Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh/Archive 21

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 October 2020
Please Change:

However, the Soviet Union also had far-reaching plans concerning Turkey, hoping that it would, with a little help from them, develop along Communist lines. Needing to placate Turkey, the Soviet Union agreed to a division under which Zangezur would fall under the control of Armenia, while Karabakh and Nakhchivan would be under the control of Azerbaijan. Had Turkey not been an issue, Stalin would likely have left Karabakh under Armenian control.

To:

However, the Soviet government also had far-reaching concerns and plans in the wider region as it struggled to resolve the differences between the Azerbaijani communist leadership in Baku who claimed Karabagh should to be part of Azerbaijan and the Armenian communists who claimed it should belong to Armenia. Moscow wanted to win support for communism across Asia, and appeasement of Moslem Azerbaijan would be welcomed in the countries bordering the new Soviet republics, particularly Turkey where Moscow was trying to develop close relations with the new nationalist government. In the end, the Soviet Union agreed to a division under which Zangezur would fall under the control of Armenia, while Karabakh and Nakhchivan would be under the control of Azerbaijan. “If the matter had been decidable without reference to the situation in the rest of Asia,” says historian Robert Service, “Stalin would probably have left Karabagh inside Armenia despite Azerbaijani protests.”

Reasons:

1. It's an utterly groundless claim that the Soviet Union was hoping Turkey would develop along Communist lines with a little help from Moscow at the time. In fact, it is common knowledge that Lenin and the Bolsheviks were well aware of the anti-communist character of the nationalist movement in Ankara led by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk (e.g. massacre of the entire Communist Party leadership in January 1921 as they were travelling from Baku to Ankara). The uneasy and fragile alliance between Moscow and Ankara was merely based on some common interests against Britain and others at the time.

2. The following two sentences misrepresent the source text and also include an opinion, a subjective statement by a historian, and therefore can only be included as such, so as not to violate a fundamental principle of Wikipedia, i.e. WP:NEUTRAL. Veritas.vos.Liberabit.58 (talk) 13:43, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. That text is sourced to Robert Service, Stalin 2006, Harvard University Press, which is a standard text and a reliable source for Stalin's aims. In point of fact, it was official dogma of the CPSU throughout the life of the USSR that the entire world, Turkey included, would eventually develop into Marxist-Leninist states.  See Historical materialism for more.  Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:22, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * We’re not talking about the theory of Marxist historical materialism regarding “inevitable transition of society from capitalism to socialism/communism” here. We’re talking about the political analysis of the situation in Turkey during the 1920s. And there’s no such suggestion in the book cited here. And, instead of bringing in other sources, I’ve preferred sticking with the current one. Apparently, the content of the source text has changed too much in the process of summarizing and rephrasing it. So, I’ve amended my original suggestion based solely on the source text cited here. I hope this will be considered as a better alternative to the current text, which I find not only imperfect but also containing two serious errors (1. an utterly false claim of hope regarding Turkey 2. including a historian’s opinion without clearly attributing it as such). Veritas.vos.Liberabit.58 (talk) 15:48, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: You can't add >700 unsourced bytes of claims and tack on a quote taken out of context from the previously-cited source and expect that this meets the core content policies. This is still unsourced, POV, OR and not sufficient under the standards for edit requests.  Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:57, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it seems there is a misunderstanding here. I'll try to make myself clearer. The text I'm suggesting to change is supposedly a summary of the text on page 204 of Robert Service, Stalin: A Biography, 2006, Harvard University Press. The text I'm suggesting to replace it with is also a summary of the text on page 204 of Robert Service, Stalin: A Biography, 2006, Harvard University Press. The difference essentially is that my summary represents the source text much better whereas the current text is quite far from it. I will copy the original text below (all bold text is my emphasis) so that you can see better that (1) there is no mention of a number of important points like hoping Turkey would develop along communist lines, (2) this was essentially a territorial dispute between Armenia and Azerbaijan, (3) Moscow was essentially trying to placate Azerbaijan, and not Turkey, although Turkey was also in their mind, and (3) Robert Service doesn't suggest "Had Turkey not been an issue, Stalin would likely have left Karabakh under Armenian control." bu he says "If the matter had been decidable without reference to the situation in the rest of Asia, Stalin would probably have left Karabagh inside Armenia despite Azerbaijani protests.", and this is just an educated guess, a historian's opinion which cannot be written in an encyclopedia as if it were a fact, IMHO.
 * The Caucasian Bureau had been divided over various territorial matters. As well as the recurrent pressures from the Georgian communist leadership to incorporate Abkhazia in the Georgian Soviet Republic there was a demand from the Azerbaijani communist leadership in Baku for Karabagh, an Armenian-inhabited enclave butting into Azerbaijan, to be made part of Azerbaijan; and the Armenian communists fiercely opposed this on the ground that Karabagh should belong to Armenia. Ruling the Caucasus was never going to be easy after the wars fought between the Azeris and Armenians from 1918. But on balance it was Stalin’s judgement that the Azerbaijani authorities should be placated. Revolutionary pragmatism was his main motive. The Party Central Committee in Moscow gave a high priority to winning support for the Communist International across Asia. Bolshevik indulgence to “Moslem” Azerbaijan would be noted with approval in the countries bordering the new Soviet republics. In any case, the Turkish government of Kemal Pasha was being courted by Moscow; armies of Turks had rampaged into Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan in recent years and continued to pose a threat to Soviet security: the appeasement of Azerbaijan was thought an effective way of keeping Istanbul guiet.
 * This stored up trouble for the future. If the matter had been decidable without reference to the situation in the rest of Asia, Stalin would probably have left Karabagh inside Armenia despite Azerbaijani protests. He would also, if he had had his way at the same meeting of the Caucasian Bureau, have handed Abkhazia to Georgia with rights of internal autonomy.(26) But Abkhazian Bolshevik leaders Yefrem Eshba and Nestor Lakoba, who had negotiated a treaty between the RSFSR and Kemal Pasha's Turkey,(27) had lobbied hard in Moscow and set up their Abkhazian Soviet Republic. (Robert Service, Stalin: A Biography, 2006, Harvard University Press, p. 204)
 * I hope this clarifies the matter, and you and I can agree that this change will help improve the quality of this Wikipedia article. Veritas.vos.Liberabit.58 (talk) 08:42, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done, thank you very much for clarifying. I have now gone back and made the originally-requested change in light of this discussion, save for making some grammatical modifications.  I hope this helps.  Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:25, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I think it looks perfect now. Veritas.vos.Liberabit.58 (talk) 10:31, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 October 2020
Hello. My name is Elvin Babayev, I'm from Azerbaijan. I'm writing to you to uncover the reality.

Guided by United Nations Security Council Resolutions No.822, 853, 874, 884 and United Nations General Assembly resolutions 49/13 and 57/298 on Nagorno-Karabakh, I can say that Karabakh is part of Azerbaijan and this page is completely fake and was written deliberately for provocative reasons. Moreover, Karabakh is internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan and is present in all legal documents, maps of the 1900s. How can you allow someone to give false and unacceptable information to the world when most trusted organizations around have evidence and legal solutions? I ask that we make an arrangement for the page and give us special permission to avoid misunderstanding. I think if the same situation happened to you and your country, you would do what I did.



If my letter is not taken seriously and rectification is not allowed, you are also responsible for violating the transparency rules and losing your right to be a trusted source. Regards I will be waiting for you response... (contact: Babazadeelvin0@gmail.com) 5.197.244.229 (talk) 10:18, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Melmann 13:27, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Etymology

 * What I think should be changed:

The Etymology section should be changed to display accurate and relevant information. As follows:

"The prefix Nagorno- derives from the Russian attributive adjective nagorny (нагорный), which means "highland." The Azerbaijani names of the region include the similar adjectives dağlıq (mountainous) or yuxarı (upper). Other languages apply their own wording for mountainous, upper, or highland; for example, the official name used by the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic in French is Haut-Karabakh, meaning "Upper Karabakh."

Karabakh derives from the Azerbaijani words Qara Bağ, which translates to "Black Garden."

Azerbaijani: Dağlıq Qarabağ, Дағлыг Гарабағ (mountainous Karabakh; IPA: /dɑɣˈlɯɣ ɡɑˈɾɑbɑɣ/) or Yuxarı Qarabağ, Јухары Гарабағ (upper Karabakh; IPA: /juxɑˈɾɯ ɡɑˈɾɑbɑɣ/) Russian: Нагорный Карабах, transliterated Nagornyy Karabakh or Nagornyi Karabah (IPA: /nɐˈɡornɨj kərɐˈbax/)


 * Why it should be changed:

The Etymology section is as follows:

"The prefix Nagorno- derives from the Russian attributive adjective nagorny (нагорный), which means "highland." The Azerbaijani names of the region include the similar adjectives dağlıq (mountainous) or yuxarı (upper)."

--This is accurate. Then skips the Etymology for "Karabakh" continues with:

Such words are not used in the Armenian name, but appeared in the region's official name during the Soviet era as Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast.

-- The discrepancy with the Armenian name for the region is not relevant to the 'Etymology of "Nagorno-Karabakh"'. Then continues with:

"Other languages apply their own wording for mountainous, upper, or highland; for example, the official name used by the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic in French is Haut-Karabakh, meaning "Upper Karabakh.""

--This is fine. Then:

"The names for the region in the various local languages all translate to "mountainous Karabakh", or "mountainous black garden""

--Only the Azerbaijani name Karabakh (Qara Bağ) translates to Black Garden. Refer to Google translate English to Azerbaijani as a reference. And English to Armenian to compare.

Armenian: Լեռնային Ղարաբաղ, transliterated Leṙnayin Ġarabaġ (IPA: /lɛrnɑˈjin ʁɑɾɑˈbɑʁ/) Azerbaijani: Dağlıq Qarabağ, Дағлыг Гарабағ (mountainous Karabakh; IPA: /dɑɣˈlɯɣ ɡɑˈɾɑbɑɣ/) or Yuxarı Qarabağ, Јухары Гарабағ (upper Karabakh; IPA: /juxɑˈɾɯ ɡɑˈɾɑbɑɣ/) Russian: Нагорный Карабах, transliterated Nagornyy Karabakh or Nagornyi Karabah (IPA: /nɐˈɡornɨj kərɐˈbax/)

--Armenians do not refer to this region as "Leṙnayin Ġarabaġ" where is the source? Then continues with:

Armenians living in the area often call Nagorno-Karabakh Artsakh (Armenian: Արցախ), the name of the 10th province of the ancient Kingdom of Armenia. Urartian inscriptions (9th–7th centuries BC) use the name Urtekhini for the region. Ancient Greek sources called the area Orkhistene.[9]

--This is not relevant to the 'Etymology of "Nagorno-Karabakh."' This is 'History'


 * References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

As stated please refer to Google translate as a reference for the translation of Black Garden in both relevant languages.

KY-Acc734 (talk) 02:41, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I had somewhat hard time understanding your request, but I do support the statament that "Artsakh" is not same as Nagorno-Karabakh and is not an alternative name for the NK region. "Artsakh" is the name of the republic, which covers both NK and 7 seven surrounding districts. — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib)  08:03, 2 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The only apparent proposed source is Google Translate, which is not itself a reliable source. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:16, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Question about name of "Artsakh" as alternate to NK
Hi, is the name "Artsakh" an appropiate alternate name for Nagorno-Karabakh? As far as I know, "Artsakh" is used as name of the Republic of Artsakh, which covers both NK and the 7 seven surrounding districts. Is there any source that directly uses "Artsakh" as an alternate way of saying "Nagorno-Karabakh"? — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib)  19:23, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If no one is objecting, I'll remove it as I see no reason how Artsakh is an alternative name for NK. They're 2 different things. — CuriousGolden (T·C)  08:43, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Artsakh suggests this is another Armenian name of the region, alongside Leṙnayin Ġarabaġ. Since both these names are already given in the infobox, I support removal from the lead as a redundancy. Brandmeistertalk  12:15, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Missing references in War and secession
Hello, is it possible for the those you edited this passage to add a reference to support the following : "On 20 February 1988, 2 Azeri girls had been raped in Stepanakert, this caused wide outrage in the Azeri town of Agdam," - a reference to the rape of Azeri woman as the reason /pretext for the breakout of protests /violence ? if no objective references are available, please delete this assumption. Thank you ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Larsvogt (talk • contribs) 16:22, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Soviet era: minor error with text double-up
The last sentence of the Soviet era section is repeated (twice) "In August 1987, Karabakh Armenians sent a petition for union with Armenia with tens of thousands of signatures to Moscow."

