Wikipedia

Talk:2023 Azerbaijani offensive in Nagorno-Karabakh/Archive 1

< Talk:2023 Azerbaijani offensive in Nagorno-Karabakh
Latest comment: 7 months ago by Chaotic Enby in topic Mind adding 2023 Nagorno-Karabakhhttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incident_of_Shusha_(2023) as link
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 → Archive 5

Article created

Latest comment: 8 months ago9 comments6 people in discussion

Created this article in the midst of reports by Azerbaijan’s Ministry of Defense starting a "anti-terrorist military operation"

This has just been launched a few minutes ago, and there is no credible and substantial information as of now aside from the Ministry of Defense. U2You Too (talk) 09:52, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

"Third" Nagorno-Karabakh War? Nemoralis (talk) 09:55, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
Feel free to move the article if there is enough evidence that this will be another clash instead of an all-out war like 2020. Although from the statement published by the Azerbaijan MOD, this doesn't look like just another series of clashes, thus the name of the article U2You Too (talk) 09:57, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
Azerbaijan MOD said it is "local anti-terrorist activities". I think we can move it for now: 2023 Nagorno-Karabakh clashes Nemoralis (talk) 10:14, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
Its officially a war now
https://www.politico.eu/article/azerbaijan-launch-anti-terror-operation-nagorno-karabakh-armenia/ Gorgonopsi (talk) 10:33, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
With your logic, we should call all the clashes listed in {{Campaignbox Nagorno-Karabakh conflict}} war Nemoralis (talk) 10:43, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
A literal offensive is more than a war, use your brains Nemoralis, no offence 92.40.218.187 (talk) 11:48, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
It's a war. there is no way that you could argue its a tensy tiny little clash. Scu ba (talk) 17:08, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
It may have just ended a day after it started. Not a full-scale war - presidentofyes, the super aussa man 10:21, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 19 September 2023

Latest comment: 7 months ago65 comments44 people in discussion
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: Moved to 2023 Azerbaijani offensive in Nagorno-Karabakh (Option 3). There is broad consensus about either option 3 or option 1, both receiving about the same level of support; as the option 3 is more explicit who launched the offensive, it was preferred by several posters. No such user (talk) 11:27, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

2023 Nagorno-Karabakh clashes → ?

Current title is misleading, it should be changed per sources:

