This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Azerbaijan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Azerbaijan-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AzerbaijanWikipedia:WikiProject AzerbaijanTemplate:WikiProject AzerbaijanAzerbaijan articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
Aghoghlan Gate is within the scope of WikiProject Artsakh, an attempt to improve and better organize information in articles related or pertaining to Artsakh and Artsakhians. If you would like to contribute or collaborate, you could edit the article attached to this page or visit the project page for further information.ArtsakhWikipedia:WikiProject ArtsakhTemplate:WikiProject ArtsakhArtsakh articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iran, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Iran on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project where you can contribute to the discussions and help with our open tasks.IranWikipedia:WikiProject IranTemplate:WikiProject IranIran articles
Golden I believe capture is a better term for anything former NKAO. Your reason for reverting me concerned grammar, but this is a different case; It’s a separate war happening decades later. It’s not like we can say the Artsakh Republic recaptured it from the Soviet Union or something. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 13:31, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What you're saying is correct when referring to settlements primarily inhabited by Armenians (e.g. saying "Armenians captured Stepanakert" during the First Nagorno-Karabakh war would be wrong). But this is not the case for Shusha, which was captured first by Armenians in 1992 from Azerbaijanis who had controlled it since the beginning of the war, and then recaptured by the same party. Saying that a city was "captured in 1992 and then captured in 2020" makes no grammatical or contextual sense. — Goldencall me maybe?13:44, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Azerbaijan and Artsakh were the last parties in the conflict to capture and recapture settlements. I'm sure you're smart enough to understand that; don't drag this out any longer than necessary. — Goldencall me maybe?13:39, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not here to entertain condescending comments or edit summaries, so keep it to yourself whatever your unfounded opinion is regarding my reply. I opened this discussion after you reverted me, I didn’t revert you, I didn’t even breach WP:0RR, and all I receive in response to my good faith comment trying to understand the logic behind your edit is “waste of time”? I stated a simple thing based on your rationale, and what do you mean by “last parties”, what does this have to do with capture? This doesn’t change the fact that capture by Azerbaijan happened decades later of something that wasn’t even considered occupied, so it should be stated as capture. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 18:19, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
3O Response: hi there Golden and ZaniGiovanni! after reviewing this dispute, i believe it would be appropriate to use the term "recapture" following "capture". here is some context for my stance regarding this issue:
if the Aghoghlan Gate (originally under control by Azerbaijan [x]) was captured by the Republic of Artsakh (y), that means that chronologically the control shifted from Azerbaijan (x) to the Republic of Artsakh (y). then, if Azerbaijan (x) captured the same gate they previously had under control, it would be considered a "recapture". (in order, the control is as follows: [x], [y], [x])
the only plausible explanation for the term capture to be used is if a third party, who had no previous control over the gate, interfered. however, from my understanding, only two parties had involvement in capturing the gate. the first party (x; Azerbaijan) previously had control of the gate, and as such it would be considered a recapture if they lost and regained control. .huepowtalk16:02, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi .huepow. "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. Being part of former NKAO, the city Shushi (where this gate is) wasn't considered occupied like outside areas of NKAO. That was my rationale for keeping simple "captured" for both parties as to avoid any neutrality issues. Grammatically speaking, we can separate the sentences to have better order. Thoughts? ZaniGiovanni (talk) 16:09, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
reading over your reply, i agree on separating the sentences for better order (also since in its current form it does drag on a bit) and similarly your concerns regarding neutrality are warranted. before any further edits to the article i'd also like comment from Golden to settle the matter. .huepowtalk16:22, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how "recapture" isn't neutral or makes legal comments, as ZaniGiovanni seems to imply. If Artsakh recaptured the city in the future as part of the same conflict, it would be referred to as a recapture rather than a capture, regardless of its legality. A location does not have to be considered "occupied" to be "recaptured", and many reliable sources use the term to refer to the city, removing any doubt that the term is biased. (Reuters, Guardian, Al Jazeera, France24 etc.)
@.huepow: I don't mind splitting the sentence but using "capture" to refer to Azerbaijan's recapture of the city within the context of the same conflict makes no grammatical sense. As you said in your previous comment, "the only plausible explanation for the term capture to be used is if a third party, who had no previous control over the gate, interfered" and this hasn't happened here. — Goldencall me maybe?16:38, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
in response to the neutrality of "recapture", im assuming the concern is about how the term may place unnecessary focus on the subject rather than the term "capture" (although this is probably a weak argument and might not be a major concern)
also, if we split up the sentence as follows:
"The fortress and the city came under the control of the self-proclaimed Republic of Artsakh following the capture of Shusha on 8 May 1992. On 8 November 2020, the Azerbaijani Army (captured, recaptured) the city after a 3-day long battle."
I personally would prefer "capture" as a separate sentence per my argument above. As I said, even articles such as Operation Overlord also use "captured" even though these were actual territories occupied by the Germans. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 16:58, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
3O Response: hi there Golden and ZaniGiovanni! after reviewing this dispute, i believe it would be appropriate to use the term "recapture" following "capture". here is some context for my stance regarding this issue: