Jump to content

Talk:Second Nagorno-Karabakh War/Archive 14

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


Please add under International Reactions > Humanitarian Organizations

[edit]

Please add under International Reactions > Humanitarian Organizations

On 27 of October 2020, the International Rescue Committee claimed that more than half of the population of Nagorno-Karabakh has been displaced by the conflict (source)

Thanks--Sataralynd (talk) 02:00, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Գարիկ Ավագյան:, perhaps you can add this to civilians section. Beshogur (talk) 11:57, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Azerbaijan victory

[edit]

Let's write the winner in the conclusion section. Like the whole war wiki pages.

Result: Azerbaijan victory

You need to present reliable sources for such a change. I've seen nothing indicating a cessation in hostilities. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 22:31, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

--45.135.206.230 (talk) 22:40, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We need a RS. This is too prematurely. Beshogur (talk) 22:56, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A treaty was signed at 1 AM, 10 November. Moscow time. It's over. --Governor Sheng (talk) 23:31, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the fighting is indeed over [1] [2], but the exact terms of the deal (ceasefire? Truce? Peace treaty?) remain unclear. We should mention that a deal to halt hostilities was signed by representatives of Armenia, Azerbaijan and Russia, but hold off on assessment of the conflict until reliable sources weigh in. I think that the current text in the article does a good job given the currently available sources. signed, Rosguill talk 23:45, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill:, Aliyev just confirmed the agreement. Beshogur (talk) 23:50, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We should wait until news reports on what the agreement is - full annexation of N-K? Azerbaijan keeps all territories it captured but returns Lachin? Withdrawal to status quo? Once we know that, news outlets are likely to call the war's winner anyway. I just saw the terms, now we just need news outlets to say Azerbaijan won the war. Shouldn't be too long. Juxlos (talk) 23:54, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How does Azerbaijan annex Karabakh? Beshogur (talk) 11:59, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, not annex. "Retake control" I guess since no national borders officialy shifted. Juxlos (talk) 12:16, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I also do believe that we still need to wait the official agreement to be published. So far there are some points communicated to both community. Note: "Significant territorial gains for Azerbaijan" word is not correct. It was internationally recognized Azerbaijan territories and such words needs to be avoided in order not to lead to misinterpretation/understanding by readers. Mirhasanov (talk) 07:43, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox map of territorial concessions

[edit]

From current sources, it appears as if Artsakh/Armenia will revert control over the seven Azeri districts surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh, plus anything else currently under Azeri control. The map seems to show a huge chunk of northern N-K Autonomous Oblast not currently under Azeri control being ceded, though. Juxlos (talk) 08:34, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The original file has been restored. CMD (talk) 08:37, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see a lot of ghost towns taken back by the Azeri army (e.g. Füzuli, Jabrayil). If possible, it would be very informative to see which towns are/were populated by Armenian/Azeri residents. Drkazmer Just tell me... 12:32, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Post ceasefire

[edit]

Hostilities are over for now. Can we have a section about the reaction to pashinyan signing the agreement, includes parliament speaker? 2A02:2A57:173D:0:94C:8AD0:C456:3178 (talk) 09:52, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Aftermath section is an appropriate place for this content. signed, Rosguill talk 19:22, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Separate article for the ceasefire talks

[edit]

I noticed that the "peace agreement" text in the infobox links to this separate article. I've tagged the article for notability and left a talk page entry where I briefly describe the problems, and I wonder if you guys would be interested in responding there as well. My chief concern is that this does not warrant a separate article. Eik Corell (talk) 12:16, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a precedent for notability on negotiations? FlalfTalk 14:28, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 November 2020

[edit]

"Remove Hamza Division and Sultan Murad Division on Units Involved Section on the right side of the webpage" Adding terrorist organizations have solely propaganda purposes aimed at creating stereotypes against Azerbaijan. 185.41.200.71 (talk) 13:23, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not Done We have covered this before, there is enough reliable information supporting their involvement, so we will not remove it. Please see prior discussions. FlalfTalk 14:27, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Victory reactions

[edit]

Another section for victory reactions? Beshogur (talk) 18:59, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kind of confused what this is asking. Are you asking if we should add another section for victory reactions? I don't think so. Aftermath needs to be expanded so just put it there. FlalfTalk 19:19, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes aftermath reactions. Beshogur (talk) 19:20, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that "victory" reactions leans toward a bias. I would support what is suggested by User:flalf and simply list it under "Aftermath". Arguably, under the same logic, one could include "defeat" reactions which does little to convey information without bias. Jurisdicta (talk) 15:34, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

infobox is incorrect

[edit]

Armenia will not be ceding the annexed Yukhari Askipara and Barxudarlı enclaves of Qazakh rayon to Azerbaijan.

45.74.78.23 (talk) 21:51, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done – I've removed these territories as they were unsourced and don't appear in the English translation of the peace agreement published on the Kremlin website. Cheers, Jr8825 • Talk 22:23, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This page has an extreme pro-Armenian bias.

