<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div>
<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div>
I'm for calling it '''occupation'''. [https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/american_english/occupation Cambridge] defines it as ''the act of controlling a foreign country or region by armed force''. United Nations ([https://www.un.org/french/docs/cs/repertoire/93-95/CHAPTER%208/EUROPE/item_9_ArmeniaAzerbaijan.pdf 1], [https://www.un.org/press/en/2008/ga10693.doc.htm 2]), European Parliament ([https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/IDAN/2017/603846/EXPO_IDA(2017)603846_EN.pdf 3]), ECFR ([https://ecfr.eu/article/commentary_how_europe_became_marginalised_in_nagorno_karabakh/ 4]), OSCE Minsk Group ([https://www.osce.org/files/f/documents/7/d/76209.pdf 5]), Human Rights Watch ([https://www.hrw.org/reports/AZER%20Conflict%20in%20N-K%20Dec94_0.pdf 6]) prefers the term '''occupied'''. Also, in [[Chiragov and Others v. Armenia]], Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights emphasized that the surrounding districts (in here, [[Lachin District|Lachin]]) was indeed occupied by Armenia (not NKR). This decision was heavily influenced by the fact that from 2002 to 2004 of the 18,000 troops in Nagorno-Karabakh, 8,000 were personnel from Armenia (IISS, “The Military Balance”, 2002, p. 66; 2003, p. 66; 2004, p. 82; and 2013, p. 218.). Many more facts were given out in detail, you can see [https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#_ftnref2 this] for detail. Furthermore, Google Scholars give [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=occupied+nagorno+karabakh&oq=occupied+Nagorno-Karab 11,700 results] for "occupied Nagorno-Karabakh", and [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=karabakh+occupied&btnG= 9,180 more] for "occupied Karabakh". Let me remind you that this is about the surrounding districts that the Armenian Armed Forces invaded and occupied, not Nagorno-Karabakh/Artsakh itself. Occupation is a military term, doesn't have any POV weight to it. See: [[Allied-occupied Germany]], [[Occupation of Japan]], [[United States occupation of Haiti]], [[Occupation of Poland (1939–1945)]], and many more. --► Sincerely: '''[[User:Solavirum|<span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS; color:black">Sola</span>]][[User talk:Solavirum|<span style="font-family:Tempus Sans ITC; color:#560605">Virum</span>]]''' 19:11, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm for calling it '''occupation'''. [https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/american_english/occupation Cambridge] defines it as ''the act of controlling a foreign country or region by armed force''. United Nations ([https://www.un.org/french/docs/cs/repertoire/93-95/CHAPTER%208/EUROPE/item_9_ArmeniaAzerbaijan.pdf 1], [https://www.un.org/press/en/2008/ga10693.doc.htm 2]), European Parliament ([https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/IDAN/2017/603846/EXPO_IDA(2017)603846_EN.pdf 3]), ECFR ([https://ecfr.eu/article/commentary_how_europe_became_marginalised_in_nagorno_karabakh/ 4]), OSCE Minsk Group ([https://www.osce.org/files/f/documents/7/d/76209.pdf 5]), Human Rights Watch ([https://www.hrw.org/reports/AZER%20Conflict%20in%20N-K%20Dec94_0.pdf 6]) prefers the term '''occupied'''. Also, in [[Chiragov and Others v. Armenia]], Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights emphasized that the surrounding districts (in here, [[Lachin District|Lachin]]) was indeed occupied by Armenia (not NKR). This decision was heavily influenced by the fact that from 2002 to 2004 of the 18,000 troops in Nagorno-Karabakh, 8,000 were personnel from Armenia (IISS, “The Military Balance”, 2002, p. 66; 2003, p. 66; 2004, p. 82; and 2013, p. 218.). Many more facts were given out in detail, you can see [https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/app/conversion/pdf/?library=ECHR&id=001-155353&filename=001-155353.pdf this] for detail. Furthermore, Google Scholars give [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=occupied+nagorno+karabakh&oq=occupied+Nagorno-Karab 11,700 results] for "occupied Nagorno-Karabakh", and [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=karabakh+occupied&btnG= 9,180 more] for "occupied Karabakh". Let me remind you that this is about the surrounding districts that the Armenian Armed Forces invaded and occupied, not Nagorno-Karabakh/Artsakh itself. Occupation is a military term, doesn't have any POV weight to it. See: [[Allied-occupied Germany]], [[Occupation of Japan]], [[United States occupation of Haiti]], [[Occupation of Poland (1939–1945)]], and many more. --► Sincerely: '''[[User:Solavirum|<span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS; color:black">Sola</span>]][[User talk:Solavirum|<span style="font-family:Tempus Sans ITC; color:#560605">Virum</span>]]''' 19:11, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
==== Summary of dispute by Rosguill ====
==== Summary of dispute by Rosguill ====
Revision as of 19:36, 2 November 2020
"WP:DRN" redirects here. For the "Deny Recognition" essay, see WP:DNR.
