Talk:Second Nagorno-Karabakh War

RfC on inclusion of Syrian mercenaries in infobox

The RfC is whether to retain or remove Syrian mercenaries from the belligerents section of the infobox. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:58, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

See #Belligerents for preceeding discussion.

MilHist notified. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:01, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• Case for removal Per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, the infobox is to summarise key facts from the article and is a supplement to the lead. We are advised that less is better and we shouldn't try to write the article in the infobox. Per the template doc, in an international conflict, the beligerent section is for the nations that participated in the conflict. An exception might include smaller groups if it improves reader understanding. The spirit and intent of the doc is that such inclusion would be exceptional.

Discussions here and elsewhere (eg Russian invasion of Ukraine) affirms that we don't add nationals from various countries that have volunteered their services under this heading. The same reasonably applies to guns for hire. The mercenaries were reportedly provided by Turkey and, if anything, they are part of Turkey's alleged involvement. Consequently, they do not represent a separate belligerent to be represented as such in the infobox. Their inclusion can be seen as detail, which is not what the infobox is for.

The body of the article makes quite limited mention of the mercenaries (that they accounted for 541 deaths out of 7,630 Azerbaijani soldiers). They are mentioned in two sentences in the section on military tactics attributed to a single source. Two other passing mentions relate to them being supplied by Turkey. The body of the article does not appear to establish that they are not of themself key or significant to the conflict. They are not mentioned in the lead. On the otherhand, the article very clearly establishes the significance of Turkey to the conflict.

There is also an issue with (mis)representing the mercenaries under the flag of the Syrian opposition rather than being guns for hire with an allegiance bought and paid for.

There is a strong P&G based argument for their removal from the infobox. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:58, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

How come Syrian National Army being presented as Syrian mercenaries. Not going to vote here, whatsoever. But shouldn't be linked to Syrian National Army and shouldn't have the Syrian revolutionary flag if they're mercenaries. If they're the SNA, shouldn't be called mercenaries. Beshogur (talk) 06:54, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Agree, noting that sources refer to them as Syrian mercenaries. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:46, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

• Yeah, I think it would make sense. For the avoidance of doubt, they definitely should be mentioned elsewhere in the infobox, for example in Units involved section. Alaexis_¿question? 15:30, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
• Support. I agree that belligerents should only include state actors. Non-state actors could be mentioned, if needed, in other sections, for example, in Units involved, as suggested above. Grandmaster 15:51, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• Comment. If the Syrian mercenaries are to be removed from belligerents, then it should be on the condition of Turkey being listed as a full belligerent. There are a great amount of sources confirming Turkish involvement, including providing the mercenaries. Erdogan has openly admitted Turkey was involved and compared NK to other wars that Turkey’s involvement is not questioned.[1][2][3][4][5] And the Syrian mercenaries should remain under units, as has already been suggested. Vanezi (talk) 18:39, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

  Turkey was definitely involved, but I think that we need stronger sources to include it as a belligerent. A few years have passed already so we should try to use sources that are more reliable than newspaper article. Note that the Nordic Monitor doesn't state it as fact that Turkey participated in the war but rather quotes Erdogan who might have his own reasons to play up the role of Turkey. Alaexis_¿question? 20:43, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

  @Alaexis Academic peer reviewed source on top of what I have posted already:

  • Calcara, Antonio; Gilli, Andrea; Gilli, Mauro; Marchetti, Raffaele; Zaccagnini, Ivan. Why Drones Have Not Revolutionized War: The Enduring Hider-Finder Competition in Air Warfare International Security. 46 (4): 130–171. "Turkish support included the provision of drones, electronic warfare units, aircraft for target acquisition, long-range artillery, skilled Turkish troops that operated these platforms, and the transportation of Syrian fighters to the theater of operation for ground combat."