[edit]

It has a bit of misinformation and videos only show Azerbaijani use of cluster munitions. Nowhere does it show the vice versa. — Nar 2608 (talk) 10:32, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nar 2608, agree on WP:UNDUEWEIGHT, but we don't have free-use footage of Armenia using cluster munitions. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 13:20, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with User:Solavirum, in order to correct what is perceived as misinformation, we need to be able to document any assertions. If you have a citation that can support this, please feel free to include it and we can edit the article as we want it to be accurate and up-to-date. Jurisdicta (talk) 15:30, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"supported by" is wrong

[edit]

Israel didn't support Azerbijan directly. They sold arms for money. This is not "support", this is just a commercial transaction. — 188.120.129.22 (talk) 10:44, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've separated arms suppliers from supporters but kept them on their respective sides. — Zeex.rice (talk) 12:48, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE MAP

[edit]

Russian ministry of defence as posted maps of where the front lines have stoped since the 10th and what the peace keeping mission is going to look like. https://t.me/SputnikArmenia/10137 86.21.8.177 (talk) 19:53, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sputnik is not a reliable source please provide a different source. FlalfTalk 19:20, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
i have found the same Russian MOD maps on different news websites also. please check them and I hope they help.
https://news.am/eng/news/612714.html https://caucasus.liveuamap.com/ https://niqnaq.wordpress.com/ https://www.ft.com/content/c9dab829-3b4a-4464-a0c3-4d5c51aa1b0e https://cybershafarat.com/2020/11/11/the-russian-view-peacekeepers-in-karabakh/ https://cybershafarat.com/2020/11/10/nagorno-karabakh-region-agreement-map/ 86.21.8.177 (talk) 19:53, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Overlapping sections?

[edit]

A separate 'Timeline of military engagements' section seems a bit redundant when we have a section called 'Course of the conflict' - can we merge these? Jr8825 • Talk 01:13, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To-do – note to self, unless anyone wants to pick this up. Jr8825 • Talk 07:08, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was having a look at the exact same issue a couple of days ago, so I've taken a go. Some text is sourced to live news feeds and so are tricky to verify given they have substantially changed in the weeks since they were used here, but that was a minor issue and I'm sure better sources can be found going forwards. CMD (talk) 07:46, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 November 2020

[edit]

Fix spelling of 'reveal' under Military Casualties, equipment losses and infrastructure damage FBKong (talk) 12:04, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done thanks for the catch, FBKong. Cheers, Jr8825 • Talk 12:18, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit reqeust on 12 November 2020

[edit]

This was not a Russia Turkey proxy conflict. Requesting removal of label.

Requesting update of map to the resulting surrender agreement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KY-Acc (talk • contribs) 18:16, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The request regarding Russia-Turkey proxy conflict is  Not done, as there have been sources provided that describe the conflict this way the onus is on you to provide sources disputing this perspective or to find a basis to dismiss the existing sources (cited primarily in the Analysis section) that support this perspective. The map has been updated to better reflect the post-peace deal status. signed, Rosguill talk 18:23, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 November 2020 (2)

[edit]

Hi,

There is no absolute proof that Syrian mercenaries have been fighting in this war.

I kindly request you to delete that in full or at least mention it as "It is claimed but not confirmed that any foreign mercenaries fought on Azeri side"

Furthermore Armenians recruited PKK, Abkhaz and other Kurdish militants to fight on their side and that has to be included.

Hoping you will amend and delete Syrian mercenaries involvement on Azeri side.

Best Regards Concerned Citizen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.101.2.246 (talk) 19:07, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This has been addressed before and has been the subject of much discussion. Please review earlier discussions on this page and its archives. signed, Rosguill talk 19:32, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 November 2020

[edit]

Neither Azerbaijan nor Armenia won. I suggest removing the misinformation and stating it ended in a peace contract. 2600:1700:9BD0:7FE0:40D8:CE07:C03:ECDA (talk) 06:20, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We currently have citations to BBC and Financial Times calling it a victory for Azerbaijan ( [3] [4]). In order for your proposed change to be considered, you would need to provide sources that are at least as strong as these two that dispute this interpretation, or provide some sort of justification for why the existing sources should not be considered reliable. signed, Rosguill talk 18:27, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Change

[edit]

Recaptured should be liberated. Please make necessary corrections 1elvinn (talk) 12:30, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done - "liberated" does not fit our policy on writing from a neutral point of view. Jr8825 • Talk 13:42, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

so-called claim Syrians at Nagarbo Karabakh war

[edit]

Any Syrian paramilitary group did not fight near Azerbaijani forces. Additionally sources about that claim is single sided and insufficient. Moreover those claims is falsified by Azerbaijan. Hence any information about Syrian paramilitary troops has to be removed from the column about Azerbaijan or at least phrases like "claimed", "allegedly" have to be used. Ceyhunyor (talk) 06:44, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done This has been examined many times and there are multiple reliable sources to support it. Please see previous discussions and provide reliable sources to support your claim if you'd like to revisit this. Jr8825 • Talk 08:51, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 November 2020

[edit]

Aftermath section → Armenia: Armenians set fire to their houses before leaving their settlements in Nagorno-Karabakh. source 94.25.95.62 (talk) 16:11, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Jr8825 • Talk 20:26, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Remove repetitions from the war crime section

[edit]

Currently the war crime section of Armenia has a few repetitions, most notably on the use of cluster bombs in Barda. The same item is repeated and same source used. Here goes (I put on bold the repetition):

The use of cluster munitions was also confirmed by The New York Times.[308] Armenia denied any responsibility for the attack[309] but Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch stated that it was Armenia who had carried out the attack[310][311] while the unrecognized Republic of Artsakh admitted responsibility, but said they were targeting military facilities.[312] The New York Times reporting team was caught in an Armenian rocket attack driving along the main street of Barda.[313]

On 30 October 2020, Human Rights Watch reported that Armenia or Artsakh forces used cluster munition and called that Armenia should immediately cease using cluster munitions or supplying them to Nagorno-Karabakh forces

I suggest the removal of the last phrase and including the key information in the first paragraph as follows (changes in italic):

The use of cluster munitions was also confirmed by The New York Times.[308] Armenia denied any responsibility for the attack[309] but Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch stated that it was Armenia or Artsakh who had carried out the attack and called for an immediate stop on the use of cluster munitions[310][311] while the unrecognized Republic of Artsakh admitted responsibility, but said they were targeting military facilities.[312] The New York Times reporting team was caught in an Armenian rocket attack driving along the main street of Barda.[313]--Sataralynd (talk) 18:40, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sataralynd:  Done yep, looks like a case of redundancy. Jr8825 • Talk 19:29, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jr8825: Thanks--Sataralynd (talk) 04:33, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eco-terrorism or scorched earth policy conducted by Armenians while leaving Kalbajar.

