Talk:2023 Azerbaijani offensive in Nagorno-Karabakh

Requested move 1 January 2024

2023 Azerbaijani offensive in Nagorno-Karabakh → Azerbaijan's takeover of Nagorno-Karabakh – The offensive is only a small part of this takeover. Vast majority of the article is after the offensive. [1] Lots of sources uses "takeover" as well. Beshogur (talk) 21:35, 1 January 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. estar8806 (talk) ★ 19:50, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support. The proposed title better fits the content of the article. Grandmaster 10:07, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose, per WP:NPOV. Takeover hides that it was a military invasion that resulted in the "cleansing" of the Armenian population. BilledMammal (talk) 10:09, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per BilledMammal. "Takeover" is definitely a NPOV title. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 10:46, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose - Takeover is too broad and comes across as POV. Perhaps offensive is too specific to the events that have taken place, but I don't think there can be another title which encompasses both the events without being blatantly biased. BBC, Al Jazeera and others use the term, very little use takeover. Other terms like liberation or capture I believe would also be unacceptable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:EmilePersaud 18:19, 2 January 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EmilePersaud (talk • contribs)

• Oppose, per BilledMammal, Chaotic Enby and EmilePersaud. Ken Aeron (talk) 18:52, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

• Speedy close, WP:NPOV and this has already been discussed. The current title is appropriate. Paul Vaurie (talk) 19:56, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support the military offensive is only one part of the article and the title should reflect that. I think takeover if much more preferable to annexation, capture, etc.Yeoutie (talk) 16:12, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support. Offensive describes only one aspect of the events that occurred and hence the title is too specific. Takeover feels more appropriate to describe the entirety of the article. - Creffel (talk) 08:44, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

• Comment I reckon "Annexation of the Republic of Artsakh by Azerbaijan" would be a better title for this article. N. Mortimer (talk) 15:25, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose Because "takeover" would mask the armed invasion, and there is no evidence of takeover being the common name. --KhndzorUtogh (talk) 22:41, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

  Maybe stop misleading people here. No single word here described this as an invasion. Only 2 times 'invasion' appears, and that's about Ukraine. Beshogur (talk) 11:15, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:NPOV and WP:COMMONNAME offensive is a much more common and neutral term used in reliable secondary sources covering this event. TagaworShah (talk) 02:19, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

@Rosguill: would like to hear your thoughts. People claim 'takeover' is POV term while 'offensive' isn't. Beshogur (talk) 11:16, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

"Takeover" seems unusually informal for an article title in the absence of resounding evidence that it's the WP:COMMONNAME. I'm not sure it's really a question of neutrality between the suggested terms so much as it is a question of tone. It also seems relevant that the scope of the article as-written is the 1-day military operation in September 2023, which matches "offensive" well, but "annexation" (or "takeover") would lead me to expect an article primarily about the administrative process following the initial military maneuver, not the maneuver itself. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:22, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

@Estar8806: Actually I'm the only one providing sources. And 2023 Azerbaijani offensive in Nagorno-Karabakh is not a commonname. Bad closure. Beshogur (talk) 22:30, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

None of the results from the google search you provided (ie. not a reliable source) actually use the title you proposed. estar8806 (talk) ★ 23:36, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

• Azerbaijan takeover of Nagorno-Karabakh - France 24
• Nagorno-Karabakh during an Azerbaijani military takeover - AJ
• Azerbaijan's takeover of Nagorno-Karabakh - Foreign Policy
• takeover of Nagorno-Karabakh - FT
• Azerbaijan's military takeover of Nagorno-Karabakh - DW
• Nagorno-Karabakh after Azerbaijan's lightning takeover - The Guardian

These are results without even clicking. Beshogur (talk) 10:54, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Fair point. My results must be different. I see no problem with reverting and relishing, so that's what I'll do. estar8806 (talk) ★ 19:49, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

RFC on UN mission report

Kavita Belani, United Nations Refugee Agency Representative in Armenia, stated on 29 September 2023 that "there were no recorded incidents or cases of mistreatment against people on the move". [2]

A UN mission that visited Nagorno-Karabakh on 1 October 2023 reported that "they did not come across any reports — either from the local population or from others — of violence against civilians following the latest ceasefire." [3]

Should the above statements by the UN missions be included in the article when discussing reports on violence against civilian population?

• Option 1 - Mention these statement in the article with proper attribution.
• Option 2 - Make no mention at all.

