Talk:Second Nagorno-Karabakh War

  1. Home
  2. Wiki


Dubious tag

[edit]

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

That's not true. Do you have enough information about the topic? The supposed "disputed territory" is Nagorno-Karabakh not Republic of Artsakh. The seven districts were considered Armenian occupied territories, and you're denying this. Not sure why.
Also my comment about occupied by whom is fair. Why doesn't even state the seven districts were Armenian occupied? Is that were we supposed to trim the article where there are lot of redundant text in the whole article? Beshogur (talk) 08:03, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well well. Talk:Armenian-occupied territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh#Requested move 18 December 2024 Beshogur (talk) 08:11, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of whether the territories were considered Armenian occupied territories or at least nominally controlled by / part of the Republic of Artsakh, they are nonetheless the same disputed territory that is shown in the map. They include the Armenian-occupied territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh and Nagorno-Karabakh. There is nothing dubious or unclear about this. The lead is the place for nuance and detail. It states: The later 2023 Azerbaijani offensive in Nagorno-Karabakh would see the entirety of the disputed territory come under the control of Azerbaijan. This only serves to confirm that disputed territory, as used in the infobox is neither unclear nor dubious. Cinderella157 (talk) 13:44, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is that the 7 districts around Karabakh were never considered disputed by the international community. Neither was Karabakh legally disputed, btw, since 4 UNSC resolutions refer to NK as a region of Azerbaijan. But the 7 districts had the status of the occupied territory, per the same UNSC resolutions, and we have an article dedicated to it. Referring to an unrecognized entity as an area of conflict is the same as calling Donetsk People's Republic the area of the conflict in the Russian invasion of Ukraine. But you can see that the article about Ukraine does not mention any separatist entity as the conflict area, instead it refers to "Ukraine, western Russia, Black Sea". Russo-Georgian War does not mention Republic of South Ossetia as the area of conflict, it mentions Georgia. It is the same principle that applies here. Therefore, please refrain from making unilateral changes to the infobox. Grandmaster 15:46, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"disputed territory"
One thing, Cinderella157 genuinely (?) thinks whole territory is "disputed". Personally I think there is no disputed territory, because it's between a non state (de jure) and state actor.
Yes people called it like that all the time. But the disputed territory is Nagorno-Karabakh. I'm putting a map in case Cinderella157 didn't know. Beshogur (talk) 16:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If one side had it, then another side took it but the first side wants it back, there is a dispute over the territory that led to a war and the territory under dispute is the disputed territory. It is not rocket science. In the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Russia invaded Ukrainian controlled territory from multiple points. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:10, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NKR had no internationally recognized borders. Its status would be the same as DNR/LNR in Ukraine, or South Ossetia and Abkhazia in Georgia. How can you put in the infobox the territory of an unrecognized entity with no fixed borders? That is not how its done in other articles about wars in post-Soviet area. It is not informative either, as we have articles about Nagorno-Karabakh and Armenian-occupied territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh which provide detailed information about the territories involved, and the area must point to the geographic location, or the country that legally owns the territory (as in Ukraine and Georgia related articles). And I don't see how Russia invading Ukraine from multiple points changes anything. Armenia also bombed Ganja and Barda far from the battle zone, plus there were border skirmishes too. And in case of Georgia, Russia occupied South Ossetia, i.e. invaded from a single point. Grandmaster 10:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The territory had reasonably fixed borders. We know what the borders were in the opinion of every party, and what they were in reality, at both the start and the end of the war. It's really easy to put this in the infobox. CMD (talk) 10:10, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The original version of this article that was stable for years indicated for the location: Nagorno-Karabakh and surrounding Armenian-occupied territories, Armenia–Azerbaijan border. It pointed to a geographic location. Now it says: Republic of Artsakh. On top of everything mentioned above, it is not in line with WP:NPOV either. I think the original version was better. Grandmaster 10:35, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We are talking about this edit: [1] Grandmaster 10:36, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I was looking only at "Territorial changes", not the |place parameter. In general it's probably a poor idea to send readers to Nagorno-Karabakh, a quite ill-defined article, but it's also true readers probably aren't super enlightened by seeing just Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh as a location and that is easily read as not NPOV. The infobox guidance, "place – the location of the conflict", is not very helpful. Splitting the NKOA and surrounding territories in terms of the war location seems not too important, as this did not affect either side's military operations, and only came up in the peace deal. I doubt there's a perfect wording, tempted to just suggest "Disputed republic in southwest Azerbaijan". CMD (talk) 10:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The republic was never disputed, no one ever recognized it or claimed it as a political entity. It could be argued that the territory was, but not in a legal sense. The international community always recognized it as part of Azerbaijan. I think we need to follow the general practice here. I don't see any similar infobox mentioning unrecognized political entities. Also, the very first line of the article makes pretty clear what exactly the location was. Why not reflecting that in the infobox too? Alternatively, in line with your suggestion, "Southwest Azerbaijan" may also work. Grandmaster 11:10, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We digress. The question here is whether the phrase disputed territory is dubious as tagged. The territory subject to the dispute is the disputed territory regardless of how one wishes to describe it. In this case, we have a map in the infobox that defines the disputed territory - we don't need words to try to capture this in detail. There is nothing dubious about calling the disputed territory disputed territory. Furthermore, this is how the body of the article describes it. Per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, the infobox summarises key facts from the article. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:17, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone on this talk page agrees with your edit. It lacks consensus. Grandmaster 14:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Saying "the republic was never disputed" is doing something very strange to the words in question, there have been multiple wars regarding its existence, it's very very hard for a dispute to be more real. CMD (talk) 16:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean the legal side of the matter. Republic had no recognition, even from Armenia. In legal terms, Karabakh has always been recognized as part of Azerbaijan, so it was not disputed in terms of the international law. The fight was over the territory. Which is why we need to indicate which particular territories the hostilities affected. And we can see that the articles about wars in Ukraine and Georgia do not mention any self-declared republics. So certain consistency would be good. Btw, strikes on Ganja and Barda were also part of the war, so geography was even larger than just Karabakh and surrounding areas. Grandmaster 17:56, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is a misconception that international law does not rule on individual state sovereignty in that way. There is no international law laying out the recognition of any area as part of Azerbaijan. The likely most relevant case, on Kosovo, concluded that declarations of independence were not illegal, but even that did not extend to anything specific regarding the legality of Kosovo. Recognition is a matter of politics, not law. I find it hard to take at face value the previous concerns about NPOV if my suggestion which leaned towards reinforcing the official Azerbaijani state viewpoint are taken as an excuse to move even further in that direction. CMD (talk) 03:12, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we leave aside the arguments about the legal aspects, the fact still remains that NKR was a de-facto state, with no political recognition from anyone, so I believe it would be wrong to refer to it in the infobox as a political entity, and not as a region. If you check other war articles, we don't do it even for statelets with partial recognition, such as Donetsk Republic or South Ossetia Republic. Plus, the 7 districts were never part of the region of Nagorno-Karabakh, even if NKR claimed them. I believe we need to show the distinction between the NK region and the occupied surrounding regions. In any case, we can add your suggestion to the RFC, and see if other users support it. Grandmaster 10:43, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NKR as a de-facto state is a political entity. The definition you give, the former NKAO, is also political. Nobody has ever provided a definition of Nagorno-Karabakh as a geographical region. As noted before, the distinction between the former NKAO and surrounding territories did not play a part in the war. The entire area was fought over. The pre-war borders did not distinguish between the former NKAO and surrounding territories, the war fronts did not distinguish between the former NKAO and surrounding territory, and current borders do not distinguish the former NKAO and surrounding territory. The only expression they had was a brief use after this war, and even then it was only in some areas. There's no reason we should prominently highlight something that didn't really exist before, during, after the war, or even exist now as a reference. CMD (talk) 12:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Look at my comment above please. "disputed territory" in this context means Nagorno-Karabakh. The status of Republic of Artsakh wasn't disputed. No one did ever dispute. It's not even close with Kosovo. Kosovo is recognized almost by 100 of countries. Or Crimea is disputed because both countries claim over the same territory. Here, no one claims, no one recognized Republic of Artsakh either. the distinction between the former NKAO and surrounding territories did not play a part in the war that's not true. There were several proposals of returning the occupied territories in exchange for autonomy to the former NKAO. Beshogur (talk) 13:45, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's simply incorrect, thousands died in specifically because of the dispute. CMD (talk) 15:17, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 December 2024

[edit]

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

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

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

RFC on the infobox content

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Option 1 - This discussion has been run on as far as it possibly could be, with no comments in the past month. Only two closes are really possible given the balance of !voting: no consensus, or Option 1. For Option 1 to be the result, the weight of argument needs to have been in favour of it versus Option 3 (the only other option that received !votes). I find that it was. Ultimately Option 1 was based on WP:NPOV and accuracy. In contrast the main argument for Option 3 appeared to be conciseness in view of the need to keep things in the infobox short. Conciseness in explanation is obviously important, but NPOV and accuracy are a much more important part of our PAGs than MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, which is ultimately within the manual of style. FOARP (talk) 09:34, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Survey

[edit]
  • Option 1. "Nagorno-Karabakh and surrounding Armenian-occupied territories, Armenia–Azerbaijan border" is an accurate description, as it correctly indicates the location and links to the articles that provide detailed information about each of the territories involved. It was in the stable version of the article that existed for years. Indicating an unrecognized entity as a location is not in line with WP:NPOV, because NKR had no internationally recognized borders. The regions in question were not considered as legally disputed by the international community, as the UNSC resolutions referred to Nagorno-Karabakh as a region of Azerbaijan, and to 7 surrounding districts as occupied by Armenian forces. Option 2 also goes against the practice of similar articles about conflicts in the post-Soviet area. Referring to an unrecognized entity as an area of conflict is the same as calling Donetsk People's Republic the area of the conflict in the Russian invasion of Ukraine. But we can see that the article about Ukraine does not mention any separatist entity as the conflict area, instead it refers to "Ukraine, western Russia, Black Sea". Russo-Georgian War does not indicate the Republic of South Ossetia as the area of conflict, it mentions Georgia. The location field should point either to the geographic location, or the country that legally owns the territory (as in Ukraine and Georgia related articles). Grandmaster 16:18, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 3 Artsakh (the Republic of Artsakh) at the start of the war is a defined area that was the locus of the war. It is both accurate and succinct, thereby in keeping with MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, in that the infobox is to provide a succinct summary of key points from the article. Nagorno-Karabakh and surrounding Armenian-occupied territories, Armenia–Azerbaijan border is a level of detail/nuance unsuited to the infobox. Nuance and detail are for prose, such as the lead and the body of the article - not the infobox. Per INFOBOXPURPOSE, the infobox is a suppliment to the lead and the article should remain complete without the infobox. The lead states: [it] took place in the disputed region of Nagorno-Karabakh and the surrounding occupied territories [which were occupied as part of Artsakh]. It continues that it [involved] Azerbaijan, Armenia and the self-declared Armenian breakaway state of Artsakh. There is no NPOV issue in referring to the "place" where the war occurred as Artsakh. The nuance of its status is captured in the prose of the lead - where it belongs. The infobox location is viewed in the context of the lead image map. Per WP:IMGCONTENT, The purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter. The map does this by visually showing the area of conflict - much better than any number of words. Adding Armenia–Azerbaijan border is redundant if not misleading. Yes, there was fighting along what was part of the Armenia–Azerbaijan border prior to the First Nagorno-Karabakh War - once Azerbaijani forces advanced through Artsakh. However, the article (as far as I can see) is not reporting fighting along the much greater border between the two countries away from the locus of Artsakh. As for these WP:OTHERCONTENT arguments, they are not directly comparable. In the Russo-Georgian War, the conflict occurred at two widely separated places within Georgia. The place is appropriately and succinctly described as Georgia. Similarly, the land engagements (until recently) involved Russia invading Ukrainian controlled territory, not that controlled by DPR and LPR. Ukraine succinctly describes the place but the other detail recorded there is probably extraneous. It occurs to me that the objection might be a reference to the Republic of Artsakh rather than Artsakh as identifying the place. I have proposed option 3 and implemented this. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:26, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way. I saw you earlier editing lot of Ukraine related pages as well. Why won't you say for the Russo-Ukrainian War simply Eastern Europe? The article infobox looks like a mess already. Needs the same treatment imo. According to you, Armenian occupation is simply "occupation", what Azerbaijan captures its own territory is "disputed territory". I replied several times with a map what the suposed "disputed territory" supposed to mean, yet you haven't corrected your edit yet. Also for your comment. Europeans do not even call this place Artsakh. I don't know if this isn't POV pushing. Beshogur (talk) 13:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:COMMONNAME, the common name for the region is Nagorno-Karabakh. This is what the main article is called in Wikipedia, and we need to use the common name. Grandmaster 17:13, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In my opinion, Option 1 is the best choice because it clearly describes the areas involved in the conflict without leaning toward any particular narrative. This help to avoid any bias that might come from using the name of an unrecognized entity and provides a straightforward, factual description of where the hostilities occurred. Including the Armenia–Azerbaijan border is also a much-needed detail that highlights the broader regional impact of the conflict (see). — Toghrul R (t) 10:56, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your "see" links to Armenia–Azerbaijan border crisis (2021–present). That article falls outside the scope of this article. The link does not establish that Including the Armenia–Azerbaijan border is also a much-needed detail. Artsakh defines a region/place. Republic of Artsakh might lean to a narrative but so does surrounding Armenian-occupied territories, particularly as they were controlled by the Republic of Artsakh and not Armenia (the country). Cinderella157 (talk) 13:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Armenians are the only one calling this place Artsakh. Also Nagorno-Karabakh means mountainous Karabakh FYI if you didn't know. Karabakh is a wider region. If you think this was a war in Artsakh, you should change it to Artsakh war or something. I guess you need to make more research about this issue before acting like you own the article. Beshogur (talk) 13:31, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    they were controlled by the Republic of Artsakh and not Armenia (the country) - That is not correct. It was established in the court of law (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". Therefore, the claim that the territories "were controlled by the Republic of Artsakh and not Armenia" is not accurate. Grandmaster 16:58, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1 Articles about wars don't have self-proclaimed states as locations. This article must be the same.--Nicat49 (talk) 21:40, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 3 This was an offensive on Artsakh and so that is the most precise and balanced description the location could have. Vanezi (talk) 10:50, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1 Clashes are extending beyond the mountainous region of Karabakh. At the same time, as noted above, it would be inappropriate to mention any separatist entity, as seen in the cases of Ukraine and Georgia.--Qızılbaş (talk) 20:42, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 3 According to the infobox military conflict template, a general description is preferred for the location, which quickly rules out the first option. Therefore, the best choice is Artsakh, which refers to both the republic and the geographical region. Keeps the infobox succinct while still pointing readers to the broader context on the article body and map. 1. Conciseness – Per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, the infobox should provide a concise overview of key points. Detailing “Nagorno-Karabakh and surrounding Armenian-occupied territories, Armenia–Azerbaijan border” is appropriate for the lead and body, but cumbersome in the infobox. 2. Context in the Lead – The lead and body already provide crucial nuance regarding the disputed status and international non-recognition. This satisfies WP:NPOV by clarifying that Artsakh’s status is disputed without overloading the infobox. 3. Natural Fit – The core hostilities took place in and around the region Artsakh claimed at the onset of the war. Referring to it succinctly as “Artsakh” in the infobox aligns with how articles generally identify a central conflict zone. 4. Map & Supporting Text – Readers can consult the accompanying map (per WP:IMGCONTENT) and the lead’s explicit mention of disputed territories for further clarity. 5. Comparisons to Other Conflicts – While parallels to Ukraine or Georgia exist, each conflict has unique territorial contexts. Including a self-declared or unrecognized entity in an infobox is acceptable when the infobox is merely naming the place of the fighting, as opposed to endorsing its claims—again, with explanatory text elsewhere. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 06:27, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1. I believe this is the most neutral wording of the three. The conflict involves two parties, and both would agree that it took place in what constituted Nagorno-Karabakh and its surrounding regions before the war. However, only one party would agree that the conflict occurred in the Republic of Artsakh (since, according to the other party, no such place exists) or in Artsakh (as this term is typically used to refer to the given historical area in classical contexts). I am also not convinced by the conciseness argument. First, the phrase "Nagorno-Karabakh and surrounding Armenian-occupied territories" does not seem particularly long. Second, sparing 40 or so characters is not worth opting for a phrasing that clearly reflects only one point of view. Parishan (talk) 01:06, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]
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.

Syrian mercenaries / Syrian National Army

[edit]

Are we going to use this name? It's used as a denigration (I don't say you should like Syrian rebel groups), not an actual name. Also the sources linked on the infobox mentions the name Syrian National Army in their texts below. Linking Syrian mercenaries to Syrian National Army doesn't makes sense. Also it involves two groups that's part of the actual Syrian National Army. Thoughts? For example the sources used on the infobox:

CNN:

Both applied for the job through Turkish-backed rebel factions that make up what's known as the Syrian National Army, a force in northern Syria opposed to President Bashar al-Assad.

A video of four Syrians in Azerbaijan listening to a song about a Syrian National Army division was posted online by Syrian news publication Jesr Press

Kinan Farzat, who is reported to have died in Nagorno-Karabakh, was a major in the Syrian National Army

FP: After fighting Turkey’s battles in Libya, the Syrian National Army is caught in the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan—and dozens are dying.

According to sources within the Syrian National Army (SNA), the umbrella term for a group of opposition militias backed by Turkey, around 1,500 Syrians have so far been deployed to the disputed Nagorno-Karabakh region in the southern Caucasus.

The term Syrian mercenaries is used by Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, even in Syria. (also Armenpress here)

The Guardian uses "Syrian fighters" for example. (also used in this article)

The warzone (doubtful source, forum like website) used to source Syrian mercenaries on the infobox uses "Syrian militants". Beshogur (talk) 16:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite certain as to what the question actually is. However, the sources tell us that these were mercenaries from Syria recruited and paid for by Turkey through a Turkish company - ie there is no doubt that they were mercenaries (guns for hire). The sources also indicate that they were recruited from the militias of the SNA - ie they were not acting as the SNA. As for whether they should be shown in the infobox is the subject of a current RfC. In the infobox, they are shown against a flag of "Syria" with the word "Syrian mercenaries". The flag links to Syrian opposition, not to the SNA specifically. They were not there as a "state" player. The use of the flag at all is incorrect in this instance (see MOS:FLAGS). The most pertinent details are that they were mercenaries and then, that they were recruited/provided by Turkey. The least pertinent details are that they came from Syria and they had been in SNA militias. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:14, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Syrian mercenaries claim – balance and sources needed

[edit]

Suyrian mercenaries claim – verification and neutrality concern

Hi everyone, I’d like to raise a concern about the current wording in the “Units involved” section regarding the alleged deployment of Syrian mercenaries by Turkey to support Azerbaijan.

The existing text presents these claims without proper attribution or adequate balance. As per WP:NPOV and WP:VER, all contentious material must be backed by reliable sources, and counter-statements should be presented. Azerbaijani and Turkish officials have publicly denied these claims, and there is no independent verification by neutral international observers.

I propose updating the section as follows:

" Armenian officials and some biased media outlets claimed that Turkey deployed Syrian mercenaries to support Azerbaijani forces during the conflict. These allegations remain unverified. Turkish and Azerbaijani authorities have strongly denied the claims, calling them disinformation. International observers, including French President Emmanuel Macron, expressed concern, but no conclusive evidence has been produced."

Would appreciate community input before making the change.

Thanks! Aze81 (talk) 10:59, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See RfC above. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:45, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]