[edit]

Armenians that illegally settled in Kalbajar and now leaving it conducting scorched earth policy. There are many videos in youtube and articles issued by international media:

Armenians set fire to homes before handing village over to Azerbaijan - https://www.reuters.com/article/us-armenia-azerbaijan-village/armenians-set-fire-to-homes-before-handing-village-over-to-azerbaijan-idUSKBN27U0FQ

'Ecological terror': Azerbaijan delays takeover, Armenians torch homes - https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/world/asia/ecological-terror-azerbaijan-delays-takeover-denounces-fleeing-armenians-20201116-p56eu6.html?ref=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_source=rss_feed

Ethnic Armenian villagers burn houses before Azerbaijan takeover - https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/11/14/villagers-burn-karabakh-houses-ahead-of-azerbaijan-takeover

We should start add this as a section and give more information about echo terror conducted by Armenians illegally settled in there occupied region. Mirhasanov (talk) 20:22, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Added a sentence on this to the Aftermath section. Jr8825 • Talk 20:39, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, this was already in the article and I was accidentally duplicating part of the Ceasefire section. Thanks for correcting this Solavirum. Jr8825 • Talk 22:04, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deficiencies

[edit]

İnfo box There are several hundred missing soldiers on Armenian side – PM Pashinyan https://armenpress.am/eng/news/1034974.html

  • Karabakh occupation compensation to be given to Azerbaijan
  • War crimes by Armenia
Feeding the dead bodies of Azerbaijani soldiers to pigs.

Deputy Speaker of the Armenian Parliament Alen Simonyan Sharing the images from the official Twitter account

--45.135.206.230 (talk) 15:36, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about the first thing but this article, but for the others:
  • the article already establishes the territorial transitions that are happening
  • there is a section on armenian war crimes, although both sides could be expanded
  • and i have no idea where you got that third thing
  • twitter isn't a reliable source.

Please actually read the article before complaining about it. FlalfTalk 15:42, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]


sources are not reliable, but it is necessary to follow up war compensation cases. https://www.rferl.org/a/azerbaijan-compensation-armenia-karabakh/25195795.html turan.az/ext/news/2020/11/free/politics%20news/en/129819.htm

Twitter is not reliable but the disgusting images are shared from the approved account. Outrageous:

Alen Simonyan, the Vice President of Armenian National Assambly publishes a picture where pigs feed on dead Azerbaijani soldiers.

“ corpses rot,become food for animals. “

Obvious that Armenians just watch while it’s happening, possible that they brought the pigs https://twitter.com/ragipsoylu/status/1325150421887799297

Shouldn't this be added to the war crimes section of the Armenians? Isn't it a serious enough event?--45.135.206.230 (talk) 17:51, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done As you've just pointed out, Twitter isn't a reliable source and cannot be used for an extraordinary claim like this under our policies. The compensation demand is from 2013. Jr8825 • Talk 19:07, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: Rename to "2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War"

[edit]
MOVED
Rough consensus to use (1) "2020" over "Second", (2) "war" over "conflict", and (3) "war" over "War". Should usage in reliable, independent, secondary sources change then these points may be reconsidered in a subsequent move request. An extended summary prefaces the move request. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:43, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion 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.

There is a rough consensus for 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war. While opposition was numerically in the minority, they largely pointed to policies such as WP:OR and WP:N to support their points which I weighed heavily per WP:CONLEVEL. That said, support for some version of "war" was numerically overwhelming, and it is obvious that the current page title does not have consensus. To determine the consensus title, I looked to find the title that has the most support while still taking into account the legitimate concerns of the opposition.

The title Second Nagorno-Karabakh War had a lot of support, but per WP:NOTAVOTE we must weigh the opinions according to policy. Few rationales in support of that title cited relevant policies, while opposition to the title did. Editors point out that no reliable, independent, secondary sources use the proper noun "Second Nagorno-Karabakh War" and so the proposed title is unacceptable original research by synthesis. As such there is a consensus against describing this conflict as the "Second" war.

The title 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War had some support and retained the "war" characterization that many supporters of "Second" supported. This title, and the characterization as a "war" were challenged on the grounds of WP:COMMONNAME. Participants provided a number of sources which show reliable sources using both "conflict" and "war", and there is no consensus that either is overwhelmingly or predominently used. Indeed, the overwhelming majority of participants seem to agree that "war" is a better title than what some consider the most common name. As such, there is rough consensus that "conflict" is not sufficiently precise to describe the subject.

The final point of contention is whether to capitalize "war" or not. While a large number supported the capitalized version, few supporters gave an explanation for why the capitalization should be used. Those opposed generally gave policy-based rationales for the non-capitalized variant. In general, proponents of lowercase-"war" raised concerns about WP:OR since it could be seen as coining a proper noun (especially in combination with "Second") rather than a description of the subject. Even among those entirely opposed to the move, there was weaker opposition to the use of lowercase-"war" than to uppercase-"war".

So at this time there is a rough consensus to use (1) "war" over "conflict", (2) "war" over "War", and (3) "2020" over "Second". Should usage in reliable, independent, secondary sources change then these points may be reconsidered in a subsequent move request. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:43, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict → 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War The last rename proposal failed to gain consensus, but from the comments of most of the editors who responded it appears that there is strong support if not a consensus to rename the article to 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War, which is a neutral but accurate title in conformance with the manual of style. The majority of major media outlets are now referring to this as a war see [5], [6], [7], [8], [9] and combined arms conventional warfare is in fact taking place on the ground.XavierGreen (talk) 17:25, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree that its likely sources will use that title in the long run, as things stand right now only a handful of them appear to be actually using "Second Nagorno-Karabak War". As such, its not the "common name" for the war at the present time. Given that, we must use the standard conventions from the manual of style for naming wars (ie: the geographic area in which the war is taking place or the names of the belligerents). XavierGreen (talk) 17:38, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I clearly stated above that I am the nominator. I am auto-confirmed and have move privileges, as I stated above from the last move request there appears to be a clear consensus to rename the article to 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War. However, because this is a high profile and controversial page, rather than moving this page without any further discussion I elected to open this discussion to make sure prior to moving the page (that way people can see in the talk page archives why the title was changed). In the event this proposal proves controversial (which so far it does not), i'll open a formal move request.XavierGreen (talk) 17:25, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't see it. Ok it's fine. Beshogur (talk) 17:35, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Because WP:RM says only controversial moves should be done via a WP:RM, a prior move discussion related to a different proposed name showed a consensus to change the title to 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War, hence the proposed title change here is not actually controversial. However since that discussion didn't actually propose using that title i figured it best to just open up this confirming discussion here before being bold and making the move to confirm that the consensus that was apparant actually affirmatively existed.XavierGreen (talk) 20:38, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  1. BBC: War.
  2. NYT: Only one mention of "what would seem to be a local war" is not a strong endorsement for a name change. Moreover, the byline reads "extended conflict". So, Neutral.
  3. Reuters. "Conflict". This is worth refreshing every day: https://uk.reuters.com/search/news?blob=Nagorno-Karabakh&sortBy=date&dateRange=all
  4. AP: "hostilites" and "fighting".
  5. AFP: War.

Analysis: No consensus for a name change in the PRS. Note: you can do this search and update this list with timechecks yourself: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources. In other words, this is essentially an automated process. No opinions are, or should be, involved. Johncdraper (talk) 20:39, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Al Jazeera is also referring to it as a war, see here [10]. NPR refers to it as a "hot war" here [11]. XavierGreen (talk) 21:53, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What information is tentative? Major news outlets (as i cited above) are referring to the subject matter of this article as a war and actual conventional warfare is occurring and has occurred on the ground.XavierGreen (talk) 02:31, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Johncdraper Has done a good job of highlighting that there is still no consensus among sources regarding the description of this conflict. That is why its tentative unless unanimity emerges among them. Gotitbro (talk) 06:56, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support For 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War. Almost every major news organization and think-tank is referring to it as a war and leaders of both countries openly declare about capturing or attacking pieces of enemy territory, nothing short of an open declaration. Even the death tolls clearly indicate a war-like situation. Striking my previous oppose. Gotitbro (talk) 15:56, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  1. AFP. War.[1]
  2. Al Jazeera. War.[2]
  3. AP. Fighting.[3]
  4. BBC. Conflict.[4]
  5. Bloomberg. Conflict.[5]
  6. CNN. Conflict.[6]
  7. The Conversation. "engaged in the flames of war" (does not mention war as name; may be rhetorical)[7]
  8. Time. Conflict.[8]

Analysis: As of Time stamp, not yet War. Reason may be because in addition to the problem that the War has never really ended, War could obligate triggering the Armenian-Russian defense pact. Apologies for the late arrival of this status check. I have been busy with some very complex geopolitics. Johncdraper (talk) 00:42, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Super Dromaeosaurus: I will certainly consider your opinion. Would you mind doing this evening's Report of Time Checked Analysis of Multiple Perennial Sources yourself? I am officially busy. Johncdraper (talk) 13:30, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Johncdraper, what? Just so you know, I didn't respond to your message. I have only stated my preference. Super Ψ Dro 18:21, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support to Second Nagorno-Karabakh War (but mainly replacing conflict with war), as this is already probably the most intense conventional war of the last decade. The amount of units eliminated by drone strikes, artillery and ambushes really speaks for itself.--Ermanarich (talk) 18:04, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not even close. The military action against ISIS alone makes the current conflict in N-K look like a park picnic in comparison, sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.169.21.247 (talk) 07:54, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it could be. But, it would still have to overcome the 'Report of Time Checked Analysis of Multiple Perennial Sources'. Johncdraper (talk) 09:30, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  1. AFP. War.[9]
  2. Al Jazeera. Battle/Conflict.[10]
  3. AP. Conflict.[11]
  4. BBC. Conflict.[12]
  5. Bloomberg. Fighting.[13]
  6. CNN. Conflict.[14]
  7. The Conversation. "engaged in the flames of war" (does not mention war as name; may be rhetorical)[15]
  8. Time. Conflict.[16]