- Kevo327 (talk) 14:45, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

  • Support as nominator, Option 3 - Per majority WP:RS and commonality, see sources above. A number of reliable sources describe Azerbaijan's military intervention as a premeditated "launched" "offensive" or "attack.". - Kevo327 (talk) 18:22, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
@Governor Sheng, Jebiguess, Sardon1, Nemoralis, Super Dromaeosaurus, Yeoutie, and XTheBedrockX: please update your votes - I numbered the options and added one from move that was collapsed due to single move being allowed at a time. I numbered with options so it's clear. Sorry if I missed pinging any other voters. - Kevo327 (talk) 18:22, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Support Option 1. Jebiguess (talk) 00:56, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
Support, Option 1. Sardon1 (talk) 20:16, 20 September 2023 (UTC) WP:GS/AA—Tamzin
Third Qarabağ conflict is the best option because this war has an important effect on situation Abolfazlyashar (talk) 10:27, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
Agree strongly, the Azeris have declared an operation. This ain't just some misunderstanding or accident. 111.92.27.66 (talk) 14:49, 19 September 2023 (UTC) WP:GS/AA—Tamzin
Where does the "offensive" part come from? Beshogur (talk) 15:15, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
Probably since they fired first. Borgenland (talk) 17:30, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
I agree, at the very least it should be called offensive. As they have taken territory already. I also support moving this to use the "War" terminology as Azerbaijan has demanded total surrender. Craig VG (talk) 17:28, 19 September 2023 (UTC) WP:GS/AA—Tamzin
Agreed. Several areas, all at once, all perpetrated by one side? Offensive is the proper term. Jebiguess (talk) 17:43, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
Agreed. 'Clashes', in my opinion, signifies an accidental attack. This was not an accident. Sardon1 (talk) 18:36, 19 September 2023 (UTC) WP:GS/AA—Tamzin
@Kevo327: please make an official request following Wikipedia's procedures, so the proposal can be enacted, as all the users support it. --Governor Sheng (talk) 19:39, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
@Governor Sheng, @Borgenland, @Jebiguess @Sardon1 @Craig VG ping for those who commented here - I already made a Move request, see discussion. A bot keeps changing the move link though to the one that is already the article name, if someone could fix this permanently it'll be appreciated. - Kevo327 (talk) 19:45, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
I think you'll need to wait for a bot to automatically list your request at the bottom of today's requests. The one you're trying to change was already carried out. Governor Sheng (talk) 19:56, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose attack as too simple, some articles use "attack" for airstrikes for example which are clearly of a smaller scale than this. Support offensive but not as proposed. "2023 Azerbaijani offensive in Nagorno-Karabakh" was a good proposal but I am not sure of the use of "in" here (Option 3). Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 22:09, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Support option 3 per Super Dromaeosaurus (updating my comment after kevo's request) Nemoralis (talk) 06:31, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
    So what are we waiting for? Why do people keep changing it back to 'clashes'? Mikeo34 (talk) 09:12, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Support "offensive" (Option 3) but agree with above that "Azerbaijani offensive" would be more concise and descriptive; especially considering Azerbaijani's supposed "victory" now with the ceasefire. Yeoutie (talk) 15:59, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Support Option 1 or Option 3. Reiterating my support for this from the other discussion, it makes way more sense to call it that. XTheBedrockX (talk) 16:11, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose any move for now. Clashes describes the situation well. Paul Vaurie (talk) 21:11, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
In my opinion, clashes would be appropriate if this was a sudden and unplanned burst of violence between the two sides. That's what other Nagorno-Karabakh articles titled with the word "clash" are like. This was premeditated (army build-up weeks before) and carried out by one of the two sides only. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 23:31, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Support Option 3, describes situation best. "Clashes" does not describe the scale of the offensive well - presidentofyes, the super aussa man 22:07, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose all four. Think about it from a historical point of view. I don't think people are going to look back and say that the whole conflict was ended during the 2023 Azerbaijani attack on Nagorno-Karabakh? especially if the 44-day offensive is classified as a war. Scu ba (talk) 22:32, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
I feel like some of these are a bit biased - attack seems a bit in violation of WP:NPOV especially considereing that you seem to be an armenian nationalist based on your profile. 76.218.104.224 (talk) 06:23, 21 September 2023 (UTC) WP:GS/AA—Tamzin
  Administrator note All are reminded that requested moves are not exempt from extended confirmed restrictions, and thus per the Armenia–Azerbaijan restriction users who lack the extendedconfirmed user right may not participate in this discussion. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 06:59, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose all. The term "offense" or "attack" is unrelated and biased in this case. Also, fully agree with the user "Scu ba" on his take --— Toghrul R (t) 07:54, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Support option 1 This was a brief military offensive rather than a series of clashes. Ecrusized (talk) 08:09, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Support option 3 as it's the most accurate, succinct and clear description of the incident as it occurred. – anlztrk (talk) 08:32, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Support Option 3, for now. Both the prelude and the main conflict seem to have been driven by Azerbaijani decision-making, and they were ultimately victorious; "offensive" captures this dynamic quite well, whereas "clashes" implies that the impetus towards conflict existed on both sides. "Attack" is too vague; as previously mentioned, this term is often used for individual, localized incidents (bombs, missiles, terrorism, storming a building). And for now, let's err on the side of clarity by describing it as an Azerbaijani offensive. ErrorDestroyer (talk) 08:44, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 3 Virtually all news sources have reported that 'Azerbaijan launches attack/operation/offensive/whatever', not that 'there are clashes in Nagorno-Karabakh', so to follow the sources, the title should definitely contain the name of Azerbaijan, narrowing the choice down to option 3 or 4 (or alternatively '2023 Azerbaijani operation in Nagorno-Karabakh'). Sources seem to be using terms like attack/offensive/operation in a free mixture, even in the same report, so we will just have to pick the term that best covers the facts in an encyclopedic article. In my opinion, that would be 'offensive'. --T*U (talk) 09:13, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Support Option 3 or Option 1, as per TU-nor's argument above, + "clashes" sounds very much like it was just a bit of skirmishing here and there. Please note that this account does not have EC but my main account does. I am currently travelling and using a VPN, so I am on this account. Thank you. > Asheiouy (they/them • talk) 14:53, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Support Options 1 and 3. Too one-sided and preplanned to be called "clashes", and the scale (an actual invasion leading to surrender) is best described as an offensive. Chaotic Enby (talk) 16:27, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
Option 3 preferable to 1 given that it identifies who was responsible for the clashes. Chaotic Enby (talk) 15:45, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 3. This is clearly an invasion launched by the Baku regime, not just some clashes. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 19:12, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Weak support for options 1 or 3 W/these options, calling this an offensive seems like the best way to describe what happened. However, calling it a military operation might be the best option based on what sources are saying. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 20:05, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
  • option 1 - brief qnd concise but says what's needed. Mtaylor848 (talk) 19:59, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 1 - this is the standard format for something like this. It was a major offensive launched by Azerbaijan.XavierGreen (talk) 20:42, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
  • I've removed the {{requested move/dated}} tag since this is linked from the main page. Feel free to let this continue as an informal discussion. CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE 22:41, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
    RM should be closed before. Panam2014 (talk) 10:12, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
    That's not at all what should be done, or even what can be done. You can't close discussions like this on your own just because the article is linked on the Main Page, especially given the overwhelming support for a move. WP:SK applies to deletions, not redirects, which are covered by WP:MPNOREDIRECT. In this case, the procedure is to have an administrator change the Main Page link at the same time as the page is moved. Chaotic Enby (talk) 15:43, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 1 seems OK. It's probably more neutral-sounding and descriptive to say "offensive" than "attack".  — Amakuru (talk) 10:43, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
    The problem with option 1 one is it's too vague and faceless, offensive by whom, where, against whom? - Kevo327 (talk) 11:04, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 3: makes most sense according to sources, the title has to be clear of who launched the offensive.Vanezi (talk) 15:26, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Support Option 3: This option seems to be the most concise (as many of the comments above have noted), gives a good overview in the title and aligns with the majority of the news reports from reputable sources. Jurisdicta (talk) 16:01, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
What do you mean it's "the most concise"? Option 3 is self-evidently less concise than option 1, given that it says the same thing in more words. Option 1 also complies with the standard format given at WP:NCE and is unambiguous so there's really no need to make it longer than it is already.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:08, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
Option 3 is what majority WP:RS are reporting and doesn't leave it vague. - Kevo327 (talk) 17:05, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
It doesn't say exactly "the same thing", Option 1 doesn't mention who actually launched the offensive, just the region where it happened. Chaotic Enby (talk) 17:05, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Support option 3, as per what everyone's said above. Sawyer-mcdonell (talk) 23:20, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
Support option 1, as per the discussions above. U2You Too (talk) 06:59, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Support Offensive (Option 3, followed by 1) As has been said by pretty much everyone already, this was a one-sided military offensive and is referred to as such in RS; "clashes" is inaccurate and misleading. I was tempted to just close this myself as nearly all !votes are for one of the two options that use the term "offensive", but I'll leave the closing to someone else as this is a bit of a touchy subject.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 15:28, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Support Offensive (Option 3, followed by 1) Echoing the editors above me, I agree this article name should be changed to “offensive.” It’s clear from reliable sources that this was a one-sided attack from Azerbaijan and I haven’t seen it described any other way by a reliable source. TagaworShah (talk) 15:38, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 3 - who launched this single-sided offensive should be in the title. --Mika1h (talk) 18:18, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Comment How about "Azerbaijani Conquest of the Nagorno-Karabakh"? ᗞᗴᖇᑭᗅᒪᗴᖇᎢ (talk) 04:11, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

It's not a "conquest", modern states aren't "conquering" lands like they're the Roman Empire fighting the Gauls. Even from Azerbaijan's point of view, they're retaking their own land, so it doesn't work. Chaotic Enby (talk) 13:08, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
No source has called it a "conquest" and the phrase "conquest" is virtually never used in modern military terms to describe an offensive like this - presidentofyes, the super aussa man 14:33, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Support option 1/option 3 per above. Mellk (talk) 16:59, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Azerbaijan's seizure of Nagorno-Karabakh would fit better. Thoughts? Beshogur (talk) 10:24, 27 September 2023 (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.

Requested move 19 September 2023

Latest comment: 8 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion
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: Moved. (non-admin closure) Chaotic Enby (talk) 20:22, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

September 2023 Nagorno-Karabakh clashes → 2023 Nagorno-Karabakh clashes – There is no page called 2023 Nagorno-Karabakh clashes, "September" is redundant. Beshogur (talk) 13:32, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

  • Comment This can be closed as the word "clashes" has been restored as the name of the page. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:27, 19 September 2023 (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.

Feedback from New Page Review process

Latest comment: 8 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Good work on the article!

Tails Wx 13:03, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 19 September 2023 (2)

Latest comment: 8 months ago46 comments36 people in discussion
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: WP:SNOW close. With four supports and fifteen wait/oppose !votes, it is clear this request will not be successful. I am doing an exceptional close despite being a participant in the move because I believe there's other proposals we should invest our time on than this original research proposal barely backed by reliable sources. The proposals by Kevo327 at Talk:2023 Nagorno-Karabakh clashes#Article title have achieved seven supports and no opposes. So let's not waste further time and discuss actually viable proposals. This bureaucreatic 7-day long process was not designed and is not appropriate for current events. (non-admin closure) Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 15:04, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Just wanted to show my support for this closure as I am uninvolved. Since there was a little support for the rename proposal, I would not have said "snow" close; however, editors definitely need to move on to a higher and better title for this article. Thanks and kudos to editors for your input; everyone stay healthy! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 17:25, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

2023 Nagorno-Karabakh clashes → Third Nagorno-Karabakh War – This is no longer a small string of clashes, nor was it ever a small string of clashes. I have no idea why this article is titled "clashes." It is blatantly obvious this is a full scale invasion of Nagorno-Karabakh, and as such we should have a name that reflects reality. Scu ba (talk) 17:06, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Depends. It's too early to call it. Beshogur (talk) 17:10, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
Seeing that Azerbaijan has announced this will continue until "surrender" and they will fight to "the end", this is clearly more than clashes.
BBC Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-66851975 Craig VG (talk) 17:23, 19 September 2023 (UTC) WP:GS/AA—Tamzin
Indeed:
"it was clear from the Azerbaijani ultimatum that Baku's aim was to complete its conquest of the mountainous enclave."
Unfortunately, this is a war. Craig VG (talk) 17:25, 19 September 2023 (UTC) WP:GS/AA—Tamzin
Support: At this point the clashes are intense to te point that we can call it a war, it will be a matter of time until sources call this a war Lucasoliveira653 (talk) 17:32, 19 September 2023 (UTC) WP:GS/AA—Tamzin
WP:CRYSTALBALLing here. At the moment, it's an offensive per sources in the discussion above, but if Artsakh or Armenia launches counter-operations and sources call it a war, then it can be called one. Jebiguess (talk) 17:44, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
Oppose: It is still too early to refer to it as a war. However, I would support renaming the article if the circumstances would justify such a move (example: 1,000+ deaths etc.). --Governor Sheng (talk) 17:46, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
Support: It's obvious this is a invasion of nagorno-karabakh, although its in its infancy right now, its only been a few hours, its 100% gonna evolve into a full scale war --ManU9827 (talk) 18:35, 19 September 2023 (UTC) WP:GS/AA—Tamzin
Support: Unfortunately it seems we're getting there... Chaotic Enby (talk) 19:46, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
Wait until further developments lead sources to settle on a name. Chaotic Enby (talk) 20:27, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
This entire situation is tragic. Too short maybe to be called a war, but how else do we call something that ends in the full capitulation of one side? I don't even have words for what happened. Chaotic Enby (talk) 10:16, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
To be more on-point for the current debate, there is precedent for very short wars ending in immediate capitulation and still being called "wars" (e.g. the Anglo-Zanzibar War), so changing my vote back to Support given recent developments. Chaotic Enby (talk) 10:18, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Oppose: Azerbaijan's presidential advisor claimed that their forces moved to "smaller, surgical operations" implying that this isn't a full-scale invasion yet. Later he said they were conducting "local but limited counter-terrorism measures". Of course, Azerbaijan is known for lying but I'd argue that until Azerbaijan's full intentions are known (not just what comes out of mouths), we should hold back. Azerbaijan's intentions so far seem to be to intimidate Artsakh to surrender. However, if they do actively resists, then Azerbaijan may up the ante. 134.41.97.116 (talk) 20:15, 19 September 2023 (UTC) WP:GS/AA—Tamzin
Support it's gone beyond mere border clashes at this point. Death Editor 2 (talk) 20:34, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
Support: Scale of military operations is great to be referred as clash. I will recommend to change it when official verification of land operations come. To this momment, there are only unofficial statements about capture of areas by Azerbaijani forces. Orxan Hacızadə (talk) 20:45, 19 September 2023 (UTC) WP:GS/AA—Tamzin
Partial Support:bolded portion struck by user Pretty much all of us admit this is pretty close to becoming a war, but it still isn't clear yet whether or not a full-scale invasion has occurred. Likewise, many of us remain unconvinced that the current title, describing the series of events as "clashes" is inaccurate, as these are nowhere near minor border skirmishes anymore, and, in my opinion, pretty much any other descriptor like "offensive", "war", "invasion", and "attacks", would likely suit better. However, given the current sphere of information we have, with sources not yet describing it as a "Third Nagorno-Karabakh War", I remain more inclined to go with the alternative "2023 Nagorno-Karabakh offensive" for now or we wait and see how events transpire in the subsequent hours or day(s) before coming to a consensus of describing it as another war, although that seems almost inevitable at this point. RedMethyst (talk) 20:59, 19 September 2023 (UTC) WP:GS/AA—Tamzin
Wait, until it is frequently referred to as such. It is way too early now to speak of a Third War. 𝕎.𝔾.𝕁. (chat | contribs) 21:14, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
Wait', Strongly agree we should wait, but I support the change once we get better sources. In the grand scheme of things, we are probably seeing the Third Nagorno-Karabakh War starting, but until something more reliable comes up we shouldn't jump the gun. Citogenesis is a very real thing to consider. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 21:47, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Unless there are sources calling it "Third Nagorno-Karabakh War", then obviously we can't use that title. We don't make stuff up at Wikipedia.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:21, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
    You're right, even if it is unfortunately likely to end up that way, it's better to wait for the sources first. Chaotic Enby (talk) 20:26, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Support I agree that, in theory, we ought to wait until some source calls it the Third Karabakh War. However, we don't have sources on "Nagorno-Karabakh clashes" either; and clashes no longer properly describes what is going on. Thus, this proposal has us going from one bad name to another potentially bad name. As such, I support the move, with the understanding that we can quickly change it to whatever the name ends up being once the sources agree on what to call it--a process that may take some time. However, if this proposal is unacceptable, then I'd also suggest "2023 invasion of Nagorno-Karabakh". NorthernFalcon (talk) 20:38, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
