Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh conflict/Archive 1

Remove Russia
Russia sells arms to both sides and does not fight alongside the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, whereas Turkey is completely one-sided, has sent all forms of support to Azerbaijan, including soldiers, and is partaking in a blockade of Armenia, which is an act of war. The template is extremely misleading. To say they are equal supporters would be like saying Turkey sells weapons to Armenia. I propose to remove the "Support" from Turkey, and to completely remove Russia from the Armenia half. --Steverci (talk) 03:58, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no proof that Turkish soldiers fought in the Nagorno-Karabakh War. Political support does not mean participating in the conflict, and blockade does not have an absolute definition as an act of war. Besides, Turkey cites other reasons for this blockade in addition to the military occupation of Nagorno-Karabakh.
 * As for Russia, Bako Sahakyan affirmed that soldiers of the Nagorno-Karabakh Defence Army regularly undergo training in Russia. Not to mention the recent interview of the head of the Russian military base in Gyumri, Col. Andrei Ruzinsky, in which he said: "In the case of the government of Azerbaijan making the decision to restore its jurisdiction over Nagorno-Karabakh by force, the military base can intervene in the armed conflict in compliance with the agreement obligations of the Russian Federation in the framework of the Collective Security Treaty Organization." No Russian government body ever officially refuted this statement. Is this not considered support? Parishan (talk) 01:47, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Please have a look at this: Turkey continued to provide military as well as economic aid to Azerbaijan. As further proof, the Turkish army and intelligence services launched undercover operations to supply Azerbaijan with arms and military personnel. According to Turkish sources, over 350 high-ranking officers and thousands of volunteers from Turkey participated in the warfare on the Azerbaijani side.
 * You put to much credit into political statements. Putin stated Russia isn't involved in the War in Donbass which is an obvious lie.
 * So by that logic should we put the United States and United Kingdom under Azerbaijan? By the way Ruzinsky was recently sacked, and words are little compared to actions, in which Russia has sold arms to both sides and assisted both sides when it was beneficial to them. When has Turkey ever assisted Armenia in the conflict? To put Russia under Armenia is just plain misleading. --Steverci (talk) 02:10, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * First of all, you cannot expect me to retrieve a sentence in a 128-page non-digitised scan without at least a page reference. Second of all, Hayk Demoyan of the Yerevan State University, an expert of the Armenian Ministry of Defence and a notorious Khojaly Massacre denialist, is a partisan source, and I doubt that his findings can be used in this article. While it is true that Turkey sent military instructors to Azerbaijan in the final phase of the war, their direct participation in the military operations has never been proven. Thirdly, Andrei Ruzinsky had no obvious political motivation and was not under international pressure when he pledged Russian involvement in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict on Armenia's side, so his statements are incomparable to Mr. Putin's. He may not be heading the Gyumri base now, but he was fully in charge at the time of his statement, and the Russian Ministry of Defence failed to comment on it despite Azerbaijan's official request. Parishan (talk) 02:28, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Here is the original article I was looking for. Not only could Russia be added to Azerbaijan as easily as Armenia, but by the same logic so can the US and other countries. What evidence to you have to claim it was never "proven". One colonel can't speak for an entire army, and Russia's silence should be taken as proof he didn't. --Steverci (talk) 15:13, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20141012181234/http://www.todayszaman.com/news-331310-nagorno-karabakh-is-turkeys-problem-too-says-erdogan.html to http://www.todayszaman.com/news-331310-nagorno-karabakh-is-turkeys-problem-too-says-erdogan.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 21:24, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Merge
In 2015, a section of this article was split by user:EkoGraf with no discussion to create a new article Armenian–Azerbaijani border conflict. I would like to note that the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is not typically defined as having two phases, but consisting of one war and then sporadic clashes, with no specific grouping of later border clashes into a separate "war", as mistakenly done by EkoGraf. I herewith propose to remerge this article back:
 * Armenian–Azerbaijani border conflict -> Nagorno-Karabakh conflict

Please provide an opinion on this matter.GreyShark (dibra) 19:06, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - relevant participants.GreyShark (dibra) 19:06, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It looks to me like fighting never actually ceased after the cease fire, a low intensity conflict with sporadic firefights has occurred pretty much every year since the cease fire was signed.XavierGreen (talk) 19:12, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * From what I understand, the Armenian–Azerbaijani border conflict also includes clashes outside the NK line of contact, such as in the Tavush Province-Qazakh District as was the case in 2014. -- Ե րևանցի talk  19:16, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose First, I created the article on the border conflict without a discussion because basically there was almost no one to discuss it with. Except for me and a few others (highly sporadically) nobody was really updating the situation. Second, Wikipedia obligates us to create sub-articles when the main articles become too long. This article became overbloated about the ongoing border clashes, and gave a short summary about the 90s war (also part of the overall conflict and has its own article). Third, I created the article on the border conflict because it is a separate phase from the all-out war that occurred and ended in the 90s. RS are clear on the issue THAT war (period of the overall conflict) ended. One example . Fourth, after I created the separate article more editors became involved with editing the border article and they were fine with the split up till you raised the issue. One editor initially was advocating the deletion of the border article based on improper arguments, but he stopped after one other editor and me explained WP policy. Fifth, if we follow what you say GreyShark, we should than merge the Nagorno-Karabakh War article into this one as well. Since it would all be the same thing. Sixth, my split at no point indicates its a separate war, but a separate phase of an overall conflict (with which this article deals with). This article here Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, talks about the general overall conflict between Armenia & Nagorno vs Azerbaijan. The date and structure of the conflict clearly state two phases/periods: Nagorno-Karabakh War and border clashes. Seventh, reliable media today talk of this starting a new war. This would clearly indicate it (if it happens) being a separate phase from the previous war and the inter-war border clashes period. In any case, they are all separate periods of the overall conflict with which this article deals with. So, my question now is - If we already have a separate article on the 90s war which is a sub article for this one, why not have a separate article on the border clashes period (currently subarticle for this one as well)? EkoGraf (talk) 06:08, 5 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge I was thinking about recently and believe it's WP:OVERLAP. The border conflict is essentially the ongoing NK conflict, which unlike Nagorno-Karabakh War, still continues. Brandmeistertalk  07:34, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Its a matter of WP policy on creating sub-articles of main articles that become too long. Nobody is denying the border conflict is part of the overall NK conflict. It is part of it. However, the overall conflict started with the Nagorno-Karabakh War. When the war ended a period of the overall conflict ended and a new one started (current border conflict). And we already have a separate (sub)article on the 90s war that was part of this overall conflict and is presented as a subarticle here. If we would merge the border article into this one we would than have to merge the war article into this one as well. Also, I'm not seeing how there is overlapping when the border article gives an extended overview of all the border clashes throughout the years, and here in this overall conflict article we have only a short 6-sentence summarization. EkoGraf (talk) 07:55, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * To clarify - i don't think you have created the article wrongly in technical terms (it is OK sometimes to split with no discussion), though the split on this topic might be redundant. Let's see more opinions.GreyShark (dibra) 11:26, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * If you do eventually merge the border article into this one, than by that logic you should merge the war article into this one as well. Also, if you do eventually merge the border article into this one, than you would have to significantly cut down on the info you would transfer from there on the many individual border incidents that have taken place over the years. Because this article would virtually double, if not even triple, in size. EkoGraf (talk) 13:33, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not - the Nagorno-Karabakh War was an actual event finished in 1994. The clashes which followed are not a "war". The 1994 War and the consequent clashes are all equally part of the conflict.GreyShark (dibra) 16:57, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I never said that what followed was a "war". And I have already reaffirmed that both the 90s war and subsequent border clashes are equally part of the conflict (about which this article talks about). However, I am still not seeing a reason for there not to be an article dedicated to the subsequent border clashes which have been an event for the past 22 years since the war ended. EkoGraf (talk) 23:45, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source dividing the conflict into two phases: war and border clashes?GreyShark (dibra) 08:10, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not understanding you now. You acknowledge both the war and border clashes are part of the overall Nagorno-Karabakh conflict (as do I), but you do not acknowledge them as two distinct periods of the conflict? That would mean the war never ended. PS Some of the sources you asked for clearing calling the 90s war the active phase of the conflict. Which would make what came after distinct from it. EkoGraf (talk) 10:40, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that 1994-present conflict is a continuous "war" which can have an article in Wikipedia. I've never seen such a reference. Each clash is clearly part of the long-running Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, but not necessarily the alleged "border conflict (1994-present)" as noted by user:Yerevantsi.GreyShark (dibra) 06:48, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You asked for sources that talk about phases. I presented you with sources clearly stating that the 90s war was a phase of the overall conflict. Which would make what came after (the border conflict) a separate period of the overall Nargorno-Karabakh conflict. That there has been a continues conflict on the line of contact is a fact. As these sources for example give death tolls for the May 1994 onwards period, thus seeing it as one specific period of the overall conflict. In any case, at this point, we don't have a consensus. Two editors are for the merger and two (me and the IP editor who commented on the other talk page) are against it. If you have a problem with the title of the article (border) perhaps you have a proposition on a rename? EkoGraf (talk) 17:43, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I read the Crisis Group source and not convinced of your point. The other source seems to be in Azeri language (?).GreyShark (dibra) 13:35, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Google translate it. It says and I quote (first paragraph) The last 22 years (1994, May 12, 2016 to April 7) Azerbaijan - Azerbaijani armed forces contact line of troops close to 2 thousand soldiers died or were injured. The Caspian Military Institute (Caspian Defense Studies Institute) in the period since the signing of the ceasefire agreement between the parties, based on the results of monitoring media reports. Thus a pro-Azeri source considers this (1994-2016) as a specific period of the conflict. Plus, the multitude of sources I provided earlier also considering the 1988-1994 years as a separate specific phase. EkoGraf (talk) 04:37, 15 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment - What is your precise position on the proposal (support/oppose/neutral)?GreyShark (dibra) 11:24, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge The conflict is still on-going. --Donenne (talk) 18:48, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You misunderstood the point of the merge Donenne. Nobody is saying the conflict ended. The conflict is indeed ongoing (as noted in the infobox), nobody is denying this, and nobody is treating what is taking place at the moment as a separate conflict. The issue is whether the conflict's phase (the continues border clashes) that came after the 1988-1994 war phase ended should have its own article, which is at the moment a sub-article of this main one here on the conflict. EkoGraf (talk) 20:03, 21 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge - Merge per Brandmeister and create a separate timeline article if it gets too long.--Catlemur (talk) 21:01, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Nagorno-Karabakh conflict
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Nagorno-Karabakh conflict's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "crisis": From Kurdish–Turkish conflict (1978–present): "Turkey: The PKK and a Kurdish settlement", International Crisis Group, 11 September 2012 From Yemeni Crisis (2011–present):  From Armenian–Azerbaijani border conflict: Armenia and Azerbaijan: Preventing War 

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:54, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

There were several changes to the text made by me concerning, in particular the international documents on conflict. These were the extracts from the Resolutions and Recommendations adopted by the UN Security Council and Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. But they were later deleted by an Armenian user. I don't understand the logic. These documents have not been adopted by a party to the conflict, but by influential international organizations. The reader should have the possibility to know about the position of the third part, i.e. international community about the conflict. Otherwise, this article is one sided and reflects only the position of one part of the conflict, Armenia. I deliberately escaped inclusion in the text the resolutions adopted by the Organization of Islamic Conference, referring only to the documents of the international organization, which cannot be suspected in bias with respect to Azerbaijan. But, it was in vain. Wikipedia should be a place for unbiased information presentation. If not, there will be no reason to refer to Wikipedia as a credible source of information. I put here again the text I incerted and let the audiance to judge whether they wanna know about this or not.

International Documents on the Conflict[edit] In 1993 the United Nations Security Council passed four Resolutions (822, 853, 874, 884) on the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh. In all Resolutions the UN Security Council condemned the occupation of the regions of Azerbaijan, reaffirmed the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Republic of Azerbaijan, inviolability of international borders and inadmissibility of the use of force for the acquisition of territory. [25] On 25 January 2005 the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe adopted a Recommendation and a Resolution on the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh. In the Resolution 1416 (2005) the Assembly noted that considerable parts of the territory of Azerbaijan were still occupied by Armenian forces. The Assembly expressed its concern over the fact that the military actions and the widespread ethnic hostilities had led to large-scale ethnic expulsion and the creation of mono-ethnic areas resembling the terrible concept of ethnic cleansing. The Assembly also reaffirmed that independence and secession of a regional territory from a state may not be achieved as a result of ethnic expulsion and the de facto annexation of such territory to another state. The Assembly urged Armenia to withdraw its troops from the occupied regions of Azerbaijan. [26] Recommendation 1690 (2005) of the PACE urged Armenia and Azerbaijan to comply with United Nations Security Council Resolutions 822 (1993), 853 (1993), 874 (1993) and 884 (1993), in particular by withdrawing military forces from all occupied territories of Azerbaijan. [27] In 2016 the PACE adopted Resolution 2085 on the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh. The Resolution recognized once again the fact of occupation by Armenia of Nagorno-Karabakh and other adjacent areas of Azerbaijan and deplored that this occupation had created humanitarian and environmental problems for the citizens of Azerbaijan living in the Lower Karabakh valley. [28] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vugar Bayram (talk • contribs) 12:23, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

International Documents on Conflict
There were several changes to the text made by me concerning, in particular the international documents on conflict. These were the extracts from the Resolutions and Recommendations adopted by the UN Security Council and Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. But they were later deleted by an Armenian user. I don't understand the logic. These documents have not been adopted by a party to the conflict, but by influential international organizations. The reader should have the possibility to know about the position of the third part, i.e. international community about the conflict. Otherwise, this article is one sided and reflects only the position of one part of the conflict, Armenia. I deliberately escaped inclusion in the text the resolutions adopted by the Organization of Islamic Conference, referring only to the documents of the international organization, which cannot be suspected in bias with respect to Azerbaijan. But, it was in vain. Wikipedia should be a place for unbiased information presentation. If not, there will be no reason to refer to Wikipedia as a credible source of information. I put here again the text I incerted and let the audiance to judge whether they wanna know about this or not.

International Documents on the Conflict[edit] In 1993 the United Nations Security Council passed four Resolutions (822, 853, 874, 884) on the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh. In all Resolutions the UN Security Council condemned the occupation of the regions of Azerbaijan, reaffirmed the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Republic of Azerbaijan, inviolability of international borders and inadmissibility of the use of force for the acquisition of territory. [25] On 25 January 2005 the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe adopted a Recommendation and a Resolution on the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh. In the Resolution 1416 (2005) the Assembly noted that considerable parts of the territory of Azerbaijan were still occupied by Armenian forces. The Assembly expressed its concern over the fact that the military actions and the widespread ethnic hostilities had led to large-scale ethnic expulsion and the creation of mono-ethnic areas resembling the terrible concept of ethnic cleansing. The Assembly also reaffirmed that independence and secession of a regional territory from a state may not be achieved as a result of ethnic expulsion and the de facto annexation of such territory to another state. The Assembly urged Armenia to withVugar Bayram (talk) 12:26, 13 April 2017 (UTC)draw its troops from the occupied regions of Azerbaijan. [26] Recommendation 1690 (2005) of the PACE urged Armenia and Azerbaijan to comply with United Nations Security Council Resolutions 822 (1993), 853 (1993), 874 (1993) and 884 (1993), in particular by withdrawing military forces from all occupied territories of Azerbaijan. [27] In 2016 the PACE adopted Resolution 2085 on the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh. The Resolution recognized once again the fact of occupation by Armenia of Nagorno-Karabakh and other adjacent areas of Azerbaijan and deplored that this occupation had created humanitarian and environmental problems for the citizens of Azerbaijan living in the Lower Karabakh valley. [28] Vugar Bayram (talk) 12:26, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 December 2017
Reference named as 'conflict' has error, as it is never defined. It become part of this article after merging with an article named 'Armenian–Azerbaijani border conflict'. Reference has been: ' '. Now, this link is dead, new one can be: 'https://www.crisisgroup.org/europe-central-asia/caucasus/armenia/armenia-and-azerbaijan-preventing-war' Reconquistador (talk) 17:47, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 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. Your request is not clearly stated and the link you apparently want replaced is unclearly defined. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:27, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * One occurence of references shall be changed into:, as it is currently undefined.Reconquistador (talk) 19:26, 1 January 2018 (UTC)


