Talk:Armenian-occupied territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh
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 Wikipedia, 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 |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
On 21 October 2020, it was proposed that this article be moved from Armenian-controlled territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh to Armenian-occupied territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh. The result of the discussion was Moved. |
Edit war
[edit]Can you stop edit warring and your WP:OR comments? Your edit description [1] about territorial integrity isn't even in the written text and doesn't make sense. Also, the edit lists major countries from the 100 which are listed in the source itself, and which abstained from the vote. This is the relevance. Please stop edit-warring and removing sourced information. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 17:23, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
- @ZaniGiovanni: The whole sentence is WP:OR, Nnot my comment. So asking you to remove Germany etc. We could say, x country voted yes. This doesn't make any sense. Beshogur (talk) 17:58, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
- Beshogur Finally regarding this. I was tired and didn't think this was something controversial, so I didn't reply yesterday evening. I think you should restore the sourced content which you removed recently. If your only concern were to not to list "Germany, etc." separately, I have no problem with it. Here's my proposal and I'll ping El C as involved admin:
- "...while the vast majority of UN member countries, 100 in total, abstained from the vote.[2]
- It's this simple. You could've waited at least a day for me to reply. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 15:09, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
- Imo
while the vast majority of UN member countries, 100 in total, abstained from the vote.
is still not correct. "while the vast majority" may have some else meaning. There is no mention about 39 countries voting yes. We're not trying to make a race if who voted yes or no or abstaining. Is it adopted? It is. Perhaps we could change the whole sentence that's taken from United Nations General Assembly Resolution 62/243, wich I recently found, towhich was adopted by a recorded vote of 39 in favour to 7 against (including OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs), with 100 abstentions.
which is more neutral, and doesn't imply anything else. For my ANI report, it's not about the content dispute, but you trying to revert me mady by an user with 3 edits. Beshogur (talk) 16:06, 2 February 2022 (UTC)- 39 to 7 is already mentioned in the article Armenian-occupied_territories_surrounding_Nagorno-Karabakh#Legal_status and it's already mentioned in lead that the resolution has passed. What isn't mentioned however is the abstained part which I tried to restore and which you removed repeatedly.
"while the vast majority" may have some else meaning
- what else meaning? It paraphrases the source correctly, the vast majority of countries indeed abstained. We aren't suppose the copy-paste what's exactly written in the source, and I didn't see a quote template either. That wording is fine and in paraphrased in accordance to sourced content.For my ANI report, it's not about the content dispute, but you trying to revert me mady by an user with 3 edits.
- If it's not about content dispute (which should be resolved in talk and if you waited at least a day for me to reply, I would have), then what is it? I only made a single revert of that new account and didn't attempt to restore it per the discussion above this one. I only restored the abstained part 2 days later, which I'm still in favor of being included in the article as it is sourced and completely valid info. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 16:22, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
- Imo
- Beshogur Finally regarding this. I was tired and didn't think this was something controversial, so I didn't reply yesterday evening. I think you should restore the sourced content which you removed recently. If your only concern were to not to list "Germany, etc." separately, I have no problem with it. Here's my proposal and I'll ping El C as involved admin:
wait one day is not an excuse for your reverts. You've been active and editing after I pinged you. Well, if it's mentioned below, you could add it below, instead reverting me. Anyway, the lead would still contain missing and misleading information like (Germany, Israel and UK). I could also say "x country voted yes". This doesn't matter. WP:OR. My final solution is, we either add all (yes, no, abstain) to the lead + OSCE co-chairs, or remove the whole sentence about OSCE co-chairs, and add it alongside all (yes, no abstain + OSCE co-chairs) to the legal status section. Beshogur (talk) 17:02, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
- My view here is that the information is undue and risks synth/OR/WP:PRIMARY. UN resolutions need a bit of interpretation at the best of times, and even then it is usually only useful to see who voted for a resolution. Voting against, or abstaining, can happen for a huge number of reasons which may or may not have anything to do with the core content of the resolution in question. (I would in fact not oppose anything that is being cited to UN resolutions, or to a basic news piece reporting on such a resolution, to be simply removed from the article.) CMD (talk) 17:04, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
- I believe a simple mention that a UN GA resolution said so and so is sufficient. Grandmaster 17:16, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Requested move 18 December 2024
[edit]
It has been proposed in this section that Armenian-occupied territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh be renamed and moved to Occupied territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh. A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{subst:requested move}} . Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. |
Armenian-occupied territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh → Occupied territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh – The present title is ambiguous/misleading because of the distinction between Armenian as a nationality and Armenian as an ethnicity. The proposed title better satisfies WP:CRITERIA while resolving the ambiguity in the existing title. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:37, 18 December 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 07:09, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Per the lead of this article: The Armenian-occupied territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh were areas of Azerbaijan, situated around the former Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast (NKAO), which were occupied by the ethnic Armenian military forces of the breakaway Republic of Artsakh (or the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic) with military support from Armenia, from the end of the First Nagorno-Karabakh War (1988–1994) to 2020 ...
The territories were occupied by the Republic of Artsakh (ethnic Armenians not nationals). An ambiguity indicates a lack of WP:PRECISION. It might be more precise to call this Territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh occupied by the Republic of Artsakh or something similar but this is not particularly WP:CONCISE. Removing the point of ambiguity is still sufficiently precise for the article title while still being reasonably concise. We don't write the article in its title. The article is about territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh that were occupied. Nuance and detail with respect to the title are defined by the lead.
Seaching google scholar for the exact search terms, there are 8 hits for Armenian-occupied territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh and 63 hits for Occupied territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh. This fairly clearly indicates the proposed name the more WP:RECOGNISABLE and WP:COMMONNAME without the need for the ambiguous precision in the present title. There is no existing article for the proposed title that would require disambiguation.
Also, present tile is not particularly WP:NATURAL, since in many cases it would be piped to resolve the ambiguity (eg at Republic of Artsakh: Armenian-occupied territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh|surrounding occupied districts; and, Nagorno-Karabakh: Armenian-occupied territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh|occupied territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh). Cinderella157 (talk) 02:38, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- Further: The most important part of the title here is to identify the territory that is being written about. Who occupied the territory is ancillary. Since the relist, opposers have amended their comments to refer to WP:CONSISTENT. This generally refers to documented naming conventions. There is no applicable documented naming convention applicable here to retain Armenian. While there are articles of a similar pattern, CMD has identified that this format is far from consistently applied for articles about occupied territories. I can add a few more: Occupation of the Falkland Islands, Occupation of Czechoslovakia (1938–1945) and Occupation of Lima. CONSISTENT is one of the five WP:CRITERIA which are to be weighed in determining the most appropriate article title. It is arguably the weakest of these, while WP:RECOGNIZABLE/WP:COMMONNAME is arguably the strongest. It certainly does not overcome by itself a reasoned argument that considers the criteria wholistically. Even in citing CONSISTENT, the arguments to retain Armenian fall to WP:OTHERCONTENT, which is not of itself an argument of any substance. To have weight, it must establish that this otherstuff represents best practice which invariably means it best considers/complies with the prevailing P&G, which in this case is WP:AT. It must also establish that the otherstuff is directly comparable. In some cases, specifying the occupying country is used for disambiguation where a territory/country has been occupied by different countries - eg we have Austro-Hungarian occupation of Serbia, Bulgarian occupation of Serbia (World War I), Habsburg-occupied Serbia (1686–1691) and Axis occupation of Serbia. I am not saying these are the best titles but there is a need for disambiguation. In this case, there is no actual disambiguation by which the addition of Armenian would be required. Per WP:TITLEDAB (part of WP:AT):
According to the precision criterion, only as much detail as is necessary to distinguish one topic from another should be used.
Unambiguously, the prevailing policy is telling us that the concision of the proposed title is to be preferred over the existing title. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC)- Israeli-occupied territories, Russian-occupied territories, Russian-occupied territories of Ukraine, Russian-occupied territories in Georgia are meant to disambiguate from what? Or for example German-occupied territory of Montenegro? Grandmaster 18:18, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose: This was discussed before. Republic of Artsakh was an Armenian statehood. Also UN resolutions clearly state
demanding the immediate withdrawal of all Armenian forces from all occupied territories
, which makes it an Armenian occupied territory. Same applies for OSCE statements saying they wete occupied by "local Armenian forces".
- Beshogur (talk) 08:19, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- withdraw I understand what's it supposed to mean. "occupied territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh" is actually the proper name, yet doesn't change the fact that it's Armenian occupied (occupied by Artsakh, etc. is weak argument). Also supportive of an article called Armenian occupied territories of Azerbaijan for other regions hisorically (currently occupied).
- Beshogur (talk) 13:58, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose. The region was occupied by the Armenian forces both from Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh. Per WP:CONSISTENT, the present title follows the practice of similar articles, for example Israeli-occupied territories, or Russian-occupied territories of Ukraine. The title should indicate who occupied the territories. Therefore the present title is appropriate. Grandmaster 10:13, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- Silently changing your post after it has been seen and commented on (as you did here) is quite inappropriate. Please amend your comment to indicate the change per WP:TALK#REVISE. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:28, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- Silently changing? No one has replied to his comment. Beshogur (talk) 02:36, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- The comment was referred to by CMD. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:56, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- Indeed, as noted above, no one replied to my comment, and I only added a link. But to address your concerns, I marked my addition. Grandmaster 10:08, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- Silently changing? No one has replied to his comment. Beshogur (talk) 02:36, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- Silently changing your post after it has been seen and commented on (as you did here) is quite inappropriate. Please amend your comment to indicate the change per WP:TALK#REVISE. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:28, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support, surprised this hasn't come up before. The ethnic identity ambiguity arguments in the opening are a bit of a red herring, they aren't too important for the WP:AT. However, the concision argument is applicable, as is the WP:OR note on the current title being rare, perhaps made here. There are three sources with titles including "occupied territories", two use "Occupied Territories of Azerbaijan Surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh", one uses "occupied territories of Azerbaijan" while also referencing "Occupied Territories of Azerbaijan Surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh". The two oppose votes above are unrelated to WP:AT, there is no criteria that article titles should indicate who occupied a territory. The proposed "Occupied territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh" seems the most concise option that fits while being precise, and if the desire is for a longer term, "Occupied territories of Azerbaijan surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh" is the sourced one. CMD (talk) 10:17, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- If those examples (Israeli-occupied territories, Russian-occupied territories of Ukraine, Turkish occupation of northern Syria, Ukrainian occupation of Kursk Oblast etc.) gets changed, than I can agree, otherwise this is a weak excuse. Beshogur (talk) 17:43, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- The use of sources is a weak excuse? CMD (talk) 03:14, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- The UN resolutions clearly state this is occupied by Armenian troops (locals or not, it says Armenians). OSCE not using any ethnicity hasn't a value since OSCE Misnk Group was always against Azerbaijani takeover of Karabakh, which is internationally recognized Azerbaijani territory. They use the term occupied, but occupied by whom? If those examples have the same requested move for the same reasonings, I'll be agreeing on this as well. That's what I mean. (also the article itself is kinda made of lot of primary sources and non-English sources) Beshogur (talk) 12:55, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- The UN resolutions clearly state what I said above, as one of the sources I mention is one of those resolutions[3]. This resolution itself specifically relies on the OSCE report in question. If the OSCE report lacks value we shouldn't be putting value on the resolution based upon it, but either way, the current article title is possibly an original (and lengthy) formulation not taken from a source, and if not original seems very rare. CMD (talk) 13:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Just leaving this here as a last comment:
Demands the immediate, complete and unconditional withdrawal of all Armenian forces from all the occupied territories of the Republic of Azerbaijan
Beshogur (talk) 13:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)- Right, but it would be helpful to better understand how you feel that part of the resolution informs the application of the WP:AT policy to this page. CMD (talk) 13:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Indeed, renaming this article would set the precedent for renaming all other similar articles by removing the mention of the occupying party. But indicating the occupying party is a standard practice in Wikipedia. And while the UN referred to the Armenian forces as the occupying power, so did the PACE. Quote: Considerable parts of the territory of Azerbaijan are still occupied by Armenian forces, and separatist forces are still in control of the Nagorno-Karabakh region. [4] Grandmaster 15:39, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- It wouldn't set a precedent for that, unless you're suggesting they have a similarly lengthy title that did not come from sources. CMD (talk) 16:58, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Per WP:CONSISTENT, titles should be consistent among articles covering similar topics. We can see that the general practice for similar topics is that the occupying party is mentioned in the title. Therefore the argument about WP:AT is not valid, as this rule calls for consistency with similar topic titles. As mentioned above, we have articles with titles such as Russian-occupied territories in Georgia, Israeli-occupied territories, or Russian-occupied territories of Ukraine, and WP:AT is not an issue with them. Grandmaster 11:30, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- It comes off as shameless cherry picking to go on about Israeli-occupied territories when there is Occupied Palestinian territories. Look at those titles again, this article is not even consistent with them! It's not called Armenian-occupied territories in Azerbaijan. Nor is there a set standard, we have Southern Provinces, we have the unadorned Al-Tanf. No disambiguation argument has been made here, and probably crucially, we likely have sources for the mentioned titles. CMD (talk) 12:03, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Shameless what? Occupied territories of Azerbaijan (not only Karabakh and surroundings, but Azerbaijani territories in Nakhchivan and other regions) were occupied either by state of Armenia or "local Armenian forces" (aka Artsakh) which makes it Armenian occupied. Southern provinces isn't really an occupation. Who recognizes Sahrawi Republic? Isn't that a non-UN member too? Al-Tanf isn't a real military occupation either. US is stationed there, has no purpose of governing whatsoever. Beshogur (talk) 15:16, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Cherry picking. For information although it's not too relevant to this discussion, more than 40 countries recgonise the Sahrawi Republic and it is a member of the African Union and other international bodies. CMD (talk) 03:50, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- Armenian-occupied territories in Azerbaijan is also a good alternative that follows the prevalent format. I could understand if this was proposed as an alternative. But here Nagorno-Karabakh is mentioned to distinguish these occupied territories from other Azerbaijani territories occupied by Armenia, in particular border villages in Qazax District and Nakhchivan. For example, Karki, Azerbaijan is also an occupied territory of Azerbaijan. Therefore, Armenian-occupied territories in Azerbaijan could be an umbrella article similar to Russian-occupied territories that includes Russian-occupied territories of Ukraine and Russian-occupied territories in Georgia. I don't see how the present title contradicts WP:AT. That rule says nothing about unacceptability of the mention of the occupying party in the title, and at the same time says that the title must be consistent with titles of other similar articles. We can see that with minor exception, the general practice is to mention the occupying power, therefore I see no strong argument in support of the title change. Grandmaster 17:02, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- That's correct, this title is for various reasons in a different format, it is not consistent with the example mentioned it is supposedly consistent with. As enumerated above but apparently ignored, WP:AT asks for concision, which this title clearly doesn't meet. It also asks quite plainly for titles used by reliable English language sources, which this title also does not meet. Also noted above, the consistency argument is weak, given the title is not even in the mentioned format. CMD (talk) 03:54, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- The proposed title is neither concise, nor consistent with general practice. So it fails WP:AT. If you want to follow the format of Occupied Palestinian territories (which is a rare exception too), then it should be Occupied Azerbaijani territories. But as I mentioned above, the general practice is to mention the occupying power. "Surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh" part is there to distinguish these 7 districts from other occupied Azerbaijani territories. As I said above, we can also create Armenian-occupied territories in Azerbaijan to fully match other titles, but then the scope of this article must expand to include the other occupied territories. Grandmaster 10:08, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- This logic is once again leading to bizarre statements. The proposed title is strictly more concise, it's hard to get more textbook. Stating it is not is just not something that can be engaged with. Your statement on general practice has already been refuted, the rest is just backfilling to try and get from the position of somehow including "Armenian" to whatever might be related in AT. CMD (talk) 11:12, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- The proposed title is neither concise, nor consistent with general practice. So it fails WP:AT. If you want to follow the format of Occupied Palestinian territories (which is a rare exception too), then it should be Occupied Azerbaijani territories. But as I mentioned above, the general practice is to mention the occupying power. "Surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh" part is there to distinguish these 7 districts from other occupied Azerbaijani territories. As I said above, we can also create Armenian-occupied territories in Azerbaijan to fully match other titles, but then the scope of this article must expand to include the other occupied territories. Grandmaster 10:08, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- That's correct, this title is for various reasons in a different format, it is not consistent with the example mentioned it is supposedly consistent with. As enumerated above but apparently ignored, WP:AT asks for concision, which this title clearly doesn't meet. It also asks quite plainly for titles used by reliable English language sources, which this title also does not meet. Also noted above, the consistency argument is weak, given the title is not even in the mentioned format. CMD (talk) 03:54, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- Shameless what? Occupied territories of Azerbaijan (not only Karabakh and surroundings, but Azerbaijani territories in Nakhchivan and other regions) were occupied either by state of Armenia or "local Armenian forces" (aka Artsakh) which makes it Armenian occupied. Southern provinces isn't really an occupation. Who recognizes Sahrawi Republic? Isn't that a non-UN member too? Al-Tanf isn't a real military occupation either. US is stationed there, has no purpose of governing whatsoever. Beshogur (talk) 15:16, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- It comes off as shameless cherry picking to go on about Israeli-occupied territories when there is Occupied Palestinian territories. Look at those titles again, this article is not even consistent with them! It's not called Armenian-occupied territories in Azerbaijan. Nor is there a set standard, we have Southern Provinces, we have the unadorned Al-Tanf. No disambiguation argument has been made here, and probably crucially, we likely have sources for the mentioned titles. CMD (talk) 12:03, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Per WP:CONSISTENT, titles should be consistent among articles covering similar topics. We can see that the general practice for similar topics is that the occupying party is mentioned in the title. Therefore the argument about WP:AT is not valid, as this rule calls for consistency with similar topic titles. As mentioned above, we have articles with titles such as Russian-occupied territories in Georgia, Israeli-occupied territories, or Russian-occupied territories of Ukraine, and WP:AT is not an issue with them. Grandmaster 11:30, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- It wouldn't set a precedent for that, unless you're suggesting they have a similarly lengthy title that did not come from sources. CMD (talk) 16:58, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Just leaving this here as a last comment:
- The UN resolutions clearly state what I said above, as one of the sources I mention is one of those resolutions[3]. This resolution itself specifically relies on the OSCE report in question. If the OSCE report lacks value we shouldn't be putting value on the resolution based upon it, but either way, the current article title is possibly an original (and lengthy) formulation not taken from a source, and if not original seems very rare. CMD (talk) 13:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- The UN resolutions clearly state this is occupied by Armenian troops (locals or not, it says Armenians). OSCE not using any ethnicity hasn't a value since OSCE Misnk Group was always against Azerbaijani takeover of Karabakh, which is internationally recognized Azerbaijani territory. They use the term occupied, but occupied by whom? If those examples have the same requested move for the same reasonings, I'll be agreeing on this as well. That's what I mean. (also the article itself is kinda made of lot of primary sources and non-English sources) Beshogur (talk) 12:55, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- The use of sources is a weak excuse? CMD (talk) 03:14, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- If those examples (Israeli-occupied territories, Russian-occupied territories of Ukraine, Turkish occupation of northern Syria, Ukrainian occupation of Kursk Oblast etc.) gets changed, than I can agree, otherwise this is a weak excuse. Beshogur (talk) 17:43, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I don't see that my point was refuted. The article title is not defined by search results only. WP:AT holds:
The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles
. It was convincingly demonstrated on this page that the vast majority of similar articles mention the occupying power in the title. Once again, see the examples below and tell me how all these titles are not in line with WP:AT:
- Sorry, but I don't see that my point was refuted. The article title is not defined by search results only. WP:AT holds:
- The only difference between those titles and the title of this article is the part "surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh", but as I wrote above, it is there to distinguish these territories from other occupied territories of Azerbaijan. Ambiguity in mentioning the occupying power would be justified if the fact of the Armenian occupation was questioned. But it is not so, the sources generally agree that there was occupation, and they also agree on who was the occupying party. Even the sources that use just "occupied territories" usually mention in some form who occupied them. For example, the European Parliament called for "the withdrawal of Armenian forces from occupied territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh and their return to Azerbaijani control". [5] In this example, the EU parliament mentions "occupied territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh", but also states that they were occupied by the Armenian forces. That does not go against "Armenian-occupied territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh", because the source makes clear who occupied those territories, and it was Armenian forces, and not anybody else. At the same time, proposed "occupied territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh" is not consistent with other titles. Every title using the word "occupied" either mentions the occupying party, or in a few cases when it does not it mentions the country the territory of which is occupied. Grandmaster 21:36, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- The supposed convincing demonstration was listing three articles. The listed articles here are again still not consistent with the current title. Despite another sweeping claim it also remains easy to find articles without occupying party or country, such as Occupation of Istanbul. CMD (talk) 22:30, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- Hmm, you might be right about that. But the idea of separately creating Armenian-occupied territories in Azerbaijan is also possible for other occupied parts. Beshogur (talk) 23:34, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- There are exceptions, but the general pattern for modern day conflicts is obvious. And the proposed title is even less consistent than the existing one. This one does not mention the 7 districts by name. The part that does not match other articles both with Armenian occupied and just occupied is "surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh". Normally the titles point to a place name, and not that they surround something. But the topic of this article is unique in that regard. The sources refer to "the territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh". And that is the part of the present title that you say does not match the other examples. But it does not for the proposed alternative too. Grandmaster 10:57, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- It would be tricky to scope an article between the existing wars, border, and statelet article, but all the parts together would presumably cover the former NKAO, surrounding territories, and the exclaves. CMD (talk) 00:44, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- That would make it Occupied territories of Azerbaijan or Armenian-occupied territories of Azerbaijan. And the second version is still more in line with the prevailing pattern. Grandmaster 10:57, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- It would be tricky to scope an article between the existing wars, border, and statelet article, but all the parts together would presumably cover the former NKAO, surrounding territories, and the exclaves. CMD (talk) 00:44, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- The supposed convincing demonstration was listing three articles. The listed articles here are again still not consistent with the current title. Despite another sweeping claim it also remains easy to find articles without occupying party or country, such as Occupation of Istanbul. CMD (talk) 22:30, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- The only difference between those titles and the title of this article is the part "surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh", but as I wrote above, it is there to distinguish these territories from other occupied territories of Azerbaijan. Ambiguity in mentioning the occupying power would be justified if the fact of the Armenian occupation was questioned. But it is not so, the sources generally agree that there was occupation, and they also agree on who was the occupying party. Even the sources that use just "occupied territories" usually mention in some form who occupied them. For example, the European Parliament called for "the withdrawal of Armenian forces from occupied territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh and their return to Azerbaijani control". [5] In this example, the EU parliament mentions "occupied territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh", but also states that they were occupied by the Armenian forces. That does not go against "Armenian-occupied territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh", because the source makes clear who occupied those territories, and it was Armenian forces, and not anybody else. At the same time, proposed "occupied territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh" is not consistent with other titles. Every title using the word "occupied" either mentions the occupying party, or in a few cases when it does not it mentions the country the territory of which is occupied. Grandmaster 21:36, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- Comment. Regarding the claim that
The territories were occupied by the Republic of Artsakh
. That is not correct. It was established in the court of law (The European Court of Human Rights) in the case Chiragov and Others v. Armenia that it was Armenia who occupied the territories of Azerbaijan, and that Karabakh separatist entity was in fact totally controlled by Armenia. In particular, the ECHR ruled that "Armenia exercises effective control over Nagorno-Karabakh and the surrounding territories". It is mentioned in this article as well. Grandmaster 18:06, 29 December 2024 (UTC) - Oppose The current title clearly reflects the occupying party, which is essential for understanding the historical and political context of the issue. Removing this detail risks oversimplifying the title and could make it less informative for readers seeking clarity about the situation. — Toghrul R (t) 10:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Clarity and understanding is provided by the lead and the body of the article. On what basis in WP:P&G (WP:AT) do you oppose this move? Cinderella157 (talk) 13:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose The territory was occupied by Armenian troops, the title must mention who did the occupation, like it is done in other articles.--Nicat49 (talk) 18:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Relisting comment: Previously was closed as not moved by me. Relisting after an objection was raised on my talk regarding the close decision. Would benefit from a relist. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 07:09, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
This discussion could use more diverse input 2600:1014:B1E8:2774:C078:70B6:74C9:433 (talk) 05:40, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support None of the OSCE and UN sources actually use the phrase “Armenian-occupied”, this is WP:OR. Vanezi (talk) 10:52, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Resolution 822: "invasion of the Kelbadjar district of the Republic of Azerbaijan by local Armenian forces". Grandmaster 09:57, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Well the issue here is the title, OP might be right regarding this "occupied territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh" seems more lika a proper name. We made the change because the first one was called Armenian-controlled, rather than occupied. Beshogur (talk) 11:34, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Resolution 822: "invasion of the Kelbadjar district of the Republic of Azerbaijan by local Armenian forces". Grandmaster 09:57, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- C-Class Armenian articles
- Unknown-importance Armenian articles
- WikiProject Armenia articles
- C-Class Artsakh articles
- Mid-importance Artsakh articles
- WikiProject Artsakh articles
- C-Class Azerbaijan articles
- Mid-importance Azerbaijan articles
- WikiProject Azerbaijan articles
- C-Class military history articles
- C-Class Post-Cold War articles
- Post-Cold War task force articles
- Requested moves with protected titles
- Requested moves