Oppose wait for sources to call it such; I see no(!) sources calling this a war, just attack/offensive/escalation. Yeoutie (talk) 21:17, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose not what's being reported by WP:RS, not common in RS. See the discussion above for what majority RS state [1], which is either an attack or offensive on Nagorno Karabakh. Also how is this a "Third Karabakh war" when Armenia isn't even a belligerent as they don't have forces stationed in Nagorno-Karabakh? No RS reports this as third karabakh war, it's a made up title - this is a one sided attack/offensive per majority RS and should be described as such, my proposal was and is 2023 Azerbaijani offensive in Nagorno-Karabakh or 2023 Azerbaijani attack against Nagorno-Karabakh per majority available WP:RS. - Kevo327 (talk) 21:37, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
    Seconded: You know what, you're right about that. Us as Wikipedians shouldn't be manifesting this as what it presently isn't (a third war between Armenia and Azerbaijan over Nagorno-Karabakh), while we also have a responsibility to avert citogenesis as Etrius previously mentioned. I'm most partial to labelling this as an "offensive", but I also see a plethora of news articles referring to it either as an "attack" or a "military operation", so those options remain fairly open for consideration. RedMethyst (talk) 03:09, 20 September 2023 (UTC) WP:GS/AA—Tamzin
    Support alternative proposal: While no one has called this the Third Nagorno-Karabakh War, most news sources I’ve seen aren’t calling this a "clash" either. They either call it an "offensive" or an "operation" (with offensive being the less vague of the two). Per WP:COMMONNAME I think the title should reflect that. XTheBedrockX (talk) 12:19, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
    @XTheBedrockX I already tried opening a different Move but it was collapsed because there can be a single Move at one time. I showed sources for attack/offensive above [2] and some users commented there agreeing. When this closes, I'll nominate for a Move again with what's being reported majority WP:RS. - Kevo327 (talk) 12:58, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Wait we don't even know what's going on yet, to put it simply. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 22:09, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
Wait. If the death toll is not big enough by the time it ends, then no. But it would be interesting to see this article name. DementiaGaming (talk) 22:15, 19 September 2023 (UTC) WP:GS/AA—Tamzin
Wait. It could end soon, unlikely but possible. We should wait at least a week or more before deciding on any name change.--Garmin21 (talk) 22:24, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
Wait, I haven't slept since this article was created and there have been no changes to my sleep schedule. The conflict is very new and a lot could happen over the next week or so that prevents it from escalating into a third war. It may not even be a day old atp. A move here is too quick - presidentofyes, the super aussa man 23:43, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose The current title with "clashes" isn't great for the reasons mentioned above. The proposed title "Third Nagorno-Karabakh War" seems premature because it has not yet been used in news media. At least as a temporary measure, I support either of Kevo's proposed titles, with a preference for "offensive" instead of "attack" because of the broader scope. To put this in quantitative perspective, searching on Google for "Third Nagorno-Karabakh War" and restricting to the past 24 hours yields merely 8 results. Meanwhile, "offensive in Nagorno-Karabakh" yields over 2000, "Azerbaijan offensive" yields over 1000, etc. Wikipedia shouldn't be in the business of inventing catchy names for events. Once the name "Third Nagorno-Karabakh War" becomes the common name, then I would support a move to that title. 98.170.164.88 (talk) 00:44, 20 September 2023 (UTC) WP:GS/AA—Tamzin
Support: this is very clearly a war and changing it won’t add any fuel to the fire from the what Azerbaijan has already said and done. Affiliating (talk) 03:38, 20 September 2023 (UTC) WP:GS/AA—Tamzin
I don't deny that the prospects of diplomacy seem grim and that Armenia and Azerbaijan seem to be headed toward war, but do you have a reliable source saying that it already is a war at this moment? Currently, searching for "Artsakh" and "war" online brings up a lot of news articles saying this may herald the start of a war -- but it's not Wikipedia's job to be a crystal ball and we need to wait for the war to actually start before declaring it one. 98.170.164.88 (talk) 04:25, 20 September 2023 (UTC) WP:GS/AA—Tamzin
  •   Administrator note All are reminded that requested moves are not exempt from extended confirmed restrictions, and thus per the Armenia–Azerbaijan restriction users who lack the extendedconfirmed user right may not participate in this discussion. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 04:39, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Amakuru and Kevo327 Nemoralis (talk) 06:29, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment I've just posted this to the main page. WP:MPNOREDIRECT stipulates that this article should not be moved unless the redirect on the main page gets fixed at the same time. I will therefore fully move-protect the article so that only admins can move this page. Schwede66 09:37, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Oppose. It is too early to call this a war. There was no declaration, only an offensive. 🔥Jalapeño🔥 09:46, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
So undeclared wars don't count as wars? Also not sure how "too early" it can be as one side already surrendered. Chaotic Enby (talk) 13:17, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Wait – This conflict began less than 24 hours ago, it is too soon to call it a war. – Treetoes023 (talk) 10:55, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Support If an offensive results in surrender, its a war. Lukt64 (talk) 12:35, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Wait per Super Dro FlalfTalk 14:19, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose It already ended after 1 day, and Artsakh barely defended itself, so I guess we should not change the title.
UkraineFella (talk) 14:46, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Support There was an invasion, there was a war, and Artsakh surrendered. The length of the war being short (assuming the ceasefire holds) does not make it not a war. See Anglo-Zanzibar War. Furthermore the war was a clear continuation of the issues at stake in the previous two wars, and the title should reflect that continuity. --TocMan (talk) 15:00, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. With the exception of some Armenian-language news outlets dubbing it "Third Artsakh War", at present no large and/or well-established news outlets are calling this conflict a war. Perhaps this will change in the future, in which case the article's title may be reconsidered, but at present, to change the article title would be to severely editorialize WIkipedia's coverage of events.
Thereppy (talk) 15:12, 20 September 2023 (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.

Requested move, 19 September 2023 - declined (3)

Latest comment: 8 months ago9 comments6 people in discussion
Only one move request at a time on any given talk page

2023 Nagorno-Karabakh clashes → 2023 Azerbaijani offensive of Nagorno-Karabakh – Per majority WP:RS and commonality, see comment for multiple sources + more. A number of reliable sources describe Azerbaijan's military operations as a premeditated "launched" "operation", and/or use the words "offensive" or "attack." To be consistent with this, I propose we rename the article to "2023 Azerbaijani offensive of Nagorno-Karabakh" - Kevo327 (talk) 18:12, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

  • Support as nominator. - Kevo327 (talk) 18:46, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
It is already mentioned that it's an offensive. However I don't think those titles are proper names. I think it's best to wait the outcome. Beshogur (talk) 18:17, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
The current title isn't even close to common. What I'm suggesting is what's being reported by majority sources currently, Azerbaijani offensive or attack. We can change the title later if it changes in WP:RS, but now, we should use what is being reported by majority sources. - Kevo327 (talk) 18:35, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
It's not about comonname. 2023 x clashes is what we generally use in wikipedia. It shouldn't have comonname for now. We don't even know if this will end tomorrow or will continue as full scale war. Beshogur (talk) 19:14, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
Id say "of" should be "in" because proper grammar. Lukt64 (talk) 19:02, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
"Against" could also be a possibility, but yes. Chaotic Enby (talk) 19:45, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
Weak agree: I like the above proposal "2023 Nagorno Karabakh offensive" more. --Governor Sheng (talk) 19:41, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
Oppose, pedantic, should be classified as "Third Nagorno-Karabakh War" Scu ba (talk) 19:47, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Someone please do something with RMCD bot

Latest comment: 8 months ago2 comments1 person in discussion

It's repeatedly reverting the move hatnote on top of the page, replacing it by the old move discussion even though it has been closed and archived already. So now there's the nonsensical message "A request that this article title be changed to 2023 Nagorno-Karabakh clashes is under discussion." even though that's already the title of the article and the discussion it links to is about renaming it to Third Nagorno-Karabakh War. Chaotic Enby (talk) 20:13, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Update: turns out I'm the silly goose, I just realized even a move discussion that ended up with the article being moved still had to be closed to state the obvious. Which kinda makes sense once you think about it, actually. Chaotic Enby (talk) 20:20, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Add alleged military gains in text

Latest comment: 8 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Armenian sources claim Amaras Monastery has been captured by Azerbaijan

Various sources claim Azerbaijan seized 60 positions (mentioned in infobox but not article)

Armenians evacuated from 6 villages (I don't know if this includes military withdrawal)

-PanNostraticism2 (talk) 23:00, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Added by User:Borgerland Nemoralis (talk) 06:50, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Crisis

Latest comment: 8 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I feel that, instead of calling the current attack "clashes", it would be better to call this article "2023 Nagorno-Karabakh Crisis". IdioticAnarchist (talk) 14:30, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

@IdioticAnarchist: read #Requested move 20 September 2023 Nemoralis (talk) 18:28, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

"U.N. spokeswoman Stephane Dujarric" is not a woman

Latest comment: 8 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

But i cant edit that :( Yoshikid64 (talk) 14:39, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Someone fixed that. Thanks Nemoralis (talk) 18:27, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Russian peacekeepers KIA

Latest comment: 8 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion

According to the Russian MOD, A vehicle containing Russian peacekeepers was shelled, and all inside were KIA. This should probably be added to the infobox. 134.173.108.227 (talk) 17:45, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

 Y Added to body. There is no information about how many peacekeepers were killed. I will add it to infobox once it's announced Nemoralis (talk) 18:06, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Added Nemoralis (talk) 17:45, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

New Artsakh Causalities

Latest comment: 8 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Since the page has been locked, here are more current figures reported by Artsakh: https://apnews.com/article/azerbaijan-armenia-explosions-nagornokarabakh-73df9b8b03c3748868e2e358b67bd018

"Nagorno-Karabakh human rights ombudsman Gegham Stepanyan said at least 200 people, including 10 civilians, were killed and more than 400 others were wounded in the fighting." Some Hecking Nerd (talk) 23:55, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Already added by me Nemoralis (talk) 17:48, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Navbox says conversations to be held today, apparently it should be said in the past tense.

Latest comment: 8 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Thanks. 82.36.70.45 (talk) 12:26, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Fixed. Governor Sheng (talk) 13:51, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Adding India into the reactions' section

Latest comment: 8 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Please add India's remarks over the concerned situation; it has also the creditable statement on Hindustan Times. please, have it considered. 110.235.217.51 (talk) 15:59, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

This is the news from 2022, a year ago. Governor Sheng (talk) 18:59, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Can we use this map for the infobox image?