 * ✅ I tried to perform this edit request. It appears this post is trying to fix a dead link. User:Reconquistador, please check and see if this was done correctly. EdJohnston (talk) 21:55, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You have succesfully fixed missing link I didn't know about. But there is still error message: 'Cite error: The named reference crisis was invoked but never defined'. For this reference should be used link you have used in your previous edit. Reconquistador (talk) 04:46, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ (I think). User:Reconquistador, OK now? --T*U (talk) 06:48, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Much better. But new reference could be better than joining with that one where is mentioned exact page (in original article by merging with which this reference became part of this article, exact page has not been mentioned). Or probably the best one, to name reference that already exists as unnamed: 'Armenia and Azerbaijan: Preventing War Archived 2016-05-20 at the Wayback Machine.' (reference with current number 90). I have missed it before but it seems to be the correct article.

Already done   Spintendo  ᔦᔭ   15:25, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I think I now have understood what s concern was. Most of the places where the source is used do not need the link to the page number or the quotation about the number 3,000. However, in the infobox that link is needed and also in the "Fatalities" section where a "verification needed" tag had been added. I have combined and split the notes so that the one links specifically to page 3, with the citation about the number 3,000, the other to the web article in general without page number. I hope that helps. --T*U (talk) 17:08, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

New Citation Found
I have found a citation for the belligerents box on the right that supports the fact that Russia supplies armaments to Armenia:

https://intpolicydigest.org/2017/09/13/armenia-and-azerbaijan-are-stuck-with-russia-and-the-u-s/

Hope this helps! 115.64.14.88 (talk) 11:16, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done The Russian armament supply to both sides is already cited to two WP:RS apiece.  Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:10, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 May 2018
Commander-in-Chief of Armenia is changed. Nikol Pashinyan (Prime Minister) is now the Commander-in-Chief. Davit Tonoyan is the Defence Minister of Armenia now. Pashmar (talk) 08:36, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, per President of Armenia it's him who is the commander-in-chief, so changed to Armen Sarkissian. Updated Defense Minister, too. Brandmeistertalk  12:41, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 May 2018
According to the new constitution of Armenia, the Commander-in-Chief is the Prime Minister, not the President Pashmar (talk) 20:28, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Done. But per amended version, he is the commander-in-chief in wartime. It's unclear who is in peacetime. Brandmeistertalk  20:57, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 July 2018
change Movses Hakobyan to Artak Davtyan. Artak Davtyan replaces Movses Hakobyan in the position of Chief of the General Staff of Armenia replace Nagorno-Karabakh to Artsakh as it is the new name of the republic replace the position of Bako Sahakyan from President of NKR to President of Artsakh, Commander-in-Chief as the the President of Artsakh is the Commander-in-Chief of the country according to the Constitution of Artsakh replace position of Levon Mnatsakanyan from Defence Minister of NKR to Defence Minister of Artsakh Pashmar (talk) 18:25, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Danski454 (talk) 18:51, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Make the article more easily understandable
There are people who don't know that Baku is the capital of Azerbaijan and thus a reference to it. Same with Yerevan, but it at least has an internal WP link. Either Baku should be made an internal WP link or, ideally, the references to the capitals should be replaced with the country names. Jerri Kohl (talk) 17:59, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Done. Sometimes national capitals are used to mean countries, but in an encyclopedia it's not always desirable. Brandmeistertalk  21:24, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Edit Request
1) Add as source to Russia in Armenia's Armament supply tab

2) Remove [10] (2nd source to Russia in Azerbaijan's Armament Supply infobox) because the provided link does not mention anything about Karabakh war, but instead is a news article about Russia providing Azerbaijan and Armenia with armament supply in the 2016, not during Karabakh war

3) Delete or replace "(formerly Nagorno-Karabakh)" near Artsakh's name in infobox with (also known as Nagorno-Karabakh Republic) as it is still also known as the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic as it is stated in the Republic of Artsakh page

— CuriousGolden (talk·contrib)  18:19, 27 April 2020 (UTC)


 * 1) ✅
 * 2) ❌ - That source mentions continued arms supply to Azerbaijan and Armenia by Russia in general. You are right that it doesn’t mention this conflict, but it doesn’t need to, as the source is recent and the conflict is ongoing.
 * 3) ❌ - It’s still known by both names, but it is Wikipedia convention to only use the official names in infoboxes. Artsakh is now the sole official name, which is reflected in the infobox on Republic of Artsakh.
 * Thanks for your contributions! — Tartan357  (Talk) 02:16, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your contributions! — Tartan357  (Talk) 02:16, 6 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you for adding the change on first one and I understand why the 2nd one isn't added as well. But, what I meant by the third one is that, (formerly known as Nagorno-Karabakh) is irrelevant as the name is still used. Perhaps, removing it would be better? — Curious</b><b style="color:#D4AF37">Golden</b> (talk·contrib) </b> 09:18, 6 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Generally, yes, deletion would be a good idea. However, I think that would cause confusion given the article's title. And the title won't be changed, I think, because its use of "Nagorno-Karabakh" refers to the region, not the state. — Tartan357  (Talk) 10:22, 6 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Alright, I understand, thanks for all the help! — <b style="color:#D4AF37">Curious</b><b style="color:#D4AF37">Golden</b> (talk·contrib) </b> 12:09, 6 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Hey, I just checked the actual article and I don't see the change you approved being implemented — <b style="color:#D4AF37">Curious</b><b style="color:#D4AF37">Golden</b> (talk·contrib) </b> 15:57, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Is the map correct?
Map shows all of NKAO as Armenian-controlled, though in reality some parts (parts in Martuni province, Martakert province) are controlled by Azerbaijan. — <b style="color:#D4AF37">Curious</b><b style="color:#D4AF37">Golden</b> (talk·contrib) </b> 10:21, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * No it is not, there are also errors in controlled territories. this is accurate. Beshogur (talk) 11:34, 14 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Can anyone change it to that? — <b style="color:#D4AF37">Curious</b><b style="color:#D4AF37">Golden</b> (talk·contrib) </b> 12:39, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

"weird" changes on the page
Here, deleted sources. Ahmetlii (talk) 22:12, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

"Support"
Is there any difference between "Supported by:" and "Diplomatic Support:" under Azerbaijan's part of the infobox? — <b style="color:#D4AF37">Curious</b><b style="color:#D4AF37">Golden</b> (talk·contrib) </b> 06:11, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

There is a lot of propaganda on this article making Azerbaycan as the evil Karabag is automnous already — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.196.188.16 (talk) 22:34, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Casualties on the Azerbaijani side during the Four-Day War are not reflected correctly
It is wrongly stated that an Azerbaijani tank was destroyed during the incident. The reference itself contradicts the statement, saying the claims by Armenian side are misinformation as a quote from the head of the press service of the Azerbaijani Ministry of Defense.

