Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh conflict

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

NPOV and Laundromat[edit]

There are a number of important omissions in the article that violate NPOV. The essential Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast was not even mentioned in the lead, nor were the persecutions of Artsakh Armenians throughout the Soviet period, or the constitutional referendum. This is all surmised as "Armenians demanded the transfer" which is intentionally misleading and not a neutral point of view. I have included information about all of this from reliable and neutral sources. There is also a need to incorporate the Azerbaijani laundromat and caviar diplomacy, which both relate to the conflict, into the article. Please note that this was investigation of covered by a great deal of reliable sources, legal documents were written about it, and many politicians were sanctioned and/or expelled for accepting bribes,[1][2][3][4][5][6] so there is no question of either the significance or legality of including this laundering scheme. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 02:33, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Armenians demanded the transfer is POV in your mind but adding The Soviet Azerbaijani authorities worked to suppress Armenian culture and identity in Nagorno-Karabakh, pressured Armenians to leave the region and encouraged Azerbaijanis to settle within it, although Armenians remained the majority population to lead with a low-quality POV source isn't? Please. Nemoralis (talk) 09:45, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you have a problem with particular source, take it to WP:RSN. The discussion you linked in your summary editors stated that the source is reputably published by a professor of politics in the field of self-determination, and another source was added as well. - Kevo327 (talk) 10:40, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There were already censuses on the article proving that the Armenian population decreased and the Azeri population decreased over the Soviet period, and this was obviously not a natural occurrence. This addition doesn't violate NPOV because it does not contradict anything the article previously stated. --KhndzorUtogh (talk) 02:19, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, such huge addition would require a consensus per WP:CAREFUL, not to mention NPOV issues. The article has been relatively stable in that regard prior to recent additons. Brandmeistertalk 10:03, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have yet to see a single issue presented with either the sources themselves or any evidence that what they say isn't true. --KhndzorUtogh (talk) 02:19, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about whether they are true, but about WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV. Per WP:VNOT, "not all verifiable information must be included". If anything, this belongs to corruption in Azerbaijan rather than here. Brandmeistertalk 10:50, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Brandmeister, in case you hadn't looked at any of the links I shared above, here are some sample quotes from one of them which is an official Council of Europe report:

Mr Lindblad was mentioned by several witnesses as an open lobbyist for Azerbaijan in PACE. When heard by the Investigation Body, Mr Lindblad acknowledged that after his departure from PACE, he had worked as a lobbyist for the European Azerbaijan Society (TEAS). He also provided the relevant documents attesting to the conditions of his recruitment as a lobbyist.

Mr Lindblad explained that after leaving PACE in 2010, he had been approached by TEAS to work for them as a lobbyist. He had been recruited for TEAS by Ms Eliza Pieter, who had worked as a secretary in the PACE Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy. Mr Lindblad considered that she had recruited him because she knew that he had been on the Azerbaijani side in PACE concerning the issues related to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict with Armenia. She had also been his liaison person in TEAS.

Mr Lindblad further explained that for the first interview, he had asked another member of the PACE secretariat to accompany him. The interview had taken place in Brussels in a rented office. Later, Mr Lindblad had also had an interview with the chairman of TEAS. For Mr Lindblad, it had been immediately clear that TEAS was not an ordinary NGO and that it was financed by the government. At the interview, Mr Lindblad had made it clear that he would lobby only on the Nagorno-Karabakh issue.

Mr Lindblad stated that he had become a formal consultant with a monthly salary from TEAS to lobby on the Nagorno-Karabakh issue in PACE and the EP. When he had been on the payroll of TEAS he had attended events in the Parliamentary Assembly and the EP. He had also sometimes attended committee meetings of PACE in Paris. Mr Lindblad explained that he had worked for TEAS over some eighteen months.

Lindblad is just one of many MPs that have been exposed by the investigation. Many of them have been sanctioned and/or forced out of the organization. I do not know what could possibly be of greater neutral due weight than official PACE documents confirming the MPs and their lobbying in the NK conflict, which is why it belongs on this article. --KhndzorUtogh (talk) 01:23, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ganesha811, please feel free to discuss here why you do not believe the Azerbaijani laundromat should be mentioned in the lead. In terms of international reaction and consequences, it was very significant however. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 01:09, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A clandestine international influence operation is not on the same scale as two wars, thousands of deaths, or the expulsions of hundreds of thousands of civilians from their homes. In the entire course of the conflict, the "laundromat" simply isn't a major element worth mentioning in the lead. It certainly should be mentioned later in the article. —Ganesha811 (talk) 01:23, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is no longer clandestine however, it was uncovered in an investigation and multiple people who took part in it were sanctioned or fired. Caviar diplomacy has significantly impacted the international stance on the conflict, which makes it an essential element on this topic. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 22:54, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong data, needs to be fixed[edit]