Latest comment: 7 months ago11 comments7 people in discussion
 

File:2023 Nagorno-Karabakh War.svg looks like a better map that represents the article more to me, what do you guys think? U2You Too (talk) 09:58, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

  • Mild support (see reason below) generally I am against twitter on wikipedia, but twitter was used for Syrian civil war maps as well.
Beshogur (talk) 10:20, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
Also this map is way Armenia centered. Must focus on NK. Beshogur (talk) 16:26, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
Oppose, the topographical map is extremely distracting and impedes readability. Chaotic Enby (talk) 12:53, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Support, we have sources in the article verifying most of those settlements having been taken, so if it's inaccurate it's only minor and fixable. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 15:56, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
Rr016, Karkijahan is not under Azerbaijani control, Russian peacekeeping forces established a post in the suburb, check the paragraph and the sources about it I added to the article. Also, since our article about the village is titled Charektar, we should use that name instead of Charakdar.
I would also advice against including dates for the Azerbaijani advance, that information is extremely speculative and not present in reliable sources that we would use in Wikipedia. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 17:23, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
We don't have sources for Azerbaijani presence in Giziloba and Verin Sznek either. We have for Amaras Monastery but not for a village called Amaras, it doesn't even appear in Google Maps and I can't find any sources reporting on a village called like that being captured either. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 17:35, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Support, as per above. Death Editor 2 (talk) 16:32, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Support. I don't think the topography is too distracting. Even if it was, it wouldn't be a good reason to reject the image entirely. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 16:56, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Support per above Nemoralis (talk) 21:21, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
Seems like it's done! I guess we can close and archive the discussion now (and on second thought the topographical map isn't too hard on the eyes) Chaotic Enby (talk) 17:36, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Vatican City should be changed to the Holy See

Latest comment: 7 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The Popes reaction is listed as a reaction of the Vatican City, which is incorrect. It should be listed as a reaction of the Holy See. In diplomacy and other relations with foreign states and international organizations, the Pope speaks on behalf of the Holy See and not the Vatican City State. For further clarification, please consult: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_See — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.149.130.128 (talk) 12:38, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

It is fixed. Governor Sheng (talk) 21:02, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Typo

Latest comment: 7 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Please replace “was have taken place” with “took place”. 82.36.70.45 (talk) 23:15, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

 Y Done Nemoralis (talk) 23:18, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

How about 1-day war

Latest comment: 7 months ago7 comments5 people in discussion
Consensus to call it a "1-day war" will not develop, that name is not supported by any source, and no value in continuing this discussion.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:25, 25 September 2023 (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.

The clashes were huge for just being simple operations plus the gains were huge this was more of a war 2600:6C50:1B00:32BE:468:7238:579F:766D (talk) 04:21, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

As per WP:RS, no one is calling it a 1-day war, and it's not editors' jobs to make WP:OR and make up names. Borgenland (talk) 04:27, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Agree with Borgenland, there's no source calling it a 1-day war and it's not our job to invent it. Chaotic Enby (talk) 13:20, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

If we think the shortest was only 38 minutes so I don't see a reason why this should be called 1-day war

I support the topic to be changed to 1 day war 2600:6C50:1B00:32BE:468:7238:579F:766D (talk) 04:23, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't lead; we follow. Nemoralis (talk) 07:04, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Can the user who placed a bold subsection please identify themselves? Borgenland (talk) 07:50, 25 September 2023 (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.

War?

Latest comment: 7 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion

If this escalates, should we change the title to "Third Nagorno Karabakh war"? Lucasoliveira653 (talk) 16:27, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

If it does, and it is repeatedly and frequently referred to as the Third Nagorno-Karabakh War, I would say yes. Currently, I would leave it like this, though. 𝕎.𝔾.𝕁. (chat | contribs) 21:13, 19 September 2023 (UTC) 𝕎.𝔾.𝕁. (chat | contribs) 21:13, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
I agree with the previous comment. The title of the article should change should the situtation escalate to a full war. Time will tell. Jurisdicta (talk) 10:18, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Missing references

Latest comment: 8 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion

You made this edit with the following edit summary: used vetted ledes and sections from older and more edited relevant wiki articles. I haven't checked for each ref, but you seem to have added some self-closing ref tags while the references are missing. Can you or anyone else help me rescue these refs: Special:Diff/1176170336 ("Oltramonti", "Bulut", ":94", etc.)—Alalch E. 23:17, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

@Alalch E. thanks for the ref improvements. References were mostly from here and here. - Kevo327 (talk) 23:32, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
Thank you, I will see if any of them actually need to be (re)introduced or if they may be superfluous. —Alalch E. 23:38, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Surrender

Latest comment: 8 months ago6 comments4 people in discussion

@Daikido, @Borgenland there are new information about Artsakh's surrender. Nemoralis (talk) 09:02, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

yep, i saw it on my tg feed e.g.: https://t.me/stranaua/123398
Apparently the Artsakhi army is dissolving, allegedly a ceasefire is to begin at 13:00 local time under the russian peacekeepers "watch". What an awful, tragic day. Daikido (talk) 09:04, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Also, remaining armenian-alligned regiments to withdraw, discussion about assimilating integrating the remaining armenian population into azerbaijan proper to begin on sept 21 - source Daikido (talk) 09:06, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Artsakh authorities agree to Russia-brokered ceasefire - armradio Nemoralis (talk) 09:19, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Couldn’t edit extensively right now but the details must be found and uploaded ASAP. Borgenland (talk) 09:24, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Aljazeera live update Johnny Conquest (talk) 09:24, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Can I?

