Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh conflict

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dallavid (talk | contribs) at 17:45, 16 September 2022 (→Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 September 2022: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 17:45, 16 September 2022 by Dallavid (talk | contribs) (→Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 September 2022: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

Template:Vital article

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Armenia High‑importance

	Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is within the scope of WikiProject Armenia, an attempt to improve and better organize information in articles related or pertaining to Armenia and Armenians. If you would like to contribute or collaborate, you could edit the article attached to this page or visit the project page for further information.ArmeniaWikipedia:WikiProject ArmeniaTemplate:WikiProject ArmeniaArmenian
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Artsakh Top‑importance

	Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is within the scope of WikiProject Artsakh, an attempt to improve and better organize information in articles related or pertaining to Artsakh and Artsakhians. If you would like to contribute or collaborate, you could edit the article attached to this page or visit the project page for further information.ArtsakhWikipedia:WikiProject ArtsakhTemplate:WikiProject ArtsakhArtsakh
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Azerbaijan High‑importance

	Azerbaijan portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Azerbaijan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Azerbaijan-related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AzerbaijanWikipedia:WikiProject AzerbaijanTemplate:WikiProject AzerbaijanAzerbaijan
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

International relations High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Russian & Soviet / Post-Cold War

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met

Associated task forces:
/
	Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force
	Post-Cold War task force

The contents of the Armenian–Azerbaijani border conflict page were merged into Nagorno-Karabakh conflict on 15 September 2016. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

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)

Merge

Consensus here is to merge the Armenian–Azerbaijani border conflict article back here. One editor was opposed to the merge and four are for it. Two others left comments, one reads like it mildly opposes and the other like it mildly supports. The size issue can be dealt with through normal editing practices. There is no consensus to merge Nagorno-Karabakh War here. AIRcorn (talk) 08:31, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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 - @Hyrudagon, Agulani, EkoGraf, Yerevantsi, and Seagull123: 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. --Երևանցի 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, Misplaced Pages 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. Brandmeister 07:34, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

@Brandmeister: 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)

@Greyshark09: 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)

@Greyshark09: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)

@Greyshark09: 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 - @XavierGreen and Yerevantsi: 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)

@Donenne: 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)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 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 {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:24, 4 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): Hendawi, Hamza (12 October 2014). "Yemen's crisis reflects arc of Arab Spring revolts". Yahoo! News. Retrieved 8 February 2015.
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. Misplaced Pages should be a place for unbiased information presentation. If not, there will be no reason to refer to Misplaced Pages 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 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. 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. 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. 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vugar Bayram (talk • contribs) 12:23, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

International Documents on Conflict

International Documents on the Conflict 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. 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. 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. 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. Vugar Bayram (talk) 12:26, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 December 2017

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)

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)

References

^ Armenia and Azerbaijan: Preventing War Cite error: The named reference "crisis" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).

Done 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)

Done (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 Reconquistadors 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

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)

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

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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. Brandmeister 12:41, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 May 2018

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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. Brandmeister 20:57, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 July 2018

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)

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. Brandmeister 21:24, 21 February 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)

References

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. Brandmeister 23:31, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Edit Request

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

2) Remove (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

References

de Waal 2003, p. 215: "Moscow’s arms supplies to Armenia are just one piece in the biggest puzzle of the Karabakh war" sfn error: no target: CITEREFde_Waal2003 (help)

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

@CuriousGolden:

Done

Not done - 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.

Not done - It’s still known by both names, but it is Misplaced Pages 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)

@Tartan357: 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? — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 09:18, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

@CuriousGolden: 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)

@Tartan357: Alright, I understand, thanks for all the help! — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 12:09, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

@Tartan357: Hey, I just checked the actual article and I don't see the change you approved being implemented — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 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. — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 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? — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 12:39, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Edit Request to change map

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I'm requesting for the current map used in the lead to be replaced with https://commons.wikimedia.org/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. — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 16:05, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I'll edit it in myself as I'm now extended confirmed. — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 14:34, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

@CuriousGolden: 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)

"weird" changes on the page

@Yerevantsi: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? — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 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.

References

"Azerbaijani Defense Ministry calls losses in battles". Haqqin.az. April 5, 2016.

— 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/File:Transcaucasia_Map.png

— Elnurvl (talk) 01:39, 7 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. — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 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

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)

To editor Crawfish10:

done, and thank you for catching that! P.I. Ellsworth ed. 01:33, 29 September 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)

Section on Proposed Resolution

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)

@Hundnase: 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)

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 19:31, 13 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)

Goble-Plan

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)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 October 2020

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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? — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 12:10, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

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 19:33, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 October 2020

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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 Misplaced Pages editing and this was done in good faith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.237.75.93 (talk) 16:48, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Done. ◢ Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 13:52, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 October 2020

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)

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 14:10, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Annexation 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)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 December 2020 regarding infobox

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)

Not done: The map currently shows the most updated information. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 14:11, 23 December 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)

"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)

@Solavirum: 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), although others commentators consider this unlikely because of (insert reason). Jr8825 • Talk 03:43, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is WP:NOTFORUM. --Steverci (talk) 04:08, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Jr8825, 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.

Steverci, 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)

@Solavirum: 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)

Jr8825, 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

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

ShkoDev (talk) 21:33, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

iraq is suppurted Armenia to this war

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. –MJL ‐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

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

There is an undefined refname in the 2021 Armenia–Azerbaijan border crisis section. It was introduced by this edit.
The following:
<ref name="Eurasianet"/>
should be replaced with:
<ref name="Eurasianet">{{cite web |URL=https://eurasianet.org/armenia-and-azerbaijan-in-new-border-crisis |title=Armenia and Azerbaijan in new border crisis |website=eurasianet.org |first=Joshua |last=Kucera |date=14 May 2021}}</ref>
Thanks ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 16:37, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:48, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 19:23, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 5 December 2021

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

The result of the move request was: Not moved. 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. Brandmeister 15:52, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Oppose Decidedly not the wp:COMMONNAME per ngrams —blindlynx 16:26, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose, thanks blindlynx 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: blindlynx's ngrams evidence has a technical error. If hyphens are included, then the ngrams look like this. And Northumber 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)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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#Background 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. Brandmeister 16:45, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 August 2022

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)

Done 💜 melecie talk - 06:29, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 September 2022

It is requested that an edit be made to the extended-confirmed-protected article at Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. (edit · history · last · links · protection log)

This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".

The edit may be made by any extended confirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{EEp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.

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, 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)

"Chef för UD-finansierat institut har nära koppling till diktatur" . Dagens Nyheter (in Swedish). Dagens Nyheter. 2017-12-19. Archived from the original on 9 July 2021. Retrieved 2021-07-08.

Categories: