Jump to content

Talk:Armenian-occupied territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh

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

Edit war

[edit]

Can you stop edit warring and your WP:OR comments? Your edit description [1] about territorial integrity isn't even in the written text and doesn't make sense. Also, the edit lists major countries from the 100 which are listed in the source itself, and which abstained from the vote. This is the relevance. Please stop edit-warring and removing sourced information. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 17:23, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ZaniGiovanni: The whole sentence is WP:OR, Nnot my comment. So asking you to remove Germany etc. We could say, x country voted yes. This doesn't make any sense. Beshogur (talk) 17:58, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Beshogur Finally regarding this. I was tired and didn't think this was something controversial, so I didn't reply yesterday evening. I think you should restore the sourced content which you removed recently. If your only concern were to not to list "Germany, etc." separately, I have no problem with it. Here's my proposal and I'll ping El C as involved admin:
  • "...while the vast majority of UN member countries, 100 in total, abstained from the vote.[2]
It's this simple. You could've waited at least a day for me to reply. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 15:09, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Imo while the vast majority of UN member countries, 100 in total, abstained from the vote. is still not correct. "while the vast majority" may have some else meaning. There is no mention about 39 countries voting yes. We're not trying to make a race if who voted yes or no or abstaining. Is it adopted? It is. Perhaps we could change the whole sentence that's taken from United Nations General Assembly Resolution 62/243, wich I recently found, to which was adopted by a recorded vote of 39 in favour to 7 against (including OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs), with 100 abstentions. which is more neutral, and doesn't imply anything else. For my ANI report, it's not about the content dispute, but you trying to revert me mady by an user with 3 edits. Beshogur (talk) 16:06, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
39 to 7 is already mentioned in the article Armenian-occupied_territories_surrounding_Nagorno-Karabakh#Legal_status and it's already mentioned in lead that the resolution has passed. What isn't mentioned however is the abstained part which I tried to restore and which you removed repeatedly.
"while the vast majority" may have some else meaning - what else meaning? It paraphrases the source correctly, the vast majority of countries indeed abstained. We aren't suppose the copy-paste what's exactly written in the source, and I didn't see a quote template either. That wording is fine and in paraphrased in accordance to sourced content.
For my ANI report, it's not about the content dispute, but you trying to revert me mady by an user with 3 edits. - If it's not about content dispute (which should be resolved in talk and if you waited at least a day for me to reply, I would have), then what is it? I only made a single revert of that new account and didn't attempt to restore it per the discussion above this one. I only restored the abstained part 2 days later, which I'm still in favor of being included in the article as it is sourced and completely valid info. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 16:22, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

wait one day is not an excuse for your reverts. You've been active and editing after I pinged you. Well, if it's mentioned below, you could add it below, instead reverting me. Anyway, the lead would still contain missing and misleading information like (Germany, Israel and UK). I could also say "x country voted yes". This doesn't matter. WP:OR. My final solution is, we either add all (yes, no, abstain) to the lead + OSCE co-chairs, or remove the whole sentence about OSCE co-chairs, and add it alongside all (yes, no abstain + OSCE co-chairs) to the legal status section. Beshogur (talk) 17:02, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My view here is that the information is undue and risks synth/OR/WP:PRIMARY. UN resolutions need a bit of interpretation at the best of times, and even then it is usually only useful to see who voted for a resolution. Voting against, or abstaining, can happen for a huge number of reasons which may or may not have anything to do with the core content of the resolution in question. (I would in fact not oppose anything that is being cited to UN resolutions, or to a basic news piece reporting on such a resolution, to be simply removed from the article.) CMD (talk) 17:04, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I believe a simple mention that a UN GA resolution said so and so is sufficient. Grandmaster 17:16, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 18 December 2024

[edit]

Armenian-occupied territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh → Occupied territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh – The present title is ambiguous/misleading because of the distinction between Armenian as a nationality and Armenian as an ethnicity. The proposed title better satisfies WP:CRITERIA while resolving the ambiguity in the existing title. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:37, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per the lead of this article: The Armenian-occupied territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh were areas of Azerbaijan, situated around the former Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast (NKAO), which were occupied by the ethnic Armenian military forces of the breakaway Republic of Artsakh (or the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic) with military support from Armenia, from the end of the First Nagorno-Karabakh War (1988–1994) to 2020 ...

The territories were occupied by the Republic of Artsakh (ethnic Armenians not nationals). An ambiguity indicates a lack of WP:PRECISION. It might be more precise to call this Territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh occupied by the Republic of Artsakh or something similar but this is not particularly WP:CONCISE. Removing the point of ambiguity is still sufficiently precise for the article title while still being reasonably concise. We don't write the article in its title. The article is about territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh that were occupied. Nuance and detail with respect to the title are defined by the lead.

Seaching google scholar for the exact search terms, there are 8 hits for Armenian-occupied territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh and 63 hits for Occupied territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh. This fairly clearly indicates the proposed name the more WP:RECOGNISABLE and WP:COMMONNAME without the need for the ambiguous precision in the present title. There is no existing article for the proposed title that would require disambiguation.

Also, present tile is not particularly WP:NATURAL, since in many cases it would be piped to resolve the ambiguity (eg at Republic of Artsakh: Armenian-occupied territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh|surrounding occupied districts; and, Nagorno-Karabakh: Armenian-occupied territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh|occupied territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh}}. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:38, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose: This was discussed before. Republic of Artsakh was an Armenian statehood. Also UN resolutions clearly state demanding the immediate withdrawal of all Armenian forces from all occupied territories, which makes it an Armenian occupied territory. Same applies for OSCE statements saying they wete occupied by "local Armenian forces".
Beshogur (talk) 08:19, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The region was occupied by the Armenian forces both from Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh. The present title follows the practice of similar articles, for example Israeli-occupied territories, or Russian-occupied territories of Ukraine. The title should indicate who occupied the territories. Therefore the present title is appropriate. Grandmaster 10:13, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, surprised this hasn't come up before. The ethnic identity ambiguity arguments in the opening are a bit of a red herring, they aren't too important for the WP:AT. However, the concision argument is applicable, as is the WP:OR note on the current title being rare, perhaps made here. There are three sources with titles including "occupied territories", two use "Occupied Territories of Azerbaijan Surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh", one uses "occupied territories of Azerbaijan" while also referencing "Occupied Territories of Azerbaijan Surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh". The two oppose votes above are unrelated to WP:AT, there is no criteria that article titles should indicate who occupied a territory. The proposed "Occupied territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh" seems the most concise option that fits while being precise, and if the desire is for a longer term, "Occupied territories of Azerbaijan surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh" is the sourced one. CMD (talk) 10:17, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If those examples (Israeli-occupied territories, Russian-occupied territories of Ukraine, Turkish occupation of northern Syria, Ukrainian occupation of Kursk Oblast etc.) gets changed, than I can agree, otherwise this is a weak excuse. Beshogur (talk) 17:43, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The use of sources is a weak excuse? CMD (talk) 03:14, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The UN resolutions clearly state this is occupied by Armenian troops (locals or not, it says Armenians). OSCE not using any ethnicity hasn't a value since OSCE Misnk Group was always against Azerbaijani takeover of Karabakh, which is internationally recognized Azerbaijani territory. They use the term occupied, but occupied by whom? If those examples have the same requested move for the same reasonings, I'll be agreeing on this as well. That's what I mean. (also the article itself is kinda made of lot of primary sources and non-English sources) Beshogur (talk) 12:55, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The UN resolutions clearly state what I said above, as one of the sources I mention is one of those resolutions[3]. This resolution itself specifically relies on the OSCE report in question. If the OSCE report lacks value we shouldn't be putting value on the resolution based upon it, but either way, the current article title is possibly an original (and lengthy) formulation not taken from a source, and if not original seems very rare. CMD (talk) 13:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just leaving this here as a last comment: Demands the immediate, complete and unconditional withdrawal of all Armenian forces from all the occupied territories of the Republic of Azerbaijan Beshogur (talk) 13:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, but it would be helpful to better understand how you feel that part of the resolution informs the application of the WP:AT policy to this page. CMD (talk) 13:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, renaming this article would set the precedent for renaming all other similar articles by removing the mention of the occupying party. But indicating the occupying party is a standard practice in Wikipedia. And while the UN referred to the Armenian forces as the occupying power, so did the PACE. Quote: Considerable parts of the territory of Azerbaijan are still occupied by Armenian forces, and separatist forces are still in control of the Nagorno-Karabakh region. [4] Grandmaster 15:39, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It wouldn't set a precedent for that, unless you're suggesting they have a similarly lengthy title that did not come from sources. CMD (talk) 16:58, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The current title clearly reflects the occupying party, which is essential for understanding the historical and political context of the issue. Removing this detail risks oversimplifying the title and could make it less informative for readers seeking clarity about the situation. — Toghrul R (t) 10:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Clarity and understanding is provided by the lead and the body of the article. On what basis in WP:P&G (WP:AT) do you oppose this move? Cinderella157 (talk) 13:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The territory was occupied by Armenian troops, the title must mention who did the occupation, like it is done in other articles.--Nicat49 (talk) 18:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Armenian-occupied_territories_surrounding_Nagorno-Karabakh&oldid=1264822411"