This is an informal place to resolve small content disputes as part of dispute resolution. It may also be used as a tool to direct certain discussions to more appropriate forums, such as requests for comment, or other noticeboards. You can ask a question on the talk page. This is an early stop for most disputes on Wikipedia. You are not required to participate, however, the case filer must participate in all aspects of the dispute or the matter will be considered failed. Any editor may volunteer! Click this button to add your name! You don't need to volunteer to help. Please feel free to comment below on any case. Be civil and remember; Maintain Wikipedia policy: it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements. Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. This may also apply to some groups.
Noticeboards should not be a substitute for talk pages. Editors are expected to have had extensive discussion on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to work out the issues before coming to DRN.
If we can't help you, a volunteer will point you in the right direction. Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, objective and as nice as possible.
This noticeboard is for content disputes only. Comment on the contributions, not the contributors. Off-topic or uncivil behavior may garner a warning, improper material may be struck-out, collapsed, or deleted, and a participant could be asked to step back from the discussion.
The dispute must have beenrecently discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to be eligible for help at DRN. The discussion should have been on the article talk page. Discussion on a user talk page is useful but not sufficient, because the article talk page may be watched by other editors who may be able to comment. Discussion normally should have taken at least two days, with more than one post by each editor.
Ensure that you deliver a notice to each person you add to the case filing by leaving a notice on their user talk page. DRN has a notice template you can post to their user talk page by using the code shown here: {{subst:drn-notice}}. Be sure to sign and date each notice with four tildes (~~~~). Giving notice on the article talk page in dispute or relying on linking their names here will not suffice.
Do not add your own formatting in the conversation. Let the moderators (DRN Volunteers) handle the formatting of the discussion as they may not be ready for the next session.
Follow moderator instructions There will be times when the moderator may issue an instruction. It is expected of you to follow their instruction and you can always ask the volunteer on their talk page for clarification, if not already provided. Examples are about civility, don't bite the newcomers, etc.
If you need help:
If you need a helping hand just ask a volunteer, who will assist you.
This is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and advice about policy.
For general questions relating to the dispute resolution process, please see our FAQ page.
We are always looking for new volunteers and everyone is welcome. Click the volunteer button above to join us, and read over the volunteer guide to learn how to get started. Being a volunteer on this page is not formal in any respect, and it is not necessary to have any previous dispute resolution experience. However, having a calm and patient demeanor and a good knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines is very important. It's not mandatory to list yourself as a volunteer to help here, anyone is welcome to provide input.
Volunteers should remember:
Volunteers should gently and politely help the participant fix problems. Suggest alternative venues if needed. Try to be nice and engage the participants.
Volunteers do not have any special powers, privileges, or authority in DRN or in Wikipedia, except as noted here. Volunteers who have had past dealings with the article, subject matter, or with the editors involved in a dispute which would bias their response must not act as a volunteer on that dispute. If any editor objects to a volunteer's participation in a dispute, the volunteer must either withdraw or take the objection to the DRN talk page to let the community comment upon whether or not the volunteer should continue in that dispute.
Listed volunteers open a case by signing a comment in the new filing. When closing a dispute, please mark it as "closed" in the status template (see the volunteer guide for more information), remove the entire line about 'donotarchive' so that the bot will archive it after 48 hours with no other edits.
Open/close quick reference
To open, replace {{DR case status}} with {{DR case status|open}}
To close, replace the "open" with "resolved", "failed", or "closed". Add {{DRN archive top|reason=(reason here) ~~~~}} beneath the case status template, and add {{DRN archive bottom}} at the bottom of the case. Remember to remove the DoNotArchive bit line (the entire line).
This is less a content dispute than a policy dispute, which we do not handle. The policy currently says no Primary souces on BLP and no WP:OR ever. To reach out to the subject would constitute OR. And since the Wikipedia talk:OTRS noticeboard has indicated they will not reach out if asked, there really is no way to clarify the position. Until a WP:RS exists that establishes details further, WP policy indicates social media is not a RS. There is nothing more to discuss here at this time, Participants are welcome to re-open a DRN case if that changes in the future. Nightenbelle (talk) 15:29, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
The Instagram post by the article subject has been discussed for a long while. Many editors are reluctant to use the post due to its ambiguity and lack of reliable sources covering the post. However, some other editors insist on using it to verify his supposed sexuality. The article was PC-protected once last year for that reason.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Editors should learn caution toward writing articles about living persons. Furthermore, policies and guidelines should be prioritized over doing things boldly. Other than that, I leave the rest to DRN volunteers.
Summary of dispute by
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Gleeanon409
I think the solution of having OTRS team contact the subject—as has been done in similar BLP cases—should be explored. I have only been involved in this for a few days, the OTRS idea is new and may serve to resolve this ongoing issue that seems to crop up every year. Gleeanon20:32, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Summary of dispute by George Ho
I don't want the Instagram post to be used in any way. The post has been (mis)used and (mis)cited. Furthermore, other sources using the post are unreliable, like the Hollywoodmask.com article. Readers would be misled by such info and by how the post is (mis)interpreted. George Ho (talk) 21:08, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Comment: As has been indicated by another OTRS volunteer at the OTRS Noticeboard talk page - were this to be requested at OTRS, I would reject the request. OTRS is to be used for customer-initiated contact, and should not be used to proactively reach out to article subjects. Best, Darren-Mtalk09:10, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
User is pushing his POV with a set of reverts, even after being notified of the 3RR.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Yes I have, also gotten consensus with another user. . . .
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
The filing party want moderated discussion leading to a compromise on a content issue.
Summary of dispute by Tgeorgescu
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Yup, I tried to offer a compromise solution, but Achar Sva convinced me of the fringiness of the claim. Basically, the Gospel of Matthew was written directly in Greek since 80% of its words are either directly lifted or paraphrased from two Greek-language sources (one being the Gospel of Mark, and the other hypothesized by comparison with the Gospel of Luke). Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:29, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Summary of dispute by ?
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Gospel of Matthew discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Volunteer Note - Does the filing party want moderated discussion leading to a compromise on a content issue? The filing party should amend their request; otherwise it will be closed as a request for administrative action. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:19, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Volunteer Note 2.0 I am willing to mediate this dispute- but I want to be sure there is a dispute since it appears the discussion on the talk page is relatively civil and appeared to be moving well. Are all involved parties interested in participating in this mediated discussion? If so, please comment below and we'll go ahead and get going. Nightenbelle (talk) 15:46, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
A new user with few other edits is repeatedly adding the following content to Olivia Blake. There are two sources, a Yorkshire Post article which does not mention Blake at all, and an email quoted by What Do They Know. Neither source is both secondary and related to Blake, so there is no due weight for the content. The user is only discussing the supposed reliability of What Do They Know, a matter unrelated to the lack of due weight established by the given sources. The user presumably has no knowledge of Wikipedia policies, but does not engage in discussion about them when I point them to links including WP:V, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:DUE and is repeatedly reverting the content whenever it is removed, despite its numerous formatting and typographical errors.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Talk:Olivia Blake
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
Providing an opinion on whether the proposed addition is appropriate.
Summary of dispute by PJPWv2
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Olivia Blake discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Volunteer Note If the editor is invovled in an editor war, we are not the correct place for sanctions. I just want to be clear- all we can do here is mediate a dispute to find a compramise- is that what you are looking for or are you wanting an admin to step in to stop rule breaking? If so you would need to go here: WP:AN/3Nightenbelle (talk) 15:51, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, who mentioned sanctions? Both of us are acting in good faith. I just want the discussion to receive more attention. A third party has already commented, though I think not arriving to the discussion from DRN. — Bilorv (talk) 23:23, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for the mistake. Your description of the incident sounded like you were frustrated by an edit war. In that case- if you are looking for more users to participate- I would also suggest wp:3o or wp:rfc. But if you would like to continue here, just as soon as the other editor confirms they are willing to participate, we can begin. Nightenbelle (talk) 16:20, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Resolving the dispute or maybe pushing the other to give his arguments since he refuses to.
