178.6.88.44 (talk) 10:07, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
  1. "A/RES/62/243". undocs.org. 14 March 2008. Retrieved 2020-09-28.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
Categories: