Jump to content

Talk:Second Nagorno-Karabakh War

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ahnaf.eram (talk | contribs) at 03:44, 18 March 2022 (→‎Renaming the page to Second Karabakh War: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article


Promoting Neutral Wording in the Key to the Map of Territorial Changes

Should the wording in the key to the Map in the infobox- "Vectorisation of File:2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war map.png" be changed as follows?

  • "Areas recaptured by Azerbaijan during the war" → "Areas captured by Azerbaijan during the war"
  • "Areas returned to Azerbaijan under the ceasefire agreement" → "Areas ceded to Azerbaijan under the ceasefire agreement"

In my view, this would incorporate a more neutral way of speaking about the conflict without making implied references to the claim Azerbaijan has to the land in the region and its legal status. I should stress that this is not intended to rebut the position of Azerbaijan in favour of the Armenian position or any other position, but it just seemed to me a little unnecessary to keep this wording and make reference to controversial territorial claims where there need not be any. Pseudoname1 (talk) 23:43, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. I remember it being discussed some time ago and I believe that per WP:NPOV neutral terms like "ceded" or "captured" should be used whether we write about the Armenians capturing land in 1993 or about Azerbaijanis doing it in 2020. The only possible justification of using different terms is their overwhelming use by reliable sources. I don't think it's the case here so we should stick with the neutral terms. Alaexis¿question? 06:39, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If those areas were captured during the first war, logically they were recaptured/returned. After all, those areas are Azerbaijan's own territory, a country cannot capture its own territory, it makes no sense. Grandmaster 20:35, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Very good suggestion, Pseudoname1, agree. Those lands changed hands so many times in recent and not so recent history, that claiming original ownership by loaded words such as "recaptured" and "returned" does not make sense. And imagine what would the wording be if, say, Armenia now captures some of the land that went to Azerbaijan in 2020, and then that land goes to Azerbaijan in another military action - would that be re-re-captured and re-returned? --Armatura (talk) 21:42, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, Azeri sources routinely use the verb "liberation" and Armenian "occupation", the UN resolutions which were widely used to justify the war were based on Soviet era maps and contested by Armenians from day first. Using the words capture/seize and cede is definitely more neutral and a very good suggestion.Marzbans (talk) 04:35, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of relying on personal preferences like the Armenian users did here, maybe you should all stick to the sources? Many sources certainly like to call it "recapture", like Radio Free Europe (another one; even the organization's Armenian service), Wall Street, BBC, France24, New York Times, The Independent, Bloomberg, National Geographic, Al Jazeera, Jerusalem Post, Carnegie, Concilation Resources, Worldview Stratfor, Christianity Today, and so on. The guy above me basically denied international law, worldwide consensus just to justify Armenia's occupation. You need strong arguments, not just blank numerical advantage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.219.164.8 (talk) 13:13, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This proves nothing. It's just as easy to find reliable sources which use "ceded" ([1], [2]). That's why we should use WP:NPOV as our guide as use more neutral terminology. Alaexis¿question? 14:14, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
and just randomly checking the websites the ip has referred to, I came across this one (National Geographic) saying that the “provinces occupied in the first war, now recaptured” by AZ,..., I was not surprised to see that the author is an Azeri named Rena Effendi! Marzbans (talk) 17:34, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that the authors' ethnicity per se has any bearing on the reliability. Alaexis¿question? 17:55, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It almost certainly does, and I say this as an Armenian. In fact that's why I've refrained from doing any sort of editing on this article because I don't think I can do so in an unbiased manner. Dsobol0513 (talk) 03:23, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Alaexis – while it's a writer from either country is perhaps more motivated to write an article on NK (because it's an issue they care about/want to raise awareness of) that doesn't necessarily mean it isn't well-written and neutral. Regarding "recaptured/returned", I remember participating in some previous discussions on this (probably the ones Alaexis referred to), and have the following points:

  • I think we should generally use "captured/ceded" because they're (1) less confusing (extra context is needed for "recaptured" to make sense, i.e. an explanation of the 1st NK war, which readers may find confusing or be unfamiliar with), (2) they're perfectly valid in terms of accuracy, so there's no strong argument for not using them, and (3) they avoid any potential perception of editorial judgement regarding the righteousness/natural nature of one side's ownership. This is particularly the case when outlining military events, as we want to keep those sections succinct and factual (e.g. "Azerbaijani forces captured X", not "recaptured").
  • I think we should avoid "recaptured/returned" when describing the areas within the former NKAO that Azerbaijan gained control of in the recent war. There's a degree of contention over the status of these areas, irrespective of them firmly being legally de jure part of Azerbaijan (Armenians might argue that Azerbaijan never exercised full, sovereign authority within the NKAO by pointing to its degree of official autonomy, or the nature of Soviet federalism, or the illegitimacy of Soviet authoritarianism etc.).
  • I think it's fine to use "returned" when describing the parts of the Armenian-occupied territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh which were ceded in the ceasefire agreement, as (1) this is the language used on the Kremlin website, which (to my non-expert knowledge) seems to to be the authoritative English wording, (2) these areas are de jure part of Azerbaijan and were predominantly populated by Azeris and Kurds (not Armenians) prior to the 1st NK war (they did not have the NKAO's autonomy, and didn't unilaterally secede in 1991 with the Armenian-majority areas) and (3) reliable sources widely use similar wording, likely because their occupation was ubiquitously condemned internationally following the 1st NK war (unlike Armenian/Artsakh rule within the former NKAO proper, which was often seen sympathetically). However, I think we should still prefer "ceded" to "returned" in summaries, captions and first mentions within paragraphs/subsections (basically anywhere a reader is likely to skim to) as "ceded" is precise and helps to avoid confusion for those unfamiliar with the 1st NK war + the distinction between the former NKAO and surrounding areas. When this background is made clear by preceding text, and in the specific, narrow context of the ceasefire clauses regarding these areas, I don't see any compelling reason not to use "returned" interchangeably with "ceded". Jr8825 • Talk 19:24, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why has it been changed with no consensus reached? Most realiable sources prefer returned/recaptured over others, as provided above, and How can we say "Areas surrendered to Azerbaijan under the ceasefire agreement" when they were literally "returned" per the agreement? [3] This change isn't more neutral, it is just plain false. Now, for Nagorno Karabakh region itself this could be debatable, but Azerbaijan mostly recaptured/returned the territories surrounding NK, which were not claimed by Armenians, but occupied as "security belt" and as a bargain for excahgne for "status". Dian Nikolow (talk) 14:21, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's been conclusively demonstrated that "[m]ost reliable sources prefer returned/recaptured over others." Alaexis¿question? 15:16, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, ip 89.219.164.8 above shared many sources, plus there is the ceasefire agreement source, whic is most important because it is legal signed by the sides? Dian Nikolow (talk) 15:32, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest to keep "captured" as is, because it doesn't sound super wrong for now, plus that territory includes some from NK as well (despite being NK-surrounding majority), but use "returned" for Kalbajar-Lachin-Agdam, per the agreement. Dian Nikolow (talk) 16:11, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • About these reverts[4][5]. First, we shall use term "recaptured", not "captured", because Azerbaijan took control over the territories that were under its control before 1992-1994 war. Second, we shall use term "retruned" for Kalbajar, Lachin and Agdam districts, because as per 9 November ceasefire agreement (which was signed by Armenian prime-minister as well) Armenia "shall return" these districts to Azerbaijan. Not "trancser", not "cede", but "return". They were not internationally recognized territories of Armenia, so Armenia could not "cede" them to Azerbaijan. Armenia "returned" to Azerbaijan its internationally recognized territories. We should describe it on such manner without giving false information in the article. Interfase (talk) 12:04, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Captured" does not imply anything other than the fact that one party has taken an objective by force from another party (without commenting on legality or anything else). It is the correct, precise, and neutral term to use. We also use "capture" instead of "recapture" in other articles like Operation Overlord despite the defending party also having been an illegal occupier. Lightspecs (talk) 23:42, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd disagree. Strictly speaking, you don't capture what was once within your borders under domestic and international law. You reclaim, regain or reclaim it. Everything else may be captured. Brandmeistertalk 15:21, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Interface You’re forgetting that international recognition of territories comes after delimitation and demarcation. Before that happens, the “international recognition” is about the right to have a territory belonging to that particular state, not about belonging of this and that territory to Armenia or Azerbaijan. If you want to go back in history, you’ll see how many times they changed hands between Armenia and Azerbaijan even the beginning of 20th century (when state of Azerbaijan was created), if you want to use re-recapture you may find that re-re-re-re-capture is what you really want to use, which obviously wouldn’t make sense. “Handed over”, on the other hand, suggested by Brandmeister, is a good neutral term, would agree with that. --Armatura (talk) 15:54, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Let me correct you. When both Armenia and Azerbaijan joined to UNN in 1992, they joined to that organization within their borders recognized by all UNN states. That is why UNN CR described these territories as an Armenian occupied territories. And for that reason we cannot use term "captured". Or "recaptured, or "regained". We cannot go back in history. We shall describe the current situation. But for the Kalbajar-Lachin-Agdam we shall use the term "returned", because it is a fact confirmed by the text of ceasefire agreement. Interfase (talk) 03:54, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No need to correct me with personal interpretations, and this is not a WP:FORUM. Borders are defined and lawfully recognised only as a result of delimitation and demarcation. You can use returned when citing the ceasefire agreement English text verbatim, but outside that we should use non-loaded, NPOV terms to assure unbiased WIKISPEAK --Armatura (talk) 06:27, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delimitation and demarcation process still ongoing between different countries, even between Azerbaijan and Russia, between Azerbaijan and Georgia. It does not mean that these three countries do not have internationally recognized territories. Also we have large amount of 3rd party secondary reliable sources stated that these territories are internationally recognized territories of Azerbaijan (e. g. [6][7]). They are reliable for Wikipedia, your personal interpretations are not reliable for Wikipedia. And the term "return" is neutral because both sides of the conflict signed the agreement where this term was used. Using any other term instead "return" in case of Kalbajar-Lachin-Agdam is violation of WP:HOAX. Interfase (talk) 06:47, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest removing all the contentious words and using a neutral tone. Yes, Armenians signed the agreement but that does not reflect how they feel about the situation or what their point of view is, and I wouldn’t call them occupiers, that would be a violation of our NPOV policy. Marzbans (talk) 07:06, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, that would not. For example we use term German-occupied Europe in Wikipedia and it is not violation of our NPOV policy. If the territory was occupied it should be described as occupied. If it was returned, it should be described as returned. We should not be warn how somebody feel about the situation, we should rely on the reliable sources about the situation. And for reliable sources say that these territories are the internationally recognized territories of Azerbaijan some part of that was returned by Armenia after the war. Interfase (talk) 07:53, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If Germans sincerely believe that France belongs to them, we as uninvolved editors need to make sure their point of view is presented in that page as well, in a neutral and dispassionate tone of course. Flat out saying that "AZ recaptured Armenian-occupied territories" is the Azeri side of the story.Marzbans (talk) 08:25, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I previously mentioned, in the articles on Allied offensives against German-occupied territory, we use the term "capture" instead of "recapture", even in battles that pitted, say, the French, Belgians, and Dutch against the Germans within the former's own countries. In some of them involving major cities or entire countries, the term "liberation" is also used but that is something most sources unanimously decided over the past 80 years. On the other hand, in the case of Nagorno-Karabakh, an ongoing conflict, it's far from a consensus. Lightspecs (talk) 10:53, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Marzbans, talking about Kalbajar-Lachin-Agdam here, those territories are recognized as Azeri. Neither Armenia nor the unrecognized "goverment" claimed those territories as theirs. They occupied them as "security belt" and to exchange for "status". Armenia agreed to "return" them and so it did. Thats why we can't say "ceded" per the agreement when it was literally "returned" per the agreement. How Armenians feel about the situation and or what their point of view is exactly a POV, which should be avoided in wikipedia. "I wouldn't call them occupiers" is also a POV, your POV, which should be avoided in wikipedia. Dian Nikolow (talk) 19:05, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, how do you know what Armenians feel to the agreement. And if you really were so neutral you would also think about what Azeris would "feel" for not writing "returned" per the agreement while it is exactly so per the agreement. This whole "feel" thing definitely has no place here. Dian Nikolow (talk) 19:16, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the Armenian perspective, please take a look at Artsakh, it's a bit too long, so I here is an excerpt: in the 1918 the newly founded Azerbaijan made claims on Armenian lands Karabagh, Zangezur and Nakhichevan and in 1921, the Soviets decided to include Nagorno-Karabagh within the borders of Azerbaijan, while granting Nagorno-Karabagh a wide regional autonomy with an administrative center in Shushi․ This decision raised the protest of the Karabagh population, where 95 percent of the population was Armenian. Marzbans (talk) 20:15, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dian Nikolow, "occupied" for Azerbaijani perspective, but "adjacent territories" or "security belt" from Armenian perspective (eurasianet.org) Moreover, after 2020 NK war, Republic of Artsakh considers Artsakh’s territories currently under Azerbaijani control as "occupied" (Public radio of Armenia). Wikipedia should not favour / adhere to any particular conflict side's point of view (especially when they contradict each other by 180 degrees) but use neutral, impartial terms, that do not imply anything other than change of control, transfer of territory administration etc. --Armatura (talk) 14:37, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with Dian Nikolow. Armenia agreed to "return" Kalbajar-Lachin-Agdam and so it did. For that reason we cannot use term "ceded". because per the agreement it was "returned". Also we cannot use the term "captured" for the territories that were taken by Azerbaijan during the war due to NPOV, only "recaptured" or "regained". "Captured" is not neutral term. These territories were captured from the Armenia's POV, but for the Azerbaijan's POV they were liberated. For international law they were occupied by Armenia during the First War and then recaptured by Azerbaijan during the Second War. Interfase (talk) 08:25, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Capture" is a neutral term. Again, it does not imply anything other than the fact that an objective has changed hands during a conflict. Lightspecs (talk) 11:36, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agree...We need to find a better wording than "breakaway" and "self-proclaimed" to describe Artsakh (the orange colored area on the map), there are a plenty of reasons to guess that it will become a region with full or partial autonomy, for the simple reason that Armenians live there and it is connected to mainland Armenia, anybody have any idea? Marzbans (talk) 04:51, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
2020 Nagorno-Karabakh ceasefire agreement says that the occupied districts were to be returned to Azerbaijan. If Armenia and Azerbaijan officially agreed on return, we cannot invent our own terms. As for NK separatist entity, it cannot be called anything other than "self-proclaimed", it is the term used by reliable sources, and NK has no international recognition. Grandmaster 09:51, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've two points to make here. Firstly, regarding "returned" to describe the formerly occupied territories surrounding the ex-NKAO, we currently use "returned" and "ceded" interchangeably. "Returned" is used in the lead appropriately and clearly (the sentence explains that the surrounding territories outside the former-NKAO are being discussed, and that they were returned due to the ceasefire agreement). Given that the lead is the most trafficked part of the article, I don't this indicates downplaying/not giving enough weight to the language of the ceasefire agreement. Elsewhere we use "ceded", which is again appropriate as the context is not always quite as clear (for example in map captions), and it's just as technically accurate and precise. I don't support changing these uses of "ceded" to "returned" around further, it's unnecessary and in my view wouldn't be an improvement – plus it's likely to just cause more disagreement. Secondly, regarding Marzbanss suggestion that we drop "breakaway"/"unrecognised"/"self-proclaimed" to describe Artsakh, I'm afraid this isn't going to happen – it's a case of WP:NOTCENSORED, as sources agree that Artsakh is these things and we don't need to avoid saying the obvious to avoid offending one side. Jr8825 • Talk 14:05, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am referring to the first paragraph of the lead section: "a region partially governed by Artsakh, a breakaway state". "Artsakh the breakaway state" need to be replaced with "Artsakh the autonomous state" or something else, if you all agree that according to the truce the orange colored region will remain under the control of Artsakh.Marzbans (talk) 17:14, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
NK has no autonomy. Grandmaster 10:15, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
looks like the dispute is over the surrounding districts…and the peace agreement states that the road between Artsakh and Armenia will be protected for the next 5 years, and the map says that the orange colored area will remain under the control of Artsakh, Does that mean Azeris have admitted to a (partially) independent Artsakh? whats the Armenian point of view? Marzbans (talk) 05:07, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, Azerbaijan officially says that NK is part of Azerbaijan, and conflict is over. Dispute is over NK, surrounding districts are under control of Azerbaijan, except for Lachin and 2 villages next to it, which are under control of Russia. Autonomy is a legal status, NK does not have such a status by any law, and Azerbaijan does not consider autonomy for NK. Grandmaster 10:31, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Coffey

Hello

Luke Coffey is not a reliable source. If his statements are to be represented, then as claims. And not as truthful realities. He works for TRT and Azerbaijani news, and both nations pursue irredentism and false accusations, especially Az.--217.149.166.11 (talk) 01:48, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support the above per brought up arguments. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 14:03, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do not support. His statements are already represented as his statements, not as facts, be it actually true or not. He authored articles on TRT world, but that is not his only work, he writes articles in other places as well, and there is nothing to show that he is somehow biased to one side. [8] His main work seems to be director of the Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation. And your POV in you last words is completely unnecessary and irrelevant. Dian Nikolow (talk) 15:37, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again "Controll" and "Disputed" instead of "Occupied"

We have been through this before.--Geysirhead (talk) 12:06, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I reverted your edit because it contained multiple non-neutral changes, including the removal of mercenary groups, whose inclusion has been agreed upon in several previous discussions and an RfC, and your replacement of the neutral descriptor "disputed" with "occupied and ethnically cleansed" in the first sentence. Accusations of ethnic cleansing are numerous, from both sides, and quite often well-founded. They don't belong in the first lead sentence, though. "Disputed" is not judgemental language, it's a fact. Both groups claim the territory. Delving into the legitimacy of either side's claims isn't a job for the lead (or us as neutral editors). "Control" appears in a technical footnote explaining that the figures don't include the parts of the surrounding areas not controlled by Armenia. I don't see any need to change it either. None of these things are mutually exclusive with the fact that Armenia illegally occupied the surrounding territories. Jr8825 • Talk 12:13, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 27 December 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. It's been over a year since this move was requested, and I think it's long overdue to close it. Supporters have provided nothing new from the last discussion besides a Google search which proves little, besides that some sources use the title, which 力 has practically refuted.

I don't believe a relisting would help at all, and it's clear that the supporters have very little to prove that this move is justified. The rationale of the closure from the last discussion also mostly applies here. I would not suggest doing another RM unless someone can find something substantial to support the move. Thanks for your time and I hope this helps. (non-admin closure) TL | The Legend talk 05:14, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war → Second Nagorno-Karabakh War – "Second Nagorno-Karabakh War" has become a widely used name, including in the academic world [9]. I believe this title is more appropriate and several editors have expressed the same. It will also produce consistency with First Nagorno-Karabakh War and will go in line with most Wikipedias. Super Ψ Dro 14:08, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. At present it appears to be the most accepted and appropriate name. It used by reliable sources, plus if there was First Nagorno-Karabakh War, following the same logic there should be second. If there was no second war, there cannot be first either. Grandmaster 15:34, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, books check confirms it appears frequently now. Brandmeistertalk 20:56, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:35, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Current name has broader use, and there isn’t any proof shown that the suggested one is more common, as simple as that. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 18:42, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose - I think it's too soon for this move. There are certainly sources using Second Nagorno-Karabakh War, but Second Karabakh War is also in use, and there are a lot of sources using descriptive names (such as 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war or "the recent conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan") rather than historiographic names. I would prefer to leave the article here for at least 6 more months to let the situation become clearer - but it is clear there is no title other than Second Nagorno-Karabakh War that this could be moved to so I do not object strongly to that move. 18:49, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose – I don't object to this change when it's obvious it's the established name, but the Google scholar and books searches linked above actually show that it isn't currently – I looked through the first few pages and most sources use descriptive names, as 力 points out in the above comment, while only a handful use Second Nagorno-Karabakh War. I don't think there's been enough time for the balance of sources to clearly change since the last move discussion. I suggest a longer wait to see whether one name becomes settled upon, bearing in mind that it may well take several years for this to happen. Jr8825 • Talk 19:24, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I don’t think there the most common name used by published sources. It’s also a source of confusion - everything more or less large scale currently named “clashes” is thought as “War” by some people / sources, with a year attached or duration - like the 2014 clashes or 4-day war. --Armatura (talk) 01:50, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Even if third-party sources use the name Second Nagorno-Karabakh War, I would still refrain from renaming, since the area of hostilities extends beyond Nagorno-Karabakh. I would even vote to return the name 1992-1994 Nagorno-Karabakh War instead of calling it the First Nagorno-Karabakh War. Also, let's not forget that the war over this region was back in the early twentieth century as well. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 14:50, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose See[[10]]] no new arguments provided Shadow4dark (talk) 00:38, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of move

In my opinion, there should be a continuity between the naming of the two articles about the wars in NK, i.e. First Nagorno-Karabakh War and 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war. If we have an article named First Nagorno-Karabakh War, but there is no Second Nagorno-Karabakh War, then I believe it makes no sense to have the first article named First Nagorno-Karabakh War, because that name suggest the 1992-1994 war to be the first in a succession of wars. I think the naming of these two articles should follow a certain logic. Grandmaster 09:41, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, Wikipedia should not create names or advance particular names, but rather reflect the most commonly used / mainstream name. Second NK War is not the most common / mainstream name. We are not CNN to be creating news. --Armatura (talk) 17:35, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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.


1923, 90% were armenian

In 1823 the five districts corresponding roughly to modern-day Nagorno-Karabakh were 90.8% Armenian-populated. So it was populated by armenians since the Persian Empire time, Azerbayjan populated it partly under sovit era.

2A02:8388:6585:8A80:AC26:78AF:1760:3073 (talk) 17:15, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming the page to Second Karabakh War

As the title says, everywhere in the media and popular culture this war is known as the Second Karabakh War. I think it is appropriate that we rename the page accordingly and also include the names given by Azerbaijan and Armenia in parentheses. Ahnaf.eram (talk) 03:44, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Second_Nagorno-Karabakh_War&oldid=1077773217"