Summary of dispute by M.Bitton
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Zirid dynasty discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
volunteer note You need to notify the other editor on their talk page before we can open this. Also I'm not sure what the dispute is based on the summary here. Please clarify. Lastly, participation in this process is voluntary- we cannot push anyone to give arguments, we can only offer a forum for mediated disputes. but all parties must agree to participate. Nightenbelle (talk) 16:14, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
volunteer note 2 I'm going to give this another 24 hours, then close due to lack of participation. Might I suggest wp:3o or wp:rfc as a possible way to get other editors involved. Although, just by reviewing the conversation thus far- you may want to review wp:RS because you do seem to have some confusion about what makes a source reliable according to WP standards. Other encyclopedias are summarizing sources the same as us- if we were to just copy their information, what would be our purpose? We, instead, compile the information from reliable, independent secondary sources- so not primary (IE court documents) but the analysis of those documents by experts (legal journals) does that make sense? Nightenbelle (talk) 01:18, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Closed. The filing editor has not notified the other editors three days after filing, and three days after being advised to notify the other editors. Resume discussion on the article talk. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:11, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
After a unsuccessful RfC, I have decided to open this dispute.
Kautilya3 has been reverting the edits and can be seen making his own conclusions than follow what the scholar actually wrote.
1. The houses should be changed to "castle" as his own source says so, but he is stubborn with houses to be used. Sanskrit is an extensive language, every word has a lot of synonyms but Kautilya3 seem to question what is actually written in the source. Questioning the scholar and his work. He is also questioning the usage of Castles.
2. He writes "Finch did not describe a birthplace or mention a mosque in the area." Kautiya3 himself came to the conclusion that the exact place is Ram Janambhoomi, this statement was questioned by another user (Vanamonde) but he did not respond to the comment. I believe that assumptions should be avoided and it should be limited to what he wrote in his journal. The article itself says that it can't be the precise location of Babri Masjid. Writing it regardless of its absence in the very source would confuse the readers.
3. The entire quotation about the 'castle' should be included and should not be cherry-picked.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
The changes should be made after considering my reasons and the sources. I am being reverted even after strictly following the policies and sticking with the source. It would be great if someone could look into this.
Summary of dispute by Kautilya3
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Vanamonde93
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
William Finch (merchant) discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Volunteer Comments - The filing editor has not notified the other parties. That is the responsibility of the filing editor. Also, the filing editor (as they stated) started an RFC, which had very little participation, and was not worded in the form of a question, but it was an RFC. The filing editor then withdrew the RFC after it had been open for about three weeks. What does the filing editor think will be accomplished by DRN? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:32, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Discussion was started on the talk page the same day as this was opened. That is not a reasonable, serious attempt to solve the problem on your own. In addition- I strongly recomend you review WP:AGF and approach this disagreement with professionalism and civility. Be careful of edit wars or this conflict will end up on the ANI. Now- if, after a more reasonable period of time spent trying to discuss this on the article talk page, you still can't solve this on your own. You are welcome to come back. But you should spend days, or even weeks, discussing this before you request mediation. Not mere minutes. Nightenbelle (talk) 16:27, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Despite the Anarchist Library: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/the-anarchist-faq-editorial-collective-an-anarchist-faq being used as to a reliable information as to what anarchists believe, and the information being present since 2010. This editor believes that it is not a reliable source due to the fact it is "biased" this however makes no sense, the anarchist library can not be used as source for cooking and it is biased but it does tell what anarchists believe.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Attempting to disscuss on the talk page however Sangdeboeuf appears to be unwilling to understand.
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
Recognizing that the Anarchist Library has been a reliable source on Wikipedia for years and accepting that, it is a reliable source when it comes to certain aspects of what anarchists believe. The anarchist library however shouldn't be used for news stories, protests or otherwise as it is extremely biased however it's not towards anarchist symbolism.