  And another source:

  • Simon Ostrovsky. How Azerbaijan Won the Karabakh War New Lines Magazine. "Ankara, which has been waging war in Syria for years, sent experienced military advisors to direct Baku’s war machine"

  Do you now agree that if mercenaries are to be removed from infobox, it should be on the condition of Turkey being listed as a full belligerent? Vanezi (talk) 18:21, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks! Note that they still don't call Turkey a party to the conflict or a belligerent. I think that the Turkish support was important and would support mentioning it in the infobox if there is a good way to do it. Alaexis_¿question? 21:19, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

  @Alaexis Turkey's mercenaries make it belligerent. The western mainstream sources state without ambiguity that these are Turkey's mercenaries, despite Turkey and Azerbaijan denying they even exist. The mercenaries have even been confirmed to have travelled on Turkish military transport aircraft

  American thinktank source states Turkish warfare in Nagorno-Karabakh is a weird mixture of tactics. On the one hand, Turkey sent in thousands of Syrian mercenaries whose salaries it pays. Most of them participated in the Syrian uprising against Assad’s regime over the previous decade under Islamic, mostly jihadi, organizations. Some may still hold on to their Salafi beliefs but have since become soldiers of fortune, fighting for the highest bidder. Some of them are fighting for Turkey in Syria; others were sent to Libya, and the rest are doing Turkey’s work in Nagorno-Karabakh.

  Turkey should not only be listed beyond doubt as a belligerent if the Syrian mercenaries are not being considered one of their own, the infobox is also very outdated in claiming Turkish involvement is only alleged and by just Armenia. This does not accurately reflect what the sources have written. Vanezi (talk) 05:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

  To list Turkey as a belligerent, it should be demonstrated that it is generally accepted to consider it a belligerent. So far the majority of reliable sources say that Turkey provided support to Azerbaijan. A few sources making the claim is not enough, and Erdogan is a primary source. We cannot make interpretations of primary sources. Most reliable sources reporting his speech mentioned that Turkey provided support. That includes the Reuters report that you quoted. Grandmaster 09:27, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose There is no reason to remove Syrian mercenaries from the list of belligerants, especially if they made a contribution to the Azerbaijani side (which it seems that they have). The 541 deaths out of 7,630 deaths number, assuming this is true, is still a significant number of soldiers. The difference between nationals from different countries and the Syrian mercenaries is that the nationals from different countries were not significantly separated from the Ukrainian military apparatus, while the Syrian mercenaries were. Not to mention that there is support by the SNA leadership for the Turkish and Azerbaijani governments, not just the mercenaries.

The discussion on the Russian invasion of Ukraine article doesn't necessarily apply to other conflicts, as there's a lot of articles where non-state actors are added to the beligerant infobox, such as the American Revolutionary War, the First Chechen War, the Second Chechen War, and even the First Nagorno-Karabakh war. Not a whole lot is said about the Chickasaw regarding the American Revolutionary war, and yet they are listed in the belligerants section.

Also, it doesn't really matter that the SNA is a "part of Turkey's involvement". Because if it did, then they wouldn't be listed as a separate entity on the pages for the Syrian civil war and the 2024 Syrian opposition offensives (listed as the Syrian Interim Government). Can I has Cheezburger? (talk) 15:31, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

• Comment There is far far too much detail in this infobox for the average war article that should be in the main article. scope_creep^Talk 12:12, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

  Agree. But this is one of several points. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:47, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

• Support. I agree that it is preferable to limit the belligerents to state actors, provided their direct involvement (physical presence in battles) is an established fact. We have no evidence that the SNA leadership (which is not a state actor, at least not in 2020) voiced support for Azerbaijan. Even if their troops were involved in the battles (a claim that, four years after the war, remains speculative and is consistently framed with terms like "allegedly" or "presumably") this contribution does not make them a belligerent in this respect. North Korea, a state actor, has made its support for Russia in the Russian invasion of Ukraine unmistakably clear and has reportedly sent regular troops to participate in combat. Yet, we do not consider North Korea a belligerent in the corresponding article. Parishan (talk) 14:03, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE

This is a such a weak excuse.

This has nothing to do with this, and it doesn't even violate this.

This oversimplification is misleading.

• Nagorno-Karabakh and surrounding Armenian-occupied territories, Armenia–Azerbaijan border

that's were the battles took place, not only in Nagorno-Karabakh.

