Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh conflict

Azer victory?

It appears to me that Azerbaijan has practically won the war: Artsakh Army has been disbaned and the region is scheduled to be re-annexed in 2024. Should we declare the conflict over?--Karma1998 (talk) 14:38, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree with you.Nafis Fuad Ayon (talk) 07:37, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Is the conflict over?

As @Karma1998has said, Azerbaijan has basically won. Artsakh's de facto existence is over. That being said, I am suggesting that the article be edited accordingly to show the conflict as resolved. However, it is understandable if the Wikipedia community prefers to wait until Artsakh formally dissolves on 1 January 2024. NocheLluviosa (talk) 22:02, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, de facto it is over and already now there's hardly anyone left to contest the region as before. But some users prefer the de jure end which is 1 January 2024 indeed. Brandmeister^talk 18:16, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm now inclined to wait until the formal dissolution date. NocheLluviosa (talk) 16:50, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Both could make sense. The main phase of the conflict is over, but waiting for the de jure dissolution makes for a cleaner demarcation. Maybe have both as de facto and de jure? ChaotıċEnby(talk) 16:18, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

in my personal opinion, I think we should change it to show that the conflict is over due to Azerbaijan having complete control over Nagorno-Karabakh. Death Editor 2 (talk) 18:25, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I think we should wait until the official dissolution date of Artsakh. Maybe Aliyev will make some relevant declaration. Possibly also until Russian peacekeepers leave Karabakh, since Azerbaijan still has foreign military forces in its territory explicitly due to this conflict. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 09:40, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

It appears they're reducing their presence anyway [1] [2]. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 09:41, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah the conflict is over and I think we should at the very least change the very outdated map. Death Editor 2 (talk) 19:32, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

• Azerbaijan says 8 villages under Armenian occupation still have not handed over. This isn't over yet. See also this: Armenia says outline of a peace deal agreed with Azerbaijan. A peace agreement might be the most appropriate end date. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 19:54, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

  but are those villages in Nagorono Karabakh? Death Editor 2 (talk) 21:34, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: Conflict is clearly not over.  // Timothy :: talk  08:47, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

  did Armenia drop paratroopers into Nagorno-Karabakh when I wasn't looking? Death Editor 2 (talk) 17:46, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

  Snarky replies will not convince other editors. It also makes me regret not reporting your 1RR vio. If I were you I would stop the unconstructive editing.  // Timothy :: talk  19:03, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

  alright, how has the conflict NOT ended? Azerbaijan has complete control over Nagorno-Karabakh. And we really should do something about that horribly outdated map. Death Editor 2 (talk) 19:29, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

  Unfortunately, Azerbaijan controls all of Nagorno-Karabakh, and Artsakh has surrendered and is self-dissolving. In any meaningful way, the conflict is over. No one is contesting the land anymore. ChaotıċEnby(talk) 16:14, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

  What do you mean by "unfortunately"? I agree with rest of your comment though. Beshogur (talk) 15:54, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

  do they really need to explain to you why an authoritarian state that committed ethnic cleansing the second it had taken over some land is bad? Death Editor 2 (talk) 18:28, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

  I don't slightly care about your opinion. Did I ask you? Beshogur (talk) 18:55, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

  Alright, I think since the NK conflict is very clearly over, I think the article should be changed to reflex that information. Death Editor 2 (talk) 03:50, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

  Please, can you clarify why it is not over? Nizzamiro (talk) 12:50, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

  The military aspect of the conflict is probably over (there is a ceasefire agreement, not a final agreement), and the political and social conflict continues (covered in the article).  // Timothy :: talk  13:13, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

  The conflict is over as official desolation of Artsakh in 2024.Nafis Fuad Ayon (talk) 08:07, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

  @Nafis Fuad Ayon the rough consensus in this discussion is that the conflict isn't over. You can't just edit-war and revert to your recent edited version of the article, ignoring stable map and the consensus in this discussion, then comment here as if it changes anything and as if this simple and vague comment will change the consenus here - the "official desolation" point was already brought up in this thread and it was answered, you aren't saying anything new and you're behaving in a disruptive manner by reverting and then replying in an old already concluded discussion and replying to a comment from November. Vanezi (talk) 08:14, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

  This article is about Nagorno-Karabakh conflict which is mainly related to military and state control. This land is now under full control of Azerbaijan per all international media. In your logic no conflict can end. Almost all the Ethnic Armenians left the area and the territory is under Azerbaijani control and internationally recognised. What are you wating for? Maybe wating to Armania or Ethnic Armenians again attack and took the land back?Nafis Fuad Ayon (talk) 08:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

  You aren't saying anything new and you're engaging in original research, sources don't actually say the conflict is over if you actually read this very lengthy discussion, you can't ignore it and comment only when your recent edit was revert, and you've literally replied to a comment from November. This is disruptive behavior. Vanezi (talk) 08:24, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

  I replied because I get mentioned. The article not mentioned the conflict is ongoing so I have added the image montage to improve the article.Nafis Fuad Ayon (talk) 08:31, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

  Your first reply/comment in this discussion was to a comment from November that didn't even mention your name, what? The rough consensus here is that the conflict isn't over and we don't add "montages" to ongoing conflicts when there are maps. Vanezi (talk) 08:36, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

  Ongoing conflict? How? If yes, Then write this to the result section and change the date to "20 February 1988 – present. Armenia–Azerbaijan border crisis is no longer the Part of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict from 2024.Nafis Fuad Ayon (talk) 09:06, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

  I didn't ask for your suggestions, there is already rough consensus here, that is all I needed to remind you after you edit-warred in spite the ongoing conflict consensus, then replied to a comment from November in here that didn't even mention you, seemingly in order to pretend you're engaging in discussion that is already over. Vanezi (talk) 09:18, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

  How is the conflict still ongoing? Death Editor 2 (talk) 15:35, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

  Because it hasn't been proven otherwise in this very own lengthy discussion and we don't engage in WP:OR and synthesis? There is rough consensus here that the conflict is ongoing, and I don't intend to repeat the same things others have already said, let's avoid bludgeoning the discussion. Vanezi (talk) 00:27, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

  There is no Armenian military force or well Armenians in general left in the region. Are you waiting until Azerbaijan conquers Armenia to declare the conflict over? Death Editor 2 (talk) 01:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

  Please avoid repeating same WP:OR as you did in this discussion several times and that was answered already by other users. There is still no WP:RS provided saying the conflict is over while there are for the opposite, until then, please don't bludgeon the discussion. I'm not going to engage with repeated comments that already went through and discussed extensively in this thread. Vanezi (talk) 02:17, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: The article Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is about far more than the latest round in the conflict or any previous round of fighting. I covers from 1988 to the present and no one is claiming that this 35yr old conflict is over with the latest round of fighting. There has in no way been any definitive settlement, the refugee crisis is ongoing and there is discussion of more fighting if the current situation/discussions breaks down. This has all been explained, the scope of the article is obvious. By your flawed reasoning, the conflict would have been "over" more than three times already.  // Timothy :: talk  22:12, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

  The Republic of Artsakh no longer exists in any meaningful form, and believe me it's over since again there is no Republic of Artsakh to contest the Azeri claims over Nagorno-Karabakh, and said fighting would likely take place in Armenia proper instead of Nagorno-Karabakh. So your reasoning has more holes than Swiss Cheese. Death Editor 2 (talk) 22:23, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

  You are ignoring the scope of the article. Just in the last few weeks there has been and thats just with a simple Google search.  // Timothy :: talk  22:26, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

  This sounds like the aftermath of the conflict, not as apart of the conflict itself, which ended with the surrender of the Republic of Artsakh and exodus of the Armenian Population. Death Editor 2 (talk) 22:32, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

  The ethnic cleansing is not over (see refs) and the Republic of Artsakh is not the same as the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.  // Timothy :: talk  22:45, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

  I checked the refs and they don't say the ethnic cleansing is still going on, only that the refugees from said ethnic cleaning are struggling and that the dissolution degree was revoked by the exiled government. So again your reasoning is extremely flawed to its very core. Death Editor 2 (talk) 22:51, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

  Could probably create an article for The Republic of Artsakh's government in exile however with those references however. Death Editor 2 (talk) 22:53, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

  Anyways, given how weak your arguments are and how your sources do not back up your claims of the conflict still going on, I think it's safe to edit it to make the article say that it ended. Death Editor 2 (talk) 01:33, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

  You do not have consensus to change the article.  // Timothy :: talk  02:03, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

  Again, who is opposing Azerbaijan in Nagorno-Karabakh? The Republic of Artsakh is functionally a government in exile now, all the Armenians were ethnically cleansed a few months ago. So why are we pretending the conflict hadn't ended in a total victory for Azerbaijan? Death Editor 2 (talk) 02:09, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

  You have no sources supporting your position, the conflict is not synonymous with the latest round of fighting and the end of the latest fighting does not mean the conflict is over, just as the end of previous rounds of fighting did not end the conflict.  // Timothy :: talk  02:14, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

  When the next round of fighting starts, it's not going to be in Nagorno-Karabakh. Also one of your sources, Asbarez, calls him the EXILED President. So your claims of the conflict not being over is a complete fabrication. Death Editor 2 (talk) 02:29, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

  Every other user here more or less disagrees with your position - seems like there very much is consensus to change the article. PrimaPrime (talk) 06:16, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Every other user here more or less disagrees with your position no not really. Why don't we wait just two days more until the Republic of Artsakh is officially dissolved? That will bring another argument in favor of stating the conflict is over. Still I think a final Armenian-Azerbaijani peace agreement, currently in negotiation, should be considered as the end of the conflict. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 12:48, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

If your strongest argument is "wait two days" when nothing on the ground is actually going to change then, that suggests the conflict is indeed over. The Artsakh proto-state capitulated on September 28 and its page accordingly describes its existence in past tense. If a peace treaty is concluded down the line, we could move the end date up to there. But holding the conflict "open" until that point, which may or may not ever come, would violate CRYSTAL. PrimaPrime (talk) 01:58, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

1. Republic of Artsakh is not the same as the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Two articles, two subjects.
2. Political status of Nagorno-Karabakh is not the same as the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Two articles, two subjects.
3. There have been multiple rounds in the conflict (eg: First Nagorno-Karabakh War, Second Nagorno-Karabakh War, Blockade of Nagorno-Karabakh, 2023 Azerbaijani offensive in Nagorno-Karabakh). The end of the current round of fighting does not mean the conflict is over, news reports bear this out (see above), just as it was not over in the past when fighting stopped.
4. Sources have been provided showing this is still ongoing, both politically and in the ongoing ethnic cleansing.