Christoph-NZ (talk) 08:41, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Cease-fire announced
I've added the just-announced cease-fire between the opposing forces, and the arrival of Russian peace-keepers. Unfortunately, Wikipedia doesn't approve of the source of the announcement, so it had to be omitted. If anyone has an approved source, by all means, please include it as I was unable to get past the Wikipedia censorship bot. Santamoly (talk) 09:20, 10 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Here's a New York Times write up on the cease-fire: Facing Military Debacle, Armenia Accepts a Deal in Nagorno-Karabakh War. Plenty of other details which could likely be included on this page as well. --Infinitesimall (talk) 09:30, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

edits for Post-1994 ceasefire
The box at the section needs an update, replacing "currently control" by "controlled". As the page is protected, I can't do it. The larger "History" section needs I guess a new sub-section referring to the latest developments and including the information at 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh ceasefire agreement likely to be stable, as the active war seems over now.--Diotime (talk) 10:01, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Article names of NK towns and villages
Hey! I've recently opened a discussion regarding page moves for the articles concerning Nagorno-Karabakh towns and villages here: Talk:Qarakənd and I would appreciate feedback from other editors that are familiar with the issue. AntonSamuel (talk) 16:35, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 November 2020
Sevak Zeinali (talk) I want to edit this source because some information is wrong for me(especially the name being Artsakh and not Nagorno-Karabakh, so I think I might be able to edit errors that are in it, as I have been in Artsakh before.
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. --TheImaCow (talk) 09:23, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Actually name of Artsakh is not Armenian name. It means that Ar Sakh. Ar means man in turkic languages. And Sakh is turkic tribes that come Karabakh from Skithia.Source:Documents from The National Museum of History of Azerbaijan.Note: Please change the name of Artsakh to Karabakh, cause it is not official name. Ayyam Aghali (talk) 09:47, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Official names
Hi! I was wondering if you could provide some input regarding the issue of official names for towns and villages in Nagorno-Karabakh as you've previously weighed in on the matter. Recently, the Azerbaijani-language names decided by the Azerbaijani government have been changed to boldface on the articles for historically Armenian-majority towns and villages in Nagorno-Karabakh where Azerbaijan is not the de facto ruling authority (for example: Haterk, Gishi, Nagorno-Karabakh, Ashan, Nagorno-Karabakh, Verin Horatagh, Nerkin Horatagh) with the rationale that Wikipedia guidelines recommend official names in boldface per WP:OFFICIALNAMES, despite the disputed nature of the region.

Looking at WP:OFFICIALNAMES (#Where there is an official name that is not the article title + #Practicality): "Competing authorities. In some cases, an article subject may have several competing names, all of them in some sense official.", I was wondering - would you say that the official names for competing/disputed/de facto authorities should also be displayed in boldface per WP:OFFICIALNAMES? In Nagorno-Karabakh, that's already the case for Khojaly (town) for example - which displays the name Ivanyan in boldface which is used by Artsakh and the current Armenian population of the town, but a number of villages with historically Azerbaijani-majorities controlled by Artsakh (with the Lachin corridor at least partially under Artsakh control) such as Umudlu, Tartar, Sırxavənd, Kuropatkino, Lachin, Zabux and so on do not have the Artsakh official names in boldface currently - this is a bit problematic with regard to neutrality and balance in my view if the guideline is interpreted in such a one-sided way - so is de jure and de facto status a good dividing line here or could the the current state of affairs reasonably be changed so that all of the official names used by the de facto and de jure authorities are displayed in bold? Would you say that a discussion like this is enough to look into the matter or would an RfC be necessary for example? AntonSamuel (talk) 10:47, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Not sure if this article is the best place to ask this. If this was just a question directed to Rosguill, it would've been better to use their talk page. — Curious</b><b style="color:#c29d25">Golden</b> (T·C) </b> 11:10, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I wanted to keep the discussion open as much as possible and I thought that the central Nagorno-Karabakh article would be a prudent place to have it. AntonSamuel (talk) 11:13, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Well then I'll add my opinion.
 * Quoting WP:OFFICIALNAMES here:
 * (undisputed official names) It should always be provided early in an article's introduction, bolded at its first mention and, where appropriate, italicized
 * Disputed, previous or historic official names should also be represented as redirects, and similarly introduced in the article introduction unless there are many of them.
 * In our case, there is only one alternate official name (in articles where non-official name is the article title), therefore we're following the guideline and showing it in a similar fashion. This is not the case for Artsakh as it's not an "official" name. No independent nation considers it that.
 * This was clarified in the discussion here. — <b style="color:#c29d25">Curious</b><b style="color:#c29d25">Golden</b> (T·C) </b> 11:16, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I think I essentially gave my perspective on these issues in the link that CuriousGolden included above: you're not going to find a hard and fast answer in a guideline. Rather, you should consider usage in English-language sources, whether or not there is a continued presence of people speaking the minority language, and the historical prominence of the alternative names. I don't think that CuriousGolden's argument about Artsakh's lack of recognition is the be-all end-all: while the case for inclusion would obviously be stronger if Artsakh had received international diplomatic recognition, it is sometimes valid to include former, minority-language names even if they never had official legal recognition (e.g. Oświęcim's inclusion of Yiddish). This is something that needs to be hashed out on a case by case basis, although you may be able to come to a general agreement on sets of locations (e.g., follow one convention for towns claimed by Artsakh that were on the Azerbaijan side of the 1994 ceasefire lines, another convention for towns that were under Artsakh's control 1994-2020). signed,Rosguill talk 16:07, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * This was clarified in the discussion here. — <b style="color:#c29d25">Curious</b><b style="color:#c29d25">Golden</b> (T·C) </b> 11:16, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I think I essentially gave my perspective on these issues in the link that CuriousGolden included above: you're not going to find a hard and fast answer in a guideline. Rather, you should consider usage in English-language sources, whether or not there is a continued presence of people speaking the minority language, and the historical prominence of the alternative names. I don't think that CuriousGolden's argument about Artsakh's lack of recognition is the be-all end-all: while the case for inclusion would obviously be stronger if Artsakh had received international diplomatic recognition, it is sometimes valid to include former, minority-language names even if they never had official legal recognition (e.g. Oświęcim's inclusion of Yiddish). This is something that needs to be hashed out on a case by case basis, although you may be able to come to a general agreement on sets of locations (e.g., follow one convention for towns claimed by Artsakh that were on the Azerbaijan side of the 1994 ceasefire lines, another convention for towns that were under Artsakh's control 1994-2020). signed,Rosguill talk 16:07, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your input! Would you then say that the recent string of edits by CuriousGolden bolding the Azerbaijani de jure names referring to WP:OFFICIALNAME and your previous input on his talk page were appropriate? The previous de facto balance was to keep Azerbaijani de jure names for historically Armenian-majority villages in the former NKAO within the brackets without boldface and vice versa. Now I would say that the balance has been upturned a bit.

I do see how a case-to-case basis would be appropriate given the complexity of the region, however, if there is a way to codify some form of a template for the name formatting that you would recommend, such as an RfC, that may be more constructive as the talk page discussions have become pretty messy in the past.