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 Threaded Discussion section. Grandmaster 10:35, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Survey

• Option 1. We have already had an RFC on the UN mission report in the parallel article [4], but since there is a disagreement whether the consensus applies to this article as well, I decided to do another one for this article. I support the inclusion of the UN reports, because the claims of violence have no independent confirmation or verification, while UNHCR and the special UN mission to the region are the UN representatives and the UN is independent from the parties to the conflict. If we discuss allegations of violence, the information from the top international organization is very important and has a direct relevance to the topic. Grandmaster 10:36, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 per the previous RfC. Yes, the report is controversial (I'd say awful but I prefer to stay polite), but it's still the UN and it still has a level of legitimacy attached to it, coming from such an important organization. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 10:48, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

  It's from the UN, but I don't believe material is automatically WP:DUE just because it is from the UN; I think we need evidence of sufficient coverage of this material in reliable and independent sources to establish that it is, as well as to help us establish the context in which we should put the material. BilledMammal (talk) 10:51, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

• Option 2. First, for the 1 October 2023 statement:
  1. First, inclusion of these aspects of the mission is not automatically WP:DUE. To establish that it is due we need sufficient coverage in reliable sources of these aspects; such coverage has not been presented.
  2. Second, this information is misleading. The quoted section of the report says they did not come across any reports from the local population, but neglects to mention that they arrived after almost the entire local population had already fled.
  3. Third, they are presented as a neutral mission, but they neglect to mention that they are from the Resident Coordinator for the United Nations in Azerbaijan.

Second, for the 29 September 2023 statement: It is now out date, with more recent reports identifying violence such as this report from the EU, which says whereas there have been credible reports of looting, destruction, violence and arrests committed by Azerbaijani troops since the beginning of the offensive and strongly condemns the threats and acts of violence committed by Azerbaijani troops against the population of Nagorno-Karabakh

Finally, as a side note, this RfC presents a disturbingly one-sided image of the conflict. For example, it does not proposing adding the contemporary statement from USAID, which did find reports of violence against fleeing civilians. BilledMammal (talk) 10:50, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

• Option 2. No mention all; in the context of the "no incidents" being over a week after a ceasefire, and not referring to this article's subject at all. Besides, this report is already mentioned in the article, it doesn't need to be copied somewhere to imply something completely different. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 00:45, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 for the same reasons as previously. A report put together by a mission sent by the highest international authority cannot be undue by definition. The fact that the mission arrived in the region one week later is irrelevant. There are cases of UN fact-finding missions sent to conflict areas months later (e.g. here), some of them ultimately facing criticism, but they are still mentioned in ledes. Parishan (talk) 21:44, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 Feels very strange omitting such important information about the event, from the U.N. no less, in the lead of the article. Should have already been included there. - Creffel (talk) 16:19, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2 There is a segment in the article about this exact report from the United Nations office in Azerbaijan [5], and it’s in a better context along with its criticisms. We don’t add an out of context sentence from after the offensive, and which ultimately came from the attacking side’s (Azerbaijan’s) UN office no less after nearly all the region’s Armenian population fled. Vanezi (talk)
• Option 1 per the respective discussion and the point given. I support incorporating the UN statements into the article with proper attribution. These statements, indicating no recorded incidents of mistreatment or violence, offer a significant perspective from the organization. It should have already been included in the first place. — Toghrul R (t) 06:46, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion

@BilledMammal

1. Whether this information was due or not was discussed in much detail in previous RFC. I will not repeat the same arguments, I just don't see how the most important international organization could be undue.

2. The dates of the reports show the time of their arrival.

3. The UN team was lead by the Resident Coordinator for the United Nations in Azerbaijan, but first, the UN representative in Azerbaijan does not work for Azerbaijan's governement, and second, it also included representatives of other UN bodies, such as, quote: The team included Ramesh Rajasingham, the Director of the Coordination Division of the [Office] for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), representatives of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), UNICEF (United Nations Children’s Fund), the UNHCR (United Nations Refugee Agency) and the World Health Organization (WHO). It was a team representing various UN bodies.

And lastly, no one objects to inclusion of other sources, the RFC is on those sources inclusion of which is disputed. Grandmaster 11:02, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

NPOV issues

Hello Ken Aeron, you had made a number of WP:NPOV edits recently, such as the Armed Forces of Armenia being present in Artsakh, which was unsourced, and removing that Artsakh was primarily populated by Armenians, which you only explained as a "fix". And it is inaccurate to say Azerbaijan "regains" these territories, because it never had de facto control of them previously. I put the bias accusation in quotes, as it is in quotations within the source as well. Please don't remove sourced information without discussing why first. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 00:43, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

"Regain" is the correct term. The USSR ceased to exist in December 1991. With the exception of Stepanakert, every other major town in Nagorno-Karabakh came under Armenian control when Azerbaijan was already an independent state, e.g. Karkijahan (a suburb of Stepanakert) by late January 1992, Khojaly and Askeran by late February 1992, Shusha in May 1992 (see corresponding article), Hadrut in October 1992, Mardakert by late June 1993. If Azerbaijan did not control these regions de facto, then what were those battles about? Parishan (talk) 22:08, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Because Azerbaijan had controlled over the majority of the former NKAO since the Soviet Union fell, "regain" in the de facto sense is simply incorrect. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 22:44, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I still do not understand why. You said earlier that Azerbaijan "never had de facto control" over these territories as an independent country when it clearly did (cf. places and dates above). Why is "regain" incorrect? Parishan (talk) 11:25, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Here are sources confirming that Azerbaijan never previously had de facto control over the former NKAO.[6][7][8] --KhndzorUtogh (talk) 23:22, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Typo

In the 20 September section, Artsakh is spelled "Arsakh" once. I request that someone who can edit the article fix the typo, I can't because I don't fulfill the editing requirements. Carrot Powder (talk) 12:00, 3 January 2024 (UTC)