Analysis: No change, as per above, and see below. Add: I am now officially busy. Johncdraper (talk) 09:05, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Sigh) Frankly, it's absurd to argue that this is not a war. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 09:53, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Johncdraper, BBC appears to be using "war" and "conflict" interchangeably, see [12], [13].
One thing that I think should be considered as well is that if RS's descriptions start including "war", our naming should be "2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war", not "2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War", as the title is not yet a proper noun but rather a description. At this time, arguments for "Second Nagorno-Karabakh War", (as well as some of the arguments for the 2020 variation) are totally at odds with our policy against original research. signed, Rosguill talk 15:41, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As indicated above, reliable sources are calling this a "war", most without using any sort of specific name for it. Right now, war is being used interchangeably with "conflict". Since there is clearly overwhelming support to change the title to war as indicated above. I ask you as an administrator User:Rosguill to make the move, since the page is now extended-protected and I can not do so.XavierGreen (talk) 15:48, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@XavierGreen: That is a factually incorrect statement. As of the Timestamp, one is. Johncdraper (talk) 15:58, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have posted several sources above, and even more below.XavierGreen (talk) 16:06, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
XavierGreen, I'm not going to do that. Right now, while I think that a case can be made for "2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war" as described in my comment above, the vast majority of arguments here are original research, such that I think it would be a grave error to close in favor of them. As I am currently the only editor to be taking this specific position (although it is largely reconcilable with the blanket oppose !votes), I'm going to have to consider myself involved here and ask that this be closed by a third party. signed, Rosguill talk 16:29, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosguill: i would not be opposed to having the w in "war" lower-case if thats what the manual of style dictates. The issue as to whether or not the w should be capitalized or lower case has not really been addressed here. I will ping additional administrators (from Wiki:MilHistory since this is in their scope) and ask that they make the move based on the clear consensus established here. Peacemaker67 Parsecboy Eddie891XavierGreen (talk) 17:25, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note that RM discussions are generally left open for at least a week unless there is unanimous consensus; this discussion has only been open for 5 days. I think you're rushing this close more than is appropriate. signed, Rosguill talk 18:20, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rosguill, it has now been more than a week with support strengthening even further for the proposed move, with one of the handful of opponents changing his mind to support, as the Wiki:MilitaryHistory coordinators failed to respond to my request. I have opened a request to effectuate the move on the Admin noticeboard here [14].XavierGreen (talk) 13:54, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosguill: The BBC stabilized their coverage under the heading "Nagorno-Karabakh conflict". I think someone mentioned the implications of the alternative to them. Johncdraper (talk) 15:50, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The BBC called this a war in a piece they did 2 days ago, see here [15]. There are also a myriad of other reliable sources using "war". The New York Times [16], Radio Free Europe [17],Politico [18], Newsweek [19], XavierGreen (talk) 15:55, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@XavierGreen: Newsweek is no longer a PRS and is discounted. The BBC was an op-ed based piece; the BBC present category heading is very specific. The New York Times piece is an op ed, by Anton Troianovski. Per WP:Reliable sources/Perennial sources: " WP:RSOPINION should be used to evaluate opinion columns". More importantly, the op ed is filed under the NY Times category "The Conflict Over Nagorno-Karabakh". For Politico, "Politico is considered generally reliable for American politics. A small number of editors say that Politico is a biased source." For Politico, I quote:

POMPEO TO HOST ARMENIAN, AZERBAIJANI FOREIGN MINISTERS AMID DEADLY CLASHES. The visits offer the Trump administration a chance to showcase an attempt at global leadership just days before President Donald Trump faces reelection. What’s happening: The foreign ministers of Azerbaijan and Armenia, two countries at war with each other, are scheduled to separately meet with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in Washington on Friday.

What I find curious is that war does not appear to be in the title. Now, weigh all that up against the Report of Time-Stamped (10:00GMT) Semi-Automated Analysis of Multiple Perennial Sources Follows. Analysis: still no consensus as per WP:PRS. Add: From a purely semantic perspective, note that "at war" lacks a definitive article. Perhaps we could provide the latter ourselves, on a collegiate basis... Johncdraper (talk) 21:41, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I would like to point out that "war" and "conflict" are not mutually exclusive. The media uses them interchangibly about almost every war, even though a "conflict" can be completely bloodless. The real issue isn't which term is most commonly used in the media, but the fact that this is objectively a war. It's been less than a month, the number of deaths have already eclipsed those of the Falklands War, and Azerbaijan has taken over a large chunk of Nagorno-Karabakh. It is absurd to insist that this is not a war. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 07:33, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hundreds of people are dying, and we're wasting time debating whether or not this is a war. Jesus Christ. This is Wikipedia at its worst. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 12:38, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This. Completely support and not sure why it is even an argument any more.Muchclag (talk) 19:34, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as I believe there is ample sources to show that this should be renamed from "conflict" to a "war". Technically, war is defined as "a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations." (see https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/war) As reputable news organizations have labeled this action as a "war" and it fits the definition of a war, I support changing the the title to "2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War". Jurisdicta (talk) 00:38, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. As Rosguill said above, suggestions such as 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War and Second Nagorno-Karabakh War are not acceptable because they are not being used by any reliable sources. Article titles on Wikipedia should not be coining proper nouns. As for 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war, based on Johncdraper's analysis above I don't think enough sources are using "war" right now, so we should default to the more neutral "conflict". — Goszei (talk) 05:32, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Goszei: Azerbaijan's president referred to the war as the Second Nagorno-Karabakh war.FlalfTalk 12:38, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Flalf: A proclamation from Azerbaijan's president has no relation to the WP:COMMONNAME. — Goszei (talk) 20:07, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Goszei: This has been discussed before (see "2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War" or "Second Nagorno-Karabakh War" below.) As of right now there isn't a major consensus on name so if a policy is getting in the way of a more suitable name, then this is an example of WP:IGNORE. 'Second Nagorno-Karabakh War' is a name that is not only more relevant than the current name, but it has also been used by a major participant in the war, it is more than fitting to become the new name of the article. FlalfTalk 21:10, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Flalf: COMMONNAME should not be brushed aside so easily here, because it helps avoid violations of WP:OR, a core content policy. This particular case illustrates it well -- the proposal of "Second Nagorno-Karabakh War" is based on a single primary source, and "2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War" is evidently a synthesis, both of which are clearly at odds with WP:OR. And for good reason: Wikipedia should not be coining proper nouns. — Goszei (talk) 21:47, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Goszei: In general yes COMMONNAME helps with WP:OR, but your use of this in this context just isn't correct. It's quite simple: if it has been established by sources that others use the term, then it is not OR and since Aliyev referred to it as 'İkinci Qarabağ Müharibəsi' as seen here [20] it doesn't qualify as original research. Not only that but some third party sources such as here [21] have also used it. FlalfTalk 00:52, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Flalf: WP:COMMONNAME does not simply stipulate that "sources use the term", it requires a "prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources". I was more referring to WP:PRIMARY section of WP:OR with regards to "Second..." — naming an article after a translation (!) of a foreign-language term used by one side (!) of a multi-party war is a shaky rationale, IMO. — Goszei (talk) 01:05, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Goszei: I was referring to it not being original research because other sources use the term, not common name. My argument for common name is that there isn't consistent and common term used to describe the war. Also, yes, primary sources are generally shaky, but, in some cases (such as here) a primary source can be used carefully as it is an example of a better and more descriptive term already being used by a party that is directly involved in the war. FlalfTalk 12:09, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Conflict to War, as even if not officially declared, it is still a war due to its scale. Armatura (talk) 19:00, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Report of Time-Stamped (14:00GMT) Semi-Automated Analysis of Multiple Perennial Sources Follows.
  1. AFP. War.[17]
  2. Al Jazeera. Battle/Conflict.[18]
  3. AP. Conflict.[19]
  4. BBC. Conflict.[20]
  5. Bloomberg. Fighting.[21]
  6. CNN. Conflict.[22]
  7. The Conversation. "engaged in the flames of war" (does not mention war as name; may be rhetorical)[23]
  8. Time. Frozen war.[24]
  9. NY Times. War.[25]

Still no consensus re War: "frozen war"?Johncdraper (talk) 14:10, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, as "Second Nagorno-Karabakh War". Oranjelo100 (talk) 11:31, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Johncdraper's summaries of what the RS are currently saying. I agree with Rosguill's view, we should wait for there to be a clear weight of RS using this term. Strong oppose a change to Second Nagorno-Karabakh War or 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War, per Rosguill. If there is a consensus for renaming, it should be to 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war. A quick Google search shows very few uses of the term as a proper noun and none whatsoever in RS. It would therefore be a violation of WP:OR, and possibly also WP:DUE. Jr8825 • Talk 18:17, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War" or "Second Nagorno-Karabakh War"?

[edit]

People who support the move seem to be divided between which title to use, so I think it would be better to clarify as soon as possible what the name of the article would be in case it is moved to avoid possible posterior problems. I personally support "Second Nagorno-Karabakh War", I don't see the point in specifying the year, we don't say "1939–1945 World War" or "1998–2003 Congo War" for example. Super Ψ Dro 12:43, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While there are ample sources to support usage of the term "war", there are at present only a handful of sources which use "Second Nagorno-Karabakh War".XavierGreen (talk) 13:33, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Major sources, like for Al Jazeera, still call this a conflict that can escalate to a war. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 14:05, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Solavirum: That article says that it could escalate into an all-out war; it does not say that this is not "yet" a war. And even if every single media outlet on planet Earth refused to call this a war, hundreds of deaths and large-scale destruction would speak otherwise. Frankly, this reminds me of how diplomats avoided using the word "genocide" about the events in Rwanda long past the point where there was no ground for doubt. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 15:25, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mikrobølgeovn, on what ground you can prove that calling an armed conflict a "war" by its causalities is correct? We have guidelines here, which follows the media's WP:COMMONNAME of the topic. And last time I checked, I wasn't a diplomat that wants to keep good relations with a certain government. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 15:29, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Solavirum: Well we aren't calling it 'Azerbaijani Aggression' or 'Operation for peace enforcement of Armenia' I think in the early stages of a conflict like this there isn't a super well defined name. For now I think 'Second Nagorno-Karabakh' war is fitting. FlalfTalk 15:35, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Solavirum: This is not really a matter of "name", as there is no commonly accepted name for this war yet. Rather, the question is which title is the most suitable in the meantime. Since this is no doubt a war, the title should reflect that. (And if WP:COMMONNAME keeps us from calling a war a war, this case seems like a clear candidate for WP:IGNORE.) Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 15:44, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • A lot of previous conflicts/skirmishes after the major war in the 1990s have been termed as wars by many sources and there were wars in the area even prior to that. Terming this as second is clearly problematic, the year is the default choice unless clearly noted otherwise (not the case here). Gotitbro (talk) 16:02, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Usually, in unconventional circumstances war is only used when deaths exceed 1,000; since Azerbaijan hasn’t released their casualty figures, I believe we should wait for the Armenia/Artsakh death toll to hit that before we rename the conflict. 8889stanzaexcel (talk) 22:59, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That definition is nonsense. Countless wars had fewer than 1,000 deaths, including the Falklands War. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 00:34, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Per Mikrobølgeovn it's ridiculous that this is even an argument, hundreds of people are dying in an armed conflict between two states, yes this is a war. FlalfTalk 12:49, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would also note that the "1000" deaths threshold argument is moot, as looking at reliable sources, more than 1000 deaths have already occured.XavierGreen (talk) 00:26, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I had support the name of the Second Nagorno-Karabakh War as if we called it the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War it just would not work. Plus this is the second major war of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict (Though you can argue that the Four-Day War is the second one but its not a major conflict as it only last for four days.) CrusaderToonamiUK (talk) 17:07, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note only Yerevan dubs the 2016 clashes as "April War" or "Four-Day War", Azerbaijanis call it clashes. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 18:05, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your wrong there, various sources in a variety of countries use the term "Four Day War", including Azeri ones. See here [22]XavierGreen (talk) 22:22, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If the manual of style says that the "w" in "war" should not be capitalized, i'm fine with that.XavierGreen (talk) 15:20, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with XavierGreen; this is a temporary title until a proper name emerges. I'm guessing that this war will eventually become known as the "Second Nagorno-Karabakh War", but for now, this is what we've got to go with. There seems to be sufficient support to go ahead and move the article. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 21:53, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Aliyev just called today this conflict as "İkinci Qarabağ Müharibəsi" - Second Karabakh War. --HCPUNXKID 22:40, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think time is ripe to skip any temporary title and name this article "Second Nagorno-Karabakh War". It appears to be the most accepted name. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 01:51, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  1. AFP. War.[26]
  2. Al Jazeera. Battle/Conflict.[27]
  3. AP. Conflict.[28]
  4. BBC. Conflict.[29]
  5. Bloomberg. Fighting.[30]
  6. CNN. Conflict.[31]
  7. The Conversation. "engaged in the flames of war" (does not mention war as name; may be rhetorical)[32]
  8. Time. Frozen war.[33]
  9. NY Times. War.[34]

Still no consensus re War: "frozen war"?Johncdraper (talk) 14:10, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are additional sources referring to it as a war such as The Hill here [23], additionally various sources such as the BBC and Al Jazeera have referred to it as a war in previous articles as indicated above.XavierGreen (talk) 15:30, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We've seem to have come to a consensus about renaming this article but we haven't really decided what to, per Super Dromaeosaurus, we should probably choose between the two options sooner rather than later because otherwise we are stuck with a name the majority of users are unhappy with. FlalfTalk 21:23, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's more likely that "2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War" will be the name, later we can discuss whether to use "Second Nagorno-Karabakh" or not, but for now the priority is to say it's a war. Super Ψ Dro 10:26, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer "2020", but if "second" is used, the word should be left uncapitalized. There is no proper mame for the war, and we should not be creating one. Blah 18:07, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is clear that this page must be moved as soon as possible, but it remains unclear to what exactly. I'm going to ping anyone who has expressed support for move in this subsection but without specifying what name they support. Hopefully this will help fix the issue sooner. Beshogur, Brandmeister, DannyDouble, 2601:85:C101:BA30:41F8:1862:FBC2:3F37 (not sure if this works for IPs), Juxlos, TheEpicGhosty, Balkanite, VZkN9, Whydoesitfeelsogood, TheMightyGeneral, Blah, Governor Sheng, CoronaOneLove and DERPALERT; which name do you support, "2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War" or "Second Nagorno-Karabakh War"?

I am also aware that these types of discussions are not a vote, but to leave a better perspective, I clarify that 8 people (including myself) have expressed support for "Second Nagorno-Karabakh War" and 4 people have expressed support for "2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War". It must be noted that I've only counted people on this subsection. Super Ψ Dro 20:28, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Super Dromaeosaurus so far i've only seen a very small number of sources use the term "Second Nagorno-Karabakh War", what supporting sources do you have using that name? Also, If you look at this monagve discussion as a whole, 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War" (with or without the w capitalized), has far more support than Second Nagorno-Karabakh War and also conforms with wikipedia naming conventions for unnamed wars. I would also note that only a small minority of editors oppose changing the title to include the term "war" or prefer the current "2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict" title.XavierGreen (talk) 00:32, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware of those who continue to oppose it, but I believe that the consensus achieved by most users is that the article should be moved. And I don't see how "2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War" is more supported. Super Ψ Dro 10:37, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The vast majority of users support "Second Nagorno-Karabakh War", but honestly, the arguments against this name are more valid and make more sense. I'm going to request the move of this article shortly to "2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war" at WP:RMT, this is the name that implies a less "radical" change and once Wikipedia begins to call this a war, the term will begin to be more used everywhere, which can give more support in the future for possible new moves to "2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War" or "Second Nagorno-Karabakh War". I believe there are not many people who will disagree with this, but still, just in case, I will wait a few hours in case someone wants to say something else. Super Ψ Dro 10:37, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hours have passed and no one has shown any opposition, so I have requested a move as "2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war" and a closure of the move request here for the change to be applied. Super Ψ Dro 14:58, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support for Second Nagorno-Karabakh War per Super Dromaeosaurus. Mgasparin (talk) 21:19, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "L'excellence du reportage multimédia AFP mobilisée dans la couverture de la guerre du Nagorny Karabakh". AFP.com (in French). 2020-10-13. Retrieved 2020-10-15.
  2. ^ Forestier-Walker, Robin. "Nagorno-Karabakh: New weapons for an old conflict spell danger". www.aljazeera.com. Retrieved 2020-10-15.
  3. ^ "Nagorno-Karabakh volunteers get weapons as clashes intensify". AP NEWS. 2020-10-15. Retrieved 2020-10-15.
  4. ^ "Nagorno-Karabakh conflict: Armenian PM admits significant casualties". BBC News. 2020-10-14. Retrieved 2020-10-15.
  5. ^ "Azerbaijan Attack on Armenia Raises Stakes in Karabakh Conflict". Bloomberg.com. 2020-10-14. Retrieved 2020-10-15.
  6. ^ Bociurkiw, Opinion by Michael. "Opinion: The conflict we can't ignore". CNN. Retrieved 2020-10-15.
  7. ^ Toal, Gerard; O’Loughlin, John; Bakke, Kristin M. "Nagorno-Karabakh: what do residents of the contested territory want for their future?". The Conversation. Retrieved 2020-10-15.
  8. ^ "Tensions Rise in Armenia and Azerbaijan Amid Claims of New Attacks". Time. Retrieved 2020-10-16.
  9. ^ "L'excellence du reportage multimédia AFP mobilisée dans la couverture de la guerre du Nagorny Karabakh". AFP.com (in French). 2020-10-13. Retrieved 2020-10-15.
  10. ^ Melimopoulos, Arwa Ibrahim,Elizabeth. "UN chief urges Nagorno-Karabakh rivals to respect truce". www.aljazeera.com. Retrieved 2020-10-19.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  11. ^ "Armenia and Azerbaijan announce a new attempt to establish a cease-fire in their conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh". AP.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  12. ^ "Nagorno-Karabakh conflict". BBC News. Retrieved 2020-10-19.
  13. ^ "Armenia, Azerbaijan Cease-Fire Collapses Within Hours". Bloomberg.com. 2020-10-18. Retrieved 2020-10-19.
  14. ^ CNN, Ray Sanchez and Sharif Paget. "Azerbaijan and Armenia agree to a pause in fighting". CNN. Retrieved 2020-10-19. {{cite web}}: |last= has generic name (help)
  15. ^ Toal, Gerard; O’Loughlin, John; Bakke, Kristin M. "Nagorno-Karabakh: what do residents of the contested territory want for their future?". The Conversation. Retrieved 2020-10-15.
  16. ^ "Armenia's Prime Minister Accuses Turkey of 'Reinstating the Ottoman Empire' in Sending Mercenaries to Nagorno Karabakh". Time. Retrieved 2020-10-19.
  17. ^ "L'excellence du reportage multimédia AFP mobilisée dans la couverture de la guerre du Nagorny Karabakh". AFP.com (in French). 2020-10-13. Retrieved 2020-10-15.
  18. ^ "Nagorno-Karabakh: Fighting continues, Baku issues Russia warning". www.aljazeera.com. Retrieved 2020-10-26.
  19. ^ "Combates en Nagorno-Karabaj siguen pese a mediación de EEUU". AP NEWS. 2020-10-24. Retrieved 2020-10-26.
  20. ^ "Nagorno-Karabakh conflict: US-brokered ceasefire frays soon after starting". BBC News. 2020-10-26. Retrieved 2020-10-26.
  21. ^ "Search - Bloomberg". Bloomberg.com. Retrieved 2020-10-26.
  22. ^ Why Nagorno-Karabakh matters - CNN Video, retrieved 2020-10-26
  23. ^ Toal, Gerard; O’Loughlin, John; Bakke, Kristin M. "Nagorno-Karabakh: what do residents of the contested territory want for their future?". The Conversation. Retrieved 2020-10-15.
  24. ^ "Scenes from Behind the Frontlines of Europe's Oldest 'Frozen War' in Nagorno-Karabakh". Time. Retrieved 2020-10-26.
  25. ^ Troianovski, Anton; Ponomarev, Sergey (2020-10-21). "At Front Lines of a Brutal War: Death and Despair in Nagorno-Karabakh". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2020-10-26.
  26. ^ "L'excellence du reportage multimédia AFP mobilisée dans la couverture de la guerre du Nagorny Karabakh". AFP.com (in French). 2020-10-13. Retrieved 2020-10-15.
  27. ^ "Nagorno-Karabakh: Fighting continues, Baku issues Russia warning". www.aljazeera.com. Retrieved 2020-10-26.
  28. ^ "Combates en Nagorno-Karabaj siguen pese a mediación de EEUU". AP NEWS. 2020-10-24. Retrieved 2020-10-26.
  29. ^ "Nagorno-Karabakh conflict: US-brokered ceasefire frays soon after starting". BBC News. 2020-10-26. Retrieved 2020-10-26.
  30. ^ "Search - Bloomberg". Bloomberg.com. Retrieved 2020-10-26.
  31. ^ Why Nagorno-Karabakh matters - CNN Video, retrieved 2020-10-26
  32. ^ Toal, Gerard; O’Loughlin, John; Bakke, Kristin M. "Nagorno-Karabakh: what do residents of the contested territory want for their future?". The Conversation. Retrieved 2020-10-15.
  33. ^ "Scenes from Behind the Frontlines of Europe's Oldest 'Frozen War' in Nagorno-Karabakh". Time. Retrieved 2020-10-26.
  34. ^ Troianovski, Anton; Ponomarev, Sergey (2020-10-21). "At Front Lines of a Brutal War: Death and Despair in Nagorno-Karabakh". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2020-10-26.
  35. ^ https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-54652704
  36. ^ https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20201029-armenian-separatists-say-azerbaijan-closing-in-on-key-town
  37. ^ https://www.thebritishjournal.com/world/karabakh-says-azerbaijan-forces-closing-in-on-key-town-of-shusha-thebritishjournal-reports-201348-2020/
  38. ^ "UCDP Definitions". Department of Peace and Conflict Research. Uppsala Universit. Retrieved 30 October 2020.
  39. ^ "War definition and typology". Universität Hamburg AKUF.
  40. ^ "Methodology – HIIK". Heidelberg Institute for International Conflict Research (HIIK). Retrieved 30 October 2020.
  41. ^ Dennen, Johan M.G. van der. "ON WAR:CONCEPTS,DEFINITIONS,RESEARCH DATA -ASHORT LITERATURE REVIEW AND BIBLIOGRAPH" (PDF) (CORE): 3–9. Retrieved 30 October 2020. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
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.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Second_Nagorno-Karabakh_War/Archive_14&oldid=1142445301"