Latest comment: 8 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hello everyone, I have several countries' reactions in reach, can I add them or only the "important" countries are to be included? Thank you. CoryGlee (talk) 11:15, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

You can include them, as long as the sources are reputable. U2You Too (talk) 11:46, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Thank you, I love including reactions from countries. If allowed, I will slowly begin to recollect sources. --CoryGlee (talk) 12:03, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Artsakh or Nagorno-Karabakh

Latest comment: 8 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please note in the lead that Artsakh is similar to Nagorno-Karabakh. Using both names without clarification is confusing to readers unfamiliar with the region. 108.173.152.123 (talk) 15:36, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Mind adding 2023 Nagorno-Karabakhhttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incident_of_Shusha_(2023) as link

Latest comment: 7 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

In the event 19 september it says bombing while it is a incident might adding the wikipedia link so they can read the full page? If it isn't available Then don't add DutchHistoryNerdWW2 (talk) 20:45, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

  Not done Page got deleted for copyright violation. Chaotic Enby (talk) 21:47, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

This page has ridiculous POV issues

Latest comment: 8 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Armenian sources aka .am websites (in which Armenians are part of the conflict) are stated as a fact like

He also reported that the village of Yeghtsahogh was razed by Azeri forces before its entire population could be evacuated.

So stated = factually correct? Where is the independent verification, pictures?

While killing of two civilians and four policeman is alleged:

and alleged Armenian land mines caused the death of two Azerbaijani civilians and four policeman

and while the word alleged doesn't even appear in the two sources which aren't even Azerbaijani news agencies.

For .am and .az websites must be used for their official standpoints, it shouldn't be used as if they're factually correct. Beshogur (talk) 22:16, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

While killing of two civilians and four policeman is alleged
Azerbaijan MOD made that major claim of "Armenian land mine killings" and used as pretext for offensive - here link to the offensive (which Azerbaijan claims as “local anti-terrorist activities” or “special military operation”) was launched after those alleged Azeri deaths on mines. The alleged land mine deaths Az MOD said was "planted by the reconnaissance-subversion groups of Armenia’s armed forces" has not been confirmed by WP:RS, RS attributes it to the Az/MOD statement or directly use alleged [3]. This is a major allegation. - Kevo327 (talk) 22:47, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Article opening is biased

Latest comment: 8 months ago9 comments4 people in discussion

The current article opening is biased in that it presents the events are solely caused by Azeri violations of the ceasefire agreement and ignores the violations of the ceasefire agreement on the part of Artsakh. The current opening lines are:

"Between 19 and 20 September 2023, in violation of the 2020 ceasefire conditions, Azerbaijan launched a large-scale military offensive against the self-declared breakaway state of Artsakh."

It would be just as accurate to instead state:

"Between 19 and 20 September 2023, in response to violation of the 2020 ceasefire conditions by Artsakh, Azerbaijan launched a large-scale military offensive against the self-declared breakaway state of Artsakh."

Both of the above openings are biased. A balanced presentation of the facts would avoid a one-sided opening.

Drak2934 (talk) 12:08, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

WP:OR made up suggestion, this doesn't make sense. See sources in lead. Artsakh didn't start anything and didn't violate the agreement, this offensive was started by Azerbaijan and it's an indisputable fact. - Kevo327 (talk) 12:12, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, it says Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc, therefore removing. Please move it below, not lead. Beshogur (talk) 15:07, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
Sources overwhelmingly state that Azerbaijan broke the ceasefire, and equating both as equally biased would be a WP:FALSEBALANCE. The passage you cite refers to subjective opinions, which is not what is being discussed here. More to the point, WP:NPOV also mentions in the following paragraphs:
Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view. Chaotic Enby (talk) 15:55, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
I don't say opposing side broke the ceasefire, of course it's obvious Azerbaijan started an operation/offensive, but we don't use On 24 February 2022, in violation of international law,[sources, sources] Russia invaded Ukraine in an escalation of the Russo-Ukrainian War which began in 2014 for example. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources Beshogur (talk) 16:34, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
Beshogur, the difference is there was a specific ceasefire in 2020 after the second karabakh war. This should be added in lead as it's most relevant and reputable sources directly mention this such as EU - this should restored to the lead, Artsakh didn't start this attack and it has to be mentioned that this attack/offensive was indeed in violation of the previous ceasefire which ended the last war. I feel like you're arguing over WP:OBV. - Kevo327 (talk) 16:44, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
Read my comment above again. We don't use the text "in violation of international law" for example on Russian invasion of Ukraine page. You can mention it somewhere below, not direct in begin. Beshogur (talk) 16:59, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
Or maybe add something like This was seen as a violation of the 2020 ceasefire agreement. Somewhere after the first sentence. Beshogur (talk) 17:10, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
I don't mind this in lead. But I'll add the original version in body, as discussed. - Kevo327 (talk) 18:52, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2023_Azerbaijani_offensive_in_Nagorno-Karabakh/Archive_1&oldid=1206693874"