 // Timothy :: talk  03:16, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Your sources are about the aftermath of the conflict, not the conflict itself. Death Editor 2 (talk) 03:21, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Political disputes over borders and refugees between Armenia and Azerbaijan may persist, and another war could break out between them - but not over Nagorno-Karabakh. There the dispute was between Artsakh and Azerbaijan. Artsakh no longer exists and all of Nagorno-Karabakh is under the undisputed control of Azerbaijan. Sources and consensus reflect this - there are six or seven other editors who have weighed in against you now. Sorry you just don't like it. PrimaPrime (talk) 04:14, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

• Comment:Death Editor 2 has been blocked, see block ANI discussion. Special:Permalink/1192859968#Death Editor 2 and Nagorno-Karabakh conflict (again). The edit for which they have been blocked has been proceedurally reverted.  // Timothy :: talk  19:18, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: Because of the problems in this CTopics article, and that this issue is covered by three different ARB restrictions (e-e, a-a, infoboxes), no changes should be made on this issue without a consensus and consensus should be determined/confirmed by a neutral non-involved experienced editor through a formal request for closure process. If an editor feels that a clear consensus has been reached, a request should be made, including a note about this talk page discussion and the related ANIs.  // Timothy :: talk  19:34, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: I believe that the date span should remain as "present" for the time being. To set a date would imply issues such as the rights of the refugees do not exist, and also ignores the Republic of Artsakh politicians recently declaring their intention to become a government in exile. These sentiments were echoed by Laurence Boers, one of the leading commentators on the conflict, in a recent article: "What remains doubtful, however, is whether a cause [...] will simply disappear. Reports that Shahramanyan subsequently annulled the decree dissolving the NKR are an early indication that the republic will not go quietly".[3] KhndzorUtogh (talk) 01:02, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

MarcusTraianus, as TimothyBlue already pointed out before you reverted them, there needs to be a consensus backed up by reliable sources before changing the date. The changes you made appear to be based on WP:OR. For example, you edited that the Armenia–Azerbaijan border crisis was over despite Azerbaijan still occupying territories in Armenia. This is why changes need to be based on what reliable sources state, not by what you believe to be correct, as with the entire conflict being over or not. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 01:07, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I am sorry, how conflict is ongoing? Republic is dissolved, army is non-existent, and population has fled. Sources are more than reliable. MarcusTraianus (talk) 01:14, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps the entire population being ethnically cleansed is a source of conflict? And this is not copyediting, especially when the analysts predictions are exactly what happened to Armenians such as Vicken Euljekjian. --KhndzorUtogh (talk) 01:17, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, there is article about it, and it's called Flight of Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians. Predictions are pointless, because they describe what happened in the past. It is better to describe Vicken Euljekjian case then. MarcusTraianus (talk) 01:19, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

The conflict being over is itself a prediction of yours, contradicted by reliable sources like Boers. --KhndzorUtogh (talk) 22:49, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

@MarcusTraianus: You have still yet to provide a reliable source for the conflict being over, while on the contrary there are sources stating it is not.[4][5] --KhndzorUtogh (talk) 22:59, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

By most standards the conflict is over, Azerbaijan's flag sadly flags high above the region, they ethnically cleansed most of the Armenians from Nagorno-Karabakh, and there is no force within the Nagorno-Karabakh that can oppose Azerbaijan in any meaningful way. Death Editor 2 (talk) 23:08, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

This is original research WP:OR. Please provide a citation for the conflict being over. --KhndzorUtogh (talk) 00:02, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Is it original research to say that Azerbaijan brutally conquered the remainer of Nagorno-Karabakh in September 2023? Is it original research to say that the Armenians were ethnically cleansed from the region in 2023? Is it original research to say that the Artsakh Defence Army was disbanded in 2023? It's saddening to say it but it's the truth man, Azerbaijan won. Death Editor 2 (talk) 01:30, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. (WP:SYNTH) --KhndzorUtogh (talk) 00:03, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it should affect the end date if Artsakhi government officials form a government in exile. That an illegitimate entity no longer controls its territory but keeps claiming doesn't really matter in the real world and politics in my opinion. I still hold the stance that a final Armenian-Azerbaijani peace treaty should mark the end of the conflict. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 17:59, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

But Artsakh wasn't claimed by Armenia, and wasn't recognized by it too. Armenia and Azerbaijan aren't in the state of war, so no peace treaty possible. Although border conflict persists and it is where talks will be possible. MarcusTraianus (talk) 18:04, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Azerbaijan official names ‘main direction’ of peace treaty talks with Armenia. These are the terms they themselves are using. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 19:20, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Pretty clear the conflict is over, I think the discussion should be whether to have the end date be in September 2023, January 2024, or something in between. Yeoutie (talk) 16:18, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Super Dromaeosaurus. Until there is a final settlement, not only can it not be determined whether it’s really over, but it would WP:CRYSTAL to say that the disputes won’t continue.

For instance, in my personal view, further incursions deeper into Armenia’s internationally recognized borders could be on the cards if Armenia abandons the CSTO. In fact, any number of events could hypothetically cause us to fold a limited-scope NK conflict article into a wider Armenia–Azerbaijan conflict article.

But this is all hypothetical and, obviously, purely to demonstrate that saying “it’s over” is CRYSTAL.

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 20:14, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

The conflict is over. There are no border skirmishes, Armenia and Azerbaijan are close to signing a peace agreement, made an exchange of military detainees, the separatist entity dissolved itself, Armenia recognized Karabakh as part of Azerbaijan. I see no reason why this conflict should be considered ongoing. Grandmaster 09:27, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Armenia is still occupying eight villages in Azerbaijan (I had mentioned this above, and I recently checked, they're not in Karabakh but in the north, except that one in Nakhchivan). Azerbaijan is also still occupying Armenian territory including at least one village. And the issue of the Zangezur corridor is not settled yet [6]. We're on the very final part of the conflict, but with both countries still occupying each others' land and negotiating peace terms, can we really say the conflict is totally over? I don't believe so. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 23:24, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Here is a new source for the conflict not being over ("Many issues are still unresolved in this long-running conflict"). KhndzorUtogh (talk) 23:28, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

it brings me absolutely no joy to say or even think about it but it's over. The conflict is over, there might be another war between Armenia and Azerbaijan but the NK conflict is finished with a total victory for Azerbaijan. Death Editor 2 (talk) 00:01, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Sources and history do not agree with you.  // Timothy :: talk  04:43, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Unless Armenia launches an invasion of NK (a highly unlikely event) the conflict is OVER. Your sources do not claim what you say they claim, there is no military force that can oppose Azerbaijan in NK, and the Armenian population was ethnically cleansed. the conflict is over, why can't you admit it? Death Editor 2 (talk) 04:46, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Death Editor 2, it has been over 20 days since I first asked you to provide a source, please do so or, respectfully, just let this go. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 22:46, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

The conflict isn't over because of what? A powerless government in exile? Non-existent Armenians still living in Nagorno-Karabakh? Again it brings me no joy to say but it's over. Death Editor 2 (talk) 22:58, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

• Armenia-Azerbaijan border delimitation talks enter sixth session. There still are negotiations over territorial disputes between Armenia and Azerbaijan. This is because there still are territorial disputes between the two. Again I disagree that we refer to this conflict as over. We are clearly on the very final part of this and have no WP:DEADLINE to fullfill to mark the conflict as over. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 15:50, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

• Comment. The source used for the end of the conflict is this article by Kommersant from September 2023 which reported about the decree for the dissolution of the republic. It does not say anything about the end of the conflict. This looks like WP:OR. Mellk (talk) 21:43, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

• Comment. My opinion: the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is over but the Armenia–Azerbaijan border conflict is still ongoing. It would be a good idea to disassociate the two. Parishan (talk) 02:26, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

There are border clashes between Armenia and Azerbaijan because they are or have been before in a state of war over Nagorno-Karabakh, First Nagorno-Karabakh War includes the occupation of each other's enclaves and of four Azerbaijani villages in Qazax District, we include Armenia–Azerbaijan border crisis in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict as you can see from the templates and links in the article, the upcoming Armenian-Azerbaijani peace treaty will include topics related both to Nagorno-Karabakh and to the border conflicts and the border conflicts are anyway much more minor in comparison and anyway related to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and don't warrant an article of their own. I think the case is very strong for associating them. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 10:45, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

The difference is that during the First Karabakh War, Nagorno-Karabakh was the primary issue and the border villages were a by-product of that conflict. Now the border is the primary issue and Nagorno-Karabakh is not even in the picture. Parishan (talk) 14:10, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

So as you say, a by-product of the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh remains. I see no problem with covering it as well here. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 18:33, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but when a by-product spins off into a conflict on its own, it is no longer the same conflict. My point is that it is misleading to call it "Nagorno-Karabakh conflict" if no part of it is taking place in Nagorno-Karabakh and no part of it is even about Nagorno-Karabakh. Parishan (talk) 15:05, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Turkey as a direct belligerent in the infobox?

I have personally always been skeptical of keeping Turkey in the Second Nagorno-Karabakh War infobox given that the only state to allege Turkish involvement has been Armenia, and even then the claim only extends as far as a one alleged, unconfirmed F-16 strike on an Armenian aircraft, but adding Turkey to the infobox of the broader Karabakh conflict as a directly involved party seems like a big stretch.

Even with the "(2020)" and "(alleged by Armenia)" parentheses doesn't seem reasonable, especially given that the Soviet Union has been listed as a direct belligerent and did in fact, have confirmed direct involvement in the conflict including troops on the ground. Including Turkey along with the Soviet Union gives the wrong impression about the military involvement of the two states in the conflict as if their participation was in any way on an equal footing. I feel it is far more objective to keep Turkey in the support section and removing them as a direct participant altogether given that only Armenian government has alleged their involvement in the 2020 war and that even the participation that has been alleged is objectively miniscule compared to that of the Soviet Union. I am talking about this article specifically and the broader conflict, the question of Turkey in the 2020 war info box is a separate story. - Creffel (talk) 09:10, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Turkey was never directly involved. It supplied weapons to Azerbaijan, and trained Azerbaijani military personnel, but had no boots on the ground. Mentioning Turkey as a belligerent, even as "claimed by Armenia", is inaccurate. The inforbox should only mention undisputed facts, or things most reliable sources agree on. Grandmaster 09:22, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. On the contrary, I do not understand why the infobox says "alleged by Armenia" when Kommersant has no affiliation with Armenia. Erdogan has since personally stated that Turkey was a belligerent, comparing Turkey's involvement with its role in the Libyan civil war (2014–2020). There is an American source for Turkish troops on the ground too. And even an Azerbaijani general admitted Turkish leadership had more authority during the war. If Armenia, Azerbaijan, Russia, America, and even Turkey all now confirm Turkish military involvement, who is still disputing it? --KhndzorUtogh (talk) 22:37, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Let's go over your sources one by one, bearing in mind that as per WP:EXTRAORDINARY, "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources."

1. You are quoting Kommersant, a newspaper founded by Alisher Usmanov, a "pro-Kremlin oligarch".

2. You are quoting a tweet in which Erdogan did not say anything about direct military involvement. Can easily be interpreted as a supporting party and a weapons supplier rather than a directly involved one.

3. You are quoting a fringe American source without ties to the U.S. government, that was founded by a neocon.

4. You are quoting Najmeddin Sadikov, a former Azerbaijani commander who disappeared during the 2020 war and by all accounts did not take part in the war.

As for your claim that "Armenia, Azerbaijan, Russia, America, and even Turkey all now confirm", even if we pretend like the sources you quoted are indeed reliable, the content of these sources does not provide sufficient detailed information about how Turkey was directly involved in the war either.

Like I said, I have always been skeptical about keeping Turkey in the 2020 war infobox, but I sort of ignored it given it pertains to one specific section of the war. However, including Turkey in the infobox of a broader conflict just seems like an unreasonably massive leap, as per my reasoning in my original comment.

- Creffel (talk) 07:20, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

This excessive nitpicking could be done for any news source. An RSN discussion for Kommersant just recently concluded and reaffirmed it to be a reliable newspaper, they only concerns were only for "wars conducted by Russia". Kommersant is a neutral party to this conflict however. This again raises the issue of why "alleged by Armenia" is attributed to a source that has nothing to do with Armenia. National Interest is also a third party, and previous discussions have only been about the reliability of the source's blog, while this is a featured news article. --KhndzorUtogh (talk) 22:56, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

@KhndzorUtogh stop talking retard he cooked your ass 188.119.36.101 (talk) 01:40, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

References

What are the criteria to declare the conflict is over (specially in talk page)?

What are the criteria to declare the conflict is over (specially in talk page)? There is contradectory as the discussion above doesn't agree that the conflict is over. On the other hand the article already declared the conflict is over. My personal opinion is the conflict is over as Artsakh dissolved on 1 January 2024. There is also no possibility that Armenia is going to start any offsenive to take the Nagorno-Karabakh (internationally recognized Azerbaijan territory) as most ethnic Armenians left the territory. Worth to mention that Armenia–Azerbaijan border crisis is no longer part of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Another editor even pervent me from adding an image montage (already updated) because of that discussion. When editors in the take page can agree the the conflict is over? Will it remain unresolved forever if some oppose it? Maybe a poll can solve it? Nafis Fuad Ayon (talk) 07:35, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Please add your opinion: User:Vanezi,User:Beshogur, User:Brandmeister,User:NocheLluviosa,User:ChaotıċEnby,User:Death Editor 2,User:Super Dromaeosaurus,User:Timothy, User:Nizzamiro, User:PrimaPrime,User:KhndzorUtogh,User:MarcusTraianus, User:KhndzorUtogh,User:Yeoutie, User:RadioactiveBoulevardier,User:Grand,User:Mellk. Nafis Fuad Ayon (talk) 07:58, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

You've tried to change the stable map despite the rough consensus that the conflict isn't over. You've now changed the map to another map despite the previous one being the stable long-standing one which is the consensus version. You're now trying to re-open a discussion for same topic that was literally discussed above. It is problematic behavior to act like this and try to re-open another discussion for something that was already discussed extensively by the same users you've pinged; you'll be reported if you don't stop this kind of behavior. Vanezi (talk) 10:21, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

End of the Conflict?

the conflict is of course not over, thousands of people fled Nagorno-Karabakh, they lost their homes, there are much legal issues, Armenia never accepted that Nagorno is part of Azerbaijan, also no country in the world accepts the fact that the Armenians of Nagorno have been pushed out of their homes. How is the conflict over? 93.109.143.78 (talk) 22:43, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

MarcusTraianus, please do not add sources from genocide deniers such as Hakan Yavuz and Michael Gunter. I see that you have already been warned of contentious topics related to Armenia, Azerbaijan, and related conflicts, so please take extra care to learn about who you are citing, because users have been banned in the past for repeatedly referencing sources that promote genocide denial. And I would not suggest re-adding that same content with a different source, because mentioning the support for territorial integrity but omitting the support for the Minsk Group which supported self-determination violates WP:NPOV. And I am glad that you agree Wikipedia is based on sources, so I have added the sources for the conflict not being over that I previously gave in the above "Is the conflict over?" discussion which you never replied to. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 22:53, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

@KhndzorUtogh: I didn't really bring any genocide deniers sources, I just restored version where conflict is declared over. I guess some genocide claims were restored too along it. If you see that some sources are contrdictory, feel free to edit them out, as I can bring solid sources on armed actions only. MarcusTraianus (talk) 07:16, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the end of the conflict

After six months of consensus that the conflict officially ended on January 1 when the Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh dissolved, it is surprising to see the situation suddenly described as ongoing. The conflict is both officially and de facto over, given that the Armenian government has recognized the sovereignty of Azerbaijan over the region and Azerbaijan controls the entire area. Can those claiming that the conflict is not over yet provide strong sources and evidence to prove their claim? For a conflict to exist, there must be belligerents. If the conflict still pertains, who are the involved parties? Armenia obviously cannot be a belligerent, especially since Armenia ceased all of its territorial claims in 2023. However, it appears that Armenia is indicated as a belligerent, which is totally ridiculous. EloquentEditor (talk) 09:42, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Seems like someone made this change without even opening the discussion for this edit. Thus I believe it should be reverted back to previous one. Nizzamiro (talk) 09:01, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Dispute over the end of the conflict.

@Mellk The source cited is an opinion piece, there are several publications who have characterized it as a finished conflict.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/17/world/europe/nagorno-karabakh-armenia-azerbaijan-wounds.html

https://cepa.org/article/the-nagorno-karabakh-conflict-ends-but-will-another-begin/

Its kind of Bizarre to keep this listed as an ongoing conflict, when Both Armenia and Azerbaijan consider it a finished chapter. It has no mention in the Peace treaty negotiations. And Armenia explicitly went and recognized Azerbaijans territorial integrity.

There is no conflict in the territory cited, b/c for a conflict to exist you need two parties warring, there is no war. I understand that some people didn't like the outcome of what occurred in September 2023, and the official dissolution on Jan 1 2024 in the document signed, but this makes no sense, what is there criterion?

Do they also list Nakchivan as an ongoing conflict? Whats the criterion? Several breakaway states dissolved via military means, those conflicts are listed in wikipedia as ended, so whats different here? Midgetman433 (talk) 18:11, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

If those sources say September 2023 or after, then we should use that date. For 1 January 2024, we need sources that say it ended on that date instead. Mellk (talk) 18:14, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

In either case, those other sources should be removed first, see WP:HIJACK. Mellk (talk) 18:17, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

January 1 2024 is used a the date, b/c thats the date of the official dissolution going into effect.

Furthermore, I'd like to mention that of the two parties in the conflict mentions, the "Artsakh republic" wiki page mentions the republic as dissolved, and Armenia has recognized Azerbaijan's territorial integrity, so it makes no sense to list it as ongoing, as the two parties on the other side, either now recognize the territory as Azerbaijan or have ceased to exist. The belligerent section makes no sense if the conflict is listed as ongoing but with no belligerent existing on the opposite side.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Artsakh?useskin=vector Midgetman433 (talk) 18:49, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Then this is WP:OR that the conflict ended on precisely 1 January 2024 because that is the formal dissolution date of the republic. Mellk (talk) 20:19, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

You can use 28 September 2023(when the dissolution agreement was signed), or you can use 1 January 2024(the official date the agreement said it would happen by), either would have merit, what doesn't have merit is this idea that the conflict still exists.

Here is a news report from DW about the Jan 1 2024 dissolution. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFvx2_xzR38

another article from eurasianet

https://eurasianet.org/the-nagorno-karabakh-republic-the-life-and-death-of-an-unrecognized-state

"On January 1, 2024, the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic (NKR), the entity at the heart of the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict, ceased - officially - to exist. The self-proclaimed republic's last leader, Samvel Shahramanyan, mandated its dissolution in a decree of September 28, 2023 that was a condition of the ceasefire ending Azerbaijan's lightning military operation to crush the NKR on September 19-20."

This is how it was treated, dissolved, what you guys are doing is randomly coming and changing things in July, what prompted this change? nothing. This was an agreed to matter here. And since I pointed out the republic dissolved in the last comment, someone went and changed that as well https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Artsakh?useskin=vector, what you guys are doing is straight up vandalism. Midgetman433 (talk) 00:51, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Source 10 that was there before your addition of Source 12 contradicts the idea that the this conflict is active, by explicitly stating that the entity is officially dissolved.

On January 1, 2024, the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic (NKR), the entity at the heart of the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict, ceased - officially - to exist. The self-proclaimed republic's last leader, Samvel Shahramanyan, mandated its dissolution in a decree of September 28, 2023 that was a condition of the ceasefire ending Azerbaijan's lightning military operation to crush the NKR on September 19-20. Midgetman433 (talk) 13:15, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

"...the entity at the heart of the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict, ceased - officially - to exist." This is still OR. The source does not explicitly say that the conflict ended on 1 January 2024, rather the entity "at the heart" of the conflict ceased to exist. I have no problems with marking the conflict as having ended if most RS have declared it to be over, but we need sources for a specific date that explicitly say the conflict ended on that date. Mellk (talk) 13:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Also see WP:VANDALISM. Baselessly accusing other editors of vandalism is not appropriate, especially if the edits were made in good faith. Mellk (talk) 13:59, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I think the conflict is still going on. As in Armenia still claims the region. I think the war is over but the conflict will continue. Similar to the Korean conflict. LuxembourgLover (talk) 05:52, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

There are 5 different threads on this page discussing if the conflict is over. I believe it is time to do an RFC and get a community consensus on this. Grandmaster 06:36, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