Azerbaijan gains control of 73% of disputed territory

This is even worse. The supposed "disputed territory" is Nagorno-Karabakh right? Not gonna argue that it's de jure Azerbaijan or not, most of the fighting and capture of the territory took place outisde of the "disputed territory", which is basically misleading people.

@Cinderella157:. Beshogur (talk) 06:46, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

@Cinderella157: give answers instead of reporting me falsely of 1RR. Beshogur (talk) 11:10, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Also I don't even know where you came with the 73%. In total, Azerbaijan regained control of 73% of the disputed territory, including the territory captured in Nagorno-Karabakh. while the source says: Noyabrın 10-da imzalanmış üçtərəfli bəyanata uyğun olaraq, Ağdam rayonu Azərbaycana təhvil verilib. Bununla da rayonun işğal edilmiş 73 faiz ərazisi azad olunub. which literally says something like "73% occupied part of Aghdam District got liberated". Beshogur (talk) 11:52, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

The war is centred on Nagorno-Karabakh. The infobox map details the locations. In the presence of the map, further details on the location are redundant.

The territorial changes to be reported in the infobox are what happened at the end of the day when the dust settled (ie after the ceasefire). The distinction between pre and post the ceasefire is nuance/detail for which the infobox is unsuited. How many cities/towns/villages changed hands is definitely detail and not an established criterion for measuring territorial changes (ie area). Indeed, it is not a measure of territory per se. The disputed territory is not just Nagorno-Karabakh but territory that changed hands in the first war. Again, this is indicated by the lead image map. There is a section in the article for Territorial changes. The key take-away from that is the proportion of territory that changed hands. The proportion is consistent with the map which also shows where this occurred. Writing detail of where this occurred is redundant in the presence of the map and omitting the key take-away (the proportion) is a significant omission.

Per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, the infobox is not the place for detail or nuance. That is better dealt with in prose. We don't try to write the article in the infobox. Less is better. There is nothing misleading about the information you reverted.

You would now dispute what the source reporting the 73% states:

Noyabrın 10-da Azərbaycan Prezidenti, Ermənistanın baş naziri və Rusiya Prezidenti münaqişə zonasında atəşin və bütün hərbi əməliyyatların tam dayandırılması barədə bəyanat imzalayıblar. Bəyanata əsasən 2020-ci il dekabrın 1-dək Kəlbəcər, Ağdam və Laçın rayonları Azərbaycana qaytarılmalıdır.

Bəyanata uyğun olaraq, noyabrın 20-də Ağdam rayonu Azərbaycana təhvil verilib.

Bununla da rayonun işğal edilmiş 73 faiz ərazisi, o cümlədən Ağdam şəhəri azad olunub.

The text is written in three paragraphs. The first para is defining districts in the occupied region impacted by the ceasefire anf handovers. The second tells us when the Aghdam district was handed over. The third tells us the proportion of the occupied (disputed) territory that were handed over (including the city of Aghdam). Visually (from the map), the area recovered by Azerbaijan is between two-thirds and three-quaters of the pre-war disputed area and is consistent with the 73% figure. The pre-war area of Aghdam in dispute was 77%.[6] While WP is not a source, it tends to support the 73% being the total proportion of the area gained.

Perhaps the source is ambiguous and your interpretation is correct. However, this source reports that 72.4% of the disputed area was gained by Azerbaijan, which is essentially the same. We can amend the source in the body of the article. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:48, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

I think we should make a distinction between the territory of the former NKAO, and the 7 districts surrounding the Karabakh region. The latter had no Armenian population, and was recognized as occupied territory by the UNSC. Also, the source in Azerbaijani says that Azerbaijan returned 73% of the Aghdam district. Grandmaster 10:41, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Azerbaijan is between two-thirds and three-quaters of the pre-war disputed area and is consistent with the 73% figure. The pre-war area of Aghdam in dispute was 77%.[13] While WP is not a source, it tends to support the 73% being the total proportion of the area gained that's only your assumption. The 73% comes from the Azerbaijani ministry, which is most likely correct. There is not much difference between both numbers 4%. Also what do they consider occupied? It was full of no mans land in between. As Grandmaster told, it's about Aghdam, so you're wrong here. Beshogur (talk) 11:29, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

You're doing it again. Changing to Republic of Artsakh, doesn't change anything. It's not even a legal territory. You probably don't even want to admit that Karabakh is a territory of Azerbaijan. Also nice blogpost source btw, making everything more vague. Beshogur (talk) 12:42, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

The 2020 war occurred in the Republic of Artsakh, which *included* most of the surrounding occupied territories and Nagorno-Karabakh. There is nothing controversial about this. Vanezi (talk) 05:47, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Not according to the international law. Legally those territories are part of Azerbaijan, and we should mind WP:NPOV. Grandmaster 10:27, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Ok, we should change the lead to The Second Nagorno-Karabakh War was an armed conflict in 2020 that took place in the Republic of Artsakh. Beshogur (talk) 11:40, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I think this should also be put to vote, rather than changed unilaterally by a single user. Grandmaster 09:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

@Grandmaster: There are many errors in this user's edits here. This user says Azerbaijan took 72% of the disputed region. Supposedly the disputed region is Nagorno-Karabakh, not the Armenian occupied territories. This user's version is going away more and more from Armenian occupation thing. Soon I wonder this article claims there was no occupation at all. I like how it's even removed from the lead only called the occupied territories. Occupied by whom? Aliens? Beshogur (talk) 12:51, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

That is why I think the infobox content should be discussed and agreed at talk first. Unilateral changes are not good, Wikipedia works by consensus. Indeed, the Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh cannot be a location. Location should be a particular geographic region, in this case Nagorno-Karabakh and surrounding districts. Grandmaster 14:32, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't think unilateral changes like this are appropriate in a contentious topic like this. Any changes to the crucial parts of the article need to be proposed and agreed at talk first. Unilateral changes against the consensus are not acceptable. I suggest we restore the stable version until a new consensus is reached. Grandmaster 10:17, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Dubious tag

Beshogur, you have tagged disputed territory in the territory section of the infobox with being dubious. The territory of the Republic of Artsakh at the start of the war is the locus of the dispute. It is the territory that has been disputed in the war. The infobox image (map) clearly establishes the boundary of the area that has been disputed in the war. Your post above (Occupied by whom? Aliens?) is an argument of Reductio ad absurdum. There is no reasonable reason to tag this as being dubious or even unclear. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:44, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

That's not true. Do you have enough information about the topic? The supposed "disputed territory" is Nagorno-Karabakh not Republic of Artsakh. The seven districts were considered Armenian occupied territories, and you're denying this. Not sure why.

Also my comment about occupied by whom is fair. Why doesn't even state the seven districts were Armenian occupied? Is that were we supposed to trim the article where there are lot of redundant text in the whole article? Beshogur (talk) 08:03, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Well well. Talk:Armenian-occupied territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh#Requested move 18 December 2024 Beshogur (talk) 08:11, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Regardless of whether the territories were considered Armenian occupied territories or at least nominally controlled by / part of the Republic of Artsakh, they are nonetheless the same disputed territory that is shown in the map. They include the Armenian-occupied territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh and Nagorno-Karabakh. There is nothing dubious or unclear about this. The lead is the place for nuance and detail. It states: The later 2023 Azerbaijani offensive in Nagorno-Karabakh would see the entirety of the disputed territory come under the control of Azerbaijan. This only serves to confirm that disputed territory, as used in the infobox is neither unclear nor dubious. Cinderella157 (talk) 13:44, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

The difference is that the 7 districts around Karabakh were never considered disputed by the international community. Neither was Karabakh legally disputed, btw, since 4 UNSC resolutions refer to NK as a region of Azerbaijan. But the 7 districts had the status of the occupied territory, per the same UNSC resolutions, and we have an article dedicated to it. Referring to an unrecognized entity as an area of conflict is the same as calling Donetsk People's Republic the area of the conflict in the Russian invasion of Ukraine. But you can see that the article about Ukraine does not mention any separatist entity as the conflict area, instead it refers to "Ukraine, western Russia, Black Sea". Russo-Georgian War does not mention Republic of South Ossetia as the area of conflict, it mentions Georgia. It is the same principle that applies here. Therefore, please refrain from making unilateral changes to the infobox. Grandmaster 15:46, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

"disputed territory"

One thing, Cinderella157 genuinely (?) thinks whole territory is "disputed". Personally I think there is no disputed territory, because it's between a non state (de jure) and state actor.