The statement claiming that the Azerbaijani helicopter was shot down is also incorrect, as it is not confirmed by the officials from the Azerbaijani side. In fact, the reference only includes a photo of an unmanned drone. — Elnurvl (talk) 23:41, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

The map labels are misleading
"Territories retaken by Azerbaijani military forces" better suits as a label for the red region as it is still internationally recognized as de jure part of Azerbaijan. Therefore, I am requesting to replace the map with the labels corrected: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Transcaucasia_Map.png — Elnurvl (talk) 01:39, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Edit Request to change map
I'm requesting for the current map used in the lead to be replaced with https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Artsakh_Occupation_Map.png as the currently used map implies that all of Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Republic and even some other territories to the east of it are occupied, while in reality, there are parts of NKAO that Azeris still hold. — <b style="color:#D4AF37">Curious</b><b style="color:#D4AF37">Golden</b> (talk·contrib) </b> 16:05, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll edit it in myself as I'm now extended confirmed. — <b style="color:#D4AF37">Curious</b><b style="color:#D4AF37">Golden</b> (talk·contrib) </b> 14:34, 25 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Can you please show a source verifying the fact that Azerbaijan occupied Armenian territory(turquoise coloured label)? If the map needed to be changed, it would be better to replace it with the more correct version instead rather more falsified one. The highlighted region is clearly inside the internationally recognized area of Azerbaijan. I also stated the problem about the red label on the last section and put the corrected image there. If you cannot find a truthful source for the aforementioned fact, I will correct that one too so you can replace the map, for the sake of preserving the integrity, as I understand you are given permission to do it. So please do not hesitate if you have anything to add. - Elnurvl (talk) 02:01, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Map
The map is incorrect. It does not show the Shahumyan Region. Can anyone change the map? Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 08:56, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * If you can find a map like the current one that shows Shaumyan region as "Not part of NKAO, but claimed by NKR" in the legend, we can add it. — <b style="color:#D4AF37">Curious</b><b style="color:#D4AF37">Golden</b> (talk·contrib) </b> 11:38, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Add 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh clashes
On 27 September 2020 at 7:30 am (Armenian time), Azerbaijan started attacking Nagorno-Karabakh. Main article is 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh clashes.Kostya nad (talk) 08:21, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 September 2020
Please fix the grammatical error in the first paragraph of the "Timeline" section to preserve integrity: "A a referendum(...)" Crawfish10 (talk) 16:51, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅, and thank you for catching that!  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 01:33, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Update Template
Current military situation in Nagorno-Karabakh

Date: 20 February 1988 – present Guerrilla warfare: 1988–1991 Full-scale war: 1992–1994 Low-intensity conflict: 1994–2020 ((Full-scale war: 2020-present)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.135.206.236 (talk) 03:47, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Goble Peace plan

 * Azerbaijan relinquishes claim over territories under Armenian control
 * Armenia cedes the Meghri-Jabrayil corridor to Azerbaijan
 * Azerbaijan internationalizes the Sadarak region to give Armenia access to Iran. ElShargabi (talk) 11:52, 11 October 2020 (UTC)



Section on Proposed Resolution
can I once more propose a section on proposed models for resolution, as there is no other prominent listing on this, online? There is the (long defunct) Goble plan, the Madrid principles are a link out, and recently some authors have put forward suggestions, in recognized outlets. As this is the go-to resource for many people, proposed resolutions should also be visible. I can't do it, I am long-term user but below 500 edits. Hundnase (talk) 15:52, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Already added /Ceasefire and international mediation/ Main heading and content. Is this sufficient before I close this request? Johncdraper (talk) 16:06, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * thx for quick response. Given the current attention, can one expand that section? I saw your very good edits (if I may say so) on the Madrid principles, we have articles by Tom de Waal, the 2019 Crisis Group report, Anna Ohanyan's reference to Camp David approach, there was the (ok, defunct but still) Goble plan -- and a brief NPOV description of these would add a lot of value, I think. As I said, I can't write those as I am not eligible. Hundnase (talk) 16:13, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done Additional proposals listed here are for related pages and not this page specifically. Please make those edit requests on relevant talk pages. GreaterPonce665  (TALK) 19:31, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 October 2020
this article is not updated, and a lot of parts are wrong and pro-armenian. you should not publish articles of pro-armenian propoganda. this nation is corrupt and discrassful! they should be banned from mass media, and especially from wikipedia! 81.21.86.39 (talk) 12:04, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Could you give examples of some parts/sentences that you found to be biased? — <b style="color:#D4AF37">Curious</b><b style="color:#D4AF37">Golden</b> (talk·contrib) </b> 12:10, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 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. GreaterPonce665  (TALK) 19:33, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Casualties for 2020 on deaths per year section
Casualties for 2020 severely need to be updated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2407:7000:9A0C:5A77:282E:ECB3:784D:8E52 (talk) 20:02, 4 October 2020 (UTC)


 * indeed, I guess the sources at this point tend to be one-sided. I know this is a separate topic, but should there not be a separate section on "proposed solutions", listing out what has been suggested as a peace arrangement? These suggestions are buried deep in reports, and people may want them available for quicker reference, while maintaining NPOV. Views? Hundnase (talk) 09:42, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Going back to the topic of casualties, some recent reports by Reuters have updated the military deaths to about 500+, I could add that. --CartoonDiablo (talk) 18:55, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 October 2020
The amount of casualties in the current clashes have exceeded the ones in 2016, yet the Timeline section on the page still incorrectly states that the 2020 clashes are the most deadly since 2016, while they’re actually the most deadly since 1994.

If I didn’t submit my edit request in the right place, please do not ban my IP Address, I’m new to Wikipedia editing and this was done in good faith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.237.75.93 (talk) 16:48, 19 October 2020 (UTC)


 * ✅. ◢ <i style="background-color:#F7E3F7; color:#960596"> Ganbaruby! </i>  (Say hi!) 13:52, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 October 2020
i think you should add the russo-turkish involvment and the uninvlovlment of the united states because of the upcoming presidential debates if the country there should aslo be more history of the conflict in this wiki page such as the start in the ethnic tensions and religion of the two countries Mipo popopo (talk) 14:03, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 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. If you wish to add content, please write the content, and submit an edit request so it can be added. Terasail &#91;Talk&#93; 14:10, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Annexation of Azerbaijan

 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Azerbaijan_by_the_Armenia
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_invasion_of_Azerbaijan

Why can't I read that Azerbaijani lands were annexed by Armenia?--45.135.206.220 (talk) 02:09, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Russia is arms suppliers to both Azerbaijan and Armenia
"Russia set to continue arms supplies to Azerbaijan and Armenia — official" source: https://tass.com/defense/868312

It should be mentioned in the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.120.129.22 (talk) 11:24, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Casualties
Azerbaijan has declared 2783 military casualties, that brings the official total to 5355, but there are probably more unreported casualties on both sides. Indicate with 5355+ casualties for the 2020 War. Wrenwelch (talk) 15:27, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Fatalities in 2020
Azerbaijan says 2,783 soldiers killed... https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/12/3/azerbaijan-says-2783-soldiers-killed-in-nagorno-karabakh-clashes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.0.221.246 (talk) 17:05, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

On January 2020, Armenian soldier Vahram Avagyan (born in 2000) died from a gunshot wound; on January 6, a contract soldier died under similar circumstances to those of Avgayan, and on January 28, an Armenian soldier was shot and wounded in Nagorno-Karabakh under unexplained circumstances.

On January 24, Armenian soldiers Henri-Hayk Zakarian (born in 2001) and Armen Mesropyan (born in 2000) died from gunshot wounds in Nagorno-Karabakh.

On February 12, 2020, Armenian soldiers Tigran Manvelyan (20-years-old) and Tigran Mkhoyan (born in 2000) have died in Nagorno-Karabakh region from gunshot founds.

As of 13 February, 2020, in the year 2020, 12 Armenian soldiers were killed.

On 14 February, Armenian soldier Hayk Asryan (born in 1997) was killed by a fatal firearm injury.

On February 15, 2020, Azeri soldier Seymur Seymur Eldar Alasgerov was killed by an enemy shot on the front line.

On 24 February 2020, Azerbaijani soldier Ibrahim Alamshah Valiyev was killed by Armenian mortar attack that targeted a border village of Qazakh province; one Armenian officer and a soldier were also killed after Azerbaijani forces retaliated to the attack. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Battletanks (talk • contribs) 12:43, 28 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Such low-casualty ceasefire violations are quite frequent unfortunately. It's not possible to list all of them. Perhaps List of Bishkek Protocol violations would be a place to start. Brandmeistertalk  23:31, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Update to Armenian Casualties
Requesting update of casualties on the Armenian side to reflect the new number, 4750, posted here: https://news.am/eng/news/619363.html KY-Acc (talk) 04:09, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 December 2020 regarding infobox
The user who changed the infobox image to an exact replica of the previous form of the image is involved in an active edit war on Commons regarding updates to the original image which portray territory changes following the 2020 war. Is it possible for someone to revert the change to the previous image and then change the accompanying image caption so that it reflects the situation after the war? There's no reason to show the old situation in the infobox, it should be the most recent version. Brobt (talk) 22:45, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: The map currently shows the most updated information. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 14:11, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

"conflict has ended"
Why is this noteworthy enough to include in the header? Aliyev also claimed there would be no more line of contact and citizens of Artsakh would become Azeri citizens, both claims were false. --Steverci (talk) 17:33, 19 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The conflict ended anyways. Unless there's going to be a "revenge war" by the Armenians (which, they don't seem to be going to do so), there's no reason to remove Aliyev's claims. "There would be no more line of contact," this ain't a lie atm, there are still talks going on, also, "citizens of Artsakh would become Azerbaijani citizens" is not a lie either. Azerbaijan still gives the Armenians a chance to become citizens. Your claim of non-notability by a leader of the involved major party is WP:JDLI. --► Sincerely:  Sola Virum  02:48, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Aliyev is not the right source for a contentious claim in the lead, as a party to the conflict his announcement that it's all over (after winning an engagement) appears prejudiced. I've seen some RS saying that the ceasefire could promote a longer-term peace and some RS doubting this. The best you could do is write something like Some analysts have suggested that the ceasefire arrangements could lead to a long-term resolution to the conflict, due to (insert summary of sources' explanation)[ref], although others commentators consider this unlikely because of (insert reason)[ref]. Jr8825  •  Talk  03:43, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is WP:NOTFORUM. --Steverci (talk) 04:08, 20 January 2021 (UTC)


 * , nobody said that the conflict ended because Aliyev said so. The conflict might as well be continuing. That's why the infobox isn't implying that. Though removing Aliyev's statement is simply JDL.
 * , citing unrelated guidelines won't make your point legit. Read the guidelines themselves, not their titles. --► Sincerely:  Sola Virum  04:13, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not a case of IJDL, the statement fails multiple basic policy requirements for a lead. It's giving undue weight to a statement by one side of the conflict (without a balancing statement it does infer that the conflict may have ended). It's a subjective first-person statement. The lead should only consist of a basic factual summary of the topic, and these facts should only be supported by independent, third party sourcing, ideally within the body of the article but alternatively with inline citation in the lead itself. Jr8825  •  Talk  13:37, 20 January 2021 (UTC)


 * , it is possible that I may have not fully understood the existing guidelines to exclude an involved party's statement about the fate of the conflict. I will try to do as you've advised. --► Sincerely:  Sola Virum  19:43, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 January 2021
ShkoDev (talk) 21:33, 24 January 2021 (UTC) iraq is suppurted Armenia to this war
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:46, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive edits
@Verman1 why do you keep adding the same WP:OR and edit-warring over and over again? Your newly added source doesn't even support your claims, but even after me showing it, you again re-revert without explanation. Please stop this disruptive behavior, or you'll be reported. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 13:58, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * @ZaniGiovanni why do you keep edit-warring and deleting the sourced text? Your claims that no Armenian tanks were destroyed in the battle are completely false, proven by the source. Please stop this disruptive behavior, or you'll be reported.--Verman1 (talk) 13:08, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * @Verman1 I didn't claim that lol, I reverted your unsourced information and later, I reverted your added source which failed to verify your claims. There is no "while Armenian side lost 14 tanks" claim in your added source, which you edit-warred and re-reverted adding it back . The source says "14 Karabakh tanks" which I already told you  but you're too consumed by your POV and disruptive behavior to even listen. Or you pretend that you didn't read the source, which is even worse. Regardless, you really aren't here to build an encyclopedia judging by your behavior, and you are being reported in ANI. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 15:11, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, you did. The text provides information about the tank loss of sides, not countries. Karabakh Armenians and Armenia Armenians are both Armenian sides. --Verman1 (talk) 15:39, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It's Artsakh in Armenian, nice try tho. Unless you can provide the source for your exact additions and not some WP:OR, this discussion isn't gonna go anywhere. Everything you just replied to me was your personal interoperation of the source, and source doesn't match your added text of "while Armenian side lost 14 tanks", nowhere this can be found in the source . ZaniGiovanni (talk) 16:02, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I've restored the text but have adjusted it to specify that Nagorno-Karabakh lost 14 tanks. &#8211;<span style="font-family:CG Times, times"> MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 16:08, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * @MJL I have no problem with your edit as it follows the source and is not a WP:OR. Regards, ZaniGiovanni (talk) 16:14, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Cite error
There is an undefined refname in the 2021 Armenia–Azerbaijan border crisis section. It was introduced by this edit. The following:   should be replaced with:   Thanks ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 16:37, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:48, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 19:23, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 5 December 2021
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * 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. Sceptre (talk) 17:19, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Nagorno-Karabakh conflict → Armenia–Azerbaijan conflict – There is two reason to move the article. First, the new name is much more WP:PRECISE. The conflict not only around Nagorno-Karabakh, but also (especially after the Second Karabakh War, but also earlier) between Armenia and Azerbaijan as a whole (one can recall Zangezur-Syunik etc). Second, the new title is more WP:COMMON name for this conflict. "Nagorno-Karabakh conflict" has become the common name for this conflict, used in many reliable sources and English publications on the subject, , , , etc. The time has come to recognise that the present title simply does not reflect the reality on the ground. Northumber (talk) 13:01, 5 December 2021 (UTC) — Relisting. VR talk 21:52, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose renaming If this article renamed as "Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict", it will involve rewriting the entire scope of the article, as it is mainly focused on Nagorno-Karabakh. You must rewrite at least 60% of the article to including the conflict that happens other than Nagorno-Karabakh. 180.254.171.111 (talk) 14:38, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * in any case this article needs to be updated. And I do not agree with 60%, now already a big part is not about Nagorno-Karabakh. --Northumber (talk) 14:50, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose As the article itself shows, the primary matter of contention and the root cause has been Nagorno-Karabakh and surrounding areas inside Azerbaijan proper. Particularly, all UN Security Council resolutions about the conflict handle Nagorno-Karabakh only. Zangezur and related areas are borderline and have not been subjects of persistently strong land claims, military presence or diplomatic talks. It's not like Arab–Israeli conflict, for example, where the primary cause is mutual claims of each other's land. A note currently listing "Armenia–Azerbaijan conflict" as an alternative among other names is sufficient. Brandmeistertalk  15:52, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Decidedly not the wp:COMMONNAME per ngrams —blindlynx 16:26, 5 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose, thanks for confirming my suspicions with ngrams – Nagorno-Karabakh is the most recognisable/widely used name.  Jr8825  •  Talk  16:38, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Relister's comment: 's ngrams evidence has a technical error. If hyphens are included, then the ngrams look like this. And did you really mean to say ""Nagorno-Karabakh conflict" has become the common name for this conflict"? Because your statement contradicts the RM. Because of all these errors, I think there should be more time to discuss.VR talk 21:57, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * you didn't include hyphens in all of the terms, when that is done my point still stands: —blindlynx 22:32, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Fair enough.VR talk 06:30, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing it out though!—blindlynx 14:17, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * SupportThe conflict has never been isolated to Nagorno-Karabakh itself, hostilities included shooting at each other along the whole Armenia-Azerbaijan border, including Armenia-Nakhijevan border. It is hard to distill the NK conflict from the AA conflict, and any such attempt is artificial. The conflict is far from being about a territory of Nagorno Karabakh, it has recognised dimension of interethnic conflict, which has sometimes went far beyond the borders of the region - remember the clashes during the 2020 war between two ethnic groups in various European cities, Russia and elsewhere? --Armatura (talk) 02:44, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