3 of the 5 discussions [7], [8], [9] don't even have more than 3 comments each (one even only has two); these don't constitute anything serious. Which leaves us with two discussions; the original one [10], which is the most extensive, has already been settled down for some time now and has rough consensus that the conflict isn't over. Same with this thread, it also has rough consensus for conflict not being over. So please see WP:DROPTHESTICK and don't revive old dead discussions. Vanezi (talk) 05:01, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I anticipate that there will be more discussions started over this or edits related to it, so a RfC may be an option to get a clear consensus. Alternatively we can indicate somewhere that there is no consensus yet to change this to having ended. Mellk (talk) 19:55, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

If we have so far 5 separate discussions on this page on the same topic, it is quite obvious that this question will keep reemerging. That is the reason why I proposed an RFC. RFC will provide a binding consensus that no one can violate, and there will be no need to discuss the same thing over and over again. Grandmaster 07:05, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Given that nothing has meaningfully changed and "conflict ended" side of users still failed to dispute the cited sources in the infobox which state the conflict isn't over, I agree with your suggestion to indicate this somewhere on the article talk in order to prevent unwarranted discussions like 3 out of 5 about conflict status that didn't even have more than 2-3 comments each. I don't think there is need for RFC; nothing has changed meaningfully or disputing source wise since the original extensive discussion, which has been concluded already. Vanezi (talk) 07:08, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

In that case, a hidden note is sufficient. Otherwise those who wish to change this to having ended can initiate the RfC instead. Mellk (talk) 07:11, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 October 2024

In the 2nd paragraph of the "foreign involvement" section there's a grammar error. "During the first Nagorno-Karabakh War, Russia was widely viewed as supporting the Armenian position due it providing Armenia with military assistance, including arms and indirect logistical support." should be changed to "During the first Nagorno-Karabakh War, Russia was widely viewed as supporting the Armenian position due to it providing Armenia with military assistance, including arms and indirect logistical support." TwofacedPlace45 (talk) 15:42, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Done Rainsage (talk) 05:21, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Request for comment on end of conflict

Has the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict ended and if so what date should be listed as the end in the infobox? Pithon314 (talk) 03:49, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Comment: Following the 2023 Azerbaijani offensive in Nagorno-Karabakh, on 19 and 20 September 2023, the Republic of Artsakh surrendered. On 28 September 2023, the president of Artsakh, Samvel Shahramanyan signed a decree to dissolve all state institutions by 1 January 2024, bringing the existence of the breakaway state to an end. Azerbaijan now controls the region and the fighting has ceased. Six previous discussions on this talk page have failed to form a consensus, and in the last discussion an RfC was suggested by User:Grandmaster. --Pithon314 (talk) 03:51, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Comment: The fighting and the conflict can be discussed separately, like Korean War and Korean conflict. Senorangel (talk) 04:21, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

This is a good point. So the Republic of Artsakh's dissolution should be emphasized over the cessation of fighting. No or limited fighting has happened several times throughout this conflict but the dissolution of the Republic of Artsakh is new. The dissolution leaves no state, including Armenia, disputing Azeri control over Nagorno-Karabakh. So with the end of fighting and the end of the dispute, the conflict should be considered ended. --Pithon314 (talk) 16:49, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Comment: I think the RFC should propose 2 options for users to choose from.

1. Conflict has ended.

2. Conflict has not ended

Regarding the dates, the date of NKR's dissolution should be fine. Alternative options can also be proposed.

I think as an armed and territorial dispute this conflict has ended. There have been no hostilities between the two states for about a year, the self-declared NKR dissolved itself, and Armenia does not claim Karabakh anymore, nor demands independence for this territory. Armenia and Azerbaijan are negotiating a peace deal, and both sides confirm that it is 90% agreed, only some outstanding points remains on which negotiations continue. So I would not support listing this as an active conflict. Grandmaster 09:00, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree with those justifications for the conflict being over. I also agree that the date of NKR's dissolution (1 January 2024) is probably the best option for when the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict ended. --Pithon314 (talk) 17:03, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

It was already said in the other discussions, but this is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH that the conflict ended on exactly 1 January 2024 because that is the formal dissolution date of the republic. In fact, the sources I posted below directly say the conflict still continues. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 17:13, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Comment - Per sources, the conflict isn't over [11], [12], [13]. We cannot engage in WP:SYNTH to imply conclusions, we simply state what sources say. There are also significant outstanding issues: 150,000 Armenians who are displaced from their home; the consensus is that they cannot return safely. The ongoing cultural genocide of Azerbaijan destroying, appropriating, and defacing centuries-old cultural heritage monuments in Nagorno-Karabakh. The peace agreement which hasn't been finalized; saying it's 90% complete is WP:NOTNEWS. Azerbaijan has violated paper agreements (e.g. ceasefire agreements) multiple times so we can't guess when/if a peace treaty will actually happen, WP:CRYSTAL. Therefore we should go by WP:VERIFY and from what sources in the infobox state now, that the conflict isn't over. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 14:08, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I do not believe any of the provided sources can be used to say the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is ongoing.

1."The Nagorno-Karabakh Republic: The life and death of an unrecognized state": I have read this article and am not sure what part you are claiming says that the conflict is continuing. The article states "The echoes of its violent dissolution will reverberate across other majority-minority conflicts around the globe for years to come." which only states that it will be remembered and may have an effect on other conflicts.