Yes people called it like that all the time. But the disputed territory is Nagorno-Karabakh. I'm putting a map in case Cinderella157 didn't know. Beshogur (talk) 16:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

If one side had it, then another side took it but the first side wants it back, there is a dispute over the territory that led to a war and the territory under dispute is the disputed territory. It is not rocket science. In the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Russia invaded Ukrainian controlled territory from multiple points. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:10, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

NKR had no internationally recognized borders. Its status would be the same as DNR/LNR in Ukraine, or South Ossetia and Abkhazia in Georgia. How can you put in the infobox the territory of an unrecognized entity with no fixed borders? That is not how its done in other articles about wars in post-Soviet area. It is not informative either, as we have articles about Nagorno-Karabakh and Armenian-occupied territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh which provide detailed information about the territories involved, and the area must point to the geographic location, or the country that legally owns the territory (as in Ukraine and Georgia related articles). And I don't see how Russia invading Ukraine from multiple points changes anything. Armenia also bombed Ganja and Barda far from the battle zone, plus there were border skirmishes too. And in case of Georgia, Russia occupied South Ossetia, i.e. invaded from a single point. Grandmaster 10:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

The territory had reasonably fixed borders. We know what the borders were in the opinion of every party, and what they were in reality, at both the start and the end of the war. It's really easy to put this in the infobox. CMD (talk) 10:10, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree. The original version of this article that was stable for years indicated for the location: Nagorno-Karabakh and surrounding Armenian-occupied territories, Armenia–Azerbaijan border. It pointed to a geographic location. Now it says: Republic of Artsakh. On top of everything mentioned above, it is not in line with WP:NPOV either. I think the original version was better. Grandmaster 10:35, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

We are talking about this edit: [7] Grandmaster 10:36, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I was looking only at "Territorial changes", not the |place parameter. In general it's probably a poor idea to send readers to Nagorno-Karabakh, a quite ill-defined article, but it's also true readers probably aren't super enlightened by seeing just Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh as a location and that is easily read as not NPOV. The infobox guidance, "place – the location of the conflict", is not very helpful. Splitting the NKOA and surrounding territories in terms of the war location seems not too important, as this did not affect either side's military operations, and only came up in the peace deal. I doubt there's a perfect wording, tempted to just suggest "Disputed republic in southwest Azerbaijan". CMD (talk) 10:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

The republic was never disputed, no one ever recognized it or claimed it as a political entity. It could be argued that the territory was, but not in a legal sense. The international community always recognized it as part of Azerbaijan. I think we need to follow the general practice here. I don't see any similar infobox mentioning unrecognized political entities. Also, the very first line of the article makes pretty clear what exactly the location was. Why not reflecting that in the infobox too? Alternatively, in line with your suggestion, "Southwest Azerbaijan" may also work. Grandmaster 11:10, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

We digress. The question here is whether the phrase disputed territory is dubious as tagged. The territory subject to the dispute is the disputed territory regardless of how one wishes to describe it. In this case, we have a map in the infobox that defines the disputed territory - we don't need words to try to capture this in detail. There is nothing dubious about calling the disputed territory disputed territory. Furthermore, this is how the body of the article describes it. Per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, the infobox summarises key facts from the article. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:17, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't think anyone on this talk page agrees with your edit. It lacks consensus. Grandmaster 14:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Saying "the republic was never disputed" is doing something very strange to the words in question, there have been multiple wars regarding its existence, it's very very hard for a dispute to be more real. CMD (talk) 16:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I mean the legal side of the matter. Republic had no recognition, even from Armenia. In legal terms, Karabakh has always been recognized as part of Azerbaijan, so it was not disputed in terms of the international law. The fight was over the territory. Which is why we need to indicate which particular territories the hostilities affected. And we can see that the articles about wars in Ukraine and Georgia do not mention any self-declared republics. So certain consistency would be good. Btw, strikes on Ganja and Barda were also part of the war, so geography was even larger than just Karabakh and surrounding areas. Grandmaster 17:56, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

It is a misconception that international law does not rule on individual state sovereignty in that way. There is no international law laying out the recognition of any area as part of Azerbaijan. The likely most relevant case, on Kosovo, concluded that declarations of independence were not illegal, but even that did not extend to anything specific regarding the legality of Kosovo. Recognition is a matter of politics, not law. I find it hard to take at face value the previous concerns about NPOV if my suggestion which leaned towards reinforcing the official Azerbaijani state viewpoint are taken as an excuse to move even further in that direction. CMD (talk) 03:12, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

If we leave aside the arguments about the legal aspects, the fact still remains that NKR was a de-facto state, with no political recognition from anyone, so I believe it would be wrong to refer to it in the infobox as a political entity, and not as a region. If you check other war articles, we don't do it even for statelets with partial recognition, such as Donetsk Republic or South Ossetia Republic. Plus, the 7 districts were never part of the region of Nagorno-Karabakh, even if NKR claimed them. I believe we need to show the distinction between the NK region and the occupied surrounding regions. In any case, we can add your suggestion to the RFC, and see if other users support it. Grandmaster 10:43, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

NKR as a de-facto state is a political entity. The definition you give, the former NKAO, is also political. Nobody has ever provided a definition of Nagorno-Karabakh as a geographical region. As noted before, the distinction between the former NKAO and surrounding territories did not play a part in the war. The entire area was fought over. The pre-war borders did not distinguish between the former NKAO and surrounding territories, the war fronts did not distinguish between the former NKAO and surrounding territory, and current borders do not distinguish the former NKAO and surrounding territory. The only expression they had was a brief use after this war, and even then it was only in some areas. There's no reason we should prominently highlight something that didn't really exist before, during, after the war, or even exist now as a reference. CMD (talk) 12:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

• Notified at MilHist. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:37, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  I started an RFC on the location. If anyone has other ideas for the location, they can include their suggestions in the RFC by adding a number to the list. Grandmaster 16:21, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 December 2024

Give proof that on the Azerbaijani side fought syrian mercenaries. Ut it should be clear proof, not based on stories 2003:EC:8F18:1301:8498:F52F:CDAA:5BD (talk) 20:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Current article is sourced to the BBC and Foreign Policy - change would require better sourcing. PianoDan (talk) 23:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

See RfC above. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:42, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

RFC on the infobox content

What should the infobox indicate as the location of the hostilities?

• Option 1 - Nagorno-Karabakh and surrounding Armenian-occupied territories, Armenia–Azerbaijan border
• Option 2 - Republic of Artsakh

Please enter Option 1 or Option 2, followed by a brief statement, in the Survey. Do not reply to other users in the Survey. Back-and-forth discussion may be conducted in the Discussion section. Grandmaster 16:18, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Survey

• Option 1. "Nagorno-Karabakh and surrounding Armenian-occupied territories, Armenia–Azerbaijan border" is an accurate description, as it correctly indicates the location and links to the articles that provide detailed information about each of the territories involved. It was in the stable version of the article that existed for years. Indicating an unrecognized entity as a location is not in line with WP:NPOV, because NKR had no internationally recognized borders. The regions in question were not considered as legally disputed by the international community, as the UNSC resolutions referred to Nagorno-Karabakh as a region of Azerbaijan, and to 7 surrounding districts as occupied by Armenian forces. Option 2 also goes against the practice of similar articles about conflicts in the post-Soviet area. Referring to an unrecognized entity as an area of conflict is the same as calling Donetsk People's Republic the area of the conflict in the Russian invasion of Ukraine. But we can see that the article about Ukraine does not mention any separatist entity as the conflict area, instead it refers to "Ukraine, western Russia, Black Sea". Russo-Georgian War does not indicate the Republic of South Ossetia as the area of conflict, it mentions Georgia. The location field should point either to the geographic location, or the country that legally owns the territory (as in Ukraine and Georgia related articles). Grandmaster 16:18, 19 December 2024 (UTC)