Jump to content

Talk:Azerbaijan's construction in areas gained in the Second Nagorno-Karabakh War

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

Renaming to "The Great Return"

[edit]

I think the word "Karabagh" is vague while The Great Return applies to all controlled territories. Also we have to include the following:

  • restoration of cultural monuments
  • return of population
  • the first celebration of festivals (Novruz, Khari Bulbul, Vaqif's poetry days, Music Day, etc.) after 30 years.

I tag users (Interfase, Brandmeister, Grandmaster, Parishan, Solavirum) in case they want to participate in discussion.--Abutalub (talk) 05:02, 17 December 2021 (UTC) User has been banned for disruptive and nationalistic edits. --217.149.166.11 (talk) 07:08, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Abutalub. Those are what I intend to do with this article. I've already written almost everything about it, but submitted a small portion here. Much more info to add, surely. I'm doubtful with the article name as well — wikimedians above would assist to decide — Toghrul R (t) 07:54, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Is this about some epic action movie or a geo-political event? "The Great Return". Wow, NPOV out of proportion --217.149.166.11 (talk) 05:35, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Abutalub. Do you want to tag users whose views differ from yours as well? Best wishes --Armatura (talk) 01:24, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

:::Armatura, because most of these territories were Azerbaijani-majority areas (except Hadrut) before 1989, while Russians control most of Armenian-majority areas now (except Khojali).--Abutalub (talk) 08:45, 19 December 2021 (UTC) User has been banned for disruptive and nationalistic edits. --217.149.166.11 (talk) 07:08, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason, both this and the Azerbaijani version of the article only use recent sources, while an official government program titled Great Return has existed for at least over a decade. --Мурад 97 (talk) 16:58, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More propaganda? No thanks. We've had quite enough already. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:34, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how referring to a project by its official name is propaganda. Moreover, even if the name is propaganda, it is not a ground for not referring to a project by its official name. --Мурад 97 (talk) 22:40, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe the article should be renamed, you will need to open an WP:RM. BilledMammal (talk) 22:48, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV issues

[edit]

A mere glance at the article highlights neutrality issues, starting from the very title.

  • One may conclude that ALL of the Karabakh region is being restructured by Azerbaijan, forgetting about the area remaining under Artsakh administration.
  • Hiroshima of Caucasus is WP:EXCEPTIONAL and needs more than one-two sources, there should be consensus for calling it like that.
  • The story of a mosque being used as a stable is undue, it does not serve the title of the article but shows revenge feelings
  • Photo of Aliyev raising a flag is undue promotion of Azerbaijani president, just about as comrade Stalin's picture on World War 2 slogans.

I could carry on, but unless the article's base is made with a good cement and drastic measures are taken to reduce the text to mere facts instead of emotions and advocacy, it is not going to hold up for too long before getting deleted as a POV piece. --Armatura (talk) 01:15, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Armatura: hello. Firstly, writing Karabakh doesn't mean that Azerbaijan is currently working on construction plans in Stepanakert. It's about the territories it gained from the 44-day way. Then, the fact that the mosque being used as a stable is referenced — it's doing its work. The aim behind it is not about denouncement, but to highlight how the mosque has been used for many years and how the reconstruction will affect it. By the way, I've more sources for "Hiroshima of Caucasus" claim. Cheers, — Toghrul R (t) 05:37, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Toghrul.

1) if the title means to say reconstruction of the areas of Nagorno Karabakh that came under control of Azerbaijan as a result of 2020 war, then it should explicitly say it, to avoid any ambiguity. Especially with Aliyev’s ongoing rants about how “there is no longer a Karabakh question”. 2. What useful work is mentioning of mosque’s use as a stable is doing again? “Just because I say so” or “I like it there, let it stay” kind of reply is not convincing. 3. You have more sources, then bring them to community’s attention where people not having any emotional attachment to Azerbaijan will help to decide whether 1) it’s a consensus of good quality sources to call Aghdam like that and 2) whether it’s due weight to use that parallel in this and other articles. I don’t think anyone would be happy if I find a few poor quality sources drawing parallels between Aliyev and Hitler and start using that parallel everytime I mention Aliyev, is that not right? Beware of advocacy policy. Best wishes --Armatura (talk) 05:59, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Armatura: I've made the necessary edit per your first argument. 2 — it's about reconstruction, wouldn't it be useful to mention its older state? Because of the article topic: reconstruction. I've added more sourced for the Hiroshima claim, I believe that might be enough. Plus, we are not talking about Aliev, it's out of the scope of the discussion. Let's not compare different people (Hitler–Stalin–Aliev), it's just off-topic. Cheers, — Toghrul R (t) 06:10, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how you addressed my point No 1. For a causal reader, the very title of this article makes a wrong impression as if "Karabakh is Azerbaijan", per Aliyev's manifesto, as simple as that. Best reflected in Turkish-government-sponsored media, like this: https://www.aa.com.tr/en/asia-pacific/unsung-heroes-of-reconstruction-work-in-karabakh-mine-clearance-experts/2396763 Adding more sources for Hiroshima did not help, unfortunately, are you saying those sources make it mainstream consensus that Agdams second / cultural name is Hiroshima of Caucasus? A Google search "Hiroshima of Caucasus" makes it apparent the bulk of it is Azerbaijani state sponsored or related media, with a handful foreign sources simply replicating Baku's statements. Are you not able to see that it is propaganda concept? If you aren't able to, then it is a problem, as WP:Competence is required in editing Wikipedia. If you are able to, then it leaves me bewildered why you would push it forward, doing so breaches WP:Advocacy policy. --Armatura (talk) 22:54, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Armatura: Please, let's not put Aliev in the discussion again, as it's off-topic to include the state leader in the discussion. My mileage may vary than his. Agdam has been dubbed this title, good or bad, it is what it's known for. I could not get the propaganda part, since the works done in the region are handled by the Azerbaijani government. If you have hesitations, you can expand the article within your competence — Toghrul R (t) 08:41, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural capital

[edit]

Hello, @Kevo327: hello. As you reverted the edit without discussing it here, I think it might be reasonable to do it. I believe declaring Shusha as the cultural capital of Azerbaijan is directly related to the article as it's an accelerating factor leading to reconstruction of the cultural heritage. — Toghrul R (t) 08:01, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to disagree, such a label makes no administrative difference nor does it makes any historic sense (as the city has had a mixed culture until 1920) nor does it correlate with the reconstruction other than you implying it does, if there are any sources that make this connection please provide them and we'll be sorted. - Kevo327 (talk) 08:14, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Kevo327: This article reflects the contemporary era (post first war), not the historic. Plus, it's an official Azerbaijani claim. The decree was signed with the intention of reconstruction, you can read it here [1]. Also: [2] — Toghrul R (t) 08:31, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There’s an RfC about the same pretentious cultural capital thing in Azerbaijan article, I suggest following its outcome, instead of deciding here. --Armatura (talk) 09:17, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Armatura: that's a different topic. We are discussing the connection between the announcement of Shusha as the cultural capital of Azerbaijan and its reconstruction. The links I mentioned above state that the order was issued for this purpose. — Toghrul R (t) 09:34, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

having an RfC about this would be the best way forward I think, a broad consensus (or the lack of one) is often the best solution. Other than that, it seems the "declaration" is just a label for an otherwise natural restoration operation, nothing worthwhile coming from it other than typical political sugarcoating. As for it being official, wikipedia isn't a governmental mouthpiece. - Kevo327 (talk) 00:25, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kevo327: hello. No matter the reality is, it has to be included in my reckoning. It has a global media coverage as well. Let's think about it for a second: a state that controls the area has just labeled the city. Just as NKR government renamed certain cities. While the renamed area labels are included in their respective articles with a proper rewording, the why this one mustn't be? — Toghrul R (t) 08:27, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"List of cultural monuments damaged in Nagorno-Karabakh conflict II"

[edit]

Toghrul R, Kevo327, it appears to me that this articles suffers from many issues List of cultural monuments damaged in Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, currently in AfD process, suffers from, I suggest learning from BilledMammal's constructive suggestions there. BilledMammal, as an uninvolved editor, could you please spare a minute to have a look at this article and advise how it can be improved or, alternatively, do you think going via AfD would be appropriate in this case? Thanks all. --Armatura (talk) 22:36, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Armatura: hello. This article includes a large-scale reconstruction works in the area, such as highways, smart villages, airports, while the other one was only focused on the damaged stuff. That article can be blended into this one I guess. In addition, this article is still under construction as the template suggests — Toghrul R (t) 08:19, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking into it, but I need to know whether apa.az is reliable. For the most part, they appear to present their most outlandish conspiracy theories in quotes (for example, ones related to Caucasian Albania), and if they do limit it to this then they are reliable, though probably biased, but I haven't had time for a broad investigation yet. BilledMammal (talk) 22:58, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, BilledMammal, here are a few "gems" to demonstrate that apa.az shares the anti-Armenian sentiment prevailing in official Baku's and related news outlets, hence cannot be a reliable source. Headlines speak for themselves.

Best wishes, --Armatura (talk) 15:32, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Armatura: hello. APA has been used as a reference for reconstruction issues; nothing controversial — Toghrul R (t) 06:50, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to interrupt, but did you even read the examples that Armatura gave? APA is not reliable, and neither is any other Azerbaijani news source. Or Eritrean. Or DPRK. Or any other authoritarian dictatorship that is built on the hatred of its neighbor(s) .--217.149.166.11 (talk) 07:59, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So? neither are Armenian media sources then. They constantly denied Azerbaijan's control in middle of the war, but once the ceasefire agreement signed, they admitted it. President's visits and inauguration ceremonies normally are not reflected at a worldwide-scale. Cheers, — Toghrul R (t) 11:17, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi BilledMammal. Azerbaijani media services and maybe some Turkish agencies are the only ones covering events related to the visits of the president of Azerbaijan to Nagorno-Karabakh for information purposes. And since there is no other option, we refer to them as a source. If those media agencies wrote something controversial about Armenia and Armenians in the past, it doesn't mean that all their news are unreliable.--Wertuose (talk) 11:45, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It absolutely does.--217.149.166.11 (talk) 02:42, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Toghrul R, BilledMammal asked to provide examples of unreliability of apa.az, I provided what I think constitutes evidence of that. nothing more or less. If an article cited for reconstruction contains "Armenian provocation" in the title for example, it is already controversial, and a problem. Wertuose, this answers your question as well I believe. --Armatura (talk) 00:08, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I took this to RfC of apa.az as a RS, to have wider community input. --Armatura (talk) 00:26, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I am not familiar with the topic area, but the impression I got from the three examples I readis of consistently strong bias and propaganda. I am not sure I would consider anything published by such a site as reliable, unless supported by another completely independent source from another country not involved in the conflict. They also appear to be badly translated, or written by someone with a poor command of English, which could be part of the problem. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 05:40, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Pbsouthwood: hello. I have made changes to the syntax here and there and hope it's better than before given the fact that they are written from scratch and requires revisits over time. When it comes to APA, they can certainly be changed as I've used them to provide data on the presidential visits, not on controversial aspects. However, it's almost impossible to find global-scale media coverage on inaugurations as it's a bit trivial for them. The two countries have covered this issues, to no one's surprise. Best, — Toghrul R (t) 08:42, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification My comment above refers exclusively to the value of the apa.az website articles listed above as examples, as indicators of whether the site can be regarded as a reliable source. My comment does not apply in any way to the Wikipedia article, about which I am currently neutral as I have not read it. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 09:45, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of sourced content by Armatura

[edit]

Armatura, care to explain why you first reword certain claims ([3]), then deciding to delete it ([4])? It's just breaching WP:IDONTLIKEIT principles, right? — Toghrul R (t) 06:55, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, quite the contrary - the egregious bits posted breach principle on advancing POV and using Wikipedia for scandal. Even after rewording, certain bits still looked unsalvagegable hence deleted --Armatura (talk) 19:35, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 30 December 2021

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

Moved per consensus below to rename away from the present title. However since more than one title has been suggested, then WP:OTHEROPTIONS comes into play. The options are:

Seems the best title for this article is Azerbaijan's construction in areas gained in the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war as suggested by editor Achemish and supported by other editors. (Also added in the definite article, "the", suggested by editor Super Ψ Dro.) As the supplement guides us, "the closer should pick the best title of the options available, and then be clear that while consensus has rejected the former title (and no request to bring it back should be made lightly), there is no consensus for the title actually chosen. And if anyone objects to the closer's choice, then instead of taking it to move review, they should simply make another move request at any time, which will hopefully lead the article to its final stable title." Thanks and kudos to all editors for your input, and Happy, Healthy Editing! (nac by page mover) P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 05:08, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Azerbaijani reconstruction of Karabakh → Azerbaijan's reconstruction of areas gained in 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war – This article is specifically about reconstruction of areas that came under Azerbaijani control as a result of 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war, including the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh ceasefire agreement ending it. The title should reflect that. The current title misleadingly equalises Karabakh (which includes Nagorno-Karabakh, Lowland Karabakh between the Kura and Aras rivers and Syunik) to Nagorno-Karabakh (which is geographical and political entity ) terms, making an impression as if Azerbaijan is restructuring "the whole thing", whereas in reality most of the former NKAO remains under Republic of Artsakh's control and Syunik is a current province of Republic of Armenia, hence Azerbaijan simply cannot restructure these. --Armatura (talk) 01:52, 30 December 2021 (UTC) — Relisting. Colonestarrice (talk) 21:52, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

nice alternative title, Achenish, I’d support your version, as less controversial/promo and more neutral. --Armatura (talk) 22:02, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We cannot really sacrifice the meaning to conciseness. But I understand you suggest we delete the article and transfer the paragraphs to relevant location articles, correct? That would make sense to me. --Armatura (talk) 11:34, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. A country cannot gain its own territory. Re-gained, or re-taken makes more sense. Also, the proposed title is too long. Reconstruction works in east of Azerbaijan maybe? Grandmaster 14:48, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For Armenians, those were never "occupied territories". And Artsakh considers these territories now "occupied by Azerbaijan"... As wikipedia editors, we should not be playing politics here, but just describe who is/was factually controlling these territories. --Armatura (talk) 15:23, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For the international community, these territories were occupied, see for example List of United Nations Security Council resolutions on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. That is why the title should be accurate, without getting into gained/regained issue. Grandmaster 20:43, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The territories around the NKAO were considered occupied, the NKAO was not; the captured areas of the NKAO are included in this construction effort. "Construction" over "re-construction" seems pretty straightforward due to that, so if you object to that please explain. Regaridng the wording of gained, As Armatura said, we need maintain NPOV here - Azerbaijan gained control of these territories, even if internationally they are considered part of Azerbaijan. We can use another word perhaps to emphasize the territorial control aspect, such as "captured" or "taken". I would oppose the use of "retaken" or "recaptured" for the same reason I mentioned before - the inclusion of parts of the NKAO within the context of this page. Achemish (talk) 08:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do not object to "construction". The argument that there are places like Hadrut that are not destroyed makes sense. But gained, captured, etc creates an impression that Azerbaijan took control over territories that do not belong to it. Please note that UN SC resolutions refer to "Nagorny Karabakh region of the Azerbaijani Republic", i.e. even if they were not considered occupied, they are still internationally considered a part of Azerbaijan. Therefore I suggest to find another word for gained/regained, captured/recaptured to avoid getting into this argument. Grandmaster 17:29, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Construction works in Azerbaijani controlled territories in and around Nagorno-Karabakh" is a bit too long. But I think something along these lines would be a good compromise. Grandmaster 17:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Construction works in Azerbaijani controlled territories in and around Nagorno-Karabakh less those parts of the NKAO not controlled by Azerbaijan" is also a bit too long. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:32, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If the article is about works that are carried out in controlled parts of NK, clearly it does not cover works in uncontrolled parts. Grandmaster 10:39, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Care to provide your own thoughts, please? --Armatura (talk) 20:29, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Colonialism claims

[edit]

I reverted the claims on colonialism, as they are pretty much the same as discussed and reverted at Settler colonialism. I think it is better to continue the discussion in one place, i.e. in that article. In addition, claims of Syrian settlers require multiple high-quality sources, per WP:EXCEPTIONAL. No reliable third party source confirmed these speculations so far. Grandmaster 07:51, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Azerbaijan%27s_construction_in_areas_gained_in_the_Second_Nagorno-Karabakh_War&oldid=1242703938"