2."A “Frozen Conflict” Boils Over: Nagorno-Karabakh" is a retroactive review of the historical and recent causes of the conflict boiling over into the 2023 Azerbaijani offensive in Nagorno-Karabakh as well as reviewing its potential future consequences. I assume you are using the third bullet as evidence which says: "Many issues are still unresolved in this long-running conflict. The biggest concern is directing much-needed humanitarian aid to those displaced by the latest violence. There also remains potential for future Azerbaijani incursions into Armenia to secure a path to its exclave of Nakhchivan." I'd argue that the last sentence shows that this was referring to a wider Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict and not focusing on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict specifically. Providing humanitarian aid and support for those displaced is absolutely an important cause but does not indicate a continuation of the conflict. Issues caused by this conflict will likely continue for a long time after.

3. "Nagorno-Karabakh: it’s not over yet" is now over a year old: published 2 October 2023. Their claim is that fighting may continue if Azerbaijan claims Armenian territory proper, but this would begin a new conflict - it would no longer be a conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh.

I think it is important to distinguish between the conflict itself (a dispute and fighting) against the aftermath of the event. Armenians remain displaced, but this is an aftermath of the conflict not the conflict itself. --Pithon314 (talk) 18:30, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Those sources have been discussed already and are consensus for the infobox for conflict not being over, please don't rehash the same conversations that were held already. But even if these 3 sources aren't enough, there are many others.

The conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh is far from resolved despite Azerbaijan's seizure of the region. Azerbaijan is now focusing on seizing territory from sovereign internationally recognized Armenia, particularly the creation of a land corridor through Syunik to Nakhchivan. This ongoing dispute, intertwined with regional power dynamics involving the EU, Iran and Russia, indicates that lasting peace in the South Caucasus remains a distant prospect.

• Saparov, Arsène in Ab Imperio journal:
  • the Azerbaijani leadership needs to reinvent the justification for its continued rule but now in the absence of the Karabakh issue. It is already evident that the new mobilizing idea for Azerbaijani society will be the destruction of Armenia or, as it has been referred to in Azerbaijan recently, "western Azerbaijan."...With these underlying conditions in all the societies involved, we are not likely to see a decrease in hostility or an increase in regional peace. The most likely scenario is the continuation of the conflict already on the Armenian territory as well as the profound eradication of all cultural and historical evidence of Armenian existence in Karabakh… This also means that the conflict has not been resolved with the expulsion of the Armenian population of Karabakh, despite what some observers believe.
• Azerbaijani Control of Nagorno-Karabakh Will Not Stop Conflict in the South Caucasus. (2024, May 14). Retrieved from https://carnegieendowment.org/russia-eurasia/politika/2023/09/azerbaijani-control-of-nagorno-karabakh-will-not-stop-conflict-in-the-south-caucasus?lang=en
  • As a result of Azerbaijan’s military assault, tens of thousands of Karabakh Armenians have fled to Armenia, and Nagorno-Karabakh looks set to come under Baku’s full control. … But this does not mean that the South Caucasus will now experience a period of peace…The “resolution” of the Nagorno-Karabakh question does not mean that there are no outstanding issues between Baku and Yerevan.
• Kucera, J. (2023). In Southern Armenia, Global Powers Move In Amid Fears Of A New Azerbaijani Offensive. RadioFreeEurope/RadioLiberty. Retrieved from https://www.rferl.org/a/armenia-syunik-region-azerbaijan-russia-iran-united-states/32671001.html
  • Whether they're well-founded or not, those fears [of Azerbaijan’s imminent assault of Syunik] have raised concerns of a gradual depopulation of the region, rendering it still more vulnerable.
• The Lemkin Institute:
  • “it is inconceivable that ‘giving up’ Artsakh will put an end to conflict in the region, much less lead to ‘peace’ and ‘prosperity.’ The genocidal designs of Azerbaijan and its strong ally Turkey almost ensure that aggression against Armenian territory will continue... In fact, the depopulation of Artsakh should be seen as the beginning of a much larger push to erase the Armenian presence from the region once and for all.
• Armenia Under the Gun: Azerbaijan’s Territorial Ambitions Extend Beyo…. (2023, December 14). Retrieved from https://archive.ph/z8wAG#selection-1515.253-1515.466
• The fall of Nagorno-Karabakh did not resolve all the problems between Armenia and Azerbaijan…Their shared borders are lined with miles of military positions, and their border skirmishes just in the past three years have resulted in more casualties than the fighting in Nagorno-Karabakh over the same period.
• Observers fear that Azerbaijan might be preparing another offensive, with the goal of securing a route to its own exclave of Nakhichevan—a region of around 100,000 people that is separated from Azerbaijan by a sliver of Armenian territory. An aggressive Azerbaijani military action to establish this corridor could lead to the partition of Armenia, creating hundreds of thousands of new refugees in the process.

It's clear from sources that the conflict has not ended. What is written on Wikipedia is established on reliable sources, not WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 10:11, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Comment. There are sufficient reasons to believe that this particular conflict is over, notably because it is described as being over by officials of both countries: [14]. Another reason is that not every point of disagreement between Armenia and Azerbaijan is about Nagorno-Karabakh. Whatever outstanding issues there are (borders, diplomacy, refugees, trade, transit) pertain to Armenia-Azerbaijan relations as a whole rather than being concentrated on Nagorno-Karabakh and its status, which is what the conflict was about. A good parallel would be the Eritrean–Ethiopian border conflict, which dated back to 1998 and continued into 2018, even though the war itself is considered to be over in 2000. Parishan (talk) 15:08, 31 October 2024 (UTC)