I suggest to add the pre-USSR Karabakh conflict as history of this conflict
The war is not dated in 1988, but the origins started during the first Armenian-Azerbaijan war, i suggest to add this in the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vahe312 (talk • contribs) 12:28, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Nagorno-Karabakh_conflict already has a link to Armenian–Azerbaijani War. Since that war and until the 1980s the situation has been relatively calm. In 1988 Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast voted to unify the region with Armenia, that's when it started. Brandmeistertalk  16:45, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 August 2022
Trivial edit request. Under section "Fatalities" subsection "2021-2022" it says "Twelves Azerbaijani civilians" which should have the s removed in the word "Twelve"

Purplecano - DG745 (talk) 04:30, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ &#128156; melecie   talk  - 06:29, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Edit request to adjust wording in article summary
In the sentence beginning with "Tentative armistice was established..." I feel that this sentence would flow better as "A tentative armistice was established..." or "The 2020 conflict was ended by a tripartite ceasefire agreement." Thank you.

Xwedodah (talk) 19:23, 20 September 2022 (UTC)


 * ✅ --N8wilson 🔔 20:14, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 September 2022
Can Golden's edits be rolled back? These are some very disputable changes that were not discussed at all. Why was "evacuation" changed to "explusion"? I checked that Black Garden book, and it reads "on most occasions, [Armenians] walked into empty towns and villages after the Azerbaijanis had ﬂed". And why was the fact that Svante Cornell is funded by Azerbaijan removed? There is clearly a Dagens Nyheter source confirming this.

The Dagens Nyheter source does need to be archived, which I've done, but surely this should've been discussed first to see if an archive or alternative source could be found. Dallavid (talk) 17:45, 16 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Nowhere in the book does Thomas De Waal use the word "evacuation". From page 194: Wholesale expulsion of civilians was the most terrible feature of the Armenian-Azerbaijani war—and a much greater number of Azerbaijanis eventually became victims of it. The author uses the word "expulsion" several more times in the book to describe the fleeing of Azerbaijanis. In fact the article had already been using "expulsion" until a few months ago, when it was changed to "evacuation" without explanation.
 * Regarding Cornell, I'm not sure how appropriate it is to write ,whose Institute for Security & Development Policy has been financed by the main lobbyist organization of official Baku – the European Azerbaijan Society (TEAS), before presenting an (living) established author's opinion without the linked source making such a connection between his Institute and opinion. Such a connection would be WP:OR and possibly treading the line of WP:BLP, and thus has been removed. — Golden  call me maybe? 18:16, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That Black Garden quote is referring to the Azeris in Armenia (and Armenians in Azerbaijan) between 1988-1991. It is not referring to Azeris in the surrounding districts years later.
 * Cornell is a controversial figure and there are many sources confirming he accepts money laundering from Azerbaijan to promote its interests. Blankspot uncovered a lot of his dealings, so it is far from original research. --Dallavid (talk) 19:39, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Editors are welcome to continue this discussion. This response was added for formality and to take this request off the queue.  Thinker78  (talk) 17:49, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 January 2023
For the section "Ceasefire and international mediation," there is a sentence that is written twice.

It says --- "argued in 1997 that France, the US and Russia are "more or less biased towards Armenia in the conflict."[422]" --- twice. Please remove one of the sentences and keep the sources listed there. Afina10K (talk) 19:15, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Cannolis (talk) 20:04, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Regarding Turkey as a belligerent/supporter
Turkey has supported Azerbaijan in Second Karabakh war, that is a widely accepted fact (even admitted by their leaders), hence removing it doesn’t stand any criticism, therefore I restored it.

The argument that should be it should be either supported or belligerent ignores that the “belligerent” is an allegation by Armenia and it says it openly and clearly, stating only the fact that Armenia alleges it, not whether it’s true or not. And it looks like you are ok with that, that’s why you left it in the article. For consistency, this article should reflect the statements in the main article, where there was a lot of discussion about the allegations of Turkey’s belligerent status. If you want to change the status quo, you really need to discuss there, instead of reverting here. It should be also noted that the 2 statements are not mutually exclusive, they can both be true and be included in the article

@Brandmeister KhndzorUtogh (talk) 20:34, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The military conflict infobox's combatant field is for belligerents only, better to not clutter it, especially when supporter is the same as alleged belligerent. As for the status quo, it was changed by you, not me. Another option could be the inclusion of Turkey as undisputed supporter, with Armenian allegation in an explanatory footnote. How do you think? Brandmeistertalk  21:54, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * That’s incorrect, infobox is not for direct belligerents only, supporting countries are also mentioned in many other articles, a few examples - the current Ukraine War, the Iraq War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War
 * I have merely updated this article’s infobox to reflect the infobox of the 2020 war article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Nagorno-Karabakh_War if you have suggestion to change the 2020 war article’s infobox please raise your suggestions on its talk page, including what you are saying about hatnote, and we can discuss there. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 23:37, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Armenia's supporter
United States Power Has Handled To Send Armenia An Ally Request 2601:680:8381:5FA0:F9B6:B556:C219:90C3 (talk) 01:14, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Distinction between "re-gain control/re-capture" vs "capture"
NMW03 has made numerous attempts to obfuscate the distinction between the following:


 * Azerbaijan has "re-gained control over/re-captured" Nagorno-Karabakh / Artsakh
 * Azerbaijan has "gained control over" or "captured" Nagorno-Karabakh / Artsakh:


 * link to NMW03 's changes:1,2

Although NMW03  stated "per source" here when reverting me for the second time on this very precise wording, the source does not, in fact, say Azerbaijan "re-captured" one-third of Nagorno-Karabakh. The source instead says this:


 * "Following the second Karabakh war in 2020, Azerbaijan regained control over much of the previously occupied seven regions. Azerbaijan also captured one-third of Karabakh itself during the war." link

A large number of reliable sources state that Nagorno-Karabakh / Artsakh has never been de facto controlled by an independent Azerbaijan. Neither the Azerbaijani Democratic Republic (1918-1920) nor the modern Azerbaijani Republic (1991-ongoing) has ever had de facto control of the region until 2020.


 * A) It is true that an independent Azerbaijan once had de facto control over the seven regions that surround Nagorno-Karabakh (pre-1994).
 * B) It is not true that an independent Azerbaijan ever had de facto control over Nagorno-Karabakh / Artsakh.
 * C) It is debatable to what extent the Soviet Republic of Azerbaijan ever had de jure control over Nagorno-Karabakh / Artsakh, given that the region was considered an "autonomous oblast."

The overall consensus among reliable sources is that Azerbaijan has never had de facto control over Nagorno-Karabakh / Artsakh.

When the newly-independent Azerbaijan attempted to remove Nagorno-Karabakh’s status as an autonomous oblast, the region declared its independence as the Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh / Artsakh after a referendum in December 1991. That is, when the Soviet Union collapsed, newly independent Azerbaijan had no de facto control over Nagorno-Karabakh; thus Stepanakert did not secede from an existing independent state and has never been de facto part of the post-Soviet Republic of Azerbaijan.

This is evidenced by the following reliable sources:


 * "As a result of the 2020 war, however, Azerbaijan received all territories around Soviet-era Nagorno Karabakh that were occupied by Armenian forces during the first Karabakh war, plus the two regions of Nagorno Karabakh proper: Shushi/Shusha and Hadrut." link
 * "The Armenian side also lost territories within the former NKAO, namely the district of Hadrut and the strategic town of Shusha/Shushi, areas that were not even considered for handover to Azerbaijan during the long years of diplomatic negotiations between the two wars." link
 * "The new agreement allows Azerbaijan to keep the territory it took by force, including Shusha and Hadrut, within the historic boundaries of Nagorno-Karabakh. It also requires Armenian forces to turn over other territories they have occupied for the last 26 years, including the so-called Lachin corridor, which is Nagorno-Karabakh's primary link to Armenia proper." link
 * "Nagorno-Karabakh had never been ruled by a post-Soviet independent Azerbaijan" link
 * "Thus, the above-mentioned clearly shows that Nagorno Karabakh has never been part of independent Azerbaijan." link
 * "Disputing the historical basis for Azerbaijan’s claim of title to territory, Armenia points out that the League of Nations refused to recognize the 1918–20 Azerbaijan Republic in part because the pro- spective state did not have effective control of the territory it claimed. This tidbit of historical legalism gives the Karabakh Armenians justification for claiming territory that was never, according to their argument, part of an independent Azerbaijan.... The Armenian argument emphasized not only that the disputed enclave had never been part of independent Azerbaijan but also that..." link
 * "Third, the region has never been part of the territory of independent Azerbaijan." link
 * "Heydar Aliyev’s monument in the heart of Mexico City, which on the lower end has cost $5.5 million, was “generously” donated by oil-rich Azerbaijan and contains another underlying message: the huge map made out of marble behind Aliyev’s sculpture shows Nagorno Karabakh as part of modern Azerbaijan. This territory was never part of independent Azerbaijan and was granted to Soviet Azerbaijan upon Stalin’s dictatorial pressure in 1921." link
 * "Thus, Nagorno-Karabakh was arguably never truly a part of independent Azerbaijan."link
 * Considering the Karabakh question,for instance, Azerbaijani history usually begins in the mid-1800s; with the normative,ideal situation considered to be the state of affairs for the 20th century (i.e. Azerbaijan has sovereignty over Karabakh). While discussing the Southern Azerbaijan issue, however,the nationalists' historical record portrays the normative,ideal situation as having ended in 1828-but even that period is problematic because the "united Azerbaijan" was never independent(as Elchibey's previous remark about the "restoration of a united Azerbaijan"might mislead one to believe); instead,it was always a part of the Iranian empire." link
 * "Under the rule of the Russian Tsar, Nagorno-Karabakh was assigned to the administrative districts from which the Republic of Azerbaijan later emerged. When Russian supremacy was weakened as a result of the revolutions in 1917, both Armenians and Azerbaijanis laid claim to Nagorno-Karabakh. The region’s affiliation was disputed and not determined at that time. Moreover, the proclaimed Armenian and Azerbaijani republics could not be considered as independent states and their recognition was, therefore, refused by the League of Nations in 1920 due to the lack of recognized borders, of a constitution, and of a stable government.53" link
 * "On 2 September the Karabakh Armenians also declared independence, which they underscored by means of a swiftly organized referendum, in which 99 per cent of the (Armenian) population voted for full sovereignty. Reciprocally' the Azeri parliament abolished the autonomy of Karabakh, which, however, had no further real influence on developments." link
 * "Under this agreement Nagorno-Karabakh has not been part of an independent Azerbaijan, and Azerbaijan has not exercised sovereignty over Nagorno-Karabakh." link

Azerbaijan's attempts to annex Nagorno-Karabakh / Artsakh in 1919-1920 failed. Azerbaijan's territorial claims at the time were not recognized the international level either (i.e., Azerbaijan did not have de jure control). On December 1, 1920, the Fifth Committee of the League of Nations rejected the request of Azerbaijan for admission to the League of Nations, stating that its decision was motivated by Azerbaijan’s lack of established state borders.

After the Sovietization of Armenia and Azerbaijan, on November 30, 1920, the Soviets announced the (de jure) recognition of Nagorno-Karabakh / Artsakh, Zangezur and Nakhijevan as an integral part of Soviet Armenia. Later, however, with the support of the Soviets, Soviet Azerbaijan once again renewed its claims on Nagorno-Karabakh. On June 5, 1921, the Caucasus Bureau of the Communist Party of Russia, decided to include Nagorno-Karabakh within Azerbaijan as an autonomous region.

'''While it is true that Nagorno-Karabakh was an autonomous region of the Azerbaijani Soviet Socialist Republic, the region still maintained autonomy at the time, which is what prompted the Azerbaijani SSR to initiate Law on Abolishment of Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast, a move which one published source states "had no further real influence on developments." (link).'''

Together, the evidence above shows that an independent Azerbaijan has never had de facto control over Nagorno-Karabakh. At most, Azerbaijan had de jure control during Soviet times, this limited de jure control was limited given that the region was considered an "autonomous oblast," and Azerbaijan was not really independent at the time (it was a Soviet state).

Therefore, it is more accurate the say that the outcome of the Second Nagorno-Karabakh War resulted in an independent Azerbaijan "capturing" or "gaining control" of parts of the region for the first time.

I have restored the copy-edits that were obfuscating these differences, as per the 12 reliable sources above. R.Lemkin (talk) 22:06, 27 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I did not say Azerbaijan "recaptured" 1/3 of Karabakh. There is "as well as" in that sentence. I don't understand why you take it so seriously and write all of this. NMW03 (talk) 23:29, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * You said "regained control over the occupied teritories as well as one-third of Nagorno-Karabakh."
 * The point as demonstrated above is that Azerbaijan never had de facto control over Nagorno-Karbakh until 2020.
 * As such, "regain" is inaccurate to describe the change in status quo to both clauses; a new verb is required for the second clause. If you don't see why, then perhaps this is a competence issue with grammar? Either way, I've disambiguated this for the reader. Have a great day. R.Lemkin (talk) 05:05, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Artsakh vs. Nagorno-Karabakh
In some places, the article switches back and forth between names without explanation. It is confusing unless the reader already understands the connection between the names. 2600:4040:2033:C600:D5B8:9CF6:8C5C:D4D7 (talk) 16:42, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 September 2023
Change "Azerbaijani President Aliyev" in the fourth paragraph of the introduction to "Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev", for sake of clarity. Eithersummer (talk) 16:17, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 21:14, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

September 2023
Can anyone redirect me to an article on the 2023 fighting? Borgenland (talk) 12:43, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Here it is September 2023 Nagorno-Karabakh clashes. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:15, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * i'm pretty sure the conflict is over now Gorgonopsi (talk) 21:52, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Exodus begins
Because of the editing lockdown I wasn't able to add that the exodus/evacuation of Armenians from the exclave has begun. Here's a source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/09/26/nagorno-karabakh-azerbaijan-armenia/ 152.130.6.77 (talk) 16:25, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

can the 2023 clashes be called a war ?
I'm genuinely curious about one question, can the 2023 clashes be coniserd as a war do to the heavy figthing and the high death toll could this be the final war for the region ?. what do you think 2600:6C50:1B00:32BE:4F2:931A:A6:D30C (talk) 05:35, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It could be considered a war because it involved all the usual tropes of war. There is precedent of previous wars lasting less than a week or day and being labeled as such. But on the other hand, there were other flare ups that resulted in roughly the same death toll like in 2016 and 2021 but they weren't considered a war. The real question is if this is the "final war" as you put it. Personally I'd argue the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is over. Azerbaijan won, there will be no Armenians left and any evidence of Armenian heritage will be demolished or "reinterpereted". Armenia and Karabakh Armenians have no leg to stand on. But the overall conflict will be far from over. I just think it will transition from a "Nagorno-Karabakh conflict" to a general "Amenia–Azerbaijan conflict" given Azerbaijan's hawkish rhetoric on Armenian land. 134.41.97.116 (talk) 16:15, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Is it right to give the figthing in september 2023 the Third karabakh war, One-day war, and karabakh war 2023
And will this be added to Wars involving Armenia and Wars involving Azerbajian

I think this can be called a third Karabakh. war do to it benig the third large scale conflict in the last 30 years and despite this lasting a day and called an offensive it was clear that this is Azerbaijan's, Ligthnig war in karabakh to end everything even though they called it an "anti-terror operation" In reality they wanted the third karabakh war to be as short as possible and they got what they wanted the third war lasted only a day with nearly 300 to 400 deaths from both Armenian and Azerbaijani Army and civilians along with the 5 Russians. and there have been Several Russian and Western media calling this a one-day war.

2600:6C50:1B00:32BE:1960:FC99:D95D:CC89 (talk) 07:14, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Result / territory ?
Suggestions how to cover this? This looks like a mess now. I'm not sure if its status quo ante bellum. Beshogur (talk) 21:57, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Azerbaijan has restored its territorial sovereignty. It will also not have to deal with an unruly minority. Likely Armenia will have to give some concessions (reparations, the transport corridor, or whatever). This is an Azerbaijani victory. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 12:06, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I mean territory section. So what's the result? Azerbaijani capture? Status quo (nothing changed)? Or write every phase? Beshogur (talk) 18:53, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Also doubts it is still "ongoing". Beshogur (talk) 18:54, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes. Although the 2023 agreement was framed as a ceasefire rather than instrument of surrender, this is an undeniable victory as per that agreement the Artsakh Defence Army was disbanded, while the Republic of Artsakh was ordered to be dissolved shortly thereafter. After Artsakh's complete dissolution on 1 January 2024 it's no longer a conflict, while the region would no longer be disputed. Brandmeistertalk  15:29, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Wrong data, needs to be fixed
"800,000 Azerbaijanis from Armenia and Karabakh" -- this figure is an order of magnitude larger than the number of Azerbaijanis that lived there (even according to Azerbaijan sources). It is not supported by any source. 2A02:14F:1ED:CDE4:D4C9:3876:11F2:DB61 (talk) 11:02, 30 September 2023 (UTC)


 * You du not know what an order of magnitude is. 95.143.62.54 (talk) 12:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

NPOV and Laundromat
There are a number of important omissions in the article that violate NPOV. The essential Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast was not even mentioned in the lead, nor were the persecutions of Artsakh Armenians throughout the Soviet period, or the constitutional referendum. This is all surmised as "Armenians demanded the transfer" which is intentionally misleading and not a neutral point of view. I have included information about all of this from reliable and neutral sources. There is also a need to incorporate the Azerbaijani laundromat and caviar diplomacy, which both relate to the conflict, into the article. Please note that this was investigation of covered by a great deal of reliable sources, legal documents were written about it, and many politicians were sanctioned and/or expelled for accepting bribes, so there is no question of either the significance or legality of including this laundering scheme. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 02:33, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Armenians demanded the transfer is POV in your mind but adding The Soviet Azerbaijani authorities worked to suppress Armenian culture and identity in Nagorno-Karabakh, pressured Armenians to leave the region and encouraged Azerbaijanis to settle within it, although Armenians remained the majority population to lead with a low-quality POV source isn't? Please. Nemoralis (talk) 09:45, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * If you have a problem with particular source, take it to WP:RSN. The discussion you linked in your summary editors stated that the source is reputably published by a professor of politics in the field of self-determination, and another source was added as well. - <b style="color:#d90012">K</b><b style="color:#000000">evo</b><sup style="color:#d90012">3 <sup style="color:#0033a0">2 <sup style="color:#f2a800">7 (talk) 10:40, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * There were already censuses on the article proving that the Armenian population decreased and the Azeri population decreased over the Soviet period, and this was obviously not a natural occurrence. This addition doesn't violate NPOV because it does not contradict anything the article previously stated. --KhndzorUtogh (talk) 02:19, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, such huge addition would require a consensus per WP:CAREFUL, not to mention NPOV issues. The article has been relatively stable in that regard prior to recent additons. Brandmeistertalk  10:03, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I have yet to see a single issue presented with either the sources themselves or any evidence that what they say isn't true. --KhndzorUtogh (talk) 02:19, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not about whether they are true, but about WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV. Per WP:VNOT, "not all verifiable information must be included". If anything, this belongs to corruption in Azerbaijan rather than here. Brandmeistertalk  10:50, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Brandmeister, in case you hadn't looked at any of the links I shared above, here are some sample quotes from one of them which is an official Council of Europe report:

"Mr Lindblad was mentioned by several witnesses as an open lobbyist for Azerbaijan in PACE. When heard by the Investigation Body, Mr Lindblad acknowledged that after his departure from PACE, he had worked as a lobbyist for the European Azerbaijan Society (TEAS). He also provided the relevant documents attesting to the conditions of his recruitment as a lobbyist.

Mr Lindblad explained that after leaving PACE in 2010, he had been approached by TEAS to work for them as a lobbyist. He had been recruited for TEAS by Ms Eliza Pieter, who had worked as a secretary in the PACE Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy. Mr Lindblad considered that she had recruited him because she knew that he had been on the Azerbaijani side in PACE concerning the issues related to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict with Armenia. She had also been his liaison person in TEAS.

Mr Lindblad further explained that for the first interview, he had asked another member of the PACE secretariat to accompany him. The interview had taken place in Brussels in a rented office. Later, Mr Lindblad had also had an interview with the chairman of TEAS. For Mr Lindblad, it had been immediately clear that TEAS was not an ordinary NGO and that it was financed by the government. At the interview, Mr Lindblad had made it clear that he would lobby only on the Nagorno-Karabakh issue.

Mr Lindblad stated that he had become a formal consultant with a monthly salary from TEAS to lobby on the Nagorno-Karabakh issue in PACE and the EP. When he had been on the payroll of TEAS he had attended events in the Parliamentary Assembly and the EP. He had also sometimes attended committee meetings of PACE in Paris. Mr Lindblad explained that he had worked for TEAS over some eighteen months."


 * Lindblad is just one of many MPs that have been exposed by the investigation. Many of them have been sanctioned and/or forced out of the organization. I do not know what could possibly be of greater neutral due weight than official PACE documents confirming the MPs and their lobbying in the NK conflict, which is why it belongs on this article. --KhndzorUtogh (talk) 01:23, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello, please feel free to discuss here why you do not believe the Azerbaijani laundromat should be mentioned in the lead. In terms of international reaction and consequences, it was very significant however. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 01:09, 3 January 2024 (UTC)


 * A clandestine international influence operation is not on the same scale as two wars, thousands of deaths, or the expulsions of hundreds of thousands of civilians from their homes. In the entire course of the conflict, the "laundromat" simply isn't a major element worth mentioning in the lead. It certainly should be mentioned later in the article. —Ganesha811 (talk) 01:23, 3 January 2024 (UTC)


 * It is no longer clandestine however, it was uncovered in an investigation and multiple people who took part in it were sanctioned or fired. Caviar diplomacy has significantly impacted the international stance on the conflict, which makes it an essential element on this topic. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 22:54, 3 January 2024 (UTC)