The one thing I still think is a bit unclear, and which I would appriciate input on is the matter of "official names" - since WP:OFFICIALNAME mentions that when there are competing authorities, then multiple names can in some sense be considered to be official - by this definition - since there is one de jure name, and one de facto name, wouldn't then both be considered official names, in some sense? Or would you say that the same rationale that is used for displaying alternative names - that they are prominent in English-language sources or were historically prominent as you mentioned, should then be the main indicators for "official names" as well, and determined on a case-to-case basis? Because of the small size of the villages, often few reliable English-language sources mention them at all, using any name, so I've found that search engine tests can been useful.

AntonSamuel (talk) 17:33, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , my perspective is that the alternative names rationale that you describe towards the end of your last paragraph is probably the way to go. I think that having a broad preliminary discussion, possibly here or at a centralized talk page for discussion of NK/A-A matters, to figure out what front-running proposals are for a broad solution is the way to go, and then use an RfC to select the best approach among those proposed.
 * Another thing hat could be considered is that in cases where there really are no English sources to go on, sources in other "third-party" languages could be considered as well. Russian may be a good fallback language; to use the example of Shusha/Shushi above, Шуша vs Шуши should be a fairly clear analogue to the English. signed,Rosguill talk 18:00, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Another thing hat could be considered is that in cases where there really are no English sources to go on, sources in other "third-party" languages could be considered as well. Russian may be a good fallback language; to use the example of Shusha/Shushi above, Шуша vs Шуши should be a fairly clear analogue to the English. signed,Rosguill talk 18:00, 8 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for your input! I think a way forward is a bit more clear now. I'll work on a proposal to place here, so that there will hopefully be some constructive debate regarding it so that it can eventually be put through an RfC alongside other proposals presented. AntonSamuel (talk) 18:34, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

the lede should mention ethnicity
The lede says nothing about "ethnic Armenians live here along with some ethnic Azeris", the reader is left wondering "why is Armenia involved with the Artsakhians?" 2603:8001:D300:A631:0:0:0:1D29 (talk) 05:35, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you're right; it says that Armenia and Azerbaijan have been negotiating over it but doesn't explain why Armenia cares. Could definitely be improved. --Golbez (talk) 16:55, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 September 2022
Hereby I want to ask a permission to do a small edit, which I like to add one citation for the history section, specifically regarding the decision to exclude as many as Azerbaijani settlement from NKAO to ensure its Armenian majority.

If the permission is given, I will change this to

Mfikriansori (talk) 18:49, 19 September 2022 (UTC) Mfikriansori (talk) 18:49, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ I am assuming good faith that the source says what Mfikriansori says it does. &#8211;<span style="font-family:CG Times, times"> MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 18:54, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

John Senacherib
Isn't this Senekerim-Hovhannes Artsruni, who has his own page? If so, please do repair the link. 2001:1C04:4706:EC00:E0BA:D74D:F7D8:D563 (talk) 22:39, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 August 2023
Please change the end of the "History" section to add the following section, taken verbatim from the extended-confirmed-protected Republic of Artsakh article:

Blockade (2022–present)
In December 2022, Azerbaijanis claiming to be environmental activists blocked the Lachin corridor, the sole road connecting Nagorno-Karabakh to Armenia and the outside world. On 23 April 2023, Azerbaijani forces installed a checkpoint on the Lachin corridor. The blockade has led to a humanitarian crisis for the population in Artsakh; imports of essential goods have been blocked, as well as humanitarian convoys of the Red Cross and the Russian peacekeepers, trapping the 120,000 residents of the region. Limited traffic had been conducted by Russian peacekeepers and the International Committee of the Red Cross to transport patients in need of medical care and provide humanitarian supplies. However, since 15 June 2023, Azerbaijan has intensified the blockade, blocking all passage of food, fuel, and medicine from the Red Cross and the Russian peacekeepers through the Lachin corridor. JM2023 (talk) 16:33, 30 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes check.svg Done . Kaalakaa (talk) 06:33, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

"also referred to as Artsakh by Armenians"
I removed this. It was added in early 2023. It's not even an English usage. Beshogur (talk) 16:45, 20 September 2023 (UTC)