"800,000 Azerbaijanis from Armenia and Karabakh" -- this figure is an order of magnitude larger than the number of Azerbaijanis that lived there (even according to Azerbaijan sources). It is not supported by any source. 2A02:14F:1ED:CDE4:D4C9:3876:11F2:DB61 (talk) 11:02, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You du not know what an order of magnitude is. 95.143.62.54 (talk) 12:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Azer victory?[edit]

It appears to me that Azerbaijan has practically won the war: Artsakh Army has been disbaned and the region is scheduled to be re-annexed in 2024. Should we declare the conflict over?--Karma1998 (talk) 14:38, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you.Nafis Fuad Ayon (talk) 07:37, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is the conflict over?[edit]

As @Karma1998has said, Azerbaijan has basically won. Artsakh's de facto existence is over. That being said, I am suggesting that the article be edited accordingly to show the conflict as resolved. However, it is understandable if the Wikipedia community prefers to wait until Artsakh formally dissolves on 1 January 2024. NocheLluviosa (talk) 22:02, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, de facto it is over and already now there's hardly anyone left to contest the region as before. But some users prefer the de jure end which is 1 January 2024 indeed. Brandmeistertalk 18:16, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm now inclined to wait until the formal dissolution date. NocheLluviosa (talk) 16:50, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Both could make sense. The main phase of the conflict is over, but waiting for the de jure dissolution makes for a cleaner demarcation. Maybe have both as de facto and de jure? ChaotıċEnby(talk) 16:18, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
in my personal opinion, I think we should change it to show that the conflict is over due to Azerbaijan having complete control over Nagorno-Karabakh. Death Editor 2 (talk) 18:25, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should wait until the official dissolution date of Artsakh. Maybe Aliyev will make some relevant declaration. Possibly also until Russian peacekeepers leave Karabakh, since Azerbaijan still has foreign military forces in its territory explicitly due to this conflict. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 09:40, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It appears they're reducing their presence anyway [7] [8]. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 09:41, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah the conflict is over and I think we should at the very least change the very outdated map. Death Editor 2 (talk) 19:32, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Azerbaijan says 8 villages under Armenian occupation still have not handed over. This isn't over yet. See also this: Armenia says outline of a peace deal agreed with Azerbaijan. A peace agreement might be the most appropriate end date. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 19:54, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    but are those villages in Nagorono Karabakh? Death Editor 2 (talk) 21:34, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Conflict is clearly not over.  // Timothy :: talk  08:47, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    did Armenia drop paratroopers into Nagorno-Karabakh when I wasn't looking? Death Editor 2 (talk) 17:46, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Snarky replies will not convince other editors. It also makes me regret not reporting your 1RR vio. If I were you I would stop the unconstructive editing.  // Timothy :: talk  19:03, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    alright, how has the conflict NOT ended? Azerbaijan has complete control over Nagorno-Karabakh. And we really should do something about that horribly outdated map. Death Editor 2 (talk) 19:29, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, Azerbaijan controls all of Nagorno-Karabakh, and Artsakh has surrendered and is self-dissolving. In any meaningful way, the conflict is over. No one is contesting the land anymore. ChaotıċEnby(talk) 16:14, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you mean by "unfortunately"? I agree with rest of your comment though. Beshogur (talk) 15:54, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    do they really need to explain to you why an authoritarian state that committed ethnic cleansing the second it had taken over some land is bad? Death Editor 2 (talk) 18:28, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't slightly care about your opinion. Did I ask you? Beshogur (talk) 18:55, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, I think since the NK conflict is very clearly over, I think the article should be changed to reflex that information. Death Editor 2 (talk) 03:50, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Please, can you clarify why it is not over? Nizzamiro (talk) 12:50, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The military aspect of the conflict is probably over (there is a ceasefire agreement, not a final agreement), and the political and social conflict continues (covered in the article).  // Timothy :: talk  13:13, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The conflict is over as official desolation of Artsakh in 2024.Nafis Fuad Ayon (talk) 08:07, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nafis Fuad Ayon the rough consensus in this discussion is that the conflict isn't over. You can't just edit-war and revert to your recent edited version of the article, ignoring stable map and the consensus in this discussion, then comment here as if it changes anything and as if this simple and vague comment will change the consenus here - the "official desolation" point was already brought up in this thread and it was answered, you aren't saying anything new and you're behaving in a disruptive manner by reverting and then replying in an old already concluded discussion and replying to a comment from November. Vanezi (talk) 08:14, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This article is about Nagorno-Karabakh conflict which is mainly related to military and state control. This land is now under full control of Azerbaijan per all international media. In your logic no conflict can end. Almost all the Ethnic Armenians left the area and the territory is under Azerbaijani control and internationally recognised. What are you wating for? Maybe wating to Armania or Ethnic Armenians again attack and took the land back?Nafis Fuad Ayon (talk) 08:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You aren't saying anything new and you're engaging in original research, sources don't actually say the conflict is over if you actually read this very lengthy discussion, you can't ignore it and comment only when your recent edit was revert, and you've literally replied to a comment from November. This is disruptive behavior. Vanezi (talk) 08:24, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I replied because I get mentioned. The article not mentioned the conflict is ongoing so I have added the image montage to improve the article.Nafis Fuad Ayon (talk) 08:31, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your first reply/comment in this discussion was to a comment from November that didn't even mention your name, what? The rough consensus here is that the conflict isn't over and we don't add "montages" to ongoing conflicts when there are maps. Vanezi (talk) 08:36, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ongoing conflict? How? If yes, Then write this to the result section and change the date to "20 February 1988 – present. Armenia–Azerbaijan border crisis is no longer the Part of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict from 2024.Nafis Fuad Ayon (talk) 09:06, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't ask for your suggestions, there is already rough consensus here, that is all I needed to remind you after you edit-warred in spite the ongoing conflict consensus, then replied to a comment from November in here that didn't even mention you, seemingly in order to pretend you're engaging in discussion that is already over. Vanezi (talk) 09:18, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How is the conflict still ongoing? Death Editor 2 (talk) 15:35, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Because it hasn't been proven otherwise in this very own lengthy discussion and we don't engage in WP:OR and synthesis? There is rough consensus here that the conflict is ongoing, and I don't intend to repeat the same things others have already said, let's avoid bludgeoning the discussion. Vanezi (talk) 00:27, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no Armenian military force or well Armenians in general left in the region. Are you waiting until Azerbaijan conquers Armenia to declare the conflict over? Death Editor 2 (talk) 01:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please avoid repeating same WP:OR as you did in this discussion several times and that was answered already by other users. There is still no WP:RS provided saying the conflict is over while there are for the opposite, until then, please don't bludgeon the discussion. I'm not going to engage with repeated comments that already went through and discussed extensively in this thread. Vanezi (talk) 02:17, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The article Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is about far more than the latest round in the conflict or any previous round of fighting. I covers from 1988 to the present and no one is claiming that this 35yr old conflict is over with the latest round of fighting. There has in no way been any definitive settlement, the refugee crisis is ongoing and there is discussion of more fighting if the current situation/discussions breaks down. This has all been explained, the scope of the article is obvious. By your flawed reasoning, the conflict would have been "over" more than three times already.  // Timothy :: talk  22:12, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The Republic of Artsakh no longer exists in any meaningful form, and believe me it's over since again there is no Republic of Artsakh to contest the Azeri claims over Nagorno-Karabakh, and said fighting would likely take place in Armenia proper instead of Nagorno-Karabakh. So your reasoning has more holes than Swiss Cheese. Death Editor 2 (talk) 22:23, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You are ignoring the scope of the article. Just in the last few weeks there has been [1][2][3][4][5][6] and thats just with a simple Google search.  // Timothy :: talk  22:26, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This sounds like the aftermath of the conflict, not as apart of the conflict itself, which ended with the surrender of the Republic of Artsakh and exodus of the Armenian Population. Death Editor 2 (talk) 22:32, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The ethnic cleansing is not over (see refs) and the Republic of Artsakh is not the same as the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.  // Timothy :: talk  22:45, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I checked the refs and they don't say the ethnic cleansing is still going on, only that the refugees from said ethnic cleaning are struggling and that the dissolution degree was revoked by the exiled government. So again your reasoning is extremely flawed to its very core. Death Editor 2 (talk) 22:51, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Could probably create an article for The Republic of Artsakh's government in exile however with those references however. Death Editor 2 (talk) 22:53, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyways, given how weak your arguments are and how your sources do not back up your claims of the conflict still going on, I think it's safe to edit it to make the article say that it ended. Death Editor 2 (talk) 01:33, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You do not have consensus to change the article.  // Timothy :: talk  02:03, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, who is opposing Azerbaijan in Nagorno-Karabakh? The Republic of Artsakh is functionally a government in exile now, all the Armenians were ethnically cleansed a few months ago. So why are we pretending the conflict hadn't ended in a total victory for Azerbaijan? Death Editor 2 (talk) 02:09, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You have no sources supporting your position, the conflict is not synonymous with the latest round of fighting and the end of the latest fighting does not mean the conflict is over, just as the end of previous rounds of fighting did not end the conflict.  // Timothy :: talk  02:14, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    When the next round of fighting starts, it's not going to be in Nagorno-Karabakh. Also one of your sources, Asbarez, calls him the EXILED President. So your claims of the conflict not being over is a complete fabrication. Death Editor 2 (talk) 02:29, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Every other user here more or less disagrees with your position - seems like there very much is consensus to change the article. PrimaPrime (talk) 06:16, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Every other user here more or less disagrees with your position no not really. Why don't we wait just two days more until the Republic of Artsakh is officially dissolved? That will bring another argument in favor of stating the conflict is over. Still I think a final Armenian-Azerbaijani peace agreement, currently in negotiation, should be considered as the end of the conflict. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 12:48, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If your strongest argument is "wait two days" when nothing on the ground is actually going to change then, that suggests the conflict is indeed over. The Artsakh proto-state capitulated on September 28 and its page accordingly describes its existence in past tense. If a peace treaty is concluded down the line, we could move the end date up to there. But holding the conflict "open" until that point, which may or may not ever come, would violate CRYSTAL. PrimaPrime (talk) 01:58, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Republic of Artsakh is not the same as the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Two articles, two subjects.
  2. Political status of Nagorno-Karabakh is not the same as the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Two articles, two subjects.
  3. There have been multiple rounds in the conflict (eg: First Nagorno-Karabakh War, Second Nagorno-Karabakh War, Blockade of Nagorno-Karabakh, 2023 Azerbaijani offensive in Nagorno-Karabakh). The end of the current round of fighting does not mean the conflict is over, news reports bear this out (see above), just as it was not over in the past when fighting stopped.
  4. Sources have been provided showing this is still ongoing, both politically and in the ongoing ethnic cleansing.
 // Timothy :: talk  03:16, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your sources are about the aftermath of the conflict, not the conflict itself. Death Editor 2 (talk) 03:21, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Political disputes over borders and refugees between Armenia and Azerbaijan may persist, and another war could break out between them - but not over Nagorno-Karabakh. There the dispute was between Artsakh and Azerbaijan. Artsakh no longer exists and all of Nagorno-Karabakh is under the undisputed control of Azerbaijan. Sources and consensus reflect this - there are six or seven other editors who have weighed in against you now. Sorry you just don't like it. PrimaPrime (talk) 04:14, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Because of the problems in this CTopics article, and that this issue is covered by three different ARB restrictions (e-e, a-a, infoboxes), no changes should be made on this issue without a consensus and consensus should be determined/confirmed by a neutral non-involved experienced editor through a formal request for closure process. If an editor feels that a clear consensus has been reached, a request should be made, including a note about this talk page discussion and the related ANIs.  // Timothy :: talk  19:34, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I believe that the date span should remain as "present" for the time being. To set a date would imply issues such as the rights of the refugees do not exist, and also ignores the Republic of Artsakh politicians recently declaring their intention to become a government in exile. These sentiments were echoed by Laurence Boers, one of the leading commentators on the conflict, in a recent article: "What remains doubtful, however, is whether a cause [...] will simply disappear. Reports that Shahramanyan subsequently annulled the decree dissolving the NKR are an early indication that the republic will not go quietly".[9] KhndzorUtogh (talk) 01:02, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MarcusTraianus, as TimothyBlue already pointed out before you reverted them, there needs to be a consensus backed up by reliable sources before changing the date. The changes you made appear to be based on WP:OR. For example, you edited that the Armenia–Azerbaijan border crisis was over despite Azerbaijan still occupying territories in Armenia. This is why changes need to be based on what reliable sources state, not by what you believe to be correct, as with the entire conflict being over or not. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 01:07, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, how conflict is ongoing? Republic is dissolved, army is non-existent, and population has fled. Sources are more than reliable. MarcusTraianus (talk) 01:14, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the entire population being ethnically cleansed is a source of conflict? And this is not copyediting, especially when the analysts predictions are exactly what happened to Armenians such as Vicken Euljekjian. --KhndzorUtogh (talk) 01:17, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, there is article about it, and it's called Flight of Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians. Predictions are pointless, because they describe what happened in the past. It is better to describe Vicken Euljekjian case then. MarcusTraianus (talk) 01:19, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The conflict being over is itself a prediction of yours, contradicted by reliable sources like Boers. --KhndzorUtogh (talk) 22:49, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MarcusTraianus: You have still yet to provide a reliable source for the conflict being over, while on the contrary there are sources stating it is not.[10][11] --KhndzorUtogh (talk) 22:59, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By most standards the conflict is over, Azerbaijan's flag sadly flags high above the region, they ethnically cleansed most of the Armenians from Nagorno-Karabakh, and there is no force within the Nagorno-Karabakh that can oppose Azerbaijan in any meaningful way. Death Editor 2 (talk) 23:08, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is original research WP:OR. Please provide a citation for the conflict being over. --KhndzorUtogh (talk) 00:02, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is it original research to say that Azerbaijan brutally conquered the remainer of Nagorno-Karabakh in September 2023? Is it original research to say that the Armenians were ethnically cleansed from the region in 2023? Is it original research to say that the Artsakh Defence Army was disbanded in 2023? It's saddening to say it but it's the truth man, Azerbaijan won. Death Editor 2 (talk) 01:30, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. (WP:SYNTH) --KhndzorUtogh (talk) 00:03, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it should affect the end date if Artsakhi government officials form a government in exile. That an illegitimate entity no longer controls its territory but keeps claiming doesn't really matter in the real world and politics in my opinion. I still hold the stance that a final Armenian-Azerbaijani peace treaty should mark the end of the conflict. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 17:59, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But Artsakh wasn't claimed by Armenia, and wasn't recognized by it too. Armenia and Azerbaijan aren't in the state of war, so no peace treaty possible. Although border conflict persists and it is where talks will be possible. MarcusTraianus (talk) 18:04, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Azerbaijan official names ‘main direction’ of peace treaty talks with Armenia. These are the terms they themselves are using. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 19:20, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty clear the conflict is over, I think the discussion should be whether to have the end date be in September 2023, January 2024, or something in between. Yeoutie (talk) 16:18, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Super Dromaeosaurus. Until there is a final settlement, not only can it not be determined whether it’s really over, but it would WP:CRYSTAL to say that the disputes won’t continue.
For instance, in my personal view, further incursions deeper into Armenia’s internationally recognized borders could be on the cards if Armenia abandons the CSTO. In fact, any number of events could hypothetically cause us to fold a limited-scope NK conflict article into a wider Armenia–Azerbaijan conflict article.
But this is all hypothetical and, obviously, purely to demonstrate that saying “it’s over” is CRYSTAL.
RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 20:14, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The conflict is over. There are no border skirmishes, Armenia and Azerbaijan are close to signing a peace agreement, made an exchange of military detainees, the separatist entity dissolved itself, Armenia recognized Karabakh as part of Azerbaijan. I see no reason why this conflict should be considered ongoing. Grandmaster 09:27, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Armenia is still occupying eight villages in Azerbaijan (I had mentioned this above, and I recently checked, they're not in Karabakh but in the north, except that one in Nakhchivan). Azerbaijan is also still occupying Armenian territory including at least one village. And the issue of the Zangezur corridor is not settled yet [12]. We're on the very final part of the conflict, but with both countries still occupying each others' land and negotiating peace terms, can we really say the conflict is totally over? I don't believe so. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 23:24, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a new source for the conflict not being over ("Many issues are still unresolved in this long-running conflict"). KhndzorUtogh (talk) 23:28, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

it brings me absolutely no joy to say or even think about it but it's over. The conflict is over, there might be another war between Armenia and Azerbaijan but the NK conflict is finished with a total victory for Azerbaijan. Death Editor 2 (talk) 00:01, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sources and history do not agree with you.  // Timothy :: talk  04:43, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unless Armenia launches an invasion of NK (a highly unlikely event) the conflict is OVER. Your sources do not claim what you say they claim, there is no military force that can oppose Azerbaijan in NK, and the Armenian population was ethnically cleansed. the conflict is over, why can't you admit it? Death Editor 2 (talk) 04:46, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Death Editor 2, it has been over 20 days since I first asked you to provide a source, please do so or, respectfully, just let this go. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 22:46, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The conflict isn't over because of what? A powerless government in exile? Non-existent Armenians still living in Nagorno-Karabakh? Again it brings me no joy to say but it's over. Death Editor 2 (talk) 22:58, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The source used for the end of the conflict is this article by Kommersant from September 2023 which reported about the decree for the dissolution of the republic. It does not say anything about the end of the conflict. This looks like WP:OR. Mellk (talk) 21:43, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. My opinion: the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is over but the Armenia–Azerbaijan border conflict is still ongoing. It would be a good idea to disassociate the two. Parishan (talk) 02:26, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are border clashes between Armenia and Azerbaijan because they are or have been before in a state of war over Nagorno-Karabakh, First Nagorno-Karabakh War includes the occupation of each other's enclaves and of four Azerbaijani villages in Qazax District, we include Armenia–Azerbaijan border crisis in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict as you can see from the templates and links in the article, the upcoming Armenian-Azerbaijani peace treaty will include topics related both to Nagorno-Karabakh and to the border conflicts and the border conflicts are anyway much more minor in comparison and anyway related to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and don't warrant an article of their own. I think the case is very strong for associating them. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 10:45, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is that during the First Karabakh War, Nagorno-Karabakh was the primary issue and the border villages were a by-product of that conflict. Now the border is the primary issue and Nagorno-Karabakh is not even in the picture. Parishan (talk) 14:10, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So as you say, a by-product of the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh remains. I see no problem with covering it as well here. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 18:33, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but when a by-product spins off into a conflict on its own, it is no longer the same conflict. My point is that it is misleading to call it "Nagorno-Karabakh conflict" if no part of it is taking place in Nagorno-Karabakh and no part of it is even about Nagorno-Karabakh. Parishan (talk) 15:05, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Turkey as a direct belligerent in the infobox?[edit]

I have personally always been skeptical of keeping Turkey in the Second Nagorno-Karabakh War infobox given that the only state to allege Turkish involvement has been Armenia, and even then the claim only extends as far as a one alleged, unconfirmed F-16 strike on an Armenian aircraft, but adding Turkey to the infobox of the broader Karabakh conflict as a directly involved party seems like a big stretch.

Even with the "(2020)" and "(alleged by Armenia)" parentheses doesn't seem reasonable, especially given that the Soviet Union has been listed as a direct belligerent and did in fact, have confirmed direct involvement in the conflict including troops on the ground. Including Turkey along with the Soviet Union gives the wrong impression about the military involvement of the two states in the conflict as if their participation was in any way on an equal footing. I feel it is far more objective to keep Turkey in the support section and removing them as a direct participant altogether given that only Armenian government has alleged their involvement in the 2020 war and that even the participation that has been alleged is objectively miniscule compared to that of the Soviet Union. I am talking about this article specifically and the broader conflict, the question of Turkey in the 2020 war info box is a separate story. - Creffel (talk) 09:10, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Turkey was never directly involved. It supplied weapons to Azerbaijan, and trained Azerbaijani military personnel, but had no boots on the ground. Mentioning Turkey as a belligerent, even as "claimed by Armenia", is inaccurate. The inforbox should only mention undisputed facts, or things most reliable sources agree on. Grandmaster 09:22, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. On the contrary, I do not understand why the infobox says "alleged by Armenia" when Kommersant has no affiliation with Armenia. Erdogan has since personally stated that Turkey was a belligerent, comparing Turkey's involvement with its role in the Libyan civil war (2014–2020). There is an American source for Turkish troops on the ground too. And even an Azerbaijani general admitted Turkish leadership had more authority during the war. If Armenia, Azerbaijan, Russia, America, and even Turkey all now confirm Turkish military involvement, who is still disputing it? --KhndzorUtogh (talk) 22:37, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's go over your sources one by one, bearing in mind that as per WP:EXTRAORDINARY, "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources."
1. You are quoting Kommersant, a newspaper founded by Alisher Usmanov, a "pro-Kremlin oligarch".
2. You are quoting a tweet in which Erdogan did not say anything about direct military involvement. Can easily be interpreted as a supporting party and a weapons supplier rather than a directly involved one.
3. You are quoting a fringe American source without ties to the U.S. government, that was founded by a neocon.
4. You are quoting Najmeddin Sadikov, a former Azerbaijani commander who disappeared during the 2020 war and by all accounts did not take part in the war.
As for your claim that "Armenia, Azerbaijan, Russia, America, and even Turkey all now confirm", even if we pretend like the sources you quoted are indeed reliable, the content of these sources does not provide sufficient detailed information about how Turkey was directly involved in the war either.
Like I said, I have always been skeptical about keeping Turkey in the 2020 war infobox, but I sort of ignored it given it pertains to one specific section of the war. However, including Turkey in the infobox of a broader conflict just seems like an unreasonably massive leap, as per my reasoning in my original comment.
- Creffel (talk) 07:20, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This excessive nitpicking could be done for any news source. An RSN discussion for Kommersant just recently concluded and reaffirmed it to be a reliable newspaper, they only concerns were only for "wars conducted by Russia". Kommersant is a neutral party to this conflict however. This again raises the issue of why "alleged by Armenia" is attributed to a source that has nothing to do with Armenia. National Interest is also a third party, and previous discussions have only been about the reliability of the source's blog, while this is a featured news article. --KhndzorUtogh (talk) 22:56, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@KhndzorUtogh stop talking retard he cooked your ass 188.119.36.101 (talk) 01:40, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Kucera, J. (2023), Despite The Warm Welcome, Karabakh Refugees In Armenia Are Struggling, Unsure Where To Go Next, retrieved 23 December 2023
  2. ^ Armenia and Azerbaijan to work towards peace deal, 2023, retrieved 23 December 2023
  3. ^ Karabakh ex-official: Presidential decree to dissolve Artsakh should be cancelled, 2023, retrieved 23 December 2023
  4. ^ Artsakh Dissolution Decree Annulled – Asbarez.com, retrieved 23 December 2023
  5. ^ Nagorno-Karabakh Separatist Leader Says Dissolution Decree Not Valid, retrieved 23 December 2023
  6. ^ Perspectives, retrieved 23 December 2023 {{citation}}: Text "Azerbaijani regime rushes to cement legitimacy as internal tensions brew" ignored (help); Text "Eurasianet" ignored (help)

Title Image[edit]

I porpose to add Photo motage (multiple images) similar to other major war related articles that represents both sides and multiple situations. Current single image on top only represents the Armenian side and it is also low resolution image.Nafis Fuad Ayon (talk) 07:58, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your collage isn't neutral. You didn't include any images of Armenians being massacred or Azeri pogroms in First Karabakh war Sumgait Pogrom, Baku Pogrom, Operation Ring, or any of the Azeri bombardments during First and Second wars Siege of Stepanakert, 2020 bombardment of Stepanakert, etc. I have restored the stable map which was the infobox longstanding image prior to changes. Vanezi (talk) 21:37, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MarcusTraianus as I already said above, the current collage is not neutral. And there is no rule in Wikipedia that says every article picture should be treated the same way even if we're assuming the conflict is over like you stated in your edit summary [13], despite the talk discussion here saying otherwise [14]. Also you've restored the surrounding territories wikilink in the infobox with no explanation, that's redundant as I explained here [15]. Vanezi (talk) 13:05, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanezi Astghik, I never said or insisted that current collage is neutral. You can change it freely. Considering how long and multisided conlflict was, collage must stay to represent the conflict. The content of it? Can be changed. Even completely. MarcusTraianus (talk) 13:48, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"I never said or insisted that current collage is neutral" - ok, so you don't deny that it violates WP:NPOV, yet you're restoring it based on no wiki policy and not addressing the npov? In Wikipedia, we follow rules, not personal preferences. And yet again I have to repeat that there is no rule saying all the conflict articles infobox images should be a collage, that's not a thing. And bringing up other conflicts such as world war 1 to draw some sort of "infobox comparisons" also isn't a rule, especially when unlike world war 1, many users here disagree that this conflict is over [16].
But there is a rule called WP:NPOV and the current infobox image violates it. Vanezi (talk) 15:09, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In general, I would say it is best to discuss what images a collage should consist of before it is included in the article. Mellk (talk) 15:12, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mellk I agree because the current collage violates NPOV; there is not a single image of Armenians being massacred or Azeri pogroms in First Karabakh war Sumgait Pogrom, Baku Pogrom, Operation Ring, or any of the Azeri bombardments during First and Second wars Siege of Stepanakert, 2020 bombardment of Stepanakert. Also the conflict isn't comparable to world war 1 infobox as many users disagree that this conflict ended [17], unlike world war 1. The stable infobox image should be restored, and that was the long standing map.
WP:ONUS also applies too as stated by user TimothyBlue when they reverted the collage [18] - @TimothyBlue could you self revert this to the stable version per all of the above? Vanezi (talk) 16:08, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Based on my experience I tried my best to represents both sides and multiple situations from the images available in Wikipedia. At least better than the previous low quality image that represents only Artsakh fighters.Nafis Fuad Ayon (talk) 17:29, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, I understand while a war is ongoing there is normally a map but now thats it’s over(?) I think we could put some pictures. LuxembourgLover (talk) 15:46, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on instability:

Regarding the stable version of the infobox:

  • This 14 January version [19] appears to be the version before the current changes started. It has a single image.
  • This 31 December 2023 version [20] show the map.
  • This 12 November 2023 version [21] also shows the map

I believe the stable version is the version with the map, so I have restored this version. It took two edits to find the stable version, [22], [23], but this is a two step single edit and I do not believe it vios 1RR.

Regarding the current situation:

  • 15 January 2024: Montage was objected to by @Archives908: and reverted [25]
  • 15 January 2024: Montage was restored without consensus or discussion by @Nafis Fuad Ayon: [26], 1RR vio, disregards ONUS and CONSENSUS.
  • 15 January 2024: Above 1RR vio reverted by TimothyBlue [27]
Situation abated until 3 February 2024
  • 3 February 2024
  • 3 February 2024 re: [28] why did you decide to remove the image rather than correct the caption, especially without discussion? You did not include this in your version with multiple images.
  • 3 February 2024: Montage was restored [29] without consensus in discussion by Nafis Fuad Ayon.
  • 3 February 2024: Montage was rv [30] by @Vanezi Astghik: and replaced with one that has no images but a map.
  • 5 February 2024: Single image was rv back to map [32] by Vanezi Astghik
  • 5 Febuary 2024: Image restored back to map by TimothyBlue (see above) in two steps [33], [34]

Until there is consensus about changing the infobox, further changes should not be made, especially by Vanezi Astghik or Nafis Fuad Ayon.  // Timothy :: talk  17:20, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment on title image: I think the multiple images version proposed by @Nafis Fuad Ayon: is better than the map, however the choice of the images needed to be determined by consensus.
@Vanezi Astghik: You objected to the montage.
  1. Why do you think the map is better than a montage?
  2. If there is a consensus to change to a montage, what changes would you make to the individual images and why do your proposed images satisfy your belief there is an NPOV issue?
  • An uninvolved neutral experienced editor should determine consensus on this discussion.  // Timothy :: talk  17:34, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @TimothyBlue, I agree that current montage/collage might be NPOV and needed to be changed. But collage must stay. Can you work on images? I want to stay neutral on this article and doubtfully will create non–biased image montage. MarcusTraianus (talk) 17:42, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @TimothyBlue As I already said, the collage was not WP:NPOV as it didn't havea single image of Armenians being massacred or Azeri pogroms in First Karabakh war Sumgait Pogrom, Baku Pogrom, Operation Ring, or any of the Azeri bombardments during First and Second wars Siege of Stepanakert, 2020 bombardment of Stepanakert. While it had massacre/bombardment for Azerbaijan. This isn't NPOV to only show one side of the conflict.
    I think it might be better to just show images of main conflict events instead (like First/Second Karabakh wars, etc). Vanezi (talk) 17:47, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Vanezi Astghik, as it was an ethnic conflict, not just an armed one, I think the social/humanitarian side of it must be depicted too. But again, right images must be chosen. MarcusTraianus (talk) 17:51, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Since this is visual, I created a sandbox page with the montage as proposed by Nafis Fuad Ayon so it is easy to see and make suggestions based on. Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh conflict/sandbox  // Timothy :: talk  18:05, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Timothy, User:TimothyBlue As nobody propopose any change of the montage may I add this again ?Nafis Fuad Ayon (talk) 04:20, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think we should change the map since there is no consensus that the conflict is over and many users disagree that it is [35]. And there is no policy either saying we must have a collage even if the conflict was over. Regardless, you version of the collage isn't WP:NPOV as explained many times above, so I added my version of the collage in sandbox with all the larger relevant events - but as I said, I don't think we need to change the map. Vanezi (talk) 16:19, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The map is incomplete as it does not have the colors red and green even after mentioned in the map legend. New version of the montage is better than the map. I have added images from my version and your version and some new images to make it better and neutral.Nafis Fuad Ayon (talk) 09:53, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    First of all your collage wasn't suggested anywhere, you just added because of preference and no consensus. And secondly, the discussion just above this doesn't agree that the conflict is over, so why are you adding a collage to an ongoing conflict when those usually have maps? The stable map is more suited to this article and it was in the article long before. If we're adding a collage and the conflict is later agreed to be over, I will prefer my WP:NPOV suggestion here - but this isn't the case currently as there is rough consensus that the conflict isn't over. Vanezi (talk) 10:00, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have suggested my image montage in this talk section. Why are you making the thing complicated? I really don't understand how the conflict is not over even when the article added the conclusion, most Armenians left, Azerbaizan has the full control. I am just trying to make the article better. Why nobody object including you when there were only one low quality image of the Artsakh Army that changed the map before?Nafis Fuad Ayon (talk) 10:16, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This wasn't suggested anywhere, and I personally will only agree to the NPOV version I suggested here if we ever change the map [36] - your one and only suggested collage (which is also in the same sandbox) wasn't neutral. But all of this doesn't matter because we have consensus that the conflict isn't over, whether you don't "understand" it or not it won't change the discussion consensus above, and the stable map should remain therefore. Vanezi (talk) 10:28, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I personally support my latest montage. I will update this to suggestion.Nafis Fuad Ayon (talk) 10:48, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Territorial changes.[edit]