Summary of dispute by Sangdeboeuf
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
This appears to be a frivolous filing. Vallee01 has not discussed this source on the talk page at all before stating at 6:08, 1 November (a bare three minutes before filing this dispute) that the source is "reliable". (Based on what?) Vallee01 is trying to use DRN to lock the page rather than engaging in good-faith discussion, and is edit-warring to try to keep their own preferred version. Most perplexingly, I never removed theanarchistlibrary.org from the article because it wasn't used in the article before I started editing it. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:43, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You did remove the anarchist library you removed the most of the section "Bisected flag"[1], that's simply not correct, the anarchist FAQ was a source that was removed. Please stop assuming bad faith. I am still engaged in the discussion on the talk page and you haven't responded. Vallee01 (talk) 06:55, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This comment illustrates the frivolous and abusive nature of this filing. There has been no discussion about the the bisected flag on the talk page so far, and Vallee01 has not attempted to discuss this issue anywhere else. The DRN thread should be closed immediately. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:04, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Anarchist symbolism discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
On this article and others. Users changing the term occupation/occupied to "controlled", "disputed", etc. claiming these titles are POV or "loaded". I opened this requested move first, regarding the term, showing that other articles are using the same term, that this is not a POV term. And later, users were changing infobox of the article (2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war), that Azerbaijan captured "the disputed area's border with Iran". There is no dispute in Azerbaijan's soil. That happens with two countries, even Armenia does not recognise Republic of Artsakh. Lot of supranational organisations such as PACE (occupation by Armenia of Nagorno-Karabakh), UNSC (immediate withdrawal of all Armenian forces from all occupied territories), OSCE (Occupied Territories of Azerbaijan Surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh) are calling these areas occupied, although OSCE only calls the surrounding area. I later opened this thread, seeing lot of users voting, but I thought this wasn't going to solve the problem. Sad to say, I was even reported (which is still open) that I called these areas occupation. Thus requesting here to see what administrators can do. Beshogur (talk) 18:47, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Zaman
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Geysirhead
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by CuriousGolden
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I don't think "occupation" is a biased or loaded word and it really shouldn't be interpreted that way. As the person who filed this dispute resolution pointed out, UN, PACE and OSCE are all calling it an "occupation" (UN and PACE call both NK and surrounding territories as occupied, but OSCE calls just the surrounding territories as occupied). So, I consider that it is okay to use "occupied" to describe the surrounding territories as almost all important international organizations call it that. — CuriousGolden(talk·contrib)19:19, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Summary of dispute by Solavirum
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I'm for calling it occupation. Cambridge defines it as the act of controlling a foreign country or region by armed force. United Nations (1, 2), European Parliament (3), ECFR (4), OSCE Minsk Group (5), Human Rights Watch (6) prefers the term occupied. Also, in Chiragov and Others v. Armenia, Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights emphasized that the surrounding districts (in here, Lachin) was indeed occupied by Armenia (not NKR). This decision was heavily influenced by the fact that from 2002 to 2004 of the 18,000 troops in Nagorno-Karabakh, 8,000 were personnel from Armenia (IISS, “The Military Balance”, 2002, p. 66; 2003, p. 66; 2004, p. 82; and 2013, p. 218.). Many more facts were given out in detail, you can see this for detail. Furthermore, Google Scholars give 11,700 results for "occupied Nagorno-Karabakh", and 9,180 more for "occupied Karabakh". Let me remind you that this is about the surrounding districts that the Armenian Armed Forces invaded and occupied, not Nagorno-Karabakh/Artsakh itself. Occupation is a military term, doesn't have any POV weight to it. See: Allied-occupied Germany, Occupation of Japan, United States occupation of Haiti, Occupation of Poland (1939–1945), and many more. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum19:11, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Summary of dispute by Rosguill
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Given the amount of editors involved, and the fact that this is a relatively simple A or B question, I think that an RfC will likely be more effective than moderation here. Personally, I don't have a strong opinion on which term should be used. signed, Rosguilltalk17:57, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Summary of dispute by Գարիկ Ավագյան
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Ahmetlii
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Grandmaster
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Sataralynd
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by WMrapids
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Mirhasanov
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Ruĝa nazuo
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by SteelEvolution
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Jr8825
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Ermenermin
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by HistoryofIran
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
In the article, section "Middle ages", exist information based on one source although exist four sources with same information. Current information from the article [1] does not use information from present source in the context[2]. This means that current information is out of context and thus violates the basic rule of Wikipedia ie WP:OR precisely WP:STICKTOSOURCE. Everything is explained on talk page of this article. This (whole) information is not fringe and sources for this information are two academics(Sima Ćirković and Tibor Živković), one teacher of history and one historian with book which won the award for best book in North America.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
– New discussion.