I propose to change the result from "Azerbaijan regained control over the territories of Artsakh" to " Azerbaijan regained control over the territories of Artsakh and Armenian-occupied territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh". Artsakh and Armanian military also controlled 7 occupied districts surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh bofore the Second Nagorno-Karabakh War. Nafis Fuad Ayon (talk) 07:41, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is redundant and needless in context of whole NK conflict (which this article is) as these territories were controlled by Artsakh till 2020 and it already says Artsakh in that infobox line. Vanezi (talk) 07:55, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Azerbaijan regained control over all of Nagorno-Karabakh" is the best option here: (1) Article name is Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. (2) The territory known as Nagorno-Karabakh not as Artsakh. (3) Artsakh not recognized by any UN member. (4) Not only Artsakh defense army but also Armanian military presented in the region and also control the Nagorno-Karabakh Line of Contact until the end of 2020 war. Nafis Fuad Ayon (talk) 06:06, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What are the criteria to declare the conflict is over (specially in talk page)?[edit]

What are the criteria to declare the conflict is over (specially in talk page)? There is contradectory as the discussion above doesn't agree that the conflict is over. On the other hand the article already declared the conflict is over. My personal opinion is the conflict is over as Artsakh dissolved on 1 January 2024. There is also no possibility that Armenia is going to start any offsenive to take the Nagorno-Karabakh (internationally recognized Azerbaijan territory) as most ethnic Armenians left the territory. Worth to mention that Armenia–Azerbaijan border crisis is no longer part of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Another editor even pervent me from adding an image montage (already updated) because of that discussion. When editors in the take page can agree the the conflict is over? Will it remain unresolved forever if some oppose it? Maybe a poll can solve it? Nafis Fuad Ayon (talk) 07:35, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please add your opinion: User:Vanezi,User:Beshogur, User:Brandmeister,User:NocheLluviosa,User:ChaotıċEnby,User:Death Editor 2,User:Super Dromaeosaurus,User:Timothy, User:Nizzamiro, User:PrimaPrime,User:KhndzorUtogh,User:MarcusTraianus, User:KhndzorUtogh,User:Yeoutie, User:RadioactiveBoulevardier,User:Grand,User:Mellk. Nafis Fuad Ayon (talk) 07:58, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You've tried to change the stable map despite the rough consensus that the conflict isn't over. You've now changed the map to another map despite the previous one being the stable long-standing one which is the consensus version. You're now trying to re-open a discussion for same topic that was literally discussed above. It is problematic behavior to act like this and try to re-open another discussion for something that was already discussed extensively by the same users you've pinged; you'll be reported if you don't stop this kind of behavior. Vanezi (talk) 10:21, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

End of the Conflict?[edit]

the conflict is of course not over, thousands of people fled Nagorno-Karabakh, they lost their homes, there are much legal issues, Armenia never accepted that Nagorno is part of Azerbaijan, also no country in the world accepts the fact that the Armenians of Nagorno have been pushed out of their homes. How is the conflict over? 93.109.143.78 (talk) 22:43, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh_conflict&oldid=1221775567"